Social Science

Feminism Does Not Make People Happy by John Lilley

By John Mark

Sex & City author.PNG

In this article Why Are Marriage Rates Down? Study Blames Lack of “Economically Attractive” Men, we see one of the terrible effects of feminism given the reality of female hypergamy (women’s hardwired, biologically necessary drive to have sex, date and marry “up” with men that are higher on the status hierarchy than they are).

In 1950s America, most men were inherently “higher status” than most women (in the eyes of women’s hypergamy instinct) simply because most men had jobs and huge numbers of women (many or most) didn’t. Today, millions upon millions of people are lonely because almost all women are in the workforce and most college degrees are earned by women (most of the degrees earned by women are nonsense degrees, but it gives them a sense of status and in some cases does improve their earning power).

More women in the workforce and with college degrees + hypergamy = loneliness for millions more people than necessary. Today in America, most men don’t seem very high status to most women. We see this in dating studies as well - 80% of women are only interested in the top 20% of men. That’s somewhat of a reality regardless of time or place (hypergamy is always active), but feminism makes the challenge for both men and women harder by pushing the narrative that “women must be 50% of every high-status job”, affirmative action for women, etc. Women with mostly garbage degrees and/or who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action suddenly feel higher status than men working blue collar jobs. Then many of these women feel like “there are no good men” while the men feel like it is hard to get a woman attracted to them.

(The feminist narrative does not help men figure out how to be attractive to women either, because everything feminism tells men to do - submit to women, put them on a pedestal, etc. - is the exact opposite of what a man needs to do to be attractive to a woman. If this concept is new to you, study “game” - the science of making women’s hypergamy instinct tell her “I want this man”.)

When I got my masters degree, every consulting firm that helps people apply to top programs in this particular field states directly that if you are a woman or person of color it is drastically easier to get accepted to the good schools. I got into my target school anyway, because my test scores were elite level. But even in my program it was obvious that there were some women and people of color there that were not at the level of everyone else. The quality of the white men, of course, was consistently outstanding, because only the best made it in. The standards were significantly lower for women and people of color. Also, fewer women apply (men feel a stronger need to succeed because otherwise they are nothing, whereas any decently in-shape woman is valuable just because she has a womb), fewer blacks apply (lower avg IQ means smaller pool of men who even think of getting a masters degree and who can get decent test scores), and thus allowances must be made to meet diversity quotas.

The thing is, in order for a woman to feel “happy” with her man, she has to feel that he is higher status (stronger, more dominant, higher on the status hierarchy) than she is. Millions of these women have either a garbage degree that doesn’t increase their earning power but increases their sense of status, or a degree that does increase their earning power along with their sense of status. Either way, millions of these women end up lonely. They buy wine and take trips around the world and wonder where all the “good men” are. (By which they mean, men who make as much money as they do or have a college degree like they do.) These cat ladies are miserable. Buying more stuff does not make people happy, family does.

Feminism constitutes an attack on the family. It destroys the ability of millions of women and men to be happy, who in a non-feminist society would be much happier.

Case in point, recently the female author of “Sex and the City” - a hugely influential book and TV show that teaches women to have sex with a bunch of men and live the “glamorous city single life” - came out and said she regrets not getting married and having kids. Duh.

As Curt Doolittle says, these leftists and feminists are little children running with scissors.

Also of note in the article: Black women have an especially hard time finding economically attractive mates. The problem for black women is that a large percentage of black men who make decent money are more attracted to white, latino, or asian women than to black women. I do not say this to be mean, but because it is reality.

Reality is brutal folks. That’s why people lie about it. To feel better. But in the end it doesn’t help. The Western way (truth before face) is to tell the truth and then respect individuals and groups for doing the best they can with what they’ve got. Lying to make people feel better is what weak people and weak societies do (face before truth).

Hypergamy isn’t going away. And that’s a good thing. It’s a eugenic quality-control mechanism for humanity. A woman wants to mate with the best man she can get. That’s a reality. But when something like feminism teaches people lies that make millions of men and women unnecessarily lonely, we have a simple duty:


Our Enemies Have No Comeback for the Word "Cuck" by John Lilley

by John Mark

(Context: A new movie is coming out called “Cuck”. Yes, it is real. Apparently it tries to paint the “alt-right” - people who call leftists & centrists & civnats “cucks” - in a bad light, as dangerous etc. Obviously the word “cuck” hit a nerve with them and this is an attempt to do damage control and weaken the power of the word.)


The best they can do is "cucks are good, non-cucks are bad and dangerous."

Essentially, "Be a cuck because otherwise you're bad."

Their problem is, no one wants to be a cuck. The very concept of it disgusts people. It implies the worst form of weakness. Any man that is cuckolded has experienced one of the worst events possible in a man's life.

Extremely difficult or impossible to spin as a positive.

The word is also powerful because it carries within it the concept/assumption that something valuable and sacred is being destroyed. It hits the civnats/middle between the eyes with "you are losing something priceless because you're trying to be nice". And the Left doesn't know what to do with it because all their lying, their whole narrative, consists of pretending that they impose no costs on anything or anyone, and that anyone who opposes them is just being mean and unreasonable. Yet it is inherently reasonable to oppose being cucked.

Calling someone a cuck means “you are a disgusting weak loser who is passively accepting or encouraging the destruction of something valuable, precious and sacred (accepting the imposition of costs).” The pairing of the (accurate) accusation of causing destruction with triggering the disgust reaction is very powerful.

Arguing with the left will not defeat them, but discourse can and does affect others who are willing to learn. Our word "cuck" is kind of the equivalent of their word "racist", the difference being the word cuck carries much more truth content, and thus will gain efficacy over time, in contrast to the word "racist" which loses efficacy over time.

"Privilege" Is a "Commons" - Our Ancestors Invested In It For Us, and We Invest In It for Our Children by John Lilley

By Eli Harman, from his blog

(Note from John Mark: Eli Harman is one of the leading Propertarians, and he is the best of us at doing and explaining “full accounting” - identifying what is actually going on in any given human interaction, and fully accounting for all the costs imposed and benefits produced. I highly recommend his blog and his YouTube channel. You can also find some of his writings by searching for his name on


Critics of privilege allege that it is unearned, and therefore unfair. Well, part of that’s true, so far as it goes. I didn’t earn my privilege. I inherited most of it. But I do pay to maintain it. And I must pay to add to it, so that I may pass on more to my children.

Every time I’m extended privilege, I’m necessarily given the opportunity to abuse it.

When I go into a store, say, and am not followed around by security, I’m given the opportunity to steal. By foregoing that opportunity, I’m bearing an opportunity cost, and in so doing, paying for my privilege, and at the same time, maintaining it as a commons for others like me to enjoy.

When I am pulled over by a cop, and am polite and cooperative rather than belligerent and reactive, not only do I purchase a better outcome for myself, but for everyone who resembles me (in whatever way.)

Every time I seek to do my share, rather than to shirk; to pay my way, rather than to free ride; to give, rather than take; I pay into the privilege bank. I can only ever cash in a fraction of that. But if I can count on others like me to do likewise, we all come out ahead.

Now, if someone would be willing to bear those costs, but their coethnics are not, or are less willing than others, that’s unfortunate for them.

But if they demand the same privilege, it is they who are demanding something unearned, and that their coethnics have not demonstrated a willingness to pay for, or at least an equal willingness to pay for. They are demanding that others take a risk for their benefit; one that has not been shown to be a good risk, one worth the cost of taking.

If you want privilege, pay for its construction as a commons. But do not attack those who do and demand that they share their privilege with you, and offer nothing in return.

Now some might object that this is “collectivism” or “collective responsibility” and we should instead only judge anyone as individuals.

But that is not a reasonable objection nor a reasonable suggestion.

Now, if someone doesn’t want to be profiled, or discriminated against, there are three ways they can realistically attack this issue.

They can help make it easier (and therefore less costly) for me to distinguish them from less reputable elements by using signals (dress, mannerisms, speech etc…) which demonstrate that they are not a threat, that they are successful, reliable, etc…

They can increase the value of what they can OFFER me so that I have more incentive to invest in telling them apart.

Or they can suppress the misbehavior of the disreputable element within their community to reduce the NEED for me to tell them apart; to reduce the risk for me of failing to tell them apart.

It's Not FEAR, It's DISGUST - We Don't Fear the Left, We Find them Disgusting by John Lilley

By Curt Doolittle, from

SJW pink hair.png

Just Tell the Truth – They’re Disgusting

—“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as phobias. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—

The right is just too well mannered to say:

Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.”

I mean. Why can’t we just say that?

“You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________.” 

Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting.

(We have a purity instinct. They don’t.)

Higher Disgust Sensitivity

Conservatives (empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’.

That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by tests of reciprocity.

—”There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the wrong reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro

We Can’t We Just Tell the Left the Truth?

1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution.

2) We find you disgusting.
3) and it’s because you’re unfit.
4) and you are unfit because you lack agency.
5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated.
6) and as undomesticated still an animal.
7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that.

8) We cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency.
9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons.
10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you.

Because you’re disgusting.

Nationalism for All, Not Globalism - Here's Why by John Lilley

by Curt Doolittle

I do universal nationalism. (Note from John Mark - what Curt means by this is that the optimum order in the world is for each people group to be nationalistic in their own nations - no globalism.)

Why? Because natural law judges it as the only not-immoral means of cooperation. But that doesn't tell you much. Instead it's because "all men are distant relations cooperating to raise their people by the production of commons information, goods, and services, best suited to doing so despite our differences in rate of development bias in temperament and bias in distribution of abilities."

And if we construct states as extensions of the family, household, clan, tribe, and nation, we have elites who serve the interests of their people on their terms, and the smallest proximity-to-influence-and power that is possible. And we ameliorate our differences not through politics, power, and commons, but through trade of information, goods, and services.

If we do otherwise, under globalism, we put those people into competition, where there is one small global elite with interest in one another, and a host of common people suffering their rule.

So there is no system of rule superior to universal nationalism, with tolerance for migration of elites for trade purposes - but prohibiting them from local political enfranchise and social involvement, and public speech.

Tools Propertarians Use by John Lilley


By Ahmed Reda

A Propertarian is expected to (and must) use:

Mathematics (as a universal language of measurement)

Science (as a universal language of testimony)

Law and Economics (as a universal language of decidability)

Natural history (as a universal language of evidence)

Literature (as a universal language of meaning)

Mindfulness (as the means of preventing addictions).

And a Propertarian is expected to (and must) demonstrate Agency in pursuit of political power, instead of fantasizing about it.

What Was the Root Cause of Cuckiness in Western Civilization? by John Lilley


A commenter: “The trend shows the less Christian we've become the more cucky we've become. Look at the West in the early 20th century. Full of strong men and almost entirely Christian. Look at now, over 50% atheist and weak. The destruction of the Christian Family is not by accident. They knew it was gonna erode our culture and national identity along with it.”

That's a correlation. Correlation can equal causation, or it might not. One could just as easily look at that correlation and say "Christianity was too weak to defend itself, and too weak to defend the West."

Yes the left hates Christianity and has purposefully sought to destroy family values. But many Christian churches have allowed themselves to be infected by leftism, and were not strong enough to defend themselves. At the same time, other churches have been staunch defenders of family values. But even a huge number of those churches have been, and still are, hesitant to boldly call out what needs to be done to save Western Civilization (no more non-white immigration, because they vote 70% left, unlike whites who have voted majority right wing in every election for decades).

Walk into a dozen churches in your city and implore the pastor to use his next sermon to talk about the need to stop all non-white immigration because it’s politically suicidal for the grassroots Right and for traditional Christianity. None of those pastors will do it. Cuz they’re cucks.

Meanwhile I’m out here preaching the truth on this every day, but people have the gall to say it’s bad that I’m calling out the cuckiness problem in Christianity. It’s amazing to me, how some Christians will say “I prefer a Christian leader to someone who’s more agnostic”, when none (or only a tiny few) of the Christian leaders are saying what needs to be said about immigration and the lie of that all people groups are equal. The current crop of Christian leaders are not, and will not be, at the vanguard of the winning right. Because Christianity has a cucking problem. Not all Christians do, but many do, and almost all Christian leaders do. This cannot be denied.

What you will see is some new Christian leaders arise, who are not leaders in the current Christian status quo, but will fill the demand in the market for non-cucked Christian leadership both politically and in the church.

Now, let’s answer the question, “What is the root cause of the cuckiness in the West?” This is not just a Christianity problem. I never said it was. (I’m just responding to Christians who try to say Christianity doesn’t have a cuckiness problem.) It’s not just Christianity - white people of Western European descent regardless of religiosity have had a cuckiness problem. Thankfully, the data shows that we’re learning pretty quickly that extending trust to those who are not like us and do not operate in reciprocity, was a mistake. (See my video Conservatives Reaching Consensus for more details on this data.)

The root cause of the cuckiness, as far as I can tell, is not primarily a Christianity vs. secularism issue, but has more to do with white people of Western descent in general falling for an understandable deception that feels good: the deception that everyone is equal. The deception that everyone else in the world is or can be like whites of Western European descent. The deception that it is possible to have "an aristocracy of everyone" (full-franchise democracy) - and include millions of third world immigrants in that "everyone" - without everything going to hell. This equality deception was purposefully pushed by Franz Boaz etc. (the usual suspects), but white people of Western European descent, both Christians and non-Christians, fell for it en masse, because we were susceptible to it.

Why were we susceptible to it? Because

a) we assumed everyone else in the world was like us, or could be like us (we take Western Civilization for granted not realizing it is the result of a unique combination of instincts and best practices built into whites of Western European descent over millennia by unique events in our history), and

b) for whites of Western European descent it is sort of possible to have a democracy without everything going straight to hell. (Because as we see from the data, most whites in America have voted right wing in every election for decades.) Introduce millions of third world immigrants that vote 70% left, however, and the road that democracy paves toward communism accelerates drastically.

So the root cause goes beyond Christianity vs secularism, because we see the problem affect both a large segment of white Christians and a large segment of white non-Christians. Christianity, depending on how it is taught, can (and often does) add another layer of susceptibility (or an excuse) if the universalist passages are cherry-picked. But we also see some non-Christian whites turning "equality" into its own religion. The root cause for both sides is the equality deception, the deception that other people groups are like western Europeans and that an aristocracy of everyone is possible when including millions of third-world immigrants.

No more lies. People groups all around the world are not equal; they differ significantly on all sorts of extremely important metrics such as average IQ, average testosterone level, average degree of neoteny, level of ethnocentrism, etc. Our attempt at an aristocracy of everyone has turned into a frenzy of parasitism of the rest upon the West. Let’s abandon our failed experiment, learn our lesson, and win.

What Is GSRRM? (The Female/Left Persuasion Technique) by John Lilley

Gossip ladies.jpg

By Curt Doolittle, from

What does GSRRM stand for?

The Female (herd) competitive strategy by circumventing argument by use of undermining, poisoning the well, reputation destruction by use of (G)ossiping (S)haming, (R)allying, (R)idicule, (M)oralizing, (P)sychologizing,(U)ndermining, (R)eputation destruction. and solving for (F)ace or consent – instead of Male (pack) strategy by factual argument solving for truth regardless of face or consent. In other words female “feels” using rejection or approval vs male “reals” of truth of falsehood.

(R)eputation destruction.
…and solving for…
(F)ace, approval, or consent – instead of truth.

Men generally make an argument and let the argument do it work. We use shaming if necessary in response to GSRM. Whereas the feminine cognitive strategy is to rely entirely on GSRM as a means of denying or suppressing the argument rather than refuting it.


Leftist speech is not protected speech.

It is always either:

Fraud – promising benefits that will never be delivered at costs that will never be disclosed.

Slander(oral) and Liber(written) Defamation – malicious lies designed to slur, marginalize, and dehumanize rivals or critics.

Obscenity – Transgression of taboos for the purpose of subversion, demoralization, and/or parasitic profit.

Blasphemy – Attacking the sacred for the purpose of subversion, undermining, the destruction of intergenerational wisdom, and the erosion of necessary and helpful moral rules.

False Alarm : relentlessly fear-mongering and sensationalizing imaginary threats as a means of obscuring/justifying real ones.

Abrahamism : False Promise

Pilpul (Sophism) – Overloading. Misdirecting. Obscuring. Disputation by sheer volume and variety of fallacy to overwhelm resistance to false and pernicious conclusions. Can include sophism, pseudoscience, fiction, fictionalisms, or supernaturalists.

Critique (Undermining) – Criticism of a straw man to undermine without proposing an alternative or superior solution open to equal analysis and criticism. Includes loading, framing, obscuring, suggesting, fictionalizing, denying, deceiving and outright lying.

Heaping of Undue Praise – Advancing a hero in order to create an appeal to authority rather than advancing an argument to test whether it survives application to the context.

Propaganda – narrative manufacturer by sheer repetition to fill the “marketplace of ideas” with bullshit congenial to the gatekeepers who control the broadcast chanels and media.

Psychoanalysis (Psychologising) – pseudo-scientifically pathologizing legitimate disagreement as a means of obtaining and exercising social control and marginalizing and silencing dissenting voices and views.

Feminine Coercion – Rallying, shaming, gossip, disapproval, moralizing, mockery, ridicule, nagging, scolding, and character assassination to raise the emotional and social cost of disagreement and dissent without addressing their causes.

Or some combination of these and other categories of parasitic, deceptive, and destructive speech.

In western history GSRRM was largely illegal or punishable by direct violence between men. And laws against “scolds” -women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace. During the democratic and marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony). Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM.

GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

This is why the abrahamic (jewish in particular, or semitic in general) means of countering greco-roman-european argument by using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism), and critique (undermining) is so effective: it is how our females talk to us, and because of our high trust, we are either genetically or culturally vulnerable to it – where other lower trust people are not. And we are easily undermined politically and academically because our females naturally find greater ‘affinity’ with semitic non-argument (religion, postmodernism, feminism, denialism) than with european reason science truth testimony.

Male European – Truth over Face, Regardless of cost.
Male everywhere else – some degree of face over truth.
Female everywhere – nearly universal face over truth.

Yet it is truth over face that is the reason for the ‘western miracle’ – why the rest is so different from the rest.

The middle east uses the female reproductive strategy and the far east and the west use the male reproductive strategy, with the far east using face over truth to defend hierarchy and the west using truth before face to defend the market of the peerage. And the middle east today just as in the age of the greeks, just lying and shaming all truth without end.

The world is not complicated. It is our lies that make it seem so.

The Right's Only Possible Strategy After a Century of Lies by John Lilley

By John Mark


(Riffing off a Curtpost where he said, "The degree to which the right is verbally inept versus the left, is equilibrated by the degree to which the left is physically inept versus the right.")

It is much (much) easier to speak in GSRRM (Gossip Shame Rally Ridicule Moralize - the language of the Left) and selective accounting (cherry-picking data and effects of an action or policy) than to seek truth, speak truth, and perform full accounting. Add to that the fact that the truth in the social/human realm is insulting, discouraging, and depressing to the great majority of humanity.

That's why the Right appears verbally inept compared to the Left. I wouldn't call it ineptness, I'd simply call it difficulty. One side is gliding down a verbal ski slope dragging humanity with it into dysgenia, the other side is trying to climb a rocky verbal mountain dragging humanity upwards eugenically.

This is why it's come to violence. Imagine you're the Winning Right's CEO and chief marketing officer. Your job is to "sell" the concept that most of humanity is low-IQ and immoral and that's why they fail. Meanwhile the competition's job is to "sell" the concept that everybody's equal and the most successful group just cheated. As CEO of the Winning Right, you'd realistically just have to say, "Our only shot at survival is for the minority of humans who can handle our message to keep the competition away from us by force. Otherwise they are more numerous and they will devour us out of hatred and envy." Thankfully the Right is way better at force than the competition. It's what puts the winning in Winning Right. Truth is relatively unpopular, so without force to protect the truthful, we would enter another dark age.

This is also why it's so important, once we separate from or conquer the liars, that we punish public lying. The lies tickle the ears of vast masses of people and mobilize them against the truth-speakers.

The truth will win. But only by force.

Note: This website contains analysis and predictions. Nothing in this post or on this website should be considered a call to violence. I advocate for peaceful separation of Right and Left in America. At the same time, I warn that it is very unlikely to be peaceful, and I predict that the Right will win in a conflict scenario.

We Work By DATA - Not Wishful Thinking, Feelings, Propaganda, Ideology, or Popular Sentiment by John Lilley

By Curt Doolittle

So you know, Stefan Molyneux is pretty good at the data, and he's even better at using his podium and pulpit to interview the thought leaders who know the data. (Which is hard for normies to do.)

So, unlike counter-signaling commenters, some of us work ENTIRELY by the data.

Sales Data
Dating Site Data
Academic and job Test data
Marketing data.
Fashion Rotation Data
Vocabulary and Speech pattern data. (french are most hostile, german most honest, we all know who lies the most)
Normative data (Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in the social sciences.)
Driving record data
Accident and police record data
Fire and emergency services data.
Legal Data (court records).
Property Record Data
Births, christenings, marriages, and death data.
Class Rotation data
Credit and Debt data
Economic Data.
Monetary trace data.
Telephone, messaging, internet traffic data.
Demographic and census data.
Moving data
Voting Data.
Cognitive Science Data
Medical Data
Genetic Data
Archaeological Data

Survey Data (almost useless but useful for debunking majoritarian pretenses.)

And that's just the beginning.

Now, most people use propaganda, literature, philosophy, ideology, popular sentiment, nonsense, or worse, theological nonsense. They use cherry picking. But very rarely do they seek to understand, then seek to falsify, then seek to change their frame.