Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
The most important rule of marriage - now absolutely forgotten in the West - is that our sex partner must be our spouse and we can only have one at a time (unless we are a Muslim man and even then only if we can afford to have more than one up to a maximum of four and have the patience and time to make a good show of being fair to them). Not only must our spouse be fuckable, s/he must be a good for a long term relationship and have the characteristics of a good parent such as patience and a caring nature. Marriage is therefore an additional filter for the people we find fuckable because it tells us that it is wrong to fuck people just because we find them fuckable for they must also be good for a long term relationship with children. Even if we don't find them that fuckable, as women we should still prefer someone whom we think is a good prospect as a long term partner and parent than someone we find merely fuckable. If we ignore these rules, our race gets stupider and stupider and our government more and more corrupt until we are now where we are in the West with our morals in the toilet like a turd about to be flushed away.
Women should bear in mind that men are not that fussy, according MGTOW Is Freedom. According to him, men who are single and looking just want their spouse to be good enough, and want every woman they meet to be The One, so they can stop looking.
From the 9th minute:
113 comments:
So everyone HAS to have to objective of marrying?
I was certainly not proposing forced marriage. Forcing people to marry would defeat its eugenic purpose.
You're not proposing forced marriage, but don't you dare have kids without being married, because otherwise the woman gets 100 lashes per child. What's your punishment for sex outside of marriage again?
100 lashes per bastard.
Are there other disincentives you weighed up before settling on the idea of 100 lashes?
I prefer to go by the book. If you don't mind. So you don't believe in corporal punishment?
No! And definitely not like you're suggesting
Well, it's not just me. Most people in the West prefer secularism (where the state cannot force religious law on others). Clearly, though, you are passionate about social changes that will incentivise marriage and disincentivise ..."bastardy". I am too. But there must be other ways to achieve this, surely.
There are other ways. Claire has made it clear over multiple posts that she prefers invoking the laws of the Koran and these kinds of punishments (almost always against women, not men, I might add) that continue the vicious cycle, rather than looking at real solutions for the long term.
It is quicker to deal with the problem on the supply side. Men if caught would be punished too.
And just continue the cycle, because it will only breed major resentment and even more violent unprisings. Such a great 'solution'.
What cycle? What "violent uprisings"? Women would just lose if they tried violent uprisings against men.
Really? What cycle? The cycle of the legitimately privileged, those on top with the money, attack those who aren't, those on the bottom without money, causing an uprising and then an overcorrection so that those on top are doing the exact same thing, just to the opposite group.
Right now, feminists are the ones on top with all the money, so attack the common man. What you're suggesting is causing this to happen again, but the opposite way around.
I think political change can be a lot like a wrecking ball, swinging from Left to Right. I refer to it as a wrecking ball because it can utterly wipe out the middle ground (and anyone who tries to occupy it). It doesn't take much to get the wrecking ball swinging. A gentle push at just the right time can get it swinging very high and very fast indeed. The more people hop on for the ride, the more powerful it becomes. Then, when the wrecking ball reaches it's apogee (or highest point, left or right), a mass of people pile on to switch sides. That sends it swinging even further back the other way... Our history bears the scars of this wrecking ball.
Which is the exact reason we should look for solutions to stop the wrecking ball, not keep it swinging
Feminism is the wrecking ball to patriarchy.
And the patriarchy you're suggesting will swing the ball back to feminism.
Matriarchy is the sea, patriarchy is coastal defence. We don't need to worry about the sea whose existence is eternal.
So you're just going to completely ignore the fact you're not offering a solution and make up some metaphor that doesn't even make sense... right then...
I am offering a solution, but you don't like it. The men get it.
Actually I see your point of view Claire Khaw. And I certainly get it. But I don't agree with it. The sentence is death. Death of both adulters and death of the bastard. The execution should be wholesome family (dove approved) entertainment and hosted by Ryan Seacrest.
The Koran is silent on stoning.
24:2:
The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
Please do try to read it like a lawyer going through the small print of the contract. This was what I did and it does seem fair enough to me.
I recommend the N J Dawood Penguin translation.
Take whatever interpretation of the Koran you want, it is still a religious text and it should not define the law. Plain and simple.
Sure, but you see the point of social conservatism, don't you?
Social conservatism? Is that what you want to call it?
Social conservatism? Is that what you want to call it?
Social conservatism is the idea of supporting marriage and family values as well as forbidding extramarital sex. This was what Christianity used to do until it was cucked by feminism.
And you think that should include medieval punishments based on laws from a religious text?
If you believe in the principle of capital punishment, you would believe in the principle of corporal punishment.
Once you accept the principle of corporal punishment, it will feel perfectly natural to inflict it on sex offenders to discourage the others.
Totalitarian, theocratic Patriarchy is one extreme. "Liberal", radical Feminism the other. The problem is that they are both authoritarian and prescriptive. People's rights get trampled. Why do anyone's rights need to be trampled? ..they don't.
The wrecking ball is the people who jump on and swing from side to side. This is a time for temperance and long-term, pragmatic solutions. This is the only solution. Only when the wrecking ball is made stable can we begin to rebuild.
Christians also used to burn and drown men and women accused if witchcraft, those who dared question the church. Should we do that as well?
And I already said I don't believe in capital punishment.
What solutions have you?
Egalitarianism. Libertarian justice.
It's called working together to change social attitudes. It's working on understanding each other and working on a compromise so that individual rights are still intact.
The government has 0 business being in the private lives of its citizens, including staying out of relationships, marriages and families.
Or trying to legislate morality
Exactly! That as well
It is the role of government to enforce laws that maintain the quality of the next generation in order to prevent national degeneracy. The law limits our immorality.
It is the role of the government to uphold the laws of the people and to not infringe on individual rights. The law should not care about morality but what objectively infringes on those individual rights abd what doesn't.
The law protects us from each other
The law needs to be changed to shame sluts.
No, it doesn't.
You take the position you do because you are yourself an unmarried mother.
Really? It couldn't simply be because I believe the rights of the individual should not be infringed upon, regardless of my own status?
Why should the law give a sex offender the right to be a sex offender?
A sex offender is someone who takes away a person's individual rights through sexual means. Since when is consensual sex between adults taking away those rights?
24:2 treats fornication and adultery as a sexual offence.
I guess we should be killing off gay men as well then, seeing as you're all about the Koran and gay men can't reproduce....
LGBTs are more likely to get away with it as the penalty only kicks in when one is pregnant or has given birth to illegitimate offspring.
'More likely to get away with it'? So, they're fine to have sex with each other, even though you're completely against sex outside of marriage, but they're 100% not allowed to have a family at all, and I'm guessing you won't allow them to marry either?
Marriage is for a man and a woman only.
Of course you believe that. So if a gay person wants to have a family, they have to force themselves to marry and have sex with a person of the opposite sex just to satisfy your ridiculous notion of parenthood?
Same sex sex doesn't produce offspring.
Marriage is God's child protection scheme to ensure that most children grow up with both their biological parents. Or else degeneracy is the result.
So a hetero couple who only marry and have kids because 'it's what you do' are better parents than a same sex couple who desperately want and love children?
If you can't bring yourself to fuck your child's other parent, you don't deserve to become a parent.
So, you don't actually care about the wellbeing of children and what it actually takes to be a loving parent, all you care about is if a man and a woman are married and they have children after this, regardless of other factors that would lead other couples to be far better parents. Therefore, in your mind, a couple that only marry and have children because it is expected of them care more for their kids and are better parents than a couple who will go to any lengths to have and raise children with love and care. You do realise this isn't solving the problem you see, right?
What's the problem?
Over multiple posts, you have made it 100% clear you think what you class as degeneracy a problem. How does having uncaring parents who are married change that?
You dislike following rules, don't you?
Rules are created for a reason, but you just want to do whatever the hell you want when it suits you.
No, I don't dislike following rules. I dislike someone insinuating that others be forced to follow religious dogma just because that person has a god complex.
Rules are certainly created for a reason, and rules change when that reason no longer applies. No, I don't do whatever the hell I want when it suits me. You just throw ridiculous notions like that around because I refuse to subscribe to your barbaric nonsense.
Just because you feel superior as a sanctimonious zealot, that does not mean your ideas are automatically correct.
You seem to pretend you have no use for marriage just because you are not married to other parent of your offspring.
I have no use for marriage, that is correct. There is no pretending involved. What use would marriage have for me, exactly? I also never said that others don't have a use for it.
If sluts were lashed 100 times per bastard, you wouldn't be wondering what marriage is for.
No, I would still be wondering what it is for. Fear of a horrific punishment isn't an argument for marriage being useful.
And if that disgusting practice did suddenly come into being, somehow, I would take the punishment without complaint, rather than enter a legal contract that has no benefit for my family.
Why won't he marry you?
Because I don't want to be married.
Why not?
Because there is nothing about marriage that has any benefit to my family.
What made you have such a low opinion of marriage?
You can't see the effects around you? Men who have to pay their ex-wives, as well as losing assets they had before the relationship to someone who either didn't contribute, or only contributed very little. Fathers having their kids used as pawns against them, if they even get to see them at all. False DV charges laid against them for various nefarious reasons.
No fault divorce should be abolished.
Which would just increase the false DV charges. Such a better solution!
CCTV should be installed in homes of complainants.
There are 2 indisputable facts when it comes to improving society, being in a committed relationship and not having children outside of being in a relationship, honestly I would prefer more women who truly love their partner, has children with that partner and is committed to raising a family in a safe and loving environment.
I have seen a slew of single mothers and 99 percent of them came from marriages and had divorces and ended up becoming absolute horrible people who slept around continuously and having children to multiple men after they had been divorced. Marriage is not a fix to society any more since they do not do marriage testing anymore like they did pre 1970 (If you are unfamiliar with it unless the priest/pastor was satisfied that you were a compatible couple they would not marry you).
Your whole entire premise is flawed because as usual Claire you are thinking with that barbaric mindset that is stuck in a 7th century mindset that was created by a child raping warlord. You would do better to actually think outside such a narrow and prejudiced mindset.
So you think obeying the rules of marriage are the product of a "barbaric mindset" and that marriage is in itself a barbaric mindset?
You think lashes as a punishment for having children outside of marriage isn't a barbaric mindset?
No I think the barbaric mindset is giving someone 100 lashes because they don't follow the rules forced upon them from a book written in the 7th century by a child raping warlord.
If I approve of capital punishment in principle, then there is no rational reason to disapprove of corporal punishment.
So what you are saying that it is perfectly justifiable to lash someone for sleeping outside of marriage because it is justifiable to kill someone who commits murder, what a truly barbaric mindset, then again, if I followed the book which was written by a child rapist I would think the same as well.
Are you a father of legitimate children?
Whether I am or not is not the crux of the argument here, if you can not defend your statements then my personal life has absolutely no meaning. Either the argument is good or bad and an appeal to emotion or any other logical fallacy is not going to work.
You have no intention of becoming a father of legitimate children, have you?
You wouldn't expect a confirmed bachelor to support marriage.
Why do you even care about 'legitimate children'? You've made it clear that you don't give two fucks about the wellbeing of children, so why do you keep asking people that?
Would you say you had any prospect of becoming a father of legitimate children?
Men who have no prospect of becoming a father of legitimate children would not support marriage.
I care about the institution of marriage, which is the foundation of patriarchy. If you people are complaining about matriarchy, and we live in a matriarchy, then patriarchy must be the answer.
It seems you people don't even know that it was feminism that established matriarchy and feminism which undermined marriage.
But now you know.
Whether I have children or do not have children or whether I am married or single does not factor into this, the simple fact of the matter is your argument is bad and made in bad faith, the fact that you have tried to attack me because I rightfully pointed out that the mindset you follow was created by a 7th century child raping warlord shows that.
Honestly at the end of the day I would prefer to see people living in a committed relationship, the simple fact of the matter is a piece of paper does not do that for some while it does for others, trying to force people into a singular box because it fits your narrow belief shows a narrow mind and a shallow intellect.
So why ask about legitimate children if you don't give two fucks, and only care about a concept that means absolutely nothing except to the people who decide to engage in it?
No, 'patriarchy', especially your fucked up version of it, is not the answer.
I understand that many people cannot see beyond the end of their own nose, sex organs or desire for sex with sluts. Do you want to solve the problem or not?
Yes many people can not see past their own nose, much like yourself and your blind devotion to a book written by a 7th century child raping warlord.
All I am saying is that I wouldn't expect someone who is an unmarriageable bachelor to support marriage.
What answers do you have?
Yeah, we do want to solve the problem. You're the one who doesn't. If you did want an actual solution, you wouldn't suggest an authoritarian regime that is no better than what feminism is doing.
Nothing else would work. You're just here to whinge, aren't you?
That is fine if that is what you want to believe, but even if I was an "unmarriageable bachelor" I would still prefer to be that than a small minded, narrow viewed, ideological following person who can not see past the book that was written by a 7th century, child raping warlord.
Your personal solutions to Feminism are not shared by everyone here. Clearly. You do not know that nothing else would work. Just as you don't know what the full ramifications of your own idea would be.
Unmarriageable bachelors would want the price of sex to be cheap and low. For this reason, I would not expect unmarriageable bachelors who wish to remain sexually active to support marriage.
CJ:
You either agree with the rules of the patriarchy, or you don't. You clearly don't because you already have a litter of illegitimate offspring.
No, I don't agree with your idea of patriarchy. And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether I have kids or not. It 100% has to do with the fact that I don't agree with authoritarian, religious dogma regimes being implemented to force people to do what YOU want.
'Women would just lose if they tried violent uprisings against men'. Really? You think it would be only women? You think that it will only be feminists against your idea? That isn't the case at all. Men and women, feminist and anti-feminist, would be against it in droves. Not all, obviously, I'm sure there are other nutcases that agree with you, but to be so self righteous in your own idea that you think it would only be women against an authoritarian, dogmatic government and that men would just agree with it, shows you know absolutely nothing about the realities of society today.
Men who support the patriarchy would win against the running dogs of promiscuous women.
Probably not. Number do count as well you know. And I can bet there would be far more people against you than for you.
20 Muslims can vanquish 200, 100 Muslims can vanquish 1000. Weakened, 100 Muslims can still vanquish 200, 1000 can vanquish 2000.
Koran 8:65-66
So you'll take the word of a fictional book written by people who worshipped a pedophile, but ignore reality. Good job.
What reality am I ignoring?
What reality am I ignoring?
http://listverse.com/2013/10/26/10-amazing-military-victories-against-the-odds/
The fact that the religion you sibscribe to doesn't make you some super human. The bible also talks about how easily muslims and jews were defeated by christians. Does that mean christians are better than muslims?
Oh, would you look at that, the key words being 'amazing' and 'aganist the odds'. A.k.a not the norm.
What verse in the Bible talks about how easily Muslims and Jews were defeated by Christians?
Judges 7-8 is one 300, vs 135,000
You don't know Judges is from the Old Testament?
This was before Christ was born.
So there were no Christians or Muslims then.
Oh, whatever. Fine. I'll change my point then.
The bible also says that those that believe in god, so what makes muslims so different?
What makes Muslims different to whom in what way?
You're purposely being obtuse. You know exactly what I mean. But fine. What makes muslims so much more powerful than any other person when the bible says the exact same thing about people who believe in god, not allah?
All the Abrahamic faiths worship the same God, who is capable of performing miracles.
so they all worship the same god, yet still go to war with each other because 'my god is better than your god'? Riiiiight.
God means us to obey His laws and then fight each other, rewarding the people who best obey His laws with empire, wealth and wisdom.
And even if he were real, why should we give 2 fucks what he wants?
If an omnipotent and morally perfect God exists, He could punish us and destroy our civilisation.
Post a Comment