A Tale of Two Cities


The re-appearance of our brother Artisanal Toad has me reading some of his original work on polygamy. Toad’s contention, that polygamy is prescribed by religious scriptures, isn’t something I have standing to challenge. Maybe he’s right. Even so, I thought I’d put down some brief attempts to argue that it’s a bad idea anyway.

Where did marital monogamy originate? The smart peeps contend that it was an idea that took hold in classical antiquity.

Meanwhile, what is arguably the single most striking feature of Greco-Roman marriage has failed to raise any curiosity at all – the fact that Greeks (after Homer’s heroes) and Romans were strictly (serially) monogamous regardless of their socio-economic status, just like modern westerners but unlike most other early civilizations. While our own experience might tempt us to take this for granted, we must ask how this principle came to be so firmly established even among (customarily polygynous) elites – the egalitarian ethos of the city-state is a plausible candidate –, how it co-existed with de facto polygyny facilitated by sexual congress with chattel slaves (Scheidel forthcoming c), and how it became entrenched in Christian doctrine that survived the fall of the Roman state and ensured its survival and spread in later European (and subsequently world) history. In this strangely neglected area, ancient history has a vital contribution to make to our understanding of the global evolution of marriage.

(Scheidel 7)

It’s worth noting that matrimonivm – the Roman word for marriage, is coherent with a monogamous standard. The singular mater is the root, rather than a plural or indefinite matres.

In a popular lecture, Gregory Aldrete alludes to the possibility that monogamy became codified in the Roman monarchy, and revived in the late republic, as an attempt to maximize the output of labor (Aldrete). This makes intuitive sense. If the Romans borrowed from the Greeks, as Scheidel implies, it was likely because they had an example of monogamy, and knew that it worked well in this regard.

Consider the case of the soldier, who is asked to leave his wife and children to go on a long ocean voyage, and fight in the Punic wars. Would that man be more or less likely to obey orders, knowing that he might return to find himself responsible for a bunch of children, sired by other men? We can imagine that he would have taken at least a small amount of comfort in an implicit contract.

If your wife fucks Chad while you’re away, the state will kill them both, and we’ll hold Chad’s fortune, which becomes yours upon your return…

In times of peace, the duty to pass and execute sentence was up to the paterfamilias. If a man found his wife or daughter (be the daughter married or simply eligible) banging a playa, then he could choose to kill or pardon. One hitch: he had to apply the law to both parties. (Edwards)

The efficiency argument has a contemporary example. Consider the output of my kin, who live on the collective farm. What has been the relative results of polygamous society in Colorado City, comparable to other, similar communities? Most of them live on welfare, and a large number of the children of polygamous unions are afflicted by terrible, rare genetic diseases.

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 12.37.36

Colorado City is a dismal failure, for the same reason Rome was an unparalleled success. These are the end results of polygamy and monogamy.

Strategy and The Historical Imperative


Down below, Derek writes (to Heidi):

I’ll agree that there are pragmatic people who care only about the message/results (Boxer appears to be one of the few), but these are rare.

Part of the mission of this blog is to attempt to get younger men to think strategically. That aside, I was wrong when I wrote the reply you are here replying to.

Originally, Dalrock would annoy and harass feminists. He did a good job at this. I realized, this week, that he has not done this in quite some time (the better part of a year, by my estimation). Instead, Dalrock has recently devoted much of his time and energy to tearing down antifeminist men: Jason, Bnonn, you, the boys at Warhorn, and the list goes on…

When he’s not doing this, he’s pontificating on chivalry and courtly love, which, incidentally, he’s largely plagiarizing from Joseph Campbell.


Why is he doing this? I have some ideas, but they’re mere speculation.

If Dalrock were devoting the bulk of his time and energy to writing critical theory about feminism, I’d support him, even if he turned out to be a liberal bulldyke from the big apple. In fact, he’s not. He’s wasting time fighting my friends, and that opens him up to criticism, no matter what his identity might be.

I think I could make an ironically good argument for why this is a bad idea, but that’s a post for another time.

I’d be very interested in discussing that, whenever you get around to writing about it. I think it’d be productive and interesting.

On Depression


It is sadly common for men to become despondent in this day and age. I wish I could write something that was adequate for those who are stuck in a deep, all-consuming depression. I can’t. Those men ought to seek out advice from a qualified psychoanalyst or medical professional. I am neither. That disclaimer out of the way, I thought it might help to explore the topic here.

Inasmuch as depression is a universal problem, the effects of the problem as it exhibits in the lives of men admit a masculine solution. I argue that a significant factor in depression is the feeling of helplessness, and this is rooted in a constellation of inborn traits which are suppressed by industrial society: namely, the masculine drive to overcome.

Men possess a need to feel as though they are succeeding in a hostile world. In this society, where bodily survival is as simple as signing on the dole, the physiological work of surviving is short-circuited to such an extent as to make the psychological reward nonexistent.

One of the commonly constructed byproducts of overcoming, which has been appropriated by advanced industrial society, is acceptance by women. In earlier generations, the most common token of this type was marriage, signified by a ring and a title. Marriage, having now been shorn of all its inherent meaning, is in the process of being replaced by playa culture. Today’s token of overcoming is as likely displayed by having lots of sexy conquests.

As a corollary, this is why I scoff at the cruxtoids and their fake boomer morality, which is often pointed at young brothers, in a cynical attempt to AMOG. The critics of Roosh’s young disciples were part and parcel of the redefinition of the social contract. These faggots now pretend to look down their noses at young men, who have no other way to overcome, thanks to the social changes they spearheaded.

A young man enters playa culture — fucking lots of hoez — because there is now no other way this young man can feel like a man.

  • He can’t get married without losing his life’s work.
  • He can’t join a men’s club, because none exist.
  • He can’t start a business, without hiring a quota of wimminz.
  • He can’t “go west” and be left alone.
  • He can’t even join the military any longer, without being forced into close quarters with wimminz of the skankiest and least worthy variety.

Thus playa culture is the only way that many young men can overcome despair. It’s a cheap and meaningless fix, but it does work.

What else might work? Well, I’ve found that work works!

If a man declares: “I have worked hard but have not found success,” don’t believe him.

If a man declares: “I have not exerted myself, and I have found success,” don’t believe him.

If a man declares: “I worked as hard as I could and I have become successful”, believe him!

(Babylonian Talmud)

When I find myself becoming depressed, I try to pinpoint the cause of such. While I recognize that some brothers may have medical problems, I find that all my own depression is based upon psychological stressors. Moreover, they all reduce to the feeling of hopelessness that is rooted in my failure to overcome.

In the past, I resigned myself in thinking that some things simply were out of my power to change. Whether this misconception was due to laziness or lack of intelligence, I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.

Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.

(King James Bible)

Some things might seem insurmountable. Suppose a man had a habit of driving drunk, and, at some point in the past, that man’s negligence killed a school bus full of children. If this were to happen, he would probably feel deeply depressed for the rest of his life.

It would be true that such a person would have no ability to turn back time, and prevent the deaths he caused. It might also satisfy us to think that such a man deserves to live as a psychological cripple. In fact, keeping such a man in such a state would simultaneously keep him from repaying the debt he owes to the social order. It wouldn’t benefit anyone.

This is an extreme example, but it’s safe to say that each one of us has some guilt over past mistakes. If we succumb to a sort of paralysis over such stuff, then it seems like we are missing the point.

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

(King James Bible)

One can not overcome things that have already happened, but if we escalate the memory of such things to a reified object, one will find that he can overcome the guilt, and in the process, help to cleanse the world. The mistakes we have made in the past serve to teach us lessons, and give us the means to overcome mistakes in the now.

Care, for the world and for ourselves, is convincingly argued as the fulfillment of an examined life.

The perfectio of human being: becoming what one can be, in being free for one’s ownmost possibilities, is an accomplishment of care; but, equiprimordially, care determines the fundamental mode of this being, according to which it is delivered over to the world taken care of. The ambiguity of care entails a single constitution in a twofold instantiation…

(Being and Time)

To conclude…

It is impossible to care without work, inasmuch as work is the outward manifestation of care. Moreover, work is the means of overcoming. A failure to overcome no longer means physical death, but today it leads to psychological depression and counterproductive libertinism. As such, work may be an antidote to feelings of despondency and depression.

You are not helpless. Life is not hopeless. Get up and overcome.

Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He’s Winning (Again)

Screen Shot 2019-02-16 at 16.43.00

Feeling distinctly uncreative this evening, I decided to steal the title of this post from Artisanal Toad. I also wouldn’t claim to care too much about Dalrock’s latest womanly whining, except for the fact that Jason is currently being skewered in the sewer which is Dalrock’s comment section.

Just for fun, I’ll include some of the weepings, wailings and gnashings of teeth. Bear in mind that these are only a small sample of the Cruxtoid curses that have been leveled at Jason from Dalrock’s mediocrities. I’m sure there are others, but I’m not going to spend more time in that stinkhole than necessary.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.33.32

PokeSalad, a true masochist, only ever seems to appear when people are slinging insults. As such, I believe he embodies the archetypical psychic vampire that he, ironically, whines about here.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.33.54

I don’t know why Oscar is jumping into the fray. In the past I always found him reasonable. Jason is describing the general AMOG attitude extant on Dalrock’s goon-blog, and Oscar is personalizing it and whining about it. That’s not a particularly manly tact. I suppose this speaks to the allure of painting oneself as some sort of “victim” whenever there’s a disagreement on the internet.

And then there are all the usual spankards…

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.34.40

Billy spends most of his time spreading his own misery around to others. I can feel sorry for his situation, but that hardly excuses his endless nonsense.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 21.35.01

Cane Caldo, (Dalrock’s No. 1 asslicker,) begins with a typical passive-aggressive accusation that Jason is lying about himself. Thus begins a process which may end with Cane and Dalrock accusing their latest target of being a sex pervert. They tend to target people who are more intelligent, better adjusted, and more successful than they, making all their antics immediately suspect. Envy, it’s said, is a sin, but Dalrock and Cane have never paid much mind to that part of their scriptures. Lying is also a sin, but Dalrock and Cane do that regularly also.

There’s another guy that these whiners like to bee-yatch about, which is closer to the point I wanted to touch upon today.

Digging into the source, It becomes immediately apparent that Dalrock’s latest opponent is at least one standard deviation more intelligent than he is. The dude I’m talking about goes by the name Bnonn. I’ve been reading his blog.

For those of you who don’t like him, I am curious as to your motivations. He seems demonstrably more honest than Dalrock, and at least as familiar with your religious texts. He also strikes me as a guy who cares deeply about men (at least those of the Christian variety).

Personally, I find Bnonn irritating for the shortsighted advice he gives (he wants us all to use our real names as we mock internet feminists). I also find him unforgivably lazy. Here’s an example:

Screen Shot 2019-02-16 at 16.25.15

The problem with Bnonn’s article here is complex, but one of my points can be illustrated by an analogy.

I often debate white racial nationalists on the internet. I do this not because I dislike them personally (I don’t know them), and I’m also not motivated by any sort of personal angst. Certainly I don’t hate white people (I’m whiter than nearly all the white nationalists I argue with). I debate them because I know that their ideological edifice is a dead-end.

The best way to debate white racial nationalists is to be as charitable as possible, and to argue against the best theorists I can find in this regard. I could pick out some slackjawed, drooling, losers, who don’t understand basic logical concepts, but that sort of nuking fish in a barrel isn’t really productive.

Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 22.15.20

Rather than debating a slackjawed, drooling halfwit like Cane Caldo, who doesn’t understand the problems with affirming the consequent, why doesn’t Bnonn pick out a more skillful opponent? His blog suggests he can certainly prevail in such a contest, and as such, my assumption is apathy on his part.

Yes, you can win an argument with Cane Caldo. I’ve won arguments with him. Jason is winning an argument with him now. Such a match is akin to slapping the snot out of some random retard’s nose as he steps offa the short bus.

Tonight, I finally dug into what Dalrock has been doing for the past several weeks. I am not favorably impressed. Bnonn Tennant is simply toying with Dalrock, and halfheartedly at that. Bnonn is winning all of the arguments Dalrock starts with him, and the usual suspects are too clueless to understand what’s going on.

More blood in the gutter, and me without my spoon.

Tom Leykis’ Retirement

Two months ago, Tom Leykis interviewed Paul Elam. Check it out…

During the interview, Tom pointedly asked Elam about register her, the most potentially subversive thing Elam ever came up with. As the old boys may already know, after register her started working, Elam shut it down.

Full disclosure: Paul Elam banned me from all his projects around 2012, after I pointed out his bizarre and counterproductive tendencies. After I was banned, one of his lieutenants (a guy pseudonymmed “Keyster”) accused me of being a prominent female feminist.

Sandman discusses Leykis’ apparent retirement here:

Whatever one might say about Tom Leykis, I will always respect him for all his good work, done long before Elam or anyone else ever spoke up.