Marriage is the fourth generation ancient technology, the common fly trap snare, the band that binds the Western male, the educated American male. Marriage is complicated bear trap for him and I can't recommend it for any man today in the West. I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean you should not knock up girls or one woman, if that's what you like, or have a natural marriage, by the way. I'm talking about the so-called institution, the legal contract, which is something you'd share as it exists now with Elton John or Anderson Cooper picking out tuxedos at a supermarket together. And that's the least bad part of it. That's the clown mockery aspect. The problem is the material of the modern woman who has been left totally without instruction of past generations.

Without that, she devolves into stolid, smelly beast. And it's a point on which, again, conservatives and even the red pill man, they do themselves. It would be good if it was a sloth beast. It's something, I don't know, the xenomorph from Alien, something like, I mean the particular ways in which the woman is a beast. Even, let's say, artiste, red pill man wise to the woman's ways are delusional about that aspect. But let me ask you, as a gay man impersonating 1950s marriage norms, you know, picket fence, and you have Andrew Sullivan, such creature, play-acting idea, his idea of a traditional Catholic marriage or such, is that better or worse than a Congo with a three-piece suit using made-up words like anabunctious soliloquies?

You know, what's funnier if you dress up a chimpanzee in a Savile Row custom-made linen, you know? My friend Mike Anton says, and I want to get this, he says he got a dark blue dinnerware linen suit, full body, you know what I mean, just full suit. And I think it's a really good idea, I need this, I love linen. And I have no continuity of mind, I'm sorry, I just come from tourism war zone, for those of you who listen to Caribbean Rhythms for a long time, there is episode 86, which my friend Scott Laughlin recently told me, Bap, I was listening to your old episodes, that's a very good one, why don't you talk about that some more, that was great, it's about marriage, I sometimes get requests on this, and I look on that episode, if you're a subscriber

by the way, you have it for free, you have all the old episodes, it's easily findable on Substack. It's also on Gumroad, I think, if they put it in a different folder, but it's there if you're a subscriber. And indeed, I looked at it and I like this episode myself very much. I will upload it to Twitter in segments for free. I think that's good. If I can praise myself, I liked it quite a lot. In that episode, I emphasized a different part of women's bestiality. And I mean that quite literally. Sex oars with horse, with Panther, with Mountain Goat Satyr, you know, the wild Dionysian aspects. And that episode is about marriage, specifically how ancient society saw marriage as an institution to tame women, and the fact that ancient Greek saw women as fuck crazy.

And that to temper that was the hard work of this thing you called male-created structure named civilization mediated once it is set up by older women after some generations they take up that educational aspect and in that I mean to say the episode 86 I emphasize these sexual aspects in large part to be frank because they fascinate me I don't completely disapprove of them as not a marrying man myself I like sluts I like wild women I feel like I get along with them, and in any case, regardless, to see women as a sexual frenzied dynamo, there's something vaguely glamorous about that. It's a good subject for a movie, for a book, or this, the sexually manipulative villainess. But there is another aspect to the woman's uncivilized nature that's less flashy.

And in that day-to-day life, it translates into bleak, grim time for a man. And basically is that the woman is a slob. in a pile of used dirty clothes on the floor, rotting in a hamper, I don't want to get too gross about what the typical single woman gets up to in terms of her city living situation. They live like rats, like bunk beds and such, and it's like a better fed Auschwitz type situation. You know, the typical railroad urban young professional bitch apartment. It's like cleaner Auschwitz, and a contentious and disagreeable slob at that. And now explain to me why such a creature, you know, a creature like this, who grows up feral, explain to me what, and you don't even recognize as feral, because her instincts and her desires may in fact very well be dulled.

Such a woman may be frigid. And write to some of you, that's a virtuous woman, if she has not had sufficient desire to get her pussy plugged enough times, or has months long dry spells because she watch Netflix, Eat Hot Chip and such. And to some men, that's virtue, because she's not, you know, but yeah, no manatic force of sex in forests of that, like with Dionysus helpers, none of that. No, you know, feral in the sense that she picks up a machine gun, or of course women don't do that. But Rob steals from people in a feminine fashion the way Catwoman does, or not feral or wild in a sexy, glamorous, dangerous thing in that sense. but instead feel, in a way, a lazy old fat mule who's done nothing her whole life is,

but I don't know, the mule is actually a useful animal, you know, so I don't know what to compare it to because I don't want to imply here that women today has the nobility and innocence of a wild creature. Instead it's somebody who the only thing she has inherited from the thousands of years of human civilization and self-domestication, only thing she has from that is a lack of spirit, but none of the refinements, none of the knowledge or techniques and arts that come from that, you know, that ancient traditions just assumed women would have by the age of 15 or 16 because their grandmother, their mother taught them in this. The biblical line, help meet for men, okay? So God supposedly created the woman out of himself, out of, well, that's very heretical.

I don't mean to say that God is Adam, but that God out out of Adam the first man created though Though my Adam us protect us. I don't want to get into the gnostic thing that's been ruined by internet retards now So, you know help meet for men. He made men out of him to be a help meet What does that mean a sidekick or something and in the old Star Trek? I've been watching these I tell you while I have lunch sometimes this this my excuse and And Captain Kirk, William Shatner, explains to aliens the human experience of love because some of these alien civilizations don't have idea of love, right? Or sexuality. And he says, about love and sex with women, he says, we were meant to love each other. A man and a woman are meant to do this, you see, and to help each other. And to help each other.

And he uses that line to help each other in more than one episode. And maybe he's copying the Bible. But anyway, explain to me what a creature who has had no contact with the civilizing arts that were meant to make a woman not be a useless slob. Explain what she can do for you, how she can help you as a wife, like concretely, what many of these girls cannot boil an egg, you know. So you know the Bible, that's a tough regime, right? That's strict. That's a hard law code. That's like, by modern standards, that's a fascistic law code. It's not, you know, natives frolicking in the fields of Samoa or the way the New World natives were sometimes seen, you know, the Tupi, I will have sex wars with Tupi women as a Portuguese explorer in 1500.

And this is a fascistic regime, the biblical law with 600 plus laws. And this is from Proverbs 2119. It is better to dwell in the wilderness than with a contentious and an angry woman, okay? Now Proverbs 21, 9. It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop than with a brawling woman in a wide house, you know? And of course I use King James Version only as usual. I continue. A continual dropping in a very rainy day and the contentious woman are alike. That's all from Proverbs. Now think about this for a moment. That's the law of Moses. after some time, supposedly, I don't know when this book of Proverbs is dated. And yet it warns men, you're on your own, okay, there's no, there's nothing the priests or the king or anyone can do. There's no controlling if you marry a bitch shrew.

I didn't mean that, I didn't mean that to rhyme, I'm sorry, you know, prose should never be poetic. I don't know, is this, it's just a radio show, excuse me. But this is true. If you want to write good prose, you should kind of flirt with poetry, but always snub it in the face. I think that's very good writing advice from Big N, Mr. Nietzsche, when he describes the principal prose stylists of the 19th century, like Prosper, Merrimay. You cannot, especially non-fiction prose, you can't really be poetic. Anyway, and such a thoroughgoing molding and regulation of human behavior as you find, I mean in this totalitarian Bible, and yet there is no solution even for them to the bitch problem, you know? And here's more, Proverbs 30, 21, this is a good one.

For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear, for a servant when he reigneth, and a fool when he is filled with meat. Let me stop there for a second. That's not related to the woman thing, but it's a good line for people to remember what are. Supposedly, the Bible is, some say, the ultimate foundation of equality before the law, equality before God, and so on, but there are sentiments like this often expressed, a servant when he reigneth, for that the earth is disquieted, turned upside down. The earth cannot bear that. And that's, what is that but the democratic age? People who should be tilling the fields and washing the toilets are now ruling over you, And that's become very clear in the whole Epstein files get released if that was not

already clear for you with the Podesta releases some 10 years ago about the character of the people who reign now, who in previous times, you know, I'd like to say Lena Kagan at the extreme court would be serving you a pickle on a bagel. But now she, her rulings carry the, you know, it's like one ninth of a president, right? So three things the earth is disquieted for, and four, it cannot bear. A servant when he reigneth, and a fool when he is filled with meat. For an odious woman when she is married, and a handmaid that is heir to her mistress. So you know, the thing with the handmaid that is heir to her mistress, maybe I've seen cases like this now where there may be even posters, you know, that the retarded boomer father

or something, leave the inheritance to his, you know, his maid, or I've seen that. It's insane. But listen to what he says, you like this, the earth is disquieted, turned upside down when the odious type of woman, the bitch, is married, in other words, given power over a man in the household. If you're so foolish to marry such, there is no law, there's no recourse, Moses cannot save you, you are on your own, the priests, you know. Now look at Ecclesiastes. This is supposedly the words of Solomon, the wisest among the Hebrews, whatever that means. Can Solomon as the wisest man in the Bible, how he compare to some of the wisest among the Greek philosophers? I don't know. Maybe he does not come off so good. He was kind of manipulated by women his whole life. This is what people say.

But this is what he says, and I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets and her hands as bands who so pleases God shall escape from her but the sinner shall be taken by her." Listen, I'm not reading just random anti-woman stuff. Everyone, every feminist knows, yeah, the Bible is misogynistic, you know, but this show is about the bitch, the shrew, the contentious woman, the avaricious woman who loves money and is stingy and many are both these things. These things go together that I just said and this is not just about Hebrew this or that, Semitic or whatever, the Arabs. Let's look at Nordic society, at the Nordic society Sparta. Now you see Lycurgus, he's the Moses of the Spartans, okay, the lawgiver.

And Aristotle just plain says, look, I don't want to read you this passage because it is very important, but I've read it to you, I think, on this show before. I don't want to read a passage twice. Maybe I will read after in an appendix to this episode, or I will just post it on Twitter or sub-stang together with this episode. But it's just such a good passage. I love this. It's so rich. It's about two paragraphs from Politics Book Two, and Aristotle talks about how the Spartan state ended, how it ended up being destroyed because of partly the avariciousness of the woman, but really their lawlessness, their covetousness for money, for matter, and their being entirely useless, yelping confused cunts during the moment of crisis.

And I have to warn that many of you are brain fucked by internet standoffish memes. And just because the human, just let me go on a tangent here for a moment, the human as a matter of innate wiring, sociobiology, call it what you want, let's say he has a a clannish or groupish behavior built in, that doesn't mean that is a good thing no matter what, or that it's even good at all or bad at all, or even that you can entirely rely on that innate impulse as a form of social organization. Otherwise, if you could rely just on that, great lawgivers like the ones they just named like Kyrgyz and Moses or Mohammed or Confucius and many others, they wouldn't have been necessary. The Romans wouldn't have needed Numa to set up their marriage laws and other things.

Any two-bit tribe of degenerated farmers gone wild in the Amazon would be able to form impressive states or at least free societies, small whatever, just based on natural inclination. But they can't. And similar also, similar analogous point, just because a woman has natural impulse to seek resources, and to extract services and protection from a man so as to care for her brood of children, and thereby continue our species, yes, but still that doesn't make that impulse as such good or bad. Or a woman's materialism, defensible in every situation, or not open to criticism. It's amazing that I have to say this, but what I see even in intelligent mens, out of reaction against the blank slate establishment view or in reaction to social constructionism

that they encounter in schools, they go in this direction. So they say, oh, this or that has a natural basis that's vaguely connected to things like ingroup preference or natalism in some form which is perceived as being assailed by dominant libtard morality and therefore, therefore what? Think about it. allow extreme bad behavior from women on the make just to start with. And the defense of, let's say, groupish clannishness, that's a whole other mistake. So I've seen this, it's not a theoretical worry, I've seen smart men say you cannot blame a woman, they refer to their bitch wife taking advantage of them, but they refer to to her in an abstract third person, you cannot blame a woman. A woman needs, you know, you can't blame a woman for being this way, for wanting to extract,

or they don't say usurp others' resources because that's their instinct, you know. So what? So in general, for mercenary, for not even like a gold-digging bimbo, right, you know, it's not, don't think like a flashy, dramatic thing. It's like the careless, lazy housewife does nothing, shamelessly asks, takes money, drains matter, drains time from her husband and his associates. That could include his other family members. And the display of this kind of dull, unassuming materialism I've seen from so many married women that astounds me, you know, they must be just totally used to asking for these things and nobody finding that odd or telling them off, ever. They just, it's not like hidden, they're not sly about it. It's upfront.

I want, I take, you give me that, you know, I take, you know, or seeing the increasing attention and mainstreaming of these views of ours, some women will get a glint in the eye, you know, and they will start cynically invoking such things on their own. So I go on this tangent because I see women's shrewishness and avarice, again these things are almost always connected, their contentious nature, their covetousness for a man's money and time. These are far bigger dangers to use than a woman's sluttishness, at least for the moment. In the same way that a woman's lameness in the office is a much bigger danger for companies, for the careers of you as a listener if you are a man with a career, that aspect of a

a woman's lameness and ineffectualness at work combined with a ridiculously overblown opinion of herself and self-entitlement is a far bigger danger to you than any number of sluttish episodes she may have done in the past out of pleasure or principle. And the two things are not connected, by the way. You can have a frigid woman ruin multiple men's lives this way. And unfortunately there is no call to reform civil rights law, to have a company decide we will not hire women and let's do an experiment with women only company versus men only company. I think you know what would happen, I've never seen a case where as a group women did not drag down an institution. Of course there are exceptions. But you know, look, I'll be right back to discuss briefly this, that the attempt on

the part of great civilizations of mankind to educate, civilize the woman through institutions like marriage and family. And I tell you that the inverse of this, where some conservatives believe that marriage is meant to tame or civilize men, it's perverse, a perverse inversion. The taming of woman and marriage is not, I repeat to you, just in regards to slut or or poisoning people like, if you have in mind that kind of thing, like a Medici princess or whatever, a femme fatale, they will sneak arsenic to, you know, their stepson or whatever, you know, that's, that's very dramatic. But again, to get them not to be useless, I mean, to get them an important role in household management and make them a help to men and prevent what happened in Aristotle say to

Sparta where the women were allowed to go their own way, you know, as Aristotle says in the last battle when the Thebans were attacking, the women caused in many ways more confusions than the enemy with their useless bleating and screaming and rushing about. And this is what I mean, this low grade, right? This is another kind of uncivilized useless behavior. It's not just sex and poisoning, you know, this is also beastly in a way. And the Spartan women, the Eresis, who inherited the land so that estates became bigger, they married rich men and so on. And the average Spartan citizen, male citizen, no longer able to own enough land to have families. And the end result is state depopulated of citizens where the women chimp out in hysteria

and unintentionally give the land over to invaders out of confusion and uselessness. That's the end of it. And I'll be right back. I'll be right back. And it takes so much work. I'll be right back. I will tell you, there are exceptions, of course, in history. But when you look at the heroines of antiquity or of the Bible, they are the products of male education. But I'll be right back. Yes, we are back. And listen, regarding Spartan women, my point was, when you have the Bible and Sparta, which are seen as some of the most, I know it's the wrong word, but let's say modern, loose language, fascistic, totalitarian legal regimes of antiquity and ever a known human history. And yet even they did not manage to solve the woman problem very far from it. What do you do?

What hope do you have then? I mean, regarding Lycurgus, I should have emphasized Aristotle saying in that passage from a politics book, too, is that he was not able to place the Spartan women under his law. So that amazing totalitarian so-called, of course Sparta was a republic, I'm speaking loosely, but that very regimented soldier's life type, military barracks law under which Spartan citizens lived, that did not apply to women. They were exempt from this. just says that like Kyrgyz tried, they resisted and he didn't want to bother dealing with what, I assume they were like the Danish women, they were very headstrong and he did not want this, you know. So I think a misunderstanding about pre-modern states is often overlapping and inconsistent legal regimes.

in Japan you had in certain parts the the only concern of the samurai the daimyo's house the Lord's house they had a house law that applied to the Lord and his retainers it didn't cover the peasants they didn't care about as long as the peasants paid their tax and this the peasants had their own separate I don't want to say legal but they had their own customary laws and so forth But in Sparta, it's this strange case where the women were just loose, sluttish women, and the men were away on campaign, and the women ran the economy and became – anyway, but the point is, if they could not get them under control, what would you say? And I want to say also that there are, of course, many exceptions, very spectacular exceptions in history.

You have Antigone among the Greeks, who stand up to state power to do her familial duty and such. And you have amazing Roman examples of heroines in Lucretia and Chloelia and others. And among the Hebrews, you have, of course, famous in the Bible, you have Book of Esther, she saves the Israelites from extermination and so on, and you have Ruth and others. There are huge archetypes all over all kind of human traditions about amazing women, but I believe, forgive me, cut my throat maybe for speaking such thing, but I do think these women were the product not so much of male fantasy and wish, I think they did exist, but they were the product of male aspiration and encouragement and education. They would have been something different.

Maybe also in the bosom or state of nature they would be something nice too. But in the primitive village, in primitive, agricultural, domesticated society, I don't think they would be something good. I think they became, like this, maybe heroine exemplars occasionally only under male pressure and education. I believe in this. And if you look at the Christian examples of womanhood, which are even more sublime, And men who put their hopes in that don't realize how extreme rare that is in history and especially today. For example, some characters from Dostoevsky or such, the prostitutes who represent redemption, it's a subtly very noble and I don't even want to call it pious, it's something, it's It's a deeply emotional view of woman as a savior heroine.

And that too is product of very late stage civilization formed by men. Does not occur naturally, does not exist today. I'm sorry. Anyway, look, the thing, let's just go away from these magnificent examples. You know, maybe I should do a woman of power episode once and cover a few such examples. The Roman examples of self-sacrifice to the state are especially impressive. But let's say, let's get away from that for a moment and pay attention. You know, domestic education, something, ability to run a household. Let's just start with something modest like that. Now the thing about the Bible is it starts kind of mid-story. And there's never a formal passage, I think, where the education of women is explicitly laid out.

It's mid-story, the Bible does not start in human prehistory, it pretends to in Genesis but it's not. It's also a product of late Middle East Mediterranean, you can say, civilization, and this precondition of women being able to run the household on their own is just assumed. There are occasional inducements, praises for what constitutes a good wife, a classic statement if you look at Proverbs 31, I will not read it, it's long, but it explains the outcomes, more the outcomes of what a good wife is than how you would get such a wife, which you can't find today. It talks about the good wife providing for her household and family, donating to charity, many other things are good. I mean, sure, if you have that kind of woman, it might make your life easier.

Hesiod also says a good wife is the rarest and most precious possession for a man sometimes. Or some of my favorite passages from other parts of the Bible encouraging women to gather goat's milk. It's a meal for the whole family. You can feed the whole week on various forms of goat milk, fresh and processed. Do you believe in this? They were pitting. But there's nothing relatively self-conscious or systematic like you would find in classic texts, let's say Xenophon Oikonomikos, the art of household management, where a Greek patrician, a kind of gentleman farmer, explains how he educated his young wife to help him run his estates. And basically the ideal of the wife as junior manager who can help you run your domestic life better, right? There's nothing wrong with that.

But I ask, how many men do you know who have this? I know one, just one, really, for sure. He's a nebbish, he's a very good friend, extreme neurotic Ashkenazi science professor with a Japan's waifu, of course, and indeed, from what I can see, she takes good care of him and she lets him be an overgrown child, which I say as a compliment, that's exactly what he should be so he can do his work. But aside from that one example, I don't know, maybe one man, I hope I'm not being indiscreet, but 28 Sherman, he used to go by that name, I hope he doesn't think I'm doxxing him here, but he's a traditional Catholic man, a real type of Catholic man, not the internet e-tradcast or the DC fake intellectual type, he has a number of children and he's happily married

with a wife who as far as I know helps him, but I honestly can't think of other examples from dozens and dozens of men I know who are married, they're in difficult situations, most of them, every other man I know, and this is from managers actually that continued because I know quite a lot that deranged wives they had to divorce, but every other man I know has gained another child to take care of, essentially, that's what his wife is. It's another burden, another job, you know, like a second or third job after your main job and the kids that you have to take care of, it's someone else to manage who knows how to do nothing and who would miseducate the children if left to herself. It fits perfectly Schopenhauer's phrase that to marry today is to double one's duty and have one's rights.

And I know of two men who had to put their fucking wives in a mental asylum not long but a week or a couple of nights or this. It's crazy. It's crazy situation now. careful out there. And by the way, it's funny, Epstein was sending Schopenhauer's essay on women to people like in emails and we used to joke that no internet forum is complete until someone posted this essay on women. It's by Schopenhauer. It's the classic internet forum thing. The whole Epstein thing is, I ignored it this week. I guess they released the emails and the files and the populists have no ability to judge sourcing. So you are seeing, you know, women who call to the FBI tip line to say that Trump took them 10 floors down in a secret elevator in the Samaritan building in Paris to be tortured

by detrimental robots in a deep earth basement. And that type of information is now presented to you as a great discovery by the internet populist incorporated new media, the expounders of the truth. And I ask you again what need there was for child cannibalism as a form of kompromat, if that's what Epstein was doing, but why would he need to do that when Prince, is it Prince Philip or Prince Andrew? The guy in the news now, his life was ruined because of, admitted to sex wars with a 17-year-old. And what's with this anyway by, I thought that they were blood-drinking totalitarian tyrannical reptilian elites, that they were all powerful. But this man's life is ruined now because he got a cock massage on his private plane from a 17-year-old or whatever.

Tell me how they're all powerful, but also they are terribly frightened of the public opinion of old goats, old and middle-aged women who are the democratic weight of mass societies now and viciously jealous of younger women. And these men live in terror of them their whole lives, but they're exceptionally powerful, I'm told. I was glad people liked my photos and the videos from Haiti that I posted. I have a lot more to do. I hope they allow me. Quite amazing ones. I'm not allowed to post without approval and I never would. I don't kiss and tell. I can just say very brief, I did go there recently with Erik Prince recently. It was amazing. It was like out of movie or better and I'll write something about it in the next week or two but let's leave it at that.

I have to run everything substantial by them due to security concerns. And I think I can say now, though, that just very generally, Eric Prince is a man of superhuman energy. He lives, he's a man in full, let's say that. And also the people running this effort to save Haiti from the gangs, amazing people. And when I say the Haiti gangs, you really think warlords, it's Africa and it's warlords. And they told me, some of the men I met, told me that what I was witnessing was quite rare, even for them, and some have decades of experience. I mean that their effort, the circumstances that I saw there are rare even, and I am grateful to have seen, even experienced war correspondents, I am told, with much experience, rarely get

to or maybe don't ever get to in their whole careers to be witnesses to what I saw there. I don't mean gore or dated, you know, but the kind of effort that is wild, the project they have, they're extreme high-tech professional out of this world, okay? And one other thing I can maybe say now without compromising any special information and just to give you some local color, I met two men on this trip, consummate professionals. In their work, though, I don't shy away from saying they probably have killed hundreds of men between them in their work. And another such man, I know a third such man, he's Lutvak, Edward Lutvak, who I've had on Caribbean rhythms a couple of times. And he's done that himself. I mean, he's led personally operations in the field in very dangerous

places. It's why I had him on. You know, I don't much care to have someone on to, you know, they have a special opinion. Anybody can have an opinion. That man has special experience and stories of adventure. It's interesting. But yes, look, the N, the sample I have is quite small. It's only three men like this, right? Looks like I can say the other two, I will not say who they are, but I met them on this trip. And two things. First of all, I'm proud of the fact, you know, I thought that they would find me odd, right? Like who's this guy? It's Eric's friend or whatever, but we don't know who. Is he a journalist? Why is he here? I was wearing shorts sometimes. Who is this guy? He's some fag. Let's avoid him or whatever.

But with both these men, I drank for the whole day or late into the night and they could have very politely left after one drink, but they enjoyed talking to me. That was very nice for me. And they told me incredible stories that was nicer. And I got along the same way with Lutzwach, too, by the way. And another thing I tell you, everyone who meets these men describes them as having teddy bear affect. They are extremely sweet, warm, affectionate men in person. I would just describe them as warm, nice men. Now I have not seen their war face, I'm sure that's different, but it makes sense whether you think it's because they come from a place of feeling profoundly secure or a variation, Namely, a lot of modern men's neuroticism comes from living in captivity, but these

men don't live in captivity, so they can be warm with you. I get a lot of you are impressed by East Block or Balkanoid, that type of behavior. I would call it a nigg huffing and puffing and boasting. But being from such areas myself, I'm quite sick of that affect and I find that type of brash performance, annoying. There are, of course, tough Balkanoids too. But anyway, I can't say more about this now, this trip I recently had. Please stay tuned for my report. This is the only hope the people of Haiti have, by the way, and say what you will about that place. I know, I know people don't like Haitians in the United States and my friend Martin captive dreamer was very important in the last election, publicizing what Haitian migrants had done in the United States.

But you know, if the situation in Haiti is improved, they will maybe not need to leave. And regardless, there are good people there. They don't deserve to live that way. But anyway, I was glad to offer you on Twitter a reprieve from the avalanche of Epstein imbecility this week. Epstein was a fucking retard schmoozer. My friend Scott Laughlin has a good write-up on him on his blog. You read it, he's just an idiot. I didn't watch, apparently he watched his interview with with Bannon and he's just a mumbling, you know, Reddit retard. And the people who associated with him are also stupid and you're run by idiots essentially. But the problem of the modern wife, right, where feral here, wild, means basically a creature that was meant to be a mule. I don't mean like a sexy wolf.

like a fox, you know, it's like a mule, think a mule, but she's like, because mankind does not come from the bosom of nature. And there's thousands of years of, let's say, acclimation to agricultural life. So these women are mules, but they're useless mules. Now it's just a fat bitch mule eating hay all day, you know, by the by the river. Sorry to be graphic. Look, I can be graphic. Okay, my book Bronze Age Mindset. I was glad people who actually read it described as very favorable to women, in fact. I respect the woman as an oracle, possibly, a center of possible cultic power, a shaman in certain situations she can be. Ancient tribes, the Germans, the Greeks, the archaic Greeks, the West African tribes, they respect this in a woman. At her best, she can be things that you can't.

I've said that before, so then I have the credit to say now that the mass of women left to their devices and not educated by the institutions created by men to, you know, home economics essentially to teach them that at least and mediated by older women. They devolve into a highly destabilizing presence in the life of most men that it makes everything more difficult. So if you look at the great societies of mankind where there are not explicit accessible, let's self-conscious text like this, I mentioned Xenophon Oeconomicus. And then this concern with the education and taming of women is then very obvious in religious law codes. So again, in the Bible, it's a bit odd because domestic competence is assumed. That's why I think Bible is really a very late text.

It's not as foundational as it likes to claim. It's a compilation. It's more like a commentary. I would think of this, the Bible is an appropriation and commentary, a very competent one with beautiful poetry, but a commentary on thousands of years already of Middle East mythologies and literature. In India, the Manusmriti, the law of Manu, composed maybe 200 BC to 200 AD, and Nietzsche praises this so in Twilight of the Idols and other places, this is the source of the formalization of the caste system and such, and there are long prescriptions for the education, formation of women, to household and other tasks, religious duties, religious right prescriptions and such. In chapter five, there's famous, famous few lines that I will read for you now.

This is the Hindu holy law, thus the rules of personal purification for men of all castes and those for cleaning inanimate things have been fully declared to you. now the duties of women. By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood, a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons. A woman must never be independent. She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband or sons. By leaving them, she would make both her own and her husband's families contemptible. She must always be cheerful, clever in the management of her household affairs, careful in cleaning her utensils, and economical in expenditure.

Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father's permission, she shall obey as long as she lives, and when he is dead, she must not insult his memory." Okay, so I stopped reading. I know that's not, it's probably a bad translation, but so you see, do you see ladies and gentlemen, Just like a pack of wolves will immediately, after a kill, after a hunt, they will gnaw and bite at the carcass, and by instinct they will know to go to the most important part, the marrow first of all they go for, then the liver. Any religious or political ancient text immediately will do what I just showed you, will go right to the heart of things so that the Law of Manu, after the common sense of course that

the woman is never to be on her own or independent, they immediately say, she must be of good here and smart in managing the house, clean and not spend stupid money, right? Because why? Because that's what woman in a degraded post natural state, I don't want to say domesticated because that can mean multiple things. We are talking after all about the process of, let's say, salutary domestication or taming here. But there is a prior, this is what I'm saying, there are thousands of years of deleterious degrading domestication by agricultural society that's not necessarily salutary in the life of modern or ancient families. But that's what I mean, a woman in her degraded post-natural state, that's what she'll do.

She'll be a slob, she'll waste your money, she'll fight you, she'll lock horns and nag you. There are other texts also not as useful. The Law of Man was very clear. I'm not a big fan of Chinese literature. I never thought much of Sun Tzu and the art of war. It's very vague. I think, actually, I think it's Luttwak who does say this, it's just a series of platitudes is of no use to a war fighter, I mean, compared to Clausewitz or such. And the didactic literature for women is about the same. So there is this Ban Zhao, a woman, I think, wrote during the Han Dynasty, so roughly at the same time as the Law of Manu was written, let's say 100 AD or so. Lessons for women, precepts for women, that's what it's called. But like Sun Tzu, it's kind of heavy on the vague.

It's a kind of sort of platitude, you know, it's a moral instruction. In this case, it's not a war, it's moral didacticism, how to be a good woman. But whether it's a translation or something, it's very hard to get any clear content out of it. What the wise Schopenhauer meant when he called Confucianism an utterly political and therefore boring totally inane Philosophy and as for the practical aspects that it just has a few throwaway lines on again but it's it's always the same thing keeping things clean clothes clean and and on weaving and Well more on weaving and sewing in a moment home economics Caribbean rhythm, right? But here you have a woman insisting that women be educated, this Chinese woman, Ban Zhao.

But she's right, you know, but in this case you have a formalized written example of the role that good women always had in this transmission of knowledge, which is, I mean to say once men establish security and law and order and put women in their place, women themselves can then entirely by their own powers and consensually they can transmit within their own networks, that chiefly means mother to daughter, but not only. In this case, again, it's formalized, you have a woman writer doing it. But usually it's, you know, aunt to niece and that kind of thing. And they can themselves, without the supervision of men, transmit these elements of what a good woman is supposed to be. But the point is, that's a gross, it's a vine, a late vine that grows on the edifice built by men.

And it is men ultimately who police it and who give the crucial feedback as in, yes, it's working what you're doing, you're doing well, you're keeping home life and family life running well, you're not making things hard, which again, I don't want to exaggerate because I believe that at a certain wealth level, the life of the married man is always more onerous, more difficult than the life of the bachelor. And I mean that inversely from what people would normally claim, right? A rich man, it's much better to be single than to be married. That's why Roman law had to make marriage mandatory for the upper class. For men, let's say from the working to upper working class and upwards from that, probably married life could help them quite a bit, but even then I'm not sure.

And also rich is a relative term, especially today. Money doesn't get you that much today. There are poor men today too who are rich in other ways, talents, singing, whatever, or even just physical gifts and use and so on. And to them, marriage is not an objective upgrade either. But it's always been seen as slightly onerous, which is okay. It's the best way to raise children, yes, but my point here is that all of these world traditions, which I went into a little bit of detail, but all the ancient commentary on them, like Aristotle and Xenophon understood marriage primarily as a way to channel and tame women, not men, as a way to bind or constrain female sexuality so that inheritance, lineage, property transfer, citizen role could be maintained. Were these men incels?

Was Solomon an incel for the things I read for you before from Ecclesiastes? They would be called this today, right? regardless. What a change though, I repeat to you, a huge change has come to the modern social conservative when you look at what they believe. So let's leave the leftists and liberals aside because they have no concept of marriage that makes any sense at all. It's not clear that marriage means anything to them other than an accessory. But a modern social conservative is more dangerous because I think as politics changes in the next five, 10 years, this aspect of social conservative thought, which is in fact very congenial to feminists and leftists too, if they thought about it for a second, they could profit from this. I'm afraid they will adopt it.

So you see, because they both share the same false anthropology, which isn't really an anthropology, it's a psychological need masquerading as that, which insists that the man must be the provider to the woman. It sounds so natural, right, but it's complete falsehood. So on the personal level, the psychological need becomes managed as a crutch. Not an institution, let's say, as it was for male-led inheritance transmission. So I'll give you examples. David Gelentner, who wrote in the 2000s and has a book I think it's called Way of the World, I don't recommend it, and he's copying this other guy named Gilder or Gilder, I don't I don't know how you pronounce, who wrote in the 80s, the Reagan 80s, right?

So it's like the Reagan resurgent conservatives and then the echo of that during Bush II in the 2000s. Conservative pablum both times claiming that men are dangerous and unstable and useless and they need marriage to be tamed and to be productive. So it's complete inversion from what traditional societies did with marriage. And this is marriage redefined for the tough speaking wife guy. Think of, if you know this guy Matt Walsh, with his carefully manicured beard, pretending he tough guy to ban the 19th amendment, which everyone knows will never happen, including him. But he's doing that to position himself against perceived competitors for right-wing audience share in this nonsense. So there's a whole biome of these types of commentators now, including some women who

who prey on the delusion of a retarded audience, promise them that they will ban women's voting and reestablish traditional life and this and that, without there being any legal path proposed to how you would take women's rights away, because that's what you'd have to do. So of course not, the false claim is that this can all be reestablished by women's choosing. They don't quite come out and say so because it would be recognized as absurd. But that's what they're doing, They're leaving women the power to switch on and off so-called re-establishment of tradition at will. So really, it's just a kind of, this word, role play. But I'm sorry, why didn't the Bible and Lycurgus and the Law of Manu and Confucius think of that? Just leave it to the woman, bro. I mean, that's easy.

Why wouldn't they? I mean, that was so easy. But anyway, I go off, of course. I go off tangents. But these two authors I mentioned, the Conservecags, Gelantmer and Gilder, make one big mistake. And it's not just them, their thoughts get reproduced by Charles Murray and many other older conservatives now. But quite aside from their obvious psychological and emotional motivations, and what are these motivations? Right, the pretense is that Gelantmer and Jonah Goldberg would be Harley Davidson mega-killers. I'm sorry if I said this on previous episode too, but you know, they're pussykillers, man. And they would be going out and they'd be down with gang warlords and raping and barbecuing babies, you know, and Jonah Goldberg with leather jacket in the bar getting in fights

and smashing mad pussy, kind of like in Lost Highway by David Lynch, the dream delusion of the Bill Pullman main character, who's cuckolded by his wife and sexually humiliated by her. And he imagines himself as a young stud with a leather jacket before his execution for her murder. So it's a kind of self-congratulation on one part. On the other hand, it's a hatred and distrust of male instinct. And these are very, these guys who say this, who write this, excuse the word, but they are bourgeois. Bourgeois Jewish and Christian types who share, unfortunately they share with the neo-reactionary You know, the white nationalists, some of them, are very disapproving, I would argue, the unmanly male's hatred and envy of manly men, and the desire to proscribe and control them.

They share this with certain women. I tell you, if you look into other law codes, you absolutely don't find things like this, okay? These men claim that you do, but it's not, excuse me, they attack, but it's not true. You don't find things like that at all in Law of Manu or Hesiod or Homer or even the Bible really. So I'll stand by this. They target women, these older texts, not men's instincts for the most part, at least until quite late in human history. And then that's the other side of it. The modern beta socon, beta social conservative. It's much easier to blame and attack men and video games and anime and this. It carries no cost, as you know. There's a huge cost if you attack women, including from their, let's say, that very strong wives,

like let's say Charlie Kirk wife at home, imagine what she was like, you know, giving them a hard time if they were to blame women. And then there's still motivated reasoning, but less charged, let's say, is the fact that taking them at their word, marriage utility here is not, let's say, social inheritance technology institution, which makes sense from the female angle, right? But here it's like a psychological self-help tool. But again, if you tunnel slightly into it, the actual content of this so-called self-help, it's a kind of neutering of the man, right? When I say self-help, the pretense is that it helps men's lives, you know. Again, no ancient text would dream of saying anything like that or of romanticizing domestic life or saying that it civilizes men, never, never.

It's again, in ancient texts, social inheritance institution, a technology for property management, property transfer, that type of thing, lineage assurance. It's none of these things that these men, these conservative pundits are saying. But even the self-help content, again, it's a eunuchizing, a caponizing of the man, right? It's again, it conveniently explains their own lack of manly virtue as a choice. That pretending their wives, they're low-key saying that their wives made them that way. And finally, the big content mistake, they make the big content mistake, is that they are right, okay, in some sense. Maybe statistically, if you look historic, marriage can be a stabilizing influence in men's lives.

But what's missing from this is understanding that those wives were not, as these conservative pundits imagine, that they were not women born from the bosom of nature, were by their innate character able to provide an anchor for some men. They were themselves the product of centuries-old, millennia-old male civilization in position that has now broken down. They're not that anymore. Or they've only absorbed the poison of that and none of the good parts anymore. It's this point that men continually delude themselves over, where they confuse their present-day wives and girlfriends for characters from books or movies from decades ago. But your wife does not think like that no more. And who knows, you know, it's possible that that man writing in the 80s, Gilder, I think

is his conservative intellectual's name, maybe he still had a relatively decent woman who who was not, or his audience, it doesn't matter, his personal life doesn't matter, but his audience maybe could be persuaded to such a point because they were married to good women who were not basket cases yet. But that's very rare now. Many older conservatives, by which I mean even if you're over 30, they don't understand how fast things are changing now. It's not, many trends have accelerated since 2015 and 2013, and then even that acceleration has itself picked up after 2020. So if you go by information you had in 2009 even, you miss entire environment that younger men are encountering today in terms of the women they have, you know.

Rousseau criticized Hobbes and Locke in this way, roughly I'm saying, by the way, analogy. He said, you guys want to talk about the state of nature, you Hobbes and Locke and the English philosophers, but the men that you are projecting back into a state of prehistoric nature, these These are modern men that you're imagining, the men of your own time, who are in fact not natural. They've had their desires and thoughts, which are largely malleable, shaped, even corrupted by millennia of civilization. Men in nature wouldn't act the way that you claim these would. So you're projecting modern men backwards into a theoretical, prehistoric, stateless time. Instead, I will show you how they really act, the natural men. So Rousseau's saying. I'm saying something here also, in opposite direction.

The unit of discourse in conservative commentary on marriage and sex, and then recently also in so-called post-red pill, or the conservative attempt recently to get beyond artiste and game and so-called manosphere or red pill ideas about women, they assume a woman acculturated under male education that no longer has held for some time. This is why when I posted a while ago about a woman, someone, I said that a woman called me an animal. Yeah, a woman was visiting me and called me an animal because even though I had a maid twice a week, my kitchen looked like a mess, you know, this is just an impression. It was perfectly clean. I just had, I like to make cocoa and I put sugar in cocoa and collagen and then it got, I spilled some and it got sticky and then some napkins got pressed to that.

So this woman saw a few discarded water bottles and what looked like a grim thing on the countertop and she said, you know, Bap, you're an animal, you live like an animal. And I made a tweet about that and, you know, this guy, this lumberjack conservative butted in to reply, to lecture me that, see, this is why the woman is civilizing. He needs, Bat needs this. He needs this woman to pester and nag him into cleaning his kitchen, and this is why men need a wife or otherwise they become animals. And I say to the gas chamber with you, faggot. Modern women live in a pigsty, I've seen it many times, they live in filth themselves. And do you think she proceeded then, like a good Japanese wife would, to clean my kitchen and to make me a cucumber fresh salad. No, she did not.

She wanted just to nag and that pussy smell bad too. Compare to Hesiod in works and days, yes? And this is book often ignored by people reading classics. Now it is old book like Homer, archaic Greek book, pre-philosophical poetry. You see the gloomy insecure life of the Greeks at the time. Nietzsche says this, the gloomy world that you see in Hesiod And the escape from that is the Apollonian dream violent world of Homer. But woman in Hesiod is never plausibly understood as a civilizer or a tamer of men or this rosy colored view of domestic life that modern conservatives want to imagine. It's a kind of bourgeois aspiration fantasy. It's not analysis of human nature or history. This is what conservative commentariat is the women hissiod assumes exist in his time

Know some of domestic life and so on but generally they are seen as a huge Possible cost and economic cost a danger even to your survival You know that this just other thing in your household that consumes and that you know You're ensnared to out of sexual attraction He has this very famous line, do not be deceived by a woman who wears clothes to make her ass look nice. I mean, literally those words, you know, she, you know, do not be ensnared by her words. Woman is a trickster and she's doing that to get into your granary and get your stuff, you know, as the oldest Greek. You know, I'm simplifying here, but it's a text counseling foresight and male prudence. And you know, should I read for you, should I read for you now, I will read for you from Hesiod works and days.

Make sure that you are the right age, having the right season. When you bring home a wife to your house, I'm reading from Hesiod work and days. When you are not much less than 30 years old, nor much more than that. This is a seasonal marriage, meaning the good season for marriage. That's interesting. They wanted the man to marry around age of 30. The wife should have four years after puberty, and then she can marry in the fifth year. So maybe 18-year-old wife to 30, 28-year-old man, something like that. Marry a virgin so that you may teach her the ways of affection. Try your hardest to marry someone who lives near you, and take a good look all around you so that you will not marry someone who will become the occasion for jokes by your neighbors.

There is no better possession for men than a wife who is good, and there is nothing worse than a bad one, one who sneaks away the dinner for herself. The man, no matter how strong he may be, is burned out by the fire of such a woman. need for a torch. And she brings him to a raw old age. Yes. I don't know many of you I think really need to hear that, you know, his first warning. Yeah, he says marry a virgin and don't be a butt of joke by your neighbors. But his first warning is she will, she will waste your essence. She will, she will waste your, the substance of your household. She She will take the dinner for herself. But this is what I mean, the world of traditional marriage, concerns of men in traditional marriage,

what I just described for you, are just so insanely far from the bourgeois and what is really confessional ideology of marriage, of the modern conservative who idolizes tradition he doesn't understand. The two, the reality of it and what's in their minds almost never meet. So anyway, I often now, I live in places where I get free daily cleaning. How about that? My place is always spic and span when I want it to be. I don't need a slob lecturing me on doing domestic chores when I have important things to do like Caribbean rhythm broadcast for you or having Haiti safari with Mr. Eric Prince. Thank you very much. I will be right back. Ladies and gentlemen, I am back and I apologize to you if my delivery on this episode is less energy, less power than usual.

I need several days of sleep still. When I was with Mr. Prince in Haiti and elsewhere, I basically did not sleep for two weeks. I don't know how he does it, but you sleep like four hours at night, sometimes two. I do know how. By the end, it felt like I didn't need sleep. You're running on adrenaline, and I speak to this other man, and he tells me, and by other men I mean extreme pro, let's say James Bond super spy type, and he tells me once Once you get into that life, you never really turn off. And I guess human nature can be pushed to that. I don't know. But I did snap out of it and now I need several days of sleep. So I have some scattered thoughts on marriage and relationships to leave you with at end of this episode. This matter of weaving and sewing is very important.

I wish for women to pay close attention to weaving. I'm serious. One of you could write a book about weaving and femininity in history or such thing, and maybe has already been done by professor, but these academic books usually repetitive and very little content. One of you could. There's so much material there. It's an amazing cross-cultural thing all around the world or all across time. It's just part of female nature is weaving. It's mentioned prominently in the Bible and Confucian text I mentioned in the Law of Manu. It's extremely so in Homer, where I've heard it described by a Homer scholar, quite correct. It was Gregory Nagy, by the way. The sexiest thing to Homer's audience was a woman who sings beautifully and who weaves

beautiful clothes and tapestries, just like Penelope does in The Odyssey. So let's see if Mr. Christopher Nolan keeps element, I doubt it. talking now about the pitch-black Helen of Troy. It's very odd. Who are her parents? Mr. Nolan, I'm interested in this. There would have had to be an endogamous entirely pure sub-Saharan African community in Greece in 1200 BC. This is what Mr. Nolan claiming by putting Helen there, unless he's saying that she was a sold slave from sub-Saharan Africa. I don't know. But yes, weaving. Look, I suppose that if your wife grew up learning to weave beautiful clothes and sing well, and had orthorexic postured lessons like the women in Japan do. And yes, then you could very well have a pleasant and stable home life.

And maybe such a woman could provide stability and peace to a man. But you see what I'm saying? And yet what is weaving? What is sewing? What's all these traditions that make it? It's clothes, right? I mean, high-class women like Penelope would be making maybe some beautiful tapestry-like thing, but it's clothes primarily, right? And since the most ancestral prehistoric time of men, this was women's domain, the making of clothes, the providing of good clothes to the household. Now imagine that, who thinks of that now? The most famous fashion designers are gay men and the fashion producers are just big companies and you don't quite think of them as sitting in your living room with a loom, right? So I'm just pointing out the basic elements of life, the rhythm of human life since forever

and it's defined, this stupid word, gender roles, the daily characteristic rhythm of the sexes and that you have to have this explained to you regarding weaving because the process of making clothes is now industrial and centralized, the women generally have nothing to do with it. Whereas in antiquity, even the most elite women did it. And they fucking attacked my throat. They attacked my fucking throat and mouth, I'm sorry. But even recently, there were women who did it for fun, you know, have a crocheting thing or they have a singer sewing machine and they make dresses for fun. And even recently that was done, like people's mothers or grandmothers did, but no one almost does now, you know, just maybe some women do out of hobby or business, but very rare.

But this was a major part of female education and life that's just no longer relevant. So then you think what takes up the time of their hands then? You know, they can do tick-tocks, I mean, so can men. But you know, okay, men don't have to fight or hunt either. I get it. Both are kind of lost at sea regarding to what their daily lives were before for tens of thousands of years. But regarding women, it's become this thing where the proliferation of male-created technology that gets rid of domestic chores and jobs of all kinds. So then what women to do with their time? What are elements of female education to be now? So then you get this overwhelming focus. I will not answer that. I can't. People like Camille Paglia will say that's a great thing because it means capitalism

allowed women to join the workforce and that gives them freedom and so on. Maybe I don't want to get into that argument, but a consequence of what I've just said is you get overwhelming focus instead on female sexuality at which they're generally no good either. They're not educated in the arts of love. Who will teach them that? they don't go to geisha school. So I mean, you get in the judgment of what makes a good wife or a girlfriend, you get this overwhelming focus instead on their sexuality or their sexual history as the only possible key to their virtue or their suitability for you. When in fact, that's important, but this other element is just as big, right? So, but who thinks about weaving at all, right? It's not weaving, it's not that, It's about not being a useless bitch, right?

And this other element where men are lost at sea because no one tells them that if you marry a nasty or mean woman or one who loves to give you a hard time or to fight or who's very materialistic, stingy, grasping, that will determine your life in a bad way as much as if she did cock carousel thing in college or whatever. I'd argue even more so, but let's not go there. People will say, I'm trying to excuse the slattery out of my own perversions. But let me ask you something then about fidelity and infidelity here because it's quite revealing. Let us then talk about female sexuality for a moment, about the worry men have naturally in any relationship or marriage that a woman may cheat. So the cuckold used to be one thing and now this word means something else.

The word now refers actually to a cuckold fetishist. It's a man who, for whatever reasons, whether latent homosexuality or overt gayness, or some say pornography-induced fetishes, wants to watch his wife with other men. I'd say that's a tiny percentage still today of what the word actually is, what it used to be. It used to refer simply to a man whose wife cheated on him without his knowing, and to continue to do so under his nose generally, and he either looked the other way or was genuinely a fool about it. and it was a butt of jokes in a lot of literature. In the same way, by the way, that the hand-pecked husband, it was so beloved, the hand-pecked husband now is the good man of the modern conservatives, but he was also the butt of jokes, the wife guy. But the cuckold was not portrayed

as the cuckold fetishist who took enjoyment in it. Although I've heard Harvey Mansfield describe Mandragola, Machiavelli's play, which is about cuckolded men, as possibly engineered by the main cuckolded character on account of maybe he's biologically sterile and he desires or actually needs an heir politically. And so to solve that because he's already married, he slightly orchestrates his own cuckolding, you know. So that's very different though. In fact, the image was of an idiot or a fool and especially one whose wife pulled the cover on his eyes through means most of all of moral and pious language. And this was the butt of jokes, right? A kind of pious idiot. In other words, it's the kind of man who the current day traditionalist thinks is a good and virtuous guy.

A kind of tedious piledriver on morality and religiosity. Now I'm afraid many delusional males are being led to this actual and far more prevalent version of cuckoldry today, which is being obscured by the cuckold fetish definition, which that definition is so scandalous and perverse it attracts all the attention. But what I mean is this other thing, there's a variation of traditional cuckolding that probably wouldn't have been possible in pre-modern times, right? So okay, so what's traditional cuckoldry again? The wife takes advantage of the husband's delusional attachment to his image of her own purity and virtue, uses his naive religiosity and moral piety to do an over on him, to cheat on him. And by the way, I encourage women married, for example, to annoying performance conservatives

like this Matt Walsh or Jonah Goldberg I mentioned who probably talk to their wives about their masculinities and so on. If I were a woman, I would take pleasure in cheating on such men. If you are a woman in that type of situation, I encourage you to to do this. You cheat with pool boy. But that type of idiot deserves it. But here's another type. I fear for many naive young who get caught up in the current discourse, because let's say you have a woman on the make, an unpleasant, maybe cynical, frigid woman, materialistic, and she notices a sizable percentage of men who are very concerned and talk of body count and and cuckoldry and faithfulness and religion and many such things and it would be trivial for such woman to come to you and tell you everything you want

to hear about sexuality and sexual history it's not very hard for them to hide their past either by the way but let's say that even that they're telling you the truth on that but because the modern male is so caught up in that side of things he will not judge her on these other just as important things so she She will heavily signal, and maybe even vehement disapproval at modern degeneracy and of loose women. She will declare all kinds of loyalty, even dress herself up maybe in nationalist sentiments that are very fashionable now, or even racial loyalty and such, even when it's entirely irrelevant. And you may then have an entirely frigid woman who is so out of lack of desire or fear or other such, but then she pretends to be chased just for you because she knows that, you know,

appeals to you. And then under these moralistic and identity pretenses, a bond will be forged, but you get hitched to a mean bitch who will not fuck you, will waste your substance, nag you, will not help at home, and I'd imagine having a stingy wife is hell. And this to me is another form of cuckoldry, you know. You know, it's still, it's using morality and moralism and piety of different types to snare you, pull one over you. And yes, her pussy will not be given to another man, yes, but I still say that's cuckoldry, you got scanned. And the overwhelming focus, I mean, on that one aspect after the breakdown, not just in women's education, but the whole content of it, right? I mean, what is the relevance of weaving today or keeping the utensils of the kitchen clean,

which used to be a major part, making pickles. I'm saying all of this blinds men, the fact that that's gone and that sexuality is the only criterion of judgment, it blinds men to full spectrum breakdown in the institutional integrity of marriage and in the education of women in general. And their acculturation to something, whatever it may be, whether it, yes, maybe just making pickles, but it's something beyond feral, stolid laziness. And the feral again here is the very mundane, bleak, even grim reality of the un-reformed cunt sloth wife, my Latina cunt wife. Sit all day, watch telenovela, talk. I once heard Latina woman, I was trying to sleep, my window was on this courtyard, I did not have air conditioning at the time, and she talk loud four hours, their energy is boundless,

can talk for four hours. I imagine as a Colombian man you wake up, you eat arepa dough, you chew this bland thing, maybe you have to get fried salami from the stand, your fat wife can sit and yap all day. I'm sorry if this is too much like that comedy show what is called love and marriage. There's a relish in either celebrating or denouncing mad mainads and sexual freaks. There's something glamorous about that, but this is just turgid domestic crushing life. But it comes from the same failure to civilized women, which these older traditions either explicitly took on, or again, if they came late, they just assume it was the course of things passed from immemorial mother, daughter, whatever, grandmother, niece, and the world would not function at all without that.

They knew it in both Mano and the Bible. When it becomes explicit, you see just outright statements that the world would be upside down, of course, if you didn't control these types of women, especially the bitch, you know. So the worst, the most humiliating expression of all this I'm saying is the lactation room. It's CIA lactation room, I'm sorry, you know, call me, I know they'll say, you're an antinatalist, how can you can attack? Yes, I do, I want to curb that birthrate, you know, of a 38 year old CIA bitch analyst Having inside her drips the weak watery seed of her Norwood 5, 39-year-old herb husband housebound impregnate her with one, they have one neurasthenic globohomo child at that age so they can pass on their doom and their emptiness and create another reditoid.

And to this end you should have the most demoralizing thing, a lactation room is not a convenience for natalism. It's symbolic fuck you to all seriousness, to any man or actually any serious woman who come there with a sense of mission and purpose, wants to be dedicated to the fight, and instead, you know, it's also the same in any scientific lab or university or such. It just drains all the seriousness out of it. When residues of things that correspond not so much to female sexuality, but this other aspect of them, their bossiness, their intrusiveness, avarice, their contentiousness, their desire for empty gestures of power over other women and other men they consider beneath themselves. They're the pettiest faggot race of tyrants there ever was, you know, without being under

the rod of Confucius, that's what they... It's too bad Lycurgus allowed it, but again, maybe the Spartan women were big Danish armored card-type looking women. He did not have a choice. They do make strong sons, this kind of big Nordic woman, you have to wrestle her on a bale of hay. Do you like Holland, the soccer player, the soccer from Norway? That's a pure Western hunter-gatherer type, that face and everything. I didn't like him at first, but he's an attractive man. The bureaucrat thinks that type may correspond to the Western hunter-gatherer, right? It's maybe that is a greater reservoir of virtue and innocence, unspoiled by the corruption of city life. So you can think of it. I mean, the phenotype is whatever, but I'm saying what the phenotype corresponds to,

that human type from before the coming first of the Neolithic farmers and later of the Aryans because the Aryans who finally conquered Europe I still think about 1800 to 1500 BC or rather 1600 to 1200 BC they were not purely from the bosom of primal nature right they were mixed with Neolithic farmers somewhat and and they possibly had an acculturation period these are the proto-indo-europeans the Aryans they had a kind of acclimation period in sense of relationships or proximity to very ancient population density centers for lack of a better I don't want to call them cities, but you know, let's say Neolithic longhouse agglomerations. And there they learned a kind of rationalized faithlessness, subterfuge, but calculated deviousness, not the various commercial low mercenaries attitudes.

This is the bureaucrats idea that the Aryans, as opposed to let's say, they look different. Aryan face quite different from the Western hunter-gatherer face even when they're both blonde. I like this idea. The West hunter-gatherer types in Europe has this reservoir of the most remote pre-agricultural heroic Stone Age nobility. I do wonder if women in that state of things would not be inherently admirable without civilization and without education. It's possible that in Stone Age adventure situation, that fount of nature that both men and women, though maybe they're rough and maybe even they could be tricky in their own ways, right? The Comanche is like the Comanche notion of honor is not anything like ours. They were a Stone Age tribe initially for sure, the Comanche.

But it's possible that something strong, pure and admirable in both the sexes in that very, primitive state of things before the coming of agriculture, that women themselves are athletic and enterprising, and you see Rahan, this is French magazine, communist French kind of anime, manga, whatever magazine, I used to read a small boy in East Block a comic about a caveman, comic book about caveman. There was always some communist lesson to the stories, but Rahan had at times a love interest in this comic book and it was this kind of feminine but very athletic looking stone age cave bitches, very sexy. And I wonder if that woman who can help Rahan hunt Gazelle, you know, fight the saber tooth tiger in Siberia and then looking at the face of a mountain in the sun, in the afternoon

sun get carried into an ecstatic trance, believes that she can see the future and the secret things behind things, and maybe sometimes some of them can. And this is why I think shamanic priestess are born, and oracles, it's real. This is why in Shinto, the miko, such beautiful girls still, always the shrine maidens, you go to Yasukuni, and some were shamans and oracles in remote times. And so were the women of the Greek and Archaic Greece, some were the Pythonists and certain African tribes. I don't hate the women you see, I wish they could be this and that some peoples maybe preserve very ancient innocence. I think this attitude to women cultic power much better than what in Bible or Confucius

or even what come out of later Greek philosophical schools, I respect this, I respect the magic, I fear it, the magic, I wish for it to return, I wish primal marriage with Maynard in forest, I wish be torn limb from limb in a frenzy of blood and glory and power until next time back out