Why Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS - and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
'Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture.
'Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.'
-'Sex & Culture', J.D.Unwin.
1/11
https://kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin
Obviously the man is right. Men, the same ones who tend to be polygamous, must be in charge otherwise civilizations will revert back to the primordial state of matriarchal perversion that prevailed in early societies when men -- even though they were dominant as hunters and tool makers -- were under the spell of mother cults, female fertility through which man comes into existence, which evoked mankind's connection to untamed nature, wild animalism, barbaric sexuality.
Before aristocratic warriors, with their male war bands, subordinated female goddesses to Olympian sky-light gods, which reached its highest expression among Indo-Europeans, we inhabited a Bacchantic world of women dressed in animal skins with snakes as belts, copulating indiscriminately, shouting wildly invoking subterranean Chthonic deities related to the subterranean underworld of dead creatures.
As J.D. Unwin argued in his suppressed book, Sex & Culture, the imposition of premarital chastity upon women is what made civilization possible; and, we can add, the imposition of monogamy by Europeans is what allowed them to conquer and civilize the world. Feminism, which is an expression of liberalism, means a return to a matriarchal-like world (though not a replication). https://x.com/MomsPostingLs//MomsPostingLs/status/1781124221151617507 That's what happens when you give women "freedom" from patriarchy and traditions, they fall prey to whatever they hear from the mainstream capitalist-liberal media, for women need to be guided otherwise they revert back to the chaotic world of fertility cults and sexual perversion.
- Hypergamy, then, is ever present. The only thing that changes whether it is realized or not is the extent to which women are free to act on it. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily guarantee an inequality in actual sexual encounters, but the more free that women are to act on it (and this is personal speculation) the more likely are there to be social norms and institutions favoring women, i.e. fault-free divorce, preferential child custody laws, anti-slut shaming, hyper-popularity on social media, (the free trips to Dubai that entails), etc.
It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.
In a way, this knowledge validates Game, because Game (aka applied charisma) is primarily a hack of a sexual market characterized by runaway female hypergamy. In a monogamous, patriarchal society (which America may have had, customarily, during periods of the 19th Century and for a few decades in the mid-20th Century), Game would be less needed and less effective because female hypergamy — essentially the liberty of women to follow in full the whims of their sexual desire — would have been kept under control, and tempered by beta male oversight.
As I’ve written before, it wasn’t a coincidence that modren Game as we know it started in the late 1990s, emerging from the last vestige of male-only public spaces: the PUA forum, as an answer and a solution to the riddle of a dating scene that had radically changed as a result of the absolute liberation of female sexuality that followed in the wake of abolished sexual norms, abortion, female economic self-sufficiency, the latex condom, and the hormonal birth control pill.
A final, somewhat counter-intuitive point. An increase in the female-to-male population sex ratio increases competition for women amongst men because it increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates (Briffault’s Law tells us that the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family, and so when there are more opportunities to do better, why settle early?). As a result, and at least in the context of my simulations, there is a sub-linear scaling law in which a doubling of the population of women compared to men increases the median woman’s number of matches by 50%.
I’m not entirely sure I understand what he’s written here. Is he saying that a sex ratio which skews to more women and fewer men actually favors women? That does seem counterintuitive and doesn’t gibe with what the prevailing sociological research says about sex skew and its effects on mate choice. I hope the author clarifies in the comments.
***
Female hypergamy and *runaway* female hypergamy are a difference in degree with sufficient consequences for the sexual market, and on top of that for society, that the two female selection states function as a difference in kind.
I am not saying female hypergamy is evil, or wrong. It’s an amoral Darwinian mechanism that exists because it powerfully, if somewhat inefficiently in the post-industrial environment, maximizes the reproductive fitness and survivability of women. Given that hypergamy is a part of the world, men should learn to leverage it when it cannot be contained, and to contain it when it threatens civilization. As the Selonomics guy wrote, female hypergamy in moderation and locally contained by limited choice is a positive force for quality control, but unrestrained female hypergamy in highly complex, mass scale societies can turn ugly fast, creating gynarchic dystopias of bluehair fatties bragging about their cock counts and haggard cat ladies “holding out” for a 6′ 4″ Adonis, while swarms of men from invader tribes hate-rape lonely #Resistance divorceés who welcomed them in, and ghetto mommas crank out five or ten bastard spawn who have to blow their allowance on a basket full of father’s day cards:
In summation, Hypergamy is a general purpose filtering mechanism for maximizing the genetic quality of a stock of evolving agents.
In simple systems with few additional feedback loops, Hypergamy can be a good thing. In complex systems, such as human societies, however, Hypergamy, the mating access and genetic inequality that results, is likely to cause a society to self-implode, in much the same way that too unequal a distribution of household income in an economy, for example, stalls growth by making it impossible for a debt-loaded Middle Class to continue consuming increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology.
Beta males are the debt-loaded middle class of the ultrahypergamous sexual market, and the price for entry to the world of slender, chaste, feminine, young White women has skyrocketed beyond their means. An angry young man revolt is all but assured under these chronically persistent conditions of sexual, romantic, and marital inegalitarianism. Trump’s election was the first salvo of this justifiably angry young man revolution. If Trump fails, the next salvos won’t be so benign. Shitlibs and pussyhatters will soon know what real anguish is.
A telling societal signal of imminent collapse is the glorification and commercialization of the worst instincts of women, and the denigration of the best instincts of men. Our women become like men, and our men like women, until an androgynous slop characterizes an empire wheezing its last.
Modern Native Hawaiian Culture Is A Prime Example Of This Female Sexual Liberation. Native Hawaiian Females Have Been Empowered And Native Hawaiian Males Have Been Emasculated.
2. Implications for Foreign Conquest and Alien Rule
What theoretical and empirical implications does the evolutionary
psychological perspective on war and intergroup conflict have for foreign conquest
and alien rule?
One immediate implication is the sex difference in the consequences for the
conquered. The evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that access to
reproductive women is the ultimate goal of all wars and intergroup conflict, including
foreign conquest and alien rule. On the one hand, this unfortunately means, as I
suggest above, that the rape of young women by the conquering soldiers would be a
routine part of war and conquest, part of the goal rather than a byproduct (Shields and
Shields 1983).
Women have no loyalty. They will marry the Yamnaya if it means men with better technology with access to horses and wagons for their children's survival. Women would be betray countries, communities, and families if it means the safety of their children. If every man did this, there would be no militaries to defend countries or peoples.
On the other hand, the perspective simultaneously implies that women will not
be killed by the conquering soldiers, because they are too valuable, while all men will
be killed. Among many primate species, when one group attacks and conquers another, all the males are immediately killed or driven out, while the females remain
and mate with the conquering males, except for older females, who are also killed.
Among the chimpanzees of Gombe, for example, "the response of adult males to a
"stranger" female -- that is, a female unknown to the human observers and presumed
to be from a neighboring community -- depends to a large extent on her age and
reproductive state" (Goodall 1986, p. 493). Among the Yanomamö,
The stated object of a raid is to kill one or possibly two men and
escape. If the raiders can do so without risking losses, however, they
may abduct a woman from the enemy village. The abducted woman
will be raped by all the raiders, taken to their village, raped by the
remaining men in the village, and then given as a wife to one man.
She can expect to spend the rest of her life with her new companions
(Wrangham and Peterson 1996, p. 67).
Strictly from the genetic perspective, it does not matter for the female with
whom she mates and reproduces, because the resulting offspring will always have
half her genes, regardless of whether the other half comes from the males of her
native (now conquered) group or the foreign (conquering) group. In some sense,
females should prefer to mate with the conquering males, because they have proven
themselves to be superior on average to the native males (most of whom are now
dead). As generations of German, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese women in the
20th century can attest, human females may sometimes prefer to mate with the
conquering males under alien rule.
This reasoning leads me to suggest that women have less to fear from foreign
conquest and alien rule than men do. Of course, it is terrible to face the risk of being
raped repeatedly by the conquering soldiers, but it could not be worse than the
certainty of death, especially since, if they survive, the women from the conquered
group have the option of marrying into the conquering group and reproducing with
the conquerors, who might possess superior genes. And the conquering soldiers are
much less likely to kill the (potential or actual) mothers of their offspring.
However, this option is open only to reproductive females. As the case of
chimpanzee wars shows, older females are "useless" to the conquering males and thus
11
face the same certain death as males do. I thus suggest two complementary
hypotheses for the implications of the evolutionary psychological perspective on wars
and intergroup conflict for foreign conquest and alien rule.
H3: Younger (reproductive) women fear alien rule less than younger men.
H4: Older (postreproductive) women do not fear alien rule less than older
men.
...
For foreign conquest and alien rule, the evolutionary psychological
perspective suggests that women should fear alien rule much less than men, but only
so long as they are reproductive, because they then have a good chance of being
spared by the conquerors and have the option of marrying into them. Accordingly,
the analyses of the Eurobarometer data show that young women are much less
xenophobic than young men, but the sex differences disappear around age 50.
Apply This Hypothesis To Hawaii! When Foreign Males First Arrived In Large Numbers To Hawaii (1800s) They Killed And Ostracized The Indigenous Males Leaving The Fertile Indigenous Females To Fertilize (Impregnate). Now That Foreign Colonization Is Complete Foreign Males No Longer Use Violence And Subjugation To Achieve These Ends (Impregnating Native Females). They Now Achieve These Ends Through Economic Warfare And Social Warfare (Attaining Greater Wealth And Higher Status Than Native Males Thus Allowing Them To Out-compete Native Males For Native Females And Ultimately Outbreed Native Males). Evidence Of This Native Hawaiian Male Mating Exclusion Rests In The Fact That The Majority Of Living Male Hawaiians Have European And East Asian Y-chromosomes. TO BE CONTINUED... (Here's One Of Thousands Of Examples
One Of Thousands Of Examples Of Foreign Males Being Preferred Over Native Males By Native Women.)
"[The genetic data suggests the] Ashkenazi intermarriage rate with outsiders must have been less than one in 500 per generation...
The Jewish community’s central position in medieval European life makes its genetic isolation even more remarkable."
This Is The Mating Behavior That I Espouse For Native Hawaiians (Avoid Outbreeding).
Listen To The Video In The Above Link! It Will Explain What Unfettered Female Sexual Psychology And Mating Behavior Will Do To A Society And Race Of People.
I'll Add More Of Rollo's Tweets To Help You Understand What Female Political Power And Influence And Its Accompanying Feminist Agenda Does To A Society And Race Of People.
https://methalashun.blogspot.com/2021/05/dont-know-what-im-talking-about.html
Look At What Liberalism And Its Feminist Imperative Has Done To The Hawaiian Race - Slowly Ushering It Into Extinction Through Multiculturalism And Interracial Breeding.
"The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality."– Roissy
Price and his colleagues have come up with what they call “the female economic dependence theory of anti-promiscuity morality.” It states that “opposition to promiscuity arises in circumstances where paternity certainty is particularly important,” and predicts it is likely to arise “in environments in which women are more dependent economically on a male mate.”
"OPPOSITION TO PROMISCUITY WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AMONG HETEROSEXUAL FEMALES WITH HIGHER INCOMES, AND SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AMONG HETEROSEXUAL MALES WHO MADE MORE MONEY RELATIVE TO THEIR PARTNERS."
In other words, these feelings are a remnant of some of the oldest impulses in our evolutionary history: A man’s fear of getting stuck with the tab for raising another man’s child, and a woman’s fear of losing her man’s financial support because he suspects her child isn’t his.
Definition of feminism: A political and cultural movement to remove all taboos and restrictions on female sexuality and to stigmatize and regulate, legally if necessary, male sexuality
What Does Liberalism Result In? Feminism. What Does Feminism Result In? Females Having Greater Sexual Freedom Resulting In They Pursuing A Short-term Mating Strategy, Breeding Outside Of Their Race, And Creating Single Parent (Single Mother) Families. In Other Words, Creating A Culture And Society Like That Which You Find In Hawaii!
YOU FOUND ME!
youtu.be/_4jKAgYL0gg
