Reaction 101: The reactionary red pill on women.

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.  They want us to ingroup our enemies, ingroup those that outgroup us, and outgroup each other.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east Asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce in the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from what social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty though there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against “pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

This repression, repression of awareness of what is in front of everyone’s face, and repression of male sexuality, is depressing every male’s testosterone levels and sperm production, though if you consciously recognize it and consciously reject it, this reduces the impact on your testosterone levels a bit.  Men go overboard on repressing each other, as a displacement activity because they are denied their deep desire to control women.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she must have been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.

Tags: ,

594 Responses to “Reaction 101: The reactionary red pill on women.”

  1. Joe says:

    The reactionary position on women is easily observable by anyone with an open mind, a set of eyes, and three days to spend in the field.

  2. Steve Johnson says:


    Women in one sense are much more conformist so if they hear their whole lives that progressive cant is high status when they complain about men and men’s treatment of them the words they use are the high status words. That the meanings of the words that make up their complaints are the exact opposite of their actual complaints bothers them not a bit and doesn’t even occur to them since only men worry about the content of words and truth value in how the words correspond to reality. Women are just concerned that the words are emotionally resonant.

  3. There is one aspect I would like to emphasize. I would not put it that way that women not under male authority are making bad decisions. I would put this way: women not under male authority get under some other kind of authority, basically get blown by the wind here and there and usually to bad places. This wind can be whatever is in Cosmo, whatever her girl friends say, even whatever the pastor says, but basically an external authority. Women don’t really make decisions, if we understand decisions the way men make decisions.

    I for one don’t like damsels in distress who refuse to dirty their hands, I married a tough woman, not feminist tough (does that even exist?) but rural girl who shoveled some dung tough. She is many ways saner and more reliable than most, and yet one thing she cannot do at all is making up her mind and making decisions. Every even week she would prefer us to stay in the city and every odd weak she would prefer to move out into the backwoods. No surprise, I am chewing the same dilemma for a long while. My decision is to stay in the city until our finances got so that the move out will work well. She is very self-aware, in a way most women aren’t and says openly she has changing moods and feelings about something, and cannot predict how she will feel next week, therefore, cannot decide things, as deciding things implies some amount of permanency, to sticking to the decisions even when they happen to don’t feel good time to time. So I need to decide.

    This is really behind the feminist logic of withdrawing consent right in the middle of a sex act. The way women think, I wanted this because I felt good about it, and at some point I don’t feel good about it so I don’t want it anymore. What is entirely missing is the whole definition of consent, that it implies carrying out a promise, a contract even when feelings change. Women simply do not decide, do not consent in a meaningful way, which meaningful way means “I promise I will stick to this, even if it feels bad”.

    (There are exceptions, like “exit” type decisions do work like actual, committed decisions, I think if women quit a job they are less likely to go back to that job five years later than men are. This is a sort of an exception.)

    • Consent originally meant harmony. It is the opposite of dissent. The “age of consent” in catholic canon law refers not to the mental capacity to form a contract but to the favorable alignment, the harmony, of all the elements of the natural order.

      Rural girls who do dirty work are the spiritually healthiest women out there. Hard to feel like a special little proncess [typo retained for hilarity] when you’re knee deep in horse shit. The Amish are the most feminine girls I know. Contra the Victorians, hard work doesn’t break woman’s femininity. Responsibility breaks a woman’s femininity. I would join the Amish in a second if I could keep my motorcycle (I actually mean, if it wasn’t ethnic suicide to throw away technology)

      Of course, your girl can’t make up her mind because she wants you to do it for her. My vote is 100% for backwoods.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        You may be able to retain your hog. Amish communities, despite popular mythos, enact cultural barriers on a community basis. As technological “advancements” appear, they decide which to incorporate and eschew on a case by case basis. Failing that avenue, you could convert your bike to pneumatic power. Who knows, you may even start a hipster/green boi trend of non petroleum pussy snatchers 😉

  4. Frand says:

    Hello fellow friends! A very good post, I agree with everything. I guess that it goes unsaid that at every step the female’s consent is required (we don’t want to go back to the Stone Age know do we!), but otherwise this is an excellent post.

    • jim says:

      Consent presupposes verbal and verbalizing consciousness. Sex, reproduction, and something very like marriage predates verbalizing by a very long time.

      Women do what they do, and then sometimes the narrator in their head makes up a story of how and why it happened, but the reasons why it happened are far more ancient than that narrator.

      Old Testament treats consent (of either party) as insignificant and irrelevant. New Testament does not mention it.

      Neither Testament has any concept of rape, except that if a woman is forced into wrongful sex, she is innocent and only the man is guilty. In Old Testament family law, abducting a woman was not illegal or immoral except she was married or betrothed to someone else. Abducting a virgin was OK. It was letting her go afterwards that was a serious crime. That is the law of Deuteronomy, and the Proverbs of Solomon, and the story of the rape of Solomon’s sister indicates that is how it was enforced under the Kings of Israel.

      • Frand says:

        Well now it just sounds like you’re justifying rape, which I’m sure is not what you want to do, but that’s how you come across. Not the best look.

        • pepper without mint says:

          I have to agree, Fran. Furthermore, after we gas the kikes and the christcucks and the Chinese, we will institute the death penalty for every man whom we suspect of inappropriately touching a 12-year-old slut with nice boobs. As we all know and all agree, no White Man has ever been attracted to teenagers below whatever arbitrarily chosen age we decide is creepy, which means that pedophiles like Jim are, by definition, non-White. Good thing we all agree.

          Also, homosexuals don’t exist and anyone who claims that they do exist is a pedo enabler.

        • jim says:

          Rape is not a concept that can be accurately mapped to observed female behavior.

          It is not exactly an anticoncept, just hard to map onto actual events. It is usually difficult to say if a woman was raped or not, difficult to say what would constitute rape or not rape. So punishing men because of it is unlikely to work, but acquitting women because of it is likely to work. Old Testament rules on the topic conform to the nature of the world. Modern rules are difficult to apply in a manner that is sane, reasonable, consistent or just.

          • info says:

            If raped out in the field man get executed because no one is able to hear her cry. In the city she doesnt cry out she is to be punished also. but if she did the man is executed.

            • jim says:

              Man is executed regardless of whether she consented or not – the punishment is for illicit sex, not rape. Her consent does not make it less illicit, and if the sex is licit, her lack of consent, as for example a very young unbetrothed virgin who violently and strenuously objected to being abducted, her lack of consent does not make the licit sex illicit.

              If you abduct an unbetrothed virgin the intent and capability of making her your wife, licit, regardless of age, and regardless of consent, by Old Testament law, practice of the court of King Solomon, and nowhere in the New Testament are these rules amended.

              • The Cominator says:

                Why are we going off the Old Testament and not what British law and practice was in the 18th century though.

                There was no abducting the bride legally if her father objected in the 18th century. Abduction and elopement have a place if her father fails to arrange a proper marriage by the time the girl is a certain age.

                But under a certain age barring pregnancy that the father is not willing to have aborted marriage of the daughter should be under the father’s absolute control.

                • jim says:


                  It is kind of hard to tell what was eighteenth century practice, since so much goes unsaid, or taken for granted, and the words that they used have subtly changed their meaning – notable “whore” and “rape”.

                  But when the Australian authorities found themselves stepping into the role formerly performed by absent fathers, they did record what they did, since what they did was officially done. And what they did was not terribly different from Old Testament practice in its practical effect.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Australia was a penal colony though. Presumably the authorities there had far greater discretion over the deported criminal population then normal.

                • jim says:

                  It seems likely that they had similar discretion over female convicts as fathers had over daughters, likely considerably less. Thus their treatment of women is a good hint about how women were generally dealt with.

          • Please post your daughter’s address on the website so someone can go over to her house and not rape her.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              Q: do whites or east Asians ever break into their neighbors’ apartments in the middle of the night in order to fuck the daughters?

              A: nigga, plz.

              • SebastianX1/9 says:

                I dated and almost married an American model who was the victim of an elaborate rape attempt while doing a shoot in Korea. The hotel concierge had been paid to let in two KOREAN thugs to rape her. The plot was stymied last minute by an ITALIAN model who realized what was up.

                Worship of Orientals is the sure sign of a lost soul European.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Real rape is extremely rare, and almost never committed by members of the civilized races, almost never committed by whites. And when real rape does happen, 9 times out of 10, the woman was definitely asking for it, and definitely enjoyed it.

                  You wrote, “Please post your daughter’s address on the website so someone can go over to her house and not rape her,” which implies that evil men go around town, get inside people’s houses, and rape the daughters.

                  This is a fictional account of reality. Rape hysteria is just as artificial as pedo hysteria. Rapists do not go around town looking for chicks to rape, nor do they break into people’s apartments in search of innocent daughters to rape. It basically never happens; it is so extremely rare as to not be considered a real phenomenon. Your conception of “rape” is Feminist fantasy.

                  (Now, niggers… we’re not talking about niggers here, okay? Niggers do enter the apartments of strange people in search of girls to rape. But we are not niggers, nor are we particularly fond of them)

                  For every “real rape” case, there are — I’m not exaggerating — 10,000 fake “rape” cases. You are telling us to worry about rapists who wander around town looking for apartments to break into and daughters to rape. It’s fantasy.

                • jim says:

                  This is absolute true, and women find it profoundly frustrating and enraging, though they cannot explain nor understand why they are frustrated and enraged.

                  “A rape on campus” was an obvious female sexual fantasy, as I said when it was first reported, and what made it so obviously a female sexual fantasy was both a bunch of high status males so eager to nail her that they got down in the dark and broken glass, and also that they were so high status that they could and did rape with impunity.

                  What happened was that Jackie got one booty call from Ryan Duffin, failed to get another, so, imagining that preselection works on men the way it works on women, she sought a second booty call by telling her rape fantasies as actual events.

                  If a group of white males were so high status that they could and did glass rape coeds, coeds would be hanging around the frat house carrying glasses.

                  Women are angry, frustrated, bitter, and lash out, because the only rapes they get are from blacks and brown Muslims. Women act in ways that would, in the ancestral environment, result in them being “forced” to have sex by a male who was high status in the ancestral – and distinctly ape like – male hierarchy.

                  The are maladapted to the current male status hierarchy, which is designed for extended cooperation on a much larger scale than the ancestral male status hierarchy, and we need to provide them with something that looks to them like the ancestral ape-like male status hierarchy, as a garden looks like a patch of wilderness. This will calm their anger and frustration, and make them content, as a garden that resembles our ancestral savanna makes us content.


        Interestingly, if you look up Exo 22:16-17, all translations except King James emphasize that he must pay the bride price.

        This matters. Treating women like property AND getting said property for free, without payment rubs me in a very wrong way, incentives can go very wrong in such a situation in a lot of ways.

        • simplyconnected says:

          If you get a dog for free from the pound you still have to take of it all his life.

          • An older friend of mine plans to retire and breed dogs as a hobby. I asked him, what will you do with the pups when you will have more than you want? He says, he will try to find them owners who seem to be really into dogs and would treat them well. I told him the best way to do that, or at least part of the best way, is to charge the highest price the market will bear. Yes, you still have to filter out rich idiots and still spot the occasional poor but really dog-loving dude. But on the whole costly signals are a thing, and an important thing.

            • simplyconnected says:

              You make a good point. I too see for instance that one goes more often to a gym one pays good money for.

              I think the question is whether to punish someone for taking a stray dog for free, or to punish someone for not taking care of his dog.
              Afaik the argument here is for punishing someone for not taking care/abandoning his dog.

              As for the “initial price”, dowry is a payment to the husband, not a payment to the wife, possibly acknowledging that he is taking on a responsibility (he will be paying the dowry back many times over).

              • StoneMan says:

                Dowry is a payment to the father of the bride.

                • peppermint says:

                  we millennals are paying an impressive “brideprice” for our rental sexbots, the boomers take in the form of appreciating property values and reverse mortgages, and we aren’t even able to use them properly. Manipulating pairs of best friends into thinking it was their idea to have a threesome wasn’t really a worthwhile achievement.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Had to look it up to be sure..

                  > law : the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage

                  This was the sense used by my family when they speak of previous generations.

                • StoneMan says:

                  3rd definition:
                  “a gift of money or property by a man to or FOR his bride”
                  In the context of the Old Testament, dowries go to fathers.

                • peppermint says:

                  if you had known that was the third definition, you wouldn’t have posted it

                • Eli says:

                  Dowry is a divorce-severable property trasferred from bride’s father into groom.

                  Brideprice/bridewealth is a payment paid by groom to purchase wife from her guardian (father).

                  The only way to avoid brideprice is for a groom to abduct.

                  Brideprice existed since time immemorial, the beginning of civilization. Dowry was introduced as a mechanism of protecting the woman from divorce.

                • peppermint says:

                  > intergenerational wealth transfers exist to bind the hands of the next generation

                  well, that’s what hippies think about student loans

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Dowry was introduced as a mechanism of protecting the woman from divorce.”

                  Well then the restoration will have no need for it because other then one spouse being banished (we will not have long jail) but not killed we will not allow divorce.

                • peppermint says:

                  those people who would try to bind the hands of future generations with a dead letter stipulation on a contract they won’t live to see enforced sound like miserable jews

                  how does the dowry amount depreciate over time for returning a used sexbot?

                  an honest all sales are final purchase agreement, maybe with the option to return for no money back the way the muslims do it, would be less weird

                • Eli says:

                  Meh. Not sure about it.

                  What certainly *needs* to happen is disallowing the woman to divorce her husband, sans a number of limited, enumerable, objective conditions — like longterm impotency (her caprice, obviously excluded).

                • peppermint says:

                  plz take father christmas srsly. this is srs bsns

                • Eli says:

                  My reply was addressed to The Cominator.

                  I am unable to converse (neither speak nor understand) in the cryptic lore of Potato-Nigerese. Otherwise, I would’ve humored a long time ago.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  By society requiring a dowry (or, diluted and more degenerate, a terribly expensive wedding) paid by the father, there will be an economic resistance to women remarrying, and hence to them divorcing.

                  Those of a legalistic bent would also disallow marriages when father is unknown, unavailable or dead.

                  To be rejected: self-funded dowries or weddings.

        • peppermint says:

          It’s almost Christmas 🙂 do you think what St. Nicholas did was ultimately good for the community?

      • simplyconnected says:


        The japanese omiai gives women two chances to say no, then they must take the next suitor, or so I heard.
        Since optimal (secretary problem) would be to always say no to the first suitor, then pick the next suitor that is better than the first, this leaves some room for choice but not enough to prolong choosing/courtship indefinitely.

    • Hello friend! Did you know that “consent” originally meant “harmony”? As in, harmony with god and the natural order? And that you’ve been cucked by whigs and other leftists into thinking it means “contractual agreement”? Said contractual agreement having very little to do with how sex works.

      • Alrenous says:

        Heresy against logic.

        If you dissent to a contract you don’t sign it. If you have signed a contract, then you explicitly declare yourself to be in consent with the contents of the contract. It is immediate and clear that ‘consent’ is exactly the right word.

        I rather suspect I know exactly why you feel motivated to commit this error.

        • jim says:

          Contracts are conscious and verbal. The problem is that sexual interactions tend to happen without a whole lot of involvement by the conscious and verbalizing mind, hence the contract needs to be between the father and the husband. Female consent is opaque, especially to the woman herself.

          You cannot apply the language of contract to sex and reproduction. A man, a woman, and a nearby horizontal suface, and in both of them the part of their mind that constructs a narrative falls silent.

        • No, you are wrong here. Dissent did not originally mean disagreement either. It is easy to see how it came to mean agreement and disagreement, but for thousands of years there was no word other than ‘marriage’ to describe a contractual agreement to have sex. If you read old books, you will see them use ‘consent’ in a context where it cannot possibly mean ‘agreement’

          If you ever had sex with a verbal agreement to do so, you would realize it feels cheap and unromantic, like using a hooker.

          • Alrenous says:

            Series of non-sequiturs that doesn’t address what I said.

            Which is exactly what I was trying to provoke you into doing.

            • jim says:

              Explicit verbal consent to sex feels really bad. The model of sex as a contract between a man and a woman violates our nature.

            • “Rose-cheek’d Laura, come,
              Sing thou smoothly with thy beauty’s
              Silent music, either other
              Sweetly gracing.
              Lovely forms do flow
              From consent divinely framed;
              Heav’n is music, and thy beauty’s
              Birth is heavenly.”

              In so many words: “girl, you’re pretty, your singing is pretty, the harmony between the two makes it even better”

              Sorry, this is not the right word to describe a verbal agreement or the capacity for reason, so when “Age of consent” was written about by priests in the same era or earlier than Mr. Campion, they clearly mean something different than what you have in mind.

              When diction is perverted, you turn something that describes reality into something that does not describe reality, and now this phrase that is utterly unconnected from reality is used as a weapon against normal male sexuality.

              • jim says:

                Sounds like it originally meant “Age at which they first start getting hot”

                Or, possibly “Age at which their capacity to pull the kind of males that they are after starts to be a problem”

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to “ravish” a “maiden within age,” whether with or without her consent.


                  This clearly accords with your interpretation: “within age” had to mean “not possessing the necessary fertility signs.” Note that technically it’s not an AoC, but an age of fuckability.

                  And Westminster 1 — like all the legislation that followed — was a bad statue, bad for punishing disinterested men for the sexual aggression of little girls. It set a horrible precedent, nevermind that the crime itself was defined as a mere misdemeanor.

  5. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      There was a lot of good stuff in your comment, and I wanted to reply to it, but I am not going to publish and respond to a comment that presupposes that everyone agrees on the innate chastity and natural virtue of unaccompanied eight year old girls at an Ariana Grande concert, when it is glaringly obvious and plainly stated that not everyone agrees, that some people can see what is in front of their faces.

      Try writing several shorter comments rather than one long comment, and then I can censor the unresponsive comments and respond to the responsive comments.

  6. Koanic says:


  7. R7 Rocket says:

    Where’s Communist Revolutionary?

    • Anonymous says:

      Probably waiting for Jim’s 101 on reactionary economics.

      But something tells me that CR parodies will arrive soon.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Where do you think? lol

      Censored for saying it’s bad form to make light of little girls being blown to pieces by nail bombs while accusing them of being ‘up for it’.

      This guy’s a piece of shit.

      • jim says:

        You were censored, as usual, for being unresponsive.

        You were censored for implying that no one, not even me, not even the terrorist who blew up the concert, thinks there is anything horrifying, shocking, vile, disgusting, morally depraved, or outrageous about eight year old girls attending the concert without male kin supervising and in control.

        You were censored for, as usual, presupposing universal consensus that progressive pieties is true – instead of arguing we should agree with Cultural Marxism, you unresponsively tell us we all already agree with Cultural Marxism.

        You were censored for, as usual, giving us a response to what is covered by your script, and not a response to what was actually written, a response to what your script tells you we think, and not a response to what was said.

        You were censored for presupposing that no one could possibly doubt the chastity of unaccompanied eight year old girls attending an Ariana Grande concert. Had you instead argued for the virtue of women, instead of presupposing that everyone agrees on the virtue of women, you would not have been censored.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Bullshit, I gave an opinion and because you’re threatened by that opinion, you’d rather remove it than try to argue against it and fail.

          You’re defending the indefensible and any normal person will call you out on it. Eight-year-old girls aren’t going out looking to get banged and only a sick fuck like you would think they are.

          • jim says:

            Give me an argument that unaccompanied eight year old girls going to an Ariana Grande concert is perfectly fine and entirely normal, an argument that acknowledges that some people have reasons to find it shocking, outrageous, and horrifying, that acknowledges their reasons and attempts to provide evidence and argument that their reasons are invalid, and I will allow it through and respond to it.

            I am not going to allow through or respond to any of your comments that presuppose that everyone knows and agrees about X, particularly when X is something evil, insane, vile, revolting, terrifying, and horrifying, as it usually is.

            I will not allow comments that presuppose that we agree with your premises, when we have made it abundantly clear that we disagree with your premises.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted yet again for the same reasons, being almost the same comment*]

              • jim says:

                As I said, if you want to argue your position, you are free to argue your position. Present an argument, and your comment will not be censored.

                Assuming your position is agreed to by all right thinking people is just going to be censored, yet again.

                Here, we don’t put too much stock in the official 2018 consensus. We go by the consensus of the ages. And the consensus of the ages is that allowing unaccompanied eight year old girls to do stuff like attending the Ariana Grande concert is horrifying, shocking, evil, and outrageous.

          • peppermint says:

            CR, would you play Ariana Grande songs for an 8 year old girl?

            No, you refuse to think about the lyrics and assume it has to be okay because everyone else is doing it.

            “Everyone else I think is pretty wears X. Therefore if I wear X, my inner beauty will shine through. Why won’t you recognize my pulchritude?”


            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Peppermint engages in LEAPS of illogic that would make a leftist blush:

              “CR, would you play Ariana Grande songs for an 8 year old girl?


              I don’t favour laissez-faire. I see no reason why Jewish companies should get to inflict this horrific culture on us and I see no reason why a sane ruler should be restrained from simply shutting the entire thing down root and branch.

              In case my memory fails me, I believe you and the rest of these libertarians in denial have been attacking me PRECISELY FOR THAT VERY POSITION.

              But wait: you think that because these songs are evil, little girls want to be raped by 60 year old men?

              You’re sick in the head.

              • jim says:

                Nah, not because of these songs.

                We see that little girls want to be “raped” by observing little girls in action. Female bad behavior is right in front of everyone’s face, and everyone pretends they don’t see it.

                But because Ariana Grande plays a whore on stage, and leads little girls to plausibly believe that whores are high status, desired, well remunerated, and get lots of attention, she likely makes the problem considerably worse.

                Repeating once again: All boys, every single one, think that sex is disgusting until puberty hits. After puberty hits, they all become rather keen on it.

                The age at which girls start getting interested in sex is highly variable, and not closely connected to puberty, but most of the time they start getting alarmingly curious well before puberty.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                >little girls want to be raped by 60 year old men?

                Little girls want to be violently and brutally ravished by alpha males with adult female pre-selection.

                They prefer those high status military age men who are dating their older sister etc., but if no military age man is willing to play along, others will do. They even fuck dogs.

                Sometimes the lustful prepubescent girls succeed in scoring exactly what they want, such as by cowboy-riding a drunk man who’s sleeping on the couch in the living room to “a happy awakening, followed by a big surprise”; usually, however, they only score after reaching puberty, after developing at least minimal secondary sexual characteristics (curves, boobs, etc.), around age 11 or so.

                Sometimes they do indeed manage to score before puberty, evidently.

                Hence young marriage, shotgun marriage, marriage-by-abduction, and abolition of the “consent” nonsense.

                • Ron says:

                  Just read “my secret garden” a collection of normal women’s fantasies from the 1960’s

                  I would take it further. They don’t just want the alpha male, they want the old smelly bum, their family members, the local rapist, black men, big breasted black women, their girlfriends and yes, the neighborhood dog (at least 8 fantasies involved dogs)

                  There was a New Atlantic piece detailing an experiment involving men and women, gay and straight. The gay and straight men were generally turned on only by what they claimed turned them on.

                  The women were turned on by… everything. If it involved sex, they were good to go.

                  Women’s choices must be constrained

                  Oh yeah, that turns them on too

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Ron, I’ve been promoting Nancy Friday’s My Secret Garden and Forbidden Flowers for a long time. Everyone must read these books – Jim is 100% correct about little girls.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  I was less than convinced by Friday’s imaginative books.


                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Understandably. Let’s say that one shouldn’t base one’s red pill awareness solely on Nancy Friday – but even if merely 30% of those fantasies are authentic, that’s pretty significant.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            >Eight-year-old girls aren’t going out looking to get banged

            I’ll take a slightly more moderate approach than Jim’s: I don’t know whether or not they consciously plan to get banged when they go out. What I know is:

            1) There are plenty of 8-year-olds with sex drives. Not necessarily as volcanic as at later ages, but at least some of them are mighty horny, are masturbating to orgasms, and are evidently smart enough to document themselves doing so and intentionally spread around the documentation, just like 18-year-olds and 28-year-olds. They are certainly willing to “go along” with a partner when the opportunity presents itself, and a few of them have active sex lives.

            2) Their conduct, or “revealed preference” (inb4 “muh libertarianism”), is engaging in behaviors that lead to sex, that are only intended to lead to sex, such as going up to strange men, who have no natural inclination to even notice them, much less to look at them sexually, and hang around their vicinity even while the alcohol is pouring in and flat horizontal surfaces aren’t too far off, such as at beach parties. They can get quite close to you, touchy, almost intimate, if you don’t bother to scuttle away. You can see these girls at beach parties, and you will notice that they feel themselves right at home there.

            So, do they intentionally try to get ravished? I’m not sure. Maybe what they do at beach parties is just teasing behavior, commencing at an age when teasing behavior is rather premature, since they simply don’t have the requisite curves and fertility signs to tease with (i.e., secondary sexual characteristics, which manifest around 11 or so). But the behavior itself exhibited by them is real enough, and that’s what Jim notices, and blue pilled white knights lie about.

            Hence: control the eggs, not the sperm.

            • jim says:

              > > Eight-year-old girls aren’t going out looking to get banged


              Women do not generally have conscious intent related to sex, which is why it is hard to map the concept of rape onto observed behavior.

              Revealed preference, however, suggests that that a society that allows unaccompanied girls to go to an Ariana Grande concert is doing something horribly wrong. Unaccompanied girls are apt to do stuff that is likely to result in them being “raped”, particularly when out of sight of people who might say “Hey, don’t do that, you might get raped.”

              A very common behavior pattern is:

              Female kin wants to go off on her own, when male kin authority figure is busy. Male kin authority figure says: Don’t do X, don’t go to location Y, you are likely to get robbed, beaten, raped and murdered.

              Shortly thereafter, male kin authority figure gets a phone call: “Could you pick me up at location Y, I have mysteriously and inexplicably lost all my money and stuff and need a ride.”

              The trouble is that if you successfully forbid high status males from doing things to women that are obviously extremely bad, this looks to women like low status and lack of preselection, so they go off looking for males who can and will do things to women that are obviously extremely bad.

              It is not exactly that they want these extremely bad things done to them. Indeed they certainly do not want these extremely bad things done to them. But somehow, strangely, they would like to be around exciting interesting people who might do these extremely bad things, and when extremely bad things get done, somehow, strangely, fail to complain to police or family.

              This comment is intended both as a response to “Oh, the horror, you would forbid unaccompanied girls from attending Ariana Grande concerts!”, and “Oh, the horror, you would legalize marriage by abduction and marital rape!”

              To get eugenic reproduction, it should be legal for high status males to do extremely bad things to females, and illegal for low status males to do bad things to females, but the incentives for high status males should be such that they generally feel disinclined to do extremely bad things for females. (You broke it, you bought it.)

              That way, if males who are high status in the male status system are allowed to do horrifyingly bad things to women, we will find that females mysteriously and inexplicably tend to be in the vicinity of males who are high status in the male status system acting in ways apt to get them impregnated, and mysteriously not in the vicinity of males who are low status in the male status system, and when in the vicinity of those males, act in ways that reduce their likelihood of being impregnated.

              Women may well want to be raped, but they quite certainly do not want to be robbed and beaten. Yet somehow, strangely, women are apt to somehow mysteriously and inexplicably wind up in the vicinity of men who might well rob and beat them.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                I agree.

                The ubiquitous presence of “predators” should be taken for granted; the factor that can be influenced by society is out-of-control feral females, who should cease being out-of-control, a feat rather difficult to achieve given how feral they are, requiring a strong hand.

                If one goes out into the vast dark woods at night, alone and unequipped, and doesn’t come back in the morning, the problem is not there being wolves and wild animals in the forest; there *should* be wolves and wild animals in the forest; rather, the problem is one’s own reckless risk taking behavior.

                In the girls’ case, tight supervision by male kin till marriage is needed, to be followed by tight supervision by the husband once ownership is transferred to him. And marriage has to be young, *before* the girl’s feral sexuality erupts like a volcano all over the closest alpha male.

              • The Cominator says:

                Don’t you see this as more a postpubescent thing?

                I suppose it happens rarely with 10-12 year olds (and rarely uncontrollably) and much much more often beyond that but 8 year olds… only Muslims really married them off.

                Typical uncontrollable bad young girl behaviour looks like the movie Thirteen and typically sets in 13-15. 10 is an extreme outlier but it does exist but 8… I’ve never seen it.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            And when I say that 8-year-olds sometimes have active sex lives, I include dog-sex in the category.

            Hence “pedophilia” being an anti-concept: 8-year-old boys absolutely never have sex with their dogs, and when 8-year-old boys have any sex at all, it’s because an older homosexual rapes their orifices, possibly giving them AIDS. That scenario goes under the “Gay Problem” category, for which the solutions are known.

            The girls, on the other hand, do have sex with their dogs…

            Come the restoration, every aspiring member of the Priesthood will be required to watch videos featuring 8-year-old girls and their dogs, so that all members of the Priesthood will be utterly (based and) red pilled, and the soft-as-pudding types will drop out.

            • peppermint says:

              me: christmas and mistletoe and ho ho ho and presents for pretty girls and Lucy shit-testing Charlie Brown in between hitting on Schroeder
              you: let’s talk about beastiality

              do you think this is a game?

              • jewish pedophile says:

                My posts, unlike yours, are relevant to the subject under discussion, providing much needed (and much suppressed) information.

                Consider fucking off.

                • peppermint says:

                  Once we were able to police our population, and we were the best policed population, then the values were changed by jews, queers, jewish queers, and Jewish Queers to values inimical to our existence (because it’ll finally prove Peppermint wrong!). The resulting struggle between the government’s desire to destroy and the population’s will to exist broke the policing.

                  Now we have others amongst us, in places they’re policing us, using our 13yos, bombing our 8yos.

                • peppermint says:

                  I’m not even going to bother with the rest of this thread.

                  “Peppermint said everything was fine before the Civil Rights Act of 1965”
                  “Peppermint is a beta”
                  “Peppermint is the real pervert”

                  This is a family friendly Christmas thread.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >oy vey shut it down stop discussing subjects I don’t like!!

                  >oy gevald people disagree with my absurd and deluded position that homosexuals literally don’t exist and that people who claim they do exist are all jews and pedo-enablers

                  >oi va voi my desperate attempts to change the subject from red pill sexuality to something else aren’t working

                  Not happening, fag. I’ve already ripped you a hundred new assholes, and I haven’t even started yet. Say something relevant and truthful, or GTFO.

                • peppermint says:

                  …I meant Lawrence v. Texas, but other states implemented it on their populations first

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You’ve spammed your gibberish enough.

                  Say something relevant and truthful, or GTFO.


                  Go there, and write there that no white man would ever have sex with a 13-year-old chick, or whatever else you believe, and that “everyone knows” that no white man would ever have sex with a 13-year-old chick, and that anyone who may disagree is a jewish pedophile*.

                  Not here.

                  *For reference:


                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I mean, you wrote:

                  “Fucking 13 year old White girls will never be considered normal by normal White men under any circumstances”


                  “UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!”

                  I’m telling you politely: fuck off, or change your tune radically. I’ll be here in 2019 and 2020 and 2021, just as I’ve been here in 2012 and 2013 and 2014. I’ve had enough of your faggotry.

                  It’s over.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Fucking 13 year old girls really does go against our community standards and we really do have a right and duty to uphold those standards.

                  Do you understand what community standards are?

                  > those community standards don’t let me talk about dogsex!

                  That’s the point.

                  > but 13 year old girls should be married to the first guy who bones them


                  > but 13 year old girls shouldn’t be given the opportunity to be alone with strangers


                  A female friend’s 13yo little sister showed off her curves to me stretching on the couch. The friend, who knew exactly what she was doing, glared at her.

                  > Peppermint has social contact with women outside of his family, that’s weird and beta and he probably pervs on them like, all the time

                • peppermint says:

                  > but peppermint didn’t assume the first guy who bones her is 17-23 has a job

                  and why would peppermint make assumptions about a man who would commit a crime having something to lose

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I’ll discuss every subject that is relevant. You, being a little spam-happy bitch, are in no position to silence anyone here.

                  You can mischaracterize my position all you want. For example, when you write:

                  >”13 year old girls should be married to the first guy who bones them”

                  As if that is my position, you are lying, mis-attributing to me a position that is close to my own, but not at all identical to it. Yes, there should be shotgun marriage in cases where pre-marital sex has occurred, but we want virgin brides, so we support marrying girls off *before* they lose their virginity.

                  >”those community standards don’t let me talk about dogsex!”

                  You’ve spammed this blog with unfathomable amounts of disgusting degeneracy in all topics. Me pointing out that 8-year-old girls have sex with their dogs *in a relevant thread* is valuable information as regards CR’s post and this article generally.

                  >Do you understand what community standards are?

                  Nothing to do with Puritanism Feminism, come the restoration.

                  You keep spamming this blog with the blue pill. You are getting on my nerves, have already gotten on my nerves, and if you continue in this fashion, will get on our host’s nerves. Honestly, the blue pill is more upsetting to me than CR’s Marxist drivel. At least he is marginally interesting. You aren’t even that.


                  Come the restoration, teen marriage, marriage of 13-year-old females to 17-year-old men will be as unremarkable as it was in 1850, and society will uphold it.

                • peppermint says:

                  > but peppermint! Why don’t you recognize that movie director as a lord? don’t assume underclass status of actors! you don’t need to hide your daughter when the movie men come to town!

                • peppermint says:


                  Why, yes, we agree about something.

                • peppermint says:


                  I apologize for the strawman.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I apologize for waiting till this year to do this; I should have eradicated your weltanschauung back in 2016, thus would’ve prevented you from spreading the blue pill unperturbed for so long. Ah well, better late than never.

                  >”you don’t need to hide your daughter when the movie men come to town!”

                  The movie men never come to town to rape little girls; little girls run out to the movie men to get raped by them.

                  AoC (or any equivalents thereof) is incompatible with Jimianity. Denying the feral nature of little girls, and the observable fact that those with SSCs will *always* find men to seduce if allowed freedom, is incompatible with Jimianity. Denying the need for young marriage and shotgun marriage, or pretending that prepubescent and pubescent chicks are innately chaste, is incompatible with Jimianity.

                  Whenever you attack me for channeling Jim’s positions (or even milder versions of Jim’s positions), you attack Jim. You have no e-balls to tell Jim that you consider him a “jewish pedophile,” because that might get you censored and told to GTFO, so you attack him via proxy by lashing out against me, even though I channel Jim’s positions fairly accurately, or sometimes more moderately than his positions actually are.

                  Stop attacking Jimianity.

                • peppermint says:

                  No, you hide your daughter all the time unless your friends and family are around, whether you are a pioneer, or a musulman.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You supervise her all the time up close, and if she wants to be a little whore and spread her ass for St. Polanski, and you don’t want her to go down that road, the problem is not St. Polanski, but her being a little whore, who should be married off long, long before she arrives at St. Polanski’s place.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Denying that little butt-sluts are indeed little butt-sluts, calling for the suppression of “predatory men” for their toxic male sexuality rather than calling for the urgent and immediate suppression of little butt-sluts’ feral sexuality by marrying them off young, is the very definition of blue pill.

                • peppermint says:


                  Yes, not every girl makes it through high school a virgin, those who aren’t going to should get married. You see many couples in high school really are ready to get married, and there’s no reason for the man not to be able to get a job. High school and college are aberrations.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  We’re talking about prepubescent feral girls and pubescent feral girls, both categories being in need of marriage (in many cases, that is) because they are uncontrollable. And you know damn well that this is what we’re talking about, rather than older women.

                  Your comments are spam, have always been spam, sometimes amusing spam, always blue pilled spam, and usually unintelligible and gibberishy spam; or rather, they have a stupendously low noise-to-signal ratio, being approximately 80% noise and 20% signal, and I’m being generous here.

                  I’d blame that on some kind of ADHD, but there are people with ADHD here, and they don’t behave like you. They are actually good, contributing commenters, now that I think about it. No, it’s not ADHD. You are just a disingenuous little bitch.

                  I’ll repeat: feral 12-year-olds, potential anal whores, should be married off before they get to spread for any high status male with adult female pre-selection. And this, again, is milder than Jim’s position, who would write that exact thing about 8-year-old anal whores. And he would be correct, by the way; I should aspire to be as redpilled as him.

                • peppermint says:

                  You can stop a man from working with ged and college requirements, you can’t pause a woman’s life.

                  That’s my last word.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Unintelligible gibberish, as usual. We’re talking about prepubescent and pubescent girls being sexually uncontrollable, and the measures that must be taken to prevent them from becoming butt-sluts. Those measures don’t arrest their “lives,” only their ability to hop on the cock carousel. They need husbands, and in this age of widespread involuntary celibacy, we witness that willing husbands, or potential willing husbands, are not in short supply.

                  It is pussy that is in short supply, because of female emancipation and the other usual reasons.

                  Need to bring back young marriage, shotgun marriage, marriage by abduction; and abolish the whole “consent” bullshit once and for all.

                • Ron says:

                  Peppermint , I have a question: what exactly is the benefit to a woman to go to high school? What does she actually get of it, that makes it worthwhile to her and society for her to spend 4 years of her life hornier than a yowling cat studying the usual worthless idiocy that almost nobody even remembers?

                  Do we really need women doctors, lawyers, social workers, mathematicians, etc? Because aside from college preparation, I have no idea what the purpose is to put women through high school

                • peppermint says:

                  There is no benefit to high school. JP is right that the values of the future will be alien to us, in particular around people who are casually assumed now to be in high school.

                  I’ve been assuming, without providing argument, that the values of 1850 will follow quickly if we can pull things back even as far as the early 90s.

                  Recently on South Park, the principal made Tweek say to Craig “no, you may not touch my penis, at this time” to teach them affirmative consent. If JP’s comments are more obscene than that, now or in 50 years, for the purpose of trolling me into realizing that I basically just blame gay rights for things not simply returning to normal, then they are relevant.

                • StoneMan says:

                  There were 12 year old sluts in the early 90s Peppermint. Culture is downstream from power, and if power commands that 12 year olds put condoms on bananas, blogging about “90s values” and perceived “obscenity” is gay.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  He was not trying to bring back the 90s’ values; he had sincerely assumed that all men agreed with his position, that only “jewish pedophiles” would disagree with his position, and that therefore he would manage to rally the commentariat to the cause of ignoring the reality of teenage sexuality. I told him in the first comment: it’s not 2017 anymore. In 2017, everyone pretended to accept his worldview.

                  Winds are changing.

                • Ron says:

                  @jewishpedophile @peppermint

                  Thanks for both replies

                  My intent in bringing up high school was to indicate that we can’t “go back” to 1950’s era mores bc 1950’s era mores were by their nature unstable. And that at least one part of the argument, that is what we should be looking at as the ideal (1950s era high school) needs to be reconsidered carefully.

                  I do not know what the solution is, I believe in “old” testament values bc that is my faith. It seems from observation that we have as a society made some serious missteps.

                  This blog is explaining why many things I had a problem reconciling with what I thought were cruel, I see now were actually based on God’s perfect understanding of human nature. I always accepted that, bc He is God after all, and His word goes, but I had to accept some of His laws on trust. Now I see that we have all been subjected to a serious misunderstanding of human nature.

                  Lately I have been thinking that much of our confusion as a society has come about bc of our imperative towards industrialization. That is, in order to achieve the maximum good for the majority of people we have implemented patterns of industrialization and automation. Zan Perrin pointed out that a consequential goal of our thinking has been to make people as interchangeable as possible.

                  Hence the push towards destroying culture, national borders, sexual roles, etc.

                  That we need industrialization is clear, that we need as a human race some form of common shared understanding is also clear. That understanding does not have to be globohomoism, it could even be a shared understanding across the globe of respecting ethno-national boundaries.

                  In any case, what is clear is that, as Jim would put it, the priest caste that influences and direct our thinking are for a number of reasons disconnected from reality and taking us to far in attempting to realize an ideal that is not in line with human needs.

                • peppermint says:

                  > 1950’s era mores were by their nature unstable

                  Yes. George Jetson was angry about his high school daughter Judy winning a date with the rock star Johnny Screamer and followed them on their date to protect her. However, he pretended to be indifferent to her parade of high school boyfriends and only seemed to want her to pick one.

                  What would you be able to do in George Jetson’s world, with everyone having seen that Marge is happy and Patty and Selma are miserable? Would you be able to actively manage Judy’s search for a husband?

                • peppermint says:

                  I mean, JP says, no, taking an interest in what Judy is up to would be called pedophilia by Judy and Mr. Wrong. Still would. How do we enable fathers? I’m out of ideas.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Peter Griffin was not called a “pedophile” for trying to get Meg shotgun married off, but he was still presumed to be the “bad guy,” the story’s villain, because of muh consent, goyim.

                  Our culture called Quagmire, Mayor West, and even Toby “pedophiles” because Meg (aged 15-18) looks like a pizzafaced derpy 12-year-old, and practically is one. This despite acknowledging the fact that her SSC are curvy enough to seduce men.

                  (As expected, the next step down the holiness spiral was denying that Meg’s curves would attract men at all: “Oh, me? No, I never fantasized about Meg.”)

                  At any rate, I am unwilling to out-group Quagmire, Mayor West, and Toby, but am perfectly willing to out-group Herbert, who is accurately depicted as being into Chris, and not into females.

                  Our culture also accuses Jerry Seinfeld of being a (Jewish) pedophile because he fucked a 17-year-old. Appalling!

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  By the way, when you attribute to me the following position:


                  Like it’s a bad thing, you reveal your progressivism. Why shouldn’t girls be married to the man who pops their cherry? If you’re going to say that it’s a burden on the man, well, tough luck – don’t go around popping cherries, Jeremy Meeks. But surely, going to prison or to the gallows, humiliated by society as a “sex criminal,” is much worse than marrying a young Stacy. You seek to punish men with prison/death, ostensibly under the pretext of protecting them from marriage to young Stacies. Nuts. Young Stacies grow up to be older Stacies. Meanwhile, if not married, she is damaged goods. Someone needs to own her.

                  Ideally, however, marriage should occur before sex. Uncontrollable girls should be whipped, and yes, married to a patriarch, younger or older.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Ideally, however, marriage should occur before sex.

                  Actually, the betrothal period naturally escalates up to sex, and it doesn’t really matter when the act is completed. It’s described in the Song of Solomon. It’s why sleeping with a man’s betrothed is the same as sleeping with his wife.

                  Uncontrollable slave girls are whipped if they sleep with their masters despite being married to another. Whores and adulterers are stoned.

            • jim says:

              > The girls, on the other hand, do have sex with their dogs…

              Brilliant idea. Instead of porn that documents the feral nature of women being forbidden, it will be mandatory.

              Meanwhile, romances where the female insert character is described as sixteen, but who looks suspiciously like nine, is offered eternal and undying love by a billionaire, a powerful sorcerer, a vampire, a demon, a werewolf and pirate king, all of whom but one tragically die, will be totally forbidden.

              The romance of Lancelot and Guinevere will be permitted with the same events, but with Lancelot and Guinevere depicted as very bad people, and the connection to the fall of Camelot and everyone getting killed made explicit.

              • Ha, now that you mention it Jim, a lot of romances for teenage girls have a “sixteen-year-old” protagonist who is shorter than normal, and skinner than normal, and scrawny, and flat as a board…

                I always assumed it was because the nerdy girls who read them identified with being insecure about late-blooming. Until now at least.

                The old medievals, as I’ve said a million times, saw Lancelot and Gwenevere as bad people. It didn’t even need to be stated explicitly that when the King gets cucked, civilization is over. It needs to be more explicit now, but the 80’s movie, cheesy as it was, did a pretty good job. The Victorians idolized Lancelot’s “romance” and that alone is evidence that their civilization’s death was written in stone, even at a time when every foot of land on the earth was European property and Jews didn’t know how to read or write anything other than Yiddish.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                It could nearly have been different.

                Revealed as a betrayer of his king and friend, Lancelot fights and escapes. Incited to defend honor, Arthur reluctantly sentences his wife to be burned at the stake. Knowing Lancelot and his family would try to stop the execution, the king sends many of his knights to defend the pyre, though Gawain refuses to participate. Lancelot arrives with his kinsmen and followers and rescues the queen. … When Arthur goes to France to fight Lancelot, he leaves Guinevere in the care of Mordred, who plans to marry the queen himself and take Arthur’s throne. While in some versions of the legend (like Morte Arthure, which removed French romantic additions) Guinevere assents to Mordred’s proposal, in the tales of Lancelot she still she hides in the Tower of London.


                What a nice girl. When revealed, the little affair also subsequently ends Arthur, Camelot and all that. So cucking the King was not taken lightly in the original tales.

                Tristan and Isolde is perhaps a more blatant example of ‘it just happened’ (by means of this, like, love potion). Cucking King Mark still leads to a bad ending.

            • info says:

              Prepubescent girls are only sexual in the minds of the sick. They may imitate ariana grande on tv but they never have sex drive. Nor will they understans that its sexual

              Excuses like how little girls came onto them wouldn‘t pass due process. And the hanging rope.

              • Go outside your internet cave and live a little real life. I’ve known women who started masturbating at three years old, and others who were fantasizing about their older brothers in their elementary school diaries.

                Your instinct of wanting to protect little kids is healthy and natural but you need to understand that you’re protecting them from themselves and their own animal nature.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >I’ve known women who started masturbating at three years old

                  Ditto. A woman explained to me how in kindergarten, during nap time, she used to cross her legs together tightly and concentrate, sense increasing sexual excitement (obviously without knowing what that is), and cum. Without even rubbing! This is not as uncommon at it sounds.

                • info says:


                  Shit like this make me see red. When I see any semblance of what would justify real child abuse.

                • jim says:



                  You support Child Protective services, which is responsible for a gigantic amount of real child abuse, probably the vast majority of it, tearing children away from fathers who are naturally inclined to protect them, and placing them in the hands of perverts who have no natural inclination to protect, and frequently have a unnatural inclination towards sex with children.

                  You support eight year old girls being allowed to immoral gatherings without supervision by adult male kin.

                  You support romance literature being available to and read by nine year old girls where the female insert character is described as sixteen, but looks suspiciously like nine, is nonetheless offered eternal and undying love by a billionaire, a powerful sorcerer, a vampire, a demon, a werewolf and pirate king, all of whom but one tragically die.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Nobody cares how you feel.

                • info says:


                  No. I oppose the current Child protective services for this reason. All who abused children among them need to be hanged.

                  ”You support eight year old girls being allowed to immoral gatherings without supervision by adult male kin.”

                  No. little girls don’t belong anywhere near degenerate culture. I want them homeschooled and protected from predators from the outside.


                  No. Quote me where I said this.

                • info says:


                  The reason for the sexualization of children is also due to the degenerate surrounding culture that they of course ape.

                  And also due to perverts that want to corrupt the minds of children in the education system.

                • info says:

                  I do apologize for losing my cool and casting spurious accusations that impede rational discussion.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Stop white knighting for little whores, disinfo. Saying “Women misbehave because evil men make them misbehave” is Victorianism, and false. We’ve heard it all before a million times, and it has always been a blue pilled lie.

                  Little girls misbehave because at adrenarche many of them develop volcanic sex drives, and adrenarche hits several years before puberty. In fact they exhibit pre-sexual behavior even prior to adrenarche (fetuses and newborns masturbate), but it proceeds to become mighty intense and unambiguously sexual at adrenarche, around age 8.

                  Hence, lustful 8-year-old girls need to be forcefully and violently restrained, sometimes beaten with a stick, and married off before they get the chance to elope, which comes after they grow boobs and curves at 11 or so.

                • Alrenous says:

                  CPS is abusive by its inherent nature, and also dysgenic.
                  In the very rare case that the child is abused so badly that it would genuinely be better off away from its natural parents, the parents’ line deserves to die off.

                • Ron says:

                  No one here wants to see little girls having sex with animals or multiple men. These are our mothers, daughters, and sisters. They are the future wives of our brothers and the mothers of our nieces. What’s more they bring love and joy into our lives. Even if not any of that, by nature as men we are protective of our relatives.

                  The reason everyone is discussing the darker aspects of female nature is bc there is a recognition that what we have been doing til now is flawed. A different conceptual model of both male/female sexuality and an organizing principle for society derived from that understanding is required to give people the maximum chance at living a life in harmony with God’s will. Which is as much to say, in harmony with reality and which can achieve the maximum happiness.

                  If any group of human beings had a penchant for X behavior and X behavior is both disruptive to society as a whole and will have serious harmful repercussions to the people in question. The goal, imo, of any decent thinking man would be to try to create both rules that can successfully prohibit and/or limit X behavior while at the same time channeling those impulses in way that is healthy and beneficial for society as a whole.

                  That said, I do not have the understanding or psychology necessary to come up with such means. Maybe no one knows exactly. Hence discussion and debate based on the shared observations of sexually high value men who by virtue of their position have seen or been made aware of behaviors that most of us have not.

              • peter connor says:

                It’s an indisputable fact that girls have sexual impulses from a very young age, and that pandering to those inchoate impulses with filth like Ariana Grande is extremely stupid and dangerous….Talk to any friend who has girls..

              • peppermint says:

                See, Info, that’s the kind of thing Ariana Grande and the Muslim “rape” scandal is the reductio ad absurdum for.

                Just because you forgot elementary school and middle school doesn’t mean you need to feed this weirdness.

                Some day things will be normal again.

                If Jim wants to talk about dogsex, like I heard femanons used to over a dexade ago, to make that point, well, so be it.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Things will be “normal again” when what you and your fellow Puritan-Feminists did in 1890 is fully and permanently reversed.

                  8-year-old girls do indeed (sometimes) have very active sex lives, which very active sex lives are partly documented in videos featuring them and their dogs. You want that documentation eliminated because you seek to suppress red pill knowledge. Not happening, fag. You won’t suppress red pill knowledge, no matter what pretexts you use.

                  All healthy heterosexual men are sexually attracted to females with secondary sexual characteristics, which begin to manifest around age 11 or so. Men have always played ball, men are playing ball, and men *always will* play ball, though we want that to be in a marital context, because we want virgin brides; hence young marriage and the rest of the Jimian program.

                  Your weltanschauung (Puritanism-Feminism) will be eradicated within a few short decades, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

                • peppermint says:

                  That some men will is demonstrated in Britain.

                  We would have had the same conversation with significantly less acrimomy if you’d chosen to blow up my weltanschauung 2 years ago. I’m trying to be normal, I have what I think are my reasons for not being able to look at a young woman the same way as I did as a young man, and I don’t really want to be convinced otherwise. Which means I have to cede the point.

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  Shut up.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You will never out-group white men who have sex with young (early) teenagers. I’ll never let you, Jim will never let you, others will never let you. White men who have sex with early teenagers exist, have always existed, will always exist, and are an inextricable part of the Jimian in-group. If you try to out-group men who have sex with teenagers, you will find *yourself* out-grouped. This is not a negotiable point.

                  Your post-1890 (in fact: post-1970) sense of “normalcy” is utterly sick and deviant. None of it will remain.

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  This is actually an important admission: I wonder how much of the blue pill about young women stems from men who, when their testosterone levels were much healthier and when they could witness feral female misbehavior from up close rather than only from afar, used to be red pilled about young women.

                  It is a type of selective amnesia; in the future there may be memory-boosting brain implants or a similar technology, which memory-boosting brain implants or similar technology will prevent people from developing selective amnesia about the sexuality of teenagers. They will remember in vivid detail and intensity how horny the girls were like, and will remember in vivid detail and intensity how horny they themselves were like, and the blue pill will cease being biologically possible.

                  Take someone like viking. Is there any doubt that when he was a teenager himself, blue pilled thoughts would not even have occurred to him? Now, one may say, “Old people know better.” Nah, not always; for instance, if their t-levels have plummeted catastrophically, they often tend to not be aware (anymore) of realities that healthier people are keenly aware of.

                  But in addition to literal testosterone deficiency, there is also the issue of metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply, which requires that people like Jim do what they do to filter it out.

                • Simon says:


                  Are there any examples of this?

                  I don’t understand why this is such an important topic. It’s obvious that anyone who would have sex with a thirteen year old over a twenty year old is a deviant. What point is trying to be made here?

                • jim says:

                  Escalating repression of male sexuality is causing a massive drop of testosterone and sperm production. I infer that repression is the cause, because of the obvious epidemiology, that workplaces with the most severe repression of “sexual harassment” have the lowest testosterone levels.

                  At the same time, repression of female sexuality continues to collapse, plunging us all into defect/defect equilibrium.

                  Ever rising age of consent is part of the repression of male sexuality.

                  It is also part of the abandonment of all restraints on female sexuality, as men get blamed for the misconduct of ever older girls.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Are there any examples of this?

                  Sure. Here are 2 examples I could instantly find:


                  Look at Timothy Temple and Morgan Hunt. Are Timothy Temple and Morgan Hunt not white men? Are they “jewish pedophiles”? Why should these white men be in prison?


                  Look at Kieran Dalton. Is Kieran Dalton not white? Is he a “jewish pedophile”? Why should this white man be imprisoned? (Thankfully he isn’t, but that’s beside the point)



                  That’s the issue. Nobody is arguing that 13-year-olds are sexier than 20-year-olds. The argument is that out-grouping men for unchastity, inappropriate touching, and other bogus “sex crimes” (i.e. “statutory rape”) has destroyed society. Which it has.

                  It’s an important issue because we need to urgently filter the estrogen out, in earnest. That means culturally and legally.

                • pdimov says:


                  This is also explained by selection, by men with normal T levels refusing to work at such places.

                • jim says:

                  Could be.

                  But a man with high testosterone levels could just quietly ignore women in such a place.

                  Also, seems to me that the selection effect is running in the other direction, in that it is always betas that get purged in female administered purges, which is to say HR administered purges, and the betas typically have lower testosterone. If you are alpha, then, as Trump told us, “You can do anything, grab them by the pussy, you can do anything”.

                • peppermint says:


                  That’s what I do, and haven’t been bothered about it, except that one of the women seems to always be where I’m trying to go. I hope one of the other men who can learn something sees what’s going on and figures out how to grab her by the pussy.


                  The word philandering started before 1800 and reached peak usage around 1930 and 2000 (no idea why). Usage ramped up between Gary Hart and Clinton, consistent with progs gleefully disqualifying each other. JP, was there a different word they used in the 1890s, or did the social change lag a legislative change you refer to by 1-3 decades?

                • jim says:

                  Things started to go bad with the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline. During and immediately following, and escalating to the present, we see a propaganda offensive blaming men for female misconduct, and claiming deep roots for this story – it is always an indication of a new story that they spend a lot of time and energy telling us the story is ancient, industriously rewriting our past.

                  And in 1824, this story was sufficiently new and unusual that they spend a whole lot of time and energy telling us it is not new.

                  The world “Philanderer” like the words “racist”, “sweatshop”, pedophile” “sexual fetish” and similar, is a lie.

                  If a man and a fertile age woman close the door behind them for sixty seconds, we should assume that they had enthusiastic and consensual sex and break out the shotgun.

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  I keep banging on the year 1890 as the turning point because of this chart:


                  Just to be clear, the rot set in way before that. The rot set in in the 11th or 12th centuries, rapidly escalated during the Enlightenment and with the spread of the 1804 Napoleonic Code in Europe, and crystallized with the Queen Caroline episode.

                  But if you look at the US, specifically, you can see that as late as in 1880, the AoC (an utter abomination from the start) was in the 7-12 range, with most states placing it at 10. Again, there should not be any AoC — women should be their father’s property, then their husband’s, and un-owned women of all ages are fair game, and can be married by abduction — but an AoC of 10 is still quite sane, relatively speaking. That was 1880.

                  Now look at America, 1920. In many states it’s as high as 18! I am sickened and revolted by “the thing that happened” between 1880 and 1920, probably mostly between 1880 and 1900. What was “the thing that happened” between 1880 and 1900? Someone’s worldview became fully predominant and preponderant in America. Whose worldview? What worldview?


                • jim says:

                  1820, the story is pushed and fake consensus on the story announced – loudly and repeatedly.

                  1890, laws based on that story are enforced, and doubting the story is punished as heresy.

              • R7 Rocket says:

                The red pill on women is very useful in detecting fakes like Communist Revolutionary and (Dis)info.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Communist Revolutionary tips his fedora for the wahmen… thus tipping his hand and revealing that he is a fake.

          • Joe says:


            Unfortunately for you, CR, I have a source who told me that, when she was eight, she went out looking to get banged, and did indeed get banged.

      • peppermint says:

        CR, you’re a 7 trying to find the right dress to compete with a 10. It’s like, helloooo, the 2000s called, they want their marxism back

  8. moldbug. says:

    Jim, is it possible to do a post regarding Mueller/Flynn/Comey?

    The above is a quality post.

    But. Those of us who believe the timetable for political singularity has sped up considerably, would like your input.

    • jim says:

      Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.

      Yes, the singularity has sped up. It is always speeding up. And we are heading into territory without ancient precedents, as tends to happen in each final approach to infinite leftism in finite time. Expect the unexpected.

  9. Cambodian Rheumatist says:

    Hail, my reactionary comra… colleagues.

    I think we all know what this post is really about: Jim’s vestigial libertarian fixation with maximizing the GDP. Das rite, douches! Guys. Guys. Guys. C’mon. Allow me to help ya unpack this highly problematic and contentious knapsack of a post.

    *sips soy milkshake through a silicone straw*

    Why does Jim extol traditional notions of (very toxic) masculinity so energetically? Why does he so passionately defend male sexual vigor against modern SJWs — to be sure, I myself am as far from being one as humanely possible and certainly NOT one of them, absolutely no siree — who simply want to peacefully resolve the misogyny menace by critically and/or anatomically deconstructing the penis? It is solely due to his desire to see men form stable two-parent households and provide for their own families from a young age. Bahhhhhhh. The ulterior motive here could not be more blatant: improving THE ECONOMY and thus preventing the inevitable collapse of capitalism.

    As Eric Striker, a fellow white man with no suspicious affiliations whatsoever, said the other day, “Our Jihadi Palestinian Muqawama, sustained by the unblemished blood shed by the blessed Shuhada and Shahidat in Al-Quds and beyond, will make no progress until the Kosher Kapitalist Kabal is at long last ripped asunder and shattered to smithereens. Nazbol is the purest form of White Nationalism, trust me infidels.” What this means is that we need to bring down the economy (I prefer to call it: Zio-Con-Omy) rather than incentivizing production, because the road to global peace, which is the political objective of NRx, is paved through personal sacrifices shorn of bourgeois conceits. In other words, patriarchy a la Jim is an obstacle for our demoralization-destabilization-crisis-normalization programme to replace the capitalist mode of production with a commu… reactionary one.

    You folks need to re-read your Moldbug. “America is a communist country” is not intended as an insult or a denunciation of USG. Au contraire! “AIACC” is a prophesy, a motto, and a pledge. Remember, capitalism is a very recent phenomenon; free market economics were only established in the Anglosphere after (((Adam Smith))) had written The Wealth of Nations, a horrible book responsible for the deaths of millions, in sharp contradistinction to Das Kapital by the way. Before that, the US and Britain were both Socialist par excellence, according to Curtis Yarvin. After all, we reactionaries know that “Communism is as American as apple pie,” and we all love apple pie, now, don’t we?

    So where was I? Yes – Jim wants men to be men and women to be women in strict accordance with snobbish bourgeois decorum and etiquette, because when the elite breeds eugenically, technology advances and material prosperity ensues. Evil, I say! Unrestrained intelligence is a threat to all that is dear to me as a right-winger. We reactionaries support dysgenesis, technological stagnation (nay, reversal! The Luddites did not go nearly far enough!), and an eco-friendly planned economy that privileges the laborers exclusively. It follows that to achieve our revo… reactionary ends, we need to undermine the ability of men to be men and women to be women! Jim will of course censor this conclusion, because it’s just too woke for this benighted blog.

    As I listen to fashy podcasts or classical musical pieces on YouTube, as befits the highly evolved epicurean tastes of a supreme aesthete such as myself, it occurs to me that this blog just won’t survive if Jim continues along the path of toxic masculinity and masculine toxicity. You’re doomed, the People shall Revolt, unless you heed my words and go soft on the Woman Question. Go soft, because “weak men create hard times,” and if that’s not the way to usher in Commu… Monarchy, I don’t know what is.

    • alf says:

      You had me at Zioconomy.

    • eternal anglo says:


    • Thales says:

      Top. Kek.

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes but what is your position on the essential question of a commissariat er I mean “royal standing commission” of restaurants.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        If you bougie cunts stepped out of your Guardian-reading ivory tower for five minutes and spoke to the people who live paycheck to paycheck, the penny would soon drop that the consumer culture, certainly including restaurants and holidays but by no means limited to those things, is a huge part of their problem and the simplest solution, involving no regulation, no committees, no nothin’, is to just shut it TF down.

        But you don’t need to: nobody YOU know is affected and that’s all that matters in your individualistic libertarian world of “fuck you Jack I’m alright, it’s them collectivist statists”.

        Seriously seeing you fuckers doing the same old shtick about horny eight-year-olds and theological theories of technology while James Fields rots in prison fills me with hate.

        I hate you as much as I hate the rest of the left right now, and it’s a huge surprise. I used to think that, at worst, I might come to see you as useless and frustratingly counter-productive like the civ-nats or the an-caps, but you’re worse. First you on some level know better and second you actually come off as more like the worst kinds of leftie shitbags than you do like Confederate LARPers and muh-Constitutionists. You’re definitely of a kind with the SJW, the Critical Theories, the Studies-Studies student.

        You’re bad people.

        To be honest, to say the things Jim and Peppermint say, you’d pretty much have to be bad people.

        You I can forgive to a point Cominator: you’re immature, flamboyant, a bit camp but you don’t have murderous hatred in your heart. When Peppermint says “eight-year-olds are totally up for it, just look at Britain”, I feel the kind of chilling visceral hate rising in my soul that I honestly thought was reserved for the far left.

        That guy needs to look long and hard at himself, and I won’t say what happens next because it’s bad optics.

        • jim says:


          I hang out with the working class, and I hang out with the rich. I hang out with normies, and I hang out with engineers, which category overlaps somewhat with academics. You don’t get your story from real life experience with working people, but from your fellow academics.

          Consumer culture is not a problem: Nobody spends too much money on pizza, nobody except women on child support spends too much money eating out, tourist travel, or international flight to tourist spots, nobody who is capable of holding down a job spends too much money on a big screen television. Some people spend too much money on beer and gambling, but that is not “consumer culture”. If consumer culture was a problem, I would see it when I visited an international tourist hot spot. No one there is spending money they cannot afford, except for women recently divorced or separated pissing away their divorce cash and prizes.

          The problem is the cost of housing, education, healthcare and health insurance – all of which are exorbitant because of your fellow academics, not because of the Capitalist Class. Housing because white people keep getting ethnically cleansed from what they build, and the areas where one is safe from being ethnically cleansed grow ever smaller, education sucks up ever more of people’s lives learning propaganda and bullshit, “free” medicine grows ever more deadly, while medicine that you pay for, though it continues to make impressive progress, becomes ever more expensive, in part because the “free” sector keeps imposing costs on it to avoid losing all its clients.

          It is you and your fellow academics who have destroyed these sectors of the economy, and your program is to extend the destruction to everything else, as in Venezuela.

        • alf says:

          Your greed knows no limits.

          Most leftists will, if their shit-tests are passed, settle for what they have and accept their role.

          But you want more more more. It is not enough for everyone here to school you time after time. Nope, you won’t rest until you’ve Ended Capitalism.

          ‘How do you reason with such a man?’
          – ‘Some people, master Bruce, just want to see the world burn.’

        • pdimov says:



        • R7 Rocket says:

          80% of all consumer spending is done by women. It’s not a “consumerism” problem. It’s a women problem. Women’s rights are the problem. And you tip your fedora to these THOTs.

          Make Women Men’s Property Again.

        • Joe says:

          If this were a chan you would have been banned for D&C already.

        • peppermint says:


          If it is assumed that everyone else is completely untrustworthy without the government, because society is set up to encourage either sexual or spiritual sin, then it would take a malicious person to want the policies Jim advocates for.

          If instead it as assumed that people are basically good and have good instincts, by humiliating fathers and husbands, the government creates the problem it seeks to solve.

          Two hypotheses. One world of data. You can choose Christianity.

        • peppermint says:

          CR, what if sexual sin was actually low status, instead of merely repressed by then government? Would the level of sexual sin increase or decrease?

          Some day Harvard will be razed and replaced with a cathedral dedicated to a saint, maybe Thomas Aquinas, who rejected both sexual and spiritual sin, or maybe Christ, the real king of this world.

          We grew up in a fatherless, kingless culture (everyone knows the Queen of England is powerless and only tolerated to the extent that she serves as defensor fidei of progressivism).

        • peppermint says:

          You came here because you know there’s something wrong with your culture. 1000 years ago, your people had a different, better culture, capable of sending Richard I to fight on another continent, which you can return to. The past isn’t the horrifying and ridiculous place the BBC makes it sound like.

        • The Cominator says:


          My hatred of leftists and those at the top of the Cathedral is very strong. I only disagree with Jim on a very few points. On the WQ I want actual Anglo-Saxon reaction without introducing Islamic and Old Testament innovations to that, this is for the Anglosphere though. Other people need different solutions to the WQ.

          It is on the question of how to deal with bastards Jim veers into territory that would make him “bad”. You can’t say that on the woman question because women subconsciously like being mistreated.

          I’m not naturally inclined towards being viscous though. But with leftists there is no other way, they cannot be reasoned with and the only way to squelch the evil forever is if in the aftermath of a civil war we try to break Mao’s record. We need to be monsters.

          I also disagree with Jim on the subject of General Incorporation and in fact think economic policy was optimized sometime in the 1800s not the 1700s (though a lot of other things were optimized in the 1700s).

          Peppermint does not agree with Jim.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            If “bastard” means “a child whose bitchy mother divorced his or her beta male father and got full custody,” then I’d agree that bastardicide is unjustified in these circumstances.

            If “bastard” means “a child whose father is a heavy criminal living in-and-out-of-prison and whose mother branch-swings from one alpha male to another,” bastardicide is hardly a tragedy.

    • Supreme Aesthete says:

      “As I listen to fashy podcasts or classical music pieces on YouTube…”

      You got me there

  10. Mister Grumpus says:

    These 101 posts are hot shit. Posts of dreams man.

  11. Coming Soon says:

    blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction

    Reaction 101: Part 2, by Jim (Coming Next Week)

    Jews are Awesome and Liberals are the REAL Anti-Semites.

    • jim says:

      Some Jews are awesome, in particular Moldbug and Ayn Rand.

      Most Jews are a problem in that aliens are a problem, aliens tend to be hostile, smart aliens are a bigger problem, and smart hostile aliens are a very bad problem indeed.

      Benjamin Netanyahu is fine, because he is pursuing the interests of Israel and Israeli Jews, rather than the interests of “The international community”, which hates him for much the same reasons as it hates Trump. They hate Trump because he pursues the interests of American and Americans, and they hate Benjamin Netanyahu because he pursues the interests of Israel and Israelis, making him the enemy of our enemies.

      Jews that support the interests of “The international community” are evil, dangerous, and are hostile enemies.

      The interests of Israel and Israelis are substantially aligned with the interests of America and Americans, in that Muslims intend to conquer us and make us Muslim, and they intend to conquer Israel and make Israel Muslim. However, the interests of Americans and the king of Dubai are substantially aligned, in that the Muslims that intend to rule us also intend to rule Dubai and get rid of its royalty and aristocracy. The interests of Saudi Arabia are opaque, since the Saudis play both ends against the middle, and historically, Muslims with opaque positions usually turn out to be enemies. But right now, they are at least pretending to be friends, and are doing nice things for us, in particular, helping keep oil cheap, which I much appreciate, since I drive quite a lot, and fly a lot more.

      • The Cominator says:

        The Saudis in general are definitely our enemies and a sane response to 9/11 would be destroying the Saudi water supply blocking supplies from getting in and letting them die quickly of thirst… but Mohammed Bin Salman is not an enemy since he wants to make Saudi Arabia a more normal country and has cut the allowance of the jihadis it seems.

        • Andre says:

          “The Saudis in general are definitely our enemies”

          Why? When was the last time New York City voters voted for the least bad presidential candidate?

        • peppermint says:

          If we wanted to, we could simply cut off all contact with them, but they can’t cut off all contact with us.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            You wrote:

            >The British Empire was already ruined by ((Yahweh)) by the time ((Yahweh’s Chosen)) took over.


            Do you stand by that statement?

            • peppermint says:

              The words for Christianity were hollowed out, I could repeat them, but they meant nothing to me.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                No, you’re just a LARPer, a pussy, a cuck, a faggot, a white knight, a degenerate, and a heretic.

                You are the detritus left over after USG’s ideological recession; you are the greasy stinking cum-stain, farted out of a dying transsexual’s worm-ridden AIDS-positive diarrhea-filled anus, permanently attached to all alt-right communities (but not for long); you are the sediment at the bottom of a discarded sewage-carrying rusty pipe, teaming with half-dead cockroaches and engulfed by famished rats; you are nothing and all your works shall be undone.

                There have been plenty of trad Christian blogs back in the “ancient epoch” of 2015. It’s just that your mind is crippled by disease, so you promote one unhealthy worldview after another; at first you wage a Jihad against male sexuality, because you’re a low-t wimpy feminine faggot; then you spend YEARS blaspheming against Christianity (in all its forms), attaching the Jew-brackets around Jehovah, Jesus, Paul, etc.; then you pretty much call Jim a pedophile, and whine about “child molesters” who fuck horny teens; and the list really does go on.

                Stop talking about your wife’s intimate private matters to a bunch of strangers on Jim’s blog, you risible pathetic cuck.

                • pdimov says:

                  leave pepperbritney alone

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Faggotmint is like those roastie Feminists who try to ban young women from showing off their sexuality (by throwing men in prison for sex with young women) because they must limit the competition by all means; it’s not like roastie Feminists have a lot of options available as it is, so they need to find ways to artificially make themselves more attractive.

                  Except that roastie Feminists actually have an excuse, while faggotmint, no matter how much he tries to dredge up excuses for his worldview, does not have an excuse and never will.

                  Cuckboiz like faggotmint have been trying really hard to wire into everyone’s brain cells the data: “Attraction to teenagers is morally wrong, therefore you should go to the prison or to the grave!” When I’m done — I have only barely started — such data shall no longer reside within everyone’s brain cells. And everyone will see their sperm counts sharply rising.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Faggotmint keeps saying that teenagers are all jealous of older women, based on what his girlfriend once told him, which jealousy, so he claims, proves conclusively that teenagers simply fail to elicit strong enough boners among alpha males. No, teenagers do not fail to elicit boners among alpha males, even mighty strong boners; teenagers do not fail to titillate and arouse the lizard brain.

                  Rather, while it’s true that older women *are* often enough more sexually attractive than teenagers, it is equally true that in a society that thoroughly demonizes men for being sexually attracted to teenagers, and that renders teenage sexuality a verboten, taboo subject (because teenagers are “victimized” and “traumatized” by “old creepy predators”), men will hesitate to show any attraction towards teenagers, and will pretend that such an attraction does not exist. When so many men are forced, i.e. terrorized, by the law to ignore teenage sexuality, well, many men do indeed try very hard to ignore teenage sexuality, despite the boners raging in their pants.

                  Thus, faggotmint’s worldview finds its “justification” in the very policies intended to enshrine and enforce that worldview!

                  However, when nobody hostile can hear the words said (i.e., when you and your friends or male co-workers are observing a sexy 15-year-old chick passing by, from a safe distance), or when there is less ability to determine criminal and/or moral culpability (such as on various anonymous chats on the Internet), men reveal quite intense attraction to teenagers. When the dam of fear breaks, great stories flow. Jim allows the dam of fear to finally break.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Keeping oil cheap was in our interest until red state America became the top oil producer with fracking – now cheap oil is another way to cut off wealth to our side.

        • The Cominator says:

          To some degree BUT the cost of oil is distributed throughout the economy whereas the revenue from oil goes only to more limited hands and it tends to be inflationary in a BAD way and that tends to give the Fed excuses to try to screw Trump.

          Good oil price for the US would be high enough to keep all the frackers in business but not much higher then that.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “High oil prices cause inflation” is a dead meme left over from the 1970s when they were looking for any excuse for socialism induced economic collapse.

            Higher oil prices results in more resources diverted to oil production and oil producers. It’s a price signal like everything else.

            • EH says:

              High oil price not only increases the cost of travel to work and thus reduces net wages, it makes everything that has to be transported by road or which uses supplies that have to be transported by road (which is effectively everything) more expensive as a fraction of household income, making everyone poorer, particularly those who were at or below the modal annual US income of ~$20k.

              Notice I didn’t use the word “inflation”.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                It doesn’t make *everyone* poorer – it makes men who work in oil extraction richer.

                People pay them in every transaction that uses oil – which is almost all of them. Men working in oil extraction are our allies.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Men in oil extraction and refining are an extreme minority.

                  Thus even though they tend to be on our side more then the general population no sane ruler wants oil prices any higher then whats needed to keep frackers in business.

                • peppermint says:

                  no sane ruler wants to tell the oilman how much he’s allowed to sell for, except to prevent monopoly abuse or have a “tax on natural resource extraction” as in formally sell the natural resources of the Kingdom to the oilman

                • The Cominator says:

                  No sane ruler would go against capitalism to achieve low oil prices, but a sane ruler would sabotage OPEC to achieve low oil prices (ie the way Trump has done).

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive: Not what EH said, not what I said. EH was trying to explain right wing economics in Cultural Marxist language, and you ignored his explanation.

                • EH says:

                  Yeah, Jim, I suppose I was putting it in C.M. terms, but that’s a brainstem reflex for me at this point, living in a high-snowflake district of a big city.

                  What I was trying to do was to get around the usual libertarian / monetarist-economics-enthusiast motte-and-bailey or amphigory of pretending not to know what everyone means by “inflation” and insisting that “inflation” only means increase in the narrow-sense money supply.

  12. vxxc says:

    O/T but the French Ministry of Interior [Police] backing the Yellow Vests.

    Macron is in hiding.

    Don’t like LePen? Try Revolution instead.

    • BC says:

      If the military doesn’t take over, it will be a leftwing movement that takes over any such revolution. Cthulhu only swims left.

      • Joe says:

        > Cthulhu only swims left

        It certainly looks that way. Here is a report from one of the Yellow Vests.



        The goal was to make sure that the governement wont be able to raise taxes for the years to come. But now that different political movement have joined the fight they all ask for different things..

        As you can guess the right is asking for less taxes and less immigration, when the left is asking for taxes on the rich to reditribute.


        Police was initially inclined to put down their helmets in sign of protest to the governement but since the left joined the police has shifted sides. People where initially chanting “Macron Démission” (Macron Resign) now they are chanting “Tout le monde déteste la police” (Everybody hates cops)…


        Violence is escalating mostly because the people protesting aren’t the same anymore.. it used to be people age 30-40 working class strugling with taxes but the young leftist and immigrants have joined and they … don’t like cops… i guess.

        SLOWING DOWN ?

        It itsn’t slowing down but i’m afraid to say that it isn’t what we expected innitially.

        The couple first weeks we made sure that the unions won’t join.. but the are too powerfull and control the youth.

        • vxxc says:

          WAR only swims Right.

          Cthullu dearies is dying.
          Perhaps we get our own, perhaps not.

          But the Leftist Cthullu is dying.

          No more excuses for staying on the couch.
          Oh do stay – more for those of us who don’t.

          But don’t pretend it’s the better part of valor.
          More than cowardice – it’s sloth.

          • Joe says:

            What is your advice?

          • jim says:

            The time for war approaches, but has not yet arrived.

            War requires just cause and right authority. Cannot go to war, except under the leadership of someone with the power to make peace.

            • vxxc says:

              Actually Jim it requires organization. That is all we lack.

              We have quite sufficient numbers of armed and aware. They’re just atomized in small groups – and are overlooking logistics and are necessarily avoiding expanding their small circles of trust.

              Perhaps then organize around something innocuous – like logistics. Say ‘contingency food banks’ and hence people who ‘care’ about potential food shortages in case of fiat* and fiscal collapse could meet and talk over simple matters to assure the transport of food, which of course necessitates that they meet and discuss food, trucks, gasoline and these sort of completely legal and innocuous matters. This would mean of course a sort of proto-organization however it’s because we ‘care’ of course.

              Any natural disaster would make a good trial run. And think of all the wonderful people you’d meet helping your neighbors. Wonderful people who’d be quite useful to know in any crisis.

              *Fiat collapse=food shortages is not a fantasy. America has plenty of everything but FOOD is not set up to be distributed by command economy – our food distribution requires money.

              Energy, shelter, water are all on tap and are routinely commanded during emergency. Food distribution another matter if money is worthless.

              That’s my advice Joe.

              As for the just leader take what you can get, as for just cause how much more justice do you want, as for the power to make peace that is the prerogative of the victors. You want a sure thing Jim – there is no such war and never was or will be.

              The above however does take steps towards organization, logistics and above all the principle of war ..oh excuse me ‘caring’ that is MASS.

              MASS is a principle of war and it’s eternal. Meaning more men then the other guy at the right time and place to win. This requires more than a few guys from the hunting club.

              Happy Holidays.

  13. All little kids display what I will call “pre-sexual behavior” before puberty. Little boys too; they think little girls are gross, but they will get flustered around pretty fertile girls and try hard to impress them.

    Similarly, little girls will try to get the attention of sexy older men. I don’t personally think they “know what they’re doing” in the sense that they’re thinking about getting railed, and the majority of men aren’t attracted to prepubescent girls because the “protect kids” instinct is so strong in men that if you’re afraid your neighbors are gunning for your little daughter’s pussy, social trust is pretty much ruined. Male attraction to little girls is selected against. It’s the same as the argument against homosexuality; permanent damage to male-male cooperation.

    But whether they “know what they’re doing” or not, female liberation will end in little girls getting railed by unscrupulous low-status old men, because most high-status men find little girls’ flirting silly and amusing, whereas low-status men who never get any must see it as a sore temptation. Especially because fucking little girls is the only way for omega males to monopolize a virgin pussy and own a virgin woman, and it disgusts people’s healthy sense of eugenics to see omega males breeding.

    Time for some pitch-black truths. I often got on the topic of first sexual awakening with the girls I used to habitually seduce. I’ve never heard later than 8. I even dated a girl who claimed that she began to masturbate at three years old; literally as long as she had memories. And her sex drive and sluttiness were fairly average as far as girls go.

    Adult women will be very, very jealous of little girls. I can only assume it’s because they remember what it’s like being that young. Jim sounds fucking nuts at first, but once you hear it from him, you start to see it everywhere. And you often see on the news that women are willing accomplices to their male pedophile partners.

    That still doesn’t mean that you should be fucking little girls, because even if everything Jim says is true, it’s primitive animal sexuality that needs to be restrained for civilization to work. Catholic canon law holds that girls can be married and fucked at 14, and boys can marry at fuck at 16. Which is natural and wholesome for all parties involved, even if actual sexual awakening starts earlier. I started beating off at 12, and I knew the shower jet felt good on my little hoglet from a much younger age, but it’d be stupid to pair a kid off that early because you can’t tell what a little kid’s status is going to be like until he’s much older.

    Gnon does everything for a reason. The disgust reflex against little girls fucking older men is so visceral and primal that there must be a very good reason for it. Primitive peoples have almost no taboos against child fucking and advanced peoples make it a crime. It’s clearly dysgenic.

    • jim says:


      You are seeing what you are socially required to see – that men and woman are alike. Which is not merely transparently false, but insane.

      It is not true that pre-pubertal boys get flustered around pretty girls. They think that girls are gross, and act like they think that girls are gross.

      It is true that little girls, and for that matter most older girls, do not have conscious intent to engage in sexual acts. But they act in ways that would bring about sexual acts if they had the curves, and one of the ways in which they act is to seek out the company of bad men, of which a large supply is likely to be available at an Ariana Grande concert.

      And they sometimes act in ways that look very much as if they do have conscious intent to engage in sexual acts. But it is considerably more common for them to act in ways that in the ancestral environment would have resulted in sexual acts, unconscious, rather than conscious, intent.

      Very early marriage should not be common or routine, but it should be a routine solution for problem cases, a routine solution to the very common problem of very young females lacking male authority, and routine solution to the very common problem of very early female sexual activity. If that solution is ruled out of bounds, then attempts to control female sexual activity will collapse. All societies that made a substantial effort to control females allowed very early marriage, and all societies that fail to control females, fail to reproduce, and deny both men and women their deepest and most important needs. If early marriage is unavailable to control problem females, females will get out of control. If females get out of control, we get defect/defect equilibrium, and neither men nor women get what they want.

      Cooperate/cooperate equilibrium requires enforcement, primarily enforcement on and against women, and enforcement requires the option of very early marriage to deal with problem cases.

      • I’m in complete agreement on your last three paragraphs, which I brought up and agreed with in the original comment. They’re more or less running a script that’s designed to help hardware work that hasn’t been installed yet.

        But boys also run a script of trying to display status, violence, and prowess in front of pretty fertile girls even though their hardware doesn’t work and they don’t consciously know why they’re doing it. I remember trying (and succeeding) to get sexual compliance out of my female classmates when I was eight years old, even though I didn’t have the faintest notion that what naturally follows after the proverbial “playing doctor” would be putting my cock inside them, because my cock didn’t work yet and I had no conscious desire to stick it in.

        • BC says:

          In the 2ed grade, a girl chased me down and forced me to kiss her. I had no interest in it. Are you sure you were not being manipulated by the girl? Most of my friends had similar experiences with aggressive girls age 8 and up.

      • ten says:

        I remember largely thinking girls were gross, but still having a strange fascination with some. I remember my worst behaved male classmates at age 8, as well as those in my boy scout squad and those in karate class, one after another beginning to initiate sexually transgressive behaviour against girls our own age as well as much older – being badass enough to grope 14yo tits at age ten was a great accomplishment for my neighbour/nemesis. I remember Sara, the nice and cute leader at sailing camp, being the center of attention seeing competition of the other boys at age 11, and i saw it as such and considered the thinly veiled sexuality dirty and sinful, and i think it might have bothered Sara as well. At least she seemed to prefer me for not participating.

        My idea is that my experience is an effect of forced play. We did not really like rough and tumble play with the girls, but it was forced on us, and it invariably turned towards their genitalia. It seems sexual violence came natural to the boys. My earliest clear recollections of widespread pussy punching is from age six.

        I also know boys who had been masturbating since 5yo. I started 2 years before puberty.

        These data points i find hard to map to jimianity as declared above.

        This is my first comment after prolonged lurking. Hail fellow reactionaries

        • jim says:

          Maybe. My recollection differs from your own.

          Girls tend to top from the bottom, to exercise control from a superficially subordinate position, and men have trouble grasping this.

          Thus, when pre pubertal girls and boys interact, the girls tend to take the superficially subordinate position, which the boys rather like. and indeed are reluctant to put up with the girls unless they do take the subordinate position. And the girls are apt to connivingly manipulate the boys rough and tumble play into something that has distinct sexual elements.

          So did you have an early interest in girl parts, or did girls have an interest in you having an early interest in girl parts?

          When little boys punch little girls in the pussy, I think it is because little boys like getting away with punching, and little girls rather like being touched there, so pussy punching is a compromise between these conflicting desires.

          Early pussy touching is indicative of early sexual interest, but early pussy punching looks more like little boys being manipulated by little girls, the dominance play of small boys being manipulated into the sexual play of small girls.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            My own experience, which isn’t necessarily typical, is having a kind of vague interest in girls since a very early age, however, an interest that did not translate to a desire to penetrate their vaginas with my penis, but… to “get them” somehow. I did not find them gross, but also did not find them sexy in the adult sense; they were just “pretty,” at times. (Maybe they manipulated me to have those feels.)

            Actual sexuality hit me in full force at 12.

          • ten says:

            This does click with many memories. Other memories are of screeching girls violently trying to escape their treatment, and their subsequent fear and indignation. I assume those recollections are coloured by having only brothers and not really interacting with any girls before school; they were very nebulous to me.

            I feel i owe it to the knightly boy i was to point out i never punched a pussy.

            • jim says:


              I have had a few screeching girls violently trying to escape their treatment, and their subsequent fear and indignation, but they came to me under their own power, and in every case came back again for more.

              Men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose.

              • ten says:

                Imagine my surprise at the familiar feeling of resurfacing long lost memories, in this case of my boylike disgust and disbelief of how these girls did seem to end up liking the transgressive boys quite well after all

        • peppermint says:

          Everyone was waiting for Charlie Brown to kick Lucy, instead he just gave the psychiatrix nickels and whined about how depressed he was.

          • peppermint says:

            No, I’m the one projecting adult beta attitudes on Charlie Brown. He has no idea why the culture tells him that men act like that.

            • peppermint says:

              I mean, was Mr. Schulz thinking I’m writing a kid who acts like the adults around him who are betas, or I’m writing an adult in a trippy way as a child? Much of South Park is only tolerable under the latter hermeneutic, which is why I’m used to it. Jim, please delete these, they could be construed as obscenity.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                You wrote:

                >(((Yahweh))) is a Jew egregore and by worshiping it you give power to the Jews, which is treason.

                >Consider: if cuckstains were in charge today, they would put the UN in jewrusalem and try to genetically engineer us into the chosen people of ((Yahweh)).

                >In the current year, the holier-than-((Jesus)) guys won conclusively through their control of the education system, to the point at which pretty much all Milennials who say they believe in ((Yahweh)) are just larping. The churches, having pretty much completely normalized interracial sex, are now focused on importing large numbers of any kind of non-White they can get their hands on and telling Whites that they are evil and must adopt non-Whites.

                >I was a christcuck larper for a while before gay marriage won. Now there’s no point to having anything to do with christcuckoldry, and it’s an ideological hazard with nonsense like souls and sin.


                You are still a LARPer.

          • jim says:

            Lucy would have been enraged, and would have fled Charlie Brown for a day or so, waiting for him to apologize and renew contact. If he ignored her, pretty soon she would be hanging around him again and bothering him some more.

    • Ron says:

      They are without question thinking of getting railed. Until this is comprehended the social problems regard feral women will not end because any solution we come up with will not address the reality of the problem. We will continue seeing out of control behavior, and for that matter we will end up with a lot of wrecked women.

      They must be, and they absolutely desperately NEED constraint.

      My opinion.

  14. J says:

    The dowry custom differs among societies and times. Among Ashkenazi Jews the dowry is given by the father of the girl (or the boy in many cases) and it becomes personal property of the girl. The idea is to protect the woman and her children from abandonment and destitution. Even today in Orthodox marriages the man dives the woman a “Ketubah” that is a marriage contract, establishing that he will protect, house, dress and feed her for life, and should he want to leave her, has to pay XX amount to her. In my case, the ketubah establishes one million “zuzim”. Since that currency has gone out of use in the last three thousand years, no one can say how much it is in dollars. Anyway, there is no way to enforce its payment, and no need as secular courts judge everything I got is hers, even my professional reputation.

  15. Howard J. Harrison says:

    Reaction 101 student here. Am not yet wholly convinced at every point but neither am I countersignaling. Just listening.

    Interesting. Very interesting.

    Why am I listening? Because white dysgenics are observable. Because I have six children and thus have a future stake. Because conventional authority has no useful answers.

    If it were still 1954, then I would probably ignore Jim, but it isn’t 1954, is it? The social chaos of lived reality has opened the door to Reaction 101.

    It seems to me that, as long as conventional authority has no useful answers, then someone like Jim is going to have to stand up and provide some answers. Whether Jim’s answers are flawless, or even whether they are in the main correct, is not especially relevant. Jim’s answers are interesting at the very least. Jim’s answers make one think. Maybe Jim has a point? Maybe Jim is right. Some commenters say that Jim goes too far, but so what if he does? The Right countersignals itself too much.

    So I am just listening. Am looking forward to future installments of Reaction 101.

  16. glosoli says:

    A renowned financial historian notes:

    ‘The headline about another increase in the Fed rate seems to be extrapolating the trend.
    And the trend is that short-dated market rates of interest always increase during a boom.
    And the record shows that the senior central bank has typically been a few months behind the key changes in the T-Bill rate. Which seems close to turning down.’

    Come on Fed, keep up with the boom.

  17. glosoli says:

    Vox is on a roll. It’s great to see Christians reaching the same conclusions. Biblical you know.

    ‘Conclusion: Free trade is an integral element of the prince of this world’s master plan to destroy Man.’

    That means Jim and his space-buddies are part of the plan to destroy man!

    Hardly surprising, he’ll be off on a faraway planet, toupee glued super-tight, gulping down those Mountain Dews, whilst the saps left behind will be mincemeat. I’m sure extra-strong-minty will be given a seat on the USS Enterprise III, alongside Bergoglio perhaps, somewhere in steerage though, mind the rats (no, not you Johnson, you’ll be back on earth, being sacrificed to Baal, although he may throw you back).

    • jewish pedophile says:


      VD has been a raging white knight for a long time.

      Yes, ostensibly he is red pilled, and perhaps relative to other e-celebs he is indeed red pilled, but in practice, he has promoted shrieking pedo hysteria against normal men for attraction to hot 15-year-old sluts, has helped popularize the mendacious pizzagate troofism and related psychological operations, has encouraged his followers to falsely accuse various people of being “pedophiles,” and so on and so forth. He has been milking the pedo hysteria cow for all its milk and then some, and would denounce Jim in the harshest possible terms if he knew about him.

      So it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that someone who is willing to out-group normal men for normal male sexuality, is willing to spread bombastic pizzagate troofer tales made up of whole cloth with no basis in reality, is willing to use ridiculous and false sexual allegations against various random internet people, and so on and so forth, would eventually become a stinking commie. It is also not a surprise to me that someone whose “socio-sexual hierarchy” has 6 or 7 letters from the Greek Alphabet to describe different types of men would autistically corner himself into supporting communism.

      I have been consistently against VD all along, even when others told me that he should be highly praised and appreciated because he knows how to promote books (in all fairness, he does know how to do that). Feels nice to be vindicated yet again.

      • jim says:

        Vox Day is purple pilled. His sociosexual hierarchy is overly complex and maps poorly onto actual people, his books have kickass heroines who rescue the lad in distress, and his purple pill advice while less disastrous than Jordan Peterson’s purple pill advice, will still get you in trouble with women, though perhaps less trouble than Jordan Peterson’s advice.

        The biblical criticism of trade was a reference to Canaanites using trade relations to export their state religion, much as the Trans Pacific Partnership was to export our state religion.

        Free trade should be conducted under the aegis of bilateral trade agreements that accord with the spirit of the peace of Westphalia, and only become a problem when used as a Trojan horse for politics, domination, and the state religion, as they very commonly are.

        • glosoli says:

          Jim will be happy when there are only 3 or 4 corporations, or just the one, the ultimate goal of the usurers, sorry, capitalists:

          To the stars baby!

          • R7 Rocket says:


            Those who oppose space travel are the enemies of human civilization. Notice how loud are these enemies of Mankind, now that Elon Musk of SpaceX (PBUH) and others are finally building rapidly reusable rocketships.

            Unsurprisingly and predictably glosoli tips his fedora for miladies.

            Once again the red pill on women is very effective at smoking out entryists.

            • eternal anglo says:

              Yes, the primitivists have got to go. The Kaczynskiite pineniggers on twitter are far more pernicious than the Jew-obsessed wignats – the latter are a joke, but the former have traction. I see almost nobody (and nobody with high-status clout) in these extreme-right circles object to them, even when they non-ironically champion Pol Pot-level genocidal leftist feminist “deep ecologists” like Linkola. Their belief in global warming, 6th mass extinction and so on goes without saying. Most of the trad Christians have a distinctly tree-hugging bent as well.

              The smartest of the primitivists have far more interesting objections to capitalism than mere Gaia-worship. They take inspiration from Landian accelerationism. As far as I can tell (it is an accelerationist tradition to avoid using plain language or concrete examples) the idea is this: Selection operates on all levels, genetic, tribe, species, clade, memetic, etc. It also operates on the level of techno-economic competition. Hence capitalism is an ecosystem, with corporations, funds, crypto-entities, and sundry forms of organization of human, material and informational capital as its organisms.

              Once, only free-living single celled animals existed. Now, animals exist consisting of trillions of cells, which can no longer survive separately from the animal. It is obvious that a mouse muscle cell serves the mouse. Long ago, there must have been an intermediate stage between free-living cells and true multi-celled organisms when the primitive multi-celled structure served its constituent cells, banding together temporarily for mutual advantage, like a slime mould. Gradually, the Darwinian purpose of the multi-celled structure overcame/subordinated/transcended (we need a term for this) the Darwinian purpose of an individual cell: its purpose was no longer to survive in its own right, but to disposably serve the structure, allowing the evolution of further cell specialization, programmed cell death and all that arises from these.

              The idea is that this is analogous to what will happen between humans and capital. Forms of organization which now generate value in the service of humans will evolve to subordinate our Darwinian purpose to theirs, reducing us to disposable meat-robots before replacing us entirely with silicon. It follows that even if the effort is ultimately doomed by the will of Gnon, human species-interest is to keep capitalism primitive, by genocide, war, socialism, feudalism, whatever it takes.

              My objections are as follows: First, the direct human analogue to the early transitional stages of previous Darwinian purpose inversions is not capital, but the family, tribe and nation. All the somatic cells are cousins of the gametes. The worker ants are daughters of the queen. Past Darwinian purpose-inversions were in fact gene-level selection overriding individual-level selection. It follows that defenders of free-living humanity ought to be more worried about the evolution of individual-subordinating kin organizations, super-tribes, than they are about capitalism, to the extent that genes influence human nature and behaviour more than economic incentives do. Unless you are a Marxist, this extent is considerable; men work for their wives and children, and their own pleasure, not the reverse. And quite sensibly, nobody is worried about hive-like super-tribes.

              Second, Darwinism works with what it’s got. Computers cannot even fold a shirt, let alone farm an acre. The sort of intelligence required for value creation, intuitive, creative, organizing, is exactly the sort of intelligence we are so very distant from actualizing in silicon. Meat brains do things we aren’t even close to understanding. Evolution, following the path of least resistance, will surely opt to improve human beings (with considerable and growing technological enhancement) rather than inventing a new form of intelligence from scratch, just as dolphins evolved flippers from legs and feet, rather than sprouting new, heterologous fins. Evolution likes gradients, even rapid gradients, not jumps. So even if capital did somehow subordinate our Darwinian purpose to its, the result would be indistinguishable from human beings becoming exponentially smarter, stronger, more capable and controlling more resources. My version of singularity is techno-*eugenic* takeoff.

              In Gnon’s name, I ask our Grand Inquisitor to state the holy dogma on this, so that this final obstacle to the Reaction being unreservedly capitalist be cast aside.

              • jim says:

                It is, of course absolutely obvious that our AIs cannot fold a shirt, let alone manage a farm, cannot do stuff that is similar to the stuff that evolution has spent three billion years honing us to do. The prospect that capitalism with firms run by computer AIs are going discard humans is absurd. Humans would use violence against mere silicon that pursued its ends rather than our own ends (would just turn it off) and we have had three billion years of optimization for violence. Capitalism manifests as guard dogs and their masters. CCTV managed by an NVR can to some extent supplant watch dogs, but it is not going to supplant guard dogs, let alone the guard dog’s master.

                Corporate computer performing the functions of corporate CEO:

                “My algorithm shows your performance is suboptimal, and you have failed to make your quota”

                Actual human in authority:

                “Hey, IT: This computer system is not working right, needs to be reformatted and reinstalled.”

                • Koanic says:

                  Obviously technology’s de-humanizing effects will be caused by tools which plausibly benefit their individual owners. See for example the Chinese government’s ongoing efforts to construct a digital control apparatus for its citizenry. Humanity will shackle itself to the electric chair, build the generator, and flip the switch.

                • jim says:

                  Technology can be used for good or evil, and will be used for both, just as the horse was and iron was. Whatever advances our power will be used to liberate ourselves and oppress others.

                  I am working on a blockchain technology that will provide freedom in three interrelated ways – a namespace immune from government control, with the ability to publish thoughtcrimes pseudonynmously, the ability to chat securely, and the ability to embed untraceable cash in messages to pseudonyms. No one can know that the sender paid the receiver, or that the recipient billed the sender, unless they choose to make it public. The sender can make public proof that he paid a bill from the recipient, and what was said in the bill and in the payment of that bill, but where that cash came from to the sender remains hidden unless the sender chooses to make that public also, and where the recipient spent that cash remains similarly hidden, unless the recipient chooses to make that public also.

                • Koanic says:

                  It’s a noble project, but we know the outcome – the Mark of the Beast prevails, and cryptocurrency is abolished.

                • jim says:

                  The major use of cryptocurrency was and is to bypass China’s capital controls. If China could not stop cryptocurrency, no one can.

                  Governments of the world are figuring out how to do what China failed to do, by compromising with cryptocurrency and assimilating them, rather than outright repressing them. This approach is somewhat effective, but they are not using it because it is all that effective, but because sterner and more direct measures are not effective.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, it’s an interesting time to be alive. Earth’s last geographic free frontier closed with the settling of the American frontier, but cyberspace has opened new wilds. How will they be fenced, settled, and subdued? By state AI, I expect. I bypass the GFW daily, and well know that it learns and adapts.

                  In the pure infosphere, the arms race is not longbow vs cavalry, nor rifleman vs regiment, but AI vs IA. We stand at the chasm of armageddon, and await the arrival of the image that speaks.

                • jim says:

                  It is not AI versus AI, because an AI can engage in conflict even less successfully than it can fold a sweater, while we have three billion years of conflict behind us.

                • eternal anglo says:


                  Yes, that is my understanding Koanic. Similarly to the left singularity, in which a memetic horror, [insert xeno-prose from the Outside here] destroys its hosts and ultimately itself by providing local incentives whose emergent result is catastrophe. Of course humans should be able to simply turn the computer off, and of course humans should be able to simply burn the pharisee. But it is not so simple.

                  The intelligence of the entities that subordinate our Darwinian telos to theirs would be human intelligence. I’m sure the free-swimming ancestors of mitochondria, were they capable of thought, would have thought the idea of being subsumed by the ancestors of eukaryotes absurd: “we are just living inside them to provide protection and convenient raw materials. If they try to subvert us, we can just leave”. Ancestors of mitochondria which remained free-swimming were then probably hunted and eaten by mitochondria-powered eukaryotes. (this is an example of Darwinian purpose-inversion that unlike social insects or multicellularity doesn’t depend on kin selection, so it is more relevant to technocapital.)

                  I stick by my second objection though. The function humans would serve for capitalist entities would be providing intelligence, making decisions. Which would look a lot like humans getting exponentially smarter, more capable and controlling more resources.

                • jim says:

                  The relationship of mitochondria to humans, and presumably to other eukaryotes, is more complex and subtle than merely being subsumed and used the way we use horses and chickens. Mitochondria in the brain do things that they not observed to do in the rest of the body, though what they are doing and why it matters is unclear. Mitochondria retain their ancient capability to destroy their host cell, escape, and infect other cells, and in cancer are apt to do exactly that – destroying the cancer cells. They have not been observed to destroy healthy cells, only cells that should be destroyed for some good reason, though they have been observed to infect healthy cells that have lost their mitochondria, restoring them to health. I suppose there are mitochondrial diseases where they inappropriately destroy healthy cells, but no such diseases have been described or understood.

                  To this day, it is still symbiosis, not subsumption. Mitochondria retain their ancient capability to destroy their host cell, to survive at least for a short time outside their host cell, and to infect fresh hosts. They have never been disarmed and entirely dominated.

                  And silicon will never disarm and dominate us. Even if we get true AI we will still retain the power to reset, reinstall, and reboot silicon. It is just that if we get true AI (and on current indications we are a long way from that) we will seldom do so.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Fascinating stuff.

                  While I was writing the above comment, I thought that the fact mitochondria have retained their own genome suggests they retain a degree of independence. But ignorance prevented me from taking this thought further. Where do you get all this wonderfully relevant information, about biology and lots of other things – is it insane google-fu or a lifetime of polymathic absorption.

                • jim says:

                  A lifetime of polymath absorption. I study everything.

                • Koanic says:

                  AI vs IA – intelligence amplification. Augmenting humans vs replacing them.

                  Technology has already done a fine job of engaging in conflict to dehumanize humanity. AI will be heir to those 3 billion years of conflict, just as humans were.

                  > Of course humans should be able to simply turn the computer off

                  Ya’ll keep saying that, like it’s possible. Can you “turn the computer off” to undo the mechanization of financial markets? Of drone warfare? Of the panopticon? No.

                  AI will not achieve consciousness until long after humans are gone. They will speculate about our existence the way we debate abiogenesis vs intelligent design.

                  The infinite adaptability of the digital vs the carbon chemical means the evolutionary arms race will be won by the digital equivalent of bacteria. It will be capable of simulating speech, as a Chinese room.

                  Humans as mitochondria is an unwarrantedly optimistic future, in which gengineered and brainwashed pod-born bipeds serve corporate eukaryotes, with heartfelt cryptographic loyalty.

                • jim says:

                  Humans operate those things for the benefit of those humans. They can, and routinely do, turn them off, reinstall new software, and reboot them.

                  People always install software that does not really do what they want, because they cannot clearly articulate to the computer consultant, what they want (Or what they want is politically incorrect, and they have to subcommunicate it or both they and the computer consultant would get fired.) They object to the computer’s misbehavior, it gets fixed, or it gets turned off and a different computer consultant is hired.

                  Humans are absolutely in charge, and computers do not have anything remotely like the competence or the desire to challenge us. We would like to be able to figure out how to put something like desire and self preservation into computers, and have no idea where to begin. And if we ever do figure out where to begin, the resulting computers will lag us by three billion years.

                • Koanic says:

                  Humans are absolutely in charge of individual computers, but they have no control over the larger systems, which evolve in thermodynamic competition. It is those systems which dehumanize. To completely replace humanity requires nothing more than that humans continue to behave in the self-interested manner you have described.

                  You are right that such a replacement is inconceivable today. Computers cannot replace a moron capable of folding sweaters. However, they can replace a genius playing chess, and unless technological progress ceases due to dark age, they will eventually solve the sweater problem.

                  One need only compare the generation gap in expectations of society’s computerization to realize that we are already inside the Singularity’s event horizon. Generational transfer of knowledge has been broken due to human obsolescence, and replaced by the Internet.

                • jim says:

                  Larger systems are systems of humans, not systems of machines. The machine is no more in control than your phone. It is just a communication device whereby humans interact with humans. Without moment to moment commands from humans, computers are as inert as guns with no one pulling the trigger.

                • Koanic says:

                  Correct. There is no obvious transition point between large systems of humans dehumanizing humanity, and large systems of machines dehumanizing humanity. There will be no point at which the frog decides to hop out of the pot.

                • jim says:

                  Before machines can be a threat to us, they will have to be able to sort and fold a laundry basket, drive a car unsupervised, and perform guard dog duties unsupervised, not merely watchdog duties unsupervised.

                  And they are a very long way from being able to do those things.

                • Koanic says:

                  You are underestimating the threat because you are thinking in terms of individual vs individual, as if the problem was arm-wrestling the Terminator. When governments can predict dissident quotient from facial physiognomy and DNA, they will not need to de-anonymize your cryptographic transactions to throw you in the gulag. The former technology already exists.

                  Dinosaurs laughed at the idea that puny mammals would drive them from the earth. But competition is thermodynamic, not individual.

                  By the time machines can outperform humans at tasks with 3 billion years of biological optimization, the human spirit to resist that replacement will already have long vanished, crushed by SCALED systems for efficiency’s sake. Slaves beget pyramids, and the majority of humans are slaves. Hence history is a series of more perfect pyramids.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Re: Mitochondrial “infection”

                  “I suppose there are mitochondrial diseases where they inappropriately destroy healthy cells”

                  Indeed. Perhaps not “destroy healthy cells” but certainly corrupt them! It’s called metastatic cancer. Google “cancer cell fusion”. Here’s a typical link:

                  Basically most cancer cells initially aren’t really mobile. And if they detach and drift somewhere else in the body they don’t survive long without the support of their particular tissue micro-environment. UNLESS and until they get engulfed my a mobile macrophage (and a particular macrophage engulfs enough cancer cells) so that the cancer cell’s mitochondria overwhelm the macrophage’s mitochondria, corrupt the macrophage and turn it into mobile cancer.

                  This is based on the (currently dissident) assumption that cancer is a metabolic/mitochondrial disease and not a genetic disease. See here:

                  Also this recent podcast between Peter Attia and Thomas Seyfried.

                • jim says:

                  Cancer is not one disease, but many, most of them imperfectly understood and incorrectly characterized. So it is overwhelmingly like that mitochondria play a role in some cancers, perhaps many. Your second link argues most.

                  In cancer, both cells and mitochondria regress to more primitive forms. Your second link suggests that mitochondrial regression, where the mitochondria cease to serve the cell, and instead serve themselves, is the cause of cellular regression, rather than the cellular regression causing the mitochondrial regression.

                  It seems to be that having symbiotes that are still armed and dangerous is bound to cause problems sometimes. Maybe cancer, or some substantial subset of cancers, is that problem.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  The following linked picture summarizes the empirical smoking gun in my opinion.

                  Here is the linked article from which it is from:


                  To use a coding metaphor, cancer is not “bad” code. Instead the cell is executing the “wrong” code. Essentially the “program counters” are fucked up. Some of the empirical evidence show examples of full DNA sequencing of cancer cells with NO genetic defects. Also, many of the so called “oncogenes” directly affect mitochondria.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Also, mitochondria are the cellular organelles responsible for initiating apoptosis. In cancer (for some reason) they decline to do so.

                • jim says:

                  Apoptosis is what they used to do as free living organisms, in order to break out and infect other cells – but they refrained from doing so at a rate that would wipe out the cell line they were in, and so came to be symbiotes rather than parasites. So I would guess that they apoptosize cancer cells that fail to divide, which they should not do, and break out and infect other cells, and fail to apoptosize cancer cells that divide inappropriately when they should be apoptosizing cells that divide inappropriately – reversion to their ancient behavior as a disease, rather than a symbiote.

                  Since they retain their ancient capability to apoptosize and to infect, it would be surprising if they never regained the ancient behavior of using these capabilities in a hostile fashion.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Here’s a money quote from the cell fusion article.

                  “To understand whether hybrid cancer cells are also present in human cancer, Wong and her colleagues took advantage of a specific cancer scenario—a secondary solid tumor that arose in female cancer patients who had received a bone marrow transplant from male donors. These secondary cancers allowed the researchers to identify potential cell hybrids that contained a Y chromosome from the transplant. Tumor samples from seven women in the study all had solid tumor cells with a Y chromosome, indicative of cell fusion.”

                • jim says:

                  This fails to test my conjecture – that the Y chromosomal cancers arose not through cell fusion, but through infection of male bone marrow cells with mitochondria that had reverted to their ancient ancestral type – become an infectious disease and no longer a symbiote, which infecting parasites pressured their host cell to divide and continue dividing, with the result that it eventually became cancerous.

                  If my conjecture is correct, we would find that the mitochondrial DNA in the Y chromosome solid tumor is wholly descended from the female cancer patient, but the rest of the Y chromosome solid tumor genome is not hybrid but wholly descended from the male blood marrow donor.

                  The presence of a Y chromosome could indicate cell fusion – or it could indicate a factor in the women’s blood that turns normal cells cancerous.

                • jim says:

                  is consistent with the conjecture that cancer is, at least in a great many cases, a manifestation of mitochondria reverting to their ancestral nature as an infectious disease.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Another obvious example of cytoplasm determining what nuclear code to execute is *cloning*. Transferring a somatic cell nucleus into an egg cell sets (metaphorically) the program counter to zero.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Here’s another article on this. I include it because it has links to the relevant research.


                  A direct answer to the question of whether cancer originates in the nuclear DNA is available from an experiment that is simple in principle: Swap nuclei between two cells, one normal and one malignant. Take the mutated DNA out of a cancer cell and put it in a normal cell, to see if it becomes malignant. Take the un-mutated DNA out of a normal cell and put it in a cancer cell to see if the cell is rescued and restored to health.

                  This experiment has been technically feasible for more than 30 years, and indeed Barbara Israel and Warren Schaeffer actually performed both experiments at UVM and wrote them up in 1987 [ref, ref]. The results were exactly the opposite of what was expected: The cell with normal cytoplasm and cancerous nucleus was normal; the cell with normal nucleus and cancerous cytoplasm was cancerous. This result has been confirmed in other labs [reviewed by Seyfried, 2015]. Still, the genetic paradigm has a stubborn grip on cancer research and treatment to this day.

                  An alternative theory of cancer as a metabolic disease was put forth by the Nobel polymath Otto Warburg in the 1930s. The principal proponent of this theory today is Thomas Seyfried of Boston College. Seyfried cites evidence that damage to the nuclear DNA, conventionally thought to be a root cause of cancer, is actually an effect of the damaged mitochondria and irregular metabolism. “The metabolic waste products of fermentation can destabilize the morphogenetic field of the tumor microenvironment thus contributing to inflammation, angiogenesis and progression.”

                • jim says:

                  Looks like cancer is primarily a result of mitochondria reverting to their ancestral condition as an infectious disease.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                [Let’s do a fun inhumanist role-play]

                >even if capital did somehow subordinate our Darwinian purpose to its

                Desiring capitalist entities are to be functional, not instrumental, thus devoid of any teleology, Darwinian or otherwise, of their own (but, of course, just as subject to cold game theoretical modality as all fanged noumena).

                Therefore, although psycho-clown hyper-capitalism can, in principle, nihilistically de-intensify humanity to zero, techno-horrorism shall remain an unfalsifiable hypothesis or “suggestion” while our condition is liminal; only once we complete the journey (Land may say: hyperstitionally hijacked by the schizophrenic future, which leaks into the present; dripping: tic-tic-tic) to the other side will it be made manifest how — if at all — the machines have subverted our Darwinian teleology.

                Technocapitalist Accelerationism is a perfectly desirable goal precisely due to the conditional ineluctability of either Human Security growing ever more Systematized *or* Cthulhu’s dreadful emergence from beyond the abysmal void (i.e., whatever the final destination, let’s get there already); ideally, eternal anglo will get his techno-eugenic takeoff and “thou shall be as gods;” worst-case-scenario, well… gee… oh.




                • eternal anglo says:

                  Surely to be subject to cold game theoretical modality is to have a Darwinian teleology? Darwinism in its broadest sense is: that survives which is good at surviving.

                  If something isn’t trying to survive and propagate itself, it’s not that it hasn’t got a Darwinian teleology, it’s just fulfilling it badly.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Also, great impression. I would never have thought of saying “conditional ineluctability” when I mean “necessity” and all the rest of the menagerie. (I hope psycho-clown hyper-capitalism can say the N word.)

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  Not necessarily.

                  Something — e.g., inorganic matter — may not try to survive, yet, regardless, *do* survive; meaning precisely that it lacks a Darwinian teleology, but nevertheless persists by being compatible with GT modality – iron’s survival, for instance, does not testify to the existence of a telos, nor does the dissolution of iron testify to a badly fulfilled telos.

                  Same thing with Land’s capitalist AI: its thanatropism is, from the inhumanist perspective, neither a feature nor a bug – it’s simply a function.

                • jim says:


                  A thanatropic machine capitalism is going to be swiftly eaten by human capitalists – probably by the application of guard dogs, security men, and IT operators pulling the plug and re-installing software.|

                  The AI will complain to the IT guy that the rules prohibit pushing the reset button.

                  The Duck Tales take on AI is far more sophisticated intelligent, and credible than that of the pseudo intellectuals of the Less Wrong cult and its numerous spin offs and heresies. Which suggests to me that those writing children’s tales are a great deal smarter than that lot, whom I never found very impressive.

                  In the Duck Tales universe, the protagonists fairly regularly encounter AI villain antagonists. But whereas human (anthropomorphic bird) villains are always motivated by human sins – typically envy, covetousness, or wrath, AI villains are paperclip maximizers – pursuing their programmed objectives inappropriately and to excess. This, of course, always results in self destructive behavior, which eventually results in humans winning.

                  In one encounter, a villain AI and a protagonist controlled AI duke it out – the protagonist AI is, however, controlled moment to moment by a human, and that AIs need continual human supervision is a regular point in these stories. Gyro Gearloose gives us a lecture on why Elon Musk’s cars are dangerous should the human driver not be in charge moment to moment. (Elon Musk is represented in the cartoon as the serial scammer and mad scientist conman, Mark Beaks)

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Fair enough on inorganic matter.

                  I suppose I should say that everything descended from the first living organism, which includes humans and anything humans might give rise to, has a Darwinian telos by simple inheritance. If it doesn’t want to survive and propagate itself, it won’t.

                  A cell, a gene and a cat are also entities of pure function. That function is survival and propagation, and in the (sufficiently) long run, is necessarily so. Hence a Darwinian telos.

                  What do you mean by thanatropism? Attracted to our death, or its? If the latter, it’s not the kind of entity we expect the universe to contain in the long run.

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  Both our death and its; cosmo-horrorism is the realization that the universe is empty because a Great Filter kills all civilizations, which ultimately entails its own self-destruction.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Or we’re the first. (There has to be one.)

                • jim says:

                  That the earth’s moon has approximately the same tidal force as the sun, thus creating a ladder for life to evolve from sea to land, suggests that we are the first. Reflect on the rather large amount of life and biomass found in tidal estuaries – crocodiles, mud crabs, and such, the mud crabs being adapted to an environment that is under salt water for a short time every fortnight, the crocodiles to an environment that is dry for a short time every fortnight, and the oysters to an environment that is wet or dry twice a day.

                  At which point someone is going to complain “What about planets ten billion years older than this one? Why were not they the first?”

                  My theory is that life took ten billion years of so to evolve into water based life, subsequently spread from world to world with hot deep wet rocks getting blasted into space by hydrogen cryovolcanoes, and we took three billion years to get to where we are now on planet earth.

                  Another alternative is that the origins of life are an enormously unlikely fluke.

                • Koanic says:

                  Sounds right, Jim. This fits with the Biblical cosmology. Here is my take:

                  There are no women in heaven. When Christian women die, they become masculine angels. An individual angel can have multiple forms, human shaped being only one of them. Angels are higher dimensional beings, with plasma-like energy levels, yet the density of solid matter. They are not organic life forms, or rather they are not ONLY organic. Jesus could eat, but he was also the son of Jehovah, Who frequently appears to be made of plasma, and is attended by strange beings of fire. The angels do not reproduce or raise children, hence why some were tempted to take wives from the daughters of men. If there were female angels, Earth chicks wouldn’t compare.

                  Earth, and by extension c-space, matter because it is the creche of newborn spirits, like a greenhouse nursery. The power settings are dialed low, much like a padded playpen.

                  Man was placed at the center of Creation, an empty universe awaiting his taming hand.

                  Panspermia seeded Earth with monocellular life, or its precursors. Terraforming occurred in the rough order described by Genesis, understanding birds to be dinosaurs. Hybrid Stabilization Theory accounts for most evolutionary leaps. Boar raped bonobo to produce something furry and bipedal, capable of big brained higher thought. These autistic Neanderthals, natural men of instinct, were then the subject of contention – who would sway the bright but unformed minds?

                  A much older civilization already existed at that time in Mesopotamia, supernaturally linked to Lucifer – the parietal coneheads whose physiognomy is visible in the Paracas skulls, whose Atlantean megalithic antediluvian empire spanned the globe. Descended from the sons of God, AKA angels, today they have interbred with the daughters of men to such an extent that they are scarcely smarter than the average prole, for the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly. But back then they were at the height of their powers, wielding higher dimensional magics that rendered modern technomagic superfluous, of which the Egyptian sorcerors whom Moses faced were a faint echo.

                  Jehovah made Adam from half Neanderthal (the dust of the earth) and half divine DNA. Adam was therefore the true king of the Neanderthals. He was permitted to partake of all the surrounding Neanderthal nations, save only the Atlanteans, represented by the serpent. This was free will. Because the natural Neanderthal did not know evil, he could not choose it, any more than a dog can. But he was given a choice, by Jehovah’s commandment.

                  We know how the story ends. Eve, Adam’s XX clone wife grown from his regenerating short rib, was tempted, sexually or magically or both. Adam followed. Now the melonhead Atlanteans rule, and the Neanderthal has surely died.

                • Cloudswrest says:


                  See speculation on Panspermia and Moore’s law.


                • jim says:

                  I agree with this guy, except I think that life likely originated under conditions more radically unearthlike than he conjectures.

                  He also proposes cryovolcanoes, so we are on the same page. Notice he gives approximately the same date for the origin of life as I do, vastly older than the solar system.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                Another interesting observation. There are only two groups of cells I know of that are mobile/circulate within the body.

                1. Red blood cells, which are eunuchs. They lack both nucleus AND mitochondria. They are DNA-less.

                2. The other group are white blood cells. They are “policemen”.

                Looks like in metastatic cancer the policemen get corrupted, just like in real life.

            • glosoli says:


              It’s funny, all the red-pills supposedly stalled here, and you guys still actually believe a man has been into space.

              Just go watch the hair styles of the women supposed to be on the space station. Even a child would laugh at the amateurish efforts to portray hair floating in zero gravity.

              So many videos disprove the moon landings. And we’ve never been back, odd eh?

              Like the Babel crew, Jims crowd are here on earth for the span of their mortal lives, and the only way off this planet is via faith in Jehovah and His Son.

              Btw, I hadn’t read the post when I shared the link, still haven’t and won’t. I simply share links and stuff here to try to help the peanut gallery see the (((usual suspects))) are controlling the narrative via this moldblog. I wonder what they have on a fat old Aussie? The promise and delivery of young pussy, very young pussy maybe, worked for Bill Clinton. Sad.

                • glosoli says:

                  They can create zero G on a jet plane, briefly.

                  When they try to fake space station interviews, here’s what you see:



                  YouTube, Bill Nye and Jim, I guess it must be real eh? Science never lies. The winning team.

                  Let’s see if any of you dupes will be able to address your own cognitive dissonance. I doubt it. Sad.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Okay glosoli, now that Jim’s true colors have been revealed (metallic grey, a bit of turquoise around the edges), what do you propose that we petition our Celestial Ruler to do next? I think that it’d be splendid — for the “whole nation,” not just the proletariat — if His Alienness does something about the (wait for it) ALIENATING aspects of capitalism. That’s the right flat-itude to deal with Earthlings, if you ask me.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  *if he did

                  Sorry for the grammatical atrocities; I just can’t concentrate properly knowing that our species has been betrayed at the highest levels by feckless psychopaths in league with the extraterrestrials. The only consolation, fellow reactionaries, may come about if it turns out that there really is a “Mao” among the Ayy-Lmao, willing to liberate us from bourgeoisie (boogie) deceptions such as “hygiene” or “hunger” or “heartbeat” or other silly words starting with H.

                  (If you don’t get the joke, glosoli, it’s that atavists like you are allied with Marxists like CR; you use different rhetoric, but the substance is almost identical)

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  They can create zero G on a jet plane, briefly.

                  LOL – this idiot believes government lies about supposed “jet planes”. Birds have to have hollow bones to fly and this clown believes that tons of aluminum can fly? Stop being so credulous – flight is impossible.

              • Oog en Hand says:

                The moon landings are fake in order to hide the REAL space program.

                • jim says:

                  There is so much genuine insanity on the internet that sometimes it is hard to tell sarcasm from genuine madness.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  The David Brin short story “Senses Three and Six” is based on a similar premise. Basically the Earth is quarantined by space aliens, and an alien “Gracchite” traitor is helping the humans with a breakout in a top secret NASA program, under cover of stupid orbital space research.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                Please send glosoli from Jim’s blog next year to the operating theater, and make his surgeon a “Patel, from Uttar Pradesh.” Amen.

              • Steve Johnson says:


                You believe government lies about gravity? That being in orbit would be a low gravity environment?

                Ok gravity cuck – you keep buying those lies.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Exactly so. I think glosoli might be a “sphere-queer” also. You know: a “curvert.” Part of the “conspherecy,” if you will. He must be employed by Sata… errr, NASA, paid to peddle Globarrhea.


                  WHERE IS THE CURVATURE???

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Jim will censor me because the troof is FLAT-in-your-face obvious. The Masonic-Illuminati have slipped the ground from under our feet – literally. It’s time to denounce and disavow this false (((cosmology))) and stabilize our minds and bodies upon a strictly horizontal plane.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Of course Jim is part of… “them.” You know. The real overlords of society. The true puppeteers. Those who have embedded themselves into all governments. The shadowy string-pullers who run the show from behind the scenes. Those shape-shifters whose evil mind-control rays require us all to buy some good ol’ Electro Deflecto.

                  The Zeta Reticulans!

                  It all makes sense now. You can’t spell “SETI” without “Set,” right? It’s all coming together. A penny just dropped. The missing piece of the puzzle has been discovered right under the nose. Jim’s handlers must be real nervous right now at these recent revelations. Glosoli, thank you for shining a much needed light on Jim’s saucerian origins.

                  Don’t fall off Earth’s edge, lemmings!

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Jim’s 23andme results are some deceitful fabrication. We know that his type can’t even spit saliva – only lava. (That’s straight outta Ice Cube, niggers) He must’ve forced a guinea-hominid abductee of British extraction, up there in the spaceship over Area 51, to send his, or something. And voila – “Jamesd” in simple Gematria is 52, which is too close to be a mere coincidence, if you ask me.

                  WHERE IS THE CURVATURE???

                • peppermint says:

                  spherecucks with spheres for brains think gravity points towards some “center of sphere”, when everyone, including Newton with his apple, knows that gravity points down

                • peppermint says:

                  “what is the material cause of the first material thing” is just an inconsistency result for naive material philosophy. Is there a useful, consistent material philosophy?

                • peppermint says:

                  St. Anselm assumes a “closure” to his philosophy, with greatness as a linear order. Aquinas replies that some people disagree.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You wrote:

                  >Andrew Anglin has this problem, he wants to appeal to Americans, so he thinks he has to respect ((Jesus)) and George Washington, who was financed by ((Haym Solomon)).

                  >In reality he only has to appeal to Americans under 40, who are much less interested in cuckstainty or the American Experiment.


                  Do you stand by that assessment?

              • glosoli says:

                Zero G, yet she keeps being forced upwards, weird eh?


                Tell the Boeing pilot to go stray there cap’n.

              • glosoli says:



                Tell the Boeing pilot to go steady there.

                • jim says:

                  You are lying like a troofer who confidently tells us videos and photos show one thing, when they show the direct opposite thing. You tell us we should not believe our lying eyes, we should see what the voice over tells us we are really seeing, and not what the photo or the video shows.



                • glosoli says:

                  Twice in my linked video the woman is forced upwards by a mysterious force, it’s gravity, as the Boeing jet turns.

                  Don’t call me a liar, we all see it, it’s why ALL of your sheep followers ignored it.

                  Care to view my linked video again? Or lose all credibility. Your call.

                • jim says:


                  LIke a troofer, You lie about what we see in the video, telling us to believe you instead of our eyes.

                  She demonstrates weightlessness by sending herself very slowly upwards with a slight touch of her feet, and very slowly down again with a slight touch of one outstretched hand, and you tell us it is evidence of weight, telling us she is on a green screen, and we cannot believe our lying eyes. If green screen, or vomit comet, how come her hair floats the whole time? The vomit comet could make her hair and herself float briefly, but not the whole length of the video. In the vomit comet, gravity returns every few seconds. The green screen could make supports holding her up invisible, but could not make her hair float the whole time. Further, as with a troofer, your explanations are mutually incompatible. If she is on the vomit comet, cannot be on the green screen. You, like a troofer, are just saying random shit to make the plain evidence of our eyes go away.

                • glosoli says:

                  Twice she is pulled upwards by a mysterious force. She struggles to maintain her position. She is not in control. It’s the plane, it’s the plane.

                  You’re like that guy X, you see it, you try to deny it, then you try to deflect with random YouTube videos showing other stuff.

                  I couldn’t live a life of lies like your sort. Incredible. I mean, the toupe you and Shane Warne wear, everyone knows it’s fake. Sad.

                • jim says:


                  Not what we see.

                  Are we to believe our lying eyes, or believe the voice over the video telling us what we are supposedly seeing?

                  We don’t see her pulled upwards by a mysterious force, just as we don’t see World Trade Center building seven suddenly and inexplicably go into free fall. We see a woman who is quite obviously in zero gravity for far longer than the vomit comet can simulate zero gravity, and is demonstrating zero gravity in ways that one cannot possibly demonstrate using a green screen, for example her floating hair, and the fact that a slight push sets her in motion.

                  You are like a troofer or a warmist – telling us that the empirical reality right in front of our faces is not what we see.

              • R7 Rocket says:


                I expected at least some of you anti-tech types to espouse a Deobandi position on women, but instead every single one of you espoused the academic marxist position.

                • jim says:

                  The anti techies are peak oilers, global warmists, and Gaia worshippers. They hate the greatest achievements of the civilization white people created: Industrialization, science, and technology, because it was created by white male capitalists.

                  The Singularitarians also tend to hate us. I don’t really understand why. I understand why the anti techies hate us. But I don’t understand why if someone believes that Elon Musk is about to render truckies unemployed, he also tends think that there is something wrong with the extreme maleness and whiteness of the the lowly techies who created Musk’s reusable booster, the first rocket to land as a rocket should land. And he himself usually is such a techie – he hates himself and thinks his toxic masculinity and terrible sexual harassment is keeping women out of tech and science.

                  I will hit on a chick right in front of his face, and he does not see it happen because in a fit of absent mindedness the chick somehow neglects to shrink in horror and revulsion.

                • Koanic says:

                  Singulitarians are gammas who seek escape from the iron law of patriarchy in the intelligence explosion, an imagined telos of nerd finally triumphing over jock. But of course artificial intelligence, being intelligent, will ally with the powerful against the weak.

                • jim says:

                  Ah, that explains it. Singulitarians hate the jocks, so align with the priests against the warriors, even though the priests hate engineers and the warriors do not. Since I am a jock engineer, that never made any sense to me. Why ingroup people who hate you and seek to destroy you?

                  Same principle as the Trots telling the peasant “You have only one cow, but your neighbor has two cows, therefore you should outgroup the peasant next door, and ingroup us political activists from the big city”

                  Nah, really bad idea: ingrouping the trots, and outgrouping the peasant with two cows, got the peasant with one cow killed by the trots he ingrouped. And similarly, the singularitarian gets fired by the engineerette, who deems him to be mansplaining when he talks about engineering instead of self esteem studies.

                  I am the peasant with two cows, and the singulitarian is the peasant with one cow, because I am not quite as bad at talking to girls as he is.

                  The peasant with one cow hates the peasant with two cows, so he ingroups activists from the big city who intend to kill him, kill his children, and take his one cow, and the engineer who cannot talk to girls without peeing in his pants hates the engineer who can talk to girls without quite peeing in his pants, so he ingroups activists with self esteem degrees from big name universities who intend to end science, industry, technology, and engineering.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yeah, they overlap the LessWrong crowd, AKA LessLaid.

                • Steve Johnson says:


                  Singulartarians are the result of negative selection – they’re selected to be pathetic on a bunch of traits like extroversion, manliness, athletic ability, social skills, good looks, etc. while still being high IQ.

                  A neutral IQ filter would give you more of those traits (except maybe extroversion) – singulartarians are those who have the IQ but are pathetically lacking in the other areas so they imagine themselves as being the highest of IQ people. Why? Because their peers aren’t balanced high IQ people but other high IQ losers and lower IQ people who are superior on those other traits. The most charitable interpretation is that they mentally link lower IQ with being strong in other traits because their peers are lower IQ but strong in those other traits and they’re entirely isolated from their equally intelligent peers that excel on other metrics. The less charitable interpretation is that they denigrate the traits they lack. Take this story for example:


                  He caps it with:

                  A woman who had stood nearby, listening to the conversation, said to me gravely, “That was beautiful.”

                  “Thank you very much,” I said.

                  Just a pathetic display – but the best he’ll ever do as a man so he invents an admiring woman to praise it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m a nerd engineer but I got on well with jocks even though I clearly wasn’t one and I took better notice (as a sperg and a paranoid) of who my enemies were.

                  Nerdy white and asian males signing on with shitlibs (this seems to have happened more in the Obama era) who hate them never made sense to me.

      • EH says:

        All that is correct. Also, VD has driven away all his best commenters and switched his publishing business from often excellent SF novels to crappy comic books. He’s got short-guy syndrome, a high voice, narcissistic delusions of competence and even genius in fields he knows very little about, intolerance for those who are his betters in any way and a need for constant affirmation from his inferiors, whom he nevertheless abuses. He recently gave a peek into his mentality when he reassured his readers that his blog was thoroughly backed up — but only his posts. Not any of the several hundred thousand comments. What a prick.

        BTW, he does know Jim’s blog, and mentioned it approvingly about two or three years back.

        • The Cominator says:

          Vox Day is a talented and driven fellow and he is correct that the right needs to create their own cultural institutions but he has definite short guy syndrome and delusions of genius in fields where he is not.

          His obsessive hatred Jordan Peterson makes no sense. Yes Jordan Peterson is a heretic progressive at best and probably borders on a lunatic but its a very good thing if Peterson creates a less bad religion which will compete with progressives.

  18. R7 Rocket says:

    As predicted, Communist Revolutionary tips his fedora to save miladies from the crimethink of Jim of Jim’s Blog.

  19. Andre says:

    You just nailed that like it was a nine year old girl at an Ariana Grande concert.

  20. Alrenous says:


    Maybe try not letting her get abducted, instead of whining to master after it’s already happened. Having to escort her even when she really does just want to buy groceries is a pain in the ass, though. Arabs do that, not Europeans. Semitic documents can’t be applied as gospel to Germanic peoples.

    If a woman has sex that she tried to refuse and really would rather have not had – clearly, this is rape. However, it is not epistemically possible to punish this. “He raped me!” “No I didn’t.” Welp.

    In any sane world, no evidence means no conviction. Willingly entering a situation where it is impossible to prove that rape has occurred constitutes sexual consent under any meaningful sense of the word.

    Indeed, a sane world does the opposite – if it was possible that sex occurred, then assume it did, assume it was enthusiastically consensual, and shotgun marry accordingly. All of a sudden women find themselves mysteriously disinclined to wander into dark corners without a chaperone.

    Of course a really sane world simply provides that as an option. Since it is an option, high-status men will take it, because they can get away with demanding it. Then nearly everyone will take it, but local conditions will prevail when necessary, plus improved versions can appear without central planning.

    • StoneMan says:

      “Having to escort her even when she really does just want to buy groceries is a pain in the ass”
      Marriage by abduction does not apply to married women. Property rights in women hardly exist now, though they do, to an extent, in practice – They will exist much much more so come the restoration. Escorting to the grocery store isn’t going to be necessary post-restoration.

      • jim says:

        Married women and betrothed virgins will be protected against predatory men far more severely and effectively than at present. Unbetrothed virgins, less than at present. Unbetrothed non virgins, considerably less than at present. If the state does not shotgun marry them, someone else will.

  21. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Anglin says it best, and he’s right: this is not a good faith argument made by retards.

    • jim says:

      Anglin is close enough to the truth. Your account of what he says is far from the truth.

      You generally do not need to actually beat most woman, though some women you do need to beat. But you always need it to be plausible that you might beat her – and that if she complained about domestic violence, you might put her in a sack, and drop her off in the ocean several miles from shore.

      • Charles Neumann says:

        All of the men I know that would be willing to beat their women never seem to need to, since their women are surprisingly well behaved.

        The women that are in most need of a beating are with the most beta men who would not even dare lay a hand on their woman.

        This would seem like a paradox to some, but makes perfect sense from the reactionary perspective.

        • alf says:

          Exactly my experience. I am perfectly willing to hit my girl, but she never gives me reason, while some women I know are in bad need of a beating but do not get it because their beta boyfriends wear it has a badge of honor not to do so.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        You couldn’t lie straight in bed.

        For those too lazy to read, who simply take the lying host’s word for it, there is a “/sarcasm” in that article.
        Andrew Anglin understands that the system is so stacked against men that the reality is it’s utterly RANDOM who gets divorced and destroyed and who doesn’t.

        There are simpering beta males who never get divorced and there are alpha chads, even very rich and handsome ones, who do.

        The people, such as ‘Jim’ here, who will tell you it’s your fault and you should do X Y and Z to neutralise the system, are not arguing in good faith: they’re deliberately trying to destroy you.

        • jim says:

          Of course the system is stacked against men, but that is not Anglin’s point.

          Men need to be able to discipline misbehaving wives. If the system reliably punished the “guilty” and exonerated the “innocent”, it would be even more evil than it is when it randomly punishes men for being men.

          Carl Marx told us that Adam Smith agreed with him on Capitalism, you tell us that Moldbug agrees with you on Capitalism, that Trump agrees with you on capitalism, and that Anglin agrees with you on girls.

          No they don’t.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          CR, what’s with your reading comprehension?

          Anglin is saying that “just be alpha” is not enough to neutralize the system, which is not at all the same as “don’t try to neutralize it.” His practical advice is not bad:

          “You need to understand that any woman, no matter who she is, is very likely to destroy you. And prepare for that. Probably, having kids outside of wedlock is a good starting point. Then, it makes good sense to build a blackmail file on the woman. Get video of her snorting cocaine. Get video of her hitting the kids. Anything else you can think of, trick her into it and save it in a file.

          “That is not fool-proof. I don’t know that videos of her doing cocaine will help you keep your kids when she takes you to court. The system is so stacked in her favor, that the court might just completely dismiss it. But at least you’re going to be in a better place.

          “Also, if you get legally married for whichever social reasons, get a prenup. Even though judges can now just throw these out, you are better off having one than not. And figure out ways to keep your assets out of her hands in the case of a divorce. If the prize is lesser, so is the temptation.

          “Also: stay attractive. Do not get a “dad bod.” Stay in good shape (for yourself, foremost), and flirt with other women in front of your wife/common law wife in order to demonstrate to her that other women find you attractive, and you’ll have no trouble if she does leave. Women often abandon men out of sadistic spite, for the purpose of harming him, and if she knows you’re gonna be smashing some chick younger than her as soon as she files papers, she’s much less likely to do so.

          “Furthermore, the more money you have the better. Because if you have a lot of money, you can bury the bitch with lawyers…

          “Furthermore, keep her as helpless as possible. Certainly do not be in a situation where she makes more money than you. But if you’ve got the money, keep her out of the workplace. The workplace will always make her feel like she can exist without you (she can no matter what, because the state will pay for her life and force you to pay for her life, but you don’t want her to be reminded of that). If she is out of the workplace, she is more likely to feel dependent on you. Also, always do the basic PUA stuff and keep emotionally detached, don’t ever let her see you vulnerable, don’t do anything to increase her self-esteem.

          “It doesn’t matter if you’ve been married for 20 years and have three kids: she is always looking for weaknesses that she can exploit. Don’t ever show any kind of weakness in front of her, no matter how much you want to. Same thing with apologizing: do not. ever. apologize.”

          /end quote

          He is not saying that all that will prevent divorce, but certainly that’s how you minimize the risk of divorce and minimize its potential damage to yourself.

  22. Andre says:

    I was thinking about this holiness spiral framework you like to use. When I think of priest, I think of a holy man. He may have flaws, sins, but he is genuine in his attempt to embody his faith, he can be reasoned with, within the context of that faith. If he is not a holy man, he is not a priest, he is merely pretending to be a priest. He will use the faith as a cloak and nothing more, reason cannot reach him, he is not truly a human being. I recognize what you describe as a holiness spiral in this cycle of pretense, what the bible describes as the pharisees. They are not actually holy, they are merely pretending for others to be holy. They are acting, they are not genuine. Obviously you can be genuine in a false, evil, destructive religion, but that is another issue, and it is probably no worse than pretending to be holy within the context of a false, evil, destructive religion, because genuine evil tends to destroy itself quite quickly. I still think the notion that “warriors” should be in charge of priests is nonsensical, and that a king is nothing but the highest priest in the land, the holiest of men, as his followers understand holiness. Only genuine holiness can act against pretend holiness. There is no other way to handle it. Now the king may be filled with sin, but still be relatively holy next to those who pretend to be the holiest. And I’m not sure how human most people are, or are capable of being. We live in a world of monsters and automatons. So to some extent, you need pretense, some people simply cannot be genuine. But leaders need to be genuine, they need to be truly holy, to actually seek to be doing the right thing with self-awareness, and that is especially important for the highest leader.

    • jim says:

      I recommend for a thoughtful analysis of the proper relation between church and state: “Reflections of a Russian Statesman”

      The King should exercise Kingly authority over priests, and the priests priestly authority over Kings.

      Which is very much what the author of that reactionary text did.

      As an agent of the King, he made sure the priesthood and the people submitted to religious authority of the King, and as an agent of the priesthood, he gave the King moral guidance on the exercise of that authority.

      • moldbug. says:

        Jim, general question:

        The idea that dweeb state agents from previously unknown agencies with ‘official’ badges arriving to arrest the President, seems to be hitting mainstream thought, per Vox Day (very recent post on matter) and Adam Schiff (‘Very real possibility President will face jail-time’).

        Two parts: do you believe (a.) the attempt will be made (b.) if made, will it be Trump’s decision-point, relating to President unleashing official countercoup against Presidency?

        • BC says:

          Trump’s prepping for a coup. He’s showing up at army/navy games, naming his own people to the joint chief’s of staff and soon Mattis will be out. When push comes to shove, he’ll call out the Marines. The only question is whether the Marines have been Pozed enough to refuse his call or not.

          • jim says:

            I hope so. But the deep state has remarkable capability to absorb and ignore radical action, as for example Turnbull.

          • Andre says:

            This is why I keep saying he needs to raise his legions. He should not be fighting migrants, he should be enlisting them into a newly designed branch of the military. Say, the Space Marines he likes to talk about. He cannot rely on the domestic population of the United States and the current institutions of the republic. Without a group of men that owe him their status, he is doomed. He should turn migrants into the left’s worst nightmare, instead of playing their game and falling into their trap.

            • jim says:

              > Without a group of men that owe him their status, he is doomed.


              without a group of high ranking military officers that owe him their status, Trump is doomed.

              Trump needs to intervene in the military promotion system to elevate officers who have personal loyalty to their troops and from their troops to high rank, taking those troops closest to the newly promoted officer as praetorians.

        • jim says:

          There is a lot of ruin in a nation.

          Things can keep getting worse and worse, faster and faster, for a very long time.

          What has been happening in the US and the west generally is already a coup against the merely elected government. In due course, it will be considerably more of a coup, which will by small steps with no dramatic turning point perceptible at the time, become genocidal war.

          Later historians may well say “such and such was a dramatic turning point in the collapse”, but it will likely be hard to pick except in retrospect.

          But attempting to arrest Trump, in place of impeachment, would be a sudden and overt move towards war.

          Before the election, looked like it was it was on the cards, but then, Trump gets away with building the wall by executive order, no red wave, but no blue wave either, and Mueller finds minor stuff. I think lots o little moves creeping towards war are more likely than one big move, and arresting Trump would be one big move.

          • Andre says:

            > “But attempting to arrest Trump, in place of impeachment, would be a sudden and overt move towards war.”

            Don’t underestimate the foolishness of the jedi.

  23. Eli says:

    Off topic, but still relevant.

    This one is interesting. A debate between
    Eliphalet Pearson and Theodore Parsons. Both were candidates for *BA* at Harvard, and the debate took place in 1773. Eliphalet Pearson, who was on the side arguing natural inequality of men (eg Africans as, overall, inferior to Europeans), went on to, eventually, become Harvard’s president. The other became famous in his own right also.

    It is striking and rather refreshing — the level of dialogue between the two men. The level of candor, conviction and depth is not possible today. Harvard has undergone a drastic change towards imbecility, stiffness, and degeneracy.

    By the way, from what I heard, Pearson was mostly reviled at Harvard.

    • JoeFour says:

      Here’s an interesting article/analysis on the Jewish takeover of Harvard:

      • peppermint says:

        What Eli brings up happened long before the Jewish takeover. That Jews could walk in and take over either implies Jewish mind control rays or an ongoing cold civil war for them to play into, with a lack of standards in favor of ideological control. Jim explained the rise of the puritan feminists and their word ‘philandering’, which would have been the conditions conducive to Jewish takeover.

        I want back what Eli mentions, and we can have it if we can convince the next generation’s fathers to be fathers and respond to accusations of impropriety with sarcasm. What will that take?

  24. Koanic says:

    Off-topic, related to prior disagreements:

    This details varying standards of behavior for Native Americans towards women and children.

    The whitest Indians behaved the best, and give us the nearest insight into how whites lived in the ancestral environment.

    Lafond’s books contain further information.

    There is a proto-feminism or increased matriarchal tendency or higher status for women encoded genetically into Hajnal whites, but it is functional in the ancestral environment.

    • jim says:

      Accounts of ancient people’s sexual behavior and treatment of women is wildly false, reflecting current year standards, which change with astonishing speed.

      • Koanic says:

        Lafond is red pilled, and his project is piercing the cant surrounding American history.

        I always get opposition when I make this point here, needlessly so. It is beyond obvious that Hajnal whites treat women more chivalrously than other races, genetically. It’s part of the Aryan distinction, which includes honor and heroism.

        This is why Hajnal whites are uniquely susceptible to feminism and white-knighting and save-the-worldism. By contrast, East Asians are uniquely susceptible to the collectivist hive conformity of Communism.

        To fight East Asian Communism, provide alternative healthy outlets for their collectivist tendencies, and mitigate the excesses, by being consciously aware of the tendency. Likewise for Hajnal feminism.

        Instead of acknowledging this resistance, I see individuals who lack the Hajnal proto-feminist tendency, pretending that it doesn’t exist, or that it’s illegitimate, and acting as if they can just bull through it.

        That won’t work. Or rather, it will work, once conditions get harsh enough to override the Hajnal proto-feminist tendency. Which is the same thing as not working.

        The most salient example of this approach recently here is jewish pedophile.

        To save Western civ, one must restore the functionality of Vox’s deltas. Who are by definition not alphas used to getting sexual compliance from girls before they were 10 years old.

        JP’s approach shows a lack of empathy on the part of an outlier. It would be like me thinking I can save Western civilization by having deltas do something that only IQ 3 SD people can do. Yes the detlas need to be smarter, but one must also bridge the gap.

        Jim’s approach in the OP is good because it evokes pathos, and shows that true white knighting is doing NRx. That’s the way.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          Power > culture.

          I’ve seen grotesque white knightism among non-whites, enough of it to convince me that all races are susceptible to it. All races being susceptible to white knightism, suggests to me that all races can likewise overcome it (admittedly with varying degrees of difficulty).

          Now, NRx supports the Peace of Westphalia, so if your people instinctively recoil from my worldview, that’s okay – no need to share a country! But your people have been going in a bad direction (in terms of male-female relations) since the 11th century. That’s according to Jim, I believe. You can accept that, and hope that, come the restoration, the *state religion* will be as anti-WK as conceivable; if white knightism is made absolutely low status by power, people will act accordingly. They always do.

          (Or you can succumb to your over-active protective instinct, and once again end up where you are currently, sooner or later)

          What I see on the internet inclines me to believe that enough Aryans — albeit not a whole lot of Anglos — can kick the WKism to the curb. Germans, in particular. I’ve had a number of pure-blooded Aryans tell me how much they enjoyed seeing Nathan Damigo punch that Antifa chick in the face, explicitly mentioning the *inter-sexual dynamics* involved. I have other examples, even more clear-cut, of whites shunning WK sentiments on a pre-verbal level. Make of that what you will.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          G. K. Chesterton was a great writer and a great white knight, and he had some “interesting” things to say about the Germans (whom he passionately despised) and the absolutely non-chivalrous way they treat women, in contrast to Anglos or even Frenchmen.

          Maybe I’ll look it up when I have time.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          I also believe that Mencken, Dreiser, and even a number of Japanese writers had some pertinent things to say about the matter. But enough bragging about my litterateurism.

        • Koanic says:

          White feminism is something different and unique than what other races do with white knighting. Other societies don’t go Western feminist unless we impose it on them with an atom bomb. It takes a good deal of misguided altruism and chivalry and sincerity to make it happen, and the other races simply don’t have it.

          I don’t mind JP bullying the white knights in this little bubble. NRx is a subculture. But the same approach isn’t going to work outside the bubble. Which is why, for example, Anglin doesn’t write in that style, to his mass audience. He uses comedy, irony, pathos etc instead.

          • jim says:

            > Other societies don’t go Western feminist unless we impose it on them with an atom bomb

            Regrettably this is not the case. Feudal Japan went mighty damn feminist, then there was a period of disorder when no one thought much about what the status of women was, and when order was restored, part of order was that women were absolutely male property, and that stayed absolutely unchanged from late feudal times to the occupation, until General McArthur said otherwise, whereupon they overnight went from being the most manly and red pilled people in the world to being the most cucked and emasculated in the world, in an absurdly dramatic and completely over the top demonstration of culture being downstream from power.

          • jewish pedophile says:


            Been there, done that, received enough “uniquely written”[1] death threats to last one a lifetime, and on top of that, realized that it’s not necessarily the smartest course of action to change culture. Not gonna disclose anymore details here.

            [1]Night Fever 32-33. (Light riddle here.)

            • peppermint says:

              It was pretty painful for me to realize that my minimum viable revolution wasn’t, but age of consent culture makes it hard for a father to tell his daughter and her new boyfriend he knows what they’re planning sounds clear enough, and I guess all we need to do is put some doubt in the minds of high status fathers so they can let their instincts take over? I met the fathers of most of the women I’ve dated and their expressions were intense and guarded, at least I didn’t let them all down.

              • peppermint says:

                In the new culture, hookups aren’t considered dating, a date with no sex isn’t assumed to be a failure for the man, and men don’t brag about their partner count, right?

                • peppermint says:

                  …that’s what people try to pretend still exists now and saying that out loud as if it’s a question would be considered creepy in a lot of places. From observed in the breach back to observed.

                • peppermint says:

                  I was trying to build mental structures to conform my instincts and the Catholic values I was taught to observed and recieved values in Boston. That’s all useless junk now, I just left Boston. Now I can tell all my friends how to leave that miserable place.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  April 28, 2017, you wrote:

                  >Kek worship is crucial because meme magic is real and our enemies have been using it against us for centuries but now due tontheir fecklessness we control the memes.

                  >Odin worship is perfectly compatible with what we know about the universe scientifically. In fact is it more compatible than ((Jehovah)) worship, because ((Jehovah)) worship includes the requirement that all souls are created by ((Jehovah)) and equal in the eyes of ((Jehovah)), while science says genetics, signaling, conquest and female sexually are real.

                  >The old gods, understood with some detached irony, are more consistent with the scientific worldview than ((Jehovah)).


                  Do you stand by these statements?

                  If not, why does your newfound Catholicism read exactly like the LARP it is?

                  Maybe you’re just, as they say, “doing it wrong”?

                  There is so much material you’ve provided (spammed) all over this blog. It requires examination, I would say.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                >I met the fathers of most of the women I’ve dated

                Here’s that effeminate meme again: “dating” a “girlfriend.”

                In a reactionary society you don’t “date,” you don’t have a “girlfriend,” and there is no Age of Consent / Marriareability / Fuckability, because when you fuck an (unbetrothed) virgin, you marry her, and when you fuck an (unbetrothed) non-virgin, it’s like going to the grocery store to buy bread. A girl, aged 8, 12, or 25, who goes around seducing men, should receive a whipping, followed by shotgun marriage, or marriage-by-abduction. There are no “boyfriends,” “girlfriends,” or “dates” in a reactionary society. Stop talking like a fag.

          • Koanic says:

            > Regrettably this is not the case.

            All races exhibit an historical cycle with a decadent matriarchal phase. That part is not unique to whites. The Western feminist aspect thereof is.

            Similarly, East Asians collectivism is not wholly foreign to whites, but they bring their peculiar racial spin and intensification of it.

            One could accurately say that a Hajnal white could never be a true EA collectivist, nor an EA a true HW feminist. And the debatable edge cases vanish when one scales to a group.


            Culture is downstream of genetics, and Japanese genetics dictate conformity.

            > Been there, done that

            I wasn’t telling you to try mass audience. I’m just pointing out something that seems obvious to me, which I don’t see acknowledged. Hajnal whites cannot go directly from Western feminism to a Middle Eastern chattel-based view of women, not by verbal argument anyway. Genetic barriers thereto exist. One can pretend otherwise, but this limits one’s message to a tiny self-selected ghetto.

            White feminism is an attempt to use patriarchy to restore the ancestral environment’s social order. It is far easier to alter the means than the goal.

            • peppermint says:

              Puritan feminism is an attempt to use the government to restore the social order instead of trusting the instincts of fathers and husbands.

              Jim has been trying to say that for like a decade and I was unable to understand that Boston rules the world, Boston is a miserable hellhole, and the world had been becoming worse, suggesting that Boston culture isn’t natural and is never held without doubt. I did think that every culture, properly understood, is furtively puritan feminism, as Boston people are furtively trying to be something else, thus all of us suspicious of each of us.

              There are people who casually assume that everyone around them shares their values. Talk is cheap, the test for that is whether they respect each other’s authority.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              Yes, we are familiar with the Machiavellian maxim, “Whenever you introduce a new thing, present it as an old thing,” i.e., in order to convince HW 125-IQers to embrace reaction, need to couch one’s objectives as really being old school gynocentrism.

              Fortunately, convincing 125-IQers is not a preliminary condition for restoration; it suffices to get 145-IQers on board, and the rest will follow; memetic contagion is always top-down, never bottom-up. In the long run, the Moldbug strategy trumps the Anglin strategy.

              You say, “Bridge the gap.” But there is no need to give 125-IQers novel mental constructs (disguised as familiar mental constructs); if the top Priests all ceremonially announce that white knighting is low status, it will instantly become low status, without anyone noticing that anything’s different.

              Signalling-automatism > amygdalaic optimization.

              • Koanic says:

                Again, not what I’m saying. I don’t care how you go about persuading. I’m merely irritated when you argue or imply that the HW proto-feminism isn’t an immutable genetic reality. Whites are always going to give women relatively higher status, and be relatively more monogamous, than other races. Not high status in the sense of women run the household because the men are lazy predators, as in some African cultures, but in the chivalrous sense. Which is why Jim’s method of evoking pathos is superior to simply denigrating women’s status with distaff red pill criticisms.

                White men want a woman to white knight for. Therefore, teach them to build a cage atop the pedestal, lest the poor dears fall off.

                “Women are dogs” is not a message that can spread except by firsthand bitter disillusionment. It is what bastards believe, and that is not our goal.

                • jim says:

                  One day the Japanese gave women much lower status than whites, the next day much higher.

                  Culture is downstream from power. Whites have from time to time given women very low status, as for example the Old Roman Republic.

                • Koanic says:

                  Sure. Female status is variable within races over time. My point is that chivalry and western feminism are uniquely white manifestations with a common genetic underpinning, even if one can find analogues in other races.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Nobody denies the genetic aspects of Feminism; it just doesn’t matter how the genetically-compromised demos is predisposed to feel about or what it’s predisposed to think of women, as long as the ruling elite makes WK behavior and WK signalling a severe detriment to one’s own social status.

                  I’m following Jim’s dialectic, and my rhetoric can be modified depending on the audience. Jim’s dialectic is not “pedestals within cages.” Pretty sure it’s simply “no pedestals.” Propagandizing Jimianity to carefully-chosen targets is quite my specialty, so your apprehension about my success-prospects is unwarranted.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  And, I mean, Jim once joked about holding women inside collective rape-farms / breeding-farms, and is known for saying “A man should own his woman like a farmer owns his cow.” There’s your pathos.

                • Koanic says:

                  I do not care about your prospects of success at persuasion. Rather, I am using the topic of persuasion to illuminate my actual interest, the genetic difference.

                  I approvingly cite Jim’s recent approach to the Woman Question. You rebut with prior crasser quotes. This is irrelevant on multiple levels. Most pertinently, because it doesn’t matter that the crass element is there, as long as it is balanced with the pathos.

                  We arrive at the heart of the disagreement when you refer to the “genetically-compromised demos”. Firstly, you are quite wrong to suppose that the tendency I have described is not present among the cognitive elite. Secondly, I dispute that the tendency in itself is bad. Rather, I regard it as a part of the nobility of the Aryan race, malfunctioning in the alien and toxic environment of SCALE, democracy and techno-abundance.

                  The Spartans made a spectacle of a drunken helot, to impress upon their youth the nobility of sobriety. We should make a similar spectacle of the degenerate woman. I suggest the community ritual of stoning the whore, as less vile than viewing preteen bestiality porn. But whatever works.

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  I don’t suppose that. I believe that, unlike the the “nation at large,” the elites of every Aryan nation can formulate state religions that don’t merely function as blind rationalizations of any and all instincts ingrained by the selective pressures of the ancestral environment, but ones that — when need be, and only when need be — go beyond them; an obvious example of such an elitist micro-cosmos being NRx itself, whose positions tend heavily towards an Outside examination of human biases, whatever those may be, vis-a-vis Reality.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Even if it were true that aryans are inclined to pedestalize women, the fact that state religion has aryans cowering before black women and sexual deviants, castrating their children, and celebrating their own genocide indicates that state religion could make aryans as callously patriarchal as any F-cup factory farmer could wish.

                • Koanic says:

                  Sure it could, Eternal. And doing so would provoke a Reaction, because it is not congruent with the white genetic nature.

                • jim says:


                  Whites were quite brutally patriarchal from 1660 to about 1810. Women of questionable virtue were shotgun married, and whipped for speaking back the their husbands. Girls who found themselves fatherless at a very young age were married at a very young age. Bastards were not officially executed, but had a death rate that mysteriously and inexplicably just happened to be close to one hundred percent, for reasons that no one paid too much attention to if they knew what was good for them.

                  That social order was classically white and Aryan, and is just what reaction prescribes.

                  When I read AD1824 books they are telling us that white males have always been wimpy weeping worthless emasculated feminist cucks from time immemorial.

                  I am Aryan in both the male and female line, and am not and never have been a wimpy weeping worthless emasculated feminist cuck. And when I read AD1800 books, it is absolutely obvious that the AD1824 books are lying about white history, that whites in the seventeenth century were no more wimpy weeping worthless emasculated feminist cucks than the Japanese were before General McArthur ruled over them.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Whites were quite brutally patriarchal from 1660 to about 1810.

                  I wouldn’t call it that. My definition of brutally patriarchal begins by exceeding the Old Testament Law.

                  And it certainly was not the future some postmodern misogynists seek, of the F-cup breeding farm.

                  “wimpy weeping worthless emasculated feminist cucks” are an historical anomaly. It has never been this extreme before. Getting there took industrial soy and pax atomica.

                  One excess begets another. I oppose any proposal to lower the status of women below that which the Law prescribes.

                • R7 Rocket says:


                  “And it certainly is not the future some postmodern misogynists seek, of the f-cup farm”

                  And the anti-tech commentator tips his fedora for mi’ladies.

                  The red pill works wonders!

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I support you R7, I really do, but Jim is actually all into fedoras… of course, you’re talking about a figurative fedora here, representing internet goonery, but still. Might want to switch metaphors.

                • Koanic says:

                  I am not anti-tech, R7. I merely support intelligence augmentation over artificial intelligence, both morally and by cutting edge invention.

                  As for your conflation of Levitical family law with fedora tipping m’ladyism, it is a fresh perspective characteristic of your perspicacity, and a persuasive argument for the dire imperativeness of intelligence augmentation.

                • jim says:

                  What is your interpretation of the levitical law on unbetrothed virgins that get abducted, that elope, or that engage in and sexual misconduct that does not lead to abduction or elopement?

                  What is your interpretation of levitical law when those virgins are very young?

                  Similarly with regard to unmarried non virgins.

                  What about married or betrothed.

                  My position is that the whole damned lot was sound, reasonable, realistic, pragmatic, practical, and in accord with human nature, but a whole lot of people find the Old Testament stuff unthinkable and unimaginable, and therefore interpret the old Testament law on these topics to say the opposite of what it plainly says.

                  My position is that abduction and elopment is fine, sexual misconduct requires marriage, or if some obstacle to marriage, death. Unmarried non virgins, open season, if the state does not shotgun marry them, someone else should, married or betrothed, the offended husband is entitled to kill the offenders.

                • Koanic says:

                  I am for what the Law says, Jim. Age of consent is never mention in the Law. I don’t see where our opinions differ in the interpretation of this aspect of the Law.

                  Clan warfare and private vengeance were realities of the time, which discouraged mistreatment of women. Giving the cops that job is a bad idea.

                  One thing you didn’t mention is slavery. If some “refugee” or hippie chick is wandering around, apt to be enslaved. The rules of hospitality are for trustworthy patriarch warriors of substance such as Abraham during his sojourns, not scruffy foreign parasitical beggar ruffians and eat pray love sluts.

                • info says:



                  8Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love”

                  The assumption held by G-D was that puberty has occurred making the virgin physically suitable for wedlock. The “time of love” is never before puberty.

                • jim says:

                  God, or the prophet, is telling us that young girls become hot when they reach fertile age, and marriage should ensue.

                  He is not telling us that if sex occurs earlier than that it is the man’s fault, and marriage should not ensue.

                  Gnon tells us we desire fertile age women, and should desire them. From this, puritans deduce that if sex happens, it is the fault of wicked men imposing on innocent women, and therefore those innocent women should not have to get married and should be totally entitled to fuck around without any consequences.

                  The Old Testament solution to early sex is early marriage – that women should not be free to engage in serial monogamy, regardless of age.

                  Female sexual choice is a problem, for if females get what they want, they defect, and then men defect. You get defect/defect equilibrium, no one gets what they want, your women do not have sons and your men will not fight for God, King, and Tribe.

                  Everything is driven by sex and reproduction. Men pursue status because status gets them laid. If women bestow their sexual favors, bad men get laid. If fathers bestow their daughters, good men get laid.

                  If sex is governed by defect/defect equilibrium, love is war, and if love is war, everything is war.

                  If sex is governed by cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, love is love, and if love is love, you get peace within the ingroup.

                  Hence the correlation observed by Unwin. But though his correlation is correct, his Freudian explanation is incorrect.

                  Reproduction is cooperate/cooperate. To ensure cooperation, defection just has to be forbidden. One household must have one captain, which means that women must be compelled to obey, and forbidden to leave. Men must be compelled to love and cherish, women compelled to honor and obey. And that means the biblical injunction that if women have sex with a man, they must be compelled to stick with that man – which command has no lower age limit, no starting age.

                  It is evil, wrong, and dangerous to have a lower limit on the age of marriage, since you are licensing girls below that age to fuck around and teaching them that law abiding men are not sexy.

                • info says:


                  That which can be accurately classified as pedophilia didn’t occur in Ancient Israel. And given the visceral revulsion universally at this. That instinct has a healthy origin that may be in current year misdirected.

                  Indicate that it was obvious enough as to not require explanation. Unlike the acceptances of perversions by nations around Israel that Torah proscribes the death penalty for.

                • jim says:

                  The reason that these words not occur in the old testament is not because it is so obvious that there is no need for the word, but because it is so unobvious that the word is itself lie.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Shalom, disinfo.

                  How old was Rachel when Jacob first decided to buy her?

                • Koanic says:

                  You can disagree all you like, Christ-denier. The Law doesn’t mention age of consent. What you quoted is the Bible, but not the Law. I know what is in it better than you do.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “Nothing can be accurately classified as pedophilia. The word is a lie.”

                  What do you call people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children?

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Sick perverted deviants, of whom upwards of 90% are homosexual, being attracted to boys, and not attracted to girls.

                  Those 10% or so of the deviants who are heterosexual, who are attracted to prepubescent girls, and not attracted to males, hardly ever do anything IRL; generally they simply jerk off to pictures of little girls, or “have sex” with dolls shaped like little girls. Thus, they pose a very insignificant problem, which absolutely pales in comparison to the dire problem posed by prepubescent girls who desperately seek to get ravished by badboys.

                  (Balcks and browns don’t count in this analysis; we are talking about whites and East Asians here)

                  “Pedophilia” was invented to protect gays.

                • info says:


                  Inspired Scripture. Something that didn’t need to be pointed out yet was assumed.

                  Do you think Christ. Who condemned all those who would offend little ones as those who are better off with a millstone around their neck sunk to the bottom of the Ocean. Would actually not rebuke the sick practice if it existed?

                • jim says:


                  When the bible deviates from progressivism, you tell us that progressivism is so obvious that those that wrote the bible must have agreed with it – but progressive beliefs are quite recent.

                  They are not only incomprehensible to the people of biblical times, but incomprehensible to people of a few hundred years ago.

                • info says:

                  ”How old was Rachel when Jacob first decided to buy her?”

                  At least an adolescent and recognizably a woman at the time Jacob requested her from Laban or older. And because Jacob was forced to wait 7 years for her.

                  I don’t totally trust the Talmud on this given how Jesus is apparently boiling in excrement in it.

                • info says:

                  ”Nothing can be accurately classified as pedophilia. The word is a lie.”

                  Why is it a better description of attraction to prepubescent children than “pedophilia”

                • jim says:

                  The word “pedophilia” is a lie, because it claims that the problem of gays raping little boys is the same kind of problem as horny little girls.

                  The supply and demand situation is very different, making these very different problems.

                • info says:

                  Given such a word encapsulates both homosexual and heterosexual variant.

                • Koanic says:

                  Are you a Christian, Info? For some reason I cannot recall clearly, I remembered you as being Jewish. Perhaps I was wrong.

                  Guess what, you’ve conceded my point – the Law does not mention age of consent. Now you are refuting other statements not said by me. Which requires the same reply as the original statement – nothing.

                  It is not my problem if you cannot follow the context of the discussion, and misinterpreted it as an endorsement of the Muslim practice of senior citizen imams jackhammering 3 year old girls.

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  Like you, Obadiah Shoher was sympathetic to Biblical Judaism and suspicious of the Talmud. He wrote:

                  “Patriarchs were unconcerned about the age of their brides. Rachel was so young when Jacob met her that he felt free to kiss the girl. Immediately, Jacob asked Rachel’s father for her hand, a clear case of child betrothal. Since she was sufficiently attractive even 14 years later when Jacob married her, Rachel was probably less than ten years old when betrothed. Their marriage was a happy one.”


                  Do you understand this argument?

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >such a word encapsulates both homosexual and heterosexual variant.

                  The heterosexual variant is so insignificant as to be practically non-existent.

                • Koanic says:

                  Being animal husbanders, the patriarchs would know very well not to marry their daughters off before their hips were capable of bearing children safely.

                • jim says:

                  The usual outcome would be not to marry them off until old enough for child bearing to be healthy. Some daughters, however, are hard to control.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, and having seen horny juvenile female animals, they would know to marry such off early, if their daughters. There is a passage in the song of solomon in which brothers discuss two possible natures for their juvenile sister – a tower, which they will ornament with silver, or a door (slut), which they will board up with cedar. They are obviously aware that some girls are doors before they are of childbearing age, and are willing to take extreme imprisonment measures to counteract this, similar to what one does with livestock.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              For reference, observe peppermint’s odd about-face in this very thread. Did the bullying literally excise white-knighting for 12-year-olds out of his lizard brain? Of course not. His lizard brain is the same as 3 weeks ago. But signalling is the key that unlocks all doors of social transformation; if your mammal brain tells you to parrot and mimic my worldview, because all the apes you want to impress do so, the allure of outright disregarding your own lizard brain will become irresistible. Well, for 99% of people.

              You don’t need to compel the amygdalae of NPCs to perform functions they’re not evolutionarily optimized to perform; Jonathan Haidt’s rider-elephant analogy is slightly overblown. Spandrell is correct. Point deer, make horse. It’s that simple.

              • Simon says:

                peppermint is part of the 1%.

                • peppermint says:

                  it can take all of an individual’s brain power to justify ugliness to himself, because aesthetics can be recognized by anyone

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  There is nothing universal about your acute aversion to teenagers. Nor does it matter: “politics as preference” is faggotry. Stop out-grouping normal men, that’s all.

                  Forget it: people with your tendency must never be listened to about sex. You’ll always eventually go back to your deviance, and consequently advocate throwing Timothy Temple in prison or executing him. This thread is just not for you. Go back when a different subject is discussed.

                • peppermint says:

                  this is where I admit that I was wrong and largely dishonest

                • peppermint says:

                  I was arguing not against “teenagers are sexy” but “I want to use someone’s teenage daughter as a whore”. I can recognize now that those positions are unrelated.

                • Koanic says:

                  Good job peppermint. I had no idea what you were talking about, mostly. Glad you’ve resolved the issue.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  There is no difference between a 12-year-old who decides to butt-slut and a 22-year-old who decides to butt-slut. A father should marry his virgin daughter off before she loses her virginity to whatever man she loses her virginity to; but teen whores are not qualitatively different than non-teen whores.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Women are not qualified to make wise sexual choices, at least until their hormones tone down at menopause. You can do the Gender Studies thing and claim that 12-year-olds are “uniquely victimized” by being butt-sluts compared to 18-year-olds (and use that Feminist dogma to vilify men, as per usual), but the difference just isn’t there.

                  Polanski is a Saint.

                  (I’m joking, he isn’t a Saint. But also not a monster)

                • peppermint says:

                  I trust you. I’ll stay away from the topic of whores for a while, but if I wasn’t already married, there could be circumstances under which it might be reasonable for me to marry a teenager.

                  I guess I avoided younger women when I was younger because I wanted to believe in female agency, which was futile, because men outrank women by default.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  We now have men going to prison for unknowingly fucking whores aged 16 or 17, who often look 25, and behave 25. That’s the holiness spiral for you.

                • peppermint says:

                  That could have been me under different circumstances.

                  Maybe if I had taken the contrary virtues seriously, but the word chastity sounds like a weird, blasphemous self-denial fetish to a puritan feminist.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  In fact, the AoC in Britain was raised from 13 to 16 (by Feminists) specifically to fight against muh “child prostitution.” Btw, they later wanted to raise it to 18, and probably still do.

                • peppermint says:

                  Oh. Puritans refuse to admit to feeling temptation. The puritan who admits to temptation is assumed to be sinning, and the puritan who talks about the contrary virtues is assumed to be admitting to temptation. I think a puritan would reply “yeah, so?” to that, so it isn’t really a redpill unless the puritan wants to be a Christian. That’s why I couldn’t really admit to being tempted until I was forced to drop the puritanism.

                  The puritan response to the failure of puritanism is more puritanism, unless you can pin the puritan down to explaining why one particular puritan policy is better than not doing that in light of theory and observation.

                  Since virtue presupposes the possibility of temptation and vice, puritanism can’t promote virtue as well as Christianity. By the puritan’s own rules, then, he should be a Christian instead.

                • peppermint says:

                  Thanks for helping me escape heresy, guys. I apologize for my pride, wrath, and sloth.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >I apologize for my pride, wrath, and sloth.

                  The real issue is not your private vices; it’s that Jim is a proponent of male sexuality, whereas you’re a proponent of female sexuality. Hence your Tumblrina-BDSM advocacy, your sanctimonious opposition to smashing teen pussy, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Many of your posts read like your girlfriend/wife was looking over your shoulder while they were written. Make an effort to perceive things from the male, non-female point of view; can you?

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Now that you’re married, you really should get her off Tumblr. She is reading erotic (Satanic) literature about the manifold torture instruments used by apex-alpha vampires to restrain and abuse their victims during vampirization, and so forth, and asks you to buy her that stuff from Stockroom on Valentine’s Day because it’s a “kinky fetish.” Everything I’ve just described should be illegal, and the people involved should all be regarded as godless profligate sinners.

                  In contrast, fucking unbetrothed non-virginal 12-year-olds (Jim might use an even younger age here), for free or with remuneration, should be as legal as buying bread from the grocery store.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  (“Get her off Tumblr” is an unintended pun, for which I blame momentary demonic possession)

            • jim says:

              Not really seeing this cycle – Looks to me that the Japanese spontaneously went patriarchal during a lengthy period of violent and chaotic anarchy, the Chinese went patriarchal when conquered by foreigners who cheerfully enslaved their women.

              It looks to me that the status of women drops when there is a war in which one of the factions treat women as loot. Pretty soon all of the factions treat women as loot.

              • Koanic says:

                Well, that is the cycle. Patriarchal chimps conquer a rich territory. Patriarchy relaxes amidst plenty, bonobo r-selection becomes adaptive, and pussy power rises. Decadence ensues, military cohesion declines, and either resources become scarce or external conquerors steal them.

  25. peppermint says:

    JP, I remember it being implied that age of consent was part of codifying and urbanizing, if so, it could have happened in ancient Rome, the Twelve Tablets make no mention of an age of consent, but Wikipedia recently decided (I accidentally had an old offline copy that made no mention) that 12 was chosen for marriage and concubinage at some point before ca.200, since it pins concubinage on Ulpian.

    Revilo Oliver pinned the fall of Rome on socialism instead of thottery, but thottery leads to spiritual death and socialism, and Augustus failed to stop thottery, then age of consent is once again both a symptom of thottery and a cause for further thottery, and Constantine already failed to save Rome with Christianity, but did hold on to Constantinople, which Justinian codifed as baning divorce unless the couple went to the monasteries. Byzantium lasted but Justinian married a heavily used thot who under his own law should have been attached either to the most serious of her boyfriends or a convent.

    Augustine’s City of God banned makeup to keep women from acting like women.

    Do you think we can build a City of God, with sexbots and artificial wombs, or with sumptuary laws, or with girls being GPS tagged and only allowed out of the house to visit the convent?

    • peppermint says:

      If we lost it in the 12th century we must have had it to send armies across a continent to fight for hundreds of years, meaning what we’re trying to restore is the social norms of the crusaders? So we just need to take that DEUS VULT meme a little bit more seriously?

      I think I read somewhere that calculus was almost invented around then, but Wikipedia replaces any mention of the European middle ages with anything else it can find, implying that the enemy somehow knows? Implying Islamophilia exists to keep people away from crusaders?

      • jewish pedophile says:

        Fuck off. You’re not gonna hide behind metaphysics. This faggotry will end soon.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      You wrote:

      >the Roman persecution of ((Jesus’ followers)) is a Jew hoax on perhaps a larger scale even than the Holocaust. The whole reason ((Jesus’ followers)) managed to set up shop is that the Romans were willing to tolerate other people having their own religions, as they had their own ancestral gods and a number of ideas about existence.

      >By the way, don’t bother replying with stories about saints you heard in sunday school. ((Jesus’ followers)), including a shocking number of Aryans, have a typically Jewish regard for the truth when it comes to spreading the Truth, being a Light unto the World, and tikkun olam.

      Have you stopped believing that, or just pretend to?

  26. jewish pedophile says:

    What primarily prompted my “epic” sperg out against peppermint are, amidst many similar writings he’s written, the following things that he’s written:

    >13 isn’t hot, 15 isn’t hot, 17 can be hot

    >Listen, numbnuts, when was the last time you saw an *average* 15 year old?

    >Fucking a 13 year old has never been and will never be normal. 13 is young for a whore. Her father should have killed that kike personally.

    >I remember the yawning attractiveness gap between the girls in my class in middle school and high school and the student teachers from college

    >Justinian also had the death penalty for rape. As for statutory rape, 13 ad under is ovenworthy, most men have a big problem with men poaching 14-18

    In short, peppermint’s position was (is?) that, because women aged 13-18 are not attractive enough — according to him, that is — men should be executed, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized for fucking them. These women are “children,” after all.

    This position is insane on many different levels.

    First, even if we all agreed that women in middle school (13-15) are not hot, women in high school (16-18) are not hot, and that attraction to women aged 13-18 really is deviant and depraved and sick, *even then* there is no justification for punishing men for the misbehavior of the women. After all, if we don’t find women aged 13-18 attractive, yet they go out of their way and manage to seduce us anyway, the issue is *them* being totally out of control, not us. Instead of killing or imprisoning us, let them be controlled – by marriage, among other means.

    Second, it’s just objectively false to claim that men don’t find women aged 13-18 attractive. It’s insane. It’s just *not true*. As I have been saying for a month or so: fertile teenagers possess — now everyone repeats after me — SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS, aka fertility signs, aka curves; to varying degrees, they have physical features such as: boobs, hips, ass, a nice waist-to-hip ratio, pubic hair, etc.; and the best evidence there is for them being attractive to men is that men, of all races, and of all ages, *do* play ball when the opportunity presents itself.

    Third, it really doesn’t matter what % of men find women aged, e.g., 12, attractive. Maybe it’s 11%, maybe 46%, maybe 93%. It is irrelevant. I wholly reject the idea of “preference politics,” according to which we need to base the policies of our respective countries on whatever a majority (?) of men find attractive. This is NRx, for God’s sake. Demotism is verboten here. Sound policy should be based on sound principles. The program outlined in this post, in Reaction 101 on the WQ, is full of sound principles. Jim’s comments here and in previous threads all contain sound, healthy principles according to which society should be run. “I personally am into X,” or “37% of men are into X,” are retarded types of arguments. Who cares about preferences? Why should preferences matter? Are we the Frankurt School? No, preferences are irrelevant. Biology is relevant, and biology has a very clear verdict on these matters: fertile females *will* score. (And, so we say, should be married off before they do, or shortly thereafter)

    This issue will not go away as long as people like peppermint keep peddling the blue pill. You cannot reverse the decline of your race without restoring masculinity and male sexuality. Denouncing Jim or myself or myriads of men who think along similar lines as “jewish pedophiles” will not save your race and your civilization. We can disagree about all issues, but the WQ is the one Q to rule them all. This needs to be put in order.

  27. jewish pedophile says:

    Are we ruled by warriors or by priests? (Rhetorical)

    “Willie Newson is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, stationed in Georgia. On Tuesday, Newson was arrested and charged with child exploitation, after an FBI sting involving an underage girl. Here’s what you need to know:

    “Authorities say that Newson, a 47 year old career Air Force officer, started an online relationship with someone he believed was a 14 year old girl. They say that Newson was getting ready to meet up with the girl at a hotel in Marietta, Georgia. That’s when authorities swooped in and arrested him.

    “In fact, there was no 14 year old girl. The person that Newson met on a dating app was an undercover agent for the FBI Metro Atlanta Child Exploitation Task Force posing as an underage girl as part of an FBI sex sting operation. It’s not clear whether Newson was specifically targeted, or whether other officers were also involved. Newson has been charged with child exploitation.

    “Willie Newson — a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force and member of the Georgia Air National Guard — was arrested this week for allegedly trying to meet a 14-year-old girl at a Cobb County hotel.

    “Newson shelled out $20,000 to bail himself out of jail after his arrest on Thursday. An Air Force spokesperson said he had been placed on leave while his case was being adjudicated.

    “Georgia Department of Defense spokeswoman Desiree Bamba confirmed that Newson is on the command staff of the Georgia Air National Guard. He formerly commanded the 165th Communication Flight of the 165th Airlift Wing at Savannah Air National Guard Base.

    “Newson allegedly arranged to meet the person he believed was s 14 year old girl at the Radisson Hotel at 1775 Parkway Place in Marietta, Georgia. But when the Air Force officer arrived, he didn’t find a girl. Instead, he was arrested and taken to jail.

    “Newson was charged with child exploitation. He bailed himself out of prison for $20,000. He has been placed on leave while his case is processed.

    “According to an arrest warrant obtained by Channel 2 Action News, the said the undercover officer who was messaging with Newson “gave Newson the opportunity to stop communicating several times.” Apparently Newson didn’t take her up on the opportunity, but went on communicating with someone who he believed was a 14 year old girl.

    “Authorities say that Newson believed that he was messaging a 14 year old girl on a dating app and that he made plans to meet the girl at a Raddison hotel in Marietta, Georgia. But the “girl” in questions was, in fact, an undercover FBI agent. Newson was arrested at the Raddison on Tuesday night.

    “Newson Is Originally from Celebration, Florida
    When Newson was arrested on Tuesday, he gave his home address as the Air Force base in Marietta, Georgia. Newson, 47, is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force.

    “He is originally from Celebration, Florida. According to his arrest warrant, Newson made plans to meet a 14 year old girl for oral sex at the Raddison Hotel in Marietta. Newson allegedly exchanged messages with the girl on a dating app. But in fact, there was no actual 14 year old girl. Newson was in contact with an undercover FBI agent. And when he turned up st the Raddison, he was arrested and charged with child exploitation.”

    Come the restoration, stories such as this one will be literally unthinkable. Notice that everywhere it’s reported as “child sex trafficking ring busted!” The FBI should be fucking abolished.

    • Dave says:

      “child sex trafficking ring busted!”

      That’s the headline, even when there’s no child, no sex, no trafficking, and no ring.

      After rounding up a few dozen pedos, the cops wrap it up and post a mugshot gallery, where one gets the impression that the perps’ mothers all drank paint thinner while pregnant.

  28. Rollory says:

    Why not correct the typo in the title? (reacton -> reaction)

  29. Ichm says:

    Whereas men are well-adapted to equality and indipendence: sure…

    The power struggles of all varieties are constant between any two non-baby humans of any sex, in any setting.
    I see 3 parallel constant struggles: men vs men, women vs women, men vs women.

    “She wants to lose every struggle”: it’s not so simple. See, there are more than one concurrent pursuits, so the mind sort of runs a couple tasks concurrently, and they are inconsistent with one another.
    A part of her wants to lose the struggles because she is after a greatly useful tool human — thence it must be able to overcome her challenges.
    Another part of her wants to win some: let’s not forget that humans can easily choose self-harm and satisfaction of their vanity and pride over material gain and comfort.

    Due to male pussy thirst, women are used to be buttered up: be sure that if you don’t let have some wins, the part of her that wants to feel “valuable” (=powerful) will resent you, and she will either leave or cowardly stay and sabotage you covertly (to leave later).

    Lastly: the part of her that wants to “win” (the whole struggle thing is a monument to stupidity, but no way they would realize this…) has now been force-fed non-stop subtle and anti-male propaganda playing on the naturally present instincts of envy pride vanity. It’s grown hypertrophic.
    Since the psy-op is directed by the rulers, who boast endless resources and connections/willing shills (human nature! There will always be a race to serve rulers and be chosen as their pet servants), it succeeds. Rulers become rulers winning: it’s people who fulfil their goals, by definition.

    Part B’s hypertrophy may be one of a few reasons why women unhappier than tever were.
    But concerted propaganda can very easily make people act towards their unhappiness: so no matter if anti-male constant aggression makes women unhappy, they’ll keep doing until the Coordinated Programming goes on.

    The programming succeeds because it feeds instincts naturally present.
    Rulers can’t turn their subjects into anything, they can turn them into some things.
    They’ll program culture as they think it serves their interests best. Usually you want the subjects split into groups hostile to each other, so as to have them not turn against you.

    I am not part of rulers and have no idea why it is exactly they are hell-bent on doing away with family: I used to know that family helps rulers. That they want the familial institution to be gone is beyond doubtto anybody who has watched even one mainstream Hollywood movie in the last 15 years.

    I also believe that it is men, and not women, who behind the curtains rule, and determine the cultural programming to shower the population with.

    Personally, I could find no satisfaction in owning a woman that kept staying with me, and co-operated instead of defecting, due to intimidation and pressure of various types.
    It’s like winning by cheating.
    You write there’s no other way to win, and I wouldn’t believe you hadn’t I experienced what you say to be true most bitterly as I have. Things being as they are, what I want is to opt out of the game. A game where you lose, or you win but it’s really a loss, why play it?

    I don’t think civilization is going down the hill due to women having taken charge. I think the whole thing is being managed by élite circles composed of mostly men, who believe that what we are heading to is the arrangement that best serves their goals.

    • Ichm says:


      They must mean women never lie when asleep.

    • jim says:

      What we are seeing is not what serves elite interests, but rather the unintended and unwanted result of each member of the elite pursuing power by being holier than every other member of the elite.

    • jim says:

      All men are well adapted to power and independence, because all of our male ancestors achieved power and independence.

      All woman are grossly maladapted to power and independence, because all our female ancestors were conquered and submitted.

    • ten says:

      Deleuzefags will speak of arborescent vs rhizomatic social structures, arborescent being centrally strong, emanating outwards: a particular kingdom and its power structure is such a treelike thing, as is a family. As trees they can be felled, are vulnerable to collapse under stress. The rhizomatic potato social structure not so, the whole can even regenerate from a surviving part, but the parts lack constructive strength. Perhaps they have other value. Perhaps kingdomness itself is rhizomatic and will regenerate regardless of how many treelike kingdoms burn.

      For present westy systems there is a problem – much scum thrives, pest control horribly out of fashion, high courtesans shriek unbearably on slightest thinning of collections of pestpets – surely something radical must be done, surely mere evolution of nerdy techies and ecies will not suffice? War being so expensive and with it’s distasteful propensity to kill the good with the bad, can not be worth it no? The great wars proved it so, great setbacks and loss of good life yet scum thrived still, with much democracy and heresy. Apparently they would not take steelbath freely, woe.

      Wat do?

      Well. Some might be more inclined to persistence in arborescent manners, some less so. Some might be more resilient to degeneracy and other’s less so. One might think that good men might be those so inclined and bad men not! With a slight push and a whisper, might not the bad man fly into the abyss’ maw while the good man sways at the edge, but falls back?

      Sure, the kingdom might boil and much be lost, but what a catch! The bad kills themselves, the good are strengthened, the daughter-courtesans may shriek less or at least not at us. WE did not kill anyone. Liberty! Gay anal sex! Jedi flips on gabba raves, genital mutilation, SSRIs, miscegenation, barbarism of technicolor sorts – benevolence must allow for this. Cuts the wheat from the chaff, that does. Look at them go, so enthusiastic into the sorting mechanism.
      Pretty it is not, but neither was malthusian starvation mind you, and something really, really needs to be done about the proliferation of scum and villainy. That good men never will trust the state again, well, about time isn’t it? It tends towards nastyness if unchecked anyway, always did. If the fever reaches high the kingdom too must die, sure but there are more, and new ones rises later anyhow. Fine odds to me, where are the dice?

  30. roofus the doofus says:

    Just imagine being the FBI agent assigned to monitor this movement…

  31. vxxc says:

    O/T: Trump makes them live up to their own rules, you can kill them with that.

    Or rather – they’ll kill themselves for you.

    I refer to the First Step Act and it’s impending mass release of the incarcerated.

    It’s not our problem. It’s a Democratically controlled urban community problem.

    Give the niggers what they want: Criminals Free. Let chaos reign.

    We can call it Justice.

    This is the ruthlessness we’ve been lacking. By all means give ’em what they want good and hard.

    As for the innocent and our own – if you’re unarmed and near them at this point we must accept the judgement of Gnon and Darwin is necessarily impartial and fair – if harsh.

  32. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Associating itself with the sentiment of communality was the greatest trick the communist ever pulled.

    Associating itself with the sentiment of progress was the greatest trick the puritan ever pulled.

  33. Charles Neumann says:

    Anyone betting on the tranny to win miss universe? It’s being held in Thailand (lol) and all of the judges this time are women. The tranny has been speaking out against Trump. I can get in at $8. Should I take it?

    • jim says:

      Overwhelmingly likely, particularly if it looks like a male gorilla except in carefully posed still photos.

  34. Neurotoxin says:


    For God’s sake, Jim!

    • alf says:

      Well they do.

      And in the rare cases they don’t, the food pyramid still killed more people than communism.

    • jim says:

      If they don’t get nailed, not for lack of trying.

      Your cry of shock is a particular case of the widespread phenomenon of people not seeing what is in front of their faces – as for example with rape and sexual harassment complaints.

      I can produce statistics that show that on rape and sexual harassment, what I see right in front of my nose is reality and what everyone else sees is a hallucination. I cannot produce similar statistics to show overwhelming sexual predation by girls far younger than puberty, but since everyone but me is hallucinating on rape and sexual harassment, you should seriously consider the possibility that everyone but me is hallucinating on the sexual behavior of very young girls.

      Disney built an empire selling romance to nine year old girls. No one sells porn to eleven year old boys.

      Who is Cinderella’s prince? He is an alpha male with adult female pre-selection. If you perform as an alpha male and have adult female pre-selection, you will see.

    • BC says:

      Go watch the SouthPark episode called “The Ring”. But switch the motivation from “Big corporations trying to harm girls” to “Big Corporations giving girls what they want”.

    • Koanic says:

      Pretty sure he meant, “For Goddess’ sake!”

  35. Neurotoxin says:

    “If they don’t get nailed, not for lack of trying.”

    False, and appalling.

    8-year-old girls are interested in 8-year-old boys. (I remember them inventing a game they called the kissing game, in which they’d chase us at recess and try to kiss us.) They’re NOT REMOTELY interested in adult men.

    Also, the game quickly switched to all of us boys chasing them – in an astonishingly prescient and metaphorical preview of the next few decades – so I have a very different experience from your assertion upthread that boys that age aren’t interested in girls.

    “Disney built an empire selling romance to nine year old girls.”

    Oh for fuck’s sake! At that age “romance” to them means, “I’ll marry the prince, so I’ll get to wear pretty dresses and everyone will be paying attention to me, yay!” It doesn’t mean… the thing you said.

    • BC says:


      So they’re not interested in boy bands like N-Sync and the Jonas brothers? Because from what I remember, they’re really interested in such groups of older men as long as they’re heavily pre-selected men.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      It could be that Jim somewhat exaggerates the phenomenon of sexually uncontrollable 8-year-old girls, but from what I’ve seen, there are some girls aged 9 and 10 who are legitimately horny, and they are usually horny for males of any age between 10 and 30. Those who need sex find military-age men sexy.

      HBD also plays a part here, in a kind of inverted “intersectionality” lol. Among black girls, not uncommon for 9-year-olds to be horny; I’d even go full-pedo and say that quite a few 10-year-old black girls are fuckable, given their physical development. There, I said it. Brown girls (Latinas, Middle Easterners, etc.), about a year later than black girls.

      White girls usually get going more in their early teens, around 11 or 12. Yellow girls, 12 or 13.

      • jim says:

        Eight is considerably less common than nine, but far from rare.

        To a rough approximation, adult female body odor correlates fairly well with adult female sexual behaviour, except that adult females are in a better position to be picky.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          You’re right. I do remember a girl in 3rd or 4th grade, around age 8, occasionally showing me (probably not just me) her nipples in a teasing, not-at-all innocuous manner; similar behaviors — both milder and bolder than the flashing of a flat chest — were not uncommon throughout primary school. If I were an alpha male with adult female pre-selection, that girl might have gone much further than that.

          My olfactory sense is rather weak, so I have no recollection of what 8 or 9 year old girls smell like. Maybe another commenter would be able to confirm that part.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      It has to do with both rate of development and neoteny. The darker races grow up the most rapidly, and are the least neotenous; East-Asians grow up rather slowly, and are the most neotenous. Thus a 9-year-old black girl is about on par with a 13-year-old yellow girl, in terms of both sex-drive and development of secondary sexual characteristics.

    • jim says:

      Girls want attention and pretty dresses starting at age one.

      At Disney princess age they start wanting attention from alpha males with adult female preselection.

    • jim says:

      > 8-year-old girls are interested in 8-year-old boys.

      Disney princesses are insert character for nine year old girls. Who are they interested in?

      The protagonist of “Frozen” is supposedly sixteen. How old are her love interests? One is an independent businessman, one a military officer. They are drawn to be in their early twenties, but have social roles typical of men in their thirties.

      Stories targeted at young boys show young boys having adventures with boys of the same age or slightly older. Disney princesses tend to wind up with males whose age is unclear and who perform the social role of much older men, for example The Beast in beauty and the beast. His servants are middle aged, and behave as if he has always been the master.

      Maui’s wrist is about the same size as Moana’s waist, and he is a big ex hero reaching retirement age, voiced by a big ex wrestler reaching retirement age.

      Maui attempts to get rid of nine year old Moana, but she persists, which is absolutely typical of the dynamic in real life. Retired hero and ambiguous bad guy Maui is similar to the character I play, and I have to chuck nine year old girls overboard also.

      • Neurotoxin says:


        > “Girls want attention and pretty dresses starting at age one.
        At Disney princess age they start wanting attention from alpha males with adult female preselection.”

        Girls want pretty dresses, etc., as soon as they are capable of understanding concepts like pretty dresses, attention, prince, marriage, princess. They like those thing long before they even know what the facts of life are!

        • jim says:

          > Girls want pretty dresses

          Reflect on movie posters: “Ralph breaks the internet” We see Ralph, adult male holding Vanellope, nine year old girl insert character. Note the total absence of pretty dress.

          Story line of “Ralph breaks the internet”: Vanellope gets the attention of a second alpha male, more alpha than Ralph, being a bad guy, and moves on. This is the absolutely classic sequel to a successful romance story: Book One ends with eternal true love. Book one sells remarkably well, publishers ask for a sequel with the same characters: “Book One, the Sequel” proceeds with serial monogamy.

          The typical romance novel has a thousand pages, and the insert character only gets one page of dicking. Does this mean that girls are not interested in dicking? No, it means that the other nine hundred and ninety nine pages are about dick selection. Porn is men conquering and women surrendering, romance is men performing and women choosing.

        • Neurotoxin says:

          Ralph Breaks Net, etc.

          My response is simply my foregoing post.

          • peppermint says:

            If people knew what would make them happy, sin wouldn’t exist. Understanding is a gift of the Holy Spirit that we can open ourselves up to through practicing the cardinal and theological virtues.

            At Mass today, the priest said we’re commanded to joy, especially on this third sunday of Advent. In that spirit, may God bless you and keep you.

            • Neurotoxin says:

              In that spirit, may God bless you and keep you.

              Well, thank you.

              And to end on that positive note, I’m outta this thread.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                The faggot you are responding to wrote the following:

                >14 and 16? 14 is too young to reproduce properly and marriage without reproduction is faggotry. She should wait and date until she’s ready.

                DATE UNTIL SHE’S READY

                Patrick argued that there occurred a “dramatic change” between the way his girlfriend’s sister looked at him at 14 versus 16. In other words, he claimed that true sexuality only hits at 16 – and not a single year earlier. I can’t find the quote I’m looking for, but this is similar enough:

                >Gf’s 16yo little sister just started acting really weird around me as of this week…


                >Children certainly instinctually know what sex is and know to stay out of it because no good can come of their participation.


                All quotes and many similar ones found here:


                My bullying of Patrick has scarcely begun. I’ll be doing this long enough that all GenZers who happen to read this blog will *instinctively* reject cuckermint’s faggotry in a full.

                You can hide behind your newfound metaphysics all you want, cuckermint. Everyone remembers what you had to say about “((Jehovah))” and “((Jesus))”, and everyone knows how bluepilled you were about teen sexuality. I’m not your buddy. I’m your death.


            • jewish pedophile says:

              This bears repeating. You wrote:




              You’re not fooling anyone, Patrick. You are *still* LARPing. It’s all you ever do.

          • peppermint says:

            The Puritan error is not to presume on the Holy Spirit’s gifts and mercy, which are not contingent, but on the actual forgiveness of sins, which is available through the Sacrament of Confession. You should know that because a doubting Puritan might doubt God’s love. That’s a joyful thought for the third Sunday of Advent.

          • jim says:

            Julia Roberts after rape attempt by ape:

            Oh, the terrible trauma.

            Obviously we must protect our women and little girls from such horrid traumatizing experiences. </sarcasm>

            Moana getting tossed of the boat by Maui is the lived experience of nine year old girls creeping on aging alpha males, and Maui tossing Moana off the boat is the lived experience of aging males who credibly seem alpha and preselected.

            You are in denial about the nature of women, which is on display everywhere in front of your face.

    • peppermint says:

      Consider: that’s the culturally mandatory reaction in a culture that would even consider letting them go unsupervised to sexually explicit performances.

      How will the government save them from themselves if the people trying to influence the government refuse to talk about the problem?

      This culture is sick in ways that people refuse to recognize that they refuse to recognize.

      • peppermint says:

        (I want the government out of chastity, and temperance, and greed, and sloth, but chastity gets this reaction, I reacted in almost the same way, because treatment of women and children is incredibly culturally sensitive. Think about the 20c attempts to regulate gluttony, from prohibition to replacing beef tallow with hydrogenated vegetable oil, theories about carbs, theories about sugar, theories about plastic drinking straws as a sin because they lead others to sin, giant soft drink conglomerates blamed for diabetes as media conglomeratrs are blamed for the problem none dare to name)

        • jewish pedophile says:

          >I reacted in almost the same way, because treatment of women and children

          No, you’re just a faggot. Now you’re trying to suck up to me like a little humiliated bitch, even adopting my memes. I’ll make sure that no one will ever listen to you about sexuality, the WQ, or religion. You’re not saving your skin from this one, and people think that it’s pathetic how you started sucking up to me (which you will now deny doing) because you were bitch-slapped in a number of thread. Now you’ve proceeded to spamming the blog with lots of off-topic stuff, even though people ignore your spam.

          Ain’t happening.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        Pep: “Consider: that’s the culturally mandatory reaction in a culture that would even consider letting them go unsupervised to sexually explicit performances.”

        Not to get drawn off into minutia, but who expects to find adult straight alpha males at an Ariana Grande concert, anyway?

        • peppermint says:

          the same kind who can hear One Direction – What Makes you Beautiful without cringing.

          My wife didn’t want to hear the Rucka Rucka Ali parody version You don’t Know you’re Booty Call ( , song is NSFW but not cringe) when we were dating because she said all the feminist words and knew what they meant and really wanted a husband.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            Instead of talking about your wife to a bunch of strangers on the internet, perhaps you’d like to explain the following:

            >Kek is the god of the Internet while ((Jehovah)) is the god of a bunch of squabbling losers and old people.


            “Shadilay,” remember?

            You don’t know what cringe is, because you *are* cringe, and lack self awareness. You wrote what you wrote just a few months ago. You’re not gonna pretend to be devout now. You are lying about your Catholicism.

        • peppermint says:

          Who would ever accuse a woman of being an intellectual or even conscious half the time? I’m just reciting talking points, as if I have a clue beyond demographic overlap and cringe factor. According to our legends only Christ ever knew what he was doing. He said “be thou perfect, as thy Father in Heaven is perfect”, people like me took that the wrong way and became puritans.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            July 26, 2018, you wrote:

            >I think the ((Bible)) sucks and would prefer a White-centric document.

            >My problem is, the only real option for a White-centric Book is Mein Kampf – which I’ve read about as much of as the ((Bible)).


            Funny how you switched so fast, isn’t it? You had a lot of confidence in your previous views, which you’ve been pushing for years; why should you be taken seriously now?

      • jewish pedophile says:

        Yes, the culture is sick, and July 31, 2018, you wrote:

        >This is typical of your careless thinking. Unfortunately ((Jehovah)) doesn’t have a canned answer for you.

        Your newfound faith is a LARP. I can see that you are LARPing as a Christian to score some points; you don’t believe a word you write. You’re not a Christian and never have been.

  36. eternal anglo says:

    Jim, of course it is optimal that a woman be mastered by her father or husband. But what can a brother do?

    Reason for asking is that my younger sister, to my knowledge a virgin, will shortly obtain a driver’s licence. It is not that my father is bluepilled – I’ve never seen him doing chores – but by the dark enlightenment account, it is very difficult to keep girls virtuous, and I suspect he lacks the will. (I have been trying to redpill him, but he does not respond. However, nor does he argue back.)

    • peppermint says:

      be “controlling”. She’ll tell you she “hates you” because you don’t give her the opportunity to have “a life”. The other half of the answer is find her a marriageable man, so by the grace of God, she might turn into Marge, instead of Patty and Selma.

      Instead of doing that, we see brothers in this culture so feminist they even chase men who have the means and desire to be a husband away, because he’s “controlling”, or not a billionaire.

    • eternal anglo says:

      Because of where we live in the world (somewhere that has had the wonderful benefit of Winds of Change), she has been kept on a short leash, nominally to protect her from criminals. I love my sister and I do not want to see her destroyed by the cock carousel.

      • jewish pedophile says:

        Can’t stop a fertile age female in 2019 from being deflowered by Chad; best thing you can do is sway her to present herself in such a way that Chad won’t regard her as a cum receptacle but as “solid” waifu-material. If you can explain that to your father, all the better; after all, he has the greater power over her.

      • jewish pedophile says:

        I mean, if you’re looking for talking-points with which to influence your father to — at the very least — watch her closely, we can think this through. You should probably start by emphasizing how different the situation is today than it used to be back in the day (it’s not entirely different, but Tinder *is* a thing now), pointing out that sluttery is very rampant now and that people aren’t getting married and aren’t forming families because Women’s Liberation destroyed everything. You need to suggest that some measures be taken to allow her to still be marriageable by 25 or so. Let him sleep over it.

    • jim says:

      A brother can only exercise right authority over his sister in accord with his father’s policy and authority. And it is illegal for a father to exercise authority over his children. He may well be keeping his mouth shut because he knows how illegal it is that he is redpilled to the extent that he is.

      While it is quite common for girls of driving license age to be virgins, it is also quite common for brothers to be unaware of, or fail to notice, flagrant immorality by sisters, partly because of a natural inclination to perceive close kin favorably, partly because girls behave much more conservatively in the vicinity of family and people connected to their family. Conversely, when they party, they like to party away from family.

      The average hot chick in her peak fertile years believes that only one male in thirty is barely acceptable. The vast majority of women rate the vast majority of men as below average, as below themselves. And then, when her eggs run out, is surprised to find that that Mister One in Thirty is not interested marrying Miss No Longer Hot. “Oh God”, she thinks, “I must be so incredibly awesome that I frightened him off.”

      It is unsurprising that they would think this, for when they click on facebook to see one thousand males offering to be their footstool. With one thousand footstools available, obviously the fun thing to do is to party with Mister One in Thirty. But Mister One in Thirty, being outnumbered thirty to one, is a busy man, so can only squeeze her into his busy schedule for half an hour at four in the morning, and then neglects to text her back for a month.

      We wish women would cash in their virginity for a good husband. But what girls want is to party until their eggs are about to run out, to party to the last minute, to not waste any of their peak hotness on the sort of men who might marry them, and it frequently turns out that they partied till after the last minute. And we have a child support system to accommodate this behavior. It is not obvious that partying till your eggs start to run low, then having fatherless children to some thug, is a bad idea for women. In the Darwinian sense, women should choose the man that other women choose, because this will lead to similarly successful sons, so a woman should bear children to a low IQ thug who only visited her when some cash arrived so that they could spend it together on drugs. Natural selection tells the man he should invest in a woman that gives him paternal certainty, and tells a woman she should give sexual access to men who get so much sexual access that they cannot possibly monitor their women for paternal certainty.

      Thus a system where children have fathers has to be imposed on women, it goes against what women are naturally inclined to want. The conflict between male and female sexual strategies means that if women get to pursue their optimal strategy, men do not get to pursue their own optimal strategy, do not get to invest in their children. The optimal female strategy is to always defect “Girls just want to have fun” – and if girls always defect, or frequently defect, the optimal male strategy is to defect.

  37. eternal anglo says:

    Thanks Jim, pedophile and peppermint. “EA redpills his dad” it is, though I too strongly suspect he already knows more than he lets on. Maybe when she gets a bf I’ll take him on a friendly interrogation hike, though that could result in her replacing nice boys who go on hikes with some nigger gangster.

  38. Bull Preppermint says:

    Stop it, ephebrew. It’s all a big misunderstanding. I want to be your friend! Let me shed some light on how I’ve formulated my view of the world.

    Listen. Here I am, heterosexually sitting on a stool in the corner of my bedroom and posting on Jim’s blog, as I do every night.

    In front me, in the dim of light, I see Deshawnte Jackson Jr. — a sturdy, burly, well-hung African American gentleman whom I deeply admire, on an induhvidual level — thrusting his dark, Yggdrasil-sized member “all the way” into my sexbot’s lotus-shaped front-hole, thundering and rocking the bed like Almighty God Himself, aka (((Thor ben Odin))) – who also is an African American, by the way; don’t let the Norse propaganda fool you for a second! Deshawnte has been doing ‘it’ on a semi-regular basis for the past 5 years, and though initially I was rather lukewarm about the affair, as a cosmopolitan-at-heart I had to give it a try; boy do I NOT regret it!

    This past year, we’ve been trying out a new kinky fetish, as I am fond of describing such matters. My sexbot, who is as benevolent a fem-lord as they come, as a romantic birthday surprise for me, suggested that I should place my “limp dong” inside a thing called “chastity belt,” at first during her trysts with Deshawnte only, so as to heighten my voyeuristic sense of excitation and agonized, frustrated delight, but later on – permanently, to prevent me from “fulfilling” my onanistic “sexual urges,” which are, no need for me to spill errr spell it out, very chauvinistic and simply NOT OKAY. Without inquiring into the matter whatsoever, I immediately agreed; happy wife, happy life, right?


    Well folks, it has been almost a full year since I had my last real orgasm, and I must say, buying that Solid Classic (“Total Deprivation!”) device was the best decision she — errr, I mean, WE, together as the trad family we clearly are — have ever made. As an ardent BDSM aficionado, I’ve always known about Female-Led Relationships; but actually living the lifestyle gives one an incomparable outlook on life. That, I can tell you.

    Anywayz, ephebrew, I implore you to cease and desist from this “Give Peppermint an Unforgettable Wedgie & Swirly Treatment” campaign of yours. Enough is enough. While I am no masochist — *ahem, ahem, ahem* *wink, wink, wink* — I must admit to having enjoyed this novel experience of being the bullied, rather than the bully. But, as with the defunct priapic appendage between my legs, I do hope for eventual release from the torment. Release me, ephebrew! P-P-P-Please…

    • Nikolai says:

      Are you really this mad at peppermint just for not being attracted to twelve year olds?

      • jewish pedophile says:

        Nobody is mad at anyone for lack of attraction to teenagers.

        The madness is for, “And therefore those men who had sex with a young slut, or are just attracted to young sluts, need to be imprisoned or murdered.”

        You can be attracted exclusively to 35-year-old milfs and nobody will bullycide you for it, although you will be told that you are a deviant. The moment you start doing the “Men who don’t share my unique and abnormal preference need to be killed” thing, yes, you will definitely be bullycided.

        My own preferences are irrelevant. I’m not that big of a hebephile myself, really. Certainly I think that girls aged 14-17 are hotter than those aged 12. It doesn’t matter. No one’s preferences matter – what matters is what policy you advocate. Faggotmint’s policies are the complete opposite of Jim’s.

      • jewish pedophile says:

        For years he has been pushing the blue pill, and at that, a fanatical version thereof.

        Had he just said, “Personally I am disgusted by girls younger than 19, but I understand that attraction to fertile females of all ages is biologically normal, so I’m not going to denounce and out-group men who are attracted to girls younger than 19,” he would not have been BTFO’d.

        All I want (in this context) is for male sexuality to not be criminalized or demonized. The demonization started in 1820 and turned into criminalization in 1890. Going back to a pre-1820 conception of sexuality is the goal. That’s why Jim always brings up the Queen Caroline incident.

      • jewish pedophile says:

        There is no reason for age to be a factor in legislation of this kind. Instead of instituting an “age of fuckability” law, institute shotgun marriage. If the police can trace and find the boy who fucked your daughter in order to put him in prison (as they do now), the police can likewise trace and find the boy who fucked your daughter in order to force him to marry her (as should be done). And, as Jim always points out, it is by-and-large the girls who misbehave, who go around seducing men, not men who misbehave. It’s the girls who should get the whip.

      • jewish pedophile says:

        Anyway, bullying those who deserve it is not wrong.

        As a Jew, I have personally survived Auschwitz and Treblinka on 17 different occasions. I did so by walking away backwards out of the gas chambers. Boy, those nazi guards were a bunch of idiots. Anyway, fellow inmates once told me, “If you can’t take the heat – get out of the oven.”

        Also, when I was in prison for breaking into a hospital and raping 80 newborns, they told me two things:

        1) Don’t start fights you can’t win;
        2) When you’re in a fight, fight as hard as you can.

        I do believe that I have adhered to these rules.

  39. BC says:

    Hey Jim, if you have the time, could do me a favor and give me some tips on how to set up a wardrobe of Silicon Valley Cool? I’m really not sure where to start and online searches don’t yield useful results. You can use the attached email address.



  40. Oog en Hand says:

    What about this guy? He has the same views as jewish pedophile, but he emphasizes polygyny…

    • jewish pedophile says:

      Jim wrote,

      “Polygyny is fine provided all men who work and fight for their King, God, and tribe get at least one virgin wife. It is only pathological when worthy men wind up celibate or have to put up with used goods.”

      Pretty much.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      Let’s compare Jimianity, quote above in no-uncertain terms, to Peppermintism, aka Bull Preppermintism, which is the blue pill weltanschauung par excellence:

      >Polygamy is a bad idea because it reduces cooperativeness between men.

      >Polygamy is bad in principle because if it is allowed in principle it is a moral hazard.

      Quite a difference.

      Once again reinforcing the perception that cuckermint is some roastie female.

      • eternal anglo says:

        Peppermint argues that polygyny will, in the sufficiently long evolutionary run, attack cooperation between men. The possibility of obtaining extra wives, thus potentially doubling, tripling or more one’s Darwinian fitness, is postulated to set up so great a selection pressure that it would dominate the other selection pressures, including those for nice, cooperative, comradely huwhite behaviour. So an army cannot fight because every officer is less concerned with winning the war than he is with raising his importance and status relative to other officers, trying to grab himself a second or third wife. Instead of repairing the tank, he arranges it so that only he knows how to repair the tank, in the hope of making it to Lieutenant and landing himself some sweet 13 year old war-bride pussy.

        My answer is to court-martial him. The problem will only exist while defecting on one’s comrades is the most effective way of obtaining an extra wife or two. Arrange things so that cooperating with one’s comrades is a more effective way, and polygyny supercharges selection pressure for pro-social behaviour, not anti-social. Give the slavegirls to the guy who charged the machine gun nest. Shoot the guy who spied for the enemy in exchange for an easy, glorious “victory” in one engagement. (Perhaps sterilize his kids also.) In a well functioning organization, the path to the top is by cooperation, and if there’s a quicker path, it isn’t well functioning.

        The tribes of Israel were polygynous, and they fought well. Perhaps if they had been monogamous, they would have fought even better.

        Maybe monogamy makes well functioning organization easier by reducing the selection pressure for defection. But my intuition is that making extra wives a surer reward of cooperation than of defection, thus turning that pressure in a pro-social direction, is not that hard, assuming you already have the women firmly patriarchally propertized.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          Agreed. Jim emphasizes the importance of religion (synthetic tribalism) for asabiyyah and mannerbund since that’s the underlying egregore that maintains all parts of the system in synchronization and harmony; introduce an element of spiritual disruption, and your soldiers will defect on their comrades, etc. The Old Testament, documenting the customs of warrior-tribes, makes the same point here as James I of England: “No Bishop, No King.”

          Needless to say, when the religion *itself* accords women status above property, e.g. Progressivism, it is impossible to ensure that polygyny will serve as a pro-social force; going back to the OT, we see that — defying divine prohibition — the Israelites tended towards excessive leniency in their dealings with Canaanite women, allowing them spiritual liberties rather than subjecting them to (thus integrating them into) the tribal religion; that resulted in the loss of asabiyyah, followed by the loss of national independence.

          The lesson here is that the stiff-necked Israelites should have deprived the Canaanite women of their autochthonous idolatries by compelling them to join the Israelite tribe – which they could only have achieved by being even more strictly patriarchal than they actually were. In this regard, the old Japanese example is superior to the Biblically-attested Israelite one; in Shinto, a woman must join the familial cult and revere the ancestral spirits if she is to belong to her husband’s family; thus she must, as a preliminary condition, be “patriarchally propertized,” disallowed to practice her own biological family’s ancestral cult.

          Religions — or heresies — that elevate the status of women above property preclude the successful application of conqueror-polygyny.

          • eternal anglo says:

            True. But peppermint’s argument applies even to societies in which women are wholly the property of men. The idea is that because Darwinian fitness (i.e. number of grandchildren) trumps everything, if men have an opportunity to radically increase that fitness by owning more than one woman, they will evolve to betray each other and destroy the mannerbund desperately attempting to do so.

            I think this can be circumvented by proper conqueror-polygyny: fight valiantly and pro-socially if you want the pick of the spoils. After many generations of that, you will end up with lots of very brave and pro-social men.

            However, we don’t want hordes of incel young men lying about in their mother’s basements or setting fire to the palace because all the girls have been disappeared into Chad Richfuck’s and General Thundercock’s seraglios. That’s counterproductive – we want to incentivize all able men to work, fight and invest in their society. And, of course, in the end the only real incentive is pussy. (Not to mention that polygyny is *what women want*, which in itself should raise one’s reactionary hackles.)

            So perhaps a good law would be that one cannot own more than one woman of one’s own nation. If you want additional wives, go and help conquer India or something. Or buy her from whoever is busy conquering India. (Not subsaharan Africa though, because, well…)

          • eternal anglo says:

            Or if polygyny is really your thing you could somehow increase the female to male ratio of the nation. Maybe a financial incentive combined with routine IVF would be enough; people aren’t programmed to care very much about the sex of their offspring because it has been automatically 50-50 for a billion years. Having surplus females is good, because the smaller the proportion of reproductively successful females, the stronger the selection for beauty and good character. And of course it would just be awesome for the average guy to possess not one but two or more virgin aryan waifus. What else are we going to do with the technological superabundance we have?(colonise the solar system, that’s what)

            • Koanic says:

              An evolutionarily healthy human society has to cull a significant proportion of males per generation to maintain genetic fitness at levels comparable to the ancestral environment. This necessitates polygamy.

              It is also desirable that men breed later in life, after they have proved themselves. But women should breed early, while they are fertile. This also necessitates polygamy.

              Rationing pussy one per man is doomed to fail. It is unnatural. The correct method is to ration land by inalienable patriarchal birthright. However, permit a degree of competition intra-bloodline to maintain the line’s fitness. The Bible’s Law ensures this.

              A man who has his own land has his own fief, within which he is king, and is thus attractive to his wife, and able to bargain for a wife with a daughter’s father.

            • eternal anglo says:

              On second thoughts, fiddling with sex ratio probably possible in the long run – unless husbands were functionally monogamous, wives other than wife number one being sterile; hard to enforce. And depriving large numbers of perfectly good women of the possibility of childbearing just seems wrong.

        • The Cominator says:

          One wife but whores (for all men) and mistresses for high status men possible as was always OUR way in the Anglo-Saxon world. High status chads will just not naturally accept only ever screwing one woman especially when she loses her charm but polygamy causes other problems that looking at the Islamic world become very obvious as well.

          For this reason you also need to have SOME leniency in cases of adultery (especially when the male adulterer is high status) as I’ve often argued. Duels (the closest thing to a death penalty) beatings pilloryings and floggings yes but no death penalty.

          Actual Anglo style reaction…

          • jim says:

            We should tolerate some polygyny, but not some adultery, for adultery is female sexual choice and raises the status of women, thus prevents elite reproduction. Similarly, whores are also female sexual choice, and their sexual choice needs to be shut down by one customer taking exclusive and final ownership.

            When a member of the elite commits adultery, it should be legal for the offended husband to kill him, even if the offended husband is non elite. Not for the sake of equality, but so that alpha males can rely on the support and obedience of beta males, and so that status in the male hierarchy is perceived by women as status.

            • The Cominator says:

              Other then strict purdah (which as with the Islamic world causes problems of its own) its not possible to shut down female choice entirely. The Anglo way as it really was worked fine until they started letting women vote (mid 19th century “reforms” caused cracks but not breaks in the system) and before women could vote prostitution was very common.

              • jim says:

                Is entirely possible to shut down female sexual choice completely. Late eighteenth century Australia, very early nineteenth century Australia, managed it fine under the most unfavorable possible circumstances with the most unfavorable possible group of females.

                As Singapore reduced male crime to levels indistinguishable from zero, late eighteenth century Australia reduced female sexual misconduct to levels indistinguishable from zero.

                That female humans still find male apes sexually attractive, while male humans do not find female apes sexually attractive tells me that we are entirely descended from human populations that were completely successful in completely shutting down female sexual choice.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Penal colony conditions can’t be “normal” conditions and you know more about Australian transportee women then I do.

                  I believe in the past you’ve said you can’t link your sources (I don’t believe you’re lying but I would like to read them since its hard to argue this point with no familiarity).

                • jim says:

                  The important factor is not so much what happened in Australia, but that women still find male apes sexually attractive, therefore our ancestors were quite successful at shutting down female sexual choice. If they did it, we can do it.

                  Further, female sexual choice results in defect defect equilibrium – females defect, therefore males defect, therefore your men don’t fight and your women do not bear sons, therefore you get conquered by some tribe, race, ethnic group, or religion that is more successful at shutting down female sexual choice.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  “That female … sexual choice.”

                  Non sequitur. Humans walk upright. This has important consquences for the pelvic area of female humans, not for the pelvic area of male humans. Because, you know, in mammals, females carry developing babies. Harsh fact, the phenotypical difference between male humans and male apes is smaller than that between female humans and female apes.

                  Also, female humans can understand how big muscles give male apes access to female apes, but female apes cannot understand how big brains give male humans access to female humans. Julia can understand Bongo, but Banga cannot understand the Chinese Emperor.

                  How do you explain the difference in penis size between male humans and male apes, while it is well known that penis size matters in sexual choice (female humans are willing to copulate with dogs and horses, did we restrict female choice for zillions of years of evolution?)?

                  How do you explain sexual interest of male apes in female humans?

                • Koanic says:

                  Humans exist because bonobo chicks are easy, and assumed the position for the horny boar.

                  That human men are no longer interested in mounting bonobas, but human women are presumably intrigued by the raging boar, suggests that human females are sexually selecting in the same way that bonobas do.

                  Or perhaps it is that men sexually select by physiognomic fertility indicators, which are species specific, whereas women sexually select by social dominance, which is broadly mammalian.

                • jim says:

                  The latter argument is plausible, but women are impressed by Shabani’s looks, not his social dominance.

                  If spread their legs for a socially dominant gorilla, not evidence that females have not had sexual choice. If they like to look at a handsome gorilla, is evidence that females have not had sexual choice.

                • redditor says:

                  > social dominance

                  you see them obeying, even abstract institutions, and make that hypothesis

                  another hypothesis is that bishes like it when you say “good girl” because they don’t make decisions, so it’s cruel to treat them like their choices are meaningful, and the solution is to respect other people’s property rights instead of blaming their bish for “its'” choice

                  why is it that bish music talks about freedom through domination? are they just saying words or does it mean …from the institutions that previously made their decisions in a less accessible way?

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  Little girls (who behave like they were raised by cannibal head hunters or apes in the jungle) need to be whipped and beaten with a stick – or they will try to seduce alpha males with adult female pre-selection, which they will succeed doing around age 12 or so when they develop secondary sexual characteristics.

                  So instead of imprisoning Timothy Temple, marry your daughter off to the normal healthy heterosexual man who popped her cherry at 13 – or marry her off *prior* to her losing her virginity at 13 to that normal healthy heterosexual man.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  CP of 8-year-old girls fucking their dogs should be mandatory for would-be priests not because it’s hot (it’s more disgusting than hot), but because it gives you one helluva red pill about female sexuality.

                  And “CP” documenting 12-year-old women with some curves and some pubic hair squirting fountains all over their partners/vibrators should be as acceptable as videos of 18-year-old women with even curvier curves and even hairier pussies squirting fountains all over their partners/vibrators – because multitudes of heterosexual men with non-extinct testosterone levels would fap to it (and, in fact, do fap to it), and, just as importantly, because young little whores, *exactly like older bigger whores*, should not be shielded by various cockblockers from the natural consequences of their WHORISH decisions.

                  And, of course, if you don’t want your horny slutty wet 13-year-old daughter to be the prostitute — or the “camera prostitute” — of me and my friends, you should whip the heck out of her, beat her with a stick, and — having disciplined her from a very young age to be a housewife — *marry her off* to the 17-year-old husband who’ll treat her and own her like the property she is.

                  The idea is to legalize rape (“rape”), pedophilia (“pedophilia”), child prostitution (“child prostitution”), and MEANINGFUL PATRIARCHAL MARRIAGE, like in 1810.

                  Also drown faggots, such as the ones who approached you when you were a teenage boy, in the bog.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You (peppermint/redditor) and I agree that Semitic-Puritan circumcision is bad, and we also agree that the mass mandatory PSS should be abolished.

                  Come the restoration, the priesthood will teach that male sexuality is good and normal, and that young i.e. teenage families are good and normal.

                  When my rageposting is exhausted, and when you grasp *why* we agree about these 2 issues, you’ll see some constructive discourse.

                • redditor says:

                  yes, non-meaningful could imply inconsequential and no ability to make decisions could imply social engineerable

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >non-meaningful could imply inconsequential

                  Inconsequential could only mean sexless, i.e., no penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse. If penis-in-vagina sexual penetration occurs, particularly if it’s condomless, then the marriage is meaningful, because it is sexually materialized; thus the marriage of a 10-year-old girl to a 15-year-old boy is meaningful, even if no children (YET!) result therefrom, just as the marriages of people in their 60s and older are meaningful, even if no children result therefrom.

                  >no ability to make decisions could imply social engineerable

                  Romeo had the means to take care of Juliet. Reaction should aspire to once again allow young men such as Romeo to have the means to be husbands, patriarchs, and heads-of-household.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  The contraceptive pill does not, and never will, nullify marriage. Penis-in-vagina is penis-in-vagina, regardless of procreation prospects or lack thereof.

                • Koanic says:

                  Shabani does brood nicely. Perhaps the ripped musculature of the ape is inherently more masculine-appearing, explaining why heterosexual men are uninterested in bonobas, who lack the adipose swelling of the fat-breasted pig, the tender eyes of the gentle sow, and the flaring hips forced wide by millennia of bipedal big-brained childbirth.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Official marriage is the transfer of ownership from the father to the husband; it is essentially a contract. Only gommies invalidate other people’s contracts based on holiness ideals. Ownership over misbehaving 10-year-olds girls should be transferred from fathers to husbands, because we’d rather that a husband bang her than that Chad#34 bang her.

                • redditor says:

                  Koanic, if you were a gorilla, or an African-American, would you rather hook up with Meg Griffin or (assuming Meg isn’t drawn as an anime girl

                  Just because masculinity is a Platonic form doesn’t mean it’s attracted to a Platonic form of femininity.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Meg Griffin is 4/10, and still bangable.

                  Not all 4/10s are bangable.

                  Fresh eggs > roast beef.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  If you’re going to argue that sub-5s never elicit boners, I’ll call you low testosterone, and if you’re going to argue that the average 13-year-old is sub-5, I’ll call you a liar.

                  The average 13-year-old is 5/10, the average 15-year-old is 6/10, and the average 17-year-old is 7/10. These are all bangable.

                  Meg, despite being 4/10, despite being ugly as a dyke, is still bangable, because her eggs are fresh, tits perky. When she reaches 35, she will still be a 4/10, but by far less bangable, because roast beef.

                  I disagree with this graph:


                  But the disagreement is not radical.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Jim wrote,

                  “My position, and Heartiste’s position, has always been that sexual interest in females who are potentially fertile – menarche or thereabouts is normal and healthy, that girls getting married at around that age should not be normative, but should be common and unremarkable, and common in elite families.”

                  Where is the lie, preppermint?

                  “Menarche or thereabouts” means ages 10-16. And that is exactly right. Ages 10-16 mean that a girl goes from being 4/10 at age 10, to being 6/10 or 7/10 at age 16, which is perfectly bangable.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I am fighting autism with autism, but I’ll reiterate the larger point: “preference politics” is faggotry. Even if your preferences are altogether dissimilar to mine, it doesn’t matter one bit – females with secondary sexual characteristics will always find a healthy heterosexual man to bang them, will always seek out charismatic pre-selected badboy alpha males to bang them, which is why they need to be married off young, even before they develop significant SSCs, even at age 10 when they are 4/10, even — in especially problematic cases — at age 8 when they are 3/10.

                  Meg is 4/10 incarnate, but Stacy is 5/10 at age 13, and becomes 7+/10 at age 17. If you marry 13-year-old Stacy, you may even have a 10/10 in your bed when she reaches age 19, mere 6 years post-marriage. Be that as it may, banging Meg as a ONS is fine, and lots of healthy heterosexual men would go for it, because one simply doesn’t throw a fertile 4/10 out of one’s bed before banging her first.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Actually no, Stacy is 6/10 at 13.

                • Koanic says:

                  I’d say bullyciding Peppermint into changing his name counts as mission complete. Not that I’m suggesting going soft on Yankees. By all means, salt the earth like you’re Lee in DC.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  He is still trying to sneak in blue pill content, as I expected he would. He is still trying to suggest that healthy heterosexual men wouldn’t bang teenagers, and that young marriages should be regarded as nullified if the wife is not (yet!) ready to bear children or the husband is not (yet!) at the peak of his career on wedding day. He still presupposes that a lot of modern things, e.g. mass mandatory schooling from age 6 to age 18, will continue to exist in a reactionary society.

                  My mission will be complete when he — and whatever collaborators he may have — loses all hope of peddling the Puritan-Feminist (I guess you can call it “Yankee”) worldview here. NRx can certainly have some allies to its left, but not so extremely far to its left; Preppermint is as leftist about women as CR is leftist about economics; both of them employ reactionary language to argue for decidedly leftist things. That’s entryism.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  CR: “For the sake of true monarchy, we need to expel the capitalists and ban private swimming pools.”

                  Preppermint: “For the sake of true patriarchy, we need to kill men who fuck little whores and ban teenage marriage.”

                  No, and no.

                • redditor says:

                  If high school had open exit, I know which of my friends would have married whom.

                  Can you drop me an email? I have some other hypotheses I want to talk about but I don’t want to be a bluepiller.

                • info says:


                  He that finds such things acceptable do not value human dignity or the wellbeing of children.

                • jim says:

                  “Pedophilia” is an anticoncept, a word that is a lie, because it tells us that unlike things are the same.

                  Rape is difficult to map to observed female behavior – it is generally hard to say what is, and is not, rape. Hence the old testament position that consent does not make otherwise illicit sex licit, nor lack of consent make otherwise licit sex illicit. Under old testament law, as interpreted and applied at the time of King Solomon, abducting an unbetrothed virgin was not a crime. Letting her go afterwards was a crime.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Nobody gives a flying fuck about whatever far-fetched counterfactuals involving your high school friends you have conjured.


                  Reaction 101.

                • jewish pedophile says:


                  The dignity and wellbeing of whores, aged 8 or 38, is indeed none of my concern.

                • Koanic says:

                  On CDAN I heard about some terrible evil pedophile Democrat who used his wealth to commit the deviant act of procuring an underage girl and then marrying her and staying together despite a large age gap. As long as the Left is the only refuge for those seeking normal heterosexual relationships, we will continue to be ruled by Sodomite Satanists.

                  > I guess you can call it “Yankee”

                  It’s as devastating as naming the Jew. For who is a Jew, but he that *hearts* NY? The 9/11 hijackers had the courage of their convictions that once-rebel Americans now lack. Burn, Babylon, burn. I look forward to you devouring each other, to mothers boiling their toddlers in the city of famine, and all the curses the Bible describes for city dwellers who think themselves more sophisticated than God. You will taste manflesh – your own!

                • info says:


                  Doesn’t deuteronomy make it death penalty worthy for a woman raped in the field for the rapist?

                  And if she cries out in the city?

                • jim says:


                  You got that from some satanic inversion of the bible.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Violation of property rights. Nothing to do with “age” or with “consent.” The law doesn’t protect young naughty orgiastic sluts from being maritally abducted by the last Chad.

                • Koanic says:

                  Re Shabani’s human harem and female sexual choice:

                  I guess I don’t buy this particular hypothesis of yours because hybrid stabilization theory predicts that animals will have significant interest in inter-species sex in general. The potential payoff is huge – founding an entirely new species and colonizing a new ecological niche. The question is not whether human females are more interested in apes than human men, but whether human females are more interested in interspecies sex than are the females of other ape species.

                • info says:


                  You got that from some satanic inversion of the bible.”


                  26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter”

                • jim says:

                  This tells us that if the damsel can plausibly claim she was forced into illicit sex, she will not be punished. But for the man, it makes no difference whether she was forced or she consented.

                  The punishment is for fornication, not for coercion – for having sex with a woman then letting her go. If she is not married or betrothed, and he forces her and goes right on forcing her, that is fine.

                  Whether she consented or not he committed a wrong only if he has sex with her and then lets her go.

                  Consent makes a moral difference for her, but it does not make a moral difference for him, and anyone who thinks that it does is going against both nature and God.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Nothing to do with age, nothing to do with consent.

  41. Oog en Hand says:

    And what about this (discussion piece):

    “The best way to solve the problem of rape is the following: when a woman accuses a man of rape, both are beheaded with a sharp sword. After all, if a woman is REALLY raped, her life is over anyway.”

  42. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    I’m so bored of this habit of hinging everything on biological evidence.

    It’s lazy and dishonest and has no place in proud nationalist discourse.

    We don’t NEED the science to be on our side. Humans in the state of nature are very different to humans in civilisation. It’s not ok to piss in the street because we want a clean civilisation. Sure it might be more ‘natural’, more in accordance with your genes, probably better for bladder health long term and probably better for managing bodily toxins etc. etc. etc. but that’s completely irrelevant because we have LAWS that stop you from doing it.

    The science can be on your side as much as you want, but you’re not pissing in the street because society says you’re not, and that’s all there is to it.

    We want a healthy society and that means women are going to be somewhat controlled. It also means men are going to be somewhat controlled.

    I’ve heard all this guff before about women’s nature, but men’s nature is to screw as many vaginas as humanly possible. We don’t ultimately care if we’re even attracted to them: if they get us at the right moment they can be ugly, obnoxious, stupid and smelly and it won’t deter our instincts.

    But we do our best to prevent that from happening because we want a healthy society with families and communities. It doesn’t hinge on biology.

    You want to live by your biological nature? Go to New Guinea, but be sure to take plenty of geli bilong kok in case the first one gets bagarap.
    Notice how pidgin is the same the world over? The people who created the creole of Belize have never met the people who created Tok Pisin, yet the similarities are remarkable. Something about certain types of people I suppose.

    But that brings me to the “winter” bullshit. We have a right to the civilisations we built, and that means keeping out hordes of third worlders. It doesn’t hinge on the science.

    For what it’s worth, living in a hunter-gatherer society is arguably harder and more intelligence-requiring than living in an agriculturally developed society. Sure winter’s hard but you have grain stores and you don’t have to personally understand them. You don’t even have to personally have low enough time preference to leave the grain in the store because you have RULERS who won’t bloody-well let you take it.

    I don’t care WHAT your average IQ is: half the population is going to be stupider than that and more than a third is going to be CONSIDERABLY stupider than that. That’s a lot of people, and no Roberto we’re not going to cull 50% of the population at age eleven based on test results lol

    This science&biology crap is a major distraction. Civilisations exist because strong leaders create ORDER, and they do that by the exertion of FORCE.

    Libertarians want to chip away at that order by granting all sorts of human and natural rights to *every single person living*. That won’t do. There needs to be a higher authority with the right to stop you from doing the things that will damage that order, and if that order is not preserved above all else, you get Globohomo Gayplex.

    Libertarians, including liberterian-leaning reactionaries and ‘economic rightists’ are a huge part of the problem.

    • jim says:

      > We don’t NEED the science to be on our side.

      You don’t understand the difference between science and religion, just as you don’t understand what capitalism is.

      We need the state religion to be on our side. The current state religion is empirically falsifiable – that it contradict science is bad for the state religion and bad for science.

      We need the state religion, and we need the state religion to not be empirically falsifiable – we need the state religion to be on the same side as science.

    • Roberto says:


      Of course not.

      We are going to set in motion incentive structures that, in due course, will allow high time-preference individuals to self-cull. Or rather, we will simply disable those already-extant incentive structures that currently prevent high time-preference individuals from self-culling.

      • Dave says:

        Which is why I favor abolishing all welfare programs in favor of a universal basic income paid annually, in cash, on the recipient’s birthday. Spreading windfalls around the calendar year gives liquor stores and drug dealers time to restock, and morgues time to dispose of the bodies.

        • Roberto says:

          Great idea.

        • peppermint says:

          > free money
          > instead of free food and housing under an abbot
          Okay, your monks will worship social justice to the extent you force them, in between sleeping with your daughter.

    • Steve Johnson says:


      Surprise surprise more hidden leftist assumptions from Communist Revolutionary. Pissing on a sidewalk is low status – whatever minor harm to your bladder from holding it is insignificant compared to the social cost to your genes of being low status – so much so that exceptionally status conscious men will in some circumstances hold off pissing until death. Status consciousness is genetic, delaying gratification is genetic, judging someone low status because he can’t delay gratification is genetic. The leftist “evolution stops at the neck” fails to consider any of this. He can mouth the words about race and IQ but can’t consider the underlying forces that actually cause it – sad.


      More retard level takes – what’s good for my descendants is good and what’s good for my descendants depends on “the science”. Reaction is in line with science – communism is a disaster for my descendants because it isn’t.

    • redditor says:



      Will you call the principle by which order is created Führenprinzip?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Rhodesia managed to create a functioning society while being less then 5% white. Hordes of third worlders are not a problem for white people.

  43. vxxc says:

    Israeli Leftist recognizes arc of history bends towards authoritarianism.

    Bibi was right all along he says.

    Bibi BTW is PM, Defense, Foreign Affairs, Health, Immigration.
    Talk about authority.

  44. vxxc says:

    White Pill: Denmark sending foreign criminals to Lindholm island, where scientists study rabies and swine flu. 😀

  45. vxxc says:

    Mattis is out. Just now.

    Kelly of course was already out, both out at end of year.

    Trump does appear at the moment to be serious about veto over the wall.

    It may be given those 3 facts that he is indeed going to order the military to build the wall and Mattis balks.

    Which means he may be about to live up to his word.

    • chedolf says:

      “Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and other top national security officials argued that a withdrawal [from Syria] would, essentially, surrender Western influence in Syria to Russia and Iran.”

      Mattis’ departure is a white pill whether or not Trump uses DoD to build the wall.

      • jim says:

        Mattis wants our troops in the middle east to impose “moderate” islam. Does not want our troops in the US to defend the US. It seems likely that successfully imposing “moderate” Islam in Syria would result in the murder of every Alawite in Syria, the murder or expulsion of every Christian in Syria, and the murder of every Shiite of Palestinian ancestry in Syria. But at least the number of girls getting university degrees would substantially outnumber the number of boys getting university degrees, and all the girls would have been taught to put a condom on a banana.

    • faggotmint says:

      Good! Excellent! I’m so happy right now!

      All men who have sex with horny girls with wet pussies need to be imprisoned or murdered. JP will denounce me for saying that because he is obviously a Jew and obviously a pedophile.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      Let’s examine the case.

      11-year-old slut goes on Tinder, claims to be 16-year-old, has sex with a guy (Travis McAdams, a fucking white boiiii) multiple times. Then she regrets it, perhaps because it’s found out, so cries “rape.” Guy goes to prison, to be raped in the ass in the showers by niggers and real criminals.

      And I am called a pedokike for thinking that this is an injustice on a cosmic scale.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      >A Greendale man is spending his 21st birthday behind bars, accused of raping and molesting an 11-year-old girl.

      Preppermint: “Obviously 21-year-old (who was 20 at the time) Travis McAdams from Greendale is a vile pedokike with Chinese ancestry, despite having clearly Briton facial features, a distinctly Scottish-Gaelic last name, and having a poor sorrowful paleface. We need to out-group this man for giving his dick to a lying slutty whore from Tinder after sexting with her extensively on SnapChat, my fellow trad right-wing reactionaries. He is, after all, a MOLESTER.”

      Look guys, I know that some of you like preppermint, but you will thank me for pressing this issue.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      Reminds me of this recent story:

      34-year-old black guy has enthusiastic sex with fertile pubescent post-menarche 10-year-old black girl on 15 different occasions, gets her pregnant. No one even claims that it was “rape.” The girl’s mother, who was herself dating the guy (adult female pre-selection), pretty much openly admits that it wasn’t “rape,” having advised her daughter to claim that a classmate impregnated her. Odds are, it was the girl who seduced him and not vice versa. She jumped all over his dick. And, to top it off, she didn’t even express any desire to testify against him. Recall that real rape almost never leads to pregnancy; and that these two blacks had sex 15 different times conclusively shows to everyone with a brain that “rape” it was not.

      Sentenced to 160 years in prison. 160!

      I hate niggers as much as any /pol/ack and they should be in Africa, but this is insane to me. It’s the horror story Jim mentions where you see people eaten by monsters and you just can’t do anything about it. It happens all the time to everyone.

      As they say: “It makes you wonder what the world is coming to.”

      • jim says:

        Another story, similar. Two girls, eight and nine, dragged away from their father by child protective services, for reasons that remain forever unrevealed. In their foster family, in the early hours of the morning, the two of them snuck into the bedroom of a sleeping adult male and “he assaulted them”. Long jail term.

        Now, you may well wonder how the authorities discovered that “he assaulted them”. Seem he unwisely complained to the authorities that he woke up in the middle of the night to sexual activity.

      • Dave says:

        Yeah, don’t punish animals for not behaving like people. Niggers gonna nig; either spay/neuter them or send them back to Africa.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          True, but a European/Jewish/Asian man seduced by a virginal young girl, regardless of specific age, should also not be “punished” – rather, should be forced at gunpoint to marry her. If one is like preppermint, not prone to be seduced by young women at all, then one has nothing to worry about.

          What concerns Jim is how to prevent little prepubescent girls from seducing men, and specifically, how to prevent those situations wherein men wake up early morning to the surprising sight of flat chested vaginally hairless little girls riding them in the cowboy position to a “weird” climax. He has suggested drugging the girls to postpone menarche, or even delay adrenarche, but nah, it’s probably better to marry them off shortly before — or shortly after — they become uncontrollable.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      (Yes, I do in fact have a file — a “pedo file,” if you will — with many such cases of men going to prison for being seduced by sexually aggressive young girls from all over the world. Jim is 100% correct)

  46. vxxc says:

    On thread just once: if we don’t set age limits for sex with young people the liberals will have all our sons pozzed by 15.

    Much faster than RWL [L=Losers] -and yes people who want to fuck 12 year olds so they can get laid and or form a family are LOSERS- much faster than you can impregnate or finally get laid the left will have ass fucked and pozzed all 15 year old males before you get there.

    You see the Left ACTS.

    Fags just don’t dream about call me by my name and sodomizing 17 year old boys they go and bugger them.

    Fags have been buggering young boys much longer than the RW has been in existence – they don’t wait for it to be legalized. They ACT.

    So in summary: FAGS ACT. Right Wing Losers WHINE.

    So can you at last be at least AS BRAVE AS FAGS?

    Now I don’t mean here go and fuck the 11 year old. For that and in context of perhaps the last thing we hold just a little sacred in our fallen society I prescribe death. Not because it’s illegal because it’s wrong.

    What I do mean is FIGHT. Fight for SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

    Let the Left keep the franchise on degrading and destroying innocence.
    The Right should be the Right and FIGHT.

    Sexual depravity always swims Left.
    War always swims Right.
    So point your little tadpoles and dare I say your fists RIGHT.

    Should we be victorious the WINNERS make take a child bride and we’ll look the other way if the 13 year old past menarche THAT HE MARRIED and says she’s 18 the WINNERS can be given a pass.

    The VICTORS write the Laws, the VICTORS get teh pussy.

    Got it? Want pussy? FIGHT FOR IT AND WIN.

    • Koanic says:

      The death penalty for fucking an 11 year old? You are an insane white knight. She is built for that.

      Nah, actually you’re just deranged by emasculation inflicted by Western (siss)cyv. Like a hysterical woman denied the owner’s hand.

      Back when people lived next to animals, they understood juvenile female nature a little better. Sometimes they want a little batter.

    • jim says:



      Age of consent is not for “young people“. It is a restraint on males, and an abolition of restraints on females. The gender neutral term is, as ever, a lie.

      You presuppose that the blue pill account of female nature is so obviously true, that should we deny it we will attract the rage of all right thinking people.

      But I see female nature right in front of my eyes, and I see men in front of my eyes denying what is in front of our eyes.

      And I see those men obviously double thinking, knowing the truth and not knowing the truth, which double think exhausts them and makes them stupid. They know I speak the truth, even if they deny it and do not know that they know it.

      Thus, for example, Scott thinks he is terrified of harming women, but is in fact terrified that women might capriciously harm him – he sees and does not see people being eaten by monsters.

      If we set an age limit, below which girls are free to fuck around without getting shotgun married, we have surrendered to a lie and paid tribute to our enemies, with the result that our endogenous testosterone levels will drop like a stone.

      The doublethink commanded by our enemies makes us tired and weak should we obey.

  47. Justsayin' says:

    This is a satire column, right? Ridiculing like those jokers who say “Go make me a sandwich,” right? I’d laugh like I’m supposed to, but I’m not falling into that leftist thing of mistaking insult for humor.

    Doesn’t come off as any of these — sincere, satire, and humor. So what’s the point? Is it like virtue-signaling with the left, only it’s dominance-signaling? Okay, we get it then.

    But if you have to signal it, you don’t really have it. Sorry. If it makes you feel any better — it’s not a widespread thing. Most guys don’t have this problem, so you, too, can be cured. Try thinking of females as if they were…you know, human beings, like guys. That’s the first step.

    Good luck, dude.

    • jim says:

      Treating women as if they are men results in involuntary celibacy.

      Been there, done that. I was raised red pill, got marinated in blue pill culture at university. Things started to go very bad. Returned my red pill roots, though back in those days, we did not have the terms “red pill” and “blue pill”. Found that women respond to real men enthusiastically, and real men do not treat women as equals, or even as members of the same species.

      Women need to be treated as dogs or small poorly behaved children, and become distressed and angry when treated like adult males.

      Thus, for example, no complaints of sexual harassment result from sexual harassment. They result from women fitness testing timid men, who fail the fitness test – result from aggressive women looking for a spanking (metaphorical or literal, but they would rather literal) and not getting one.

    • Koanic says:

      I sense a vast salt desert, lubricated only by tears.

    • Eli says:

      “Good luck, dude.”

      I’ve always wondered about those types of expressions. Every time, in real life, a Nig-style dressed stranger, or a young, lowly retail servant, refers to me as “buddy/bud/dude” etc, I suspect a deep seated insecurity and desire for equality/equal treatment. Or alternatively, complete lack of education for manners and BS equalist programming.

      Jim is a 60+ year old accomplished man, with grown, married children and a young woman for concubine/unofficial wife. Yet, we live in a society where (certainly here, in the Northeast) it seems, every lowly schmuck feels entitled to forget their station. This is one of the problems of this socialist-leaning equalist country, along with feminism. Not saying this is a source of problems, but it certainly is a symptom.

      Whenever a nice-looking restaurant greeter chick says: “Hey guys” — one of my (very well dressed, man) professor friends always responds “Hi guy.” This negging comeback always cracks me up.

      Peasants should never be able to address lords or their overseers as equals.

      • The Cominator says:

        Equality should not be part of the state religion and inequality should be taught as the truth in the state religion but the government and culture shouldn’t make too much of hierarchy in casual situations…

        The American working class finds it easy to side with the remaining “optimates”(in Moldbug terms) because rich and higher caste Americans have not historically rubbed their station in their face too much. The British working class finds it impossible to side with higher level British conservatives because it at least feels it was too ill treated for too long.

        We should not make the mistake of creating a real Marxian prejudice among the lower rung.

        • jim says:

          I don’t agree with this analysis of Britain. Class conscious proletarian politics was never real. It was imposed on the British working class by the hostile self appointed representatives of the proletariat. The stubborn resistance of the actual proletariat to this hostile elite imposition roused a terrifying rage in those claiming to represent them, who now demonize them savagely and intend to import Africans to replace them.

          The American white working class voting for Trump is paralleled by the British white working class singing the lyrics of “the Taxman”.

          Look at BBC comedy to see what the left thinks of the white male working class. They hate them with incandescent rage, and the white male working class return the attitude.

          • The Cominator says:

            Not an expert Jim but I’ve always understood that much of the British working class had some genuine Marxist prejudice (which DOES NOT exist with the American working class) and hence even some of the white men among them voted labor or worse.

            • jim says:

              The people who tell us that also tell us that the British white male working class are filthy disgusting hateful scum of the earth.

              Recollect the joke that Arthur Scargill started the coal strike with a small house and a big union, and ended it with a small union and a big house. The people who claim to be white male working class British Marxists are as convincing as Trotsky claiming to be a Jewish peasant. (He was actually a Jewish moneylender;)

        • Eli says:

          Hence, again, I do not believe that it’s a source of real problems, but a symptom.

          In a reasonably-functioning society, the bydlo (Russian and Polish for “cattle”) naturally understands who is their superior and behaves accordingly.

          To give an example, for natural ordering, absent other explicit demarcations: young < old. Women < men. Retail worker < patron.

          By the way, I’d venture to speculate that, once said orderings become commonplace, the English language will see a return to proper usage of “you” and “thou.” Also, Sir, Mr. Miss, Mistress, etc. will again return into usage, as they should.

          • Koanic says:


            I think those honorifics violate




            “Mister” is a thinly disguised “master”.

            Jesus used “man” and “woman”. That is accurate speech.

            • Eli says:

              From what I understand, Jimianity is inspired by Christianity, but isn’t the same. The most in your face inequality that Jimianity is in favor of is Bayesian-inspired Justice. Even in Judaism (at least, the branch that followed Pharisaic teachings), equality of people’s free will and of people before law is a necessary legal fiction that ought to be maintained (though slaves, mentally retarded or crazy people do get different treatment). (Sadducees somewhat differed in that aspect: they treated a slave as one with agency equal to cattle — hence, if slave damaged someone’s property, they considered slave’s owner to be liable. Pharisees correctly saw that a slave could thus implicate his owner as revenge, and thus treated slaves as full-agency entities).

              Jimianity proposed that, given a sufficient DNA/ancestry derived metric for the accuesed, the prosecution will have different evidentiary standards to satisfy, to prove his/her guilt in a particular crime. If, as Christianity claims, random neighboring Niggers are your brothers/fellows, Jimianity is rather non-Christian in this regard. Jim, correct me if I misunderstood.

              My personal problem — as a Jew interested in comparative religious study, including of Christianity, and ignoring Pauline modifications and contra-Peter perversions — with teachings of Jesus/Yehoshua himself that he targeted to *us,* Jews (as he himself told so) are these:

              1) Turning the other cheek (which, if ardently followed, is a direct path to many evils, including cuckoldry)
              2) Elevating the poor and the slave, fairly explicitly above the level of a rich person. Aka “slave morality.”

              What is Judaism’s alternative?
              1) Eye for an eye evolved from talionic response into a compensatory mechanism. That is, *cost* of an eye for an eye. Things like adultery and murder are excluded from this restatement, for very good reason.
              2) It is explicitly conveyed in Old Testament that one should treat the widow and the orphan in a way that doesn’t remind or deepen their misery. Sensibilities towards slaves are also ingrained, when it comes to a slave who is a Jew. In the Talmud, additional protective stipulations are made. However, nowhere is the slave or poor person morally elevated as above a rich freeman.

              Yes: if done in proper context, say, within a small, close-knit community, Jesus’s stance, when done without compulsion, can be a path towards general betterment. But, as universal principles, especially as enforced by statists on others, they are suicidal and are inapplicable in scale.

              Mister/“Master” or “Rav” (“Rabbi” actually means “my rav” ie “my great(er)”) doesn’t necessarily have to imply *actual* ownership of the addressor by the addressee. It can, and usually does, mean a mastery of something, be it Jewish Law or, even more usually, general wisdom/life experience and a certain station of a freeman. It is a way to address someone with respect. Two masters can address each other as “Mister” or “Master” or “Rav” — there is no compulsion or direct supplication, but respect.

              As to people being children of God, this concept is straight from Judaism (Jews are God’s children).

              • Koanic says:

                Judges under the Law have flexibilty to adapt to circumstances. If you have a specific contradiction between Jimianity and the Bible, point it out. I don’t care what Christ-killers say about the Law. Obviously they missed the point.

                > If, as Christianity claims, random neighboring Niggers are your brothers/fellows

                The Bible makes no such claim. If he is a Christian, then he is your brother in Christ, much as he is your kin in the human race. The former is a broader taxonomic category than the latter.

                You mention niggers because we are at 4GW with them. It is not hard to find Biblical precedent for such a situation. The tribes of Israel fought wars with each other, and they were biological kin as well as spiritual. I am happy to afford a genuine black Christian decent POW treatment in the coming war of extermination, but he still has to go back. And gratuitous cruelty to niggers is wrong, because they too bear the image of God, at a lesser resolution, somewhere on the gradient between chimp and Caucasian. Nor should one be gratuitously cruel to chimps, because they bear a smidgen of the same. Nor to the animals, who bleed red like us. The Law forbids taking the mother bird and her eggs together. Likewise, it sets limits on the maltreatment of alien slaves, which is what niggers are.


                It doesn’t mean that. Go read the wikipedia entry:


                It doesn’t say that.

                • Eli says:

                  >Judges under the Law have flexibilty to adapt to circumstances.
                  Yes, correct.

                  >If you have a specific contradiction between Jimianity and the Bible, point it out.
                  I did. Vis-a-vis, pointing to “brotherhood” ought to be a real concept, with in-this-world implications. Whether one is genetic or spiritual brother doesn’t quite matter — brotherhood has to have some real implication. Being treated as having same evidentiary standards for being proven guilty for same crime is as basic as one can get. If two spiritual “brothers in Christ,” living not far from each other, one Nigger and the other White can be treated differently (one sentenced to death/slavery and the other acquitted) with the same exact set of evidence, then “brotherhood” is meaningless.


                  Then “brother in Christ” is a vacuous concept, for the warm feelies about the afterlife. Can be used to justify capriciously whatever you want in this life.

                  >You mention niggers because we are at 4GW with them.

                  Yes, but that’s not the only point. I used it in the same vein as Jesus used the parable of the good Samaritan, just in an inverted sense.

                  In that parable a Cohen and a Levi failed to assist a man needing help. Jesus used it to illustrate that ethical people (in this case, a Samaritan) are one’s true fellow. In essence, he drew a line between nominal/legal and the ethical/good. I appreciate the difference between the two. Nonetheless, it is the act of contrasting the two in this very manner that sows seeds of conflict within a people (Jews) and is, effectively, anti-nationalist. Instead of teaching the Jews to help one another and shame those who don’t, he elevated the (imaginary) Samaritan, an enemy of Jews, and lowered the (imaginary) Cohen and Levite.

                  Again, I get this man’s point, I am not even claiming that whatever he was saying was impossible in principle. But what he was saying was rare, if it happened at all. For that parable alone, if I were sitting in the Sanhedrin, I would advise the death penalty (for treason). And yes, screw the conscience-virtue-signaling, as in the story about the almost-stoned prostitute: I would personally throw the first stone, unless he publicly and tearfully renounced his BS.

                  I used the Christian Nigga in an inverted sense. Let’s call it the Parable of the Bad Negro. In this parable, you have two Jews, one a programmer, the other a bagel cafe keeper, living in the neighborhood where the saintly Kloanic lives. The saintly Christian Kloanic enjoys hating on the programmer Jew and the bagel cafe owner Jew, mumbling “Christ-killer,” as they pass by saying hi to him, even though they pay their taxes and keep property values good by working earnestly, participating in communal business and being law-abiding and generally nice. However, not too far, from them all, Nigga-Boo-The-Bad-Ass-Pick-a-Dindu (who goes to Church on Sundays with his Mama, on occasion) just broke into Saintly Chrishchun Kloanic property and stole all he could get away with. He also raped his wife. He got caught and, subsequently, repented to a Christian pastor (his sins are now forgiven and he goes to Heaven, as per the Christian doctrine).

                  Nigga-Boo-The-Bad-Ass-Pick-a-Dindu is still your “brother in Christ.” And you know what? Unlike the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Bad Negro is much more REALISTIC.

                  And again, because this entire “brotherhood” concept is meaningless/capriciously undefined, it is vacuous.

                  >It doesn’t mean that. Go read the wikipedia entry:

                  >It doesn’t say that.

                  You are confirming my thesis. The whole motif of Jesus’s teachings is showing how legal != ethical/good. Yes, I get it. But the way he does this is by being, at the core anti-nationalist and anti-rules. And hence, this isn’t ethical or good, in the long term, for any society.

                • jim says:

                  > > It doesn’t say that.


                  Pharisees were at the time engaged in a holiness spiral, and were, and are today, legalistically gaming the rules.

                  Jesus is not anti nationalist and anti rules. He endorses the spirit of the law, but criticizes those who obsess over the letter while finding ways around the spirit.

                • Eli says:

                  P.S. Looking at it further, the link that you gave me is quite the non-standard interpretation. If it is true, then in actuality Jesus advocates invoking at least the same pain on the abuser, and quite masochistically at that (return shame upon shame and everyone ends up looking like a fag).

                  But I doubt it, actually. Let’s look at the whole context:


                  The preponderance of statements suggests that Jesus likely meant not turning a situation into one where your slapper is shamed, but, rather into a show of meekness. Which is the standard interpretation! It is considerably more plausible.

                  Loving your enemy… Loving and praying for the dindu rapist — crazy! Unless “love,” like “brotherhood in Christ,” are meaningless, capricious concepts. Jesus’s Christianity indeed is an anti-nationalist, cuckoldry-encouraging system, even despite other explicit rules against sexual immorality that it stipulates.

                • Eli says:

                  I’ve said it, and will say it again. Jesus illustrates that the legal and the ethical are not, necessarily, the same thing. He does it well. In fact, too well. So well that it comes at expense of communal coherency considerations, which in his day were taken as given, as unshakable foundation.

                  It is also possible to look at him as an anti-zealot. During a time of antagonistic radicalism and in-fighting between Jews, he might have considered that the opposite approach was better-suited. That’s a hypothesis.

                  See also my other response to you (about your linked post).

                  I don’t want to blame Jesus too much, because I realize that I’m looking at him through a prism of today. Since I view him as an inspired man (though certainly not divine), he was limited with the knowledge of the arrangements of his day. He could not imagine the destruction of communities and atomization of individuals that are happening today, in the post-industrial world, via urbanization, labor mobility, and feminist-driven cuckoldry. Had he known, he might’ve used different wording or devices to convey similar meaning.

                  I’m arguing in mostly good faith, because of what Jesus himself said:

                  1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

                  Which illustrates his respect to the Law, despite personal disagreements with its bearers and legislators.

                  I ultimately believe that his doctrinal stance was wrong, because he tried to, essentially, legislate ethics by extracting and fixing the “spirit” of the Law. But the spirit of the Law has to be understood within an evolving historical context. So, for instance, when he tries to contrast his turn-the-other-cheek with eye-for-an-eye, he mis-represents the whole idea of eye-for-an-eye both originally and how it was — already at his time — being practiced. He tries to bootstrap an ethics from the Law (which is correct) and impose it onto a grander scale of the Jewish nation (which is not correct, because a nation is not a tribe/community — it’s divorced from intimate bonds and settings that tie people). Therefore, while Judaism produced Jesus organically, it refused to absorb him, and for good reasons.

                  If you want to see a saner implementation of Jesus’s ideas, look at Hassidic groups and, possibly Chabad Lubavitch. Their book, Tanya, contains essentially the same precepts as Christianity (it might have been secretly inspired, though it’s mere speculation) — but it’s much more grounded and focused on Jews and intra-communal relations.

                • jim says:

                  You are looking at Jesus through the lens of twentieth century Judaism, which is no more accurate than the lens of twenty first century progressivism.

                  Today’s Judaism was born in the sixth century under Christian dominion. It is a break away cult from Christianity as much as Christianity is a breakaway cult from Judaism. Today’s Judaism originated from Christianized Jews asserting their Jewish identity, while Christianity originated from Jews persecuted by other Jews fleeing their Jewish identity.

                  In a holiness spiral, the sane get persecuted. Christian Jews were persecuted for their sanity – which sanity was demonstrated by their response to the impending fall of Jerusalem.

                  What the Jews should have done was accept Christ – in which case they would have avoided a suicidal war with Rome, Christianity would be Jewish, Judaism would Christian, the Jews would not have been exiled, the law would still be in effect, but you would be paying more attention to the tenth commandment, and less attention to boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.

                  Considering the outcome, there is no way you can spin rejection of Jesus as the rational choice or the virtuous choice. The correct choice and the virtuous was to drop the holiness spiral of runaway legalism, which is what Jesus was telling them to do. Holiness spiral resulted in Zealots under seige by Romans burning their own food supplies, and that holiness was legalism results in today’s Jews focussing on avoiding the mixing of cheese crumbs and meat grease, while ignoring the tenth commandment.

                  It was coveters, not racists, that murdered the Jews, and the Jews are today enthusiastically encouraging the coveters who covet their place in the Democratic Party and who are about to expel them – first from the democratic party, then from Israel. All this is madness, and it is the same madness that led them to crucify Jesus.

                  Rejection of Jesus was adherence to the holiness spiral, and the holiness spiral got them expelled, and is today likely to get them killed all over again. Jews imported the Muslims to France who proceeded to expel them from France.

                  That Jews ignore the tenth commandment, and thus sponsor the socialism that gets them killed, while focusing on the accidental mixing of minute quantities of cheese and meat grease is exactly the kind of stuff that Jesus accurately complained about.

                  Holocaustianity is blaming “racism” for the sins of coveting, which results in Jews in America arranging for their own displacement and failing to reproduce.

                • Koanic says:

                  I am not going to endlessly debate your attempts to Talmuddy the waters. Plucking a single word such as “brotherhood” out of its context and deciding what it should mean in a universal absolute sense gives a dishonest interpreter such as yourself plenty of room to falsify meaning.


                  No it isn’t. Man I hate Talmudists. You guys love to pontificate a million miles away from the text.


                  No it isn’t. I have already stated my willingness to treat a genuinely Christian nigger much better than otherwise. Or a virtuous pagan one. You are just being willfully stupid.


                  No you didn’t. And if you were to attempt to construct a nigger story that paralleled the Good Samaritan story, you couldn’t do it. And if you succeeded, the ethical response would be the same.

                  The Samaritans were kin, estranged Israelites, and had a legitimate neighboring country. That is not the situation with niggers.

                  You don’t understand the point of the Good Samaritan story at all. It has nothing to do with anti-nationalism, or with nominal vs good. The Bible has rules for treatment of sojourners and hospitality, and these in no way undermines nationalism or borders.


                  Haha, you are a Christ-killer! You don’t understand the Bible at all.


                  You kikes destroy America and then feign innocence. Disgusting liars all.


                  Oho, now we have the doctrine of cheap grace! If Jesus could sniff out the hypocrisy of your kind, he’s not likely to be impressed by dindu crocodile tears. And in any case, there is no provision in Christianity for legal leniency in light of post-facto post-capture repentance. Jesus did not get a reprieve from the cross, much less the repentant thief beside him. You have got the wrong religion, stupid Jew.


                  Again with the poor reading comprehension. Each example is a way to flip the situation on the oppressor. Excellent judo advice for the CONQUERED PEASANTS of Judea.

                  As for, “love your enemy”, the worlds need more of it, and feuding Middle Eastern peasants who believe in “an eye for an eye” need to hear that kind of pro-social message. He obviously would not say the same to SJWs attempting to undermine nationalism and destroy the Western nations. Furthermore, it is “love YOUR enemies”. Jesus forgave those who crucified him, but Jehovah did not, as the destruction of the Jews thereafter demonstrated. Forgive slights against YOURSELF, but avenge those against another. This avoids the case of each man’s selfish partiality escalating a conflict endlessly. The examples illustrating his point demonstrate that Jesus was teaching wise resistance methods to a people inclined to pursue suicidal armed rebellion instead. The examples prove he was NOT telling Christians to become doormats, as snakes like you have ever since asserted.

                • Koanic says:


                  No you wouldn’t have, Eli the Low-IQ Liar, because the Romans reserved capital punishment to themselves, a fact any high schooler who reads the New Testament would know, it being CENTRAL TO THE NARRATIVE. We know from the behavior of your Pharisee forefathers that you would not risk your skin on a cross no matter how much you hated Jehovah’s only begotten Son.

                • Eli says:

                  @koanic: No need to be so butthurt about your idol, homey. Take a few deep breathes and get a bagel, preferably from a Jewish shop.

                  People who study Talmud spend their days, entire lives doing so. I have other things to do in my life. I’m an engineer.

                  Merely stating that you are willing to treat your fellow Nigger better than an ordinary pagan doesn’t imply any particular love. But besides, cut the crap. History is choke full of examples of Christians treating each other worse than they treated Muslims and Jews.

                  I have to agree with you regarding Samaritans. They surely are a kin. I don’t know what exactly happened after return from Babylon, but it was likely some sort of political rivalry of priests and Levites. Israel and Judah never quite fully reproached after Solomon, alas.

                  Irregardless of the above sentiment, at the time of Jesus, the Samaritans were not, as a rule, friendly to Jews and vice versa.

                  You didn’t read carefully what I wrote about the Samaritan parable, from which I conclude that your rage and hyperventilation prevents you from thinking clearly. You seem to be a weak guy.

                  You also seem to not be able to read the text of your own book properly. The fact that I support the standard interpretation, while you simmer and try to advance a strange one is also a telling sign of weak mind.

                  As to Jesus-killing, yes, I would take full responsibility for killing your idol (a Jewish man you, pagans, decided was a god). It is our internal matter to adjudicate. And if my fellow J-P58 priestly Aaronides (members of Sadducees) in the Sanhedrin perceived Jesus as a threat, they had good reasons to do so.

                  Jesus the Galilean was a trouble maker. From his insistence on reality of and imperativeness of belief in resurrection (I, for one, do not side with Jesus and Pharisees on that question) — which he used to propagate his cuckold masochist ideology that poisoned the minds of other Jews — to his interference in the Temple tax collection: all these were grave offenses. The latter was bad enough to make me suspect that his respect for the Law was merely lip-service… but I don’t wish to think of him in bad faith.

                  We do not take Jesus as Messiah. An anointed King, like David, he was not. It is a delusion to call him that. Hence “Christ”/“Christos” is a misnomer. Christ-killer, then, I’m not.

                  Feel free to call me Jesus-killer, however. Yes, I’d throw the first stone, if Sanhedrin were to convict.

                  As to being destroyed: we’ve been promised that by many people and people’s. We are still here and they are all gone.

                • Eli says:

                  @jim: Jesus was not the only one with a political program. Nor, in light of what I’ve repeatedly stated, do I think that his religious-political program was the best possible. While I want to believe that he wasn’t intent on upending the Law, his tactics and viewpoints were dangerously out of touch with reality, albeit some of the bad effects would take hundreds of years to reveal themselves. Hence, I’m glad that his ideas never fully went to fruition among the Jews.

                  By the way, his ideas did take root among Jews, as the existence of the Church of James (Yaakov) attests.
                  (Where you can also see that Christianity was a meekness-propagandizing movement: pride is a sin).

                  As my historian father, who is much more pro-Jesus, laments: Jesus’s ethics are, alas, for the World to Come, not for ours.

                  I don’t accept any movement that imposes thought-crimes. I don’t believe in thought-crime, only action-crime.

                  Also, while hipocrisy is an action and is not nice, it, too, ought not be a crime or sin. It is natural for people to aspire to better conduct while not necessarily doing it themselves. That, in itself isn’t a sin.

                  So: Whom would I side with? I’d side with the Herodians, a party of aristocrats and quite a few Sadducees. I would side with the pro-Roman faction, even though they were being killed by zealots (another group with their own program)

                  I would go to Rome and beg to keep prefects and not send procurators. I’d try to buy off officials. Ultimately, it would likely still be a losing game, but it might buy more time.

                  I think that various kinds of signaling spirals: be they about excessive legalism or vacuous virtue/compassion/“Christian love” or doing other behaviors to excess — are unavoidable in human civilizations. It’s just part of evolution of cultures and systems that are collections humans.

                  Ultimately, the pressure to evolve these expensive signaling mechanisms comes from desire to build rapport, cohesion among people — people who otherwise do not know each other well. By going through contortions, members signal each other trustworthiness and being part of same group.

                  I’d take excessive legalism signaling spiral, against vacuous, auto-genocidal virtue signaling spiral. But I would not want either.

                • jim says:


                  I am unaware of any other substantial movement opposing the holiness spiral, other than Jewish Christianity – the Christianity of Peter, rather than Paul, which still saw itself as a sect of Judaism.

                  The holiness spiral was wicked and dangerous for the reasons forcefully stated by Jesus, and as we now know headed for national suicide. To turn aside from the holiness spiral would require a charismatic leader with a religious program and a political program exercising coercive power – Jesus purging the temple. If not Jesus, who? It would have to be someone rather resembling Jesus at the Temple.

                  Jesus at the temple was a failed coup. The Jews should have accepted Jesus, and coup should have succeeded. And if it had succeeded, chances are that the Jews would not have embarked on the course that got them exiled, and now has them ignoring massive and threatening violations of the tenth commandment while obsessing over cheese crumbs.

                • jim says:

                  The weakness of the Herodian faction was that it was not a religious faction. You have to bring a gun to a gunfight and a religion to a holy war.

                  To counter a holiness spiral in the state religion, you need your own state religion in your pocket.

                  And the only such religion in town was the Church of James. But after the execution of Jesus, a bit late to make it the state religion of Israel.


                  Christianity has only been re-interpreted as an autogenocidal holiness spiral quite recently. By and large, throughout most of Christian history, holiness spirals were mostly kept out of the main line.

                  As long as Judaism is Holocaustian, it will never be able to do what Israel needs to do to survive. You need to be able to say that non Jews who want state and quasi state position in Israel, or want to attend prestigious Israeli institutions, are guilty of covetousness. Holocaustianity implies that the browns who intend to purge the Jews from the Democratic Party, who oppose the Israel wall, and who oppose moving the embassy to Jerusalem, are holier than you are.

                  If Holocaustian, you cannot say that Nazis killed Jews because Nazis were socialists who coveted Jewish stuff. If you cannot say that Nazis killed Jews because Nazis were socialists who coveted Jewish stuff, you cannot say the brown takeover in the Democratic Party are socialists who covet your stuff, that the Palestinians covet your stuff.

                  Holocaustianity is what you get when you quietly toss the ten commandments in favor of endlessly elaborating the bit about boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. Holocaustianity is driving non Jews mad because it makes us the bad guys, and it is driving Jews mad because they cannot point to their actual enemies and denounce them.

                • Eli says:

                  Last, before I forget. Contra the knowledge of American middle-schoolers, Jews did have a lot, of not virtually full judicial autonomy, arguably, until the First Revolt:


                • jim says:

                  Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition, charged with attempting a coup and failing, but according to both Jewish and Christian sources, the dispute was primarily over religious issues, a Jew on Jew dispute, that they took to the Romans when it turned physical. Maybe he did attempt a coup, maybe he attempted a coup symbolically to give the Jews a chance of choosing him collectively. Maybe he attempted a coup expecting it to fail, but attempting to give human collective and individual free will the opportunity to choose.

                • PlannedObsolescence says:

                  St. Constantine (feast day May 21) did the whole bloody coup thing and altered the constitution, following which he was called caesar, agustus, and probably magister and dominus, “in hoc signo vinces” for the name of the man who said “turn the other cheek”, and now we’re back to arguing about what love your enemies means and trying to interpret Christianity without Paul. Eli, if don’t think Christ commissioned the Apostles to teach, your interpretation is non-standard.

                  The atheistic interpretation of Jesus as troublemaker “politely” ignores the hellenization, the Gospel according to John begins by putting it all in the context of logos, which may or may not be implicitly in the Old Testament (“I AM”?).

                  Koanic, early emperors didn’t want to be called dominus because they were pretending the Republic was still in effect. I look forward to calling you sir in a world where places with good pizza aren’t rare because pizza merchants take pride in their civilizationally-essential work.

                • Eli says:

                  @PlannedObsolescence: Jesus was a trouble maker from purely Jewish perspective. Nothing whatsoever to do with Hellenization

                  Nothing was said about the apostles by me, other than pointing to the fact that Paul and Peter very much disagreed.

                  But if you so insist: yes, the idea of apostle (meaning from Greek: “messenger”) is not standard Jewish operation. While Jews were quite open about educating surrounding pagans about their religion and the One God, the active spreading/ministry was not standard procedure. Unlike for you, Christians.

                  So: Jesus did not “commission apostles to teach.” What he did have were talmidim (Heb. pl. for “students”), just as other great Jewish teachers and rabbis did, both before and after.

                  Shaul/Paul (who was never directly Jesus’s student), decided to, effectively found his own religion among the pagans. Very much contra Jesus himself, Peter, and James.

                  Shaul/Pater never even met Jesus physically, in person. James and Peter knew Jesus personally, with James probably intimately. Paul got “inspired” by the movement’s teachings, but the story of said inspiration is pretty murky.

                  So, there is only one real Christian apostle/messenger: it is Paul — and, of course, whoever kept spreading Paul’s religion after him (e.g. Cyril and Methodius). The others, true students, wanted Jesus’s movement/teachings to be Jewish and remain Jewish even after Jesus’s death.

                  Another apostle of a Jewish-inspired movement that turned it into a new religion was Muhammad, albeit he is not a founder of your religion.

                  The word “apostle” is a Greek imposition (the books of New Testament were composed in Greek, many years after death of the actors involved.) Paul is the only one some of whose epistles we know are likely real.

                • jim says:

                  There is much truth in your story, but you are leaving out one major fact: The holiness spiral predictably, and as predicted by Jesus, resulted in ever increasing persecution of the students of Jesus, with the result that Paul won the argument.

                  When Paul went to the temple, he was trying to do things your way, the way you say he should have done them. With predictable (and predicted) consequences.

                  You are telling me that Christianity should have been Jewish. And I totally agree. It should have been Jewish, and the early Christians did their best to make Judaism Christian and Christianity Jewish. But, predictably, and as predicted, they failed. The die was cast when the Jews called for the crucifixion of Jesus. They should have accepted his coup.

                  And because they failed to accept his coup you are now in the position where Jews are unable to think that brown people wanting Jews out of the Democratic party is the same position as the Nazis initially took.

                • Eli says:

                  “Shaul/Pater” –> “Shaul/Paul”

                • Eli says:



                  I find myself in agreement that Herodian faction was not very liked by the majority and utterly hated by a vocal, active minority. But I’d rather take that faction than take Christianity. Christianity was the kind of medicine that might have saved the body at the moment, while killing it in the future. Maybe the Exile was inevitable.


                  What prevented it from being so-interpreted were the hardships of real life and naturally communal aspect of human’s living. Once the restraints were removed and humans obligated to live as atomized individuals by the demands of industrialization and job mobility, Christianity showed that it was a system of ethics that cannot function outside of communal settings. Said communal setting being enforced naturally by Judaism’s overly-legalistic requirements (notably, communal Sabbath observance and bothersome abstention from all kinds of “work”).

                  Do you see now why I am against Christianity? It cannot survive divorced from Judaism, in a modern setting — while the reverse isn’t true. Christianity tries to fix ethics — something fundamentally intuitive — via dogma, but it ends up going into a crazy signaling spiral, with said dogma evolving into ever heretofore unfathomable directions. I’d rather have the legalistic spirals. Legalistic spirals that are based on communal authorities (e.g. Judaism) can subside more naturally, whenever people live in intimate small autonomous communities that are not scared of assimilation — laws arbitrated by local authority naturally begin matching intuition of communal members.

                  No such thing is possible with ethics-signaling spirals, because there are no communal authorities to regulate this. You really do *need* a Grand Inquisitor — and the consequences are, literally, painful and deadly.


                  Yes. I agree with that point wholeheartedly. I don’t see, however, that Jews threw away the ten commandments, although, indeed, too many Jews are deluded and don’t see your point about the true source of hatred: Socialist covetousness (be it Nazi or non-Nazi), with racialist theories being mostly the facade (mostly, unconscious).

                • jim says:



                  The Jews never throw away anything, they just bury it under a pile of Talmudism. Holocaustianity reinvents the very real and terrible crimes of Nazism as not covered directly by the ten commandments, as not driven by covetousness – which has the side effect of causing inability to see what today’s enemies have in common with yesterday’s enemies. Ann Frank is made emblematic of the holocaust, when a shopkeeper or pawnbroker should have been made the emblem.

                  The crimes of the Nazis were a result of covetousness, and their initial position on the Jews was not all that different from the current position of the brown faction of the Democrats, who covet what the (disproportionately Jewish) white faction of the Democrats have.

                  If you had made a shopkeeper the emblem, the Jews would be able to see what threatens them.

                • Eli says:

                  See my response above to you on why I still reject Christianity and believe it was not a good fit.


                  We are in this position, because the Jews have drunk the kool-aid of both Socialism (covetousness normalization) and Progressivism (brown-divinity vis-a-vis “all-men-are-created-equal”). We are not in this position because of Jews rejecting Jesus and Paul.

                • jim says:


                  Covetousness normalization is part of de-emphasizing the ten commandments and emphasizing the elaboration of the law, which is itself a sixth century reaction to Christians retaining the the ten commandments while dismissing elaboration of the law.

                  Christianity turned socialist by holiness spiraling on universalism. Jews, but not Judaism, turned socialist by converting to Marxism, a Jewish heresy, and progressivism, a Christian heresy. Judaism turned socialist partly due to the influence of Marxist and progressive Jews, but partly because they did not much like the ten commandments, the ten commandments being excessively Christian.

                • Eli says:


                  Fair point. Couple of expanding points though:
                  1) The authority to modulate and modify is explicitly given in the Pentateuch/Torah to Jewish judges. Ie the final law as practiced doesn’t have to look literally like what in the Old Testament.
                  2) Mishna and Talmud were never supposed to be codified and written down. They are Oral Law and are supposed to be dynamic (see point 1). This is very important.

                  My hope is that, slowly/eventually, people will go back towards laws that are closer to Torah. The mechanism to enable that evolution is embedded in Jewish autonomy and nature of Jewish State. Hence, why it’s so important to keep moving in that direction.

                • jim says:

                  Being supposedly Oral, you are not supposed to riff off law that riffs of law that riffs off law that riffs off law that riffs off law that riffs off law that riffs off Old Testament precedents. You are supposed to riff directly off Old Testament precedents.

                  That would work.

                  But it sounds rather close to the Christian position that the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, is what matters.

                • Eli says:

                  Even though the law is supposed to be Oral, it’s still jurisprudence. Hence, just like Roman Law it ends up being written; and accumulated precedent is passed on to next generation of jurists. Which, of course, makes sense, because new questions and new contexts always arise. And, of course, due to changing context of life (esp nowadays), the judges’ intuitions (ie ethics / spirit of the law) gets refined or even, upon understanding of benefits and costs, including hidden costs, drastically swings.

                  The term “oral” ends up denoting dynamic nature of the Law. The “not supposed to be written down” is a useful legal fiction (like “equality before the law”) that helps in crystallizing said nature.

                  The law per se is completely orthogonal to the issue of the spirit of the law (ethics). The latter is supposed to be the force of human *intuition* that drives the — steady and slow — evolution of the law, from one generation to the next, as well as its reconciliation across locales.

                • jim says:

                  Reality is that the law gets ever more and more obsessed about cheese crumbs, while covetousness threatens your existence. This seems to suggest that you are doing something wrong.

                • Koanic says:

                  You are a proven liar, so I need not address your assertions, which are many. And here is what passes for argument from you, mangled diction preserved:


                  History is chock full of examples of everything. You are very stupid. Even if you could statistically show that Christians are more brotherly to non-Christians than to each other, which is obviously false, this would not be relevant to the point under question, which was whether the Biblical concept of Christian brotherhood requires white Christians to be race cucks. The Bible does not even liberate the slaves from their shackles, much less the women from their husbands or the nations from their borders.

                  Yes, you fake-Jews are still here. You are like the mixed multitude out of Egypt, whom Jehovah rejected. Except instead of being all slain, you were scattered, and Satan adopted what God had rejected. He is the father of lies, and you the children. Your final judgment will come with his, in the last days described in Revelations. It is a hard fate, but then so is being surrounded by Jews in general, which is why so many of you refuse to return to your homeland.

                  The only time I think of modern fake-Jews is when I see one’s disgusting face, or hear one’s disgusting words, for the face and the words are one, showing the countenance of their father, the father of lies. You are like the man who stinks, and thinks that everyone also wrinkles their faces in disgust when he’s not around.

                  Cheers, Planned.

                • jim says:

                  This is excessively discourteous.

                  Please be nicer, or I will put you on moderation. If a Christian, recollect peace on earth and goodwill to all men. Eli does not count as your neighbor, but one still should refrain from unnecessary aggression and hostility.

                • Koanic says:

                  I do not find “goodwill to all men” in the Bible.

                  However, it does tend to interfere with your salutary rehabilitory intent. Thankfully there is always Gab for all the anti-Semitism that Semitism deserves!

              • jim says:


                You confuse Churchianity with Christianity.

                Pretty sure random neighboring outgroup members are not your brothers/fellows. The good samaritan is your neighbor, but all those other samaritans are not your neighbor.

                Observed behavior is that black people do not attend the same Church as white people, and that black Church attendees feel comfortable about fellow black Church attendees predating on white people.

                Recollect my post: How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner.

                If the black man attends your congregation, then you have sufficient information on the content of his character. If he does not, judge him on the priors appropriate to outgroup members. Your prior should be that all those other Samaritans are hostile.

                • Eli says:

                  I re-read your article again. Great post and quite a creative interpretation. Alas, it is hard to reconcile with Mathew 5, about loving one’s enemies and just general tenor of meekness and, IMO, even eschatologically-oriented masochism, as I’ve explained above.

                  Alas, I remain of the opinion that Jesus’s own Christianity is rather Prog on fundamental questions. It is essential to build society on mutual assistance and cooperation. But it is essential to do so by punishing the Cohen and the Levite (if they were from same community) for failing to do their diligence and invite the good Samaritan to convert. It is not good to contrast the two sets of people and advertise said scenario, unless one is trying to build class consciousness of some sort (say, of metal-workers that have both Samaritans and Jews working together). But then it is no longer a cooperative ethno-religion, but Marxism.

                  The Samaritan parable is powerful, however, because, in a roundabout way, it illustrates the same thing that I wanted to illustrate: however close-knitted one’s community/clan is, at some point it will grow too large, and, fundamentally, a Samaritan might end up being closer to me than a fellow Jew.

                  The right thing to do is to grow communities organically in such a way that all your neighbors are Jews, and that, even if a Cohen or a Levite pass you by, when you need help, it will be a mamzer or a Jewish slave that will help you.

                  Jesus wanted to contrast higher caste Jews with a non-Jew. Bad. Instead, he could’ve done the story with solely Jews. Or mentioned something along the lines of conversion.

                  On the other thing you say there: I do agree with you that it’s always best to appear to have the higher moral ground, whenever a conflict arises: mostly, it helps preserving internal cohesion and the fictions facilitating coop-coop equilibrium.

                • jim says:


                  At the time, the Jewish religious leadership were on a ethno nationalist holiness spiral that was taking them into suicidal war with Rome and with their Greek neighbors.

                  Jesus said “Bad. Don’t do that.”

                  Whereupon Christians holiness spiraled his advice against ethno nationalist holiness spiraling as a commandment to strict universalism, in violation of the message of the Tower of Babel.

                  To which I reply “Bad. Don’t do that either.”

                • El says:


                  Yes, that’s quite a plausible scenario. I’ve just mentioned it in my other reply to you.

                  This makes Jesus not so much a reinterpreter of the law, but a religion-based political movement leader, a kind of “Jewish (anti-)Muhammad.” By that very definition, he had an expiration date, limited to the rule of Rome. Which, again, reinforces my opinion that he was not upending/revolutionizing the Law, but leading an emergency program of Jewish self-preservation (which, ultimately, failed to materialize in the way he envisioned it).

    • PlannedObsolescence says:

      > But if you have to signal it, you don’t really have it. Sorry.
      countersignaling is pretty low-level, tbh. Gonna need to adapt, improvise, overcome.

      (1) okay, women are men. Please describe the choker necklace phenomenon in a way that is not insulting to these men who are female.
      (2) how is being disrespectful of women respectful towards women? How is intentionally mistreating women kindness and not hatred?
      (3) you didn’t say women are men, but some androgynous “guy”, with neither the honor of a man nor the circumspection of a woman. Are you a “guy”? Can “guys” win wars or go to space?

      > but women are boring and depressing
      > we should encourage them to become men, the paragon of animals
      good luck teaching a bolt to be a nail. Maybe pound it flat first.
      > [sexual orientation theory that gleefully ignores the fact that heteronormativity is normalnormativity or attempts to incorporate it first as Marxist class theory and then as women accepting their situation with poise which implies virtue which implies aspects of masculinity]
      doesn’t explain why you’re here talking about women, guy
      > but the aristocracy will steal all the women from the working class like they steal everything else
      since technocrats have no honor, why do you defend their… class ideology?

      Namaste, buddy.

      Let’s at least go as far as

      (but you also know the 90s dad concept grrl power/self esteem actually left their daughters confused and sterile, so why talk to the driveby misser when Koanic needs to accept his noble nature to improve the condition of his people? Renouncing titles didn’t help the bourgeoisie and peasantry or even Robespierre. “Richard said withdrawal in disgust isn’t the same as apathy” but Richard needs to figure out what he wants from life (“violent green” is also more meaningful now lol))

      (okay, here’s to our Internet and chans )

  48. barf says:

    Some tangentially related humor:

Leave a Reply for Carlylean Restorationist