Going home

kakistocracy on going home.

Home is not just geography. Home is a place of comfort, safety, and familiarity. Of mutual trust and understanding. Of common past and shared future. Home is where children play without fear in a parent’s eyes. Home is where speaking honestly offends no shrill aliens. Home is what is passed from your father to your son. And most importantly, home belongs uniquely to you.

There are great swaths of her country now no more Ms. Makin’s home than the violent North African city she longs to escape. And when those swaths broaden to encompass everything, where will her daughter seek sanctuary upon saying…

I want to go home.

Some time ago, I moved from silicon valley to a place pleasantly undiverse. People leave their doors unlocked when they leave their houses. The kids are respectful. By the roadside, one sees unattended fruitstands. You take the fruit and drop the money in a box. Small children wander off unsupervised. I am a stranger here, yet it fits like an old sock.

Even wealthy whites in Silicon Valley live in a place that is frightening, dangerous, hostile, hateful, and alien. A place that hates them for the intolerable sins of sexism racism colonialism homophobia islamophobia and imperialism, and sooner or later will punish them as they deserve for those unforgivable and ineradicable sins. They are frightened and weak. And they cannot afford to have children.

138 Responses to “Going home”

  1. Wyrd says:

    A river a mountain to be crossed
    The sunshine in mountains sometimes lost
    Around the south side so cold that we cried

    Were we ever colder on that day?
    A million miles away it seemed from all of eternity

    Move forward was my friend’s only cry
    In deeper to somewhere we could lie
    And rest forth the day with cold in the way

    Were we ever colder on that day?
    A million miles away it seemed from all of eternity

    The moments seemed lost in all the noise
    A snow storm, a stimulating voice
    Of warmth of the sky, of warmth when you die

    Were we ever warmer on that day?
    A million miles away we seemed from all of eternity

    The moments seemed lost in all the noise
    A snow storm, a stimulating voice
    Of warmth of the sky, of warmth when you die

    Were we ever warmer on that day?
    A million miles away we seemed from all of eternity

    The sunshine in mountains sometimes lost
    The river can disregard the cost
    And melt in the sky, of warmth when you die

    Were we ever warmer on that day?
    A million miles away it seemed from all of eternity

  2. Dr. Faust says:

    I grew up in a white neighborhood in the 90s. The homes of all of my friends were uniform. The father worked and the mother tended the home and the children. The women wore dresses, acted modestly, showed respect to their husbands. In public school we prayed over our lunch every day.

    There was no crime, no poverty. The state consisted of a single building for police, volunteer firefighters, and a fat smiling neighbor.

    All white. All patriarchal. All Christian.

    I look back on that time now as a paradise. A part of the peace that could be, something successive generations will probably never know. That town is gone now, swallowed by diversity and poverty and feminism.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Incredible. There is so much wrong now that it’s hard to believe that it could change, but at the same time there has been such a fast and head-long plunge that there’s a chance that the velocity of the “drop” could make people throw up some staunch resistance. Resistance wouldn’t be something new, but a pro-active movement toward the principles outlined in Neo-Reaction would be much more welcome than the sort of “Leave us alone!” message of Libertarian-Republicanists.

      A.J.P.

  3. Brian says:

    Enjoy it while it lasts.

    Because it won’t last long.

  4. spandrell says:

    You did have to live in Silicon Valley to make your money on the first place.

    Unless we fix that, there’s no going home. There is no home.

    • jim says:

      Starters, make silicon valley safe, requires Singaporean law enforcement. Make reproduction affordable, requires land release – if you fly over silicon valley you see huge areas held out of use. To make reproduction safe, need to de-emancipate women.

    • Warner says:

      Serious Christians have always believed, or are supposed to believe, that this vale of tears is not their true home:

      “I’m just a poor wayfaring stranger
      Traveling through this world of woe”

      This attitude btw is quite compatible with conservatism – the shitlib liberal “social gospel” heretics are trying to make this perishing material world as comfortable habitation as possible, instead of keeping their eyes i the world to come.

      Also, this cozy sense of home (that I can really sympathize with) is actually a quite modern notion. In pre-modern times, European people also lived under constant threat of bloody tribal conflict. Private homes were often like fortresses, and familial clans like small military units.

      • Warner says:

        T.B. Macaulay described the Scottish Highlander society (still around 1700 AD) thus:

        “While the old Gaelic institutions were in full vigour, no account of them was given by any observer, qualified to judge of them fairly. Had such an observer studied the character of the Highlanders, he would doubtless have found in it closely intermingled the good and the bad qualities of an uncivilised nation. He would have found that the people had no love for their country or for their king; that they had no attachment to any commonwealth larger than the clan, or to any magistrate superior to the chief. He would have found that life was governed by a code of morality and honour widely different from that which is established in peaceful and prosperous societies. He would have learned that a stab in the back, or a shot from behind a fragment of rock, were approved modes of taking satisfaction for insults. He would have heard men relate boastfully how they or their fathers had wreaked on hereditary enemies in a neighbouring valley such vengeance as would have made old soldiers of the Thirty Years’ War shudder.”

        • B says:

          Macaulay also pointed out that the men did no work whatsoever but hung out shooting the shit with an occasional hunting or fishing outbreak. In short, very similar to Detroit and Baltimore (minus of course the welfare and prison systems and their long-term effects.)

          • Kudzu Bob says:

            Of course, disdain for work is particular to certain Whites in certain places during certain eras, but it is the norm in Black societies from Baltimore to Botswana and during all eras.

      • jim says:

        Serious Christians have always believed, or are supposed to believe, that this vale of tears is not their true home:

        That is suspiciously close to Gnosticism, rather than Christianity. Gnosticism proposes that this world was created by Satan, and belongs to Satan. The biblical position however is:

        “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

        It has long been argued that Progressivism is another gnostic heresy. That is why progressives are required to believe that they are out of power.

        That is gnosticism, not Christianity.

        • Erik says:

          Careful here. The other end of the Biblical position is:
          “We know that we are of God, and all the world lies in evil.” (1 John 5:19)
          Christianity teaches that this world was created by God but is currently under the power of Satan. Refer to the rest of both 1 John and John (“He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world”, prince of this world, etc.)

          Also the temptations in Matthew 4.
          Devil: “Use your divine power to make food!”
          Jesus: “Man does not live by bread alone.”
          Devil: “Use your divine protection for a joyride!”
          Jesus: “You shall not tempt the Lord.”
          Devil: “Look at all the kingdoms of the world. Bow to me and I’ll give them to you.”
          Jesus: “I bow only to God.” (not “they aren’t yours to give”. The Devil is being a stickler for keeping a sliver of justification in everything said here.)

          • jim says:

            Christianity teaches that this world was created by God but is currently under the power of Satan.

            That is not Christianity. You are torturing the texts. Check the book of Job for the role of Satan.

          • Hard Right says:

            “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7

            Perhaps the Gnostics were correct?

            • jim says:

              If the lord that the Christians worship creates evil as well as good, then the Christians worship the Lord of this World and the next, while gnostics do not worship the lord of this world.

          • Hard Right says:

            while gnostics do not worship the lord of this world.

            That’s the point of Gnosticism, Jim. Gnostics did not worship the Demiurge whom most equated with the God of Israel. The Demiurge wasn’t necessarily viewed as evil. Many believed that he was just ignornant. The later Valentinians believed that he did the best that he could.

            The Christians do, however, believe that the Devil is Lord of this World.

            “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.” John 12:31

            “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” John 14:30

            “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” 2 Corinthians 4:4

          • Erik says:

            > That is not Christianity. You are torturing the texts.

            No I’m not. This is standard Christianity. God created the world, and it was very good. God gave dominion over the world to Man. Man sinned, and the world became cracked and flawed and bent. Therefore God set apart people to be holy, and sent his Son to save those bits that could still be salvaged and repaired. This world is not wholly evil, but it is warped enough that Christians are called out of it, for God will make a new world and the old world shall pass away. Ephesians 2 opens by saying that God has raised to life those who were dead in sin and did according to the course of this world. Luke 16:8 contrasts the children of this world to the children of light. In John 8:23 Jesus says to the Pharisees “You are of this world, I am not of this world”. At the start of Romans 12, Paul calls us to be holy to God, and not conformed to this world.

            > Check the book of Job for the role of Satan.

            Job starts under the protection of God because Job is devout. (“Have You not made a hedge around him, and around his house, and around all that he has on every side?”) Then God withdraws His protection.

            • jim says:

              Job starts under the protection of God because Job is devout. (“Have You not made a hedge around him, and around his house, and around all that he has on every side?”) Then God withdraws His protection.

              And then reinstitutes it. For every line saying that Satan is in power in this world, there are several lines saying that he has power only under god. If Christianity retreats from this world, it is no longer Christianity.

          • AbuDhabi says:

            The Catholic-approved version of the Bible I have consistently indicates that John’s phrase of “prince of this world” means “Satan”.

            Brief googling indicates a view consonant with what Erik’s saying.

            • jim says:

              Yes, “Prince of this world” means Satan. But Satan is supervised, limited, and restricted by God, acting within limits set by God and capriciously changed from time to time in a world made by God.

          • B says:

            In which our host tries to square the circle, i.e., reconcile Christianity with Judaism, the “New Testament” with Torah.

          • Ion says:

            >In which our host tries to square the circle, i.e., reconcile Christianity with Judaism, the “New Testament” with Torah.
            There are basically two approaches.

            1) Declare the Old Testament to be bullshit
            2) Declare the New Testament to be bullshit

            The healthiest variants of Christianity have always been closer to option 2 than anything else. It should be noted that one gospel proscribes emasculation (or if interpreted metaphorically, celibacy). Has consistently been interpreted metaphorically, with the famous exception of Origen.

          • B says:

            When you have an oil-vinegar mixture, you can pour off the oil or drain the vinegar.

            >Has consistently been interpreted metaphorically, with the famous exception of Origen.

            And the Russian skoptsy and the French Cathars.

            To give the Russians credit, for every skopets, there were three Subbotniks and for obvious reasons, the Subbotniks would make more Subbotniks but the skoptsy would not make more skoptsy.

        • Ion says:

          >That is gnosticism, not Christianity
          Anybody with a basic understanding of early Christian theological history knows that gnosticism is a branch of Christianity. And most academics will tell you that the writer of the Gospel of John (among other New Testament writings) was a gnostic or semi-gnostic.

          >And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good
          This was before the fall. The Augustinian interpretation of the fall is shared by all historic Western branches of Christianity. And the Augustinian interpretation implies that the world we currently live in is depraved and worthless. It’s not gnostic, but it certainly does not regard the world as “good” or “worthwhile”.

          The Eastern Orthodox have a slightly different interpretation of original sin. Both Judaism, Islam (and Mormonism) reject the concept of original sin, and interpret the fall in very different terms.

      • spandrell says:

        +1

        Traditional life wasn’t easy. Post-war peace was an exception.

  5. Mark Citadel says:

    Your description of your new home is rather pleasant Jim, and since such pleasant places are now rare, this may prove ammo for doxxers.inc

  6. Robert says:

    I have come to the realization that there is no going home for me. I was raised in a place that no longer exists, and will never exist again. All I can do is try to make a home for my children within the four walls of our house, but that is only temporary. I am beginning to think that this idea of home will not come again for us unless we make it for ourselves using violence.

  7. Samson J. says:

    I want to go home.

    Ah, the first step towards belief in the Argument From Desire!

  8. OldStudent says:

    Your new utopia will glorify and uphold as religious virtues : sexism, racism, homophobia, imperialism, colonialism, etc.
    Dissenters must die.
    This is your version of idyllic Home sweet home.
    Sharia without Allah.
    How fun.

    • peppermint says:

      No, dissenters get ignored except when they are laughed at. They don’t even need to be fired. The leaders will all understand what race is, and what happened when there was democracy, and will provide efficient governance to their people so they can compete biologically.

    • Erik says:

      The first four things you mention are content-free slurs, uplift sounds like a great religious virtue, and dissenters need only die if they’re sufficiently stupid and violent to try seizing powers by force. Otherwise, as Frederick the Great said, they can say what they want and the sovereign will do as the sovereign wants.

      Do you really want to make your stand on the principle of not killing stupid violent people? Or perhaps you’d like to try to extract some kind of non-pozzed charge from the slurs you brought up.

    • jim says:

      Racism sexism and the rest are charges equivalent to witchcraft. Blacks underperform. It cannot possibly be the fault of blacks, so we will blame it on some white guys and punish them for it. Place one black man in a white suburb on a low income housing subsidy. He pisses on his landlord supplied furniture and vandalizes his neighbor’s windows. Every white man in the neighborhood is deemed guilty, and needs punishment. That is what “racism” means.

  9. OldStudent says:

    Slurs? That’s the proud platform outlined above.
    The supposed sins y’all are hated for are Nrx virtues.
    Anyone lacking in the virtues is a libtard or a SJW.

    • Erik says:

      Ray Cis, Ray Cis, Ray Cis!

      Your opinion on how nonprogressive we are has been made clear. Do you have anything to contribute that isn’t yet another slur synonymous with “nonprogressive”?

  10. OldStudent says:

    You are as abusive with the keys to the asylum as any ghetto thug.
    You cannot share power without force of arms or tools of torture, all invented and proudly flaunted by yourselves. You despise weakness and view the Feminine with contempt. Home sweet Home. Sounds just like Paradise.

    • jim says:

      Well it is paradise. Fits like an old sock.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      None of the people who espouse your ideology have ever actually believed in their impossible ideology. Equality is a myth, a destructive dream of weak willed fools and is corrosive to the spirit of humanity. Hierarchy arises from nature, arises because of ability. Equality is anathema to greatness since greatness implies not equal.

      Racism is a virtue which protects my race from those who would destroy it. It solidifies and unites. It codifies us from the other.

      Sexism ends the conflict between man and woman with the greater being the victor and lesser the conquered. It unites a family into a single unit, resolves disputes before they begin and unlike the unnatural ideology of equalism works with the nature of man and woman as God intended.

      Your greatest sins are my virtues.

  11. OldStudent says:

    Your strength derives only from your willingness to kill all who dare disobey you.
    You cannot be criticized, cannot bear it without the lash and the Inquisitor to back your power to kill. Submit or die. And for added punch, threaten eternal torture for all eternity of your enemies and call it God’s love. Or Roko’s basilisk.
    That is why you are hated. You can’t even agree on the minimum basics of theology. You are united by your willingness to conquer and kill your supposedly weaker and inferior opponents.
    Embrace and love your proud inner torturer, he’s the precious secret of your virtuosity and supposed crown of creation.
    But you never have my obedience. You will just have to kill me.

    • Erik says:

      You lie.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      @OldStudent

      But you never have my obedience. You will just have to kill me.

      I don’t care what you do. Just don’t have any power of any kind whatsoever.

      • OldStudent says:

        Liberal Cathedral statists are in control of the APA?!
        Or proud sexist, racist, homophobic colonialists?
        Don’t pretend there are not plenty of you in the highest positions of power,
        Needing to be reminded with official statements and position papers not to torture people for having low time orientation or maybe for being unchaste.
        http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/interrogations.aspx

        • jim says:

          The APA is the organization that defines trannies and gays as normal, while defining typical male characteristics as pathological.

          • OldStudent says:

            There are so many gays and several trannies among you that I have lost count of all of the names. Faux outrage.
            Bronies are all yours. The APA works for intelligence agencies, supervising torture. You approve.

  12. OldStudent says:

    Yes, the tired canard that only SJW’s lie.
    Except for David Myatt, whose entire treatise on
    Hateful ideology and prideful identity was page
    After page of lying, according to Massa Jim.
    Some liars are more equal than others.
    Je Suis Frances, who so wanted to believe him.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      Define “racism” and “racist.”

      • OldStudent says:

        Define white. I hear Sicilians and Greeks might be too far gone, let alone the overwhelming majority of non-Europeans.
        Jews, maybe a few make the cut.
        Cesar Tort’s masturbatory fantasies include miles upon miles of crucifixes hung with the decaying bodies of miscegnators and traitors as he speaks of his “beloved” Himmler. These are the inspiring images that fit you like old shoes. You can keep them.

        • R7_Rocket says:

          You refuse to define “racism” and “racist.” Just like every single progressive throughout the Internet when I asked them.

          They always refuse.

          • OldStudent says:

            Define white. Some of your friends on the right proudly state that the shade of one’s skin will determine ones fitness for the new Reich. As mentioned, I have read among your allies that Greeks and Sicilians are too far gone, even Golden Dawn is too “niggerish” in appearance for the Aryan purists among you. Billions must die, remember? To restore Home Sweet Home, Miles and miles of crucifixes strung with liberals and race traitors, in Jesus’ holy name, if it’s up to Voxday, even though that ship has sailed for most of you. That is what you require for your “greatness”.

        • R7_Rocket says:

          @OldStudent

          To add.

          Just try your shyster act on Vox Day’s blog. When you’re asked a direct question and you refuse multiple times to answer or “answer” with a question, you’re going to get shitcanned.

        • R7_Rocket says:

          OldStudent continues to refuse to define “racism” and “racist.” He then attempts to “answer” by asking a question without answering the first question asked, just like every single SJW. He would be dogmeat on Vox Day’s blog.

          P.S., Old student, lets play a game. Guess my race.

  13. Erik says:

    Red herrings. You lied.

  14. OldStudent says:

    Erik, although I am a bit of a stone cold materialist like the illustrious host here, you don’t get to judge my truth value. We’ll leave that to my afterlife where you can hold onto that pleasant image many of you seem to require of my eventual torture by demons for all of eternity.
    Frances Myatt suicided. Was that what “God” intended by her brush with extreme patriarchal Nazi and Islamic greatness? Clearly the “greater was the victor” there, just like “God” wants it. Is she, too, tortured by demons for all eternity in “God’s” latest version of The Home Sweet Home religion?
    Jim’s wife isn’t even acknowledged to have any innate goodness whatsoever, absent his discipline and tutelage, he has said just this, leaving the reader to wonder if she is even capable of crossing the street without drooling in his estimation. Respect you? No thank you.
    Don’t wonder why you are hated when you validate torture as a legitimate branch of medicine for the recalcitrant, you brought it on yourselves.

    • jim says:

      You are frothing as if leftists were oppressed and victimized revolutionaries groaning under the iron heel of the oppressor. Leftism has always been the state making war on society.

      What is the terrible cruel thing we propose to do to leftists/ We propose to exclude them from the state and quasi state apparatus, to deny them power.

      And yes, if they then reinfiltrate conspiratorially under false pretenses into the state apparatus, then we plan to use red hot irons.

      Leftism is inherently a disease of the state, a malfunction of state ideology. It is the state making war upon its people. There is no such thing as nonstate leftism. Consider any random leftist. He is funded by something like Acorn. And Acorn is directly funded by the state. When leftists go shaking down corporations, they do so by threatening them with discrimination and hostile environment lawsuits. All the money that was supposed to rebuild Haiti went to leftists.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        Jim said:

        What is the terrible cruel thing we propose to do to leftists/ We propose to exclude them from the state and quasi state apparatus, to deny them power.

        And yes, if they then reinfiltrate conspiratorially under false pretenses into the state apparatus, then we plan to use red hot irons.

        +1

        • OldStudent says:

          “Billions will die” is what you plan to do to leftists and all those you deem garbage or trash cultures, it’s no big secret.
          That statement wasn’t uttered by a minion of the Cathedral.
          That’s the appropriate future time orientation that all right thinking whites need to embrace, the one women aren’t good at and must submit to.
          That’s your sides vision for the future.
          Buy ammo to defend “God” and Home Sweet Home.
          For the “safety” of “aryan” women and children.
          Aryan is determined by skin tone.
          Greeks and Sicilians and many Spaniards and Portugeuse are already too dark. Willingness to torture is a virtue and torturers must prevail.
          To restore Gods order. Correct me if I have any of this wrong.

          • jim says:

            “Billions will die” is what you plan to do to leftists and all those you deem garbage or trash cultures, it’s no big secret.

            Rather, the plan is that tens of millions will lose their government and quasi government jobs. In particular, most of the human resources department is going to go.

            Able bodied people who decline to get useful jobs will starve. If they decline to starve, and instead proceed to hunt and gather in the urban jungle, will be shot or enslaved.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Time to remind OldStudent how his ilk is screwed…

            The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Has it ever occurred to you that the state could make war on its people without being leftist and that such war-making is what convinces some people to be Leftists?

        • jim says:

          No

          Can you think of an example of the state making war on its people where the state was not leftist?

          Left wing states pass laws abolishing reality – perhaps that all children will be guaranteed milk, as in Venezuela, or that blacks shall have the same test results as whites, as in America. Reality persists. This persistence of reality is deemed to be caused by evil witches casting evil spells. A hunt for witches ensues. Ever more witches receive ever more severe punishments, yet their evil spells remain strangely potent, requiring even greater punishments.

          If the Venezuelan government had passed a law that all children shall have milk, and they will spend as much oil money as necessary to make that happen, that would have worked. However, since they passed a law that all children would have milk, and it would not cost anything, they find themselves hunting down and punishing an ever increasing number of witches.

    • jim says:

      Jim’s wife isn’t even acknowledged to have any innate goodness whatsoever, absent his discipline and tutelage, he has said just this, leaving the reader to wonder if she is even capable of crossing the street without drooling in his estimation

      In the comment that you reference, I listed several things I believe she did better than I did, in particular, negotiating.

      It is just that women are not capable of chastity unless led by a strong man, and are disinclined to work for future oriented goals unless under male supervision.

      Women have many excellent qualities. It is just that chastity and future orientation are not among them. Fortunately women are by nature followers, so with the right leadership and authority, one can compensate for their weaknesses, while utilizing their strengths.

  15. Contaminated NEET says:

    Old Student, you’ve started writing in prose! This makes you seem significantly less crazy, so I’m going to go ahead and ask: what is the deal with you and Frances Myatt? What was you relationship with her and what does her suicide have to do with Jim or the alt right in general?

  16. OldStudent says:

    Frances died in despair.
    “Right relationship” with the Greatness Himself didn’t help her one bit.
    She found herself lacking the will to survive, to live, to flourish. And alone.
    Perhaps she had a problem with chastity or future time orientation?
    She “culled” herself while David was busy teaching his devotees to cull inferiors and to kill enemies.
    She apparently was just one more weak inferior mind uninhabited by “greatness”. Surrounded by torturers and executioners, dreaming of Home Sweet Home. Respect you? No.

  17. OldStudent says:

    Frances Myatt is a microcosmic study of what is wrong with your future vision.
    It is utterly lacking in love, even for those that you claim to “love”- your own race and families. Her suicide and the 22 veterans killing themselves each day are authored by people who think and behave like you. Blacks aren’t killing them and neither are Mexicans. You are.
    The places that they would seek help are staffed by people who condone and relish torture. Weakness must be annihilated. Greatness demands it.
    Get back to your dreams of traitors on crucifixes, rotting in the sun, to inspire future generations with your awesomeness. Don’t let me keep you from your important and great work.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      @OldStudent

      And yet, you’re too chickenshit to define “racism” and “racist.”

      Aren’t these words supposed to be important? Some jurisdictions within Pax Americana actually ban “racism”, so defining it should be easy for you, right?

  18. OldStudent says:

    No. You define racism, there is considerable dispute in your own ranks as to the proper criteria for whiteness. Are Meds and Sicilians white? Jews?
    Is Thomas Sowell white? You are the absolute and highest authority on everything, the culmination of all of creation and YOU cannot decide who is white enough for the future Reich, constantly fighting about who is Aryan enough to meet the criteria. You are all experts on religion and can’t reach agreement on what is Gnosticism. You demand obedience to submit to authority that you cannot even agree on. You genocide your own people and then complain that everyone hates you. I’d rather be dead than submit to your future, it is certainly more appealing. Frances felt the same way.

    • Erik says:

      No. You define racism, because you’re the one acting like it’s a valid useful term in an argument. We undefine it, because it is a content-free slur and a hate signal used to indicate white targets for a black mob, not a reasoned category and not a word used in a consistent way. If you dispute that the term is a content-free slur, provide some content.

  19. Erik says:

    OldStudent. I do not wish to be bishop (nolo episcopari), nor do I wish to be king. I have sometimes joked about calling myself a “peasantist” rather than a monarchist for this reason. I do not dream of traitors on crucifixes, killing billions of enemies, or the flames of Hell. I do wish that there should be a good King who will defend righteousness unto the death of his enemies. And if that means tortures and executions, so be it. I would rather that nobody attacked righteousness, but once it is attacked, I adamantly refuse to condemn its defenders.

    If you and yours were the one attacked, what would you choose between surrender and brutally killing your enemies? If surrender, please suppose that I am attacking you right now and take up my position.

    • OldStudent says:

      Erik,
      Many in your movement already have me placed on one of those crucifixes, their righteousness is not to be doubted or questioned and no way ever could I match the hatred and desire for torture and punishment that they so vividly demand for my supposed sins and crimes against “white men.”
      They claim ownership of the word righteous and would hope to do so in perpetuity.
      I truly do not require my worst enemy to burn in hell for all eternity tortured by demons. The people who do are on your team. They speak to God and inform us that God is angry at everyone except them. With righteousness like this to defend, I choose death, good king or no.

  20. OldStudent says:

    Please point to my use of the term racist anywhere above as a slur. I merely repeated Jim’s exact laundry list of Nrx virtues using the word racist along with sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, colonialist, etc. as proud identification markers for you. Anyone deficient in any of these “virtues” is a defective white person, unwilling to torture their enemies for all eternity, thus not holy enough for Nrx.

    • Erik says:

      You lie. Again. Since we’re on a Biblical theme elsewhere in the comment section, you are a lying liar who lies, the truth is not in you, and you are of your father the Devil.

    • jim says:

      merely repeated Jim’s exact laundry list of Nrx virtues using the word racist

      “Racist” is just a hate word for white, like “cracker”. Why would we use our enemies’ hate words, particularly when not all of us are white?

      Similarly, we are not sexist, but patriarchal. Women need guidance, supervision, and protection, and are damaged and hurt by the lack of it.

  21. OldStudent says:

    Which devil? Point out the quote, inquisitor.

    • OldStudent says:

      You just proved my point. How do you square the blatant lack of belief on this very website with such statements. You are the damn devil incarnate and you are mighty proud of it, then you accuse me?!
      Not buying it, sorry. I’m a gnostic like David Myatt. The bees in my backyard are visitations from Frances, exactly where he sees her- not burning in hell forever tortured by demons. Thats your God and your warped imagination and your lack of love and mercy for anyone but your own image.

    • Erik says:

      You said “Dissenters must die.” This was a lie. Rebels must die. Dissenters who refrain from arming themselves (or a proxy) and attempting to seize power are not rebels.

      You said “You despise weakness and view the Feminine with contempt.” This was a lie. We have pity for weakness. What we despise is those who associate weakness with holiness and goodness, who aspire to claim they are oppressed, who are filled with the sin of envy.

      You said “You cannot be criticized, cannot bear it without the lash and the Inquisitor to back your power to kill.” This was a lie. We can bear criticism just fine. The Inquisitor is not for dealing with critics, he’s for dealing with communist infiltrators.

      You said “Jim’s wife isn’t even acknowledged to have any innate goodness whatsoever, absent his discipline and tutelage, he has said just this”. This was a lie. Jim acknowledges that his wife has good qualities absent his discipline and tutelage, but even better qualities when those are present.

      (This short list should not be taken to imply that I think the remainder of your statements are true, useful, good, or in any way valuable. Many of them are nonsense, red herrings, circular logic, shitflinging, or underspecified, among other things, and some are also lies but more time-consuming to rebut.)

  22. OldStudent says:

    Erik,
    Until you annihilate your enemies using your superior force of arms, they are still entitled to an opinion. Jim’s wife doesn’t have a blog, but I pity her for his utter condescension of her ability to function properly without his “guidance”. Hopefully, she doesn’t end up as protected and honored and valued as Frances Myatt, who embodied Aryan womanhood and nevertheless was abandoned and died in the “sin” of despair in the Highest Presence of Aryan Manliness.
    We “gashes”, as I have read on your allies pages, are always suspect, perhaps she was unchaste and feared a good stoning by her manly man and killed herself before he got to her with his Islamic buddies.
    If David Myatt is a liar and his treatise dedicated to Frances is a giant lie, lying is no biggie, nor the pantheism that has Frances now pollinating the flowers on His Majesties sojourns in the countryside, weeping at the loss of her pure love. No demons, thanks.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      Being entitled to your opinion is fine. It’s you and your ilk wielding power that we have a problem with.

      Now, define “racism” or declare that it’s a worthless word.

      • OldStudent says:

        No. Only after you define Aryan or white.
        And the fact that there’s too much “mud in the blood” of those niggerish Greeks and Meds, those who your high priests view as expendable miscegnated genetic trash. Then do tell about worthless words after you thoroughly explain about that little problem of Golden Dawn not being white enough for the purists either. Are you sure that you are Aryan enough to make the cut? Only pure and perfect Nords can be absolutely certain.

        • jim says:

          No. Only after you define Aryan or white.

          Already told you. I like the Rhodesian definition: “Equal rights for all civilized men.” In other words, white is as white does.

          The South African definition pretty good also. They had umpteen slightly different categories.

          that little problem of Golden Dawn not being white enough for the purists either

          We shall see how Golden Dawn does after Europe falls. That is their problem, not ours, and we do not have to deal with it or think about it. As I said, white is as white does. I am sure Greece could do OK if the better sort of Greeks ruled, and the trash on welfare and in government patronage jobs were dealt with.

          Since, unlike the nazis, we don’t believe in democracy, the functionality of a society is not solely determined by its median member, but by the willingness of the inferiors to accept leadership, and the ability of the better to lead. The Ashantee empire was pretty good for blacks.

        • peppermint says:

          if I don’t define White, does that mean White doesn’t exist, and there’s no need for racial redistribution?

        • peppermint says:

          by the way, just as socially constructed race means Rachel Doležal, socially constructed sexual orientation means this guy: http://www.reddit.com/r/Breeding/comments/3dxvma/my_weekend_breeding_experience_ts/

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Anti-whites pretend that they don’t know who is white when people confront them on their Anti-Whitism, but have no problem identifying whites when they yell “white supremacist”, “white racist”, and “white flight”. Or when they find an area that is Too White and Needs Diversity.

          Diversity means chasing down whites.
          Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.

          A.J.P.

          • OldStudent says:

            Jim is one voice among many in his definition of white.
            “Diversity” includes anyone who has the slightest tinge of “mud”
            and if you don’t agree with some writers that “Golden Dawn looks like nigger trash”, you just may be an anti-white, too.
            Nordic Aryans, in the holiness contest of racial purity, are the pinnacle of creation. Millennia of vile miscegenation has turned this crystalline purity into a cesspool and loads of Europeans are too impure and muddy and must also go. I can furnish quotes if need be.
            But I guess that’s not genocide.

            • jim says:

              Jim is one voice among many in his definition of white.

              I endorse both the positions of the old Rhodesia and the Old South Africa, both positions being reasonable and approximately equivalent to each other in practice, which is a great deal more than one voice among many. The other voices you hear are for the most part the demons in your head.

              The messiness of human races is not a problem for those advocating ethnic identity. After all, we don’t propose that Frenchmen should unite with Germans, let alone with Greeks. It is a problem for progressives, who want everyone to unite with everyone, except that whites must go. Hence “White Hispanic” Zimmerman. “White Hispanic Zimmerman” is a problem for progressives, not identarians. We endorse the right of mestizos to defend themselves against blacks both collectively and individually. So the mestizo Zimmerman is a stand up guy, both for defending himself, and defending the block of apartments in which he lived, and we endorse him.

              The boundaries between species and races is ragged and messy. That humans are one species is not a fact about the world, but a fact about scientific nomenclature. We are one species because Darwin declined to draw an arbitrary line through the Sahara, while spotted owls and barred owls are two species because environmentalists chose to draw an arbitrary line between spotted owls and barred owls, and shoot any owls that are too close to the line that they have drawn.

          • Erik says:

            OS, it seems you shouldn’t be arguing with Jim and his commentariat, you should be going elsewhere and arguing with these “many” and “some writers” elsewhere that you for some reason have difficulty naming, but great ease blaming.

          • Corvinus says:

            “I like the Rhodesian definition: “Equal rights for all civilized men.”

            Except this “definition” of white is a social construct. “Civilized” means a group of people in a defined area have a social structure, stable food supply, religion, government, writing, culture, and technology. “Men” generally refers to the male species, an adult human male–are black men or Asian males not men?

            “Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.”

            You do recall that the English, the French, the Germans…ALL had refrained from the mixing of their ethnicities. The exception, of course, was royal families.

            Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

            “Are you sure that you are Aryan enough to make the cut? Only pure and perfect Nords can be absolutely certain.”

            Exactly. How does Jim know he is “pure” enough or “civilized” enough–based on his own metrics–to be white if other people of a similar mindset make the argument that he fails to meet the prescribed criteria?

            “Now, define “racism” or declare that it’s a worthless word.”

            Racism use to have a definitive meaning. Not anymore. It’s been co-opted by the race baiters of the left and the right and, of course, by neo-reactionaries.

            See, Southrons got greedy. They got what they want–Jim Crow. Legalized segregation. “Separate but equal” before the law. Political equality for blacks, but not social equality, under the Constitution. Then, Southrons being Southrons, denied the fundamental liberties of the darkies. Utterly and completely, to the point that they lost any and all credibility. With the social compact in place, along with national majority rules when it comes to liberty, Jim Crow laws are forever gone. Even some whites from the South (gasp) supported the destruction of legalized segregation. Are they still white?

            “Millennia of vile miscegenation…”

            Do married couples–a man and a woman–have the liberty to have sex and/or procreate with whomever they want, regardless if the man or woman is of a different race? Yes or no? Why?

            “Rebels must die.”

            Who are these rebels? What are the metrics involved?

            “And if that means tortures and executions, so be it.”

            Who is involved in this sweet mayhem? How do you convince the masses that your belief system is superior compared to other belief systems? What visible measures will YOU put forth to ensure that your vision is complete?

            “As I said, white is as white does.”

            Which is really empty rhetoric.

            “there is considerable dispute in your own ranks as to the proper criteria for whiteness.”

            Absolutely. For example, the Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were NOT considered white by nativists when they arrived to the United States as immigrants. The Irish in particular were linked to a fixed set of physical and psychological traits that included simian-like features and a violent, savage nature, similar to blacks. Such images appeared regularly in political cartoons in the mid and late 1800’s. Were the nativists wrong in their characterization?

            • jim says:

              “I like the Rhodesian definition: “Equal rights for all civilized men.”

              Except this “definition” of white is a social construct

              Then why did you lot want to destroy Rhodesia?

              All race and species definitions are social constructs, in that there will always be intermediate cases, always ragged boundaries to any category, yet the differences to which they refer are very real, so they are none of them social constructs. The California spotted owl is much more a social construct than the white race, since spotted owls pay no attention whatsoever to the state boundaries of California, and not a whole lot of attention to the difference between spotted owls and barred owls.

              The distinction between wolf and dog is in this sense a social construct, since gene flow continues despite forty thousand years of separation. But wolves really are not dogs, so not a social construct.

              As I said, the ragged boundaries of race categories are a problem for you, not us. It is you who have to perform somersaults to define Zimmerman as white.

              We don’t want to unite even the French and the Germans, but you want to unite everyone against whites. So precisely defining the white boundary is, as with the Zimmerman case, a huge problem for you, no problem for us. Who is to be punished by affirmative action, who is to be rewarded? We don’t care. Why should we care?

              But you need to define whites precisely, because you need to hunt down the last white. So who is the last white? Zimmerman? That is your problem. We don’t care.

              Do married couples–a man and a woman–have the liberty to have sex and/or procreate with whomever they want, regardless if the man or woman is of a different race? Yes or no? Why?

              Your are talking to the demons in your head. Look up morganatic marriage.

              The underlying fallacy is that you suppose that all men and women are equal, therefore inequality has to be created by state policy, so the neoreactionary council of eldar has to decide who gets the goodies, and who gets the short end of the stick.

              But in the world, inequality arises naturally, and in the society we intend, the state accepts the outcome. The decision as to who is the kind of person we want in our neighborhood, and whom we do not in our neighborhood, whom we want in our club, and whom we do not, is made in a more diffuse and local fashion, and the state accepts the outcome, accepts enforcement of that outcome, and itself backs with violence enforcement of that outcome.

              The country club can exclude Jews, or not, and the Senior secret neoreactionary of eldars will not give them instructions. And if they decide to exclude Jews, they will have to figure out who is a Jew and who is not, a problem that Israel finds notoriously difficult. The Senior secret neoreactionary council of eldars will use state violence to protect their right to do so, but will not try help them figure out who is a Jew.

              Inequality arises naturally. Inequality leads to covetousness, covetousnes leads to violence as the inferior try take what is inherently the superior’s. At which point the state needs to violently crush those seeking to use collective action to take what does not belong to them. If X are seeking to take from Y, the state does not need to precisely define the boundary between X and Y, just stop Xs from taking from Ys. It does not need to give Ys what it is that Xs want, nor take away from Xs what Xs covet, so does not need to categorize every last X and every last Y. That is a problem for those who support affirmative action, not us.

              The Xs are acting collectively to take from the Ys. The state needs to strike down the collective, which does not include every last X, and probably only includes a quite small number of X.

              In a white neighborhood, “black” is going to be someone that those who own a lot of real estate believe lowers property values by his presence.

              You need to plan the whole society, so you need to figure out if Zimmerman is white, mestizo, or black. We don’t. We will let society plan itself, – which to those at the very bottom looks like the people at the local country club which may or may not allow Jews, or allow some Jews and not others, and the man who owns a lot of real estate in the neighborhood, planning society.

              We will give Zimmerman a medal for defending himself and his apartment complex. We don’t need to figure out his race. You need to figure out his race.

              The secret council of eldars does not need to figure out Zimmerman’s race, because it is not handing out every last goody. It is defending people’s rights to hold on to their own goodies, including their right to have a safe and comfortable neighborhood with people in it that do not scare them, their right to have a place where children can wander away unsupervised. Maybe we will not be able to provide that for Zimmerman, but we can make it a whole lot easier for people like him to provide that for themselves.

              After the restoration, chances are that the man who owns the apartments will tell Zimmerman “watch out for n*****s, and the distinctly dark skinned Zimmerman will have to figure out who is a n***** and who is not, without the benefit of receiving secret instructions from the secret council of eldar.

          • peppermint says:

            » Then, Southrons being Southrons, denied the fundamental liberties of the darkies. Utterly and completely, to the point that they lost any and all credibility.

            see

            http://www.dailystormer.com/black-people-always-had-privileges-in-america/

            you do not know history, and being a christcuck, do not want to know. I hope you get killed at a #blacklivesmatter protest soon.

          • Corvinus says:

            “All race and species definitions are social constructs.”

            V-Dare implies otherwise. You should check your talking points in the morning.

            http://www.vdare.com/posts/race-dna-crime-and-denial

            “As I said, the ragged boundaries of race categories are a problem for you, not us.”

            In reality, it is an issue of epic proportions for your side. How can you possibly get the unwashed masses to buy into your belief system if but a minority of people (heh) are deemed “white” and “superior”?

            “It is you who have to perform somersaults to define Zimmerman as white.”

            No, you have to contort biology and God and society to define white…without even defining it!

            “We don’t want to unite even the French and the Germans, but you want to unite everyone against whites.”

            Are French and Germans “white”? Yes or no? Why?

            “But you need to define whites precisely, because you need to hunt down the last white.”

            No, I need YOU to define whites precisely, rather than be purposely vague.

            “Your are talking to the demons in your head. Look up morganatic marriage.”

            Kings and queens generally derive their status from the accumulation of wealth and power–which does NOT naturally occur. Of course, monarchists order their subjects to bow to their command…because they have acquired status, in some cases by artificial means–a war, taxation, etc. Looks like your statement “inequality rises naturally” is based on bullshit logic. Yet again!

            Furthermore, considering that Americans are not bound by a king/queen, your statement is irrelevant. So, I ask you again,
            do married couples–a man and a woman–have the liberty to have sex and/or procreate with whomever they want, regardless if the man or woman is of a different race? Yes or no? Why?

            “The underlying fallacy is that you suppose that all men and women are equal.”

            I don’t suppose anything. “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Peter 3:7).

            The Lord directed Peter to warn husbands to give honor to wives, to treat her AS THOUGH she is more delicate. Notice, that Peter does NOT say that because SHE IS the weaker vessel, but “AS” the weaker vessel. You do realize that the spiritual gifts and salvation are NOT different for men and women. You also do comprehend that America is NOT governed by one particular faith, and that men and women are equal under the law as created by citizens of a nation…which God mandates that Christians “submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every HUMAN INSTITUTION, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right”.

            So, Jim, “white is as white does”. What say you to those people who have a similar mindset to yourself who make the argument that you fail to meet the prescribed criteria?

            • jim says:

              “As I said, the ragged boundaries of race categories are a problem for you, not us.”

              In reality, it is an issue of epic proportions for your side. How can you possibly get the unwashed masses to buy into your belief system if but a minority of people (heh) are deemed “white” and “superior”?

              Walk down the street in the dark in a substantially black area. A few people around .A black woman hears your footsteps behind her. It is dangerous for black woman to be in a black area. She fearfully looks behind. Upon seeing you are white, she is obviously relieved.

              A tax driven by a black man sees a black man signalling for a taxi. Drives right past him till he sees a white man.

              Everyone knows whites are superior, and blacks know it better than anyone.

              So, Jim, “white is as white does”. What say you to those people who have a similar mindset to yourself who make the argument that you fail to meet the prescribed criteria?

              It very obvious who is white. And if, at the ragged edges, there are cases where it is not obvious, that is a problem for you not us.

              What happens is that Ys are superior, Xs inferior. Xs are covetous, so take collective action against Ys. At which point, Xs have the problem of defining who is a Y and who is an X. The Ys do not have this problem. Hence “White Hispanic” Zimmerman.

              The righteous state should then violently suppress the Xs that are taking collective action. But the righteous state does not need to define who is an X and who is a Y, for it is suppressing those Xs engaged in collective action, who have already done the work of defining themselves.

          • Corvinus says:

            “see http://www.dailystormer.com/black-people-always-had-privileges-in-america

            Peppermint Patty, you do realize that in the South, the state governments there set aside a COUPLE OF DAYS for the State Fair or the zoo or a big public park for ONLY the darkies. The majority of the time, those places were OFF-LIMITS to blacks. That means WHITE people were the only ones allowed those public places. Remember, Jim Crow laws were suppose to be with a “separate but equal”. But conditions were consistently INFERIOR and UNDERFUNDED compared to those available for whites. Had Southrons not been so greedy, maybe segregation would still be the law of the land today! Dumb white people!

            “…and being a christcuck”

            Rather serve Christ to the best of my ability than serve whatever entity or thing that you follow. Why do you despise God? Are you an atheist?

            “I hope you get killed at a #blacklivesmatter protest soon.”

            What sweet words. Thanks for caring.

            • jim says:

              Peppermint Patty, you do realize that in the South, the state governments there set aside a COUPLE OF DAYS for the State Fair or the zoo or a big public park for ONLY the darkies. The majority of the time, those places were OFF-LIMITS to blacks. That means WHITE people were the only ones allowed those public places.

              Places built by whites, built for whites, places that the blacks could never and would never have built on their own, places that the blacks have destroyed in areas that became black majority after blacks were allowed unlimited and unsupervised access to them.

              The blacks were GIVEN access to value created by whites.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The secret council of eldars”

            Right. SO secret. They’re planning things out in meticulous fashion.

            “It is defending people’s rights to hold on to their own goodies, including their right to have a safe and comfortable neighborhood with people in it that do not scare them, their right to have a place where children can wander away unsupervised.”

            Does that include white people who sell their homes to black people, and white people who remain in the neighborhood have absolutely no problem with this arrangement, because they feel safe and secure?

            “After the restoration, chances are that the man who owns the apartments will tell Zimmerman “watch out for n*****s, and the distinctly dark skinned Zimmerman will have to figure out who is a n***** and who is not, without the benefit of receiving secret instructions from the secret council of eldar.”

            You have no clue if there will be a restoration and what it will look like. The “reboot” may very well be rule by capitalists, or by laborers, or by Protestants, or by a host of other groups. Sure, this “secret council” may exist currently, but they are impotent. And that is sad.

            • jim says:

              “It is defending people’s rights to hold on to their own goodies, including their right to have a safe and comfortable neighborhood with people in it that do not scare them, their right to have a place where children can wander away unsupervised.”

              Does that include white people who sell their homes to black people, and white people who remain in the neighborhood have absolutely no problem with this arrangement, because they feel safe and secure?

              You guys have absolutely no problem running white people out of Ferguson and Baltimore on the basis of the whiteness of their skins. The inner city is black because of ethnic cleansing of whites, because the Warren court, trying to make the conviction statistics equal, would not punish black men who raped white women. We will have no problem running certain people out certain neighborhoods because they are lowering property values in that neighborhood.

              The difference being that when you run white people out of a neighborhood, they lose the value they created, their house is generally underwater on the mortgage because forced sales have drastically lowered prices. So when we run bad people out of the neighborhood, we preserve the value the neighbors have created. When you run white people out of the neighborhood, you destroy the value that they create.

              And when I see how much money you guys pay to be in a white neighborhood, I much doubt the existence of the progressive whites who feel safe and secure as the section eight lady from the subsidized housing goes around ripping down their fly screens and shaking them down for money.

              You have no clue if there will be a restoration and what it will look like. The “reboot” may very well be rule by capitalists

              Democracy and nationalism was handy rhetoric when what was needed for war was a horde of cheaply equipped and poorly trained conscripts. In today’s wars, elite warriors and good equipment matters, so the natural outcome is aristocracy. When push comes to shove, after the next violent conflict over the proper order of society, what we will see is rule by capitalists, rule by elite warriors, or, most likely, some mixture of both. Rule primarily by elite warriors, who nonetheless give capitalists some say, out of concern for the tax base and concern for their technological edge.

          • peppermint says:

            » Kings and queens generally derive their status from the accumulation of wealth and power–which does NOT naturally occur

            you’re right, they need to have the military ability to defend the accumulated resources, and the economic ability to accumulate resources.

            Traditional nigger societies do not have any resources worth accumulating, due to climate. Thus, niggers are lazy, since working any harder than absolutely necessary takes time away from hitting on hoes. Sheboons are ugly because they are economically self-sufficient and so get to choose which nigga to give it up for. Niggas talk fast and look masculine, because that’s what sheboons want. Oh, and fatherhood? Women are economically self-sufficient.

            In traditional White societies, a White man would build a house, invite a White woman to live with him, and they would raise their children together. A White man would only invite one White woman, because a White woman could usually get a better deal from someone else than be the second wife, especially if there is no social category of second wife. Thus White women were bred for beauty, and White men for intelligence and diligence.

            You’re with me so far, Corvinus.

            What you don’t recognize is that those White societies need some way to defend their accumulation of food and White women. Follow this path of reasoning and you get kings.

            If you get rid of the accumulation of resources, you won’t live as noble savage White campers in the national forest. You will die, and your women will be sex slaves to Turks and Tatars.

            You want to die, and I hope you do, quickly.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Does that include white people who sell their homes to black people, and white people who remain in the neighborhood have absolutely no problem with this arrangement, because they feel safe and secure?”

            In typical Jim fashion, you go on a rant without actually addressing the question. Do white people have the liberty to do what they want with their property, including selling it to black people? Why?

            “So when we run bad people out of the neighborhood, we preserve the value the neighbors have created. When you run white people out of the neighborhood, you destroy the value that they create.”

            Who is “we”? Regardless, there are some families in my neck of the woods who do not properly upkeep their residences–unkempt lawn, patched up screens, peeling paint. What gives you the authority to “run these bad people out” of their own homes because they do not meet your standards of decency?

            “It very obvious who is white. And if, at the ragged edges, there are cases where it is not obvious, that is a problem for you not us.”

            

It is not obvious who is white, since you have purposely neglected to articulate the metrics specifically.

            “White is as white does” is vague. So, what say you to those people who have a similar mindset to yourself who make the argument that you fail to meet the prescribed criteria?

            “you’re right, they need to have the military ability to defend the accumulated resources, and the economic ability to accumulate resources.”

            Don’t tell that to me, tell that to Jim.

            “Traditional nigger societies do not have any resources worth accumulating, due to climate.”

            You’re not that bright. Resources include lumber, fish, and minerals. Blacks in Africa procured and used those resources. Europeans then proceeded to seize those raw materials. Had blacks not had any resources worth accumulating, why would Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy even bothered with Africa?

            “In traditional White societies, a White man would build a house, invite a White woman to live with him, and they would raise their children together. A White man would only invite one White woman, because a White woman could usually get a better deal from someone else than be the second wife, especially if there is no social category of second wife. Thus White women were bred for beauty, and White men for intelligence and diligence.”

            Corrected for accuracy–In any society, a man would build a house, seek a woman, marry, and raise children together. Generally, men would have only one wife, but some societies enabled men to have multiple women as his bride. Babies are beautiful. Some grow up to be intelligent and diligent, while others group up to be lazy and criminal.

            “You’re with me so far, Corvinus.”

            
That’s patently false.

            “What you don’t recognize is that those White societies need some way to defend their accumulation of food and White women. Follow this path of reasoning and you get kings.”

            Kings and queens that became brutal overlords to their subjects, who naturally rebel against oppression and seek to be independent from tyranny. See The Thirteen Colonies. Do you even know American history?

            “Niggers, sheboons, niggas”

            How cute. Did you learn those words from family members, friends, or both?

            • jim says:

              In typical Jim fashion, you go on a rant without actually addressing the question. Do white people have the liberty to do what they want with their property, including selling it to black people? Why

              The rules against selling it to black people were a workaround because of “equal rights” legislation that effectively privileged blacks over whites, redistributed the value created by whites to blacks.

              If certain people are likely to get run out of town, they are not going to buy into town. We don’t need such workarounds.

              “So when we run bad people out of the neighborhood, we preserve the value the neighbors have created. When you run white people out of the neighborhood, you destroy the value that they create.”

              Who is “we”?

              If we continue to pretend to be a democracy with limited franchise, the Town council, which will be dominated by the chamber of commerce, the country club, and major real estate interests, will decide whom they don’t want around. Or we might go straight to neo feudalism, in which case the Lord of the town will exclude anyone he does not like. Consider Dubai for an example of well functioning feudalism. Some types of inferior races (though not blacks) are allowed into Dubai on work permits, but it is up or out. If they are still doing lower class jobs after a being there a while, they have to leave Dubai. Getting an indefinite series of work permits in Dubai is based largely on class, largely on wealth, partly on race, and partly on ill defined and capricious criteria. But for the most part, blacks need not apply. Maybe rich blacks can apply if they are sufficiently rich. The King of Dubai wants people in Dubai that raise real estate values and does not want people in Dubai that lower real estate values.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The rules against selling it to black people were a workaround because of “equal rights” legislation that effectively privileged blacks over whites, redistributed the value created by whites to blacks.”

            What is a workaround is your logic. Whites have a piece of property they own. They want to sell it. Do they have the liberty to sell it to ANYONE? It’s a really easy question to answer. It’s called “yes” or “no”.

            “If we continue to pretend to be a democracy with limited franchise…”

            First, who is “we”? Second, America is a representative democracy. The “limit” on the franchise is to those who are citizens of the United States, male or female, eighteen years or older. These stipulations were agreed upon by citizens employing the social contract. Citizens may choose to exercise their liberty to the franchise.

            “The King of Dubai…”

            Completely irrelevant. Americans generally don’t give two shits what he does in his country.

            “Or we might go straight to neo feudalism…”

            Now it’s “might”? I thought it was inevitable. Tsk, tsk.

            So, Jim, “white is as white does”. What say you to those people who have a similar mindset to yourself who make the argument that you fail to meet the prescribed criteria?

          • Red says:

            >These stipulations were agreed upon by citizens employing the social contract.

            I seem to remember a civil war where our current rules were created and enforced at bayonet point.

          • Corvinus says:

            “I seem to remember a civil war where our current rules were created and enforced at bayonet point.”

            To the victor goes the spoils, right? Ultimately, the citizens of those southern states VOTED on those current rules. Moreover, you don’t think with Jim’s fantasy “reboot” scenario that his rules would not be “created and enforced at bayonet point”?

            • jim says:

              “I seem to remember a civil war where our current rules were created and enforced at bayonet point.”

              you don’t think with Jim’s fantasy “reboot” scenario that his rules would not be “created and enforced at bayonet point”?

              The difference is that you guys use bayonets to confiscate and destroy the value that other people create, for example the buildings in our inner cities, in Ferguson and in Baltimore, whereas I propose using bayonets to protect the value that people create, so as to encourage people to create more value.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The difference is that you guys use bayonets to confiscate and destroy the value that other people create whereas I propose using bayonets to protect the value that people create, so as to encourage people to create more value”

            You’re talking gibberish again. Here, I’ll simply it for you–you want to use the bayonet to murder anyone who opposes your ideology. Nothing new here.

            • jim says:

              “The difference is that you guys use bayonets to confiscate and destroy the value that other people create whereas I propose using bayonets to protect the value that people create, so as to encourage people to create more value”

              You’re talking gibberish again

              Crimestop is making you stupid.

          • peppermint says:

            Resources include lumber, fish, and minerals. Blacks in Africa procured and used those resources

            yes, and they did not accumulate those resources, because there was no need to and it’s hard to preserve food in that climate. Compare to all the technologies everyone else used to preserve food,in particular, pickling, which produces disgusting but edible food.

            Corrected for accuracy–In any society, a man would build a house, seek a woman, marry, and raise children together. Generally, men would have only one wife, but some societies enabled men to have multiple women as his bride. Babies are beautiful. Some grow up to be intelligent and diligent, while others group up to be lazy and criminal.

            If you will not hear me, perhaps you will hear Chinua Achebe. http://www.amazon.com/Things-Fall-Apart-Chinua-Achebe/dp/0385474547 Buy the book. Read it. Come back and tell me that African men build houses and then seek wives to live in their houses. For that matter, the plagiarist and liar Alex Haley has a reasonable-sounding account of some nigger’s worthless life in Africa in the beginning of his book: http://www.amazon.com/Roots-The-Saga-American-Family/dp/1593154496

            “You’re with me so far, Corvinus.”

            
That’s patently false.

            Yes, I assumed that you had a passing familiarity with Black revolutionary literature, since you’re such a cuck. But apparently studying isn’t what Christians are about.

            Kings and queens that became brutal overlords to their subjects, who naturally rebel against oppression and seek to be independent from tyranny. See The Thirteen Colonies. Do you even know American history?

            you best be trolling

          • Corvinus says:

            “yes, and they did not accumulate those resources”

            The Kingdom of Ghana and Mansa Musa each accumulated gold. You’re not that bright.

            “because there was no need to and it’s hard to preserve food in that climate.”

            The Kenyan Turkana people preserved milk by turning it into milk powder which is done by sun drying the clotted fermented milk on flat rocks or hides.

            In Central Kenya, the Kikuyus used to preserve meat by roasting it, and then generously applied natural honey on top of the roasted meat. This delicacy was called “rukuri”. The Kikuyus could feast on it for several days.

            You’re not that bright.

            “Come back and tell me that African men build houses and then seek wives to live in their houses.”

            Here is a primer on the architecture of Africa. Enjoy.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Africa

            “since you’re such a cuck.”

            What, are you in fifth grade? That word is devoid of any significant meaning.

            • jim says:

              The Kingdom of Ghana and Mansa Musa each accumulated gold. You’re not that bright.

              No they did not. They spent it as fast as they got it.

              Where are the Cathedrals of Ghana?

            • jim says:

              Peppermint:

              Yes, I assumed that you had a passing familiarity with Black revolutionary literature, since you’re such a cuck.

              Corvinus

              What, are you in fifth grade? That word is devoid of any significant meaning.

              You use your stupidity as an argument.

              Explaining Peppermint’s statement for mere neurotypicals:

              You have worshipful and deluded beliefs about blacks, and hateful beliefs about whites. You delight in beliefs that humiliate you and degrade you. Hence the white nationalist analogy of a husband who invites a black man to fuck his wife.

              Peppermint assumed that since you hate your own race so much “you’re such a cuck”, you would be familiar with black revolutionary literature, seeing it is one long indictment of how white men are to blame for all black problems. Get it now?

          • peppermint says:

            are you even the slightest bit interested in their family structures?

            You seem to know something about methods for storing small amounts of food – you might as well call Eskimoes human because they knew how to ferment whale blubber to get high – but what we were talking about is what their families were like – you might as well call Eskimoes human because they knew how to ferment whale blubber to get high – but what we were talking about is what their families were likee. They didn’t make any of the crap that people in the global north made to survive during the winter. I specifically mentioned pickles because sauerkraut and kimchi are preserved in the culinary traditions of some places, I’m assuming because they keep finding jars in the back of the pantry.

            But we were talking about their family structures.

            Go read Things Fall Apart to find out about the families, and the larger social structures, of the native niggers of niggeria just prior to British arriving and imposing civilization.

          • Corvinus says:

            “You have worshipful and deluded beliefs about blacks, and hateful beliefs about whites.”

            False assumption on your part.

            “Hence the white nationalist analogy of a husband who invites a black man to fuck his wife.”

            Which is fantasy.

            “Peppermint assumed that since you hate your own race so much “you’re such a cuck”,”

            Another false assumption. I, along with God, love ALL races.

            “seeing it is one long indictment of how white men are to blame for all black problems. Get it now?”

            Whites AND blacks to blame for “black” problems, which really is more about the problems of humanity and being human.

            Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

            “No they did not. They spent it as fast as they got it. Where are the Cathedrals of Ghana?”

            Spent it on religious buildings (mosques) and offerings for the poor. Like Jesus. As far as “cathedrals”, the Djinguereber Mosque still stands today.

            “But we were talking about their family structures.”

            No, YOU began the conversation with “traditional nigger societies do not have any resources worth accumulating, due to climate”, and I offered specific examples to destroy your argument. Regarding African family structures, the written descriptions and therefore perceptions of the traditional African family were from the lens of Europeans; thus, they regarded polygamy (which is also found in the Bible!), marriage rites, and the extended family as “eccentric”, “illegitimate”, and “unworkable”. Of course, Europeans at that time were appalled at those “inferior customs”…and they promptly sought to eradicate them. Neat, huh!

            Regarding “Things Fall Apart”, the author sharply criticizes European imperialism while realizing that his cultural practices will inevitably succumb to outside influences.

            • jim says:

              Whites AND blacks to blame for “black” problems,

              As I said, you have worshipful and deluded beliefs about blacks, and hateful beliefs about whites.

              Thus, they regarded polygamy (which is also found in the Bible!), marriage rites, and the extended family as “eccentric”, “illegitimate”, and “unworkable”.

              Black African polygamy tends to resemble what happens in the American ghettoes, hypergamy, not polygamy – a high degree of paternal uncertainty, and low or nonexistent paternal support for women and children.

          • Corvinus says:

            “As I said, you have worshipful and deluded beliefs about blacks, and hateful beliefs about whites.”

            Corrected for accuracy–I have realistic beliefs about human nature.

            “Black African polygamy tends to resemble what happens in the American ghettoes, hypergamy, not polygamy – a high degree of paternal uncertainty, and low or nonexistent paternal support for women and children.”

            Corrected for accuracy–Men, regardless of race, having sex outside of marriage with multiple partners leads to high degrees of paternal uncertainty.

          • peppermint says:

            » Regarding “Things Fall Apart”, the author sharply criticizes European imperialism while realizing that his cultural practices will inevitably succumb to outside influences.

            Yes, he does. He also describes Black family life, what types of agriculture are done by men and what types by women, how men rank themselves. Women have their own houses, do their own agriculture, cook their food in their houses, men who have multiple wives are given food by each of them; compare to Jim’s constant refrain that women who have their own house either directly from Uncle Sam the Big Pimp or because Uncle Sam the Big Pimp forced someone else to subsidize them get a boyfriend to beat them and take their money when they get it.

            He notes that Christianity was especially appealing to the men who didn’t have any mating prospects. He describes how the only structures were made of mud and the only things worth preserving was seed from year to year; compare to wine making and cathedral building to the north.

            Have you read Roots? It says the same things about West African culture.

            The difference between Roots and Things Fall Apart and the nigger-infested urban areas of the United States today is that the women seemed to know who the fathers were in West Africa.

    • jim says:

      You are fantasizing about imaginary people. I am sure your depiction of the Myatts has no more connection to reality than your depiction of me and my wife.

    • jim says:

      When someone says that women need the authority of husbands and fathers, this is no more an indication that he hates and despises women, than someone saying that children need the authority of fathers is an indication that he hates and despises children.

  23. OldStudent says:

    Frances died a suicide, that’s fact, not my fantasy.
    Since his entire treatise on repudiating extremism and the politics of hate was proclaimed by you many months ago to be mere fantasy and lies, I suppose that you could say that I took the liberty to fantasize about her some more.
    She’s just a pretty face on the Internet, maybe only a bit of eye candy for his memoir pages, but she’s no longer among the living and he claims to mourn her, which just may be another of the serial lies that you assert he is telling.
    What was that Erik mentioned about the Devil, my Father of Lies?

    I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and any disconnection from reality that I have about your truly sainted wife came directly from your images and statements, where I often wondered if she would cringe at descriptions that depict her as someone so tightly under your total control. And your revelation that all women, including her, absolutely require this control due to evil 10 year old cannibal like qualities, in your estimation. Is she even permitted to disagree?

    https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com

    • jim says:

      Since his entire treatise on repudiating extremism and the politics of hate was proclaimed by you many months ago to be mere fantasy and lies, I

      I have never heard of this person, so I doubt I declared his treatise to be fantasy and lies. But if your rendition of his treatise bears any resemblance to the original, sure sounds like fantasy and lies. But then, all your renditions of what you claim other people said, what you claim I said, have been fantasy and lies, so I doubt your rendition of his treatise bears any resemblance to the original.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        In an old post ( http://blog.jim.com/), Old Student first appeared with a link to one of David Myatt’s essays, and asked you if he was lying. You replied, “Of course,” and OS launched into cryptic blank verse about how you killed poor old Frances.

        This creature (a “stone cold materialist” who rhapsodizes about how Frances has been reborn in the bees) seems more than a little unhinged and obsessive. Although she(?) has progressed from homeless-madman-tier poetry to something resembling real communication, she still can’t engage you on a level beyond “right-wing = evil = Jim”. Be careful with this one. She’s got that mix of obsession, self-righteousness, and misspent intelligence that makes me think of a potential doxxer at best, or a stalker or a Mark David Chapman at worst.

        • OldStudent says:

          Without a doubt I have a fascination with David Myatt and his deceased wife Frances. If you follow the link to his blog, his prose reaches levels of intellectual clarity and brilliance that very few in these parts ever attain and the enormous breadth of his knowledge is truly astounding to me.
          His is clearly a rare and spectacular intellect of the highest order,

          Jim’s tossed off comment that he was lying and other reading that revealed this writing to be disingenuous and mere pretty lies to save him from jail was a huge blow, because his treatise seethes with power and imagery that resonates deeply with my own life experiences, observations and beliefs. I want to believe him, but am full of doubt and anger that he would use his dead wife (He has her reborn in the bees symbolically in the prose) in an elaborate and emotionally charged ruse to save his terrorist ass from prison, all the while developing a philosophy that I think would transform vast parts of this world if applied.
          Ann Barnhardt, religious zealot herself convicted of financial fraud, despises stone cold materialists, at which point I instantly decided to become one, inspired by the host of this blog’s own stated beliefs. Myatt is clearly a pantheist or panenthiest, but high level Nazi theoreticians of terror won’t have to worry about burning for heresy. If David is lying, it’s a real loss for this planet.
          And yes, cruel cold indifference killed Frances, David admits that, she was surrounded by plots for racial war, callings and her husband was a stone cold terrorist killer, Aryan Greatness of the highest order.
          Misspent intelligence? Ha!

  24. OldStudent says:

    The first time I sent you a link to David Myatt, who is a very famous and “dangerous” polymath genius and master of occult, Nazi and Islamic intrigue, I asked you directly if his latest extensive writings were SJW lies.
    Your response was “of course he is lying”. It’s in these very archives.
    So there’s lots of fantasy and lies going around.
    None of his new writing could be used to validate the alt right and Nrx “truth” or “reality”, so it is never mentioned in these circles, but it is implied elsewhere that he is, in fact, lying merely to avoid prosecution and to enjoy a ripe old retirement. I won’t hold my breath waiting for a critique of his newest writing, calling out his SJW lies, anywhere among the Nrx intelligentsia, though.

    • Erik says:

      I am a Secondary Eldar of the Nrx Intelligentsia with two years of training in Ominous Latin Chanting, I will receive my Sith Degree next year, and I can tell you that the Nrx Intelligentsia has largely never heard of this person.

      And for the benefit of Jim and other people curious about the history: I find it likely OS is referring to a brief exchange the comments here:
      http://blog.jim.com/war/after-white-male-america/
      http://www.davidmyatt.info/notes-on-deconstructing-hate-2012.html

      OS posted a link and asked “Is he lying?” and Jim said “Of course he is lying” whereupon OS started posting arcane poetry, so I can hardly fault people for not remembering it.

      The linked piece from Myatt is page after page of I’m nice, my enemies are hateful, I will now psychoanalyze my enemies with a ton of word salad thrown in for good measure, topped with a double dose of missing self-awareness. (Those horrid radical Muslims and extreme right-wingers, what terrible people they are, having enemies and casting aspersions on their enemies.) I’m not sure if I would even dignify it with the term “lie” when it’s a rambling mess full of bafflegap sentences like this:

      “What is thus discovered by means of empathy is sympatheia – a numinous sympathy with the-living-other – and how, as an individual, we are an affecting connexion to all life, and thus how our assumed separation, as an individual, is an illusion, a manifestation of hubris.”

    • jim says:

      Ah, yes, you are right. I did say that. But Myatt appears to be insane, and it is far from clear that the Nazis and Muslims he is so upset about exist in external reality. They appear to be the demons in his head.

      • OldStudent says:

        Yeah, demons in his head. You might want to check the Wikipedia page about the man’s life before presuming that he, too, is making up fantasies and is insane. He is a well known international figure.
        Did you have a few too many bourbons tonight?

        • jim says:

          You, and Myatt, are besieged by demons. Since I don’t see these demons I conclude they are in your head, and his head.

          That someone has written a laudatory page about Myatt is not evidence that these demons exist. Pointing at an actual particular person whose writings exhibit these demonic characteristics would be evidence that these demons exist.

          • OldStudent says:

            Oy. Demons in the head. Shame Jesus isn’t around to cast them out.
            Nick Land had an old post about Myatt’s occult order. One of the commenters didn’t trust Myatt, because he hadn’t repudiated the culling-practice of his initiates, apparently they are all still out there culling their enemies. He is your kind of manly man, I tell ya.
            Neither he or I have demons. There are no demons, only human beings like ourselves, according to that famous old chink. Let’s see if any of your quotes last as long as that one.

  25. OldStudent says:

    Perhaps you all have translated the classics in Greek and Latin? Referenced the ancients and arcane words throughout your writing?
    He’s only insane because you don’t agree with him.
    That’s how you traditionally silence (and incarcerate , medicate and lobotomize) those who challenge or disagree with you- label them unhinged and insane.
    Instead, miles and miles of crucifixes hung with dead bodies in Rockwell novels are sane and good reading.
    If you all learned he was lying and up to his old tricks, he’d be back in your fold in a heartbeat, if he isn’t here already.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      No, he’s indistinguishable from insane because he writes things like this:

      ““What is thus discovered by means of empathy is sympatheia – a numinous sympathy with the-living-other – and how, as an individual, we are an affecting connexion to all life, and thus how our assumed separation, as an individual, is an illusion, a manifestation of hubris.””

      • OldStudent says:

        There are a few men who I choose to read and follow. David Hoffman, the medical herbalist; Paul Stametz, the mycologist and scientist; Stephen Harold Buhner, another herbalist and theorist with an excellent book on plant intelligence. In my estimation, they are “right”.
        The sentence you find insane is a very common theme in the natural world right now. All of the vicious terminology about “parasites” bandied around in the Alt right, attempting to draw parallels with biology and ” trash cultures and races” as parasitic infection destroying the host reveals how truly stupid some very well known WN’s can be about nature.
        Just as we have denied the intelligence of the networks of the most ancient fungi and bacteria, assuming it inert in our millennia of hubris and short sightedness, it is being discovered through observations with antibiotic resistance that these ancient networks of plant and viral and bacterial life have properties that mimic and often exceed human intelligence in a myriad of demonstrable ways. Scientists worldwide are rethinking how coexistence with these networks instead of attempts to eradicate them is the only logical possibility due to the speed in which resistance is accelerating
        Coexistence is perhaps the most hated word in the Alt right. War is always the answer for men. Warring on bacteria has created superintelligent bacteria. The whole dominionist mindset is stupid.
        Jim is right for people who think like him. I will follow and listen to and absorb and trust the men I mentioned. Just think of me as a little fungus on your toe, here to communicate and dialogue and learn. But not obey.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Of course. The intelligence of bacteria networks. How could I have missed that part of the quote?

          • OldStudent says:

            All of life is connected. That is what David Myatt said in so many words. Our lack of sympathiea to natural and human life is hubristic.
            It’s exactly why Jim is checking his testosterone levels. Why men are supposedly more effete. Read Buhners book if you think you are immune to how the changes in medicine since the 1920’s and 30’s will impact the future. The pharmaceutical waste has permeated all water supplies. You are most likely ingesting Prozac and estrogen.
            You may think in hierarchies, but bacteria and mycellium are interconnected and they are learning faster than us right now.

    • peppermint says:

      Not execute, not medicate, not imprison, not silence. Just ignore.

      Why is our attention demanded? Is it because deep down inside, you know Jim is right?

  26. dlr says:

    “…a place pleasantly undiverse….”

    As a public service, could you give an approximate geographical area?

  27. Arlington Massachusetts, 1950’s.

    My lawbreaking career began early. At the age of five I started walking alone to my grandparents house, five illegal blocks away. I refused (I think) to carry a cell-phone and for five or six whole minutes I would be out of all control or observation.
    The Police, oddly enough, didn’t apprehend me. World War Two veterans to a man they probably were all huddled somewhere in the throes of PTSD.
    At Six, I advanced in my criminal career. Walking seven blocks to the public library.
    By eight there was no-where in town I didn’t illegally transit to, miles and miles.
    I wonder when my parents found the time to serve their jail sentences for their lack of observation and lapse of guardianship? They seemed to spend all their time on the weekends at cookouts or parties.
    On weekends I used to walk around the local neighborhood collecting the cash for my grandfathers egg and veggie business and delivering the goods. Odd, the thought of someone taking the money or produce from me never entered my mind.

    I suppose I was lucky to escape with my life from those years.

  28. Bill Jones says:

    We are planning to move.
    It cost me $80 to get the lock fixed so that the real estate agent could put a lock box on the door.

    We hadn’t needed a lock in the previous 17 years.

    Now I need to lock my door.

    I use the road side trust food stands all summer.

    Rural PA rife with them.

    They work fine in areas cursed with no diversity

Leave a Reply