Western Civilization

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.

Freedom of Speech or Truthful Speech? Which Should We Defend? by John Lilley

By Curt Doolittle

(Note from John Mark: One of the most important shifts the grassroots Right must make is from defending free speech - which contains the seeds of its own destruction because it allows our enemies to rally masses of people to the cause of parasitism and destruction of our civilization - to defending truthful speech and punishing false public speech. This codifies the #1 secret of Western Civilization - truth over face, speaking the truth regardless of consequence, whereas every other culture puts face over truth - into law.)

Freedom of Speech Under Propertarianism?

—“Could you offer a brief explanation of how freedom of speech would be codified under Propertarianism?”—The Last Scout II @last_scout2

Think of it this way. What can you testify to in court? What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons).

(Note from John Mark: Holding people accountable - punishing them if they lie - in matters of the commons would produce a massive breakthrough in our civilization, similar to the scale of the discovery and application of the scientific method.)

So …

When engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends etc), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or irreciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech.

Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades.

The reason is that government is violence.

You the only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE.

Now what does this mean in practice?

It means that there are three common sense tests:

Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?

Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?

Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim, or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding you claim, or are engaging in deceit?

In Scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent? (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency).

In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bais, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits, and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong?

It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by roman roads.

Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking. Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as christianity and islam were to antiquity.

In this sense we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech.

Which is exactly how the Enemy Left operates: Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality.

Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way.

Curt Doolittle

"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 Propertarianism.com.)


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.

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.