Aurini Davis posted “Game Theory and the Marriage Matrix” on 11 June 2015. It is pithy and clear in what’s wrong with marriage, except it stops well short of describing the problems of women’s nature and men’s value. I want you men to look in the mirror and see the whites of your eyes. That is the home front.
It may be that Aurini is sensibly accommodating women and blue pill men as his base to draw them into enlightenment by degrees. I have no such concerns here. The long-winded comment I began at his site has gestated into this post delivered instead on my site.
Aurini must get treated better by women than I do and have a higher opinion of them. I wonder what sort of experiences could underlie the tone of his post. He is appealing to their rational self-interest over the long run: “I pity young maidens today; reality demands that they possess wisdom of a crone. Remember, ladies: it’s later than you think.”
Is that sane, to expect women to be responsible?
I could sense throughout what smells to me like blue pill taint. Again, that might be kindness of outreach for all I know. Saying that the woman ‘Organizes the family’ instead of ‘Administrates the family’ was a little thing, and I thought I was just being picky about word choice. Deeper into the article, item 3 clearly made the pitch to female cooperation. It is important to note that female cooperation is only unavailable because we subsidize other choices through government wealth transfers at our expenses.
Here is item 3:
3. Marital Rape: what was once a duty of marriage is now a liability (note: the act of forcing yourself on your wife would have been considered assault in years gone by, but she was still in violation of her vows by refusing her husband: violently forcing yourself on your wife was never endorsed by society).
I take intellectual issue with the whole construction. I’m not sure if Aurini is saying marital rape is a new and possibly perverse concept or not, but I’ll be sure to say it is here. I also take issue with the expression that violent force by husbands on recalcitrant and deadbeat wives was ‘never endorsed by society’. The term society as used is collectivist and nebulous, and a harmony of superlative power among both women and men is not possible. We are not equals to the point of having incompatible social norms. Additionally, there is the possibility of using merely moderate force, but that is a luxury of superior power and control. Rulers rule by the authority of greatest violence. If a man was ever king of his castle, he held the superlative violence there in play. The more clearly husbands command superlative violence over their families, the more surely wives will be assets to their husbands and society as a whole.
Contrary to what seems to have been asserted, there is no society without husbands having recourse to violent force against their wives. Obviously to all not histrionic feminists, neither is there society if those commanding superlative violence are generally wanton, to wit lack culture. The use of appropriately measured force might be violent in extreme cases, but women are completely attuned to the superlative capacity for violence and the will to use it among those she can directly observe in the present moment. The damages and casualties of violence are minimized if sovereignty is jealously guarded by patriarchs in a patriarchy. That would entail bitch slapping bitches. Sorry.
There is no government without superlative violence, but there is superlative violence without government. Activities in the latter condition relating to the use and abuse of pecking order that wild animal humans must have performed I call the churn. Conquest is what you do with it. You wish to defer to women? Might as well defer to chimpanzees.
You know the popular sayings: “Hell hath no fury like a man scorned,” and “Woman is man’s best friend,” and “Mother knows best.” We know that women will support the freedom of women to cut off men’s penises if we allow it. Women are always interesting in acquiring relative social power by deception, and the expense of others to the point of psychological or physical abuse means nothing to them unless there is a recognized potential for authoritative objection. Women do not restrain themselves. Domestic violence is not necessarily a problem; it is sometimes a solution!
Happy endings are so happy.
As for history, liberated women are drones of the establishment that exaggerate and lie. As much as there appears to be a kernel of truth, why should men not embrace the stewardship of superlative violence? If men are not making forceful decisions that determine the fate of society, then women are. I expect that when men were most manly about being husbands, there were no government laws about using physical force against wives because patriarchs imposed some unwritten cultural understanding on both wives and husbands.
I don’t know how truthful this is:
http://www.womensafe.net/home/index.php/domesticviolence/29-overview-of-historical-laws-that-supported-domestic-violence . Not my job to hunt down every malicious argument from my enemy. I warned you about the Voluminously Denying the Antecedent argument.
How is a man to enforce his rights to sex? If a women does not offer her sex on demand from nubile virginity, does she offer enough value for the trouble of being the mental adult of their union? or the sucker taxpayer paying her tab by compulsion? Do woman have rights to the fruit of productive mens’ labor if those men are not getting laid by said women? Only if they are domesticated animals or enslaved humans. If women are not going to put out as wives within wedlock, they are obligated by the laws of nature and physics to provide casual communal sex to producer men in payment for the privilege of living above the animals.
Obviously, Western civilization is terminal. Men have tucked their tails between their legs. At least we can rejoice in the wealth of space in which those tails are tucked, since their balls now reside in the purses and panties of women.
There is logically no such thing as marital rape of a wife by a husband!
The whole goddamn point for the husband to ever rationally consider marriage is the ownership of the wife’s sexual value. He cannot rape what he owns by contract, and that is the point of redefining marriage in the minds of the dumb masses who vote. Can a husband inappropriately abuse and batter his wife? Yes, it’s possible and happens, but so what. Let’s abolish food because of food poisoning. Whether or not sex is involved with physical harm is a moot (irrelevant) point within wedlock. They call it wedlock because it locks a couple into a double yoke by oath. The bitch who follows is supposed to be the one with the vagina, guys.
Of course the wife is entitled to liberal sexual access to the husband, though not necessarily on demand, but it is not in a woman’s nature to want sex from a dependable man, so that is typically not an issue after five or so years into marriage.
The problem with item 3 is that the husband tacitly has no redress and is powerless for his fine nobility of fairness. Is that not how propaganda works its magic? There’s that emotional imperative. The husband has two plausible authorities by which he might get redress. The inferior choice in terms of social design is government. Bureaucrats and women always want more at the expense of their betters.
Compare the previously given duties of the husband:
The duties of husband and wife are complementary.
- Provides for his family, even if he has to work in the coal mine.
- Protects his family, from physical danger as well as economic turmoil.
- Makes love to his wife on a regular basis; doesn’t indulge in flings or pornography.
- Acts fairly and decisively as the head of the household.
Notice the verb choices describing what the husband does as duty: (1) provides, (2) protects, (3) makes [love], (4) acts [fairly and decisively]. Women don’t exactly want the man to make love; they want to be conquered by a man with emotional and social value. If a woman wants to be cherished, she has some obligation to be amenable to intimacy. Women require romance as much as their immediate options will allow regardless of consequences, which is to say women are amoral about sex and manipulation unless constrained a priori. I think provisioning and protection are demonstrations of cherishing a wife. To handle the responsibility of cherishing a wife like a man is to be a laborer that raises his family’s living standards above the animals, and that requires privilege at the expense of the wife’s animal freedoms, and the wanton freedoms of bureaucrats too.
The last bullet point should be at the top, and it should start with the word ‘Governs’. What is completely missing in Aurini’s post is the benefit of individualized governances of females redounding to other men who cooperate in making civilization possible. Let’s boldly identify the people who count on the merits: us men of high culture!
It takes a patriarchy.
Quite frankly, women don’t matter so much as assets except as baby and home makers.
Other men matter more than your wife or mother!
Civilization happens because of large scale cooperation, and that cooperation requires regulation by patriarchs protecting each other’s supremacy over a shared political jurisdiction. If you are a civilized man acting civilized and being civilized in a civilization, the men you never will meet have done more for your welfare (which is not mere existence that could be happy or miserable) than all the men you will have ever met who themselves have done more for your welfare than all the women you will ever met. An amazing level of cooperation is the essence of civilization and civilized men, but not women.
By human nature, property rights come from men not women. Natural rights in the union of a man and a woman require that the husband owns the wife. Women always conform to superlative authority. Currently, Western women are de facto property of the establishment through government proxy.
Rape is impossible without law, order, and property rights, and that state of affairs and morality only comes by the hard work of men acting in cultural concert against the desires of women in every way except the results. Men have control of the very definition of rape unless they abdicate like cowards.
Put aphoristically, women who are not well-regulated property aren’t worth shit, except for lawless sex the way wild animals do it. Women have an environmental side effect of abolishing wealth and culture when given executive choice with any systemic consequences. In my jargon, women have a type of socio-ecological gravity called packism. They are adapted to living in wild human packs with intrigues and without culture, but sure they prefer the plenty of the tax farm. It takes one patriarch to make a woman a lady worth having and a second to make her a success of a lady. Having any patriarchs at all requires a critical and clean mass of high culture men of the right stuff to bond as fellow patriarchs and make a patriarchy.
The only way women matter as much as men is if we live like animals. I am too good to accept or want that. The way we live socially is like animals pretending were are not. Stop assuming that is normal! Pussy is property and pussy is politics. Red pill is not an end state but a process and a journey so long as the matrix permeates our social environment. If we can’t speak frankly as men online, where can we organize to defend ourselves from this vile feminine agency turned upon us and animated by our own economic vitality?
The elites will destroy us men any way they can. One way is to remove any hope of vaginal therapy and supportive respect from women as the complement of men. If you don’t own your vocabulary, you don’t own your mind.
Repetition and alteration can be useful. We each have to work these ideas out for ourselves. My intent is to adopt, evaluate, perfect, and offer valuable ideas in a peer-reviewed community of men who want answers to who they are and how they should live, and who are doing the same. Aurini Davis, the late Rob Fedders, and many others have contributed greatly to what we know that globalists don’t want us to know. It takes a patriarchy not a collegiate of yes men.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 12 June 2015