Men have the Y chromosomes, women don’t. Women have no particular reason to preserve particular Ys because they don’t have any. If we want to preserve ours or increase their frequency, we have to do it ourselves.

But we want to preserve or increase our other chromosomes too. That means monopolizing access to the women who share our Xs and other chromosomes, or the alleles on those chromosomes. That implies exercising some level of power, control, or authority, over them.

Put another way, women and men BOTH have an incentive to prefer mating in-group (creating offspring that share more of our genes.) But men have a STRONGER incentive to mate ingroup, and to prevent women from mating out-group, than vice versa, because we have a whole chromosome they don’t have, but they don’t have any chromosomes that we don’t have.

Of course nobody “knows” (or nobody did until recently) what their genes and chromosomes are. But those tendencies and inclinations which have those effects will be evolutionarily stable, while others will be evolutionarily *unstable.* So genes which code for or assist those behaviors (ingroup mating preference, patriarchy) will tend to outcompete others.

Put another way, racism implies sexism. And racism is rational, so sexism is too.

Put another way, it’s naturally in our interests as men to rule women in their interests because their genome can be entirely a subset of ours, but it’s not necessarily in their interests to rule us in our interests, because some of our genome is necessarily not also theirs.

That’s one reason why men must rule.



Women are in every relevant sense property, spoils of victory, the principal object or at least one of the principal objects, over which conflicts are even fought between men in the first place.

This is only a factual description. Property is what you are willing and able to defend.

Women, on the whole, are not willing or able to defend themselves. They are not self-owners.

If women have some men who are willing and able to defend them, then they are the property of those men. And in a world with men in it, that is the best condition in which they are ever likely to find themselves, for long.

They forget this only during long stretches of time during which repeated victories on the part of some men insure that they do not change hands. But if they do change hands, they accept it and adjust.

Our most recent period of global preeminence was so commanding, and so long-lasting, that even most MEN forgot that women are property. And so we have unshackled them from the authority of fathers, husbands, and kings, with disastrous consequences. The loss of reason and accountability have been total.

In more wise and less fortunate times, women tend to be marginally indifferent to which men are in charge, because throughout history, it has not mattered all that much – to women – which men are in charge. Things carry on after, much as they did before.

But it matters to men, because everything is always on the line, life and legacy. And that is why men must assume sole and exclusive dominion over questions of borders, defense, immigration, and others pertaining to security and in-group/outgroup demarcation. Men have skin in the game; women don’t. (And to these questions can be added others, from other arenas, pertaining to law, property, markets, and so on and so forth, things which may affect women, but which they have historically not directed.)

Women have little grasp of manly things or manly concerns, they have little incentive to acquire a grasp of such matters, and they have not been selected for astuteness in such matters, nor their instincts and predispositions for relevance to such matters. There are simply very few consequences, for women, to screwing these things up. That’s why it was foolish to give them any say in them at all. And if we don’t correct THAT error, sooner or later we’ll simply be killed and replaced by men who will.

But this time, things ARE different, for women. This time, it very much matters which men are in charge. However, women will still follow their hopelessly misguided programming straight into the Mohammedans’ potato sacks if we don’t save ourselves from them, and save them from themselves, by subjugating them once more.

Spoiled, entitled, unreasonable, shrill, demanding, women have squandered all of our recent advantages, and we have let them.

Sensing opportunity, the Barbarians have begun to stir. They are on the move. Some have already arrived.

As this realization slowly dawns, men start to gird themselves once more for battle. Danger and uncertainty are in the air. Dark times lie ahead. Great questions arise to be settled.

The wise women are to be found in the kitchen, preparing their men meals, whether they be sumptuous or familiar, delectable or hearty, sufficient to motivate and inspire them to carry the day, and to risk all, that they may come safe home. Many will not…

Or they are to be found in the bedroom, giving their men a hearty sendoff.

They will not be found on the battlefield. That is our domain. Don’t forget it. Don’t forget the privileges which that buys us. And don’t let women forget it.


ARTWORK: “Le Brenn et sa part de butin” (“Brenn and His Share of the Spoils”, also known as: ” Spoils of the Battle”), by Paul Jamin, 1893.


Kars4kids is a nationwide “charity” that solicits donations of used and junk cars with catchy radio ad jingles. Nowhere in the radio ads do they mention they are a Jewish charity whose sole aim is to benefit Jewish kids. If you poke around their website long enough, they do mention it. But you could easily read 90% or their page, or more, and miss it.

What are they doing to help these poor, disadvantaged, struggling, Jewish, children, you might ask? It’s hard to tell from their promotional material. Wikipedia says a little bit more…


“Oorah Kiruv Rechokim, Hebrew for “awaken and bring in those who are far” (a reference to educating non-observant Jews), is an incorporated Orthodox Jewish kiruv (outreach) organization founded in 1980 “with the goal of awakening Jewish children and their families to their heritage.”

They do this through outreach, mentorship, and placing Jewish children in private, Jewish, schools.

All of this constitutes pretty obvious and brazen fraud by suggestion, fraud by implication, and fraud by omission. Take a look at the picture below.


> 1 in 3 don’t graduate
> 92% of ours do

Yeah, that’s because they’re  Jewish. It’s true they don’t explicitly say “because of your donations and our programs.” But that’s clearly implied. They’re not connecting the dots for you, but those are the dots they’re giving you and asking you to connect, and those describe a lie.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, else you’re a liar.

The MAIN issue, though, with this charity, all other lies aside, is they’re not being clear about their mission.

They’re free riding on widespread “for the children” sentiments without telling the people donating “for OUR children, specifically.” They’re deliberately conveying the impression (without explicitly saying) that donations will be distributed according to need, when really they will be distributed according to ethnicity, and specifically NOT to the ethnicity being solicited for donations (else there would be no need for duplicity.)

And furthermore, there is no indication that ANY dire need at all is being addressed, and the only purpose is to provide their beneficiaries with a LUXURY that is specifically DENIED to us, a private and ethnocentric education…

Some say, caveat emptor, “buyer beware.” Do your homework. But that leads to a foolish and wasteful duplication of effort. Once the lie is discovered, act to punish the liars, act to stop their lying.

We can probably afford to bear the lying parasitism of THESE liars, in particular. But what would we GAIN by doing so? What benefits do we procure by this leniency? Perhaps there are some, but are they enough to pay for the costs? If that nets negative, what obliges us to bear them?

And the burden of lying parasites in general, taken together, DOES pose an existential threat, especially if it subsidizes the relative increase of lying parasites. Moreover, tolerance for them has already fundamentally altered the character of our civilization for the worse, and continues to do so.

For us, or those of us who fall for it, this lie is not too costly, the loss of a junker, and another loss in terms of making Jews Jewier. But for someone who may actually NEED help, it could be stealing food off their table. They are misappropriating our generosity and they are punishing and therefore discouraging our altruism. And that harms those we might genuinely wish to help even much more than it harms us.


There is no shame in being conquered and subjugated by means of the Truth, or by true means. If one is thereby brought into conformity with Truth, or a state of greater conformity with Truth, from a lesser, one has won more than could ever be lost.

Likewise, there is no peril except the immediate peril implied by such a course of events. One who wields the Truth as a weapon, or wields his weapons true, surely knows the worth and power of service and support; and will not doom the vanquished should they be willing and able to offer them in tribute. And the defeated will have obtained, by those means, and at that expense, a protector demonstrably more capable than himself.

But to be conquered by lies and deception is the greatest shame. For it is not in keeping that the weak and duplicitous should ever rule the strong and the true. And likewise it is the gravest peril, for while the Truth is productive, lies are parasitic. While the Truth is strong and noble, lies are weak, but poisonous and corrupt.

The strong must rule. And the weak must fear them. It is the natural order of things. None other can endure. No other is better.


I just want to reiterate that there is NO individual solution to the dissolution and degeneracy plaguing postmodern life, and specifically as regards gender relations and the sexual marketplace.

A lot of people say, “Want a trad wife? Just be more attractive to women. Work out. Make more money. Etc…” None of those are bad suggestions. All are helpful, even necessary. But they are not sufficient.


The higher up the right hand column you are, in that picture, the more female attention you will get. And if you are high *enough* you may even be able to obtain good terms from a suitably appealing woman. But you will only EVER be in a position to do that by GIVING UP plentiful sex with no strings attached to a variety of even more appealing (at least visually) women. I trust I don’t have to explain why most men will at least be sorely tempted to not make the pro-social choice, given those incentives.

Furthermore, the individual route involves increasing your *relative* appeal, compared to your competitors. The basic problem would remain unchanged, and would STILL remain unchanged if ALL men got more fit, rich, confident, etc… Most of the women would still be competing bitterly for the few at the top and ignoring the rest.

You would still have rampant dysgenia as the women at the top, no longer able (or much less able) to obtain exclusivity, paternal investment, or commitment, from high status men (who can simply have their pick of endless thirsty sluts) forego reproduction entirely. Many others, not necessarily at the top, but not at the bottom either, would forego reproduction out of unrealistic expectations, wishful thinking, and never being willing to “settle” for a more realistic option.

Meanwhile, elite men are (at least potentially) more reproductively successful than they were (in terms of absolute numbers) but by “mating down” less likely to pass on their best traits. And lower status women have greatly increased reproductive opportunities, and through their exercise of the franchise, the ability to socialize the costs of their offspring.

Also, the “individual solution” still leaves the social instability and economic stagnation from large numbers of frustrated but essentially hopeless, lower-status males, permanently shut out from any chance at owning a stake in society or its future, through marriage and reproduction.

All of this is bad, but the situation is not hopeless. I said there is no INDIVIDUAL solution. But that does not imply that we must, per force, REIMPOSE strict, traditional, sexual norms and mores on EVERYONE. The threshold for success is at least somewhat lower than that.

Consider the outlaw biker gang. This is a notably patriarchal social grouping, not overly subject to unrestrained feminine sensibilities. And yet, they don’t have too much difficulty obtaining “bitches” or “old ladies.”

The operative principle is, we’re a group of bad dudes. And because we are a group, and because we’re willing to do bad things, being our bitches has benefits. But those benefits are only available on our terms.

And upon a similar principle, we can construct our own tight-knight subcultures based on traditional virtues, and which can capture the benefits of those virtues, and distribute those benefits to group members, while preserving them for the exclusive enjoyment of those demonstrably willing and able to participate in their production.

The goal should be to provide nucleation points around which a new civilization can coalesce and grow, as it out-competes and replaces the old.

And to the basic template provided by the outlaw bikers, we can add still other conditions. First among these must be, If you leave, at the very most, you get nothing; no alimony, no child support, no division of marital property. If you try to take more than nothing, through the family courts, or whatever – you get less than nothing. There could be a variety of means of constructing those incentives. But one obvious one that suggests itself is scorched Earth plus mutual, informal, community, insurance, to help the man reestablish and rebuild that which must be destroyed to prevent it falling into the hands of bloodsucking parasites. There could be other means, but they may be even less legal, and would have to be explored with caution.


In this context, the biggest difference between men and women is that men generally screw women who are not worth their commitment until they find one who is. (Great success!)
Women are able to screw men who are out of their league and so that’s what they typically do until they finally settle for a man who isn’t. This contributes to unrealistic expectations, dissatisfaction, and haunting memories of the ones that got away. (Ugh, hypergamy thwarted. Oh the injustice!)
This is all a straightforward consequence of women being the supply in the sexual marketplace, and always in demand.
But men are the supply in the marriage market. If women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of commitment.
The costs of relations with women, for men, are inversely proportional to commitment. So a woman will always be able to lay a more desirable man than she can date, and date a more desirable man than she can marry.
This trap was averted in the past by making marriage the only socially acceptable path to sex. Men had to pay to play (put a ring on it) and so women tended to get much more serious suitors, and much more realistic expectations. They also married earlier, better, and happier than their modern, empowered, liberated, sistren. They could attract a better husband, as young, pretty, fertile, and chaste maidens, than can an embittered, used, and entitled modern woman looking to settle in desperation as her clock finally starts to run out…
You can also think about it in terms of opportunity costs. If sex if limited to marriage, then going from unmarried (no sex) to married (sex) is a big improvement; one most people are going to be happy with.
But if people are promiscuous, then “forsaking all others” is a much bigger cost. If you’re marrying your best lay, they’re still only *that much* better than the next best.
But women (in particular) are very unlikely to marry their best lay, for the reasons discussed above (if premarital sex is allowed) and that’s even more problematic.
Tacitus in “De Germania” (98 AD)
“The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure the culprit a husband. No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted. Still better is the condition of those states in which only maidens are given in marriage, and where the hopes and expectations of a bride are then finally terminated. They receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further-reaching desires, that they may love not so much the husband as the married state.”

Intertemporal Division of Perception

In truth, all *three* of the principal western political orientations are profoundly and fundamentally individualistic.

Leftism is individualism for those with instantaneous time horizons. Food and shelter and college and debt forgiveness and status and orgasms for ME, right now, regardless of the costs to others, to society or to my future self.

Libertarianism is individualism for those with intermediate time horizons, who recognize some of the incentives and conditions necessary for engaging in production and exchange: so all of that *through* and *because* of property rights and markets, over so many years as may be necessary to organize their production, without regard to the costs to tradition, culture, extended family, (ethnicity) commons or future generations.

Rightism is individualism for people with very long time horizons, who recognize the full spectrum of conditions and incentives necessary to engage in production and exchange not just NOW, but for generations to come. So all of that for ME AND MINE, securely, now and for the future, by drawing on the hard won, evolutionary-gleaned, wisdom of the past, and maintaining the various commons (things like public decency, good order, and common defense) that give us our competitive advantages over others who do not share our values nor have our best interests at heart.

Beauty and Civilization are One and the Same

Beauty is an investment that will yield dividends as long as it inspires the generations that follow to keep up their inheritance, to add to it, and to fight to defend it.

Beauty is the ultimate low time preference behavior, the essence of civilization itself.

Further, when we mark something stylistically as distinctly OURS, we foster identification with and attachment to it, and solidarity with others who so identify as well, and regard it as their own.

In so doing, we imbue it with a durability and a security that can not be obtained by purely material means. Those stake holders will maintain and protect it, and one another, as no one else would, as no one else could.

In this way we may protect the integrity of our legacy and preserve the preponderance of its benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of our progeny. It will have more value to them than it can ever have to random others, who do not share, and can not appreciate, this unbroken continuity.

The purpose, or at least the effect, of modernism is to break this solidarity, to break this continuity, to break this locality, with a blight of formless, placeless, soulless, so-called “function,” that will crumble into dust or be devoured by alien parasites as its dejected, dispirited, demoralized, inheritors wallow in alienation, apathy and angst.

And as the modernist blight spreads, it devours and destroys all beauty in its path, infecting those who guard it with the ugly lies it embodies by its mere proximity, consuming, block by block, the accumulated riches of our glorious past; even the very memory of our noble and heroic forebears; grinding their accomplishments into a dust that shall never again transcend the unthinking quietude of inanimate matter; nay worse, that reeks with the stench of death and decay, for it once pulsed with the glow of life.

Unless and until we stand up, and say NO!

Begone foul demons of modernism.

Begone hateful bane of civilization and life itself!

Back to the depths of hell from whence you came!

By all that is good and glorious it ends NOW. And with as much fire and blood as may prove necessary for the woeful, yet joyous, task ahead.



How to Hack Confirmation Bias

The following is my restatement of Jason Cockrell’s theory of confirmation bias as a collective cognition strategy:

There are a great many instances where making a generalization could be useful, helpful, or necessary. But most people aren’t in posession of enough information to make rigorous and defensible generalizations very often. what people do instead is constantly form hypotheses, or adopt ones they hear, on rather flimy grounds. If a thought occurs to me, or if I hear an observation or speculation from someone else, and then soon after see some fact or sitation that appears to correspond to that hypothesis, then that hypothesis will be “confirmed” (in my mind.) And each subsequent “confirmation” will tend to make it seem more compelling, to me. Epistemically, this one off correspondance (or even a pattern of correspondance) means nothing. It could be coincidence. It could be random chance. There could be something going on, but something *other* than I speculated, etc… But what it causes me to do is adopt the hypothesis as a predictive model for myself and restate it to others (until it is disconfirmed to my satisfaction.) If their experience does not confirm (disconfirms) my hypothesis then they will quickly forget about it. They’re hearing random hypotheses all the time and many of them don’t hold, and are therefore discarded. But, if THEIR experience “confirms” the hypothesis, in their own mind, then they will adopt it and restate it to still others.
The implication should be obvious. Confirmation bias will cause all people, some of the time, to adopt false hypotheses and act as if they were true, just by random chance. Thinking those hypotheses true, they will then restate them to others. But false hypotheses will tend to fizzle out and die, as others will not adopt them consistently if they are not subsequently “confirmed” in their own experience. True hypotetheses, on the other hand hand, those which correspond to reality, those with consistent predictive power, will tend to spread further and faster, until they attain the status of common knowledge, or widely known stereotype. What tends to produce accurate hypotheses and stereotypes is not the cognitive processes and strategies of any given individual (for these are indeed biased and flawed) but the iterated spread of ideas through a population over time. And research show that this is indeed effective. Commonly held stereotypes correspond to reality with a correlation of between .4 and .9, with an average correlation of about 0.8.

How a Rebellious Scientist Uncovered the Surprising Truth About Stereotypes

In other words, stereotypes are an extremely accurate description of reality. And that description, of sometimes very subtle phenomena, is accurate not because anyone has the means to probe them adequately themselves, but because their inadequate means, taken together, amount to an extremely powerful engine of empirical research, of conjecture and refutation.

Every individual is a laboratory for testing hypotheses. Confirmation bias causes individuals, taken in isolation, to believe wrong ideas are true. But it is tremendously valuable in sorting hypotheses, which to kill, and which to submit to others for further testing (for that’s really what people are doing when they “adopt a hypothesis as true.”) With time and repetition, the consensus tends to converge on the truth.

Jason gave us a hypothetical example. Suppose there are two kinds of people, green people and blue people. Green people are 95% of the population and tell the truth 99% of the time. Blue people are 5% of the population and lie 5% of the time. How are people to discover that blue people are less trustworthy (five times less trustworthy?) Well, start out, at random, with the hypotheses “green people lie” and “blue people lie” by coin flip if necessary. The “green people lie” hypothesis will be confirmed very rarely and spread very slowly. The “blue people lie” hypothesis will be confirmed more often and spread more rapidly, and moreover, this effect will snowball and compound, despite the fact that blue people still tell the truth most of the time, and most green people interact with blue people very rarely (they’re only 5% of the population.)

But there is a catch. What if the blue people lie much more than 5% of the time? It could be that most of them lie much of the time, but they tell very subtle lies like “there is no difference in the rate at which blue people and green people lie.” How would you catch them in such a lie? Who’s keeping statistics on such things? That’s a lie, incidentally, that would be “confirmed” the vast majority of the time, since (according to our stipulations) the vast majority of the time, it is impossible to catch either the blue people or the green people in a lie. 

If they repeat that lie enough, that there is no difference in the rate of lying, they can get it accepted as a consensus, according to the mechanisms earlier outlined, and then proceed to invoke altrusitic punishment and social sanction against anyone who questions it… (“That’s preposterous! You should be ashamed to say such a thing! You’re a bad person for even thinking such a thing!”)

Extra credit. Model this scenario and determine what kind of gap or delta can be created between the consensus “there is no difference in the rate of lying” and the reality of measurable differences in verifiable and actionable fraud and deception, and what it costs to maintain, in terms of repetition.