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. 

Minor: Great Amusment of Moses

 I forgot the name of the habiru. Hopefully that was indeed the name I was looking for... I stumbled upon some prime comedy while I was looking it up.

 "Few people dispute that Moses was a reality in history, whether as an individual or a group of individuals, but there are several perplexing aspects of the man. First, he has an Egyptian name (as do many of his relatives). Second, he seems to spend a large amount of time among a non-Hebrew people, the Midianites, where he marries and seems to learn the Yahweh religion, and some of its cultic practices, from the Midianites." 

 From the horse's mouth: moses was neither genetically nor culturally jewish. Like he was originally named akhenaten or something, and was banished from egypt for some mysterious reason.

 Such strange suppositions. I wonder where they came from? 

 "Exodus claims that a "diverse group of peoples" left Egypt with Moses. Who were these?"

 Truly weird beliefs. I wonder if the account in exodus was deliberately distorted for poolitical reasons, but not competently enough to a) disguise the altered pixels or b) hide the real story from an invested investigator. Like it was done by the god of losers, or suchlike. 

 What an idea. 

 If, for your sins, you are familiar with the modern amarnites, tab over to la wik and ctrl-f amarna. 

The Left vs. Left-less Pendulum

 Proximately your woke videos happened because it was unthinkable to curse out a yale professor when you went.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hk_yhi3-prw

 If university isn't supposed to be safe, then the profs can curse out the students. If the students can't cuss out the professors in return, then they will poolitically agitate to reverse that situation. "Let the low places be raised, and the hills brought down." And lo, it was so. Revolution, one pi, 180 degrees! Now students can refer to professors, to their faces, as coarsely as they like, while the profs have to walk on eggshells.

 Kto kogo. Who, whom.

 There was always a whom. The question is merely who shall have the [doing unto].

 Being explicit: if nobody can curse anyone out, or everyone can curse everyone out, like they're all adults or something outrageous like that, it's stable. You don't get this oscillating pendulum.

 Aside: I would also like to surface the idea of strangers vs. friendlies. If the students are guests of the university then they need to have guest rights and guest obligations. If they are not guests then they can't be strangers. They should live at the university, not for 4 years, but for the foreseeable future. This bizarre play-pretend hybrid is illness.

 

 Likewise, marriage was outlawed because fornication was outlawed. The way to legalize fornication was to destroy the legality of the family. Drugs get outlawed to get around the inability to prosecute drug addicts for crime.  

 

 Ultimately, fornication was outlawed in the first place precisely because such a law is unjust. Students were forbidden from cussing out their profs precisely because unearned respect is unjust. 

 The purpose of these institutions is to farm injustice. They are merely changing the colours of the injustice. Who, whom. 

 Ultimately, Karma has some words to say about this. Which is why universities are failling. Which is why !!america!! is failing.

 

 Ascended aside: p.history draws the connection between bureaucracy and anarcho-tyranny. They attack the law-abiding because criminals are scawwy but attacking either seemingly justify their fake jobs.

 Doesn't draw the connection with irresponsibility and lack of discipline, however. Bureaucracies don't go like this when they have to spend their own money.
 If the market didn't demand injustice, injustice would not be supplied. E.g. students would stop attending bureaucratized universities. I would personally start a [consumer reports]-style magazine to let students know how badly the universities were corrupting themselves, and I would make bank letting them avoid the bad ones.
 Instead, working as intended. The magazine is redundant; the students already know. They merely like the corruption. 

 In a sense, it is true: Revolution is the result of injustice. Except the point isn't to correct the injustice, it's about having a turn, pun intended. "You got to oppress last time! It's my go!"
 In a society, as opposed to a soyciety, you don't get Revolution. That's the purpose of lionizing property rights. No kto, no kogo, no Revolution. If it were legal to try Capitalism for the first time, I would do that instead of the magazine. Or rather, it would be redundant, because personnel is policy. If there were non-negligible demand for justice, it would already be legal, and Capitalism already tried. I would already be living there. 

 Anyone who desires justice doesn't need to convince the mortals to permit it. They only need to convince Karma that they truly desire justice. Rather than doing dumb things like blogging, you should exploit the mortals. They like being exploited anyway. Trade tips on how to hack their intentionally broken systems for your own personal enrichment; either without being caught or without the mortals noticing anything wrong at all.

Minor: Scion's Shadowen

 I mistakenly attributed it to wishsong. The names are still atrocious, but anyway it's the dreams in scion of shannara.

 

Humans wandered the ashen devastation in packs, more animals than men. They rent and tore at each other; they howled and shrieked. Dark shapes flitted among them, shadows that lacked substance yet had eyes of fire. The shadows moved through the humans, joining with them, becoming them, leaving them again. They moved in a dance that was macabre, yet purposeful. The shadows were devouring the humans, he saw. The shadows were feeding on them.

The vision shifted. He saw himself then, a skeletal, ragged beggar facing a cauldron of strange white fire that bubbled and swirled and whispered his name. Vapors lifted from the cauldron and snaked their way down to where he stood, wrapping about him, caressing him as if he were their child. Shadows flitted all about, passing by at first, then entering him as if he were a hollow casing in which they might play as they chose. He could feel their touch; he wanted to scream.



And abruptly Par found himself recalling the dreams that Allanon had sent, the visions of a nightmarish world in which everything was blackened and withered and life was reduced to something barely recognizable. Reddened eyes blinked like bits of fire, and shadow forms flitted through a haze of ash and smoke.

 

 (Par ultimately found his bosom companions; eagle, birdie, hole-in-one, poached, and stir-fry. The cooking is bad though; his brother is named colic, or coll for short. Don't worry, the two passages above are by far the best part of the whole series.) 

Examples of Definition Success

 Bro did some set 0s.

https://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2025/10/no-magical-third-categories.html

 It's not how I would define [concentration camp], but the definitions are perfectly valid. He illustrates how the handles fit together neatly with no gaps. He successfully implies that trying to put new handles crosswise would only stop you from grasping the existing handles. 

 Using this system, I would say hitler didn't run any concentration camps, only prisons. As far as I know, likewise the gulags and FDR's japanese camps were prisons. The gulags would kill you sometimes, but mainly when stalin had it out for you personally. Individual special cases.