Lancelot, Guinevere, romance, and the red, blue, purple, black, and white pills.

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the first mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The second mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

120 Responses to “Lancelot, Guinevere, romance, and the red, blue, purple, black, and white pills.”

  1. […] Lancelot, Guinevere, romance, and the red, blue, purple, black, and white pills. […]

  2. Koanic says:

    Deus Vult!

  3. Alrenous says:

    >and everyone gets killed
    Hooray!

    > If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work.

    Being overly charitable. If women were they way progressives say they were, the world would look noticeably different but their tactics would still be mismatched to the game theory. It’s pure virtue-signalling all the way down.

    E.g. if women really were descended angels who justly reward nice guys with sex, you would still want to be a jerk. Someone being nice isn’t prima facie nice; they prima facie want sex, and are probably pretending. Thus being a jerk and countersignalling. In any case, the angels of infinite virtue should be able to suss out your hidden niceness. Being a jerk is actively helpful, as it lowers the noise:signal ratio.

    Anyway, stuff like that.

  4. Inquiring Mind says:

    Jim, do you recommend a source for the Arthur-Lancelot-Guinevere story?
    We all “know” about Camelot and the Round Table and Richard Burton and Robert Goulet and Maria von Trapp and everything. We all know by now what the king is doing tonight. But like many others, I have only read Cliff Notes; I have only read the comic book condensed version.

    Your post on this topic is fascinating, and I would like to read a rendering offering more nuance, even it is wrong according to your critique. What is emphasized and what is valued along with more backstory on Lancelot’s nuttery, Guinevere acting out her role as a Celtic-Anglo Princess, and Arthur’s cluelessness could be valuable.

  5. I guess I am kind of purplish red, but with a different definition, I think red pill theory does perfectly describe how an animal-level humans work, but fails at predicting all the higher, civilized, well trained functions. If all you ever meet is animalistic, selfish, calculating, whorish and childish women, the red pill is correct.

    For example a night club. Or the kind of women in something like Desperate Housewives. Or generally modern “liberated” women.

    From this angle, the more we slide into uncivilized progressivism we see more of the bad behavior the red pill predicts.

    Then again my wife is not like that and that is how my pill is not fully red.

    Not saying we are having the old time dream marriage with dutiful sex and cheerful housewifery. It is closer to two people struggling with life, working jobs they dislike for making a living, dealing with depression and other issues and still trying to be not entirely crap parents, and sort of trying to support each other to not fail at life. No sex, but not for the usual reasons but more like because life seems so difficult or maybe depression makes it so that any kind of fun is out of the question. To me, too, sex seems too frivolous at this point. I would not do any exertion that is not mandatory in some sense, such as conscience, just for fun anymore.

    So yeah it is not ideal either, but it is not exactly that kind of suckage the red pill predicts.

    It is very hard for me to put this into words. I would say the red pill predicting stuff happens when people pursue happiness like sexual pleasure or other goods. I guess when you have so many issues both of you that happiness is out of the question the behavior gets more painfully mature. It is mostly conservative type issues like my wife hating herself for not keeping the house pristine clean and me hating myself for not being alpha enough.

    Modern society promises pursuit of happiness and liberalism takes away all the restrictions and people do. Hence the cock carousel etc.

    But not all people seem to be capable of pursuing happiness.

    So I know the red pill exactly well as I had my fair share in night clubs with happiness pursuing human animals and the red pill it explained perfectly what is going on.

    Then I go home from work around 19:00 and we have discussions like How was your day? Shit. Weekend? We’ll sleep in then clean the windows. Can you give the child a bath because I have to get up at 04:00 so I can sleep at 20:00? OK. Evening is over. Any kind of fun seems entirely out of question for both at this point. It is not a pursuit of happiness, it is keeping head above the waves. But more due to internal psychological problems, not an objectively hard life.

    So you have to factor this cultural element that American society promises people a pursuit of happiness is their birtright and some fools even believe it and do. Many Europeans imported this, too. And generally the crappy behavior predicted by the red pill is a product of a pursuit of happiness, pleasure and sex. But how how many shades of gray of dutiful, respectful and unsatisfactory lives exist both for men and women when people don’t believe happiness is realistic nor they deserve it!

    So for example while other men must rule over their wives to keep them from becoming a whore, I must push her to avoid becoming like her mom: a joyless working machine. I saw her future in her mom, a woman who never treats herself with make-up or a dinner out with husband, who is up at 05:00 scrubbing the brass thresholds because she can only keep together a semblance of self-esteem if they are like a mirror, who knows no smile nor joy. Clearly a field day for a psychiatrist if she would have ever considered deserving such a luxury. I see this, and have to work hard to push essentially in the other direction, that it is OK to have fun sometimes, a dinner out with me while the child is with a babysitter does not immediately turn her into a terrible mother.

    I know the red pill, I agree with it for the general population, just don’t think it works really that way for all the other people who generally don’t pursue happiness.

    • Jefferson says:

      You’re almost certainly correct, but saying what you have out loud is unhelpful. Of course not all women are like that, but if we acknowledge that fact, the majority who are like that will insist that they, too, are exceptions.

      • peppermint says:

        No he isn’t. He and his wife are not pure rational souls in a world of animals that need better propaganda in order to bring them to the Elect or at least rub their faces in their damnation. His wife is under control because she respects him. Women rationally respect their husbands in many cases, can respect that they’re sunk a lot of time into a relationship and have no reason to switch, and can even have genetic tendencies towards lower time preference in relationships.

        Low time preference leads some women to do career stuff until their 30s or hook up with a nigger who promises to make it big some day when yt can’t hold him down anymore.

        The only correct view of human nature is the animalistic view, full stop. Pure rational soul view is evil minded bullshit that denies the goodness of humanity in favor of either a bullshit volcano demon of the Semites, as 50+ more or less believe, or retarded priestly / lawyerly authority as the fount of all good, which is what today’s 30-50 year olds literally believe and try to tell kids.

        Lawyers and professors, priests and other assorted parasites aren’t where civilization comes from. Civilization comes from fathers and soldiers.

        • Antipas says:

          I hope one day you are successful in building your animalistic ethno-state so we can watch it fail spectacularly.

          • peppermint says:

            hurrrrrrrrrr as opposed to the soulful ethnostate that wasn’t above letting go some soul brothers practice their love for White women. Or are you going to blame that and the immigrationway on the ewsjay?

    • spandrell says:

      Man, that was intense.

      I don’t know if it’s nature or nurture but eastern Europeans are often not a very fun lot.

      Let’s say it’s just about money. The red pill is true. Women are like that, but only when they can afford to. Arthur’s Queen obviously could. Western women know (or are deluded into thinking) that life is easy money is easy to get so they show their true colors.

      Your wife has been poor so she isn’t like that. But your daughter will be.

      • peppermint says:

        Ahem.

        Their true colors under those conditions, of which, I remember seeing an article in Science News when I was a teenager that didn’t sit well with me then that said daughters who expect more parental investment care more about sexiness in mate choices and this is consistent with game theory.

        Didn’t want to hear that as a teenager raised by christcucks to believe in if not the volcano demon then at least in pure rational souls.

        I also thought I needed feminism because without telling women they’re souls and stuff they’ll all be taken as mistresses by boomer sugar daddies and I would be left with leftovers. Turns out all feminism does is reassign them to niggers instead and the only way for Whites to get married is to get good and smash the cucks.

        Death to christcucks and “post-“christcucks.

      • I don’t think it is that. The popular media I can the most relate to Peter Falk as Columbo. (Columbo was my nickname at the first job.) Compare that series with Sex and New York. Both are American series so we controlled for that variable yet there is far far less of a pursuit of pleasure in the Columbo series, it has a certain grim and gray to it.

        The difference is, say, 1978 vs. 2002.

        I think Columbo is closer to a realistic portrayal of the somewhat older times, that things were simply boring and people were not having much fun, and I think many red pillers today tend to simply subtract feminism from current time hedonism and project it back into an imagined fantasy 1950’s or 1970’s with sexy submissive suburbian housewives eager to please. In reality it was probably far more gray and joyless and Columbo-like and I think that is what I am living – I am about a generation behind.

        So Columbo is me. For my wife it is harder to find a contemporary media parallel, her favorite series is Road to Avonlea but that is set in 1903 and Little House On The Prairie that is set in even older times.

        Actually those series portray fairly well the women of older times. They were capable of functioning like adults. This was male control, but also the control of older women over younger women. They knew their place and tasks but that was far more cooking than being sexually pleasing, overally they were near asexual. Again the red pill’s super kinky submissive sex bunny housewife fantasy is either a fantasy or already a product of sexual liberation happening in the 1940’s and 1950’s i.e. a transient state between old asexuality and modern whoredom. Before that it was probably like it is for Muslims now: yes you can marry an obedient virgin but she is just lying there, never initiates sex, has no sexual skills, does not know how to please, just stares at the ceiling and waits for it to be over, a nearly asexual human doll, not an ideal case at all.

        • martiniguy says:

          “Every generation thinks it invented sex”, as they say.

        • Bruce says:

          According to John Derbyshire, wives didn’t play the flute back in the good old days.

          http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/fellatio.html

        • spandrell says:

          Who tells you Muslim women don’t initiate sex?

          And anyway, you’re not really saying anything against my argument. Columbo wasn’t raised in a time of plenty and videogames and cable TV and helicopter parents. The culture back then was different. That has changed. I still bet you 1,000 bucks that your daughter will be nothing like your wife.

        • jim says:

          I am pretty sure that Darwin’s wife was a submissive sex bunny housewife. She hungered and thirsted for her husband’s touch and dominion.

          You see how today women go screaming sex crazy for famous and important men. In a society where all men are powerful relative to all women, they are apt to go screaming sex crazy for regular males, and we have plenty of records from the late eighteenth century of women going screaming sex crazy for regular men.

          In a society where men are required to be manly, and women are required to feminine, women were apt to go mad with lust like women meeting a rock star today.

          Women respond to the social indicators of maleness, while men react to the visual indicators of femaleness. The social indicators of maleness were much stronger back then, and we have ample evidence that in the late eighteenth century, the female response to maleness was much stronger.

          Records of public indications of women going mad with lust in the nineteenth century were much weaker, since everyone was required to pretend that women were sexless angels regardless of their actual public behavior, but, as with Darwin, we have indications of uncontrollable wifely lust in private. Darwin’s fiancee allegedly gave every indication of being a sexless angel until they married, though maybe Darwin suspected otherwise.

          There is an amusing late nineteenth century photo of a group of unsmiling women looking rather sober and sexless, but if you look carefully you will see that one them is beating her pussy and if you look at the expression on her face you will see she is getting off on the photographer, as women today are apt to do when the photographer is high status.

          Incidents like the photograph and Queen Caroline taking her top off in pubic lead me to believe that Victorian women frequently did act sex crazed in public, act like groupies in front row at a rock concert, just everyone pretended it was not happening.

          • Cavalier says:

            I agree with your overall thesis, but I remember that photograph and think its evidence mighty thin.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Link to that photo?

            • jim says:

              Your generation did not invent sex.
              Look carefully at their faces to find the girl touching herself

              Look carefully at their faces to find the girl touching herself.

              Then click on the photo to enlarge.

              Then look at the crease in her skirt, which shows her skirt is under tension, indicating that the fingers of her right hand are digging into her genital crease.

              When I first glanced at that photo, and when I glance at it now, it is as if all the other girl’s faces are in soft focus, and wanker chick’s face is in hard focus. My seek-and-fuck algorithm automatically and instinctively zeroed in on wanker chick’s face at well below the conscious level.

              • Cavalier says:

                Like I said: mighty thin. The existence of a crease doesn’t tell us much, and the girl to her left has her hands positioned more closely to her genitals, but whatever. “Wanker chick” does appear to have some nonwhite admixture, though.

                • jim says:

                  The fingers of her right hand are not extended, therefore are doing something – something that is causing the crease, which crease goes directly to the fingers of her right hand. The fingers of the girl to her left are extended.

                  If the fingers of her right hand were extended, they would be digging into her skirt causing a very different crease.

                  The fingers of her right hand have to dig into her skirt one way or the other way, and we can tell from the presence of one crease and the absence of the other, that they are digging into her genitals.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Pretty suggestive, though I’d want to see a re-enactment to be sure, were such a thing worthwhile.
                  She also has a strange expression.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Weak.

                  The girl to HER left doesn’t have fingers extended. Her hands are closer, though, and equally hidden, so she must be didding herself as well.

                  Frankly, I suggest you find a better photograph. I’m sure there’s one somewhere with clear evidence of diddling rather than just-barely-maybe evidence.

                • jim says:

                  The fingers of the girl on the left are not equally hidden, and if they are, they can be, and probably are, extended on top of her skirt.

                  For wanker girl’s right hand fingers to be extended, they would have to be extended into the skirt and into her thigh, which would deform the skirt, not on top of the skirt.

                  Indeed, anything she does with her fingers will deform the skirt, causing a crease, revealing the position of her fingers.

                  And the crease points to fingers digging into her crotch, not digging into her thigh.

                  Wanker girl’s right hand fingers have to be digging into her thigh, or digging into her crotch. The girl on her left can be, and looks like she is, resting her fingers on top of her thigh. And the crease shows us where wanker girl’s fingers are digging.

                • Alrenous says:

                  You hardliners are great for my ego. I look so moderate and reasonable.

    • Cavalier says:

      >No sex, but not for the usual reasons but more like because life seems so difficult or maybe depression makes it so that any kind of fun is out of the question. To me, too, sex seems too frivolous at this point. I would not do any exertion that is not mandatory in some sense, such as conscience, just for fun anymore.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-iWZvdzeGM

    • jim says:

      I guess I am kind of purplish red, but with a different definition, I think red pill theory does perfectly describe how an animal-level humans work, but fails at predicting all the higher, civilized, well trained functions. If all you ever meet is animalistic, selfish, calculating, whorish and childish women, the red pill is correct.

      This is the reverse of reality. Good women are red pill women. Women attempting to live the blue pill life script are the ones that behave badly. In particular they think “I don’t love my husband, therefore, I should fuck handsomer and more charismatic men than my husband, and love will follow”

      Whose love was more spectacular and impressive? Lancelot’s or King Arthur’s? A red pill women would have said to herself: “Arthur is my husband and my King. Lancelot is just some guy who is being silly.” Guinevere was being romantic, which is to say, being an arrogant and obnoxious slut bitch.

      Lancelot and Guinevere are the classic prototype of romantic love, the original lovers whose mythic love is the prototype for every romance written since. Don’t do that! Don’t be like Lancelot and Guinevere!

      A wife should win her husband’s love by performing her wifely duties well, and a husband should expect his wife’s respect, obedience, and desire, rather than her love. Yes, it is rather more like work than the romance of Lancelot and Guinevere, but on the other hand you get laid like a rug.

      If you and your woman were red pill, you would be having sex. That is not animalistic. That is the way it is supposed to be. Gnon commands it, both as evolutionary psychology, and as the God of the Old and New Testaments.

    • Stripes Duncan says:

      For a million friggin years until the 60s life was mainly a crushing grind of never-ending tasks to complete. You lived long enough to see that your children were prepared to carry on the mantle of civilization, then you checked out.

      Now we have more leisure time than any time in history and people are gazing into their navels worried if they’re achieving the required, acceptable level of “happiness.”

      Now just what the hell is that, “happiness”? You seem overly obsessed with it. You seem to think it’s ever more consumption. You’ll have that dinner out, and it won’t change the reality of your life. You’ll feel the need to consume more and more and more in order to achieve this mythical goal of “happiness.”

      Curse Jefferson for writing that in the Declaration. It’s been a worthless preoccupation of people for decades now, as though it’s our reason for living as Americans. Did you know that earlier drafts of the Declaration replaced that word with “wealth,” but it was removed because it was felt “the pursuit of wealth” wouldn’t resonate with the lower classes? That phrase and “promote the general welfare” in the Constitution are the evil twins the left has used to poison minds with their bullshit.

      It seems to me that your wife is perfectly happy performing her role, making a home you can be proud of. Why would you want to mess with that?

      • jim says:

        For a million friggin years until the 60s life was mainly a crushing grind of never-ending tasks to complete.

        You over estimate the improvement in living standards. My perception is that we were pretty comfortably off back in the days when the milkman delivered milk to your door every day, because most people did not have fridges.

        Any time savings provided by fridges and suchlike have been more than sucked up by degree inflation, the rising cost of housing, and increased female employment.

        There has been real progress in healthcare, and houses are nicer, but we do not have more leisure time, if anything substantially less.

  6. viking says:

    Ok jim red black white pill it is. WAR! How shall we proceed at this late date, I estimate maybe a 5% chance of victory if we start now. First we must kill all the leftists then all the non whites. First Civil war then I think a genetic virus is our best bet. what do you say?

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Threaten a genetic virus, and the Chinese are going to run through permutations until they have one that can take us out. Opening that door is a dangerous step, because reprisal and escalations mean that everyone creates genetic viruses and unleashes them. Nuke ’em ’til they glow, them shoot ’em in the dark.

      The Shadowed Knight

      • viking says:

        yes I agree the chinese are the problem with wiping out the other races they will rightly intuit they might be next so I think we should take care of them as well at the same time in the end we will have to anyway. There is really only one way this ends

        • viking says:

          some people think the deep state already tried this with aids and other strategies I used to be skeptical of such claims but now i see how clearly the cathedral wants white men dead it doesn’t seem so implausible they once had a different strategy.We know they continue to work on such tech and its pretty hard to believe their claims that its purely defensive. really nothing is hard to believe anymore which isnt the same as knowing but I know they are openly defying the will of the people and attempting to depose an elected president for daring to question their globalist project. They are clearly as ruthless as stalin or mao who had no qualms about wiping out millions at a time to execute their goals.Like mao and stalin they believe they are ordained to make these decisions for mankind because they can.They use other races as biological weapons plain and simple Niggers Wogs Mohammedans and slants are a virus they are unleashing on white men because white men are not going to be turned into a mutt race of slaves white men are going to insist on their destiny

          • Robert says:

            Deus Vult! We will not be undone. More and more youth are waking up. The supporters of Marine are mostly young. The lie of egalitarianism is breaking apart. Nationalism will come back, Christianity will come back. All we have to do is keep pushing. There will be open war, and it will be started by one of us, and at that point whoever starts it will be more than justified in claiming self-defense.

            It is funny that you write of Arthur. The legend says that he will return, that he is the “once and future King”. For all we know he has come back, he may be a small boy somewhere in the English countryside.

            • peppermint says:

              There was a lot of naive acquiescence to christcuckoldry in the past because it was generally agreed upon and souls were reasonably plausible. Now that much of Alt-Right philosophy directly contradicts the words and deeds of christcuck scripture and heroes, and christcuckoldry has nothing to offer, christcuckoldry will die, and not even the death of the cuckold leaving no children but sheltering it’s replacement, but fighting against the White man to the end.

              Episcopalians believe Martin Luther King is a saint, all christcucks acknowledge the itenerant community organizer ((Jesus)), many acknowledge the runaway rich kid monks Aquinas and Francis. I believe that Hitler and Breivik are saints.

              • Robert says:

                “christcuckoldry has nothing to offer” LOL

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  peppermint is right

                  Christcukholdry isn’t Christianity in its older truer forms.

                  Actual Christianity is patriarchal, red pilled and militant not like the modern crap so many teach.

                  We could use “Old Christendom” but we probably aren’t going to get it and as such Pagan savagery is the next best option

                  To what the shadowknight said, yes but I suspect the Chinese are already working ion such a thing anyway. We may have to have such a thing .

                  Also a joint “Us and them” project might be fine we could call it I don’t know “The Alliance” or something . Yes that was a Firefly joke

                  Anyway the instant the nukes and computers were invented mankind started the countdown to doomsday . Its probably inevitable at some point, either collapse or 50/50 extinction

                • peppermint says:

                  Priests will always insult fathers by demanding that their children refer to the priests as father and demanding the best children for the priesthood and will always insult soldiers by using soldiers as social workers and getting them killed, in order to raise the status of the priest class.

                  Fathers and soldiers make the race and the civilization. The king is the leader of the soldiers and the leader of the fathers to the extent that fathers need a leader. Fathers and soldiers and their king create a golden age and then priests arise to jump in front of the parade and lead it to destruction.

                  Christianity couldn’t lift a finger against the puritan/progressive heresy and now that there’s a movement the Christians want to jump in front and redirect it. First they’ll blame all existing social ills on the Jews. Then they’ll advocate for Jewish converts to be given full rights because they’re the holy people who wrote the Bible.

                  Christianity, even old style Christianity, needs to impose a priest class on the civilization because that’s what it is. Even old style Christianity needs to get people to pay lip service to souls and the lottery of souls, because that’s what Christianity is, and because the lottery of souls is how Christianity takes men by the balls and keeps them in the pews.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Egypt was basically run by a White priesthood for 3000 years. I’m not sure priests are the problem, only faith.

                  Of course the same nation got overrun with Semites and Arabs so who knows.

                • peppermint says:

                  my theory is the development of writing magnifies the power of priests to the point that they can threaten the population with dangerous lies from books

                  but we need writing. fortunately we have the chans too.

          • Cavalier says:

            >They are clearly as ruthless as stalin or mao who had no qualms about wiping out millions at a time to execute their goals.

            Let me know when they show up at your door to take you to the gulag.

            • peppermint says:

              They’d do it if they could coordinate it. Which the almost did.

              Right now they’re trying to coordinate some crazy to kill Trump. They’re more likely to get a Reichstag fire out of it, though.

              • Cavalier says:

                “which they almost did”

                Who, specifically, when, and how? The last time USG rounded up anyone was during the reign of FDR, during the Last War. Who was “almost” doing the rounding? Real power blocs please, not SJWs or the NYT or whatever.

                • peppermint says:

                  hillary was going to censor the tubes and ban memes forever. She was also going to send US troops to Ukraine to fight with Russians and capture Weev for summary execution. She was also going to send everyone who reads the Daily Stormer to the FEMA camps, to be followed with Glenn Beck fans, Fox News fans, CNN fans, and MSNBC fans, before being executed herself for being White.

                • Cavalier says:

                  lol

  7. herbert herbertson says:

    Strange, sociopathic, unlovable man believes women are barely capable of love. Shocker!

    • jim says:

      A good woman loves her children and desires and respects her husband. Pretty sure you are not desired or respected.

      • herbert herbertson says:

        Yes, everyone who scorns your bizarre ideology (if your extended extrapolation of “my ex sure is a crazy bitch!” can be dignified with such a name) is a virginal cuck. Pay no attention to the millions upon millions of happily married feminists and liberals, they are mere phantasms! Only you and the several thousand other people for which “Red Pill” is anything other than a Matrix reference can see through the veil to the real truth!

        • peppermint says:

          » millions upon millions of happily married feminists and liberals

          who are these people?

          I know a lot of friends’ parents. A lot of them are divorced. A lot of the ones who aren’t divorced yell at each as the woman tries to get the man to put her in her place and the man tries to treat her as if she were a man, and the mother of the child is a bitter feminist. Sometimes the man has a younger woman and the mother of the child is a bitter feminist. Sometimes the man was a loser and is still a loser, calls the mother of the child with some slut in his bed to make fun of her, and the mother of the child is a bitter feminist.

        • jim says:

          I have not seen one happily married feminist or liberal, except that they make an unprincipled exception for their own marriage, and in practice quietly, and a little furtively, give effect to an eighteenth century style patriarchal marriage.

          Not one. Show me a husband who does an equal share of picking up the socks, and you will see that he sleeps on the couch.

          • herbert herbertson says:

            Again, your view of reality is hopeless skewed by your own personality. The reason you haven’t met these people isn’t that they don’t exist, its that we have zero interest in socializing with a weird little scumbag like you (and don’t doubt for a second that we can see you from a mile away).

            Two realities met in a woods. One said that normal relationships built on mutual trust, respect, and communication don’t actually exist, and that the appearance of their prevalence is an elaborate lie that only a few internet nerds and domestic abusers have been able to see through. The other said that you and your fans are damaged narcissists blaming the world for their failures as men and as human beings. The Red Pill is taking the one less traveled, and the reason that it is less traveled is that it is dumb shit for overgrown children

            • jim says:

              A bunch of academics went looking, largely among their fellow progressive academics, for marriages where the housework was equally shared, rather than divided into women’s work and men’s work. Found two such marriages, out of a very large number of piously progressive academic marriages, and those marriages they found, the husband was sleeping on the couch and the marriage broke up shortly thereafter.

              I suppose that all the other progressive husbands and wives probably said they were entirely progressive and equal – but somehow their progressivism and equality just did not happen to be reflected in the housework.

              So what good pious progressives see when they actually go looking is what I see: That the blue pill formula for marriage has a one hundred percent failure rate. That only eighteenth century marriage actually works.

              Every progressive marriage is an unprincipled exception to their theoretical progressivism, or else they break up.

        • viking says:

          well as a guy thats fucked almost a hundred liberals wives, usually in the ass, I can assure you youde be the last to know a thing about your own wives let alone women generally. Ignorance is marital bliss. Oh “the real truth” huh. well I know you like your doublethink where you make fun of creationist christians in one breath then cluelessly declare all women and niggers are created equal in the next; But the real real truth is evolution, and it applies to humans and anyone who knows a thing about sexual dimorphism in animals knows your cuck perspective is deluded

          • Cavalier says:

            >fucking liberals’ wives in the ass
            >in the woman’s poop chute
            >not in her pussy
            >not during the fertile window

            Why even bother.

          • herbert herbertson says:

            You can carve out half a person’s brain, and the surviving half will retrain itself to pick up the slack. Plasticity is the only biotruth worth talking about. Also: eat shit you fucking fash

            • Cavalier says:

              “You can carve out half a person’s brain, and the surviving half will retrain itself to pick up the slack.”

              This statement reeks of personal experience.

            • Jamie_NYC says:

              “Also…” – HA, HA, HA, HA! Where does all this anger come from?

            • Ludwig von Neetgenstein says:

              > the surviving half will retrain itself to pick up the slack. Plasticity is the only biotruth worth talking about.

              And that’s why you can teach chimps math, right? Because genes don’t matter, neuroplasticity something something… Classic example of shitlib argumentation: never fully account, always cherry pick costs and benefits that support your thesis, ignore the other costs and benefits.

              You are children in adult bodies. “Why can’t we print money to buy stuff daddy?” “Why don’t rich people give poor people money to feed them daddy, are they meanies?”

        • martiniguy says:

          Hey, I’ve seen that username before!

          >millions upon millions of happily married feminists and liberals

          Not exactly making a compelling case for yourself, there, pal.

  8. vxxc2014 says:

    Mike,

    We don’t need a virus. Jesus.
    We need balls and more ammo.

    • viking says:

      Thats a lot of ammo Vxxc, i was thinking just a sterilizing virus dont need to hit em all just enough knock there trajectory of course lol

  9. Cavalier says:

    “There’s red-pilled poolside ZFG patriarchal jerkboy pimps, and then there’s Jim.”

    —Robert Boyle

  10. Hidden Author says:

    So will a woman respect and desire all of the world’s 3.5 billion men equally? Or will she specifically direct her respect and desire to the one man she loves?

    In other words, how can respect and desire on the one hand and love on the other hand be disentangled? To explain the matter to me, do tell how the relationship would be different if the woman “loved” (in your terms) the man as opposed to “respecting and desiring” (in your terms) the man.

    • jim says:

      For those who wish to understand, my words are clear enough. Nothing I say will be clear to those who do not wish to understand what is in front of their eyes.

      • Hidden Author says:

        I think I understand now. In other words, when you say this: “For those who wish to understand, my words are clear enough. Nothing I say will be clear to those who do not wish to understand what is in front of their eyes,” you are channeling Jesus when he said this: “And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why do you speak unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto YOU to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is NOT given.” Matt 13:10-11

        But since you aren’t Jesus, imitating Him like that means you’re just another cult leader!

    • Space Ghost says:

      > the one man she loves?

      Did you even fucking read the post before commenting, man?

  11. Ludwig von Neetgenstein says:

    Female “love” = desire to acquire and keep altruistic love
    Male love = altruistic love

    Great insight. Hadn’t seen it put this lucidly before.

    • Hidden Author says:

      But what about a wife that supports an old, sick and/or weak husband, even working to pay the bills when he’s comatose or otherwise incapacitated? Isn’t that love in the giving sense as opposed to the receiving sense of the word?

      (If I’m interpreting you correctly, you hold that Jim is describing “love” as a phenomenon in which the male gives and the female receives. Is such an interpretation the correct interpretation of your words, Jim? Remember that just because your woman wouldn’t stand by her man at his moment of weakness, it doesn’t mean there aren’t other women in other relationships who are more faithful and true, you know?)

      • jim says:

        Such exist, and are not at all rare, yet even though husbands are generally older than wives, and women generally live longer than men, it is far more common to find a husband looking after his aging and sick wife, than a wife looking after her aging and sick husband.

        Remember that just because your woman wouldn’t stand by her man at his moment of weakness, it doesn’t mean there aren’t other women in other relationships who are more faithful and true, you know?

        My wife always stood by me. Indeed my women have always stood by me. But then I was never weak, or rather when I was weak, I did an adequate job of faking manliness, as all men must.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Why do you think this is so? The wear and tear of a lifetime of labor in an outside workplace? Or some secret conspiracy of women to euthanize their husbands?

          • jim says:

            You are being deliberately stupid.

            • Alrenous says:

              And obviously so.
              Have to be badly indoctrinated to buy this sort of low-grade propaganda.

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                Nah. Poor old HA probably doesn’t buy the party line any more, at least not completely, but he has to keep playing the part so he can think of himself as a good person.

                He’s been commenting here for, what, 4 years? 5? Either we have a bonafide progressive saint, endlessly ministering to the heathens and savages without a word of positive reinforcement, or some times what Jim has to say speaks to him. Once or twice he’s posted heresy sufficient to disqualify him for corporate or academic employment, so I’m betting on the latter.

                • Alrenous says:

                  I didn’t say HA buys. I say he’s pushing an inferior product.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  A cynic is an honest progressive; honest enough to realize and admit that his conceits have no basis in reality, and yet, unwilling, or unable, to go a step beyond; still cleaving that those *ideas themselves* are still what determines the good, and that in their absence, it is *reality itself* that is not good.

                  He cannot see goodness, because he has already blinded himself to it beforehand.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Excellent post as usual, Jim. I recently got married (non-European culture). My wife desperately tried to squeeze in “romance” into the wedding, tried to make me write wedding vows about “love” in the European style, tried to make me pose for photographs where we are gazing into each other’s eyes (even one where I was gazing at her while she stared into the camera), and plenty of other similar crap.

    I, on the other hand, did all I could to emphasize the traditional religious elements of the ceremony, as well as the importance of child-rearing as the goal of a traditional marriage.

    This post of yours brilliantly explains why each of us did what we did. It was probably all subconscious, but it happened just like you predicted.

  13. Nelson says:

    Jim doesn’t ever bring me pretty flowers
    Jim never tries to cheer my lonely hours
    Don’t know why I’m so crazy for Jim

    Jim never tells me I’m his heart’s desire
    I never seem to set his love afire
    Gone are the years I’ve wasted on him
    Sometimes when I get feelin’ low
    I say let’s call it quits
    Then I hang on and let him go
    Breakin’ my heart in bits

    Someday I know that Jim will up and leave me
    But even if he does you can believe me
    I’ll go on carrying the torch for Jim

    I’ll go on lovin’ my Jim

  14. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Women want to be a slut, but they also want to be the only slut in town.

    Other women being sluts lowers the value of their own sluttery.

    Being *perceived* as a slut *also* lowers the value of their sluttery.

    Most women intuitively sense that their greatest and salient value is their vagina; most all female reasoning can be viewed as a corollary of maximizing the value of their vagina

    The female sex in most humanoid species did not face the same evolutionary pressures as the male sexes, being so often subsidized by one male or another, almost guaranteeing almost all at least pass on their genes regardless of their virtue or lack of virtue, their derangements or evolutionary dog-legs (as opposed to 50-75% of total men in history who havent).

    Female cognition is chiefly occupied by the social status game: the higher their status relative to other females (both backbiting others and exalting themselves), the higher status male they can hope to attract. They are naturally sensitive to the prevailing fashions of the day, adopting the appropriate signals that seem to light up the most applause lights regardless of content. Likewise, they can just as easily drop one posture and adopt another with the blaiseness of a psychopath; the ‘principle’ of a thing is something that never penetrates the reflective puddle of the mind. As we can see, such solipsism can be adaptive in its own way for the purposes of this niche.

    And so, if one could point to a single word that might most aptly encapsulate the archetypical essence of leftism, it would this, *feminine*.

    • Nelson says:

      “The female sex in most humanoid species did not face the same evolutionary pressures as the male sexes”

      I don’t think so. Women, in all their curviness and proportions, are sometimes truly beautiful; men, however “handsome”, never really are, especially when you strip the clothes away. If compared to our primate cousins, human female bodies seem to have undergone the greater selective pressure. In other words, male strength is biologically natural, while female beauty is something that has co-evolved with a specifically human aesthetic sensibility. The cultural component has to be weighed alongside biologically-reductionist arguments.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        So you say the pressures are the same, then describe all the ways in which they are different.

        I think you might have gotten confused somewhere in the reading here.

        • Nelson says:

          I’m not sure but i think the confusion lies with the concept “humanoid species”. Whatever the other primates share with us, none of them is human. There is only one “humanoid” species, at least since the end of Neanderthals and the like. What makes us different is only we have symbolic language, religion, aesthetic sensibility. My point is that once we have these, then it seems that female bodies have undergone greater evolutionary pressure than male bodies. Not simply because we grow big heads as language evolves and women need to be able to birth them. But because there is obvioulsly a lot of sexual selection to make women more beautiful. Which is why we men look a lot more like our chimp cousins than the women do.

          Now as for evolutionay pressures in our pre-human cousins, Maybe you are right that males undergo greater evolutionary pressures… if that’s what you’re saying. My point is that what makes humans different – culture – shouldn’t be forgotten, especially when talking about women.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            The word choice is deliberate; ‘humanoid species’ in this schema does not refer to lower order primates, except in the loosest anatomical sense. Rather it is meant to highlight an emphasize the fact of differences between the various humanoid species populating the globe, and devalidate the imprecise and evil ‘common humanity’ meme.

            • Nelson says:

              Genetics and linguistics strongly suggest a common human descent from a single origin. That’s not to deny racial differences have evolved from the geographical separation of groups over time. One should be able to question mindless liberalism about “common” humanity without making your position into a stock caricature that no one needs take seriously, i.e. the guy who thinks other races are a different species. If you can reproduce with them, then you are the same species. That’s the scientific definition, so my reference to Neanderthals, above, is imprecise.

              • peppermint says:

                Common descent from single origin? That applies to everything then. DNA shows Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture in the various Sapiens subspecies. And Whites are basically completely different from the mud races in key behavioral features

              • peppermint says:

                PS Tasmanian aborigines are reproductively incompatible with Whites and the “hybrid vigor” yahoos don’t know that Whites have trouble reproducing with niggers too

              • Stripes Duncan says:

                “If you can reproduce with them, then you are the same species.”

                Took all of five seconds to search and find that wolves and coyotes are a different species, but can reproduce. The explanation for this is that they diverged fairly recently. You know, like Caucasoids and Negroids.

              • jim says:

                The difference between the spotted owl and the barred owl is substantially less than the difference between whites and east Asians, and just as with whites and east Asians, there is a cline between them, many intermediate cases that cannot be easily ascribed to one species or the other.

                If starfish shaped space aliens had the same scientific standards for different species as the Environmental Protection Agency, they would classify Swedes as a different species to Finns, and then when they found a cline between Sweden and Finland, would kill everyone near the border in order to protect the endangered group from being hybridized out of existence.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                “Took all of five seconds to search and find that wolves and coyotes are a different species, but can reproduce.”

                Lions and tigers, lions and leopards, jaguars and panthers, leopards and tigers, etc. Grizzly bears and polar bears. Dogs and wolves and coyotes and dingos and golden jackals. Zebras and horses, yaks and domestic cows, etc.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Also culture is an evolutionary pressure.

  15. Mister Grumpus says:

    (I love you man.)

  16. /christian/ says:

    The white pill is actually called the Bread Pill.

  17. Cloudswrest says:

    BTW, Heartiste states on 3/20 in “Demographic Breakdown Of The Pivotal 2016 Election” that among whites,

    “So it’s more accurate to say the real dividing line in American politics, at least among Whites, is single White women versus all other Whites.”

    Single white women: 39.0
    Married white women: 61.4
    Single white men: 59.0
    Married white men: 61.0

    • Alrenous says:

      If you were a single woman, wouldn’t you be pissed and spiteful about society allowing you to be single?

      Society has clearly betrayed them, it’s a little callous to expect loyalty in return.

      • Alf says:

        Yep. Lot of spinster hate in the manosphere, but the hate is unnecessary. Single old women are by nature insecure and unhappy. I feel like they always have a big ‘treat with care’ sticker on their forehead.

      • Cavalier says:

        Yep. Everything to do with feminism is ultimately men’s fault. To be otherwise would necessitate female agency.

  18. Nelson says:

    What is the Blue Pill?

    It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

    – I wonder if it is possible to expand much on this. Seems to me one of the features of feminism is its shocking disregard for women, its lack of interest in serious discussion of femininity, heterosexuality, and how women treat other women, or men. Feminism is focussed on condemning the patriarchy and making women more like men. So we are told to treat women as equals, and that husbands have no right to discipline wives. But is there anything more that the blue pill has to say about women, feminine nature, that I am missing? Sure there are countless novels evoking feelings, but is there any substantial metaphysics? Or is the blue pill always going to be a weak hallucinogen?

    • jim says:

      Official position is that in principle women are exactly like men, and any actually observed differences are a problem that has to be fixed by making men act differently.

  19. Cavalier says:

    Trump the Cuck

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxPOSczF_MU

    When’s the autogolpe, Jim? I’m tired of waiting.

    • Cavalier says:

      P.S. Republicucks can’t repeal Obamacare with a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. Just in case that wasn’t clear.

      • TTAAC says:

        It’s still early, but Moldbug may have been right all along. The U.S. government is irredeemably insane and can’t be reformed from within, as the Deep State is proving day after day. Democracy inherently tends towards socialism: You can vote for more socialism, but you can’t vote for less. It may be that the only solution is to Retire All Government Employees.

        Like Obamacare itself, if Trump cannot salvage America, it will eventually implode.

        • Alrenous says:

          Yes.

          Trump may succeed. However, he does so by resisting the incentives through force of will. America goes from decay to forestalled decay, said forestalling dependent on electing someone with Trump’s will and selfless dedication to [America] every time. Entropy wins if the electorate stumbles even once.

          Voting for socialism punishes the responsible and rewards the irresponsible. That it was voted for shows the irresponsible are a majority. You get less of what you punish, increasing the majority. Recall this has been going on for about nine generations now.

          • peppermint says:

            It depends on whether He’s going to cuck out on important stuff while creating a morning in America, cutting taxes, and setting up for Bill Clinton’s black son to succeed him, or whether He’s going to break the left.

            His prime minister knows how to break the left and He has had to mouth leftist platitudes to survive despite being a billionaire, He had to say that a young Ivanka would be open to dating Blacks for her in an interview and He knows if that nigger tape had existed He wouldn’t have been able to become president. He just barely got away as it was with speculating that Obama wasn’t born in the US which everyone knows including the proposition nation progs know is a separate question from whether he’s an American and He has had to grin and bear it as faggotry and transfaggotry has been stuffed down His throat just like the rest of us.

            The left was relatively nicer to Reagan, and for that and reasons of christcuckoldry Reagan refused to break the left. Christcuckoldry failed to stop gay marriage and the beginning of mainstreaming of transfaggotry which is why His Majesty beat Ted Cruz.

            His Majesty likes to appear lighthearted, but see what He did at that swanky dinner last year. He knows who the enemies of the people are, who it was who made Him say dumb stuff year after year.

            • Alrenous says:

              The left administers democracy. If he breaks the left, democracy will end, and America will be over. I expect Trump would be devastated by this outcome, as he doesn’t into antidemotism.

              • peppermint says:

                after the failures of cucks Jeb and Kasich, the establishment offered cuckservatives Cruz and McMuffin with a bible, constitution, or both fetish.

                His Majesty is not a fetishist of any sort. America is a nation, a people, not an idea. We will no longer surrender this nation to the false ideas of globalism.

      • jim says:

        Sure, perfectly clear, but Trump is not yet in a position to fly the Democrats to the Pacific, yet alone the Republicans.

    • jim says:

      Holding a vote would have saddled Trump with responsibility for Obamacare. Losing on this one allows him to show he cares, without finding himself with responsibility for incompatible and conflicting promises.

      Meanwhile, he is still struggling with the deep state, and I expect him to succeed in bending the the security agencies to his will.

      We have already seen the mysterious cessation of cops shooting unarmed black choir boys who dindu nuffin. And no more dramas about engineers microaggressing against female tech workers. People who make mysterious anonymous deaths threats and engage in vandalism against Jews, blacks, and women are being hunted down and caught, and invariably turn out to be left wing Jews, left wing blacks, and feminist women.

      I was not expecting him to declare himself God Emperor at the inauguration.

      The key reform that healthcare needs is prices and a market. To accomplish this, he has to helicopter enough Democratic party senators to give himself a veto proof majority in the senate. That will be a while.

      • Cavalier says:

        You predicted firings in March, and Trump said he was going to repeal and replace Obamacare in 100 days.

        Well, it’s the 25th of March, there have been no firings, and Trump was BTFO’d by a judge when he tried to restrict travel to and from countries with literal active war-zones, and now BTFO’d when he tried to “repeal and replace Obamacare”.

        With each defeat my optimism is declining.

        • jim says:

          Trump has not fired any career civil servants, but he has disempowered the NSC, which is now I suppose building forts of styrofoam cups and paperclip chains, instead of inflicting blue state lawyers on red state soldiers. Close enough for government work. That is a good step towards a self coup.

          The NSC was the blue state controlling the men with guns. And now they do not. Big difference.

        • peppermint says:

          He had to appear to try to do something with healthcare because He said He would, and what He did was destroy Paul Ryan and make the Freedom Caucus look unreasonable when they oppose Him.

          He hasn’t started mass firings yet, but He did fire a ton of State Department people who would otherwise probably have started a war by now, and assuming control if the DoJ took a lot longer than expected due to enemy action in the Senate.

          Last week the Russia nonsense was finally put to bed while spying on His Majesty’s campaign was confirmed. This is a major advance in His wars against the deep state and legacy media.

  20. […] kicks of the week with a treatise upon Lancelot, Guinevere, romance, and the red, blue, purple, black, and white pills. It’s sex realism at it’s Jimian best, and as always entertaining along the […]

Leave a Reply