Accepting Preyer

 On one hand my predatory instinct took over; saw a weakness and thoughtlessly pounced. On the other hand, I'm trying to do him a favour. If a sapient text box can effortlessly spot your weakness from a throwaway line in single-medium text, then everyone else is seeing it too. The only question is whether they're exploiting it openly or covertly.

 Grant me the strength to accept the herbivory I cannot change.

https://xcancel.com/cloneristic/status/1996688925629599903

 The favour is phrased and structured as an attack, as if from a peer. Doing the kindness of not openly asserting total dominance by phrasing it as merciful advice offered from above. 

 If he can get over himself long enough to admit there's a weakness there, then he can fix it. He can psychologically cast it as showing me up, showing he can do anything I can do, rather than having to admit I can position as a parent to his child. Which is how I would have phrased it if I wanted to make it impossible for him to address the chink in the armour; stenting it permanently open.

 Unfortunately, as I say, everyone is doing it all the time. https://xcancel.com/Baalren/status/1996692879713226996 He knows that I see him as prey. Effeminately passive-aggressing about it is not a way of disputing this assessment.

 I want him to stop being soft prey. It seems he is deeply attached to being prey. Which I knew going into this, which is why I say my predatory instinct took over. Sorry, my bad. Can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep, and if you're trying you're only being an asshole. 

 Hence posting this here where, hopefully, it isn't seen by anyone who is only going to get sad if they see it.

 Here's the confession.
 "you're gonna get doubly fucked and blindsided even worse expecting to bat 1.000"
 "Batting 1.000 means getting it right the first time and cash out for life."

 Blatant, gauche goalpost shifting. Gish gallop. Batting 1000 means knowing ~no girl offers the opportunity to cash out for life, hence not getting married. Batting 1000 is knowing ~no girl is worth the effort even if you can keep it together. Can't get double fucked if you respect your own knowledge of the incoming double fucking. If you weren't born in a backwater/chaste village that by chance happened to have a marriageable girl in it, then marriage is simply erroneous. Also, good luck getting red-pilled in time to snap her up before an NPC random-walks her to the altar. Really, good luck. It's not, theoretically, impossible...

 He himself knows he's full of shit. I'm in the wrong for suggesting he shouldn't be full of shit; he is perfectly capable of stopping without my help, and has spent decades choosing not to. 

 That said, I shouldn't really apologize. I'm going to do this again.

 Bro, at least have a defence handy rather than resorting to wild, panicked flailing. There's only so many raw steaks I can see left out on the counter without snapping at one. If you're going to openly advertise your weaknesses, expect to get a claw massage from time to time.

Aristocracy Report

  https://accelerationist.substack.com/p/the-french-aristocracys-secret-selective

 Summary: "Membership is by invitation only, and to my knowledge there isn’t a single rallye that even has a website."
 "It’s also telling that the name for the institution is really a nickname, because there is no formal name for it."

 If aristocratic families are 0.1% of the population, that's 1 in 1000, as I estimated earlier.
Note that even if every child of an aristocrat is also an aristocrat, the spontaneous generation segment, lowborn aristocrats, have to be no more than 1 in 1000 commoner births for such aristocrats to outnumber the well-bred type. That's before factoring in the larger family sizes of commoners. Naturally nobody does studies on aristocrats so we can't get a clean fertility number.

 Also note the harmony with my assertion that the aristocracy wasn't fired, they quit. Popular rule occurs out of necessity, when the upper classers can no longer be arsed. It only even appears to be a fight due to a few stragglers who lose track of the times, who conveniently manufacture some symbolic victories for the rabble.  

 No they're not really Catholic. Obviously they can't follow the Pope. I'm sure they do fervently attest to their Catholicism, but you would think in clown world folk would finally learn not to take Caino hypocriens at its word.

Low Quality Festival

 I have a bunch of shitty posts to post, so december has been elected shitpost month. Shitfest. 

 Maybe in the future I will start enforcing quality control on myself. Probably not, but we can dream.

The Meaning of Communist America

 The government owns all the women, all the children, and all the businesses. The government owns all the land. The government owns all the money; it can buy whatever it wants whenever it wants, and if that makes a man poor, they can suck it up (women already own everything at the State's pleasure, or lack thereof). The government can make any laws it wants to, or make a not-law with the force of law to bypass !!the constitution!!, and enforce them as much or as little as it likes, in any interpretation that happens to please it.

 The reason the USSA runs better than the USSR is that the american soviets are less brutal and more sophisticated than the russian. Have nonzero ability to appreciate the future beyond the immediate. That's it. E.g. a congressional committee is exactly a soviet. It's merely that americans aren't gauche enough to call it a soviet, like some uneducated peasant. You have never heard of any of the important soviets, nor do you know the names of anyone on them. They are very, very unelected. By design.

 In america you're allowed a thin veneer of Capital-adjacent behaviour, provided the soviets are too busy to stop you. For example, the soviets have very little control over small businesses. However, someone told DC that crude regulations disproportionately harm small businesses, and therefore they doubled down. For example covid lockdown relief. Lobbyists - the soviet funding bodies - ensure the regs don't conflict too much with the large businesses. They're owned by the government after all, what's the point of shooting your own foot off? Regulatory "capture" is in fact the large businesses being captured by the State. Small businesses clash too much to have a unified lobby cooperative - which is how they remain, in turn, superficially free. 

 Regardless, if you do anything in america, it's either with soviet permission, with soviet inattention, or you end up in jail. As all appreciable businesses are government-owned, annoying a soviet will result in getting fired and blacklisted. Alternatively they merely repossess "your" children or wife. The latter is the government's woman, it's merely lending her to you, on account of not currently using her body.

 Conveniently the soviets are always very busy trying to prevent the other soviets from eating their lunch. In poolitics, it is always backwards day, so [united] means [divided]. DSSA, it's not divided at the state level, and is a world Empire, not restricted to america. [Checks and balances] means even the government isn't allowed to legitimately own things; other soviets are permitted to take stuff away if they can finagle a way or means. Usurper Regime. With all this background noise citizen-slaves can get away with a lot provided they don't brazenly cause a soviet to lose face, and even more if they don't try to muscle in on State monopolies.

 Don't try to start a pepsi competitor unless you've paid your full danegeld for the last ten years. And know exactly who to start paying jizya to, and how much. Meanwhile the Amish get away with mogging !!america!! in every way because they're poor. They can do whatever they want provided they're not obviously superior.

 If !!capitalism!! means anything in the Empire, it's that paying off your local soviet isn't considered corruption in !!america!!. Instead it's the expected minimum. If you're rich enough you can in fact pay the correct soviets to let you do whatever you want. As it turns out [whatever you want] is 15-year-old whores rather than, for example, inventing the airplaine, but never mind. Owning your own houseblimp is on the table, but too expensive even for the most voracious leeches. In soviet russia a billionaire's fortune would be redistributed - usually directly to stalin - but in !!america!! you can pay your soviet enough to let you keep some of the money. As long as you don't tell anyone who the soviet is, how much you paid them, in what way you paid them, etc etc.  

 Generational wealth is not real in !!america!! on account of these extraordinary payments. If the stock market could keep your sons and daughters comfortable you wouldn't be permitted to invest in the stock market. Anyone rich and not in a soviet must either quietly bleed money or work enough to pay the soviets to allow them to keep working to pay the soviets.

 Large businesses, especially banks, are [bailed out] by the government because the costs were going to be eaten by the government either way, what with being wholly-owned government enterprises. Why bother raising new State-owned businesses - especially re-running all the nonsense about pretending they're private - when you can simply keep the old ones? Of course when I say the government eats the cost I mean they counterfeit the money and tax the base more.

 The phrase [eating their lunch] is amusing but in fact every time one soviet eats another's lunch, nobody gets lunch. That lunch is simply gone forever, and america is permanently poorer. This will be a source of ever more vicious infighting as every soviet spoils a slice of pie before one of their competitors can take a bite, making the pie smaller and smaller until, like rome, washington loses 90% of its population. Goes full detroit, in other words.

 In the mean time, voters are realizing voters get the shaft, and joining the soviets. The pie-bakers, as in rome, notice they're getting a bad gig and quit the bakery. The pie needed to feed everyone on the "to each according to their [[[need]]]" side grows larger and larger as the available pie erodes from both ends, from waste and supply shocks.

 The only thing not too small to grasp that the government does not own are the univerities, because the ownership goes in the other direction. The universities own important parts of the government. Universities are run by soviets, which subordinate the soviets in mere Official capacities. The universities don't get taxed, they get paid taxes. This includes their VCs; venture Communists. If you get university investment, your investors have no taxes to pay, and you outcompete everyone who does have to pay taxes. Perhaps if taxes were some reasonable percentage...but instead they're normal Communist rates for everyone who doesn't own the tax office lock stock and barrel.

 Using these tax-preferred university investors, america pretends to be Capitalist for the dumb monkeys who can't (and don't want to) add 2+2. These investors decide who wins and who loses in [the marketplace] with a minimum of open, heavy-handed sanctions. If you refuse to bend the knee they can always start and fund a competitor. Conveniently the schools and universities don't teach you do to math. What a coincidental and convenient coincidence.

 Large businesses pay enormous bribes to retain the privilege of being owned by the government and having to do exactly what they're told to do.

 They're told to pay huge bribes. For example, pharma companies don't violate FDA rules once a year by accident. "Whoopsie doodle we made a new endemic virus what a shame who could have seen this coming." Where do you think these billion-dollar fines end up? Any pharma company that doesn't find a way to launder money into a soviet's pocket will quickly find their business becoming illegal. As long as gates keeps kicking back a large portion of his blood-sucking into "foundations" and "political campaign contributions" the taxpayers will ensure he is never poor. Or in jail.
 Until a competing soviet manages to eat his soviet's lunch, that is. Sorry epstein's body double. Should have backed the winning horse if you didn't want to be suicided.

 If you learn the names of any of the important soviet members, kindly don't let me know because I don't want to be suicided either. I don't plan to shoot myself three times in the spine and then throw myself off a low bridge to drown, but you never know where life's gonna take you I guess. Unless someone speaks the wrong name over an insecure line.

Secret of Anglophone Empire: Child Abuse

  Englishmen are first in the world in regards to abusing their children. First in traitorous atrocity. It's at least hundreds of years old, being nothing more or less than english tradition at this point. The conservative position is torturing your own children until they break like dropped china.
 
 Abused children develop a pathological need for control. The more abused, the more obsessed they are with control; the more they're convinced that anyone with power over them will use it - can only use it - to torture them. They centre their entire lives around making a repeat of that abuse impossible, by being the ones with power.

 Thus, the english empire. The english children wanted it the most.
 "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - english thoughts coming out of an italian mouth.
 Nobody in england would be so gauche as to have to state it out loud, after all. Taken for granted. There isn't anyone who doesn't already know.  

 

 American war of insurrection? Black government power can't be used for anything other than abuse, hence, !!freedom!! Except of course, as with most abused children, there's no third position. There's only dominance and submission. Only the conqueror and the conquered. Perpetrator and victim.
 China is [trading] with america - so trump has to make sure america is the trade perpetrator, not the trade victim. It can't simply be trade. Due to the fact america is like this, china has to either ghost america or fight to be the perpetrator, rather than the victim. America's hallucinations become self-fulfilling prophecies.

 Racism: getting along is impossible. The options are segregration, dominance, and slavery. Abused children don't believe in segregation. You don't practice segregation in keeping mom and child apart. Hence, one race must be the master, and the other, the slave. No other options. The novelty here lies in thinking the slave position is the better option.

Matriarchy Creates Hot Thots

 In theory if all the men are coring all the women, then the men invest in all the children. Equally, at that. How Egalitarian.

 In practice, yes, they do invest in all children equally - equally the very bare minimum. Womanthink: "He doesn't know it's not his, he might as well pay in!" Realthink: "I know it's probably not mine, why would I bother?" Maybe the thots can guilt-trip them into providing food without individual sexual favours. Maybe. Provided the drug-fuelled orgies are suitably frequent. More likely he hunts more than he can eat anyway, so he may as well share before it rots. Likewise any sexual favours related to defence in tribal warfare is superfluous. Other than the bare minimum, everything a thot wants will have to be traded for, and she only has one thing a man can't do for himself, but better. 

 The women all know which children are theirs, and will sneakily try to advantage them. Meaning the darling son gets to watch his mother sexually persuade all his mentors to pretend to care about him. Even if a man were inclined to mentor freely, why wouldn't he withhold resources without sex up front?

 To start with, we can be sure there's an upper leisure class that doesn't have to hunt. The pretty bois getting shared around by the girls. The thots boink lesser boys for the privilege of being first to give a hottie his dinner. The girls are softly hareming themselves, and not only that, competing for the biggest load of the day.

 They also have to keep any particular strong or particularly charismatic* men completely satisfied at all times, or he will lead an uprising and forcibly convert the tribe to patriarchy. *(Manipulative, scheming, sneaky.)

 The rest, obviously the women will only use if they absolutely have to. And they absolutely have to, because it's not like the upper class is going to do any work. Why buy a cow when you get milk for free?

 Naturally, the hottest thots won't have to trade as much sex per unit of industry. Maybe some of the pretty bois even compete for her favour. I.e. get off their ass once in a while. The result of matriarchy is savagely vicious intrafemale competition.  

 

 Egalitarianism is matriarchy, matriarchy is Egalitarianism, and it's not particularly equal. Notably Fascism is fakeriarchy. Matriarchy for the lower classes, secret patriarchy at the top. Meaning even the king can't have a hot wife, lest anyone realize he's the king...

 

 "Want some of the seashell beads? Just hook up the beadmaker like I did lol." "He likes short hair lmao." By the time the lower ranks have floozied their way into having enough beads, they don't have time to equip their pretiboi with a spear. The guy demands so much tail from lesser women he barely has time to grind. If nobody lays with the beadmaker there will be no beads at all to ""share"" so have fun with that.

 Even if they really did have perfectly Egalitarian orgies regardless of how dumb, ugly, or lazy the men in question, in extremis the ugly bitches are getting left behind first. There are no atheists in foxholes and no matriarchs in a famine. If a man can simply switch his hole to a different one, he's not going to work very hard to protect any particular woman, any more than he will to protect some random kid. By making everything ""equal"" the women have made everything equally meaningless. A big undifferentiated mass. As previously, you can afford to dump some of the women; it merely means less infanticide than usual. If the biggest town thug beat some homely slag to death for fun, would anyone care? "Hit the pretty ones too if you like, just don't touch the face!" Who is going to stop him? A seriously unequal situation for lesser men, but, who cares, had sex, right?

 Matriarchy, for women, is a desperate fight for survival. When the inevitable turnaround rounds about...the Revolution you might say...the smart chicks teach their daughters to treasure the patriarchy. "Darling, honey...you don't want to go back. Marriage is wonderful." It's only men, specifically the tippy toppest men, who enjoy matriarchy and agitate for feminism. Cowed patriarch'd women do what they're told. These men agitate once soyciety is rich enough that it seems it won't instantly collapse. Or so doomed it doesn't matter. 

 

 Based on how women today act, I would say, near 100%, ergaster was matriarchal. You can see the implications, yes? A woman sometimes wants to [cook] for her man, if he's hot...yeah where do you think she got the food...hmmm....

 The killer app that made either erectus or sapiens was patriarchy. The women are still adapted to matriarchy, because patriarchy, the land of dowdy women, justice, and cooperation, doesn't particularly select for women's preferences. Though, as we can see, they should have. In sapiens, the ancient matriarchal habits awaken in situations of adultery, and of course prostitution. 

 After millions of years, homos were tired of women's shit and rocked them until they sat down and shut up. Men either immediately invented throwing to keep other men in line, or got fired up for owning things and immediately mastered fire. Selfishness wins again. 

 

 Being explicit: women get weak because they can afford to. They can pay for things with pregnancy, because they're not too cheap to meter like sperm. Thus, in a soycial species with conscious deliberation, they rapidly become only able to pay for things with sex. Of necessity, men become superior in every other way. 

 Note that barren women are of no value to anyone. At best, grandmothers can help their daughters choose who to bang and how much. Thus, in the modern world, with the pill, women have sex but their body gets signals indicating they're barren, and... 

 Let's also mention, up front, how the men who could reasonably know a child was his was least likely to have to pay for anything. If son's mom gets naggy he can bang the next girl over until she gets over it. The difference between matriachy and patriarchy: under one, women volunteer to be worthless servants, and under the other, a woman is forced to be a worthless servant so a man has a reason to care about her anyway. 

 I expect neanderthal was instead instructed in patriarchy by their harsh icy environment. As a result their (ugly) women didn't have ancestral blood memory of violent oppression. They never lived rich enough lives that women could afford to sit around and natter between bed rest sessions; the women had to contribute too, thus learned the value of private property.

 We've worked out why mortal women have hidden estrus. Under matriarchy, the dudes wouldn't do any work at all except when chicks were in heat. Thus, women had to be in heat ~all the time, and if that means an immense amount of infanticide, whelp. Thank the matriarchy. Hail Egalitarianism. The heavens grant us sylphium or the pill. Mammals have been all about getting mom's kids killed in job lots for 66 million years, ever since their purpose in life was to feed snakes and spiders.
 Menstruation has to be hidden by taboo or the guys will work out their cycle. Perhaps even menstrual synchronization is less about synchronization but more about throwing guys off the scent by changing the cycle. Frenemy shifting as deliberately incentivizing the women to change housing/bunking arrangements to fog things up. So the men aren't quite so lazy. 

 But hey, the absurdly intense zero-sum competition at least makes the top thots super hot. And everyone has a shot at her. 

 Some sapiens tribes, especially late-stage black governments, revert to matriarchy. When the patriarchs, who get to keep the shit they take, come and take all the matriarchy's shit, they also take their highly selected women. (And the ugly hoes all bite it as usual. Probably raped to death. Thanks matriarchy!) Giant influx of superstimuli. Vicious, demonic women who let all their responsible or farsighted men fall away. Now all your daughters are latent time bombs, and the less said about grandsons, the better.
 Miscegenation: just don't it. 

 Predictive history has some claims about how matriarchy is heavenly...kek. Lol. "Everyone can be an artist." Every 1% can be an artist, yes. The 99% runt lineages created by farming, however...
 In other news, the video here. https://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2025/10/your-should-be-studying-female.html
 Not wrong, per se, but not nearly IQ-y enough to get a full picture. Narrow vision.

Classes, Communication in Marriage, and Gene Turbulence

 

 Commoners are so inept they need their lord to micromanage their sexual relationships. This is where you get rigid cultural norms detailing every aspect of things like marriage. The local lord gets tired of hearing about how easy or difficult it is for every bloke to get it up. 

 "Speaking broadly here ofc but men are notorious for being clueless and thinking things are fine, going with the flow, etc, in marriages. And women are notorious for being ineffective at communicating *in terms men understand* when they're frustrated or unhappy"
 https://xcancel.com/st_louis_stan/status/1982531322599055446

 Since commoners are nonverbal, obviously they can't speak to their spouse. The lord has to do both the hearing and speaking for them. """marriage counselling""' Unless everything is decided already and there's nothing to talk about. Don't like the standard arrangement? Try being a nun. Or a tramp, I suppose. The lord is already underpaid. Don't expect bespoke artisanal marriage arrangements. Not that a commoner can read what I just wrote or adjust their expectations if they could.

 The upper classes' ability to speak to one another both makes the rules unnecessary and makes them immune. However, nobody has tried being honest about the chasm between the classes. Officially the uppers also have to pretend. They get tired of it, then break the rules for everyone. Conveniently the normies like being oppressed and tormented, and having all their marriages shattered for no reason is right up their alley. Otherwise you would find soyciety is run for the upper classes, whether you want it to be or not. What they want, they get. Everyone who might object, doesn't count.

 Depressing commoner fertility is highly eugenic. What they want and what's good for them and for society is all the same thing. Having strong marriage norms was dysgenic, which is what caused modernity and china in the first place. Ref: Hesiod, iron age. Unbreakable marriages make for good taxpayers in the short term, you see.

 Bonus: there are many more upper-class men than upper-class women. There simply aren't enough marriageable upper-class women to go around. The same thing happens with the roles reversed for working-class women. 

 If there aren't tons of monks, cads, or fatalities, some of the upper men have to marry bimbos. Which means you get bastards even if they happen to be born within wedlock. Plus all the bastards the rakes are mass-producing.

 Refresher: bastards are satanic due to the conflict between upper-class adaptations and lower-class adaptations. E.g. sometimes they're highly competent and nonverbal. E.g. you get charismatic ambitious speakers, who can barely dress themselves, let alone wisely lead anyone else. 

 Meanwhile the bimbos can barely handle being barefoot and pregnant. She gets banished to the kitchen to spare the poor lord her company. He can handle it - simply manipulate her - but why would he bother? She's a mere concubine or haremite, even if she's his only available hole. She notices the other lords' wives aren't like that, and, especially if there are one or two other bimbos in the circle, this causes further problems.

 If you don't send scores of working-class women to the nunneries, they run out of other working-class men to marry. Polygamy aside, criminals and vagrants are their only choice. Apparently there's a niche of women who enthusiastically embrace this option, so clearly there weren't enough women sent to nunneries. Hybristophilia is merely making a virtue of necessity, it turns out.

 Do I have to point out the connection with feminism, or can I take it for granted? Consider the difference in character between wannabe-upper-class feminism and hybristophobic feminism. Follow the money etc etc.

 

 P.S. Reminder: they keep saying killing women reduces the size of the next generation, but this is total crock. Women can have 10+ children, but only need 2 survivors. If you kill half the women, it only means there's twice as much food and space for the women left over and twice as many of their kids survive. If TFR is 1.5, that means one woman can cheerfully take the place of five other women and still be bringing the average up. 

 However, if you kill too many men, nobody is hunting or farming and it doesn't matter how many women you didn't kill, since all of their children starve. See also: the other side's large armies. 

 Men don't protect women out of some Darwinian imperative. It's a status thing. A man wants a pretty woman, therefore another man tries to take the pretty woman merely to spite him (status), therefore hot chicks become loot. If you can guard your loot it shows you're strong, then the other cowardly men don't bother you. If you let the loot fight obviously the result is [it gets looted]. Therefore the loot loses the ability to fight at all, and ugly loot is still loot; it can't rise above being loot, and it's still pseudo-loot. We can imagine a soyciety with monogamous upper classes, middle classes, and polygamous lower classes, but we do have to imagine. Owning treasure is a crime; commoners would never be permitted to keep, mutatis mutandis, more loot than lords.

Mortals vs. Logical Argument

 Arguing with a mortal is foolish at best. Do they even know what words mean? Can they do anything except what their lord or master tells them to do? You can't learn anything from them because they don't know anything, they can't learn anything from you because they're nonverbal, and even if they did learn something they would be unable to act on it.

 Some mortals might rise above, but then they're leftists. They do understand words, but they don't like them. They use fake words, because [fuck you dad]. The leftist evaluates arguments entirely based on what actions it justifies. Who cares if the argument is true, or even makes sense? They may understand some words, but words like [consistency] and [hypocrisy] are beyond them. Why go to all the effort to figure them out? It only restricts what actions they can justify.

 Did you notice how farcical this is? Nobody cares about the justifications, yet they mass-produce justifications anyway. If this isn't a colossal waste of time and effort, it's extremely well hidden. The only thing worse is trying to argue a leftist out of the fake justifications they don't care about or even care to understand.
 
 If you truly dunk on a leftist, utterly laying waste to their argument, their poolitical calculus doesn't change. They pick a new fake justification then do what they were going to do anyway.

 Before you argue with a poolitician, you first have to demand they prove they care about arguments. And you don't have to do that either, because if they cared about logic or the Truth they wouldn't be a poolitician or anywhere near poolitics.

 

 It's worse than a waste of time. When a leftoid spams their justification, they're telling you what they plan to do. If you wish to oppose them, you know where you need to stand and what tools you'll need while you're standing there.

 Argument is not one of the tools. Rhetoric only works when an authority deliberately grants favours to approved kinds of rhetoric. Nothing more than an orthodoxy shit test.

 Rightoids can't defeat leftoids only and solely because they don't want to. Normie sadomasochism. As with the leftoids, the justifications come second. Losing was the point, and if you make it difficult for them to lose, that only means they'll try harder and justify more cleverly until they lose as intended.

 

 Taxation is treason. Normies have declared war on you (and on each other). Declare war on them, or be a cuck. The peace is already suspended, the only question is whether you deliberately enslave yourself or not.

 [[[High-trust]]] is a joke. You're supposed to laugh. The light side is prey. They exist to be scammed and exploited. Being eaten is what they're for.