...
Anything which correctly maintains your culture is by definition not evil.
...
Conquest should be for cultural gains, i.e. incorporating the best genetics from external cultures. This can even be an entirely decentralized form of conquest, i.e. each young male off on his own grabbing some female(s) who are pliant (also serves as an outlet/goal for their natural hormonal surge at the young age).
I won't get any where towards that goal with bearded orthodox Jews, because they have their rationality clouded by all these pagan religious customs and rituals.
I think any women involved should always be free to leave the culture I propose and go try their luck as Westernized, white women (but of course they would be ostrasized from the geographically decentralized community that follows the culture I propose and would essentially destroy their life by doing so as example to all those who foolishly wish to follow them). So to be clear, I am not advocating slavery. Every member of the culture I propose must retain their free will (and I think this is absolutely essential for any strategy that has an hope of being a lasting set of rational beliefs based in facts that wins and spreads out over many generations).
There are two arguments here one of slavery and one of freedom. They are mutually incompatible. To help illustrate why it helps to examine the nature of evil. There are two kinds of evil. The first is self-destructive evil. This is the most obvious type of evil and your examples above (drunkenness, failure to work out, etc) fall into this category. Self-destructive evil is a form of irrationality self-harm due to ignorance or lack of self-control.
Far more insidious is the use of evil use to strengthen oneself or ones people. Hitler's plan of enslaving the Slavic race and exterminating most of them to make way for German settlers if actualized would have been this type of evil.
Arguing that whatever strengthens your local culture is good effectively redefines evil as good. It is an argument for the right of the strong to enslave and kill the weak.
You will indeed find this argument to be incompatible with Judaism or any Christian denomination for that matter. These faiths require adherents to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They forbid such evil even if it "strengthens" the society.
No. People with emancipated women get fewer kids. We have more children than very poor people with equally emancipated women.
...
Women should not be educated past puberty, and before puberty should be taught about being wives and mothers. They should be under the authority of their fathers until they are under the authority of the husbands.
White men destroyed themselves because they fail to understand how to raise their daughters. They don't understand that women have no disciple. They view marriage as a compromise where the man has to do a bunch of nonsense that the woman's lack of discipline requires. This is a slippery slope which leads down the road of leaning ever further left in politics and culture. And eventually destroys the society.
James A Donald's thesis that we should just enslave our women is very similar to the argument of Himmler when he argued that education for non-Germans be restricted to elementary school just enough to teach them to write their names and obey Germans. This was not an irrational policy for the Germans as a mechanism for maintaining control and eventually exterminating or "selectively reducing" a conquered people. However, it is entirely incompatible with self-determination, freedom, and ultimately progress. The strategy of enslaving women to force them to do what men want is morally identical. It is not irrational but it is very evil.
Ultimately embracing a strategy of might makes right as long as it is good for the local culture is one of stagnation. To use the analogy up-thread it transforms the world into a prison of competing gangs a zero-sum game. Such strategies will ultimately lose out over time to strategies of cooperation. In the end we are one species.
The solution is not to enslave other cultures or enslave our women or anyone else for that matter but to allow for the matching of of social rewards to healthy behavior so people willingly choose to do the right thing both for themselves for society as a whole not via force and oppression but via voluntary cooperation.
Mr. Donald' strongly disagrees with that concept that the emancipation of slaves, the end of dueling, blasphemy laws, the divine right of kings, womans suffrage and participation in the workforce represented progress. He is stuck in a primitive mindset failing to understand the actual nature of progress.
His mindset is that Cycle #2 in the table below is ultimate progress and that everything that follows is bad. This is a rational view for someone who is highly optimized for warlordism and violence and wishes to engage in such things. However, it is a worldview that offers nothing but stagnation and ultimately slavery.
Cycles of Contention
| | Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 |
| Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism |
| Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government |
| Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers |
| Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
Your other argument the one for freedom of choice but not freedom from consequence is a
much healthier view and I urge you to continue on this line of thinking . You have to choose. Freedom of choice is entirely incompatible with Mr. Donald's primitavism above.
Your hypothetical of a sustainable multi-generational social structure built around a set of beliefs that are taught and followed on a voluntary basis requiring compliance but permitting freedom to leave has never existed and will never exist outside of the context of God and religion.