• The Swagger
  • Posts
  • The Swagger #20 — Tuesday Big and Obnoxious Single-Article Edition

The Swagger #20 — Tuesday Big and Obnoxious Single-Article Edition

Nobody Should Rule The World... (Especially Not Women)

Greetings this fine Tuesday from The Land of Smiles, now in my 5th year of residence. It's remarkably hot this year in a place where hot is the default. I'm going to do a larger, single article today, partly because I'm running very late what's new and because I want to develop this rather thoroughly.

Nobody Should Rule The World... (Especially Not Women)

... Or, referring to my greeting, should I say The Land of Military Coups?

Observe. Ask why.

Thailand has been home to more military coup d’états in modern history than any other country.

New Mandala, an academic blog on Southeast Asian affairs, found that Thailand has had 13 successful and nine unsuccessful coups in just over a century. The most recent being in 2014.

To explain how such a remarkably peaceful country—that has never been colonized like every other country in the region—can nonetheless have such seeming internal strife, I turn to former Australian ambassador to Thailand, James Wise who, in his book Thailand: History, Politics and the Rule of Law, wrote whilst quoting a paper on the topic:

"If we analysed Thai constitutionalism in terms of the separation or balancing of powers in actual practice rather than in the written text, …. we can see that there are not three branches of the State (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary) but five, if we regard both the monarchy and the military as having powers of their own." [Andrew Harding and Peter Leyland, The Constitutional System of Thailand: A Contextual Analysis (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2011), 30.]

Two scholars of Thailand’s constitutional system have observed that, in practical terms, the state in Thailand has five branches, not just the three branches that are a feature of the western democratic system: legislature, executive and judiciary. In Thailand, the monarchy and the military exercise authority in their own right, often without reference to the more familiar legislature, executive and judiciary.

In Western systems, and many Western-influenced systems, the monarch has either become a figurehead—a constitutional monarch with no political authority—or been replaced by a president who, depending on the country, can be a figurehead (for example, in Ireland) or the head of the executive (for example, in the United States). And in Western systems, the military is under the control of the civilian government; it rarely plays a domestic political role. So, because monarchs and generals aren’t major players in politics in the West, Westerners don’t consider the monarchy and military as branches of government.

People who have been brought up in a Western democracy also have a sense of the separate roles the three branches of government fulfil. We understand that the parliament, the government and the courts, separately but jointly, form an institutional skeleton for our politics. We also understand that political disputes are mediated and arbitrated in the parliament and, if necessary, disputes can be adjudicated in the courts or by the electorate.

Wise, James. Thailand: History, Politics and the Rule of Law (p. 2). Marshall Cavendish International (Asia) Pte Ltd. Kindle Edition.

That brief bit I read in early 2020 shortly after arriving in the country was seared into my brain and became the lens through which I understand everything that goes on here, both the seen and the unseen. It's less important that you understand this vis-à-vis Thailand, than that you understand how intransigently we're locked into our world views by the [sometimes opposing] political systems we kinda understand, like constitutional republic, parliamentary, and communist.

What is written and what is said is quite often quite different from what actually happens. And what actually happens? Everything happens, which is always my answer to the question, "what would happen in anarchy?" Everything. And so it does everyplace else, too; which, then, doesn't sound so earth-shattering if that's the case, but it's not how people evaluate political systems. They evaluate them—always, it's a force of nature—by presuming that their preferred system prevents or severely curtails certain undesirable occurrences and outcomes or, at least, more so than other systems that they disfavor by comparison.

So how would you evaluate a non-system system such as that of Thailand—that produces high levels of social peace and tranquility, politeness as a national virtue, and great honor and conservatism for its core values (97% of the population is solidly and unequivocally united in Buddhism...compared to 65-70% disunited Christians in the USA under a dozen diverse sects) while, at the same time, pretty much allowing everything that happens in the grand sphere of human action to actually happen, only to worry about later if measurable and objective harm was done?

There is very little that goes on to "prevent crime," because that's impossible and only a slogan bright-eyes Westerners swallow over and over, even when little to no crime is ever "prevented."

To give you an idea of how stark the difference is between views of governance vis-à-vis crime prevention and deterrence, in four years of diving tens of thousands of kilometers all over this country, I have never seen a single car or motorbike pulled over alongside the road being issued a citation for a traffic infraction. Not fewer than you see by the dozens on any given road trip in the USA. Exactly and precisely: ZERO. There are the ocassional checkpoints at provincial borders, typically unmanned, but even when manned, I've never been stopped. They're looking for something that's obvious. Thai police are never, ever out to hassle people. It just goes against the grain. What's common place in the West is anethema and inhumane here. Who wants to be hassled by authority figures in uniforms.

Another point to make about Thai police: zero women officers. If you search this online, you'll be regaled with AI (Copilot if using Bing) Exclamations! Of! Progress!!! and a listing of three purported Thai female offers. I've never seen one. Nor has anyone I know ever seen one. Rarer than unicorns, but apparently, Progress Is Being Made!!! though There's Still Lots Of Work To Do!!!

Meanwhile, I'll point out a glaring association and correlation between all-male police forces and a lack of hassling, and coed police forces with countless females and male bitches with their preponderance and core mission of hassling people as much as possible at all times.

In summary, Thailand is the closest thing to a peaceful, natural sort of anarchy—a harmonious chaos—that I've ever found. It's what allures so many expats and when you query many of them, as I have in the hundreds, you find they're remarkably similar to me in so many such outlooks. Or, they love it but can't really put a finger on it. I help them put a finger on it, when I can.

Another way to put it, gloriously: the buck stops, always, with old conservative military dudes...who then peacefully and relatively quickly after restoring common sense and order—to end [some and/or unapproved] bullshit crony corruption, bullshit communism, bullshit leftism, bullshit feminism, bullshit green, bullshit LGBTIDGAF, or other liberal, hedonistic, and nihilistic bullshit—hand it back to civilian political control to begin its long march to fuck everything up again, anew. Rinse, wash, and repeat.

  1. 1932: The bloodless coup of 1932, also known as the Siamese revolution, marked a turning point in Thailand’s history. A group of military officers, known as the “Four Musketeers,” overthrew King Prajadhipok, ending nearly seven centuries of absolute monarchy. This coup established a constitutional monarchy and paved the way for social and political reforms.

  2. 1947: The Thai military intervened again, removing the government of Rear Admiral Thawan Thamrongnawasawat due to scandals and corruption. The “Coup Group” then placed Khuang Aphaiwong, a founder of the Democrat Party, as the prime minister. This event solidified the army’s role in Thai politics.

  3. 1951: The Silent Coup occurred while King Bhumibol Adulyadej was in Lausanne, Switzerland. Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram was appointed as the new prime minister.

  4. 1957: Rigged parliamentary elections kept Phibunsongkhram in power, leading to mass protests in Bangkok. Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat staged a coup, appointing Pote Sarasin as the head of an interim government.

  5. 1958: Sarit, a military leader, led another coup, ushering in a new authoritarian era in Thai politics.

  6. 1971: Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn staged a coup, citing the need to suppress Communists. His government was dissolved, and martial law was imposed.

  7. 1976: Less than eight months after an unsuccessful overthrow attempt, the Thai military staged another coup, ousting Prime Minister Seni Pramoj. Admiral Sangad Chaloryu declared himself in charge of the newly formed National Administrative Reform Council.

  8. 1977: Thanin Kraivichien, in power for only one year, was overthrown in a bloodless military coup led by Admiral Sangad Chaloryu. Thanin was accused of leading a repressive government.

  9. 1991: Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan was arrested on his way to meet the king. Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram was appointed as the new prime minister.

  10. 2014: The most recent coup occurred on May 22, 2014, when the Royal Thai Armed Forces, led by General Prayut Chan-o-cha, seized power against the caretaker government. This marked the 12th coup since Thailand’s first coup in 1932.

To put it another way, the old-dude, values-conservative military as a de facto branch of government and the final stop-gap for everything, is the Occam's Razor dot-connect that makes sense of it all.

It especially explains the perplexing phenomenon where there are laws on the books, but they are super-selectively enforced, and that selective enforcement has little to do with a person's status and more to do with hassling people. Thais do not like meddling in the personal affairs of others if they're not harming anyone else, and harm is a lot more objectively defined and is a pretty high bar.

Triggered isn't gonna cut it.

And this goes hand-in-hand—this lack of crime "prevention" and deterrence—with Thailand's hands off stance in matters of families and villages. In 2 words: self governed. Yep, that means dad or mom can skip out on parental responsibilities. A daughter or two—or 'ladyboy' son—might go off and work in a bar in Bangkok, Pattaya, or other tourist-frequented place—or open a profile on Thai Friendly. Shameful? Maybe, sometimes, sure, or it depends, but that's human life. They all send money back home. Lots of money. Everyone has a natural human stake in the world's oldest profession. The stories you never hear are the successful ones where farang marries the gal, they go back to the village, start a homestead, have kids, support the extended family to a degree, and everyone's kinda pretty happy about all of that. Or, he takes her to his home country. It has happened into the millions over decades.

You never hear about that side of it in Western media because you fucking know exactly why you never hear about that side of it in Western media.

... It amuses me that "the world's oldest profession," so called, gets such heaps of scorn. Given that name, it suggests it's endemic to human behavior...everywhere, at all times (everything happens). It seems odd to me that while it's fully understood that women trade sexual favors for things they want, then why if it's a roof over her head, clothes on her back, food on her table...and kids shuttled to ballet and soccer practice...it's perfectly fine and virtuous, but if it's money outside a marriage or civil commitment, that's a big-ass no-no?

I may have an answer. Is it because money is a medium of exchange, and that is empowering? The typical values exchanged in familial relationships are intangible, non-fungible, emotional, etc. BUT, all of that value exchange leads to an accumulation of assets and those assets can be retitled or converted to money. How is that done? Typically, through divorce, which is predominately initiated by women and predominately favor women in the financial outcomes.

Financially, what the divorce does is convert all those accumulated assets to retitle in her name, or money, both of which can then be transferred, such as to a new relationship. So, does that financial act turn the woman into a prostitute, then? Or, if divorce is considered empowering for women, then why isn't prostitution?

Or, are my views getting in the way of your—in the words of renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins—Cultural Christianity?

Thais also seem aware and accepting of the fact that spouses and domestic partners fuck around and fuck up, and fuck off. As such, familial and village bonds are far wider and deeper. It's on all of them to do what needs doing—not some souless social worker and family court with a performance jacket to fill with nice things, awards, accolades, and citations to bolster job advancement.

Old folks? Retirement? Bleed the young? Yep, that they have that, "at least."

Yes, Thailand does have a monthly payment for elderly citizens. Under the old-age pension scheme, the allowances are as follows:

People aged 60-69 receive 600 baht per month. [$16.19] Those aged 70-79 receive 700 baht per month. [$18.88] Individuals aged 80-89 receive 800 baht per month. [$21.58] And those aged 90 and above receive 1,000 baht per month. [$26.98]

However, there has been a recent change. A new regulation, effective from August 12, 2023, sets income limits for people receiving old-age pensions. According to this regulation, only individuals with no income or insufficient income to cover the cost of living are entitled to the monthly age allowance from the state.

Bing Copilot

What it has to do with is saying or writing one thing, then doing another, not doing much at all, or blaming it on the national scapegoat: Thai Police corruption (basically nonsense, but goes beyond my scope, here). All my dealings with police have been polite, respectful, professional, courteous...and often jovial, without exception. I get stopped now and then for no helmet on my motorbike—the most selectively enforced/not enforced "law" in the country. The fine on the books is 2,000 baht (55 bucks US). You'll be asked for 500 (14 bucks) if they don't just wave you on by. Sometimes it goes to the station, sometimes hip pocket (I'm fine with that, to you guys with traffic fines that start at $300). But sometimes I get a discount: "look at my haircut. Thai Police haircut," and I'll issue a quick salute. "OK, 300 baht."

So when I wish to understand why what's going on is going on, this former military officer thinks, how would it play with Army-Navy?

Thailand is run by conservative men and its conservatism has military-order teeth. Oorah!

And it's because of the nature of the military beast that military men understand the essential need for morale above everything else. You don't have morale, you have dysfunction. You're worthless...as a military; and, as a society.

(People think it's the chicks, why I'm here. Nah. The chicks being the way they are, not just here, but in all of Asia, is a consequence of the male-dominated governments throughout Asia, so that's the prerequisite...culture. They understand male and female nature...or at least a lot better than in the West. Icing on the cake is that nobody understands the male imperative for female attention and companionship more than do military men.)

And, importantly, nobody better understands how fucked up things go south in a quick hurry when those male needs aren't met...better than military men.

But Men Are Bad, Evil, Really Awful, and Evil

The most common argument to both counter patriarchal social order and to support the inclusion of more women into political and other hierarchies of power, control, authority, and influence is to put out that basically every really bad atrocity in human history has been carried out by a man or group of men.

It's half true.

The other thing that's true is that every really good, great, and wondrous thing to bring on human civilization, manage it, provide for it, and create opportunities for prosperity...has also been carried out by a man or group of men.

I made you a world-famous Richard Nikoley chart to illustrate.

So when I'm having this discussion, as I've had a million times and I get the classic bromide, "men do all the worst evil," my response is the same: "that's why men need to be in charge." The only force of nature capable os handling and managing the evil the bad men can do is more good men."

To elaborate on that, when you feminize a society, culture (Judaism and Christianity are feminizing in their modern incarnations; meaning, they were naturally flawed from inception...the means of their own destruction baked right in their cake.) you get lots and lots and lots of laws an regulations.

These laws, regulations, procedures, and hoops all serve to satisfy feelings of insecurity. And all are touted in the same bullshit way: prevent crime [uncertain outcomes that make people feel insecure and unsafe]. But since you can't really prevent or deter crime much, all this stuff serves is to parasitically garner unearned livelihoods for do-gooders and do-nothings, where power is the power to harass, pester, and hassle...creating enough useless busy work that people feel useful.

Bogus and fake self-esteem.

Feminized Society and Culture

Back in the spring of 2018 I got wind of a social philosophy called "Propertarianism," proposed by a guy named Curt Doolittle. I dove into it a little bit and gained a good bit of insight. I interviewed Curt at least a couple of times, available to watch on FreeTheAnimal.com.

Among the insights I got and have used, quoted, re-quoted, and connected dots in a million syntheses is his template for male vs. female competitive strategy, dubbed GSRRM. This requires significant study and effort to get this to sink in, understand it, and then you'll see it in use all the time, everywhere, and by virtually everyone, males and females alike.

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 or falsehood.

The Female Technique of Social Superpredation by Gossiping Shaming Ridiculing Rallying and Moralizing

  • Undermining (blaming) by GSRRM: Disapproving > Denying, Shaming > Gossiping, Outraging > Rallying, Psychologizing > Moralizing, Dominating > Oppressing, Reputation-Destruction > Propagandizing (Limiting consumption)

**The Technique of “GSRRM” includes:
… (L)ying by Plausible Deniability

… (E)vading the Truth

… (E)quating Truth to (F)ace, (A)pproval, or (C)onsent

… (D)isapproving
… … (D)enying
… … … (S)ilence

**And By Escalating To:
… (S)haming,
… … (M)oralizing,
… … … (P)sychologizing,
… … … … (R)idiculing
… … … … … (O)utraging,

**And By Escalating To:
… (R)allying
… … (G)ossiping
… … … (U)ndermining,
… … … … (P)ropagandizing

**And By Escalating To:
… (S)houting Down
… … (S)ilencing
… … … (C)ancelling
… … … … (D)eplatforming (interference in communication and collaboration)

**And By Escalating to:
… (R)eputation destruction (interference in reputation)
… … (D)oxxing (interference in safety and anonymity)
… … … (J)ob Doxxing (interference in employement)
… … … … (B)usiness Doxxing (interference in the conduct of a business)

**And By Escalating to:
… (C)ourt Abuse (using cost of litigation to silence, obtain false confession, or to harm)
… … (J)udicial Abuse (using select cases to exploit vunlerabilities in the law)
… … … (C)onstitutional Abuse(using advocacy of incrementally harmful legislation to exploit vulnerabilities in the construction of the constitution, under cover of moral pretense)

In western history, under our ancient laws, men were prohibited from reputation destruction by direct violence between men under the law of the Duel.

In western history, Female Conflict (social violence by GSRRM) was largely illegal or punishable under 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.

Men generally make an argument and let the argument do its 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 Libel (written) and 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 channels and media.

Psychoanalysis (Psychologizing) – 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.

My own contribution to this, so far as I'm aware, is that I couch it all in evolutionary terms and let women off the hook, per se. They have no choice in the matter.

If you regard this as a female survival strategy rather than a competitive strategy as Curt has characterized it, then your understanding may be deeper.

In other words, given the relative physical weakness of women compared to men, combined with their dire vulnerability in child bearing, nurture, and rearing, then they obviously need ways to influence, control, and manipulate men that does not involve overpowering them.

To put is bluntly, a male survival strategy in wartime might involve him committing treason to survive, by spying for the enemy, giving material aid or comfort, things of that nature. A woman sleeps with the enemy.

A final point is to avoid NEXALT (not all X are like that) arguments. Of course, there are always outliers. Some men are bitches and some women are totally rational and objective actors who can set their feelings of insecurity in the midst of male power aside.

Importantly, this GSRRM competitive strategy while characteristic and applicable to females generally, can and is used by anyone.

Pretty much all politicians, journalists, clergy, lawyers, leftists, activists for anti-x causes, and institutional heads and authorities primarily use GSRRM.

Who uses characteristically male solving for truth no matter what?

Military and business.

Everything Happens (Including The Decline and Downfall of Western Civilization)

I did a quick study this afternoon and though there are some outliers, it can generally be said that the more women are involved in the politics of a country, the higher it's national debt (Japan is an exception on one side, Germany an exception on the other).

The USA is a prime example, though.

I found AI to be useless in getting to the fundamental crux of the matter. Even the unwoke non-safety-Nazi Zon with all of my meticulous seed prompting was no match for the core embedding that no bad ever can come from having women in charge and it's got to be something else.

It even got so stupid as to say:

The inquiry into the correlation between women's suffrage and national debt levels is a complex one, requiring a nuanced examination of historical, economic, and social factors across different countries. It's essential to approach this analysis with an understanding that correlation does not imply causation, and multiple variables can influence national debt levels.

As noted, the national debt of the United States saw significant increases in the decades following the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. However, attributing this rise solely to women's suffrage would be an oversimplification. The Great Depression, World War II, and expansive government programs such as the New Deal played substantial roles during this period.

Zon (emphasis added)

"Expansive government programs” is the whole point.

What does muddy the waters though is that it's true this cannot be attributed to women exclusively. Because, as I said, men can use "female" survival and competitive strategy (GSRRM) too.

Guess who women (and weak-ass, pussy-boy, cucked males) vote for when they vote for "men," too often?

... And here's the final contrast. The most up-and comping area on the planet, in huge and stark contrast to the GSRRM Western world.

Much of the foregoing is stuff I've said before, and for a long time, and in various ways and contexts. This time, it was my aim to put it all together and offer a far more integrated view of how it's all connected.

I hope I've done that even a little bit.

If you got an epiphany or revelation, comment below.

Join the conversation

or to participate.