Enforced monogamy

A champagne socialist from the New York Times observes that enforced monogamy suspiciously resembles the kind of redistribution of goods rightists supposedly oppose. As always, it is good to take leftist venom with a grain of salt, but this point is worth addressing.

First, I’m no libertarian. I like capitalism because it creates wealth and prosperity, but I also like using the market to help my allies, hurt my enemies. Hence I oppose the redistribution of my goods and tax money through the government, as the government tends to be my enemy, as tends to be custom with socialism, but I have no big problem with Trump’s steel tariff, as Trump is my ally.

As Giovanni argues, socialist wealth redistribution makes perfect sense on the side of socialists: it is the victors handing out the spoils, in this case leftists helping their allies, hurting their enemies. I don’t want wealth redistribution because I believe that, generally, the nature of the free market is such that it helps my allies, hurts my enemies.

Women are goods that, when left free on the sexual market, are monopolized by my enemies, e.g. asshole men who would rather pick a fight with me than tell me the time of day. I know this, because when I was single acted exactly the same in order to get laid. You can’t trust single men.

The nature of free pussy is such that it hurts my allies and helps my enemies, for women cheat on the beta males that build and maintain the society I live in, and have sex with the asshole drug dealers that steal my bike.

Women are not meant to roam free; they are meant to be divided among the winning tribe, they expect to be divided among the winning tribe. To the victor goes the spoils.

That many white males have trouble with women tells us that white males are not the winning tribe. Once they become the winning tribe, best to divide the loot fair and square: obvious enforced monogamy is obvious.

13 thoughts on “Enforced monogamy

  1. Your writing style grows more and more similar to Jim’s by the month. It’s spartan, simple, blunt and unpretentious – the sparse, forceful cadences of a future holy scripture, perhaps?

      1. Here’s hoping it becomes the new English standard, as verbose opportunistic whining currently is. Or a new English standard, at least. Choosing between the two biggest brains around, maybe Jimism for serious scientific discourse, Moldbuggery for lighter matters and the arts.

  2. I think they are confusing two different issues here. First is patriarchy VS feminism. Patriarchy is like capitalism. Under capitalism stuff is supposed to be owned so their owners take care of the stuff. Under socialism stuff is unowned so you have tragedy of the commons where everyone tries to carry away as much as possible any without regard for much of anything but their pillage. Feminism is socialism of the panties. Currently we have feminism and so women are unowned, the commons, left to roam wild and be hunted down by anyone with the proper skill completely without regard for anything. Under patriarchy women would be owned and their owners would take care of them, maintain their quality, long-term value, etc. Peterson says nothing about this, the fact that because of feminism almost all women today are pillaged leftovers, crumbs from the bread that would be the real woman, if you will. Of course, under patriarchal polygamy the better off men would get more and better women, while the worst off men would get none. Patriarchal monogamy isn’t socialism, but distributism in pussy, that ensures all men get some. Unlike economic distributism, distributism in pussy actually makes sense (since not all men want to, nor can they all be entrepreneurs, but all men do have sexual drives).

    1. Great comment.

      Yes, the solution is to think of women in terms of property. Of course they are not dead property like the table I own, nor are they alive property like the dog I don’t own, although kind of similar, but truly accurate they are property in the way women are men’s property.

      A case can be made for polygamous patriarchy, but I think it does not fit Western man. Better to have 1 women for every male, and high-status men a don’t-ask-don’t-tell mistress on the side.

      1. If we really loved in a patriarchy, men would be property, too. That is to say, all men who were not patriarchs would be owned by a patriarch, who would be responsible for keeping them in line, and would be entitled to to punish them for winding as he saw fit, and they in turn would owe him obedience and obeisance.

        1. Good point. I want to say men owning other men is very different from men owning women, and it is different, but not completely different.

          1. Wouldn’t this simply be feudalism? In feudalism everybody is the “poperty” of a liege lord, women the “property” of men.

          2. I want to say feudalism updated for a post-industrial era, but honestly I wouldn’t know how it should differ from pre-industrial feudalism. So yes, feudalism.

  3. Monogamy is a social solution to an intractable biological problem. Civilisation is obviously better than barbarity, and that only happens when men put in all the extra work it takes to build it. Female free-riders (sexual cheaters) destroy the motivation of men to build and maintain civilization, but they will always have an incentive to cheat from an evolutionary standpoint since the children of sexually promiscuous and fecund assholes will more likely grow up and become sexually promiscuous and fecund themselves. But civilization doesn’t work when everyone is just an asshole with only sex as a pursuit. Therefore, culture needs to be rather strict in order maximize civilization building and minimize civilization collapse. I explained it in substantially more detail here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.