I'll admit you have fair points about Muslim society.
When I got race pilled, I started to study human evolution, the origin of the races and how they are related to each other. I became determined to understand why mexicans or muslims do not produce nice countries or why japanese and northern europeans, who are not related, do. I began to understand that environmental factors like climate as well as societal factors like type of economy, marriage and inheritance patterns, laws, all shape what we might call national character . Through genetics and natural selection. And it can happen rapidly.
If we understand the mechanisms of evolution that select for higher violence or higher levels of corruption and deception or alternatively more fair behavior, higher productivity and cooperativity etc, we can eugenically engineer a better society and avoid the problems that we see at low or moderate levels in whites and at higher levels in most non-white groups.
What would you think of the 1800, the early 1900s? These were extremely "sexist" times where women were still viewed as property.
Instead of saying “How about the 1800s?” or “How about ancient Greece?”, focus on what policies were in place (secular and religious) that made those periods what they were and whether or not those policies will have the effect that you want, and whether there will be any other unintended undesirable effects.
These were extremely "sexist" times where women were still viewed as property.
No, they weren’t . I know we are living in peak weimar, but the problems we are facing are generally not female driven or at least not particularly so. Really, there were some things that were already very wrong in the male sphere of influence in the 1800s or early 1900s. Feminism and LGBTQPZ are just the icing on a very large shit cake .
A more basic problem imo is the decoupling of merit/productivity with compensation. An unproductive parasitic bureaucracy has expanded in the last few centuries. “Vice” industries which also produce nothing have expanded. Through these inefficient or predatory institutions there is a massive redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive. Women are only the lastest group to jump on this redistribution band wagon. They have fake jobs that pay enough to live on so women do not feel its incumbent upon them to marry or stay married. But lots of white men were sucking on that bureacratic teat before women, living off more productive men.
But it will not do to tyrannical hold women hostage. In the “good old days” many bad men tormented their wives because they controlled the property. There will always be men that do this. Men are not more moral or wise than women—they are equally as petty and devious and selfish. Many goats here take the attitude that either some men didnt treat women like garbage when they could or that its not really a problem that some men treat women like garbage because fuck foids.
I don’t accept this. Men need checks and balances to their power as do women. You can’t just say, let’s give men carte blanche and “trust men” because I don’t . Men do what’s in their own interests as do women. If you can’t conceive of a scenario in which both white men and women benefit, then fuck it. I cant support any pro-white movement which treats women like axlotl tanks.
Men have obligations to society. Women have obligations to society. Men must produce wealth. Women must have babies. This must occur within a monogamous context.
If some men and women don’t want to get married, have kids, we should not force them. But we should have targets for marriage rate, birth rate, as a nation and there should be consequences if those goals are not met, and perhaps there needs to be privileges for married people with children that are not extended to people who don’t marry or reproduce.
I think we should allow some women to work, but the % of women in the workplace should be controlled and perhaps there should be many fields not open to women. Women with young children should not be allowed to work (there may be exceptions) and women with older children should probably be limited to PT work. There may be a need for different policies for different kinds of work. The point is, we need to engineer a society in which women are having kids at replacement rates at least, and that high IQ women and non-degenrate women are out reproducing the dum-dums and skanks.
A decent eugenics program should track and manage all this shit. What we dont want is high IQ women crowding men out of the job market and chasing glamourous careers instead of doing their duty to society. But I’m in favor of the carrot, not the stick in these matters.
When love songs talk about "you're mine," it overwhelmingly is talking about the male "owning" the woman.
This is cherry picking. Theres an equal number of songs sung by women describing a beau as belonging to them. This is not particular to males. Nor is it a new notion that a man belongs to his wife. This is just semantics.
In monogamy, a man claims a woman and a woman claims a man and that ends the right of any other interloper, male or female, to mate with either person in the couple. It ends sexual competitionamong married people which creates a stability that polygamous societies can never have. Its the foundation of western civilization. Monogamous populations are different, genetically and behaviorally. Even among animals.
What do you think "treat her right" even comes from? Yes, the woman is supposed to "treat him right," but you hear this less because it's a one-way ownership.
It means don’t beat her, because men have a habit of doing that.
The chattel ownership you're talking about, and the metaphysical ownership I'm talking about are drastically different.
Theres no such thing as metaphysical. If you are talking about a religious teaching I would consider that tantamount to any other law. Otherwise I think that besides an exclusive claim to mating rights which both men and women have over their spouse, there is no ownership.
If Im your wife and we have a couple kids together and I raise them and you work and pay the bills, why dont I own you? Metaphysically? You have to please me. You have to work for me. You can’t do whatever you want. You cant flirt with the neighbor. I would have considerable control over your behavior.
Do you doubt that women have controlled their husband’s behavior for eons in Europe? Its a consequence of monogamy. Female preferance becomes more powerful where males cannot replace one female with another (as in Islam). This is why white women are so much more independent compared to middle eastern women.
Anyway I am for a partnership of men and women, Im tired of hearing this naive narrative that things will just fall in to place if men can beat their wives again. You’ll make all the same mistakes you did before. We need to do better.
PostWallHelena 1 points 1.8 years ago
You probably shouldn’t argue with this woman.
When I got race pilled, I started to study human evolution, the origin of the races and how they are related to each other. I became determined to understand why mexicans or muslims do not produce nice countries or why japanese and northern europeans, who are not related, do. I began to understand that environmental factors like climate as well as societal factors like type of economy, marriage and inheritance patterns, laws, all shape what we might call national character . Through genetics and natural selection. And it can happen rapidly.
If we understand the mechanisms of evolution that select for higher violence or higher levels of corruption and deception or alternatively more fair behavior, higher productivity and cooperativity etc, we can eugenically engineer a better society and avoid the problems that we see at low or moderate levels in whites and at higher levels in most non-white groups.
Instead of saying “How about the 1800s?” or “How about ancient Greece?”, focus on what policies were in place (secular and religious) that made those periods what they were and whether or not those policies will have the effect that you want, and whether there will be any other unintended undesirable effects.
No, they weren’t . I know we are living in peak weimar, but the problems we are facing are generally not female driven or at least not particularly so. Really, there were some things that were already very wrong in the male sphere of influence in the 1800s or early 1900s. Feminism and LGBTQPZ are just the icing on a very large shit cake .
A more basic problem imo is the decoupling of merit/productivity with compensation. An unproductive parasitic bureaucracy has expanded in the last few centuries. “Vice” industries which also produce nothing have expanded. Through these inefficient or predatory institutions there is a massive redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive. Women are only the lastest group to jump on this redistribution band wagon. They have fake jobs that pay enough to live on so women do not feel its incumbent upon them to marry or stay married. But lots of white men were sucking on that bureacratic teat before women, living off more productive men.
But it will not do to tyrannical hold women hostage. In the “good old days” many bad men tormented their wives because they controlled the property. There will always be men that do this. Men are not more moral or wise than women—they are equally as petty and devious and selfish. Many goats here take the attitude that either some men didnt treat women like garbage when they could or that its not really a problem that some men treat women like garbage because fuck foids.
I don’t accept this. Men need checks and balances to their power as do women. You can’t just say, let’s give men carte blanche and “trust men” because I don’t . Men do what’s in their own interests as do women. If you can’t conceive of a scenario in which both white men and women benefit, then fuck it. I cant support any pro-white movement which treats women like axlotl tanks.
Men have obligations to society. Women have obligations to society. Men must produce wealth. Women must have babies. This must occur within a monogamous context.
If some men and women don’t want to get married, have kids, we should not force them. But we should have targets for marriage rate, birth rate, as a nation and there should be consequences if those goals are not met, and perhaps there needs to be privileges for married people with children that are not extended to people who don’t marry or reproduce.
I think we should allow some women to work, but the % of women in the workplace should be controlled and perhaps there should be many fields not open to women. Women with young children should not be allowed to work (there may be exceptions) and women with older children should probably be limited to PT work. There may be a need for different policies for different kinds of work.
The point is, we need to engineer a society in which women are having kids at replacement rates at least, and that high IQ women and non-degenrate women are out reproducing the dum-dums and skanks.
A decent eugenics program should track and manage all this shit. What we dont want is high IQ women crowding men out of the job market and chasing glamourous careers instead of doing their duty to society. But I’m in favor of the carrot, not the stick in these matters.
This is cherry picking. Theres an equal number of songs sung by women describing a beau as belonging to them. This is not particular to males. Nor is it a new notion that a man belongs to his wife. This is just semantics.
In monogamy, a man claims a woman and a woman claims a man and that ends the right of any other interloper, male or female, to mate with either person in the couple. It ends sexual competitionamong married people which creates a stability that polygamous societies can never have. Its the foundation of western civilization. Monogamous populations are different, genetically and behaviorally. Even among animals.
It means don’t beat her, because men have a habit of doing that.
Theres no such thing as metaphysical. If you are talking about a religious teaching I would consider that tantamount to any other law. Otherwise I think that besides an exclusive claim to mating rights which both men and women have over their spouse, there is no ownership.
If Im your wife and we have a couple kids together and I raise them and you work and pay the bills, why dont I own you? Metaphysically? You have to please me. You have to work for me. You can’t do whatever you want. You cant flirt with the neighbor. I would have considerable control over your behavior.
Do you doubt that women have controlled their husband’s behavior for eons in Europe? Its a consequence of monogamy. Female preferance becomes more powerful where males cannot replace one female with another (as in Islam). This is why white women are so much more independent compared to middle eastern women.
Anyway I am for a partnership of men and women, Im tired of hearing this naive narrative that things will just fall in to place if men can beat their wives again. You’ll make all the same mistakes you did before. We need to do better.