Welcome to Caribbean Reasons, Episode 86, this is show on problems of marriage, on the worthlessness of social conservatives and feminists in addressing a question breakdown of institution. There is good example in the writer F. Roger Devlin whose essays you should all read because he understand severity of modern breakdown where social conservatives do not and he is inspiration by the way for the artist, the great blogger artist who should come back and who should write a book, if you are listening, please, you must do this, but F. Roger Devlin, he talked about how in early Roman Republic there was a law against bachelorhood, which I always found very striking factoid. Now this law was probably enforced only for patrician men, the same way that sati in India

was expected of high-case women most of all, sati being when the widow throws herself on the funeral pyre of her husband, and this probably enforced only for Brahmin and Kshatriya high-cased women, is interesting actually Schopenhauer has funny aside on this. He says it may seem to European men barbaric customs that the widow should have to sacrifice herself upon her husband's death, but it is also barbaric for the widow to survive her husband and to waste his hard-earned wealth on her lovers, to spend it on her lovers, thereby denying his children their inheritance. Isn't that interesting what you think about that? I think it happened more often than people think, but it's not allowed to be discussed. It happened in Schopenhauer's own family, where his mother mostly did this with his

father's inheritance, and also he blamed his mother for his father's suicide, but But that is another story. And since we're on this question of sati, it's interesting as it is a famous line by Charles James Napier, who was one of the British governors of India, a famous line of British cultural supremacy, European cultural supremacy, you could say. His answer to the sati, oh, we have to do sati because it is our custom, he said, be Be it so, the burning of widows is your custom. Prepare the funeral pyre. But my nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them and we confiscate all their property. My carpenters will therefore erect gibbets on which we shall hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs. Isn't that funny?

I like this because it's healthy, frank expression of imperialism, much more honest than the kind of Billy Mouse thing you get from England imperialism or State Department imperialism today with, oh, we are there to educate women because we want to be nice to you, and so forth. They say, no, we have this custom, we are superior to you. So I think that kind of cultural confidence is necessary to have a real effective empire like England managed to do and America does not. On the other hand, I should say I'm not too fond of this attitude because even England at the time, it was generally the utilitarian universalist, you could think, who wanted to impose universal utilitarian values. It was in other words, the utilitarian administrators of the British Empire who had this kind of

attitude, whereas on the other hand, the Burkean traditionalists were much more respectful of local customs, much more likely to say, well, sati is their custom for a reason. It is adapted to their ways and it has meaning in their traditions and it helped them for so long, so perhaps we should not interfere. I am much more partial to that view, and it shows yet again that conservatives have always been the true multiculturalists, and on the other hand, the shit libs, the liberals, the utilitarians, they are the white supremacists, isn't that interesting? I think it's true actually, it's not just a joke that we use to troll, the liberals are the real racists, I mean look at the alt-right, it is a Latinx, it is a Latino bodybuilder

and mulatto movement, unfortunately it's full of mulattos and julattos and Bulgarians and Guatemalans, and then on the other hand the shit libs and the anti-fights like a Nordic Convention, you see, it's an interesting situation. But anyway, let me get back to this subject of marriage, this law against bachelorhood in early Roman Republic, this kind of factoid I call knockout factoids, there are similar ones from Greek law and so forth. It's a knockout factoid because it's a small thing, it reveals so much, there are many such factoids in all parts of history and sayings that show you the truth. For example, if you study Indo-European origins, this is unrelated, right? But if you do, there are parallel rituals, for example, of Ashwamedha in Vedic India

October horse in ancient Rome, and this was an identical ritual, where you had a horse race, in both cases it was a two-horse chariot race, and one lap, and the winner of this contest, the horse on the right side, was sacrificed. And it's exactly the same ritual in ancient Rome and ancient India. Now how is that possible? It's a small factoid, but to me it's knockout in the sense that there could be no other explanation for it, that these two peoples had common ancestry. And it's reflected, of course, in the language, which is available for linguistic analysis, but also in some mythology and rituals, and this one most of all. Now, back to marriage. Why would you have to enforce marriage by law? And remember, this was in early Roman Republic, and they still had to enforce marriage and

ban bachelorhood. I'm not talking about Octavian's attempt to reform Roman law, this is the beginning of empire, Augustus, Octavian, the first emperor, where he tried to get patrician families especially to have children, and nothing Octavian did by the way worked, nothing, it was a failure. And he did this being emperor, he had state power on his side, he was at the beginning, if you want to consider the Roman empire a new beginning, he was at the beginning of a new order with all the energy and mystical powers that go into this. Now remember how his name, Augustus, resounded victory. For Dante, it was providential that Christ was born during the time of the first emperor and the foundation of the Roman Empire. Why?

Because the Roman Empire was the vessel through which the teaching of Christ spread in the world. And as Christ breaks history and time in half, so in the same way his secular counterpart, the emperor and the holder of the oikumenes, this means the realm of the Middle Earth that is inhabited. This emperor first emerged during time of Christ, it is not coincidence, and yet with all this, and yes I am retroactively putting the glow of Christian imperial mysticism on Octavian, but I'm only doing this so some maybe religious social conservative who listen to my show can sense the divine majesty someone like Octavian held in his own time, in the language of a different religion of course but so anyway with all this with

state power and with financial and other incentives and with family value stock he was still unable to re-establish the patrician family and a proper birth rate for them but that's not what I say I'm saying even at beginning of Republic before decay of time set in marriage had to be mandated by law so you have to think why and I give answer briefly now but I go in later detail on show it's It's because marriage for a patrician man actually represents a limitation of his options, a kind of duty or burden. It's not a reward to the man to be married, it's a reward to the woman. He would rather be drinking with his friends, banging courtesans. He has access to attractive courtesans, unlike the common man. Maybe he has a girlfriend on the side from time to time, and this is more pleasant than

being nagged by a wife at home. And Devlin pointed out, a law had to come in place because bachelorhood of this kind is just too enticing. But on the other hand, certain inducements were promised to sweeten the deal and to make marriage easier on the men. It's an institution designed by men, a political institution in other words. It's meant to tame women actually, to educate them, to civilize women. It's meant to ensure the continuity of society through children, both in biology and education, and to make for a peaceful home life that would then allow the men to devote their energies to higher tasks outside the domestic. In short, it's to preserve the long-range planning of a society in a certain direction.

Now think of how off is the modern social conservative and modern feminist understanding of human nature and therefore of their solution for modern problems, because they don't realize this, because their false image of female saintliness and male perverse violence and truancy, which for some of them it's actually wishful thinking, I'll get to that. I want to talk to you on the unsuitability of the modern roasty and why you must ignore everything Starbucks bathroom fucker say. Okay, this is what I mean when I say women are faggots, okay, you can come on their faces, Starbucks bathroom, and then they go on date with other guy an hour after this. And I say ignore what Starbucks bathroom mongers and their defenders have to say on marriage today.

This was a big blow up on Twitter before I got banned because I had a tweet about how in traditional society incentives were given to men to become good father and husband and this included ownership over the family sometime with power of life and death. Now why would traditional societies do that? Is it because they were evil and perverse? Is it because men so much want to dominate women and children because they get off on that? Well, this is what feminists believe, and social conservatives too to some extent, and there are tomes of worthless toilet paper, academic books dedicated to this point of view. Now all of them will be forgotten. So my point was it doesn't matter how much you stomp feet. The reality is quite the opposite, that men actually by nature do not care, and that you

not get men to care. This is problems that marriage law had to deal with, giving men some incentive to care. And this made many feminist harpies very mad. You know, the thing about being as a right-wing feminist is when they are not a gay leftist graduate judent role-playing and pushing your buttons, which many of these supposed white nationalist feminists there, what I just said now, when it's not a leftist tranny academic, when it's real Men, these are mostly low-class heredens who are often mud sharks, and they are there to troll you, and their fetish is they want to get beaten up by men, they want to get violated on all this. So it's part of their sexual fantasy to imagine men must lust after dominating and beating them. It kills their fantasy to say men don't care.

And few things get people today madder than when you interrupt their fetish. You pour cold water on their fetish fantasy, which is, by the way, why so many closeted fake Catholic, the kind of online traditionalists, I mean, who are almost all converts because – okay, I know that's for another time, but they are mad at the pictures I posted on my account. They didn't – they have an extreme hatred of Bronze Age pervert. They hated the Handsome Thursday pictures. A lot of these guys like Douthat, the circle around him, they are into black guys. I'm sorry to say this, it's unsavory, but it's an unfortunate fact of the fake right of this kind. So they get very mad when I post handsome Scandinavian Mediterranean bodybuilder. You can figure out why.

And it was a similar problem with these deranged BPD women who come online to pretend they are traditionalist feminists or right-wing feminists, and they scream at men about how how white nationalist feminism is your salvation, and they lost it when I said, well, men by nature just don't care about you and your children. With emphasis on your children, they miss that part, okay? And of course, as I tell you, their fantasy is that you do care, you must care. How else do they get a jolly tingle from fantasy of being beaten and so forth? And traditions were there in part to make men care about being fathered and adopt full duties of fatherhood, but not only by scolding, but giving them something in exchange, an

inducement, as I keep repeating, this kept many people upset, including, you know, some, also I have to say some earnest, maybe some earnest Catholic fathers got upset because they thought I was reflecting on their value as fathers and on their feelings, but you cannot really understand why this was done, why ownership of family was given to a man. If you start from assumption that men should be providers for women, that the family exists for the material benefit of the woman only, or even for the children if you understand the children in the abstract, right? Because then you can ask, well, why does it matter if the father is the real biological one? Why not just have the state assign men randomly as fathers to women's children by whoever,

and then threaten them with the law if they have to provide for them and cater also to the woman's emotional needs? And actually this perverse arrangement is not far from the parodies that modern marriage has become today. In fact, men do have a natural like for their children and want to provide for them materially as well as educate them, but the emphasis here is on their children and that small word that is much implied in that I will try briefly show there are difficulties with that. It's not so easy, this question of paternity. And that is what a lot of marriage law and the inducement I'm talking about, a lot of traditional families meant to assure men of paternity, which is not easy. But even aside from that question, which in theory, let's say you could do away with today

with paternity testing, but even aside from that, the purpose of marriage was to protect this natural bond between father and child, which you could say feels by nature, but to protect it from the mother's designs, which are often to alienate a man from his offspring. Whether it's done out of material scheming or out of the deranged need for drama, many Many of you have watched Soprano, I don't like to use popular culture as an example, but I think many of you have watched, this is an easy example, think of Tony's mother or his sister or that, many women are like this, think of what home life is with such a woman. And second I say, the purpose of these laws was to assure men that their care for their children and for the continuity of their family would not be made unduly difficult.

the woman would not be able to make their home life into a hell. Now think of a society where man has to be with Livia Soprano at home, where he has to compete at work and then come home and deal with BPD wife. What can be achieved by society where many men are stuck in this? Almost any great task end up suffering. Even if they get done, they end up being much less than they could be. up coming short when you have men hand-pecked at home by unhelpful wife, by the millions. So a lot of the incentives were given to men by traditional marriage law are there to offset the natural disincentives that mentally ill women otherwise impose on home life, which you can wish this away all you want, but you see these disincentives, they surface now

in time of breakdown of the institution with the predictable consequence that fewer men will get married. And those that do get married often are unhappier than before, and great work suffers because society is dragged back to women's domestic swamp fame of psychodrama. And unfortunately there are many men now who are similar to BPD by the way, so I'm not only blaming womankind, but what are these people, I mean the social conservatives, not to speak of the feminists, what are these people's solutions to all this? You look on social conservative right, and some portion even of feminist left who are trying to rethink marriage and what is solution to Hector Mann. And artiste, who is so important to our thing, please artiste, or someone who listened to

this show who is his friend tell him to write his book. But artiste has very good posts on this, for example what Charles Murray, who is a well meaning man, but he's part of that world of older conservatives, what is their solution to tell men to man up? In other words, to blame men for marriage problem and to call on them to undertake duty for the sake of duty, with no advantage. So in many ways, ancient traditions were far less harsh than the claims of modern conservatives like this, who can offer no carrot, they offer only stick and condemnation. And I say, by the way, claims, because that's all of this, it's a lot of barking. They have no force. It's same as American foreign policy, actually. To make maximal claims, such as, we will change human nature, we will go into this country

and change their centuries-old culture, we will introduce gender studies into Nuristan and Yemen, and maximal claims will be on what ancient empires tried to do, which many left local populations alone to their own ways, but maximal claims with minimal resources applied and second-rate ability available. So it's the same here to try to shame men into accepting a kind of servitude that ancient societies would never expect men to submit to unless they were slaves, and then you have to exert maximal repression and terror, by the way, the way the Spartans did on their serfs. But it's the same, to try to shame men, to have no means to coerce them beyond scolding, and then to be surprised they are not taking you up on the offer.

So this phrase, horrible human beings, repeated now by people on the right as if we're all on the Reddit. You know, you are not a decent human being, you're sociopathic, and so you know, stomping your foot, declaring your goodness, will not change any of this. This condition of social breakdown. Social breakdown is not about you and it's not cured by you personally making good decisions, by the way. Get over it. It's not about you, you see. This is especially for the kind of good family father, there are a few today, they feel offended by what I'm saying as if it is a slight against them. But this has nothing to do with the choices of this or that one individual. You may win marriage lottery, but if you make that argument, will my marriage work out and

so therefore it's possible, well, Bill Kristol also says that he's doing very well in life so America has no problem today, it's the same thing, you see, so this is another matter. But if anything you say today of any kind is interpreted unfortunately entirely in terms of personal life advice or about declaring policy positions, let me give you one example before I end this segment, I said something like, strangely enough, Russia importing Africans would actually be able to digest them better, to assimilate them better, and even integrate them in a superior way to what America does. I made a tweet about this. I'm telling you this is an example of unfortunate tendency in discourse on the right, okay? I was making this point because America has never actually been very good at integrating

minorities. quite a bad job even with the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews, who are all considered assimilation success stories, but again, I watch Supremo show now and his resentment and chip on the shoulder and victimization contest in all of the Ellis Islanders is so strong to have such animus against the Americana, the founding population of America country. But okay, even if you grant them, okay, you succeeded with the Irish and Italian and Jews, They can go to work and have jobs if that's your measure. But the point was the America today is unable to present a convincing either carrot or stick to an immigrant now. So if you talk to any immigrants now, not a hundred years ago, but now who are honest with you, they will tell you there's nothing to really assimilate to in America.

So the appeal of this is as little to its own people as when it tries to meddle in Afghanistan or this. Angelo Codvilla has a good recent article on Afghanistan, if you look it up, on America misadventures there, where the colonial, whatever you want to call them, the colonial people are just blindly ignored, or local culture, they try to replace it with soulless administration. And you cannot ignore just people's old rivalries, beliefs and habits and traditions, and then pretend that you can make up for that, that they will have to agree to your values because these values are natural and that paying respect to administrative institutions like even the post office or whatever, that this is a sufficient basis for patriotism

or whatever it is you want to call it that holds a nation together. And in terms of immigrants, anyway, I forget the particular of what I was talking about on that tweet, but one of the points I made had to do actually with Russia greater ability to turn minorities to its side because unlike America, which is designed really to be a a commercial republic and therefore ethnically homogenous, Russia has always been a multinational empire. So the triumph of Russia at the Olympics is really the triumph of this multinational multi-faith empire. So this is actually what I was talking about. This is what I was saying. I was saying Russia is doing so well because it's a multinational, multi-religious, multi-racial

empire and it wins by its unity and diversity, whereas America is all racial whining and Floyd and recriminations and witch hunts and mental health breaks and this, and that Russia could make even better use of Africans than America could. Now, when I said this, I got a few angry replies saying I was advocating mass African immigration into Russia, you see, and therefore I'm evil or suspicious. So you see, you might say, well, that's just an idiot, Bap, why you bring this up? Because unfortunately, that type of thinking is too common now online in general when it come to, let's say, a right-wing commentary. So instead of realizing that I was saying those things to push buttons of American occupational class, that I was trying to hit them were it hurt by claiming Russia is the real diverse

nation and America is the real racist, mild and racial animus, instead of understanding it's a piece of satire meant to American gay empire and its so-called pretensions to universality, some people interpret it as, no, BAP is making policy proposals that Putler might follow. So you see, this is the difference, and too much of right-wing discourse has taken this other pedantic direction now, where they don't see that the needful task at hand is to train our rhetorical and satirical target on establishment, to make establishment ridiculous and impotent in the eyes of the people, and they think instead it's about declaring and refining are policy positions, you know, or a party platform, or statements of ideological confessions

and purity, I'm a libertarian with authoritarian tendencies, or I'm a white nationalist with, you know, Prussian socialist interests, or this. It's ideological faggotry, and of course it leads to infighting and many other bad things. So there's a degradation of discourse on the right caused primarily by the banning and censoring of some of the best posters since 2017. But so anyway, traditionalism is nonsense in our day. Traditions are dead or whether they do exist, traditions have been inhabited by detrimental robots and weaponized against you. When even 20 or 30 years ago, you have Presbyterian synods, which are talking about sexual acceptance and similar type of thing. Camille Paglia has a very funny essay on this, this reduction of the quite dangerous sexual

instinct to milquetoast moralizing even by religious authorities. Oh, sexuality is a positive zest. And now you have Pope Faggot and American integralists who are defending grinder priests and so forth. Every tradition has become hijacked like this. Vatican II is really a vehicle for a lavender group to take over most of the Catholic Church. And if you're Jewish, you know what happened to many Jewish denominations. I have Jewish friends, they tell me conservative Judaism, they had declarations that being gay is okay as long as there is no butt sex, and therefore that being a lesbian is okay. So the guy who made this decision for the conservative Jewish denominations, his daughter was actually a lesbian in a so-called lesbian marriage, so you know it worked out fine for his family.

I don't know if there has been an update on this since, but someone told me this a while ago. So, you know, I'm saying almost all traditions are this way now, they're fake. Some of you fantasize about how the breakdown of Western tradition and institution is a Jewish plot and that Israel is this bastion of traditionalism while chaotic hiddenism is pushed on the West by Jewish agents. But in Israel it's all about Tel Aviv nightclub and gay darkroom, sex and drugs, and there The people having children there are the Hasids and the Eastern Jews, the Mizrahi Jews and the Ethiopians. When Israel forgets to sterilize them, it's the Ethiopians. So you know, you'll see quite a drop in IQ in that nation as well.

And the inability that will follow to sustain modern technological civilizations there as everywhere else. This is happening everywhere now. Muslims will have similar path. Muslim tradition very brittle. It will break. I talked to my friend Long Face the other day, he's Tunisian, he's an Arab supremacist, but he told me how Tunisia and how the Arabs are faggots now. Some of the worst, you know, obeyers of government directives, for example, on Wuhan flu, where today they stay at home and watch Netflix and they have fat Arab wife put a cut up there behind or cut in swab, I don't know what. So you know, the problem of declining human capital and of destruction of traditions which will mean the end of this worldwide civilization, this happening everywhere.

And its problem may be identical to the breakdown in what I'm saying, the autoimmune hijacking of tradition is coeval with destruction of human capital. You see, you take Iran, Iran has very low birth rate, especially among its smart population, there are many smart Iranians. But it's interesting to think about why even a nation like Iran, its Islamic Republic, It's actually founded on Platonic principles by Khomeini. It's a nation with conservative, hyper-religious public culture but has low birth rate. Why? Now supposedly it has to do with when women become educated, the birth rate plummets. And this is surely part of the story. But one of the most interesting things I've seen about why this happened is telenovela or soap opera on Talmud vision. Excuse me, I mean television.

It is a semi-controlled study, I saw, which, I mean, as much as these historical studies can be, they found that telenovelas, soap opera, were introduced to Brazilian hinterland. Whenever this happened, the birth rate plummeted, even among illiterate and non-educated women. It's something interesting to think about why, and it won't do, by the way, to ban soap opera. Then you get bootleg industry, you make them, people become even more entranced, oh, they're banned. East Block, Indiana Jones was hot stuff, it was very exciting for me as a boy to watch my first Indiana Jones bootleg, but regardless, I can go on giving you examples of how things work – excuse me – how things you think of traditionally have been hijacked, you see,

and how this works, but now they are promoting this same Reddit view of things I'm saying on the right. This is why the right in our time absolutely cannot be conservative or traditionalist, traditions in our time rotted throughout the world, but instead we must go to the root of what traditions were trying to do for humans in a primal state and judge from there. What is marriage? Is it anything other than a contract to bind parents to the raising of children, and therefore this implies division of labor because men and women are different. Should it have a eugenic component? Will it always, on the other hand, have some eugenic or dysgenic effect even when none individualism. This is what Steve Saylor say, and he is fond of these kinds of proverbs.

One's own mother and sister are disgusting. Women will say anything. They eat shit. When the flood waters reach your chin, put your son under your feet. Isn't this wonderful? This is ethos of men who wish to become warlords. Nothing else matters to them. And now, well, you wonder why they reject American attempts to turn them into and actually just to treat them like decent human beings who will respond to a pat on the head and who will accept constitution where 25% of parliamentarians are women, among other things. So the Afghan men's values are closer to the primitive and basic nature of man. And that starting point, as opposed to considering them deviant sociopaths or this, it helps you understand why and how traditions are founded in the first place, how they are maintained

guy at commentary, I forget what his name is, but they need their fat Yenta wives apparently to civilize and tame them, you see. So I'm sorry if I make this joke before, but otherwise Jonah would be a pirate pillager, he'd smash pussy and get into bar fights and leather jacket, but no, no, no, you see his fat cow wife tamed him, you know. So whereas in history, men understood that through marriage they had to tame women's tectonic and he knows the creature from alien right the xenomorph right the alien That's basically the woman but it's for cock. Okay, or more specifically for alpha cock So women are fuck crazy. The Greeks knew this the marriage is to tame them So you hear this you social conservative dummies if you want me to put it politely

Which is what Aristotle always put what I just said politely even though he knew what I just said to be true But he was very polite man. He spoke politely It's marriage is an educational institution for women, in the best cases, and you can also read Xenophon Economicus to see how traditional Greek gentleman run his estate and educates his wife for becoming away his business partner. And so after the establishment of a tradition, you have as medieval Europe also, when a tradition already exists, so let's not take the aristocratic marriage, but at middle level, you are a free-holding farmer and also in cities, you had small craftsmen, but they basically ran a family business where the wife was the junior partner, and so it was an economic arrangement that was also

an education for the wife. And this bound the husband and wife to each other, it bound woman very close to husband, and there were numerous legal and social pressure without which such arrangement wouldn't hold. In other words, the woman is not allowed to say, I'm taking half the business and running off with the Bard and, by the way, you have to keep paying an indemnity so I can raise my kids with the Bard because at one time you had access to my pussy. So if you take a step back, you see the starting point of these laws, as well as fatherhood in the proper sense, is to guarantee paternity. And both feminists and social conservatives, they lost it when I said that a man needs incentives to be a good father. They say, how dare BAP say this, that's sociopathic.

The reward should be the children and the family itself. You don't need any incentives, right? They say just demanding this proves that you're a horrible human being and a sociopath. So oh really? So again I ask you what about knowing that his children are biologically his own? Is that an incentive? I mean, if protecting and providing for a woman's children were its own reward, why would they need to be guaranteed paternity? And of course most of them will never go this far, but by the way, in some cases they do They think, in many cases, even social conservatives, they insist that biological fatherhood is retrograde and sociopathic and vulgar. If you talk too much about biological fatherhood, you are being a racialist, or this, you are too much into biology.

In France, paternity tests are illegal, the genosis. Most will not go this far, but if you say you must guarantee paternity, because once Once you can see that, you admit men need some incentive, and that by the way is a pretty big and complicated incentive to give. It's not as straightforward as many modern diddlers think. It carries with it a lot of legal institutional baggage. So how do you know men's children are his own? So remember this is before genetic testing, which feminists and social conservatives really wanted to do something to strengthen fatherhood. They demand mandatory paternity testing before a man's name goes on the birth certificate. So anyway in a small and relatively racially homogenous society, let me just say a big

reason to do that, to demand by law that there is paternity testing before the birth certificate is made legal, is because then it takes out of the equation, oh well the man demands it of the woman or this then that introduces tension and it's uncomfortable and it says oh you don't trust me, but if the law demands it then it becomes impersonal, but it assures the man of something very important. But of course none of them will ask for this, in fact they want the opposite, they want a French case where paternity tests are illegal. But in a small and relatively racially homogenous society, it's not easy to tell paternity from looks. I'm saying now before the testing existed. So how men then know that the children are his own.

In nature, a lion will often care for his own cubs, but if he sees a female lion with cubs from another lion, he will kill those cubs first before he becomes a father. And this is pretty much how natural fatherhood instincts look in certain species. These fools, they are planning to rely on this, you know, the social conservatives and so on, they say that natural fatherhood is enough, well this is what natural fatherhood look like, you know, so it works that way in a state of nature when Lyon decides on it, but how is it for human in a civilization or even in a tribe where there's opportunity for women to hide, okay? I remind you of this other interesting factoid that when Islam is introduced to traditional

African societies, in other words, when Islam replaces African animism, African paganism, but false paternity arises. In other words, Islam represents in Africa a liberalization of women's sexual instinct. Isn't this interesting? So even in actually animistic African society with much tougher controls on women, there's still false paternity somewhat. So okay, you say those are Africans and this, but no, women are like this in almost every culture. So how will a man know that the children are his? Will he remotely sense the children are his own with pheromone or something? What is his guarantee? It's not as simple as these people think. It's interesting, Schopenhauer points out tendency of children to affect their own looks,

even facial morphology, and this to be more like the father, to physically mimic the father in order to assuage the father's suspicions that the children are not his own. And this makes great evolutionary sense. Now remember, Darwin would have never happened without Schopenhauer, whose views on the suitability of the organism to its environment and on this kind of hidden intelligence of biological forms is much more profound than Darwin's, that will only provide a limited mechanism for how it happened, but just a mechanism. But this thing about children, it's not even subconsciously, right, because he's saying even their facial shape and everything, children mimicking their father's looks, is something I would bet on this being true.

But in any case, in nature, many things are there to confound a man's ability to tell whether a woman's children are really his. There's a great line from Aristippus, I think, where a courtesan who was his mistress – Aristippus is a man after my taste – but she told him she was pregnant and that it's his child, and this was a student of Socrates, by the way, who was a black man – Socrates – but Aristippus responded, you could not know that was my child any more than if you ran through a thicket of bushes could you identify the particular branch that scratched A great deal of ancient law and education too often are synonymous, but it was directed to this guaranteeing a man's paternity, training women who would be less likely to

sneak bastards on a man, giving a man incredible powers after marriage to enforce this never happened. And Roman law gave men ownership and also power over life and death. In many cases in Greek law too, there are many provisions, for example, if you came on your wife and her lover in the act of sex oars, you are allowed to kill him. But it had to be in this act, as an act of passion, then it would be fully legal. If you want to read on this, I believe it's Lysias' first speech, which is given to all almost introduction Greek students, maybe if you want to teach your son Greek, after the basics you introduce him to this text first, because it's written clear, simple Greek for a big jury audience. But it's the case of a man who kills his wife's lover, who was a seducer of wives, and he's

trying to prove that he did it in the heat of passion and that it was not premeditated. And you should see how the speech concludes where he repeats the Greek traditional case – for why the guarantee of paternity is the one main thing without which the institution of the family and the state falls. So let's take just this one huge incentive. Will the so-cons, the social conservatives, will the so-cons and the feminists say that this should also not be given to men, the incentive of surety of paternity? Or again that it's somehow a footnote, that of course the children are his. How dare you question the saintliness of women who would never dare cackle the men, right? Or that he'd be able to somehow sense automatically they are not his, and in both possibilities

here you see the problem of these types I argue with, or rather who attack me, which Which is, these types think that the profound problem and conflict of human nature are trivial or that they have a trivial solution. Is this a smug self-satisfaction in this really kind of vulgar innocence that I find repulsive? In the related matter, again before my banning, I had a comment on how empathy is an ideology and how many people try to sneak in a quite large set of moral assumptions under this word, empathy. And yes, I must take another break, I will be right back to comment on this related problem. The people who invoke empathy as a moral term, in a moral way, they claim that empathy only means ability to tell what others are feeling and to feel it yourself and that it carries

no moral judgment. Because then of course you can point out a sadist sexual serial killer would also need to have empathy in this sense to carry out his business. But that neutral way is not how people actually use the word. When they use it, they certainly do sneak in many judgments. For example, that empathy is a good thing, that it is the foundation of morality and all these others. You know H.P. Lovecraft, he has a good thread on this, and my question is, is it not odd that after more than 2,000 years of Western philosophical, moral, religious thinking, you have to use this very new word that nobody really used? Right? But when was this word empathy first used to describe moral phenomena? Why are you not using the word Aristotle or Montagnost?

It doesn't matter if you use a word invented in the 1930s or the late 19th century, that's still a Reddit thing called scientism. It's a neologism that tries to replace a rich and varied way of thinking about political life and morality with a new and emptier scientific-sounding concept, with academies and verbiage like this. Because if you had to look at what empathy meant, other words like pity from Western philosophical tradition are more revealing, through words like empathy actually they try to cram in several different phenomena, several concepts in vague way. Sometimes empathy means pity, other times when they use it they should rather use the word lawfulness. Other times it can even mean cunning.

Other times it means loyalty and other times it's a claim that loyalty should exist where it doesn't and so forth. In other words, it's a bad new concept because it's so vague. Why am I telling you this? Because in my reply to claims that empathy is actually a moral ideology masquerading as a scientific and medical category, that it assumes actually a moral obligation to others that instead you have to prove, I was informed in a self-important way by a number of white nationalists who use this word because they read comments section of rationalist blogs and this, they say, no BAP you see, and feminists used to say, no BAP you see, you're a dummy because you don't realize that empathy was noticed in a study on apes and

that it applies to the in-group, right, okay, so a study on apes, what this mean is some Some monkey caught a cataloger with IQ and manner like that Theranos girl, you know, some girl like that, but who observes apes, you know, so the problems that have beset mankind since forever, they are suddenly solved by you in this one word, you know. So the funniest part for me was the assurance that this quality ability or natural morality, whatever you want to call it, that this empathy would be limited to the in-group, not the out-group, you see. No, no, no, not the out-group, only the in-group. So empathy is limited to the in-group. So yes, it really isn't. So again, by using neologism, Reddit's scientific word like this, like in-group, out-group, empathy,

they think they've casually solved millennia of human conflict and you know Plato and Aristotle and Hobbes and all those guys are just maroons and they're bikers compared to an autistic guy who reads H.B.D. Chick because how could they have not seen this? But to them in-group and out-group are actually profound phenomena and they did not know an ape study could solve this question. Maybe the white nationalists and the feminists can take their ape study to Yugoslavia, you know. So is there some unspoken racial coordination maybe that unites only what you deem the in-group into fellow feeling that overcomes other antagonistic feelings? Speaking of which, I have an article coming out soon, I think next week, on monarchy.

And in that article, I actually do make the case for monarchy as a biological phenomenon, in the sense that I think history plainly show, humans have a monarchical instinct. But it's interesting that from my point of view, as well as just in monarchical tracts and theory and history, I mean traditional monarchism, there is no society in the sense assumed by these types. So, you know, that's right, in traditional monarchism, you know, this concept of society that many of you left-ish folk have does not exist. The whole, the nation become personified only in the king. It exists only through him, otherwise there will be no need for the king. So the problem many of people who use concept like empathy and sociopathy, the problem they

have is they exist on the right and the left equally at various degrees. They exist from centrist, far right, far left, whatever, but it's fundamentally a leftist frame they live in because they have problem Nietzsche attack. He attacked the socialists for this, this nonsense of the free society. He says, if free society is like wooden iron, it does not exist. Society does not, cannot result merely from a fellow feeling like pity or compassion or what you call empathy or from free associations based on these vague and often very weak natural impulses, beyond a tribal level where you do have family relations, but beyond that it's extremely hard actually to determine how a people organize themselves, where their loyalties lie or should lie.

And I'd say even within a familial tribal system, these questions are not straightforward. It's not clear why an individual should sacrifice his welfare for his own family or children, let alone for the tribe. Again, you can see the Pashtuns who are not dysfunctional, all due respect to Steve Saylor, but they are maybe very clear-minded men. Maybe they keep their sovereignty in their lands despite invaders for so long, as well as annually they used to invade India on raids and were quite successful. Maybe the people they defeat are the dysfunctional ones. But regardless of Pashtuns, beyond the tribal level, as I say, you have millennia of philosophical political thought on what constitutes a state or a political grouping and so forth, which

cannot be solved with the word empathy, because again this word agglomeration of several poorly understood concepts like pity, none of which are sufficient to form a union. You cannot base human morality on something like pity, maybe you can base godly morality on it, but most philosophers understood this, they explained why, they had low opinion of enough to be embroiled in family disputes like this. I've seen cousins and even siblings betray each other for very little. Now if these are platitudes, I say good, maybe some people need to hear old platitudes to deal with their absurd beliefs, their beliefs that you can base moral and legal code on things like empathy. Now I went on this site for a reason, I'll tell you on the next segment, but the stupidity

when it comes to marriage relations is similar because just as empathy and in-group and such words cannot make you understand why and how states and moral codes are founded, nor can they compel or convince men to follow a moral code by the way, but in the same way insisting like child that fatherhood carries natural duties and natural pleasures on its own, well it doesn't really or whatever it does, it's not enough to counter way other desires that men may have or conflicts that they encounter with women within the family. So I take another cigarillo break. I must take many break on this show. I'll be right back. So you know, I say this problem paternity is not straightforward, quite profound. How to solve, how ensure this for many to require much legislation enforcement by custom

because men don't sense somehow through pheromone or anything like this that the child is his nor can you trust women. And what means care? Care is hard, right? mean a man spend his bodily substance in difficult work and so on to sustain children that he's not sure are his own, and is much worse than rape, I should think. It's extremely cruel to subject a man to years, at least 18 years, of hard work on behalf of another man's children, which is why whole edifice of marriage and sexual law develop many nations and culture to prevent this, to guarantee men this incentive of biological surety fatherhood, ownership of family part of the package in part because also responsibility of type called for require you give leadership and sovereignty to every man in his home,

that his wife or children cannot be taken by the state or by another man, but as I keep saying the purpose of the supposedly retrograde laws was to guarantee not just paternity but also continuation of line through society that he chooses, so in other words your daughter Mother cannot just decide to get inseminated by whoever, and then you should have a word on that also, so she does not get knocked up by Tahiti Samoan surfer, okay? So that is also a disincentive in some sense. A man at that point begins maybe to clock out of the deal. So if you don't understand this, that man's natural instinct might be to not care when you present them with strong disincentives. They begin to clock out. If we proceed from opposite assumption that the moral structures of the past regarding

women and family that these existed because men are especially interested in a domestic life or they get to dominate a woman, which is feminist as well as Hollyweird claim. But that's a misunderstanding that leads to present stupidity and the inevitable end of the marriage and family because you don't understand them that the task is to give men enough incentives to care or at least to get rid of the disincentives and you know to buy into the family and so since we're on the subject of incentive we should discuss certain others such as irregular sexual access right and with a woman who is not fat and so there is little incentive especially for today lower middle class and working class men to get married because when you get to some destroyed communities in America and almost all the

of women are obese. Among black women, they're all obese. Increasingly, in destroyed white communities, most women are obese. So who wants to be sexually tied to that? There is no advantage in this other calculation. You know it very well. Universal obesity also means that the few women who are not fat, that they have much higher value than they normally would. So this increases the disagreeable nature of women, which is another disincentive. And similar when so-con or feminist tell you to marry aged roasties and just to take it to man up and marry the 35 year old who had, she didn't really have fun in her twenties, I would say chasing alpha cock. It was mostly a series of disappointments for her. But the problem here isn't just that getting fucked by a mini man has essentially made

these women mostly unable to bond with their husband and even their children. If you want to talk about ape studies, there are also oxytocin studies on this if you want to look this up. But it's also just common sense and you can learn this from literature, you don't need scientific studies. But it's not just that it has made them unable to bond, it has often left them psychologically scarred in ways that make them unpleasant. But also, simply as a matter of age, you say you're agreeing to marry a woman in her 30s, then maybe she has another few years on her looks if she's very lucky. So again, you are tying yourself to servicing sexually an undesirable creature or one who will soon be. How many good years of sex can you get out of that creature?

Now for men with low sex drive, maybe this is not a problem, but the marriage institution was not actually designed for them necessarily. A man who will accept this leads to current disaster where the upper middle class has just for example one kid in late 30s and is raised in global homo morality and basically will lead to an Eloi Morlock type, okay, but is it allowed to ask this question because the sexual instinct must also be taken into account in the making of marriage institutions, but no you cannot allow this I just asked because it's too vulgar what I just asked. How dare you say that men marry also for sex and Nietzsche has a quite good quote on marriage They called him a nigger because he mentioned the sexual instinct. I don't think so.

I think in so far as he was that he was right to be. So actually I don't, I will read you that quotation. I will not just, it's Twilight of the Idols chapter 39, but I will not just tell you what it is. I will read it for you if you are in a car or driving or this, consider the next few minutes of the show a kind of audio book. I will read this whole amazing aphorism, aphorism 39 from Twilight of the Idol, a criticism of modernity. I am reading Nietzsche now, a criticism of modernity. Our institutions are no longer any good. On this point we are all agreed. But the fault does not lie with them, but with us. Now that we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, the latter on their part are beginning to disappear from our midst because we are no longer fit for them.

Democracy has always been the death agony of the power of organization. Already at human-alt-human aphorism 472, I pointed out that the modern democracy, together with its half-measures, of which the German Empire is an example, was a decaying form of the state. For institutions to be possible, there must exist a sort of will, instinct, imperative, which cannot be otherwise then anti-liberal to the point of wickedness. The will to tradition, to authority, to responsibilities for centuries to come, to solidarity in long family lines forwards and backwards in infinitum. If this will is present, something is founded which resembles the imperium Romanum. Or Russia, the only great nation today that has some lasting power and grit in her that can bide her time that can still promise something.

Russia, the opposite of all wretched European petty statism and neurasthenia, which the foundation of the German Empire has brought to a crisis. The whole of the Occident no longer possesses those instincts from which institutions spring, out of which a future grows. Maybe nothing is more opposed to its modern spirit than these things. People live for the present, they live at top speed, they certainly live without any sense of responsibility, and this is precisely what they call freedom. Everything in institutions which makes them institutions is scorned, loathed, and repudiated. Everybody is in mortal fear of a new slavery, whatever the word authority is so much as whispered. The decadence of the valuing instinct, both in our politicians and in our political parties,

goes so far that they instinctively prefer that which acts as a solvent, that which precipitates the final catastrophe. As an example of this, behold, modern marriage. All reason has obviously been divorced from modern marriage. But this is no objection to matrimony itself, but to modernity. The rational basis of marriage, it lay in the exclusive legal responsibility of the man. I repeat to you, it lay in the exclusive legal responsibility of the man. By this means, some ballast was laid in the ship of matrimony, whereas now, sorry, my It is indissoluble. In this way it was given a gravity which knew how to make its influence felt in the face of the accident of sentiment, passion, and momentary impulse.

It lay also in the fact that the responsibility of choosing the parties to the contract lay with the families. By showing ever more and more favor to love marriages, the very foundation of matrimony, that which alone makes it an institution, has been undermined. No institution has ever been nor ever will be built upon an idiosyncrasy. As I say, marriage cannot be based upon love. It can be based upon sexual desire, upon the instinct of property, wife and childless possessions, upon the instinct of dominion which constantly organizes for itself the smallest form of dominion, the family which requires children and heirs in order to hold fast, also in the physiological sense to a certain quantum of acquired power, influence and wealth so as

to prepare for lasting tasks and for solidarity in the instincts from one century to another. Marriage as an institution presupposes the affirmation of the greatest and most permanent form of organization. If society cannot as a whole stand security for itself into the remotest generations, marriage has no meaning whatsoever. marriage has lost its meaning. Consequently, it is being abolished." Isn't that a wonderful line? Maybe you can ask some of these post-Trump conservators to offer some child tax credits. Yes, child tax credits will solve this problem Nietzsche was talking about. Now, it's not an economic problem. You do not solve this with economy. But to return to what I was saying in all these senses, which Chartistes and many friends cover in detail.

There is a lack of incentive for men on a social or mass scale now to get married, so you'll just see less marriages, more failed marriages, the idea also that there can be such things by the way as marital rape or that the wife can refuse sex. I mean of course in a social sense that can be true, I personally maybe would not like a man who forced himself on his wife too much either, maybe you could say that's a bore or this, but when you introduce the law and the power of the state into that question, When a man knows that his sexual access to his wife is subject to state veto, when she can call men with guns on him because of that, that is another break in the marriage contract. I could keep going with this.

When so-cons don't understand this, they're always surprised by inconsistency between the result and expectation, so they end up blaming men for not manning up and agreeing to these arrangements, which again, no traditional society would have been so crazy as to demand of men, unless first you manage to enslave them and physically force them to spend their substance on another person with no reward, and only with risk. So when you look at also the fact that women initiate 70% of divorces, and actually that figure may be closer to 90% when you count women who make life hell for the men, so they have to take this first step, this is another factoid that so-cans cannot accept. They will literally deny it if you confront them with this fact and of who it is who actually

destroys marriages and family life in America today because it would force them to confront female nature. It would force them to address the legal structure that make marriage a mockery in our time. It's a parody of what marriage is supposed to be which is why fags can mimic it too now. So it's just going to turn into fag camp. This is future of marriage the short and future for sure. I will be right back for brief conclusion segment Welcome back to show look there may be some well-meaning people on the other side among social conservatives and this and even among some feminists But they like a factual basis to talk of problem of matter a modern marriage They do not know risks and disincentives involved for men now for them. It's supposed a

promiscuity of men, or it's their playing video games, or it's their supposed perverse desire to dominate the woman socially and family life, which is a fantasy some of them also have, but they don't have the fact when it comes to what a family court really do, for example. So let me just give you these example. Those of you who have read F. Roger Devlin may remember this from one of his essays. Maybe others of you don't know or forget, so I will read for you from one of his essays. I give you some examples, you know, so I'm reading some F. Roger Devlin article now. He gives some examples, first of all, of how family court keeps men away from their children. It's not that the fathers absconded, it's the primary cause of not having more contact

with their children with mother's reluctance to let them, and F. Roger Devlin continues what I've been saying on this show. Here we see one of the reasons for marriage, not to prevent men from absconding, but to prevent women from interfering with the father-child bond. In other words, fatherhood is natural. If shotgun marriages and child support collection agencies were necessary to force men to provide for their offspring, as so many sanctimonious male commentators imply, civilization could never have arisen in the first place. The human male simply cannot be as bad as now routinely portrayed, whether by hate-filled feminists or pharisaical conservatives. Children have been jailed for refusal to testify against their fathers.

A 17-year-old girl was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed by two male police detectives for refusal to leave her father's apartment. Fathers had been kept away from the bedsides of their dying children. Custodial parents are not answerable to anyone for use of child support payments and need not spend any of it on the children. States use child support money to balance their budgets or for any other purpose they Some states have instituted expedited judicial processes in which fathers are summoned to appear not before judges but before judicial commissioners or marital masters, essentially ordinary lawyers dressed up in judges' robes. These persons sometimes double as lobbyists for legislation relating to child support.

In Warren County, Pennsylvania, a man was threatened with prison unless he signed a pre-printed confession stating, �I have physically and emotionally battered my partner. I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked.� Private companies have been dragooned into performing surveillance functions for the divorce regime. Employers are required by law to inform on all employees, including those who have never been ordered to pay child support. The information goes into a national directory of new hires, maintained for use against any many persons who might get behind on child support in the future. This practice annexes the personnel offices of private companies as administrative agents of the government.

Efforts are underway to make similar use of churches and community organizations such as the YMCA and United Way. Does this sound familiar, by the way, in regard to censorship and many other uses now through which the state cannot take them away, so they subcontract private companies to do it. I continue giving you a horrible example from this book. Child support is demanded from men who have been proven not to be the fathers of the children in question. Women are sometimes allowed to collect full child support from more than one man. In the United Kingdom and Australia, it has been proposed to outlaw home paternity testing kids available from private companies, so that men may be arrested for attempting to prove they are not the fathers of the children they have been ordered to support.

In Britain, feminist groups and bureaucrats can bring domestic violence charges against men they target as abusers on the theory that the victim herself should be spared having to take legal action. The third-party accusers do not have to provide evidence that the alleged victim even exists. Some mothers in Massachusetts report being pressured and threatened by social service agents with loss of their children if they refuse to divorce their husbands. There are now moves afoot to prosecute deadbeat accomplices, meaning parents or second wives or other relatives of child support extortionees. One second wife was charged with harbouring a fugitive. Such persons' bank accounts may be seized to pay child support for the fathers they are abetting.

Teenage boys statutorily raped by adult women may be held liable for child support paid to those women. In one weird case in Iowa, an 11-year-old boy's savings from chores such as shoveling snow were confiscated by the state in order to pay child support for himself, possible since as a minor his father's name was also on his bank account. Fathers have been ordered to submit to something called a plethysmograph in which an electronic sheath is placed over the penis while they are made to view pornographic movies involving children. I end as a quote from this book, this essay by F. Roger Devlin. You should read this yourself. It's in his essay called Rotating Polyandry and its Enforcers. It's horrible. There are many other examples and you can also read from the book that he's reviewing.

But such men, their stories are almost never heard, right? White people assume also in general if you get caught up in the so-called justice system that there must be something wrong with you, especially in this case. If you are a defendant in a trial, a white person will think you are a low-life part of the underworld, that you deserve it. And this is part of why the black people delusion that white jury have that they have loyalty for white defendants, that's such a crazy delusion. This is unfortunately one of the downsides of being a lawful people. I believe in conditions of what exists now, ethnic low-level conflict under a system breakdown Lawfulness of this kind is a liability not a virtue, but that's a discussion for another time

What is the virtue of lawfulness in a people? So anyway, you see these example I give now many frogs They read these essays by the way, they read heartiest They studied F Roger Devlin and they still got married and had families. So this is not life advice Let me say again and accepting these truths is not a reflection What kind of a father you are and so forth when in difficult situation? And different men find different paths, some luck out on the woman they find. Many do not luck out on the woman they find, by the way. I know men, highly educated, extremely smart men, they did everything right and they have ended up in horrible divorces with BPD wife and so forth. And other men I know are stuck in horrible marriages with mentally ill wife.

But some frog, many frogs, they found very many wives this way. And I'm proud to say that many frogs got married and had family with children after meeting their wives in my mansions. I know many cases where this happened. So my account acted as a kind of matchmaker, you know, there are now children in the world because of me and my message. I ask you, how many children have the feminists and the social conservatives who scold men to man up and marry a roasty and this? How many, even the well-meaning dopey ones like Charles Murray, how many children's coming have they facilitated, as opposed to me. Now this reminds me of another tweet I had, let me give you an example. Sometime before, I caused quite similar controversy with many jumping at my throat from these

two groups, mainly the feminists and the fake traditional Catholics, but some well-meaning Catholic too, who did not see what I was trying to do. But I had a tweet encouraging smart girl, the type of girl who are likely to age a single and to have no kids because she's too anxious, and I was encouraging them to go to Bali to get knocked up by Scandinavian surf or Handsome Thursday specimen who congregates there. Bali is a place in the world for this, by the way. Another place is Santa Teresa in Costa Rica. But this is before so-called Wuhan hysteria, right? So I had this tweet encouraging girls to do this, and people say, how dare you? You're a pagan. You're encouraging fornication and out-of-wedlock births and all this. So the big problem among educated, smart white women is what?

Is it out-of-wedlock births or no births? Well, these people do not get it. They don't get multiple things about what I was trying to do. First of all, they don't get the fact that I am not a king or dictator, but I'm just a humble internet poster. I had, let's say, a medium-sized audience. To be fair, I had a larger platform and maybe still do than most magazines or newspapers. Nobody reads or cares about magazine or newspaper, even when they have subscription, but it's also not just about audience reach, right, but also about intensity. So let's say this, I had some decent audience, but that still just makes me capable either of putting out the truth, which is what, you know, or putting out propaganda, which can

be a good thing, but when propaganda is in question, you have to understand that what What gets stated isn't necessarily what gets done by an audience who receives the message. And these girls who read me, if they do, they're not going to jump on plane and get knocked up because I said so or because I posted images of handsome Scandinavian surfer. But they might be led to consider erotic abandon and to consider that a careless attitude about getting knocked up, which I think that would be very good. So in many cases, let's say the problem with highly educated SWPL, you know SWPL is this site stuff like people like, it refers to a kind of upper middle class highly socialized, you know, this kind of girl.

But their problem is a lot of anxiety and a lot of their need for planning and so forth. So now think if they could be induced through image or exhortation or these two birth children sure promiscuity is done out of moral principle also. Most of the other times they are overtaken by asexuality, and it's almost as if the two main factions of our time, the dominant shitlib as well as the small social conservative opposition, but both have to pretend that we live in this wild hedonistic erotic time, but that's not what I see at all. It's actually a kind of self-flattery on both sides, and I think this age will not be remembered as hedonistic lust and carousing, merry old England was much more so, I believe, but regardless,

the social conservative forgets, you know, that children come from intercourse. So education to abstinence is terrible idea, it's not trad, it's actually anti-life. And in one essay, F. Roger Devlin, the essay is called The Feminine Sexual Counterrevolution and Its Limitation, where he reviews Girls Gone Mild, Young Women, it's a stupid title but it's a book by Wendy Charlotte. And F. Roger Devlin focuses on this group of orthodox Jewish girls who are essentially promoting female narcissism and feminism under the form of religious traditionalism, which is also a problem in Christian denominations, right? But in this essay, he's criticizing precisely the dumb social conservative, this mixus feminism that I'm talking about here.

In other words, the whole anti-sex league, pro-abstinence stuff, the whole we need to return to tradition and have high standards in this, there's a lot of overlap on that between sour-faced shit-limbs and religious social conservatives. The latter, I mean, aren't really traditional but a subset of the liberal position, which is why feminism is so much promoted actually in churches now, why churches never make any condemnation of women's role in abortion, they never blame women for adultery or many other such thing. But genuinely religious people were not offended by my Bali tweet and they understood it. In fact, they understood the root of tradition itself is what I was talking about. Does that offend you? Because traditions arose in response to that, okay?

You have all these pregnancies as a result of primal lust. Now what do you do? Traditions arrive in response to primal situation like this. In other words, the individual unit of tradition, tradition assumes as its material a human being driven by strong primal instincts and terrors. If your human unit is Jonah Goldberg or a pinched-faced anti-sex league spinster sipping a decaf green tea, you're not going to make it. Traditions don't make sense in that situation. Basically, the problem today is too little spirit, too little passion, too little frank ambition. Of course, human covetousness never disappears. The will to power is always there, but today it gets channeled in these passive-aggressive

and weak in circuitous ways, and yet the problem that faces somebody concerned with the foundation or preservation of tradition today is not the restraint on desire or its cultivation into higher forms, but the lack or weakening of primal animal desire and vitality to begin with. So, men have to get frank erections, women have to get cock crazy, and then you can deal with that. It's much harder if they have these desires weakened and then second order filtered through some weird status games or transactional posturing or this. It is the resurrection of passion and of nature that must be the task before foundation of any religion, and in fact the violent assertion of superior nature and superior desire over

low-level desire, among which not only sexual but what I have tried for a long time to evoke, which is the rebirth of majesty or drive to glory, and of the kind of religious intoxication or ecstasies that exist at the root of every great and long-lasting tradition, the openness to very strange old voices. But I cannot say more now. Until next time, Bap out.