On purging Milo

If Milo was purged for being a Jewish coal burning gay, that would be one thing, but being purged having sex with an older man at the age of fourteen is a different thing. Gay sex is disgusting and self destructive regardless of age, and thirty year old women are no more competent to make unsupervised sexual choices than twelve year old girls.

Purging Milo for “pedo” concedes the left position that consent is all that matters, that anything is fine if it is consenting adults that do it.

We should view sex with properly owned women as rape if her guardian does not consent to it (which is what “rape” meant a couple of hundred years ago) and sex with feral women as a form of regrettable but unavoidable predation regardless of whether they consent or not, which predation is best remedied by shotgun marriage or similar, remedied by ensuring that a feral woman comes into the possession of a man who can plausibly be expected to have good intentions towards her and treat her with kindness – if necessary without regard for her undoubtedly foolish opinions on the matter.

And, of course, if a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We should not purge Milo for being a Jewish coal burning gay, for there are far worse on the left, and only after they get helicoptered or thrown from high buildings should we ask Milo to clean up his act. And if we did not purge him for being a Jewish coal burning gay, then we certainly should not purge him for underage sex.

If two people agree to exchange corn for iron, obviously the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not have agreed to it. So state and society should not interfere in such agreements, and if everyone is free to engage in commercial trade, then state and society is better off. If two people agree to have sex, this is a very poor indicator that having sex makes both of them better off, because sexual impulses are volcanically powerful and deeply irrational. The converse can also apply. A woman’s decision to cease having sex with the father of her children usually has appallingly bad consequences for everyone, especially her children. A fertile age woman who ceases to have sex with her husband is always motivated by having received semen from a male more alpha than her husband, or excessively realistic fantasies of receiving such semen.

There are lots of good reasons why we should purge Milo. But this is a very bad reason. We are purging him for insufficient progressivism.

261 Responses to “On purging Milo”

  1. Cavalier says:

    I fail to see how it is progressive to expel Milo for having sex while “underage”. How is it anything besides extracting a thorn in a convenient fashion?

    Also,

    >Kikebart
    >”””we”””

    Yeah…

    • jim says:

      Objecting to sex on the grounds of age is inherently progressive.

      If he was expelled for exactly the same sex act on the grounds it was gay, then that would be reactionary

      • jay says:

        Natural law is what should be considered in this case.

        • viking says:

          NO this is war winning is what and only what should be considered. does milo help the restoration does throwing milo under the bus harm the restoration

      • viking says:

        This is simply leftists using Alinsky’s fourth rule; “make the enemy live up to their own rules”.Milo was breaking all sorts of our own rules, he survived because we refused to play their game any longer.Not because we no longer believed in the rules, though probably a rethinking of rules was also happening on the right.

        We did this because it served our purpose of winning.Milo understood we were going to stone him for faggotry or incinerate him for kikery,come the restoration, Milo understood although he was a cuckserve enlightenment thinker his own party would end up stoning him even today if they could this made Milo alt/right in a sense. Cuckserve enlightenment thinking is suspended between Christian cuckness and libertarian utilitarianism it cannot resolve itself coherently.Its an intermediate ideology awaiting the superman. Milo for whatever reasons continued on those terms.

        The left only has one rule – WIN by any means necessary. If their guy is sticking cigars up 20 year old intern twats thats OK.If their guy drugs 13 year old girls in hot tubs to rape them thats cool as long as hes cool.

        To get bogged down in the moral minutia is exactly what they want, rightists fighting rightists gives air to their synthetic scandal.Rightists refusing to play and signaling winning is all that matters makes them fight among themselves about how to reframe.

        This is the problem with the new right getting in bed with religion even legacy religion morality,This is how we lost several civilization already, The left recognized that christianity is fundamentally, irrevocably a leftist ideology and pwnd it.Yeah thats sad having to quarantine a large part of western civilization, but thats war. Christianity only only worked under certain rare circumstances when we were so hegemonous that we could enforce a reactionary christian interpretation for periods, and when the leftist altruistic ambitions of that morality exclusively accrued to fellow europeans.New right is is foundational on reason HBD its a reality creed, to the extent that we are cultural ( and as opposed to Landian nrx I think this is a correct approach Hrx) it is because we rationally understand HBD requires us to fight as a people, while hierarchy is a way to best organize elites can not survive without the ethno nation behind them, and visa versa. A unified people can then attend to shortening its left tail etc. In short our cultural ethnical tactics are rational not sentimental.In short they are in subservience to the prime directive to win, to biologically survive and thrive.

        LOSERS DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF MORALITY Winning is our only good.The new right came to see that, the old right are still losers. The old right and its morality is as much a threat to our battle as Milos faggotry.The only question we need ask is , Is Milo effective at moving the new right ball forward. Yes real politics comes into this but only dispassionately, the same goes for the Nazis, the Christians,The libertarians. We may stone them all to death later but do they serve us today.

        I think Milo serves Nazi serves christians not so much but maybe some. (and I say this as a sentimentally lapsed catholic not a angry atheist )

        I think milo serves because hes a faggot he signal to the left that we have broken with the christian cuck game they have been running. And Milo is an effective speaker in these Weimar times for various reasons.And because since hes basically your 90 republican it highlights just how cucked the gop is even in 20 years.And because hes young a tech savvy and a fag jew nigger lover hes saying you can be all those things and still believe in property rights and ethnic self determination atc

        But most importantly he is an opportunity for the new right to signal no enemies to the right, Or not you have to decide if the new right can start some where to the left of Milo mind this is only tactical because we have no morals except to win, morals before winning are vanities and openings in our armour.

        We always knew breitbart was not alt/right they are tea party right, ironically they are so clueless they actually have no idea who the altright/ reactionary right is and think they and people like milo cernovich alex jones Sarah Palin are alt right, though they are becoming woke most are revulsed by the nazis and now by Milo.

        One way to look at this is for the alt right to make a stand on Milo on the principle of no enemies I think we could even say clearly we maybe are going to stone Milo after the restoration because he is a faggot jew but he is our faggot jew and until we win hes on our side. However that would be telegraphing our future moral positions which is not only stupid i dont think we really have a clue where all this will lead us morally yet.

        Obviously as one of the most heretical reactionaries and illiterate i cant take this stand but those of you on the nrx list serve or the alt righters who are excluded, I think its worth considering. I mean it primarily as a way to distinguish ourselves as different from the right even the breitbart right; a post moral right. It forces the left to condemn him for whatever they want to condemn him for which is turning the tables.

        BTW if he acquits himself well over the coming years We could offer to burn Milo on a funeral Pyre on an italian beach like Shelly as a sort of honor i think hede like that and it would like that.

  2. Glenfilthie says:

    Just as fire can be fought with fire, perversion can be fought with perverts. Turning them on themselves makes damn good sense to me.

    I think it’s entirely possible these revelations will turn out to be fake news.

    • Dave says:

      Fake how? Are you saying that wasn’t Milo in the video saying he sucked a priest’s dick at age 14? (and refusing to name the priest, who is likely still a priest and not more than 50 years old)

      Milo sees himself as the perp, not the victim. Fourteen year old boys can do a lot of very bad things on their own initiative, and Milo’s thing was (and still is) sucking dick.

      • jim says:

        Come the restoration, I think we will need to give amnesty to crimes committed before the restoration.

        And yes, pretty sure that fourteen year old Milo was the sexual predator. We all know what Milo is like.

        • glosoli says:

          The restoration you seek will arrive, but it will be under the control of the UN, and China and Russia. Whoever rules America at that time will be part and parcel of it, be assured of that.

          You will see a merging of religions, a false Christ will return, the whole shebang is coming within 50 years.

          Anyone that thinks that Trump and his bunch of Jesuits is the real deal is heading for disappointment, although it may take years for them to realise. The left are currently being set up as the fall guys for the US to move toward something nasty. War (civil and international) will be avoided, as they steer us towards their final destination. Remember where you read it first.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Giving an amnesty to crimes committed will interfere with the need to helicopter leftists.

          Better approach is to assign people to different categories and give different levels of amnesty depending on usefulness.

          • jim says:

            You helicopter your enemies when they are still struggling for power. When they yield, continued helicoptering is inappropriate.

            At that point you merely fire everyone in the state apparatus whose loyalty is suspect, then invite them to reapply for their old jobs.

            You need a continuing inquisition to watch for enemies whose claim to conversion is false, but you don’t need to kill all your former enemies. Most of them were just Havel’s greengrocer, who will scarcely notice that the new sign he puts in his window differs from the old.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Obviously don’t kill all but there are some people that have to go regardless of whether they yield or not.

        • Calov says:

          Whatever young Milo’s wiles were, a priest should probably have the self- control to resist when one of his sheep tries to suck his dick.

  3. TTAAC says:

    For those of us that are unconvinced, could you concisely explain why killing unrepentant gays is necessary?

    • jim says:

      Gays prevent regular males from expressing affection to each other and thus undermine social cohesion. If gays are not put to death, David cannot express his love for Jonathan, in which case it is hard to maintain the social cohesion necessary for King David to maintain order and peace.

      You need loyalty, authority and sanctity to run a decent society, and gays, through no intentional fault of their own, subvert these things.

      Also, gays spread gayness, and gayness tends to have unfortunate consequences. Gays tend not to show up for work, have a high death rate due to murder, drug abuse, suicide, crime, and horrible diseases.

      Gays, through lack of prudence and self control, routinely make horribly self destructive choices. Drastic penalties against gayness are therefore justified on the same basis as drastic penalties against heroin consumption is justified.

      Gay sex has large externalities – for example gays are the reservoir for various diseases that cause bad consequences for heterosexual women. Thus drastic penalties for gayness are justified on the same basis as drastic penalties for miniscule amounts of rather harmless “toxic waste”.

      But mainly, gays, through no fault of their own, create a society in which David cannot love Jonathan.

      • Magus says:

        Agreed. And if conservatives spent a fraction of what they spend “fighting” gay marriage on investigating cause (likely a virus, look at obligate male gay rams) 2we could vaccinate against this awful disease in short order.

        Alas, “conservatives” care more about pretending to fight than actually fighting as we all know.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          It’s even worse – as the Republican nomination process showed you have to be either (a) deep state to the core (Jeb) or (b) blackmailable due to sexual improprieties – usually being gay (Rubio, Kasich, McMullen) but sometimes fully pedo (Hastert) to advance in the Outer Party.

          If not, you might go off reservation.

          • peppermint says:

            If Kasich came out as gay tomorrow, he would be lauded universally. Gay isn’t enough. If not fully pedo like Hastert, need to have Deep State holding pictures of you doing pedo shit. They probably do that to all their high level agents, and Salon just deleted the pedo-acceptance articles from their site because they recognize that they need it to stay unacceptable to keep people blackmailed.

      • jay says:

        So what happens if we withdraw all medical assistance to gays does the problem correct itself?

        Because they die much faster if that happens.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Drastic penalties against heroin consumption are not justified. Victorian England had legal heroin and was fine.

        How do gays undermine social cohesion unless you are going to argue that the Samurai and Greeks were not manly and cohesive? Although it’s true their form of gayness was more like desperation rather than the true, woman-rejecting kind Milo has. Gayness is probably a germ caused disease per Greg Cochran. However it appears to be transmitted during childhood so gay sex is not the transmission method, unless there is a lot more child sex abuse in the West than we know. The penalties should wait until someone figures out what germ is causing it.

        • viking says:

          faggotry interferes with all sorts of goals of a right ordered civilization, this has nothing to do with it being a genetic or viral disorder it must be suppressed. faggotry between consenting adults that is very discreet can be ignored but can never ever be winked at.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Explain? Were ancient Greeks and Samurai undermined by it? Pretty sure male relationships in both of those societies were 10x stronger than in Modern Leftist America. Does male / male sex changes its character if the men later marry?

            If it is a disease that spreads through contact / sex, as I suspect, then homos need to be segregated and treated, or straights need to be inoculated, and homos caught trying to spread it need to be punished with castration or something. Otherwise, I don’t see what the fuss is.

            • jim says:

              I am pretty sure that sexual relationships between adult males (between two males both of them past puberty) were literally unknown in Greece before the decline began, and in Japan until it came in contact with the west. Either they literally did not happen (gay germ theory) or they were so thoroughly suppressed and so thoroughly kept in the closet that few knew that such a thing was possible.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Source on Athenian king ran out for sodomizing his wife? How would people even know lol. I don’t claim to be an expert on Greece but did read a couple books on it.

                When do you date the decline of Greece? Pederasty dates to 6th century BCE at least. Peak of Greece generally acknowledged as 550 – 430 BCE or thereabouts so it seems like pederasty predated the golden age of Greece.

                As for Japan, I looked up a Cathedral source and it seems like that they had homosexual prostitution, homosexual porn, and sex between adult males, which is much more than I expected. The Cathedral could be lying but I imagine they can’t fake medieval prints, but I’m not going to do the research for obvious reasons.

                Source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=kagema+prostitution&source=bl&ots=MKIzl3wWGl&sig=mbQHu_JJfALFYFvTvMCWLjAY7s0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWuGT-LxJu3XiALbwKz7Dw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

                • jim says:

                  There is always pederasty. Adult males having sex with each other only occurs at particular times, particular places, and particular cultures.

                • jim says:

                  Reading the evidence on japanese homosexuality, I would say that sometime in the late 1700s, a lot of male on male sexual activity showed up in Japan, but the fact that 1742 laws do not mention it strikes me as evidence that it was almost unknown, rather than that it was tolerated.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  If that is your reading, this suggests to me that homosexuality is something that does not affect social cohesion all that much as long as it is banned from the military and kept low status considering the Tokugawa Shogunate was quite manly. I don’t know about the Greeks but I suspect the situation was similar, plenty of men fucking their slaves. Maybe I am a soft libertarian but unless they are spreading the disease to others I would say degeneracy is its own punishment.

                • Dan says:

                  Much of the modern ‘scholarship’ regarding homosexuality in ancient Greece is projection, wishful thinking or simply ignorance (I’m not familiar with Japan). When we read about male ‘lovers’ and all such content we cannot imagine anything other than what it means today.

                  In the ancient world is was entirely different. Inter-male affection (non-sexual) is allowed to happen in due proportion to how heavily society condemns homosexuality. In a society like ours men know, even if subconsciously, not to display any affection to other men because it will be perceived as gay. This is why it is not uncommon for men in Islamic countries which see gays as an abomination, to kiss on cheek when greeting, hold hands etc..

                  Without going into the details, Greeks had a religious and social appreciation for the beauty manifested in the human body, especially the youth in their prime (see Kouroi/Kore statues); for pedagogical/mentor relationships between elders and youth; for the sublimity of unconsummated love (‘platonic love’); for virility of young male warriors etc. We see all this today through our degenerative lens and think they just loved sodomy.

                  In a nutshell Plato spoke at length of the beauty of love between humans, including that between men, but he spoke of sodomy as “utterly unholy, odious to the gods and the ugliest of ugly things”. You don’t see this quoted in many modern articles on the subject.

                  PS. Did actual acts of sodomy exist? Of course, but they were rare and it was socially condemned if not actually illegal; especially if you were a receiver: such emasculation was particularly disgraceful.

                • jim says:

                  In a nutshell Plato spoke at length of the beauty of love between humans, including that between men, but he spoke of sodomy as “utterly unholy, odious to the gods and the ugliest of ugly things”. You don’t see this quoted in many modern articles on the subject.

                  It is precisely that in order to allow men to love men, that gays need to be forcefully suppressed by drastic means.

                • jim says:

                  Source on Athenian king ran out for sodomizing his wife? How would people even know lol. I don’t claim to be an expert on Greece but did read a couple books on it.

                  Pisistratos, ruler of Athens, married the daughter of Megacles. Megacles learns that Pisistratos is lying with his daughter “in an unnatural way” Runs Pisistratos out of town.

                  Pisistratos builds up a private fortune, hires mercenaries, and returns a few years later. Is successful in bringing prosperity to Athens and dies of natural causes.

        • jim says:

          Pedophilia, adult males having sex with young boys, does not undermine social cohesion between males. (Though it is objectionable for other reasons, mainly that the boys grow into adult males who like having sex with other adult males) Sex between adult males was severely discouraged in Greece at the time of its greatness, so much so that they did not know what it was. We only see reference to adult males having sex with adult males during the decline of Greece.

          Or, if you believe in the virus theory, the virus simply did not exist during the time that Greece was great.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Source on boys being subject to pederasty becoming homosexuals? As far as I know a very high portion of Greek freeborn boys were fucked by adult males (teenage boys literally exercised naked in the gymnasium), but pretty sure the Greek upper classes had pretty high marriage and fertility rates during the Golden age.

            Sex between upper class freeborn adult males was discouraged by Romans and Greeks. Sex between a master and a slave or a noble and a pleb male was not, even Sulla had a male lover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrobius). I am sympathetic to the argument that gays undermine the army and should be banned from it and segregated from children if the disease is proven, which is likely, but not sympathetic to the argument that underground gay bars should be raided.

            • jim says:

              As far as I know a very high portion of Greek freeborn boys were fucked by adult males

              Pretty sure this was only true, if it was ever true, during the decline and decadence of Greece. You will recall that one of the Athenian Kings/Dictators was run out of town on a rail for sodomizing his wife, and the earlier Athenians had no concept of homosexuality in the modern sense. Adult males having sex with adult males was unimaginable to them.

            • viking says:

              youre a victim of leftist propaganda gay roman greek celtic is way exaggerated it was pretty much as its always been, it was frowned upon, you had to watch out for your kids and some elite pizza types got away with shit, a few oscar wilde’s were given a pass until they got the hemlock treatment

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                K obviously no civilization had a San Francisco, I am not defending the degeneracy of modern gays but trying to figure out what problems do they cause exactly and how to fix it, and what problems are not caused by them.

                • viking says:

                  They cause the problem any minority poses special pleading and disunity and interference with enforcing a uniform cultural code thats positive.
                  Take jews from a lot of perspectives they are unobjectionable yet they disrupt all sorts of cultural housecleaning. The only way jews or fags do not do this damage is if they obliterate their otherness even to themselves.
                  few recognize this yet but christians will also have to be wiped out. christians are cucks that is the whole of their faith that it is good to live in an irrational way for others. This is incompatible to a right ordered civilization.

            • pdimov says:

              “Source on boys being subject to pederasty becoming homosexuals?”

              https://twitter.com/28ShermanSOBL1/status/834150728092512256

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Well pederasty did not turn the Greeks gay in the modern sense, they still had kids and liked pussy.

                I think the best explanation for this is genetic prospensity, in order to become infected with the gay germ you have to have some effeminate genes in the first place, exposing some manly boy to the gay germ will not result in infection, hence the 7% of heterosexual men in your link (which likely exceeds the 46% of gays by a couple times). Therefore gays need to be banned from all occupations where they can interact with children.

                • jim says:

                  There do seem to be some peoples and times where modern type homosexuality is simply unknown or very rare – where males screw males to about the extent, and for the same reasons, as males screw sheep – there simply are not any males who prefer to have sex with adult males.

                  http://akinokure.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/primitive-mans-sex-life-was-free-of.html

                  Gay sex, and gay prostitutes, existed in America in the 1860s, but seems to have been very rare, and there seems to be zero gay porn. They had cameras good enough for porn, and promptly proceeded to apply them – and going by what they produced, there were very few gays.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Do you not believe in the gay germ theory?

            • jim says:

              Not sure if the gay germ theory is true. If true, then it is a disease spread by gay sex, in which case we should suppress gay sex.

              There are a host of poorly characterized diseases spread by gay sex. It could be one of them.

              If it is true, and we could find a vaccine, then we don’t need to suppress gay sex, could just vaccinate everyone and there would be no more new gays.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Gay germ theory is that effeminate boys have a genetic weakness which results in them becoming gay when they’re exposed to the gay germ, and that the only time they could be infected is before puberty because as far as I knows most gays are gay (in the sense of rejecting woman, degeneracy does not count) by puberty and not after.

                So it would imply banning gays from being teachers, summer camp instructors, etc but not necessarily tossing them from a roof or even prohibiting sex between (already infected) adult males.

                • jim says:

                  Plenty of examples of conversion after puberty, sometimes long after puberty, although gayness at an early age is pretty common. Typically someone gets raped in prison, and then converts quite some time after being raped. Could be gay germ, could be traumatic imprinting and Stockholm syndrome. If gay germ theory is true, I think what happens is that effeminate boys get targeted by older homosexuals and infected by physical contact, probably in the process of grooming, rather than actual sex.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  This describes my view as well. I don’t know about prison rape. I’m a bit skeptical an adult male can go gay but will investigate. Could just be a fetish, most prisoners in prison probably have gay sex but they still have far more children than non prisoners.

                • peppermint says:

                  prison rape and conversion is fully consistent with the sexual strategy hypothesis

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  What’s your argument? Homos are not actually homo and trying to cuck other men? The fertility stats don’t bear this out, gays are notoriously infertile.

                • peppermint says:

                  What kind of fertility would the average gay (not Milo) get by trying to be alpha?

                  Pretending to be a woman and trying to cuck other men happens in a number of species.

                  Also, incidently, niggers are pretty openly known use gay rape to demonstrate dominance.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  The average gay guy has zero kids. Some effective strategy there. And as you recognized Milo would have a lot more kids if he preferred pussy over cock.

                  Prison rape and desperation driven behaviour does not indicate homosexuality. The average black criminal has way more kids than the average white middle class male. The key aspect of homosexuality that must be explained is revulsion towards pussy.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “The average black criminal has way more kids than the average white middle class male.”

                  The average black criminal has way more kids than the average white middle class male because he isn’t paying for those chillunzes, the white guy is—in addition to the short fat brown wetbackess’s kids, the muzzie’s kids, the currynigger’s kids, the rice”person”‘s kids, the white trash’s mudblood bastard kids, the white trash’s regular bastard kids, and his ex-wife’s son.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Point is the average black criminal is not gay despite almost certainly having done homosexual stuff in prison. No need to tell us the sun rises in the east.

      • viking says:

        I think gays cause more problems than that one is the corruption of the male youth while its true some are born faggots who willing corrupt themselves many are too young to be anything much and are interfered with by faggots, yes sure this isnt technically pedophilia its destructive to society.Milo is attempting to make the distinction, and while many of us understand there certainly are 14 year old cocksuckers we feel it is more important to make sure they are cocksuckers before allowing them to be corrupted yes this implies there is likely a spectrum, or at least that a straight child can be psychologically damaged by what is statutory rape and that our interest is in having as many function hetero sexual as possible

      • Dave says:

        As a workaround, David could append the words “no homo” when expressing his love for Jonathan.

      • Alrenous says:

        Yes.
        It is regrettable and unfortunate, but gays cannot be allowed out of the closet.
        Luckily, homo’phobia’ is quite natural, and will likely force them back into the closet the instant it stops being illegal to admit to. Luckily because, as we have seen, relying on the State to enforce closeting gives the State the ability to reverse the closeting with barely a fight.

  4. peppermint says:

    (1) Greeks and Samurai were not gay
    (2) the gay germ hypothesis and the gay gene hypothesis it replaces are retard theories designed to remove moral responsibility from gays for their conduct in order to be permitted to be disgusted by that conduct because the obvious fact that it is a chosen sexual strategy makes that disgust reaction discriminatory and suggests bullying as a solution
    No

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan
      2) Right, let’s not actually try to find out what causes homosexuality and base it off some random dude shooting the shit on the internet.

      • peppermint says:

        》letting Wikipedo tell you japs and Greeks were gay
        》not having watched the Samurai Champloo episode in which japs express their embarrassment over Western perception of samurai as gay
        》trusting namefags not to dump tactical bullshit as an area denial technique
        》dismissing a description of this tactic

      • jim says:

        There are references to adult men having sex with boys below the age of puberty in ancient Japan. There is no indication that sex between adult males happened (at all) until modern Japan. I conjecture that it did happen, but was shocking, unthinkable, very forcefully suppressed, and kept so thoroughly in the closet as to leave no indication that such a thing ever occurred.

        But the data is also consistent with the idea that modern type homosexuality simply did not happen at all – that it is the result of gay germ that has quite recently spread throughout the world.

  5. Trollercoaster says:

    You have good insights most of the time Jim but your consistent apologia for pedophilia and homosexuality is beyond the pale, especially for a “reactionary” blog (and also makes me wonder exactly what kind of things you do in your free time). Though I guess I should expect as much from a guy who publicly admitted to jacking off to cartoon girls.

    • peppermint says:

      It’s important to distinguish between pedos and homos and to recognize what they actually do, why they do it, and what’s wrong with it. If when you see this description you assume it’s an apologia you might be succumbing to some form of all lives matter dualistic spiritualism, but in any case you can ignore these articles and stick to the conclusions that homos and pedos can’t be accepted.

      • Trollercoaster says:

        This is the real problem:

        “We should not purge Milo for being a Jewish coal burning gay, for there are far worse on the left, and only after they get helicoptered or thrown from high buildings should we ask Milo to clean up his act.”

        In other words let’s postpone having standards until after our unattainable goal is achieved! Which is to say let’s postpone having standards FOREVER.

        So while Jim gives lip service to stoning sodomites, he “loves Milo like a brother,” doesn’t want to exclude him or other sodomites, and wants to postpone said stoning until some indeterminate future date, and even then, well, he probably won’t do it.

        I say this is all nonsense and we should start having standards right now. Sodomites like Milo are terrible people with whom no decent person would associate, just like no decent person is a member of NAMBLA.

        • jim says:

          We postpone having standards until we are in a position to impose our standards on our enemies.

          Otherwise, we lose.

          You start by imposing standards on the underclass, on women, and on your ideological opponents. You impose those standards on the winning side and the ruling elite only when ruling elite misbehavior threatens to make misbehavior high status.

          • Trollercoaster says:

            If sodomites are your allies then you have already lost. They are cancerous and will destroy whatever group they have subverted.

            • jim says:

              Much truth in that, and much untruth. The problem being that it comes right out of the Saul David Alinsky playbook: “Make the enemy live up to his own standards”.

              Nah, not going to fall for that one. Notice that the left is totally untroubled when we ask them to live up to their standards.

    • viking says:

      he apologizes for rapists too and jews theirs a cabal lead by several jews and ex commies and homosexuals that consider themselves the illuminatti of reaction that jim is a founding member of, and while jims heart is in the right place hes corrupted. ironically they actually think they are in opposition to the Cathedral when what they really want is simply to be in charge of it. They want the same libertarian multicultural meritocracy and oppression of the average white that the cathedral wants just a tad more rational libertarian economics and authoritarian politics so they can sustain it this time round

  6. Anonymous says:

    What is striking is that Jim’s perspective is entirely consistent with traditional white Western sexual morality as you can read at link-related, while those who see pedophiles under every bed and inside every closet, and call everyone who tells the truth about teen-sexuality a pedophile, are “the” Puritans par excellence. As much as they would like to disclaim this contention, they can’t. Jim is correct about this issue, when almost everyone else is flatly wrong.

    http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

    Your ancestors had sex at 12. Are you holier than they are, dear Puritan / Prog?

    Notice how, over the past century and a half, and especially so during the last 6 decades, the “age of consent” has only got higher and higher; once raised, it has never been lowered, AFAIC. Where’s Cthulhu swimming, dear Puritan / Prog?

    “We will outlaw all teen sex to defeat the Patriarchy and instill muh gender equality!” squeals the Progressive.

    “Oh, yeah? Well, we will raise the age of consent EVEN HIGHER to cultivate chastity! Also, as per dr. Kellogg’s advice, we’ll circumcise our sons and even some of our daughters, just like our dear friends the Semites do, to keep them from masturbating. There *will* be chastity in this world, damnit!” rejoins the Conservadad.

    • viking says:

      I dont think saving young girls for old men is a great idea and i say that as an oldish man. the answer to teen sex in places like Idaho is teen marriage and good teen jobs in the wood logging or heavy equipment operating. nafta and epa destroyed logging and spics and epa destroyed equipment operating

      • Anonymous says:

        Oh, but I agree with this. Where have I suggested saving 12 year old teens for men with gray hair? Teen marriage is exactly the answer. Get teenagers who are roughly the same age, say, 11 year old male and 10 year old female, married – abolish mass schooling, send male teenagers to work so they can be providers, teach female teenagers to be housewives, and when Nature deems it right, let them reproduce. That’s how it should work.

        • peppermint says:

          it’s traditional for White men and women to delay marriage as late as late 20s for men and early 20s for women, and the usual age gap even in our time is like four years

          • jim says:

            That tradition is OK down on the farm, where it is easier to keep your daughters under control. It is impractical in the city, short of chaining your daughters to the wall.

            • Cavalier says:

              I’m of the opinion that social pressure, properly applied, is capable of achieving almost anything (in the white race, especially the Hajnal white race), and that we should refrain from physical restraint in order to not regress to nigger norms and to further select for the efficacy of social restraint, which is already pretty good.

              • peppermint says:

                Up until very recently most women remained virgins until college despite going to coed high schools, and there used to be a phrase lesbians until graduation describing how some women defended their decision to retain their virginity until they finished college and had a man who was ready to settle down.

                If we win, high schools go away and social norms go way to the right, and premarital sex becomes rare.

                • jim says:

                  Up until very recently most women remained virgins until college

                  Then they need to be married off at close to the age that they are now going to college.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Precisely. (though coed schools suck for other reasons)

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Given existence of internet pornography expecting kids to remain virgin past late teens is pretty unrealistic. Having an average marriage age of around 18 sounds about right.

              • Cavalier says:

                A kiss on the cheek used to be really something. Boring compared to watching hot strangers fucking like animals in ultra9khd. Even really actually fucking can be boring compared to watching hot strangers fucking like animals in ultra9khd.

                Can’t suppress Internet porn, can’t restore civilized sociosexual norms. Don’t suppress Internet porn, don’t restore civilized sociosexual norms.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Roman women were slutting it up so internet porn is not the culprit here but a weak family. If anything porn mitigates the effect of social decay, I doubt the west would be this peaceful with the current system of not letting betas have wives until 28 if porn did not exist.

                  Without public education most people would be in the work force by 16 or so, as a result they would likely marry in high teens without leftism, solving the problem.

                • peppermint says:

                  porn affects women’s behavior because porn stars are considered cool by high school men and glamorous. If porn wasn’t subject to copyright protection, as the unenforced law says, porn stars wouldn’t exist.

                  porn has pretty much no effect on men’s behavior. Everyone keeps pointing to various bullshit about how it’s supposed to cause more or less rape and more or less attempts at actually forming relationships.

                  ROL has the right idea. Public education, not porn, is the cause of sluttery, and a lot of other evil.

                  Public education teaches White kids that the government has total control over everything including when they go to the bathroom, the ruling class of teachers have no actual skills despite all the words about meritocracy, and the government hates them and exercises authority capriciously. Consequently, the kids argue for totalitarian government that says it likes them – communism.

  7. Alfred says:

    I don’t really see the big deal — Milo is a flamboyant good-looking gay so lots of weird sex comes with the territorium. Then again he is sort of selling the Oscar Wilde fantasy so maybe he should not have been as honest as he was.

  8. viking says:

    Milo resigned good honorable move saves Breitbart which is also useful. those who have a less cuckish readership ought to support him as no enemies to the right while promising to stone him after the restoration for faggotry jewishness and enklightenment leftism

  9. viking says:

    Meanwhile Jims god emperor spent the day licking liberal boots over anti semitism and assuring the illegal aliens he is only going to deport the really really illegal aliens about 1%

  10. Alrenous says:

    Re: historical sodomy…look, it’s named after a real town, Sodom.

    Disgust with sodomites appears rather specific. There seems to have been enough homosexual sodomy in the evolutionary past that the genes recognize and aver it.

    I will admit modern sodomites are curiously overabundant. However, none of the hypotheses are excessively plausible. On the other hand, we also have an inexplicable obesity epidemic, even affecting lab rats on regimented diets. General biological messed-up-ness is on the rise.

    • peppermint says:

      it is consistent with the sexual strategy hypothesis that alpha strategy men see homo strategy men as a threat to their control over their women

      there was a sodomite in my high school who was constantly hanging out with women and talking about condoms. naturally it was considered homophobic to dislike him and discriminatory for anyone not to want him to hang out with their gf

  11. Anonymous says:

    This is quite off topic but:

    #PizzaGate has all the hallmarks of a psy-op, or “spook operation” as some would call it. We know that the CIA spends fortunes on the psychological manipulation of the American (and not just the American) public, but most don’t realize just what it is that they’re up to. Their modus operandi is leading you to adopt a desired conviction while making sure you are convinced that you’ve done all the research by yourself and reached the conclusions all by yourself.

    In the case of #PizzaGate, it’s clear from the emails that the word pizza is a code for something, although not in all cases, just in some of them (“no one could ever have predicted that a person of Italian heritage such as Podesta would be enthusiastic about pizza” is the snarky disclaimer). We know this, and the spooks know it as well.

    The thing is: pizza, in some instances, is obviously a code-word for weed. Now, that’s not something you can just admit to. Imagine if the people involved said: “please, don’t be ridiculous, of course we don’t run child-rape sex-dungeons underground. No, we just do marijuana from time to time.” That would ruin them. So they must deny that pizza means anything other than pizza, which allows the spooks, who know very well that this is about marijuana and not about underground pedo-dungeons, to spread an insane conspiracy, which those accused cannot deny, because they cannot admit to what this is really about.

    (“sex trafficking” is a hoax that keeps on hoaxing. The prostitute-blogger Maggie McNeil, aka “the honest courtesan”, has a bunch of sources on how “sex trafficking” doesn’t exist, and in fact, cannot logically exist, and is nothing but nonsense being peddled by the usual suspects to further their agenda)

    The pedo-hysteria pushed by the CIA/FBI is intended to prevent any rational discussion of the sexual development of teenagers, and to make sure that the modern doctrine, according to which anyone below 16 cannot “consent” to sex, will remain unchallenged – everyone who challenges it is immediately jumped upon as a pedophile. Needless to say, the whole alt-right got PWNED, and PWNED hard. The police-state wants nothing more than to continue jailing 19 year old men for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriends, so they push pedo-hysteria to silence everyone who might otherwise object to this modern, artificial, social-programming state of affairs.

    I suspect that “UFOlogy” is the same thing: every time the military-industrial-complex has some new technology to test, they send their operatives on UFO-conspiracy forums to “document” the latest invasion of Earth by Grays and Reptilians, claiming — guess what? — that the CIA is hiding all the evidence about the extraterrestrials… by calling them military technology. See how this works? Yeah, 95% of people involved in UFOlogy are snake-oil con-artists, but the other 5% are exactly whom you would expect: psy-ops spooks bent keeping you distracted. The CIA spends millions upon millions every year on exactly these kinds of operations.

    Well that’s the same thing with Feminism, which was promoted by the CIA, with sex-hysteria, and with pedo-hysteria. These people want to turn the whole world into one big Gulag operated by themselves, with you as a hapless guinea pig, and they’re using your primal fears (such as the instinct to protect children from predation) to manipulate you into cooperating with them.

    Why do you think they go out of their way to censor videos of 14 year olds and 15 year olds having enthusiastic consensual sex? Because if you see for yourself those videos, you’ll probably realize that jailing 19 year old men for having sex with teenagers is retarded and cruel, and doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. The full-censorship of such videos has nothing to do with “protecting” “children” – these “children” already had sex and enjoyed every second of it, and nothing bad would happen to anyone if you see it for yourself. So, of course they will make sure you will never ever see those videos – you must not challenge, based on available evidence, the doctrines of the police-state you live in! There shall be no evidence! And that’s why they keep equating sex with 15 year olds with sex with 5 year olds, and use psychological manipulation to keep you hysterical about the former as if it were exactly the same thing as the latter.

    #PizzaGate or #PedoGate is just one more brilliant scam of theirs to keep you on your toes about a non-existent pedophile conspiracy, so you will not question, and will not tolerate the questioning of, what actually happens in actual reality, which is men being thrown to jail for enthusiastic and consensual sex with horny teenagers, who often lie about their age and don’t look or behave their age.

    The FBI perverts go one social media, pretending to be lustful teen girls, in order to prey upon “pedophiles” who never had any intention to commit any crime, so they can throw these men in jail. The CIA, meanwhile, is focused on distracting you from this insanity, and even getting you to support it, by promulgating things like #PizzaGate. All the while, convincing you that you “know the real truth” about the nefarious intentions of some undefined Powers That Be. When the emails leaked it allowed them to utilize the coded language used for marijuana to push their agenda of pedo-hysteria yet again, knowing the accused cannot credibly defend themselves without implicating themselves in something else.

    That’s the spooks for ya.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “The thing is: pizza, in some instances, is obviously a code-word for weed. Now, that’s not something you can just admit to. Imagine if the people involved said: “please, don’t be ridiculous, of course we don’t run child-rape sex-dungeons underground. No, we just do marijuana from time to time.” That would ruin them.”

      Yep, ruined.

  12. Anonymous says:

    If your point is that it wouldn’t literally ruin them, well, let’s just say that these are political hacks, and while everyone knows Washington is corrupt to the bone, you do need to maintain at least some minimal reputation and respectability to keep your job. Yes, Obama can smoke the pot because he’s a nigger, but otherwise if you’re a politician or political hack, you can’t just go all out with “yeah I like getting stoned, but hey, at least I’m no pedo”.

    Let’s apply Occam’s Razor here: what is more likely, that some goofy Italians are excited about pizza and ice-cream, and being the degenerates that they are, smoke marijuana (“save me a slice!”); or, they run a pedo-ring in the middle of DC, with tunnels underground and all that, of course without any victim ever being identified? Admit it: the alt-right has been PWNED by the Deep State on this issue.

    A bunch of Democrat degenerates, who could definitely star in a (((Seth Rogen))) movie, inviting each other to smoke weed, and probably eat some actual pizza – is that really so much less plausible than pedo-rape sex-dungeons? But of course it’s unwise, politically that is, to openly admit to it. Thus, spooks spreading #PizzaGate unchallenged by the “suspects”. It’s a brilliant psy-op.

    “Why don’t they address the accusations?” asks the pleb. The answer is that if they actually explain what’s going on, their political prospects are pretty much done.

    … … …

    On a different note, the new definition of “consent”, that it has to be moment-to-moment, is probably the top absurdity they came up with. It gave rise to “5 seconds rape”. What is “5 seconds rape”, you ask? It’s when you fuck a woman, and just as you’re about to climax, or as you begin to climax, she tells you “stop”. Of course you can’t stop – and so, a woman in Australia, and some American women, used such a “trap” to accuse the men they had sex with (in the Australian case it was a husband) of rape, and if I recall correctly, have succeeded. They were “raped” for the duration of a man’s orgasm, which they themselves elicited.

    That they brought the men to uncontrollable climax with their vaginas, that the men had every reason to avail themselves of the vaginas they were fucking, and that momentary arbitrary will is not as important as finishing sex in a healthy way – the courts ignored all that, because in their view, 5-seconds-rape is still rape. If a woman withdraws her consent just as you reach orgasm, and you don’t stop thrusting within 0 seconds, but keep thrusting for 5 more seconds, you go to jail for committing rape. That’s the logical implication of “moment to moment consent”.

    That’s Puritanism for ya.

  13. Jack Highlands says:

    Lotta confusion on the gay germ theory here.

    First, it is, of course, not proven.

    Second, it should be taken seriously because it is scientifically elegant and innovative, ie it required black swan creativity in reducing what appeared to be a complex morass of inconsistent data to a coherent whole that is in line with ENS, the governing theory of biology.

    Third, as an appeal to authority, its major proponent, Greg Cochran, while undoubtedly guilty of excess hubris, is far from retarded and has a track record of scientifically elegant and innovative thinking.

    Regarding the theory itself, Cochran definitely does NOT state that the germ is transmitted by gay sex. It may be, but he is inclined to think not. The main candidate germ that has received attention so far is T. gondi, a microbe for which there is already accumulating evidence that it can alter one or more simple ‘switches’ in the developing brain to produce complex personality effects later in life. At the very least, Toxo is a good model for the putative gay bug.

    Toxo probably exerts its effect in the womb, and gay germ proponents favor that as the stage of infection as well – ie long before the age Milo was when he began blowing priests.

    To my knowledge, Cochran does not say much about host factors, but he is, of course, well aware of them: host factors are among the most important evolutionary mechanisms in the sort of thing Cochran studied leading up to the gay germ theory: autosomal recessive diseases like sickle cell anemia, where the sickle trait is a positive host factor conferring resistance to a microbe: Plasmodium.

    Personally, I think if the gay germ theory is correct, at least one host factor does play a major role: something must account for the observed high rate of effeminacy among gay men, and I doubt most of this effeminacy is produced by the germ. For example, say it is produced in the womb, my guess is that high-t fetuses from high-t fathers are more protected from it than low-t fetuses from low-t fathers. However, note that the germ itself could easily have major t effects.

    Lastly, a key piece of evidence that led Cochran to the theory was the observation, probably through his now-deceased colleague Harpending, that hunter-gatherers do not have fags. They also do not have epidemic infection, at least not until farmers bring it to them.

    I’m not aware that Cochran has commented on this, but note that this dovetails nicely with the civilizational cycle and effeminacy. The Aryan part of our ancestry constituted the most warlike people the world has ever seen (and may ever see) mostly because the Western end of the Great Steppe is the most conducive environment on the planet for breeding large numbers of high-IQ warriors. But a related factor was the rapidity with which they transformed from relatively dense bands of fishermen-hunters (dense by hunter-gatherer population standards, enabled by the great rivers of Russia), to semi-agricultural herders.

    In other words, these people were supremely masculine, and quite unaffected by epidemic infection compared to the nearby civilizations they conquered, and the civilizational cycle repeats itself again and again in the conquest pattern of their descendants. The specifically ‘Aryan’ branch in Persia and India obviously fell prey to this, but we also see it in the Western branches. Proto-Hellenes would have been masculine warriors in the Balkan transition zone between Steppe and Mediterranean, but by the time of the Bronze Age collapse there would’ve been some decadence, though we have no idea what or how much. The Greek ‘Dark Age’ that followed would have been much like our own Germanic ‘Dark Age’: lower population density than before, with lower epidemic infection, dominated by dark, evil men like Charlemagne. This leads to the familiar cycle of strong men breed strong times breed weak men (ie more often effeminate and even gay) breed weak times, etc, rinse and repeat.

    The relevance for Greece and Rome, referenced by commenters in this post, is that by the time of the Athenian Golden Age, Greeks were already civilizationally decayed, the strong men being the Dorian invaders 500 years earlier. Ditto for the Roman Empire: the masculine period being the Kingdom and the Republic an intermediate phase.

    • peppermint says:

      » Second, it should be taken seriously because it is scientifically elegant and innovative,

      No it isn’t. The innovation is in sociology of science.

      » a coherent whole that is in line with ENS, the governing theory of biology.

      those are nice words

      » Third, as an appeal to authority, its major proponent, Greg Cochran, while undoubtedly guilty of excess hubris, is far from retarded and has a track record of scientifically elegant and innovative thinking.

      since he’s a namefag, he needs to hold positions that are possible for namefags, such as gay germ theory which maintains the natural aversion to gays and holds out hope that this problem can be solved while avoiding censure for saying gays have a moral problem

      since i’m not a namefag, i can call it retarded, and reiterate the ancient theory that gays have a moral problem, i.e. it’s a reproductive strategy

      if you were a namefag, that post would be excellent and i would copypaste it onto my normiebook

      • Cloudswrest says:

        “since i’m not a namefag, i can call it retarded, and reiterate the ancient theory that gays have a moral problem, i.e. it’s a reproductive strategy”

        Not being gay, the thought of (male) gay sex is less appealing to me than sniffing fresh dog shit, or worse. Anybody *wanting* to do this or *enjoying* it, in my opinion, has something MORE than a moral problem. It is some sort of actual biological defect or damage of some sort. *Morality* involves restraining *natural* urges. Having *unnatural* urges is an entirely different matter.

    • jim says:

      Regarding the theory itself, Cochran definitely does NOT state that the germ is transmitted by gay sex.

      Cochran is too politically correct to say such a thing. A germ is not going to have such a specific effect on the brain unless it evolved to that purpose.

      Further, the gay germ would not have effect in the womb because if it did, no incentive to make people gay. Has to have effect when approaching puberty at the earliest.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Most Gays are Gay by Puberty which is argument against sexual transmission as the MAIN source, it could be a secondary source but I think you need to have genetic vulnerability first, and the genetic vulnerability drops dramatically with age.

        • peppermint says:

          ((Kinsey)) said the faggots who completed his survey sometimes thought they could advance themselves with homosexual behavior and other times tried to play it straight.

          Alpha doesn’t mean sex with women. Virtually all gays will have sex with women if they offer it. Alpha means marriage and raising children instead of being all about edgy sex and doing drugs and trying to knock up a woman charmed by the level of scandal.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            You need to distinguish between gayness due to desperation and lack of access, due to super low standards, and genuine homosexuality a la germ.

            Ancient Greeks and Modern Afghans clearly were the first type so not relevant. There are also a lot of men who do gay stuff because it’s much easier to have sex with a gay instead of a woman. But the difference between these two types of people, and genuine homosexuals, is that the former group will only do gay stuff during certain times / contexts, and will eventually gravitate to marriage and having a fertility close to the population average. In contrast, genuine homosexuals aka average San Fran Bathhouse visitor generally have zero fertility and does gay stuff their whole life, and it’s this type that is predominant. If you had a free society, the first two types would mostly disappear due to stigma and marriage being legal again, only the last type would remain homosexuals.

  14. Oliver Cromwell says:

    On the one hand we have so few allies that we need people like Milo.

    On the other hand embracing them makes us look insincere. If we believe, as many here claimed in the past years, that gays are largely pedos, we shouldn’t be surprised by this, and if we aren’t surprised by this then it is reasonable to accuse us of being OK affiliating with pedos, which for all their other faults the left no longer is. If we are surprised, it shows we didn’t believe what we were saying; that we were crypto-progressives.

    • jim says:

      I am totally unsurprised by this. Anyone who claims to be surprised is a liar and a hypocrite. I am OK with affiliating with pedos but Milo was not defending pedophilia. Fourteen is not pedophilia, and if it was pedophilia, adult gay sex is every bit as disgusting and socially destructive as gay sex performed on small children, if not more so.

      After we can impose our values on our enemies, then we will clean up our own act.

      It is Alinksy that said “Make your enemy live up to his principles”. It is a leftist scam. Don’t fall for it.

      Observe the left’s reaction when we point out that they are massively violating their own loudly stated principles. They do not care in the slightest. Their principles are for imposing on us, not for themselves.

      Age of consent is a left wing idea. Anyone who supports it accepts leftism. Sex is too important and too deeply irrational, sexual forces far too volcanic, for consent to be morally significant.

      A woman should be eligible for marriage as soon as she has breast development or menarche, and her guardian should be able to engage her to a suitor at any age, and marry her to that suitor (preferably with the woman’s guided consent) when she has boobs or menarche.

      it shows we didn’t believe what we were saying; that we were crypto-progressives.

      I totally reject age of consent laws. No male should ever consent to gay sex, and any such consent is a crime regardless of age, and no fertile age woman is competent to give unsupervised consent or refusal to sex, regardless of age.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        Even if women’s reproductive capacity should be the property of their fathers, then husbands, age of consent is still relevant. For instance, let kebabs and other muds give away their daughters before puberty. That is not the White way, as it undermines patriarchy: a father may be giving away his daughter unknowingly to a child rapist. Therefore, in White Sharia, no father may give away his daughter before puberty (and not even right away then; see below).

        Second, puberty is not instantaneous. The age should not be first breast buds or first menarche, it should be some time after that, eg one year say. Since individualizing that is not very practical in law, we are back to specific chronological age for consent.

        • jim says:

          In view of the widespread differences in age of puberty, I don’t think chronological age of consent is reasonable. When girls get horny hard to stop them. When they get horny and have boobs, then they have both motive and opportunity.

        • TheBigH says:

          > a father may be giving away his daughter unknowingly to a child rapist.

          If you’re trying to create a system where the law has a better judgement over a child than the father then you’re already a progressive.

          • peppermint says:

            Yeah, no, women and everything is the collective property of the fighting age males, and fathers are expected to use their authority for the betterment of the nation and their family, but if they intentionally fail to protect their daughter’s virginity until handing her off to a fighting age male of hopefully greater social standing, they’re scumbag traitors who have already given up their right to live by doing worse by their genes than if they weren’t alive.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        It would have been a stronger demonstration of our ideas to have predicted that Milo will crash and burn, for right wing reasons, and would have had little impact on his career anyway.

        Supporting Milo is like supporting Herman Cain. It is already a bleg for leftist approval.

  15. Brit says:

    Apparently Vedic period India tolerated homosexuality and did no collapse. Any thoughts?

    • jim says:

      “Vedic” is a very long time. I am sure they did different things at different times, and in the end it did collapse. Further, gays find homosexuality everywhere in history, in often in contexts where it is unreasonable. All Vedic references to homosexuality are arguably deprecatory – viewing effeminate males as defective and subhuman. They tolerated homosexuals the way they tolerated feces.

    • Jack Highlands says:

      One could say India had already collapsed by then, relative to the time, now lost to history in terms of details, when the Aryans first invaded. See my long comment above.

      However, I admit that is tautological, since I don’t know a lot about the Vedic period: I’m basically defining the watering down of the Aryan component in India as ‘collapse’ even though racial collapse is not exactly conguent with civilizational collapse, though it’s closely related. As a self-aware Northern European, ie a member of the race with the greatest percentage Aryan blood remaining in the world, I’m biased to seeing it that way.

      However, it’s quite probable that all three of the Priest, Warrior and Kingly castes in Vedic India were more Aryan than I am now. In which case, if you can show the civilization did not collapse, we can be sure the rigid caste system, more durable and complex than, say, Spartans vs. Helots, was the main reason.

      • Cavalier says:

        “Aryan” isn’t all that matters. You, with the benefit of millennia of further selection, would perceive the real Aryans, were they deposited into the current year, as remarkably inferior.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think so. There is overwhelming evidence that the original Aryans were physically far stronger and fitter than their modern day descendents.

          The classic Greeks were more closely related to the original aryans than we are (modern Greeks are considerably browner) and the classic Greeks were a pretty smart bunch.

          The original (Andronovo culture) Aryans buried family members in large deep individual graves, often with grave goods, including well made pottery nicely decorated in the style the Nazis copied. (Or more likely the Andronovo culture influenced the Vedic culture, and the Vedic culture influenced the Nazis) They had good taste and good skills, and despite being largely nomadic, had transport technology and metallurgy superior to that of neighboring non nomadic people.

          Civilization tends to devolve people, as the smartest and best people get sucked into an urban elite that fails to reproduce.

          • Cavalier says:

            Physically, hunter-gatherers and nomads were likely superior to pre-modern civilized man and certainly superior to the fat denizens of low-fat-food-diet man.

            Behaviorally, socially, and mentally, certainly inferior pre-“business casual” “””civilized””” man. Graves, dress, pottery, etc. say nothing of how they would rank in direct comparison to us. I doubt their cultural achievements rivaled that of Prussia or Victorian Britain—or 19th-century Massachusetts, for that matter—but if they did, let me know.

            This:

            “Civilization tends to devolve people, as the smartest and best people get sucked into an urban elite that fails to reproduce.”

            Is total crap. Certain kinds of civilization, certain civilizations at certain times, shred good genes. Overall and overwhelmingly, civilization is the ascent of culture from barbarism.

            P.S. I bet if we sent back Chechnya, they’d beat the pulp out of the Aryans.

          • Cavalier says:

            P.P.S. Andronovo culture was 3kya, was it not? The “Aryans” were climbing the steppes 6kya, at least, were they not?

            P.P.P.S. The difference between the people of West Europe and East Europe is large, to say nothing of the difference between either Europe and the Caucasus, to say nothing of the difference between the Caucasus and a bunch of illiterate nomads 6,000 years ago. West Europeans and East Europeans were, more or less, one people just 1,000 years ago. Then there’s the Ashkenazim being just about that old. Et cetera and so forth.

            We too often discount the significance of extremely recent selection.

            • jim says:

              Yes – we get significant and substantial racial change in a thousand years. The white race is only ten thousand years old. But Aryans and their descendents have been technological and cultural leaders for a very long time, and whites, particularly Aryan descended whites, continue to be fractious, continue to be warlike, and continue to organize their societies on something like the tripartite system. Jews were priestly three thousand three hundred years ago, and still are.

          • peppermint says:

            If civilization doesn’t devolve people, what do you make of the collapses of Greece and Rome?

            • jim says:

              We plan to create a civilization that does not devolve people. But it is not easy.

              Women by nature have more power than men, for all a man can do to you is merely kill you, but a woman can make you immortal. But a society where woman have too much power will not reproduce successfully, because men will not invest in children, for if women get their way, they are apt to become whores and sluts. So men have to plot together to build a social order where women do not get their way, or at least they do not get their way in regard to elite males. Elite males should get their way and elite women should not get their way.

              Paradoxically, if women get their way, they fail to reproduce and fail to experience sexual love, since female sexual and reproductive behavior is optimized for the condition that they are captives. She is looking for a man strong enough to subdue her, and if she does not find him, may well fail to reproduce.

              Turns out that making patriarchy work is non trivial.

              • viking says:

                This is close to the problem. buts its not just women. at West civs high points we had such patriarchy but it always devolves.
                Its kind of like this civilization is a male thing we either conquer and or build while defending a civilzation. This process puts men in control and male virtues at high value.Towards the end of this process peace, prosperity, and time decay away from the initial need for male power (wars over) open up the culture for other players. This is natural and good in some ways.The civilization has breathing room for the arts sciences trade etc a generally higher level of civilization, which of course increase wealth peace (through power and wealth) but a less purely masculine esthetic is emerging. And the generation that understands how fragile civilization is dies as future generations come to believe life has always been thus and greater risk should be tolerated for lesser rewards.Even this phase is part of our best productivity.However the die is cast. Its simply not women who first become troublesome. Its elites who at this point are almost all men.They wish to make their mark on the world but the world is already won and optimized.They were instructed theirs was to preserve only making tiny adjustments as circumstances inevitably change. But their is no glory in this managerial task and they begin to dream. civilization attempts to make up for the lack of glory with ever increasing perks for being part of the ruling class, this only seves to further isolate them from the true risk reward situation and decadence creeps into the upper classes for some and radicalism.This is the virus.War is one way civilizations have attempted to ameliorate the decay,war has its own problems, as do the other methods tried.The history of civilization is a history of success breeding collapse.Blaming proles slaves women immigrants even is treating the symptom not the cause.The cause is actually successes effect on the sons of the founding stock

                • jim says:

                  I do not think so.

                  Every civilization that fails, fails as its elite fails to breed. And failure to breed is not success, it is not ease, it is poverty not wealth, the kind of first world poverty we now see all around us.

  16. TTAAC says:

    Not sure if you guys heard about this or not, but a 4chan /pol/ post shortly before this story broke gives us some insight into the enemy’s plans:

    https://archive.is/briVl#selection-1469.432-1469.566

    “FYI the MSM has a huge fucking media onslaught that is set to go live Monday to scorch earth Milo and destroy him via the pedophile label.

    I’m part of a mailing list (not giving my real name or the name of the list for the sake of protecting my ass from retaliation) but they have been sitting on the story for a while, because they thought Milo was small fries and wanted to wait until he got big enough a thread to go nuclear on.

    The journalists are pissed the fuck off Maher put him on the air and more so, pissed off his book deal had not been revoked (and some are pissed that Milo got a book deal from the same publisher who dropped Zoe Quinn’s book, along with a larger signing bonus than most of the publisher’s social justice authors).

    There are also those who want to hurt him simply as a proxy to hurt Steve Bannon/Breitbart, since their attempts to attack Bannon have largely failed. Not to mention people on the left being pissed off that most people sided with Milo over the rioters. Rioters, that were paid for by Soros through a variety of fronts and laundered through companies that can’t be traced back to him.

    Expect a steady drumbeat of ‘Milo is a pedophile’ and ‘Milo must be dropped from CPAC’. The later is especially important, in terms of the divide and conquer long game the press is playing: The press wants a civil war with the McCain/Graham wing of the GOP and the Trump/Ryan wing so as to weaken the Republicans in 2018. The overall plan is to make the Republicans fear social shaming from the media and the left more than they do their actual constituents who love Trump, in hopes of regaining the House and enough Senate seats to pull off an impeachment of Trump.”

    • jim says:

      Our enemies are applying rule four from the Saul David Alinksy playbook: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

      Remember that the left seldom makes the mistake of living up to its own rules, and just laughs when people point out it is failing to do so.

      Winning takes priority over all other rules.

      • peppermint says:

        The Daily Stormer doesn’t like Milo, but took the principled stand that he dindu nuffin in this instance, which can be used on normiebook to accuse gay enablers of not playing identity politics but the normal kind.

        Their only response is, well, you know, Simon and Schuster and the rest of the legacy media gleefully on this are Ronald Reagan Reaganites somehow.

  17. Alrenous says:

    Another fun fact about the idea of ‘age of consent’:
    A 130 IQ hitting on a normal IQ is pedophilia. The normal IQ will never be even vaguely as mature as the 130 IQ. We all know sub 70 is considered to be mentally defective? E.g. can’t do a full murder trial? Well, by comparison, a 100 vs a 130…
    Progs of course have no issues with uni grads hitting on hot working class chicks.

    • peppermint says:

      bullshit on progs being okay with uni grads hitting on anyone – to progs women must make the first and every move and men are permitted to allow women to have sex with them.

      Also bullshit on maturity of 100 IQs. 100 IQs are often more mature because they’re less taken in by propaganda and their own seemingly limitless ability to win arguments, they don’t think of themselves as semi-divine royalty whose only concern in life is to tell other people how to distribute the resources that just appear while those people thank them for being so vastly superior in doing bullshit assignments but see themselves as people in an economy trying to make a living for themselves and their families.

    • jim says:

      Smart or stupid, sex and love are volcanic forces that render everyone incapable of acting rationally.

    • viking says:

      hot working class chicks think unigrads are fags- and huh go on go into a bar full of firemen cops and steam fitters and hit on their women see what happens let me know I want to watch

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Lmao

        In the West having an IQ of 130+ massively decreases your attractiveness to hot working class chicks. Maybe in certain parts of rural China there are still girls who get turned on poetry like in the Ming dynasty, but definitely not here.

        • peppermint says:

          If your poetry is any good. Problem is, what passes for great poetry in the here and now is neither metric nor rhyming nor entendreful, but political garbage.

          Furthermore, those working class professions get you settled into your professional life by 24-26 so you can marry a 20-22 year old at peak beauty. Professions for high IQs you don’t start until at least 24 and aren’t settled until like 28 to 35, if ever.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            There are a lot of high IQ professions that you can start off upon graduation but the problem is your hours will be way higher than a working class guy so you won’t have time to do anything except meet them on the weekend for sex. Given the feminism here this basically means the chances they’ll remain loyal to you is pretty low.

            Requiring guys to chase pussy at the same time they’re starting a career and flying all over the place is pretty impossible and basically forces you to pump and dump. In a sane society men would be married before they enter the work force.

        • Cavalier says:

          That’s just because you don’t know how to talk to stupid people. Just tone down the erudite conversation into pointing and grunting. It’s easy once one learns how to shut down entire regions of your brain.

          • viking says:

            The problem is you dont know any working class people, they are no more stupid or smart than college class people. Jobs like policeman and union electrician nurses teachers military officer and hundreds of others require university degrees, many require equally as intensive training in their field or craft. Apprenticeships run 4-6 years and includes regular classroom training as well as on the job. Others require all sorts of certifications and or trade school training. Pilots do not require a university degree but can attest that its some of the most cognitively challenging stuff you can learn, A and P mechanics have four year schools like embry riddle, todays auto mechanics are highly trained.
            Its not that Murray and hernstein were wrong simply the case is overstated. Many bright people do not get filtereed into white collar college jobs for many reasons, they may be too anti social, dont like school, have a class aversion,live in an area that does not stress the importance, an area that is preferable to city life,may know from growing up blue collar there are jobs that earn enough without the degree and have there own advantages. For instance I am about to retire as a NYC union sheetmetal worker we make about 200k a year half in benefits and we w half in wages.and we make that in a 35 hr week overtime is double time.its hard work we often start early and work through our unpaid half hr lunch break to be able to leave earlier and we either make a deal with bosses to work even harder for an even shorter day or cheat him out of it anyway so the day is often more like 6 hrs like 6-12. benefits include two pension and an IRA two supplemental unemployment plans total healthcare etc. I have stuck with it despite many objections because the moneys decent but mostly because i can come and go as i please so I have worked mostly only the six winter months and spent the 6 summer months on my idaho ranch. Affirmative action is destroying these types of jobs and our industrial might niggers are incapable of the work

            • viking says:

              Oh I meant to add the other side of the coin is college degrees are indicative of nothing anymore certainly not intellect my IQ is 132 and my 21 yo daughters about the same I want her to get into real estate sales and development, why on earth would i want her to go to university or marry some fag that went i want her to marry a high IQ man that can protect her and take care of himself with practical skills that will be worth something if tshtf.I dont want them living in my brooklyn property surrounded by niggers and commies.

            • Cavalier says:

              >i went to private upper east side school with friends with fth avenue penthouses and parties at the met, same time also lower east side slum with hells angels and 90 % minority and NYU before going into the trades

              Surely you recognize that the vast majority are not like you.

              > Could you seduce a blue collar girl probably but not the way you brag.

              No bragging.

              I got my pilot’s license two weeks after I turned 17, I’ve talked to A&P guys because around small airports you just come in contact with them, and I even flew into Riddle once or twice.

              Piloting isn’t particularly challenging, A&P guys can be smart but not overwhelmingly smart, and Riddle struck me as a joke of a school—decent campus, little cognitive velocity.

              >the other side of the coin is college degrees are indicative of nothing anymore

              Well, top-end schools still indicate a certain minimum level of quality, but besides that, you are absolutely correct.

              >i want her to marry a high IQ man that can protect her and take care of himself with practical skills that will be worth something if tshtf

              And how exactly are you making her follow her brain rather than her loins?

              • viking says:

                Yes of course if you get into an Ivy you have a high IQ. However I have a lot of high IQ friends and cant help noticing above 130 they seem to lose all common sense and are really only good for one thing. I joke with them they will be my slaves post apocalypse.
                I have also learned in my admittedly long and unusual life that its not true that all smart people go to college. I found that people that grow up blue collar or rural tend to want to stay that way. So you find dynasties of small business owners or foremen framers etc that have stabilized high IQs families or tribes but remain minimally educated. If you grow up in a really beautiful part of the country and are told you can leave it and go to university and be the token hick or stay and be a community leader. if you grow up in a family and neighborhood union brooklyn plumbers and know all about blue collar jobs that require no degree and pay 100-300 k a year like a tugboat operator or a NYPD police detective or a sandhog you really think twice about changing classes.
                Most pilots I know are quite a bit smarter than average as are most I know in aviation period. Id say its fairly challenging I have a 132 IQ sure i got a 98 on the written but i did have to study and actually learn a fair amount about a dozen fields of science, I never really had to study in school just wing it. actually flying is kind of like driving my truck on a dirt road but i wouldnt want to do it without all that science in the back of my head.
                How am i going to get her to follow her brain than her loins? well of course its next to impossible to get any modern person to do anything not leftist. However I doubt her loins are going to lead her to some geeky coder, girls are attracted loin wise to manly men. its there brains if trained that way that make them consider the idea of settling for a geek.And they get tired of that. My plan is to find one of the men m talking about and introduce her. And to set her up in her first real estate project in idaho where shes unlikely to meet a leftist coder or journalist.And is more likely to find support from other women on living the life her dna is telling her to live rather than a barrage of slutty leftists shaming her for not being a slutty leftist.

      • Cavalier says:

        The bar may have once served a purpose, but why bother going into a bar to find an unwashed slut when slut is just the default you see at grocery stores and libraries and gyms and restaurants?

        And if you do leave respectability behind to go into a bar full of the unwashed, obviously in order to blend in you’re going to dress like a slob and talk like a hobo.

        • jim says:

          That is not the way to pick up chicks.

          • Cavalier says:

            I’m just mocking him. Obviously working-class girls respond to status like any others. Working-class bars are like fish barrels, if you can find a worthy catch. Pretty big if, though.

            • viking says:

              working class girls are on average much more virtuous than unigrads. They respond to status but its not a status you could mimic. working class people tend to regularly test status because its hard won they brook no poseurs. Again working class people are not stupider than whitecollar class people- this is the fatal conceit of nrx.

              • Cavalier says:

                >working class girls are on average much more virtuous than unigrads

                lol

                >They respond to status but its not a status you could mimic.

                There are status ladders within status ladders, sure, and I’m sure working-class people have smaller, within-class status markers, but if they want to move up, they respond to the bigger, without-class status markers.

                Furthermore, I could learn to fake working-class status if I wanted to, but I’d rather play the role of the foreign expeditionary visiting primitive shores.

                >Again working class people are not stupider than whitecollar class people

                Which “white-collar” people? There are some really dumb ones nowadays, and yet I sincerely doubt that my plumber is as smart as my lawyer.

                • viking says:

                  well im pretty much a plumber and Im smarter than every lawyer or dr ive ever found. I had a unique upbringing sort of parallel so i went to private upper east side school with friends with fth avenue penthouses and parties at the met, same time also lower east side slum with hells angels and 90 % minority and NYU before going into the trades.I also have spent half my time for 30 years in rural idaho. I can pass in almost any class from criminal to jetset. But its not easy and im sure if you haven’t actually lived it you couldnt. Could you seduce a blue collar girl probably but not the way you brag. The fact you do no know that working class girls are far more virtuous and think you could walk into a tavern and pick them up without getting your ass kicked shows you dont know shit about people at all. Obviously theres a lot of variation I find unigrads t be poorly read poor critical thinkers and have no ability to change a tire let alone build a house or plane or replace their boiler. their education consists of being brainwashed in leftism. Like you they think they can bluff their way through life signalling shit they know nothing about.Drs and lawyers simply recite from a script anyone could memorize when you question them they fold and get mad and appeal to their own authority. On the other hand I know a lot of blue collar guys that have never read a book but who can invent all sorts of remarkable technical machines can build anything or repair anything I for instance am building my opwn plane including its own engine, its pretty rare I meet a unigrad at experimental aviation meets.
                  I wont argue with you Ill just say if the SHTF i would surround myself with blue collar guys over white any day and I have already set that up. If i had to entrust my life and children to a wife she would definitely not be a unigrad.

                • jim says:

                  Your lawyer is almost certainly smarter than your plumber, if he is working as a lawyer. But most lawyers are not working as lawyers, and the white collar worker in HR is quite certainly dumber than your plumber, and almost certainly dumber than my cleaning lady. And the typical Harvard graduate is dumber than my cleaning lady.

                • pdimov says:

                  Old comment threads are fun.

  18. Corvinus says:

    “We should view sex with properly owned women as rape if her guardian does not consent to it (which is what “rape” meant a couple of hundred years ago)…”

    Not this same tired argument. Jim, you would have been put to death when you cheated on your wife with other women whom you neglected to receive the consent of their father -and- when you had sex with women when she passed on to glory by not marrying one of them.

    “and sex with feral women as a form of regrettable but unavoidable predation regardless of whether they consent or not, which predation is best remedied by shotgun marriage or similar, remedied by ensuring that a feral woman comes into the possession of a man who can plausibly be expected to have good intentions towards her and treat her with kindness ”

    So, the women you are currently sleeping with. Have you received the father’s consent? When are going to get remarried?

    “And, of course, if a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Then Milo ought to be immediately purged from this society for his sin.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Ahh, tu quo que, the age old tired refrain of intellectual lightweights.

      If such laws were in hypothetically in place, then a hypothetical Jim living in hypothetical land would have a different set of hypothetical incentive structures that they would be reacting with, it does not follow that they would react in the same manner as in present reality. If such laws were in place, such a person *would not have been cheating on their wife in the first place*, or would have taken such care and conscientiousness to avoid trouble and notice that it is functionally indistinguishable from not cheating.

      You can’t bait and switch hypotheticals piece-meal like a dime-store sophist; if you propose alternate realities, it is incumbent with all the entangled implications thereof.

      • Corvinus says:

        Ahh, tu quo que, the age old tired refrain of intellectual lightweights.

        “If such laws were in hypothetically in place, then a hypothetical Jim living in hypothetical land would have a different set of hypothetical incentive structures that they would be reacting with…”

        There is no hypothetical here. Jim swears by living according to natural law and the Good Book, yet his conduct when it comes to having sex outside of marriage runs counter to those principles.

        “If such laws were in place, such a person *would not have been cheating on their wife in the first place*…”

        These laws were put in place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…and people still broke them. So your protestations run afoul here.

        “or would have taken such care and conscientiousness to avoid trouble and notice that it is functionally indistinguishable from not cheating.”

        Which is what Jim has been doing ever since I called him out on his hypocrisy. Thanks for noticing.

        “You can’t bait and switch hypotheticals piece-meal like a dime-store sophist; if you propose alternate realities, it is incumbent with all the entangled implications thereof.”

        I will take your tepid response here as saying that Jim would burn at the stake for his behaviors.

        • jim says:

          There is no hypothetical here. Jim swears by living according to natural law and the Good Book, yet his conduct when it comes to having sex outside of marriage runs counter to those principles.

          Feral women are fair game. Always have been, always will be. We need an effective system for restraining feral women from bad behavior, and if we had such a system, then it would indeed be immoral to fail to apply it, though it would never be entirely successful in controlling all feral women. But we do not have such a system, and even if you get a reasonably virtuous women pregnant, it is very difficult to safely regularize the situation. Far from the parties being coerced to regularize the situation, they are coerced to not regularize it.

          Even the best and most effective systems of patriarchy that have ever existed have never reduced to level of feral women to zero, or even to tolerably low levels, so some predation on women is always legitimate and socially necessary.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Last i checked, i don’t see anyone being burned at the stake for adultery in the west.

          Do you work hard at being obtuse, or does it just come naturally too you?

          • Corvinus says:

            “Last i checked, i don’t see anyone being burned at the stake for adultery in the west.”

            In order to save Western Civilization according to conservative Christian men, the burning of the stake of adulterers is required. Would you support such an endeavor?

            Or are you a Heartiste admirer and an atheist/agnostic/heathen/Churchian (take your pick) to boot?

            “Do you work hard at being obtuse, or does it just come naturally too you?”

            I’m just trying to follow your lead.

            • Mackus says:

              First you need to burn your enemies, before you can have luxury of burning your allies.
              And after you defeated your enemies, and burned them because they refused to repent, you burn your allies only after they refused to repent.

              Imbecile.

              • Corvinus says:

                “First you need to burn your enemies, before you can have luxury of burning your allies.”

                So, using YOUR logic, in order to save Western Civilization according to conservative Christian men, the burning of the stake of adulterers is required. Thanks for agreeing.

                • Mackus says:

                  Since you are rather fixated on burning people, I kept that wording as an example of punishment, so you’d stop yammering about method of punishment, as that wasn’t the point I was making. The point is that you fight and defeat your enemies before you turn against your allies.

                  >Burning at the stake was a capital punishment method mostly used in the Middle Ages
                  False. People weren’t being burned for theft in Europe, closest thing was mongols burning people for very specific crime of stealing horses. No mentions of men being burned for adultery, only some sporadic mentions of women being burned for adultery. If you ever find an medieval example of man that was burned for adultery, he was having sex with woman married to someone else, not an unmarried slut. Prostitutes operated largely openly in medieval cities.

                  >Should a man have sex with her without the consent of the father, both are subject to punishment by death.
                  BS. If she had a father, he’d be forced to pay him for ruining her and be forced to take care of her. No father, no husband -> no man is being harmed by them having sex, so no fine, no punishment.

                  >Corrected for accuracy
                  You are utterly incapable of acknowledging that someone begins conversation with different premise you do.
                  You argue as if your premise was not only the sole correct one, but the only one anyone could ever hold.
                  When someone says: “hold a moment, I never agreeded that X”, you just repeat your “conclusion” without even acknowledging that with difference in premises, conclusion doesn’t hold water, and claim victory.

                  You don’t even bother with mangling the text of bible until it says what you want it to say, you just make up things.

                  Jim, I don’t think he either contributes to the discussion, nor is he even entertaining in his wrongness.

            • jim says:

              Your definition of adulterer differs radically from the old Christian definition. In particular, it differs from that employed in 18th century England, whose patriarchy I intend to restore, whose patriarchy we need to restore or else our people will disappear from history, to be replaced by conservative Muslims.

              An adulterer is a man who sleeps with someone else’s wife. A rapist is someone who sleeps with a woman without her guardian’s permission. A woman with neither a husband nor a guardian is a slut. Death, preferably by the offended husband killing the adulterer, is the appropriate penalty for adulterers. No one has ever proposed burning at the stake, and the proposition that a married man who sleeps with additional women is an adulterer is quite new, and was accompanied by massive social breakdown, destruction of the family, and an alarming rise in bastardy, because the new definition reflected a loss of will to control female misbehavior. People started worrying about controlling male misbehavior because they had given up on controlling female misbehavior.

              A considerably lesser penalty is appropriate for rapists. And of course, it is impossible to rape a slut. Beating up a slut is a crime, but sex with a slut is not a crime. Her opinion about the sex does not matter much, since female opinions on sex are irrational and hard to discern, even for the woman herself. We should take her opinions about being beaten up seriously, but not her opinions about sex.

              • Corvinus says:

                “An adulterer is a man who sleeps with someone else’s wife.”

                Corrected for accuracy –> An adulterer is a married man or woman who has sexual relations with other than their husband or wife.

                In Biblical times, there was also no such thing as a “single” man or woman who would be sanctioned to have sex outside of marriage. The man and woman were expected to be virginal. The man was to secure permission from the woman’s father to marry her. Once married, they could have sex. ALL women were owned by the father, regardless of her protestations to the contrary. Should a man have sex with her without the consent of the father, both are subject to punishment by death.

                “No one has ever proposed burning at the stake…”

                Burning at the stake was a capital punishment method mostly used in the Middle Ages. This type of execution was a common way to punish blasphemers, thieves and witches, but it was also practiced for adultery and murder.

                “and the proposition that a married man who sleeps with additional women is an adulterer is quite new.”

                False News Story.

                “A woman with neither a husband nor a guardian is a slut.”

                Corrected for accuracy –> During Biblical times, a woman with neither a husband or a guardian who actually had sex was a slut.

                • jim says:

                  “An adulterer is a man who sleeps with someone else’s wife.”

                  Corrected for accuracy –> An adulterer is a married man or woman who has sexual relations with other than their husband or wife.

                  That is absurd, and goes against three thousand years of common usage. We don’t see men who sleep with women other than their wives called adulterers until the nineteenth century collapse in restraints on female sexual behavior and consequent explosion of bastardy and collapse of the family, when women giving birth in dark alleys in the rain became an intolerable problem, leading to today’s welfare state.

                  When they abandoned restraints on women, they doubled down on restraints on men, much as when Jews abandoned restraints on women and gays, they double down on keeping meat and cheese separate, and then went into the business of filming gay pornography, while quadrupling down on keeping meat and cheese (but not semen) separate.

                  In Biblical times, there was also no such thing as a “single” man or woman who would be sanctioned to have sex outside of marriage. The man and woman were expected to be virginal. The man was to secure permission from the woman’s father to marry her.

                  That flatly contradicts the plain wording of the bible: Which prescribes the death penalty for sleeping with another man’s wife or betrothed, shotgun marriage for sleeping with virgins, and all the rest are fair game. If no male is harmed, no offense is committed.

                  A patriarchal society tries to ensure that there are as few feral women, which is to say, as few unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women, as possible, but you are never going to get the proportion of feral women down to zero,or even very low.

                  Burning at the stake was a capital punishment method mostly used in the Middle Ages. This type of execution was a common way to punish blasphemers, thieves and witches, but it was also practiced for adultery and murder

                  You are an ignorant fool. You demonize our past, because you hate and demonize our people, and at the same time you imagine that progressivism has always ruled.

                • Cavalier says:

                  You keep repeating the same things, even when repeatedly presented with evidence disproving your assertions.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              You are a very dumb person.

              I will spell it out simply for you.

              *If people were actually getting burned at the stake for adultery, you’d see a lot less adulterers*

              If you look at person who was a player in this life, and then looked at them in hypothetical land where such was the law, *very likely to not have been playing around*.

              A statement like ‘if you were in such and such you would have been punished for this and that’ is casuistry because if ‘such and such’ were actually the case ‘this and that’ *would not be happening in the first place*.

            • jim says:

              No one proposes burning at the stake for adulterers.

              Lots of people, myself among them, propose death for adulterers, preferably by the offended man himself killing the offenders, and most women that I have had a sexual relationship with have been somewhat inclined to suspect that I would indeed do that, despite the disgusting, vile, immoral, and perverse law making such killings illegal.

  19. […] can think of a bunch of better reasons for Purging Milo than being a his being victim of […]

  20. Corvinus says:

    “Feral women are fair game. Always have been, always will be.”

    Nope. Feral women are owned by their fathers. Always been that way, dear. Even if feral women reject ownership of their fathers, it does not preclude any man from having sex with them, especially if the man is married.

    “We need an effective system for restraining feral women from bad behavior, and if we had such a system, then it would indeed be immoral to fail to apply it…”

    The system is already in place. Always has been, always will be. It’s called self-control as instilled by virtuous families, something you have proven to lack.

    “so some predation on women is always legitimate and socially necessary.”

    Bible passages your (ridiculous) assertion? Other sources as evidence? Or are you grasping at straws once again…

    • jim says:

      Reflect on the biblical penalty for seducing or forcibly having sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed virgin. You have to marry her and pay a small fine to her father. In the Old Testament, and arguably in the New, you are allowed to marry several such women.

      No penalty for seducing or forcibly having sex with an unmarried and unbetrothed non virgin, except that if you have sex with a woman that is under your power and authority, servant, slave, or captive, you are not allowed to let her go, sell her, or send her away, and she is not allowed to go. You are stuck with her, and she is stuck with you.

      Death penalty for most other forms of non marital sex.

      No word for rape in the modern sense, no concept of rape in the modern sense, no penalty for rape in the modern sense. Female consent is irrelevant, except that if she consents to sex that has the death penalty, she gets killed also, whereas if she did not consent, she is OK and only the man gets executed. Female consent or lack thereof makes no difference to the biblical penalty applied to the man.

      Recapping: Old Testament, and Israel at the time of Jesus, has no concept of rape in the modern sense, and no difference in penalty for the man between seduction in the modern sense, and rape in the modern sense.

      Polygyny allowed.

      For sex with most women, penalty is death or shotgun marriage. But some women are fair game. In the modern world, the great majority of women fall into the fair game category: Unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgins who are not under your direct authority are fair game, but it is clear that in biblical times, such women were rather few.

      Eighteenth century England fairly similar to old Testament and the Israel of the time of Jesus, except that the protection biblically applied to virgins is applied to all women with guardians, and polygyny not allowed.

    • jim says:

      “Feral women are fair game. Always have been, always will be.”

      Nope. Feral women are owned by their father

      Biblical position was that a non virgin single woman who is not engaged is fair game, even if she is living with her father. Eighteenth century position was slightly more complicated, but was more or less that she was fair game if not living with father or guardian and under his supervision and authority, not engaged, and not married.

      Deuteronomy 22:

      22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

      23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

      24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

      25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

      26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

      27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

      28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

      29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

      Notice, if not married, not betrothed, and not a virgin, no problem.

      • Cavalier says:

        >the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city

        Heh.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Notice, if not married, not betrothed, and not a virgin, no problem.”

        Nope. The daughter is always owned by the father.

        The issue has been and always will be that Christian men and women MUST be virgins before they get married. Having sex outside of marriage is sinful.

        Moreover, look at how Jim talks about “real” husbands and fathers. You had sex outside of marriage with single and married women without securing the permission of the patriarchs of the their families. Based on what YOU have written, you would be subject to death.

        Again, “feral women” are NOT “up for grabs” since they are NOT your property, they remain in the control of their fathers regardless if you believe the fathers have failed to exert proper authority over them. You are still required to seek their permission to marry them in order to have sex with them.

        You lose.

        • peppermint says:

          Yes, the daughter is owned by the father. But if the father isn’t able to control the daughter, it’s time for her to be reassigned to someone who is able to. And since she’s already chosen a man and given him her vcard…

          • Corvinus says:

            “Yes, the daughter is owned by the father.”

            Exactly.

            “But if the father isn’t able to control the daughter, it’s time for her to be reassigned to someone who is able to.”

            In the Bible we see daughters generally remaining in their father’s home until marriage, continuing to be supported and protected by him until another man assumes that role as her husband. There was no “reassignment”, just community pressure.

        • Mackus says:

          >Based on what YOU have written, you would be subject to death.
          You’re completely retarded. He wrote hundred times WHY this is not the case.
          You might disagree with his views on morality, but all it means is he broke YOUR moral code, not HIS.
          Get it into your empty head.

          • Corvinus says:

            “You’re completely retarded. He wrote hundred times WHY this is not the case.”

            Falsely wrote.

            “You might disagree with his views on morality, but all it means is he broke YOUR moral code, not HIS.”

            The moral code is the one found in the Bible that Jim claims to adhere to. I didn’t realize that personal moral codes supersede God’s laws.

            • Mackus says:

              >>The moral code is the one found in the Bible that Jim claims to adhere to. I didn’t realize that personal moral codes supersede God’s laws.
              Well, its not like millennia old book that is basis for many of religions with over billion followers would have more than one interpretation that is widely recognized, each of them considered correct view of God’s law by different groups of people. Yup. Sounds legit.

              Bitch.

              • Corvinus says:

                Haven’t you heard, there’s only ONE legitimate interpretation…and that is the Bible. Word for word, not Jim’s tortured version.

                Sounds like you are an atheist, or an agnostic, or a heathen, or even a….(gasp) liberal.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The Bible IS many interpretations.

                • Mackus says:

                  Corvinus confirmed himself as an idiot by not knowing that Bible is interpreted in different ways by different Christian denominations and churches.

                  Me: One bible is interpreted differently by different groups of Christians.
                  Corvinus: Lolololo, don’t you know there is only one bible!?

                • jim says:

                  And what the Bible says is perfectly clear – and was interpreted accordingly by the Anglican Church from 1660 to some time in the early nineteenth century. Different rules apply to men and woman. Women who sleep around are behaving very badly. Men who sleep around are only behaving badly if they violate other men’s property rights in their women.

                  It is obviously absurd to apply the same rules to men and women.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “The Bible IS many interpretations.”

                  The Bible is one message. Different faiths interpret that message differently.

                  “Corvinus confirmed himself as an idiot by not knowing that Bible is interpreted in different ways by different Christian denominations and churches.”

                  There is only one message, the word of God. All other interpretations are meaningless. Do pay attention.

                  “And what the Bible says is perfectly clear – and was interpreted accordingly by the Anglican Church from 1660 to some time in the early nineteenth century. Different rules apply to men and woman. Women who sleep around are behaving very badly. Men who sleep around are only behaving badly if they violate other men’s property rights in their women.”

                  Nope. Same message for Christian men and women. Remain a virgin until marriage. Sex outside of marriage is sinful and subject to a death sentence. A woman is the property of the father at all times, even if she objects, even if she “behaves badly”, until the father secures a marriage partner for her. That is the Word of God.

                • jim says:

                  You can plausibly dispute my interpretation of the Bible: But reflect that your interpretation, that the same (left wing progressive) rules apply to both men and woman, has never been accepted by any major religion until quite recent times.

                • Mackus says:

                  Mackus says: There is only one bible, all Christians admit its word of God, and that word is interpreted differently by different groups of Christians
                  Corvinius hallucinates: Mackus says that there are dozen completely different bibles, all claiming to be message of God.
                  Corvinius triumphantly says: There is only one message, the word of God. After all, there is evidently only one bible.

                  I am ninety percent convinced that Corvinius is poorly written bot.

                  I Corvinius was smart, he’d simply say that his interpretation of God message is the one that’s correct.
                  But Corvinius doesn’t stop at that, he has to passionately deny that any other interpretation exists or ever existed.

                  In Corvinius hallucinatons, No-one holds different (backed by quoting bible) views that Corvinius, its just that there are people who hypocritically refuse to live by Corviniuses rule of conduct. Even if they are members of completely different denomination with completely different doctrine, they are hypocrites for failing to follow tenets of Corviniuses church they’ve never heard of.

                  Hence, Corvinius will never admit that his views are quite modern ideas. To admit that crimethough exists is crimethough in itself.

                • Corvinus says:

                  Mackus…

                  “There is only one bible, all Christians admit its word of God, and that word is interpreted differently by different groups of Christians. Corvinius hallucinates: Mackus says that there are dozen completely different bibles, all claiming to be message of God. Corvinius triumphantly says: There is only one message, the word of God. After all, there is evidently only one bible.”

                  You are easy to wind up. I never made these claims. Strawman much?

                  Read very carefully. There is one Bible. There are different interpretations made by different groups of Christian of said Bible. But there is only one interpretation that matters most, that being the Word of God. Jim’s interpretation is other than holy, other than the Word of God.

                  “I Corvinius was smart, he’d simply say that his interpretation of God message is the one that’s correct.”

                  Except it’s not my interpretation, it’s simply the Word of God.

                  “In Corvinius hallucinatons, No-one holds different (backed by quoting bible) views that Corvinius, its just that there are people who hypocritically refuse to live by Corviniuses rule of conduct. Even if they are members of completely different denomination with completely different doctrine, they are hypocrites for failing to follow tenets of Corviniuses church they’ve never heard of.”

                  No, they are hypocrites for adhering to anything but the Word of God.

                  Jim…

                  “You can plausibly dispute my interpretation of the Bible”

                  No, I destroyed your interpretation of the Bible.

                  “But reflect that your interpretation, that the same (left wing progressive) rules apply to both men and woman, has never been accepted by any major religion until quite recent times.”

                  The interpretation I refer to is the Word of God. You just don’t want to admit it is Truth.

                  You need the message repeated because you are other than a Believer–Remain a virgin until marriage. Sex outside of marriage is sinful and subject to a death sentence. A woman is the property of the father at all times, even if she objects, even if she “behaves badly”, until the father secures a marriage partner for her.

                • jim says:

                  Jim’s interpretation is other than holy, other than the Word of God.

                  Perhaps, but surely the fact that no one accepted the progressive interpretation until the nineteenth century should make you wonder if your interpretation is holy.

                • jim says:

                  “But reflect that your interpretation, that the same (left wing progressive) rules apply to both men and woman, has never been accepted by any major religion until quite recent times.”

                  The interpretation I refer to is the Word of God. You just don’t want to admit it is Truth.

                  So according to you, progressivism is true Christianity – it is just that no Christians realized this until quite recently.

                • Mackus says:

                  >There are different interpretations made by different groups of Christian of said Bible. But there is only one interpretation that matters most, that being the Word of God.
                  >Except it’s not my interpretation, it’s simply the Word of God.

                  So are there interpretations of varying accuracy, or is there Word of God that never ever leaves any room for doubt or different interpretation? 🙂

                  All Christians come their beliefs by interpreting word of God, and their interpretations differ. You are now trying to avoid addressing my point by saying bible and word of God are different things, by doing so you’re saying bible isn’t word of God.
                  Even if you’re of some sort of weird small denomination that doesn’t consider bible a word of God, you still refuse to acknowledge the point, by playing word games. The point, adapted to acknowledge you differentiating between bible and word of God, is:

                  Word of God is interpreted differently by different groups of Christians. Jim interpretation of word of God is different from yours.

                  Corvinius of course refuses to believe that in past people interpreted word of God differently than he does. To admit it would be thoughcrime.

                  But Corvinius already agreed with my main point, if only by accident:

                  >There are different interpretations made by different groups of Christian of said Bible.
                  There. Corvinius admitted that Jim follows different moral code, and by doing so admitted that Jim and Heartiste wouldn’t be burned at stake by application of their moral code, since their moral code permits their behavior.

                  >No, they are hypocrites for adhering to anything but the Word of God.
                  Hypocrite: “A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.”
                  Person who does not agree with your interpretation of word of God is not hypocrite for failing to adhere to your interpretation of it. He’d be hypocrite for failing to adhere to HIS interpretation. Imbecile.

                • Corvinus says:

                  Jim–“So according to you, progressivism is true Christianity – it is just that no Christians realized this until quite recently.”

                  Never made that statement. Strawman much?

                  Mackus…

                  “So are there interpretations of varying accuracy, or is there Word of God that never ever leaves any room for doubt or different interpretation?”

                  The latter, of course.

                  “You are now trying to avoid addressing my point by saying bible and word of God are different things, by doing so you’re saying bible isn’t word of God.”

                  No, I never made that point. You insist I made that point and argue from that position. It’s really simple. The Bible is the Word Of God. That is THE message.

                  “Word of God is interpreted differently by different groups of Christians. Jim interpretation of word of God is different from yours.”

                  “Corvinius of course refuses to believe that in past people interpreted word of God differently than he does. To admit it would be thoughcrime.”

                  Again, YOU made that statement. I have agreed and always agreed that people interpret the Bible–the Word Of God–differently. But the Bible is THE source for Truth. If it states it clearly in the Bible, it is Truth.

                  Stay on point. Jim is interpreting the Bible–the word of God–for his own sexual purposes. Men and women are to remain virgins until married. Daughters are owned by their fathers. Men must secure the permission of the daughter’s father to marry them, and then have sex with them. That is the Truth.

                  “There. Corvinius admitted that Jim follows different moral code, and by doing so admitted that Jim and Heartiste wouldn’t be burned at stake by application of their moral code, since their moral code permits their behavior.”

                  I always had admitted that Jim follows a moral code, one that perverts the faith, one that is other than the Word of God, one that would punish Jim and Heartiste for having sex with women other than their wife.

                  “Person who does not agree with your interpretation of word of God is not hypocrite for failing to adhere to your interpretation of it. He’d be hypocrite for failing to adhere to HIS interpretation. Imbecile.”

                  Jim is a hypocrite because he has claimed to strictly follow the Bible–the word of God–but creates his own interpretation of the Good Book to suit his sexual needs.
                  His interpretation clearly deviates from the message found in the text.

                  You are getting destroyed here. Best you go back to your little rabbit hole.

                • Mackus says:

                  You’re an idiot Corvinius.

                  In one breath you admit that people can have different moral code (different from moral code you consider correct), and they follow it earnestly, and you call them hypocrites despite them being consistent with their openly stated moral code.

                  >I always had admitted that Jim follows a moral code, one that perverts the faith, one that is other than the Word of God, one that would punish Jim and Heartiste for having sex with women other than their wife.
                  You cannot in one breath admit that his moral code is different from yours, and in the same breath act as it was exactly the same.
                  corrected for sanity:
                  >I always had admitted that Jim follows a moral code, one that different from my true faith, one that is other than the Word of God, as law according to True Word of God would punish Jim and Heartiste for having sex with women other than their wife.

                  If you were smart, you’d say that “according to True Word of God (trademarked), Heartiste would be burned on stake for all the sleeping around, but Heartiste is minion of Satan, and he doesn’t follow Word of God, but evil Satanic moral code that permits him to sleep around”.
                  But you don’t, no, that would require you to be smart, instead you say he’d be burned according to moral code you admitted is different from “True Word of God” (trademarked). Do I have to make your arguments for you for them to have any amount of internal consistency?

                  Ending sentence with “lolololo I win!” doesn’t distract anyone from your blatant idiocy.

                  Your hallucinations were barely entertaining at first, even less so that they began to repeat themselves.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “In one breath you admit that people can have different moral code (different from moral code you consider correct), and they follow it earnestly, and you call them hypocrites despite them being consistent with their openly stated moral code.”

                  The Word of God is THE moral code. Others may adhere to their own moral code other than the Word of God. But then that would render the Word of God as impotent.

                  Either there is one supreme, all-encompassing moral code–the Bible, or the Word of God–or there are “offshoots” of competing philosophies. If that be the case, then morality is nothing more of a personal preference.

                  “You cannot in one breath admit that his moral code is different from yours, and in the same breath act as it was exactly the same.”

                  His moral code deviates from the Bible, the Word of God. Supposedly, he strictly adheres to this religious book. Then he takes liberties from its text. He claims a standard exists for adultery, one that is clearly and utterly not part of the Bible. If you want to come to the defense of your buddy, be my guest.

                  “If you were smart, you’d say that “according to True Word of God (trademarked), Heartiste would be burned on stake for all the sleeping around, but Heartiste is minion of Satan, and he doesn’t follow Word of God, but evil Satanic moral code that permits him to sleep around”.

                  You’re finally coming around here. Glad you admitted that Heartiste is other than holy. The next thing is to admit that Jim is a hypocrite.

                  “But you don’t, no, that would require you to be smart, instead you say he’d be burned according to moral code you admitted is different from “True Word of God” (trademarked)”

                  He would be burned at the stake according to what is lucidly stated in the Bible. Jim in essence is giving he and himself a free pass.

                  “Do I have to make your arguments for you for them to have any amount of internal consistency?”

                  No, you are putting words in my mouth to make yourself feelz good. Clearly, you ignore the Truth.

                  If there be several interpretations of the Bible that each Christian is able to personally adhere to, then that is the essence of liberalism. Nay, Jim’s version decidedly perverts the Word of God.

                • jim says:

                  The Word of God is THE moral code. Others may adhere to their own moral code other than the Word of God. But then that would render the Word of God as impotent.

                  According to you the word of God commands progressivism, which is not how Christians have understood it until very recently. For example, word of God commands marital debt, but according to you, allows divorce on whim.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “According to you the word of God commands progressivism, which is not how Christians have understood it until very recently. For example, word of God commands marital debt, but according to you, allows divorce on whim.”

                  No, the Word of God commands that every Christian man and woman remain a virgin before marriage, that daughters are owned by their fathers, and that sex by a man or woman who is not their husband of wife is sinful and subject to extreme punishment. Christian men and women, regardless of the society they reside, are to strictly observe the Word of God, lest His message is rendered meaningless by alternative interpretations.

                  You desperately try to dispute these Truths. It’s to no avail. By your own admission, you would be put to death.

                • jim says:

                  The word of god does not command that daughters belong to their fathers until marriage. It commands that they should belong to their fathers until marriage. Big difference. Its a fallen world. No one ever gets patriarchy working one hundred percent. Or even eighty percent.

                • Cavalier says:

                  »the Word of God commands this

                  »the Word of God commands that

                  Corvinus, I’ll become your most sincere advocate if only you answer the following question: where can I find this Word of God? I’ve looked at Deuteronomy 22 and haven’t found it. I’ve looked at 1 Corinthians 7 and haven’t found it. Thessalonians 4, same story. So where? In what chapter and verse can I find Holy Feminism, and once I’ve found it, why is it more significant than Deuteronomy 22?

                • Corvinus says:

                  Jim…

                  “The word of god does not command that daughters belong to their fathers until marriage. It commands that they should belong to their fathers until marriage. Big difference.:”

                  Nope. Daughters are the property of their fathers. They belong to them until their are married. Stop lying.

                  Cavalier…

                  “Corvinus, I’ll become your most sincere advocate if only you answer the following question: where can I find this Word of God? I’ve looked at Deuteronomy 22 and haven’t found it. I’ve looked at 1 Corinthians 7 and haven’t found it. Thessalonians 4, same story. So where? In what chapter and verse can I find Holy Feminism, and once I’ve found it, why is it more significant than Deuteronomy 22?”

                  The Bible is the Word of God. His word is the ONLY interpretation. Any other interpretations are perversions. Any other interpretations renders the Good Book as meaningless. Any other interpretation is the essence of liberalism and crime thought.

                  Here ended the lesson…

                • jim says:

                  “The word of god does not command that daughters belong to their fathers until marriage. It commands that they should belong to their fathers until marriage. Big difference.:”

                  Nope. Daughters are the property of their fathers. They belong to them until their are married. Stop lying.

                  Deuteronomy makes it clear that a father is not harmed if you seduce or rape a non virgin daughter. Where in the new testament is this changed?

        • jim says:

          “Notice, if not married, not betrothed, and not a virgin, no problem.”

          Nope. The daughter is always owned by the father.

          That is not what the bible says, and not what the official Anglican church said back in the days when it truly was the state Church of England, back when we actually had real patriarchy, privately enforced, government enforced, and backed by family, society, Church and State.

          A father had a legal and social duty to keep control of his daughters, and prevent them from misbehavior. But many fathers neglected this duty, or were unable to perform it. If the daughter is not married, engaged, or virgin, that is an indication of inability or unwillingness to perform this duty. If you cannot, or will not, control your daughters, despite the backing of family, society, Church, and State, you don’t own them any more.

          And today most women are neither married, betrothed, nor virgin, so fair game.

          In a patriarchal society, such women should be placed under the authority, protection, and support of some male willing and able to control them, preferably by marriage, possibly by shotgun marriage. But it is never practical even in the most patriarchal of societies to get all such women under control.

          Again, “feral women” are NOT “up for grabs” since they are NOT your property,

          The deer in the woods and the fish in the sea is not my property till I catch it and make it my own.

          • Corvinus says:

            “That is not what the bible says, and not what the official Anglican church said back in the days when it truly was the state Church of England, back when we actually had real patriarchy, privately enforced, government enforced, and backed by family, society, Church and State.”

            This idea of a man’s wife and child being considered his human property and thus owned is confirmed by the Bible. I suggest you consult it rather than fling shit on the wall.

            “A father had a legal and social duty to keep control of his daughters, and prevent them from misbehavior. But many fathers neglected this duty, or were unable to perform it.”

            Not in patriarchal societies. Men ruled with an iron fist. Your statement suggests that men historically lacked control and thus were other than skilled at ruling. You are indicating that Christian men were generally impotent in this regard. So, the burden of proof is now on yourself. Offer specific evidence that “many fathers neglected this duty, or were unable to perform it”, in particular during Biblical times, or in Christian-based societies such as in Europe, say in the 1400 or 1500 or 1600’s.

            ” If the daughter is not married, engaged, or virgin, that is an indication of inability or unwillingness to perform this duty.”

            No, it is an indication that the father is waiting for the right price or has yet to find a suitable husband.

            “If you cannot, or will not, control your daughters, despite the backing of family, society, Church, and State, you don’t own them any more.”

            Yes, the fathers still owned them. You have no authority in this regard. As you indicated, the backing of the family, society, Church, and State is what most counts here.

            “And today most women are neither married, betrothed, nor virgin, so fair game.”

            Nope. If you are a Christian male who strictly adheres to the Bible, you must remain a virgin until married or secure permission from a father to have sex with his daughter after you get married. If your wife died, and you want to have sex with women, you must secure permission from her father or oldest male relative if he is dead, and then marry her. That’s how it works. That is how civilization is maintained, one individual at a time.

            “In a patriarchal society, such women should be placed under the authority, protection, and support of some male willing and able to control them…”

            That person is the father, not you or somebody else.

            • jim says:

              Not in patriarchal societies. Men ruled with an iron fist.

              Men were supposed to rule with an iron fist, and had the backing of family, society, state, and church in so doing. Unfortunately I regret to report that they were frequently entirely unsuccessful in ruling with an iron fist, often hilariously unsuccessful in ruling with an iron fist.

              For no matter how much power the law gives men, and how little it gives women, nature gives women dangerously great power, for all a man can do to another man is merely to kill him, whereas a woman can make him immortal.

          • Michael Rothblatt says:

            You are right Jim. According to the Canon Law a slut is never considered to have been forcibly penetrated, she’s considered to have been fornicating wheter she was forcibly penetrated, or she consented, it makes no difference, and she suffers the same ecclesiastial punishment regardless (the one for fornication). Also the Canon Law doesn’t call forcible penetration rape. According to the Canon Law rape is abduction for the sake of marriage i.e. marriage without the consent of the girl’s rightful owner (even if she wants that marriage, she cannot get it without the blessing of the father, or brother, i.e. the male who’s responsible for her).

        • jim says:

          The issue has been and always will be that Christian men and women MUST be virgins before they get married. Having sex outside of marriage is sinful.

          Not what the bible says, nor what the Christian Church said back in the days when we had a real official State backed government Church that could and did impose its morality.

          Women should only have sex with one man, for to do otherwise prevents male investment in children and family, by obfuscating paternity. No matter what men do, cannot obfuscate paternity. So different rules apply to men and women. Basic biology. There was a time when everyone knew this. Also the sexual nature of women is different from the sexual nature of men, so female bad behavior is very different from male bad behavior and preventing women from bad behavior is a very different problem from preventing men from bad behavior, hence different rules and different enforcement mechanisms required.

          • Corvinus says:

            Yes, the Bible clearly states that men and women are to remain virgins before being married. You are lying.

            Corinthians 7:8-9–To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

            Thessalonians 4:3-8–For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.

            When the Bible uses the word virgin, it refers to an unmarried person who has not had sexual relations (see Esther 2:2 and Revelation 14:4). In today’s culture, many people use the word virginity to express sexual purity; however, many others use a technical definition to find loopholes in moral standards, limiting the word to mean only “the condition of never having gone all the way”—thus, a couple can do anything and everything short of sexual intercourse and still technically call themselves “virgins.” Chastity should affect the heart, mind, and soul, not just certain body parts.

            The Bible’s emphasis is not so much on a technical or medical definition of virginity as it is on the condition of a person’s heart. The morality we espouse and the actions we choose give evidence of our heart’s condition. The Bible’s standard is clear: celibacy before marriage and monogamy after marriage.

            • Cavalier says:

              Once we get into the New Testament, we start to see hints of leftism and open endorsements of that great evil, voluntary celibacy (and null fertility).

              1 Corinthians 1:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

              Evil.

              2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

              Okay.

              3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

              4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

              Eternal consent; neither has opportunity to refuse the other.

              5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

              6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

              7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

              8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

              Widows is gender-specific, therefore likely too unmarried.

              9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

              10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

              11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

              Misogynistic, chauvinistic patriarchyyy!

              1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

              Fornication: intercourse between unmarried persons, no gender-specificity. Okay.

              4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

              5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.

              Keep it in your pants, etc.

              6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

              Now is this not fascinating? For some inconceivable reason, Paul jumps from talking about sexual morality straight to “letting no man “””go beyond””” and defraud his brother in any matter”. Hmmm, I wonder if there’s a connection….

              Esther 2:2 Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king:

              3 And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the fair young virgins unto Shushan the palace, to the house of the women, unto the custody of Hege the king’s chamberlain, keeper of the women; and let their things for purification be given them:

              4 And let the maiden which pleaseth the king be queen instead of Vashti. And the thing pleased the king; and he did so.

              Is this the text you meant to reference? Lol.

              Revelations 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

              Last book in the Bible, more leftward drift, “virgin” now applied to men—angelic “redeemed” men, that is. Revelations is a nutty book, but I’ll give you 1/4.

            • jim says:

              Granted. The new testament, unlike the old, is anti sex generally, though it arguably allows polygyny. The Jews of the time of Jesus practiced polygyny, and Jesus nowhere condemns the practice, and Paul uses different words for wives and husbands that imply that a husband may have several wives. The restriction “Husband of only one wife” is applied to the higher clergy, not to the congregation.

              In which case the rule for men is “no pumping and dumping”, and the rule for women is “sleep only with one man”. But in practice, in the modern world, it is generally the woman who dumps, despite the brave words of PUAs.

  21. Dave says:

    As we all know, Trump is a “civic nationalist”, not a “white nationalist”. That is to say, he thinks you’re as American as your ability and willingness to abide by American law, irrespective of race.

    I think that could actually work, if applied in a hard-ass way. Just as software engineers write up a spec precisely describing the virtues of their favorite software environment, forcing management to give them that environment.

    If we wrote up a code of laws that seem natural and intuitive to white people, and utterly baffling and arbitrary to nonwhite people, and we strictly enforced those laws, perhaps we could squeeze out the non-white population through death, exile, and sterilization.

    • jim says:

      That would work.

      One big problem is that just as we are designing education for dumb blacks, forcing smart whites to sit through stuff that bores and humiliates them, we are fitting all our laws to the “most vulnerable” part of society. For example African marriage is mandatory, traditional white style marriage is forbidden.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      “If we wrote up a code of laws that seem natural and intuitive to white people”

      LOL! You mean like Leftism? The same ideology that you guys invented because 6% stable GDP growth, single digit tax rates, zero crime, orderly patriarchal families and an empire on which the sun never sets was not good enough and then forced on us?

      • Cavalier says:

        It isn’t an accident that the first major outbreak of leftism, the Enlightenment, coincided with the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the resulting explosion of GDP.

        Before the Industrial Revolution, it was all Malthusian all the time, baby. (No GDP growth—or, more accurately, like 0.1% year-over-year GDP growth.)

        Before the Industrial Revolution, agrarian aristocrats controlled the means of production, and thus the government and the wealth of society. After the Industrial Revolution, merchants, bankers, and industrialists controlled the means of production, as they had outrun the aristocrats and the government to control the wealth of society. Today, information technologies have let the government catch up to the merchants, bankers, and industrialists, so bureaucrats control the wealth of society. In the future, space-age aristocrats will once again privatize the government and control the wealth of society.

        That 6% growth plus other stuff that you talk about existed in a fleeting moment in time, completely unsustainable by any means.

        • jim says:

          It isn’t an accident that the first major outbreak of leftism, the Enlightenment, coincided with the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the resulting explosion of GDP.

          I don’t think so. There have been major outbreaks of leftism since the dawn of recorded history, the first such record being the Admonitions of Ipuwer, which depicts the collapse of Bronze age civilization.

          Better attested outbreaks of leftism were China around 1600BC, Islam around 1000 AD, Rome around 40BC

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            You’re thinking of 1640AD right? Zhang Xianzhong? A better example would be Taipings, the result of introducing Christianity.

            • jim says:

              Yes.

              Not apparent to me that Taiping was left of Zhang Xianzhong. What makes Taiping left wing? Socialization and women in the military are left wing, as was the theoretical abolition of polygamy, but I don’t see left wing rhetoric, an attempt to appear to class conflict. I don’t see the near/far tactice, whereas with Zhang, I do see the near far tactic, the attempt to appeal to class conflict, class justice and class warfare.

              • Mackus says:

                So Taiping wasn’t leftist singularity, because it was authoritarian, forced by single ruler from the top rather than ordered by committee from the bottom?

                Like skipping Leninism and jumping straight to Stalinism?

                • jim says:

                  Not saying that. Saying not all that leftist because I am not hearing the class warfare rhetoric.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Zhang Xianzhong was a leftist but it was Dalit leftism, leftism a la Mugabe, not the Brahmin led leftism we worry about. His massacres in Sichuan were more influenced by insecure power, he never had control of all of Sichuan because the local population spoke a different language and had different customs from his troops and was loyal to the Ming dynasty, so both class and ethnic differences lead to the killings. I think the death toll from his massacres, although extremely high, is probably exaggerated since the wars that followed Zhang’s fall as a result of the Manchu invasion probably contributed more to the death toll than his regin.

                  Taipings were classical Brahmin leftism. Banned polygamy, allowing women to be bureaucrats / soldiers, attempted prohibition of trade (failed, reversed), destruction of Confucian temples and the tomb of the Ming founder, banning / destruction of all Confucian texts, attempted land redistribution (failed, reversed). Unlike previous rebels it was clear that Taipings were in a religious war against Chinese culture to implement Puritan style Christianity. It’s pretty obvious that if the Taiping had succeeded China would have become a twentieth century leftist country in 1860.

          • Cavalier says:

            First major outbreak of leftism in Europe qua Europe.

            Try to tell me that it’s simply coincidence that the Enlightenment was manifested in the real world just two decades after the Industrial Revolution dramatically raised the Malthusian sword and all the newly produced wealth was seized by not-the-aristocracy, and I will laugh at you.

            Though there’s also the possibility that the vast to-be-conquered American continent would have had the same effect, even less the Industrial Revolution. In that case, however, the aristocratic agrarian South would have remained predominant, and the center of world power may have shifted from England to Virginia, rather than to the Puritan-Northern industrialist axis.

            • jim says:

              First major outbreak of leftism in Europe qua Europe.

              Not so. The first major outbreak of leftism was Puritanism, Brownism, and the first seeds of the Industrial Revolution were the restoration, the quelling of leftism for a while.

              Puritanism: War on Marriage, War on Christmas, Divorce, and ever rising age of consent.

              Renaissance: Holy Roman Empire starts falling apart. As a result the Roman Catholic Church starts falling apart, you get intellectual ferment and incredibly bloody holy wars, which holy wars demoralize the intellectuals of the renaissance.

              Horribly bloody holy wars are resolved in the peace of Westphalia – which means you have multiple state churches. One of these state churches goes beserk in a left singularity – I speak of course, of the Puritans, the brownists. And then we get a respite from Holy War and left wing madness, leading to both the enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

              • Cavalier says:

                Not major. Fringe groups and fringe beliefs, soon suppressed and exiled. Suddenly, Industrial Revolution, paradigm shift from stagnant GDP and societal wealth dominated by a landed, hereditary aristocracy to explosive GDP and generation after generation after generation of nouveau riche upper-middle class. Consequence: continual erosion of the wealth and preeminence of the landed, hereditary aristocracy.

                Surely you will not dispute this; just look at the North vs. the South. The South was a chunk of the English aristocracy transplanted into the New World—lords powered by their agricultural holdings. The North was upper-middle-class priests powered by the industry of the industrialists. If North and South had warred in 1800, the North would have been absolutely crushed by the South. By 1861, not so much.

                It’s difficult to paint the horrible bloody wars resolved by the Peace of Westphalia as leftist except insofar as the belligerent lords were seeking freedom from the Holy Roman Empire and to get out from under the Catholic thumb. In other words, with major support from major portions of the aristocracy seeking more power for themselves.

                For a very long time, the real-world effects of early Puritanism/Brownism were limited to the English Interregnum, which you will note was successfully suppressed after just 11 years, and stayed suppressed until some time after the Industrial Revolution took after.

                In contrast, the Industrial Revolution, then in quick succession the American and French Revolutions, and then one by one the other monarchies fell, dissolved, or simply faded into irrelevance—for the English monarchy, approximately 50 years, from 1760-something to 1814, if you count Queen Caroline as the beginning of the end.

                And now, 250 years later, it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

                • jim says:

                  It’s difficult to paint the horrible bloody wars resolved by the Peace of Westphalia as leftist except insofar as the belligerent lords were seeking freedom from the Holy Roman Empire

                  Calvin was a leftist who was swiftly outflanked on the left, leading to peasant rebellions and such. He, like Stalin and Cromwell, put down the leftist singularity with fire and steel. If you don’t think Calvin was a leftist, it is glaringly obvious that those who claimed to be even more Calvinist than Calvin, and were soon claiming to be holier than Jesus, were indeed leftists. The sack of Rome was leftists running wild.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The largest peasant rebellion lasted like a year, killed maybe 100,000, and the aristocrats put it down like a dog. Immediate suppression. Contrast to any of the real “wars of religion”.

                • jim says:

                  If you classify Stalin as not a leftist, you can make a similar argument for the twentieth century. Calvin and Luther were leftists. Their backers were leftists.

                  Leftism, and leftism going all the way to the bloody leftist singularity, predates the Industrial Revolution. It is a normal failure mode of civilization. It is not that they are now succeeding because the industrial revolution happened, rather the industrial revolution happened because they failed. The industrial revolution is directly rooted in the Restoration, which made science, technology, and the creation of wealth through the limited liability company, high status. The invisible college became the Royal society.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Stalin was an up-jumped commoner, the son of a cobbler, who rode the tsunami of radical-insane left-wing commieism to the highest station in the second-most powerful country in the history of the world.

                  The lords who signed the Peace of Westphalia got out from under the thumb of the priests in Rome.

                  Calvin was obviously a leftist. He got used, though. His thing would’ve never gained any traction without the Americas and the Industrial Revolution.

                  The cause of the Industrial Revolution is obviously entirely different from the effects of the Industrial Revolution. I’ll grant you that its cause was the Restoration. I nevertheless stand confident in my assertion that the Industrial Revolution, in fundamentally altering humanity’s source of energy from yearly agricultural produce to millions of years’ worth of stored-up solar and tectonic energy in the form of fossil fuels, fundamentally altered the balance of power, shifting it away from the traditional landed aristocracy and to those responsible for powering the gears of industry and, shortly thereafter, those opportunists who came to skim off what the industrialists created, like the commies that took over the Ford Foundation after the death of Henry “Blitzkrieg” Ford.

                • jim says:

                  Calvin was obviously a leftist. He got used, though. His thing would’ve never gained any traction without the Americas and the Industrial Revolution.

                  Well before the Industrial Revolution, and well before the Enlightenment, his thing burned Rome to the ground, tortured most of the Cardinals, and terrorized the Pope.

                  fossil fuels, fundamentally altered the balance of power, shifting it away from the traditional landed aristocracy and to those responsible for powering the gears of industry

                  The powerbase of the aristocracy was the army, not land. We do not see the rise of capitalists and capitalism, that is Marxist mythology. Capitalists and capitalism have always existed. The Knights Templar were heavily armed and armored bankers. Rather, what we see is during the nineteenth century the ascendancy of priests over warriors.

                • Cavalier says:

                  »his thing burned Rome to the ground, tortured most of the Cardinals, and terrorized the Pope

                  Please return to A) got out from under the Papal thumb

                  Seems to me the Peace of Westphalia was the lords having their cake and eating it too. They gained their independence from the Holy Roman Empire (in fact if not in name), they got free of the Catholic Church, and they suppressed the fuck out of the momentary and comparatively inconsequential incompetent peasant uprisings produced by weaponized Calvinism. Boldmug compared leftism, especially democracy, to Dutch elm disease, but this is like releasing Dutch elm disease into Rome but the vast majority (say, 70%) of the elms in your Mitteleuropa territory be Chinese elms.

                  »The powerbase of the aristocracy was the army, not land.

                  “An army marches on its stomach.” — Some Guy

                • jim says:

                  »The powerbase of the aristocracy was the army, not land.

                  “An army marches on its stomach.” — Some Guy

                  And the Knights Templar marched on the difference between long term and short term interest rates.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Money lent to the landed aristocracy and the yeomanry.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              The Enlightenment did not start off as leftist. Adam Smith et al was part of the Enlightenment as well. Even the French Revolution started as an attempt to copy English liberty, but got turned into Jacobin reign of terror later.

              There were plenty of leftist outbreaks in Europe prior to the industrial revolution. The fall of the Roman Empire arguably due to move to left as a result of Christianity (although Rome was already severely decayed), Munster rebellion / Puritanism / French Religious wars were also outbreaks of leftism.

              • Cavalier says:

                Have you read The Wealth of Nations? The dude was a nut.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  I have. Have you?

                  Most of it is him giving you a history of feudal Scotland and the conditions thereof. It’s more of an encyclopedia than a concentrated book, if you slogged through it it’s not that great of a book and yes obviously the labour theory of value is wrong.

                  That being said I don’t think the classical liberal movement was bad when they reduced the size of government and did stuff like repeal the corn laws / free up banking, the bad stuff came when they got outcompeted by leftists once the franchise was expanded too far.

                • jim says:

                  Classical liberalism is John Locke, who very logically argued for a democracy of property holders (since the primary legitimate activity of the state is to protect property). This position got him and his adherents exiled. They furtively came into power early in the nineteenth century, and reformed parliament to be a democracy of property holders. However, they from the beginning came to power in alliance with the anti slavery people and the female emancipation people, and were instantly outflanked and rendered irrelevant.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “However, they from the beginning came to power in alliance with the anti slavery people and the female emancipation people, and were instantly outflanked and rendered irrelevant.”

                  Jim, you always talk about how the Victorian era was the start of feminism but honestly, it seemed like their fertility and bastardy rates were amazingly high and minimal by modern standards. As long as TFR is at 3-4 and IQ is still going up (which was the case in Victorian Era), I don’t think the problem was too big. You yourself mentioned selection based on IQ peaked in late 1800s, not early 1800s.

                  I would say Lockeans were in control until 1867 second reform act. After that libertarians got outflanked but from 1832 to 1867 the main focus was on reducing government expenditures, improving efficiency, reforming banking, etc and not on socialism and boosting black / female self esteem.

                • jim says:

                  Inability to divorce Queen Caroline for adultery 1820, means that women are allowed to commit adultery. Since women are angels, no restraints on their behavior are necessary, and no evidence of adultery, fornication, or prostitution can ever be convincing. And if is, some evil man made the woman do it, so punish the man and give aid to the poor victim.

                  White man’s burden and abolition of slavery 1838

                  Heroes demonized and logistics valorized. Camp followers (including the whore Florence Nightingale) made into heroes in place of military heroes. Logistics given soldier status in place of camp follower status, and put under the direct authority of London, rendering the commander of the regiment helpless. 1856

                  Matrimonial causes act, 1857 made husbands second class to wives, because the wife could walk away and the husband could not.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  What was the main change of the Matrimonial causes act again? I remember it made divorce easier because you didn’t have to go through Parliament. Wouldn’t it be a more leftist system where you cannot divorce your wife for adultery until a bill made it through Parliament, compared to a system where you could? My impression was that white countries men always had to support their wives even if they abandoned them, there were accounts in early 1800s America where white men were paying maintenance to wives with mulatto babies.

                • jim says:

                  Before the Matrimonial Causes act, if a wife left her husband she had no right to property, or money, or to get a job, or to receive wages. After the matrimonial causes act, she could stroll out of the marriage and be perfectly fine. The husband, however, could not stroll out of the marriage and be perfectly fine.

              • Alrenous says:

                The Enlightenment was always leftist.

                The French Terror started when Louis the Final was very compassionate and not particularly wise – i.e, a leftist. Specifically the gull class, below dumb lying fucks and smart lying fucks. These facts were on Wikipedia last I checked.

                I don’t care if Smith was a nut or not. If smart folk happened to live at the same time, good for them. You’ll find their influence on the Enlightenment, which was(is) basically full communism, was minimal.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  The French National assembly in 1790 abolished the gabelle, the guilds, the corvee, and internal trade barriers. I doubt they would have done this if they started off leftist. It is kind of a stretch to call the Enlightenment full communism, the Enlightenment was just what happened when traditional Christianity got discarded as a political formula and people rushed into the vaccum to come up with new ones like libertarianism (good) and Rousseau / Communism (bad).

                  It seems to me that the French revolution could have been not a disaster if the Feuillants / Girondists were not autist, they had several opportunities to get rid of the Jacobins most notably Lafayette’s coup attempt in summer 1792 but didn’t, if they had their rule would have been better than the Bourbons by a large margin.

                • jim says:

                  Popular Frontism.

                  All members of any popular front movement except the communists are likely to be murdered.

                  The Girondists, like todays libertarians, are pursuing a tactical alliance with the left. Never works. You always get devoured. Over two thousand years of history should have taught us that if ever you are in alliance with a leftist, chances are that he will kill you if you do not kill him first.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Girondins were bunch nobles like Marquis de Condorcet (BTW he advocated the equality for women and blacks) who thought that they could play “The People” against the king and take the Power for themselves. They were also insane proto-neocons who wanted to spread “human rights” by war. But chaos is not easily controlled, and in trying to be everything to everyone they ended up supported by no-one. Much better reforms were blocked by some of the same people when king attempted them as muh evil tyrrany of muh evil despot.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  “[…]the nobility demanded the States General, in which they hoped to achieve the triumph of their cause, and a constitution, which, they thought, would guarantee their privileges. According to Mounier, all the deputies of the nobility were “in agreement on the point that they had no constitution and that the States General should procure one for them.” It should also be remembered that as a result of the edicts of May, 1788, against the Parliaments, the nobility gave the signal for the revolutionary agitation which was destined soon to turn against them.”

                • pdimov says:

                  “The French National assembly in 1790 abolished the gabelle, the guilds, the corvee, and internal trade barriers. I doubt they would have done this if they started off leftist.”

                  Of course they were leftist. Just not by your definition of leftism, in which classical liberalism is right wing. In your world, things start off as rightist and then inexplicably take a left turn. In reality, things just move left in a single motion and there are no inexplicable changes of direction.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Parliament was always a left-wing phenomenon, as well, starting with the Magna Carta.

                  And by extension, the traditional British public schools.

                  If we accept that leftism is the proliferation of horizontally transmitted (inevitably biologically maladaptive) memes rather than vertically transmitted (biologically adaptive) memes, we may need to accept that the printing press played a big role, too. The printing press platformed Luther and his theses, after all.

                  The Internet, the printing press on super-duper-über steroids, seems to coincide with a dramatic acceleration of our leftward drift and our present stark raving madness of transgenderism, exhibited by Bruce Jenner, and transspeciesism, exhibited by Rachel Dolezal. Interestingly, so far it seems mostly confined to the virtual space, something for which I have no explanation except perhaps it’s “too early to say”.

                  It’s clear to me that there are certain things we simply cannot do without, and these, with the definite exception of parliamentarianism, are some of them.

                • jim says:

                  The problem is not so much horizontal transmission, though that is a huge problem, as horizontal transmission via state power.

                  If the state stuck to transmitting ancient and long established memes, not a problem. If they have been around for a while, obviously not all that counter survival. The problem is when a religion optimized for taking theocratic power co-opts the instruments of theocracy, often in the name of abolishing theocracy, and you find the state is pushing a brand new, and rapidly changing, religion.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The Girondists, like todays libertarians, are pursuing a tactical alliance with the left.”

                  Yes, no argument there and no argument it was a major mistake, but there is still a difference. LKY also allied with Malay leftists to fight communists and late repudiated that alliance, does that make him a leftist?

                  “In your world, things start off as rightist and then inexplicably take a left turn.”

                  I never said it was inexplicable. Girondists were clearly autists, obviously I favoured Turgot’s approach where he did libertarian reforms based on the authority of the King except the King does not sell him out which is what happened. But that does not mean their initial policies were leftist. Implementing good, and then getting killed because of your autism, is different from implementing bad.

                  “The Internet, the printing press on super-duper-über steroids, seems to coincide with a dramatic acceleration of our leftward drift”

                  The internet has damaged the left which is why they are trying to censor. New technologies which make communication easier undermine the establishment, which right now is the left.

                • jim says:

                  “The Girondists, like todays libertarians, are pursuing a tactical alliance with the left.”

                  Yes, no argument there and no argument it was a major mistake, but there is still a difference. LKY also allied with Malay leftists to fight communists and late repudiated that alliance, does that make him a leftist?

                  Lee Kuan Yew was fighting the commies by any means necessary. The equivalent would have been if the Girondists opened fire with grapeshot on the mob that attacked the Bastille, and then proceeded to arrest and imprison left wing members of the Assembly for complicity in those crimes. Analogously, today’s libertarians should have responded to the Gay Cake incident by calling for gays to be thrown from high buildings, and purging leftists from the Libertarian movement.

                  Lee zigged and zagged all over the place, but he knew danger when he saw it, while the Girondists and Libertarians walk into the abattoir.

          • Cavalier says:

            P.S. By the late 19th century many English noble houses literally did not have sufficient wealth to maintain their ancient mansions and landholdings. Hence the so-called “Dollar Princesses”. From the Industrial Revolution onward they were losing ground, losing the ability to feed themselves, let alone wield power.

            P.P.S. One useful definition of power may be the control of calories, or in other words, the energy flowing through society, hither and thither. If an Average Joe has the power to dip his toe in the energy river and feed himself and his family, a King has the power to stick his whole arm in and play with the flows of hundreds of thousand or millions of his subjects. When agriculture was the engine of the economy, people consumed, let’s say, 6 thousand kcalories in the course of their everyday lives: eating, sleeping, cooking, traveling, purchasing shoes or clothing or candles. If you’re the lord of an agricultural estate, you’re a big guy. Well, if you do the math, you find that today First World citizens consume—including food, transportation, clothing, electricity, gadgets and gizmos, all manner of raw materials, and so on—to a rough approximation, 200 million kcalories per person per day.

            And it was all, or as near as makes no difference, going to not-aristocrats.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Pretty sure Europe post-1492 was not stagnant, take a look at Florence, Venice, London had a million people by 1700s. I doubt technology is the main factor in government size, with the possible exception of Tsarist Russia I doubt any pre enlightenment European government taxed at anywhere close to modern levels.

          The things I mentioned were pretty sustainable until America went hard into leftism post-1900 and especially after the New Deal. 1860s – 1920s were not a “fleeting moment” in time (and the slow growth before 1860s reflected an agrarian society, not bad institutions).

          • Michael Rothblatt says:

            Actually tzarist Russia taxed lot less than the British did. In the year 1912 the index of direct taxes was 311 for Russia, 1235 in France, and 2675 in Great Britain; and of indirect taxes 598 in Russia, 1600 in France, and 1386 in Great Britain. At the same time public debt in then’s rubles was 288 per person in France, 169.5 per person in Great Britain, and only 58.7 per person in Russia. There was also seven times less policemen per thousand people in Russia than in Great Britain.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Uh England in early 1900s taxed at around 10% of GDP. Pretty sure Tsarist Russia’s average tax rate exceeded 10%. Anyways, my point was about preindustrial countries, it’s obvious that Tsarist Russia 1750 had a very high effective tax rate given serfdom, the tsar literally issued an edict in 1798 restricting serfs to working for their lords “just” three days a week.

              • jim says:

                I don’t think it is reasonable to count serfdom and slavery as taxation, unless the state owns the slaves, or the state is collecting high taxes or high benefits from the slave owners.

                The difference between a serf, a tenant farmer, and an agricultural laborer is not necessarily very large. Traditional servile dues in England were not significantly different from what tenant farmers gave.

                When the American slaves were freed, they became economically worse off, much worse off. Logically, you would expect that at worst they could simply make the old deal, only without whips and chains, and therefore would necessarily be better off, but the problem was that employers could no longer trust them to fulfill the old deal. A bad employee contributes negative value to the business, irrespective of what you pay him.

                If you enslave someone who is a free man by nature, he will produce less value, because of the costs of supervision and coercion. When you enslave someone who is naturally a slave, he will produce more value, because supervision and coercion stop him from fouling things up and creating negative value.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Anyone could buy a slave in America and start a plantation. This was not the case until quite late in Russia, only nobles were permitted to own land and serfs, and most nobles received land and serfs as a result of state service. In addition, most serfs in Russia were state peasants, which would have performed their feudal dues directly to the state.

                • jim says:

                  State serfs were not exactly serfs. More like people farming nominally state owned land. To good approximation, they were free agricultural laborers who had squatted on government owned land, obtained a right to that land by long usage, and did not want to let go of it, free agricultural laborers who were halfway to becoming free landowners. It was not so much that the state was getting something from them, as they were getting something from the state.

                  If the lord owned your land, he really owned the land. If the state owns your land, not so much.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  2 factors post civil war – Redestruction (a massive move to the left) and abolition of slavery. Living standards fell for both white and black due to war and leftism. Blacks experienced pretty strong income growth after Redemption in 1877.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  State serfs could not leave the land they farmed, could be assigned to a private noble as a serf at any time and were compulsorily enrolled in the state-imposed peasant commune. Seems to me their status was much closer to a regular serf than say a Chinese peasant.

                • jim says:

                  There seems to have been absolutely zero enthusiasm among these serfs for the proposition that they should be freed without their land.

                  Well, not zero, because there were in fact significant numbers of runaway serfs, but they seem to have run away primarily from private ownership, and we see no substantial political movement in favor of freeing the serfs without their land, in favor of simply making it legal for serfs to leave. Among those advocating emancipation, we see no equivalent of the underground railway.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Making it legal to leave would not have involved expelling the serfs from their land, it would have just converted them to long-term tenant farmers. Better yet, the ownership of the land should have been given to them directly so they could have bought and sold it.

                  I think in the Baltics the Russians abolished serfdom simply by allowing the peasants to leave and by any indication this worked a lot better than “freeing” them into collective farms. State peasants were already organized into obshchina before the 1861 “reform”.

                • jim says:

                  But the serfs did not want to become tenant farmers, or at least people who claimed to speak for the serfs and agitated on their behalf did not want them to become tenant farmers.

                  Converting them to free tenant farmers, where the owner of the land had no property right in the serf, and the serf had no property right in the land would have been the economically efficient solution, but it would have had to have been imposed on the serfs with fire and steel. There would have been clearances like the Highland Clearances, and these would be remembered in anger to this day, as the Highland Clearances are remembered.

                  England says to the Scottish serfs: “Hey you are free. And, by the way, your land belongs to the Lord.”
                  Highland lord says “Hey, what are all the these useless pain-in-the-neck freemen doing on my land? Chase them away for me, please.”

                  Freeing the serfs without giving them their lord’s land would have enabled a transition to more efficient, more productive, less labor intensive agriculture. Fewer people would have produced more food, resulting in a more urban population. But that is not in fact in the interests of the low level person who works on the land. Such efficiency results in a transfer of wealth to large farmers fom poor agricultural laborers. Serfdom protected the interests of the serfs, not the lords, and the problem was that when you already had gross economic inefficiency because of a system that protects the interests of the poorest, there was agitation for reforms that would protect them even more.

                  The point of serfdom was to take care of the serf, not the lord.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Obshchina were a gross mistake, but they are the consequence of inefficient bureaucracy. Rather than having taxmen hunt people down for taxes, they decided it was far easier to just force them into collective farms, and tax the farms, not worrying about the individual families and persons.

                  Luckily serfs were a minority of the population:
                  “In old Russia, in contrast to America, slavery had never been institutionalized; the majority of the farming class had consisted of free people. As a matter of fact, serfdom as an institution had only existed in central and western Russia, but not in the far north, in the south, in the eastern part of the country, and certainly not in Siberia. It is true that in large areas, as a result of the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the peasants were given land collectively which resulted in a very poor agriculture with recurrent famines; but Stolypin, the “arch-reactionary” Minister of the Interior, disestablished the collective holdings,early in 20th century. The subsequent individual farming, together with a second agrarian reform, initiated the rapid development of Russian agriculture with the ambitious peasants, the kulaks, leading the nation to a new agrarian wealth.”

                • jim says:

                  Obshchina were a gross mistake, but they are the consequence of inefficient bureaucracy. Rather than having taxmen hunt people down for taxes, they decided it was far easier to just force them into collective farms, and tax the farms, not worrying about the individual families and persons.

                  I don’t think so. Rather, the problem was that the typical serf was not competent to run a small farm. He needed someone standing over him to tell him what to do. The Obshchina were an unsuccessful attempt to replace the Lord.

                  Serfdom was a favor done to the serfs, just as slavery was a favor done to the blacks. The economically efficient solution would have been to free the serfs without their land, give the land to the lords – who would have promptly replaced 90% of the former serfs with plowhorses and grazing cattle. It would have been the Highland Clearances all over again but with much more bloodshed.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Jim, why do you expect that Russian nobles, who mostly go their estates by being bureaucrats, would be good estate managers? Russian nobles already had the right to sell serfs apart from the land, if that was the efficient method why didn’t they do it? Highland Clearances are likely just leftist propaganda. Didn’t you say yourself about how enclosures were good but demonized by the left?

                  As for American plantation owners, I agree that they probably got more output per capita than black tenant farmers (but less if you add in value of leisure), but I think you vastly exaggerate the case given southern agriculture did pretty good once the leftists got kicked out in 1877.

                • jim says:

                  Jim, why do you expect that Russian nobles, who mostly go their estates by being bureaucrats, would be good estate managers?

                  Typical noble smarter than the typical peasant. Typical bureaucrat smarter than the average peasant. And if he is not, will hire a Jewish estate manager.

                  Russian nobles already had the right to sell serfs apart from the land.

                  They had no such right. They tended to do it, but it was not exactly legal, and could not be done on any substantial scale. Such deals tended to be like dope deals, done between friends, and required a reasonably cooperative serf. Such deals were small scale, and involved serfs who were not in fact doing agricultural work – typically the maid pregnant with her employer’s child.

                  You and I are in agreement that the efficient solution was to free the serfs without the land. Can you find anyone in Russia who supported the efficient solution? Everyone who wanted to free the serfs, wanted to find some alternate way of looking after the serfs, of caring for the serfs.

                  You think the efficient solution would be the lord gets the land, the serfs get freedom, and then the lord rents small farmlets to the former serfs. That last step not going to happen. No one in Russia believed it would happen.

                • Mackus says:

                  What if serfs were freed by dissolving Obshchina without redemption payments and giving its land to new freemen as property?
                  Less productive than giving land to lords and kicking out excess peasants, but more productive than keeping Obshchina?

                • jim says:

                  That was Pyotr Stolypin’s program – except that most peasants were incapable of managing that land. So the land needed to wind up in the hands of the able peasants, with the less able becoming landless laborers working under the supervision of more able peasants, or pushed of the land to go to the cities. Needless to say, the latter aspect of Pyotr Stolypin’s program was violently unpopular and the Czar just was not able to push it through in the face of violently hostile public opinion.

                  The fact is most people are incapable of supporting themselves without supervision, and a significant minority of those are reluctant to accept necessary supervision. Some, you put under supervision contractually, wage labor. Some you have to put under supervision with a greater or lesser degree of coercion, or put them on welfare. And a poor society cannot afford welfare. Come to that, a rich society cannot really afford welfare either.

                  Stolypin’s program would have put those peasants capable of working under contractual supervision under contractual supervision, and he had no clear idea of what he was going to do with the more problematic peasants.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Did a quick search and it seems like buying and selling serfs apart from the land was legal in all of Russia before 1798 and Russia minus Ukraine after, so unless I’m interpreting it wrong most Russian aristocrats could bupy and sell their serfs.

                  https://books.google.ca/books?id=CguxjHjml7EC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Russian+serfs+buy+and+sell+apart+from+land&source=bl&ots=tYJR3LnISY&sig=qZOdP3haIuooNJhU4YwLYIvkKG4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5mevmsb7SAhWMy4MKHddECBgQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&q&f=false

                  Why do you think most serfs would have been driven off the land? In a preindustrial agrarian economy with no tractors, low fertilizer, etc, the majority of inputs would have been unskilled labour. The Northern USA largely had a system of family farms, I don’t see why Russia would be different. The only time I can see large estates being efficient in preindustrial conditions given the supervision costs is race differences like the Chinese owned estates in Philippines and Spanish owned estates in Latin America.

                • jim says:

                  Checking page 61 of the text, I see that freeing serfs without land was considered immoral, was discouraged, and was sometimes illegal – that to give a serf his freedom and no land was felt to be an act of oppression, and that nobles frequently did sneaky workarounds or looked for excuses to get rid of serfs without giving them land.

                  The book tells us that the landlords terribly oppressed their serfs in a multitude of horrible ways – and one of the horrible ways in which they horribly oppressed the poor pitiful serfs was to set them free without making any provision for their welfare and survival.

                  Which is exactly the lord driving the serfs off the land. What we see on page 61 is a law against actions similar to the Highland Clearances.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >I don’t think so. Rather, the problem was that the typical serf was not competent to run a small farm.

                  I don’t know Jim. Russian serfs weren’t like Western serfs who became serfs out of necessity. Serfdom in Russia did not exist for a long time, and when it was started, it was done by enslaving the landless peasants. Indeed it was more akin to chattel than to actual serfdom, and after the abolition many a serf’s son became a millionaire.

                • jim says:

                  From emancipation to the collapse of communism, looks to me like a non stop series of crises of land being in the hands of people incompetent to use it. The kulaks were competent, and were hated for it. Pyotr Stolypin’s program was to get land into the hands of those competent to use it, and he was hated for it.

                  Serfdom was a form of paternalistic socialism, to care for the serfs rather than exploit them, and the problem was that the reforms were in the direction of more paternalism rather than less. Kind of like Obamacare. Socialism leads to more socialism.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Jim, I am highly surprised you think serfdom was good for the serfs since Russian agriculture had a high growth rate post-1861 (despite the obshchina) and because serfdom was forced on the peasantry initially as a way to finance the cavalry, not as a natural outcome of the market. In these circumstances, I would expect that the land being owned by kulaks running family farms with a few agricultural labourers would be the optimal outcome. Granting that bureaucrats are smarter than peasants, I doubt they knew more about farming given their skill set was in BS and the supervision costs were quite high, would you expect Matt Yglesias to run Joe the Plumber’s business more efficiently?

                  In addition, I think even though there was some restrictions its clear from the text the Russian lords could have sold the serfs apart from the land and did so. It was illegal to displace a whole village at once but displacing individual families was very easy. Therefore your scenario of most serfs being displaced from the land is highly unlikely and would have happened a long time before 1861 if that was the case.

                • jim says:

                  The obvious solution that you and I favor, the serfs get freedom and the lords get the land, (that rights go to those people in the best position to use them in an economically efficient way) was unpopular, viewed as immoral and oppressive, viewed as hyperexploitation of the serfs, and in some cases illegal (no Highland style clearances allowed) Therefore everyone involved in the problem believed that serfdom was generally better for serfs than that solution, than the economically efficient solution that you and I favor.

                  In addition, I think even though there was some restrictions its clear from the text the Russian lords could have sold the serfs apart from the land and did so

                  The text argues that the lords could hyperexploit and hyperoppress the serfs and sometimes did so. But it is equally clear that this was not normal – it is like feminists using drunken wifebeating as argument against indissoluble marriage. Freeing a serf without making provision for his welfare was also immoral and frequently illegal. And the same text that tells us that those horrible wicked lords frequently sold serfs without land, also tells us that those horrible wicked lords frequently freed serfs without land. How totally dreadful of them!

                  The same text that tells us how bad the lords were and how rough serfdom was on the serfs, tells us that the solution that you and I favor, was bad for the serfs.

                  Suppose the serfs were purely slaves. The text you cites argues this, but it clearly was not true. But suppose it was true. It is clear that serfs could own property. A rational competent serf with long time preference could get more value out of ownership of himself than the lord could get out of owning him. Therefore a rational competent serf with long time preference could and would cut a deal with his lord leading to his freedom. Regardless of the initial allocation of property rights, if transfers of property rights are permitted and are legal and safe, property rights will end up in the hands of those most capable of using them.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Therefore everyone involved in the problem believed that serfdom was generally better for serfs than that solution”

                  Russian intellectuals aren’t exactly known for supporting anything except for a grinding tyranny, their opinion of the efficient solution is about as valid as the Anglo leftist opinion on the enclosures. The enclosures clearly improved things for the English peasants, I do not see why repeating them in Russia would not do the same for Russian peasants, is there that big of a difference in IQ?

                  “Therefore a rational competent serf with long time preference could and would cut a deal with his lord leading to his freedom.”

                  Yes Jim I know about Coase theorem. The problem is twofold: 1) the lords had a short time preference because they got their estates through politics and usually lost their estates through politics (Russian nobles were service nobles, not hereditary, every son started at the bottom rank), 2) the serf could not get the deal if signed to be enforced since the lord could revoke it at any time and the aforementioned short time preference likely meant he would.

                  Regarding the text there are also lots of cases (forgot source, maybe Anna Karenina?) where serfs worked in factories and mines, which meant a lot of serfs were being sold apart from the land since I don’t think a lot of people were living next to Siberian mountains.

                • jim says:

                  Russian intellectuals aren’t exactly known for supporting anything except for a grinding tyranny

                  That is just not true. Russian intellectuals were a bunch of leftists kissing the asses of British left wing intellectuals, for example Lavrov, Bakunin, Chernyshevsky, Radischchev, Novikov, and Nechayev.

                  Russian nobles were service nobles, not hereditary, every son started at the bottom rank

                  Estate ownership was hereditary. Although you could be granted an estate from crown lands and crown serfs through politics, you could not easily lose an estate through politics. You could, however, and frequently did, lose an estate through poor management or spending too much money.

                  the serf could not get the deal if signed to be enforced since the lord could revoke it at any time and the aforementioned short time preference likely meant he would.

                  Serfs generally had substantial private property, therefore their private property rights, contrary to your sources, were reasonably secure. Therefore they could make the deal. Your sources depict them as actual slaves, but typically the farm equipment was privately owned by them, not the lord.

                  The natural outcomes of economics were that estates tended to be in the hands of competent nobles (incompetent nobles winding up titled but impoverished), and serfs tended to be people incapable of managing their own lives (competent serfs with long time preference winding up free). And when the serfs were freed, the immediate result was that government continually took actions predicated on the proposition that the emancipated serfs could not in fact manage their own lives and needed to be looked after.

          • Cavalier says:

            0.1% GDP growth per year is what GDP growth was per year before the Industrial Revolution, and GDP is what determines your Malthusian limit. I don’t recall exactly where I got the 0.1% figure, but I think it was probably either Farewell to Alms, by Gregory Clark, or Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Malthusian limit works when lower classes are at Malthusian limit. Doesn’t need everyone to be at it. Look at Jim’s previous posts on Roman Empire, Song Dynasty, and 18th century as three premodern peaks in copper production, it’s pretty obvious there were many preindustrial societies with incomes far above subsistence. If anything discovery of Americas would have lifted Malthusian pressures in Europe since Americas basically provided unlimited free land. 1/3 of English population was in America by 1776 and they definitely lived far above the Malthusian limit, likely their cousins in England did too.

              • Cavalier says:

                There may have been slices of time in which societies had incomes far above subsistence, but it doesn’t take very long before those evolutionary vacuums are filled. Natural selection is a harsh mistress, and she works on the cultural level as well as the biological level, and we know that culture dramatically affects fertility and can change almost arbitrarily rapidly compared to biology.

                Also, Jim says the Roman Empire had low fertility because of female emancipation, and cites the early Roman Republic’s life-or-death power of patriarchs as one at least partially ideal system, and I don’t have any reason to doubt him.

                Obviously the Americas lifted the white man’s Malthusian ceiling: TFR in early America was 7-8, nearly 4 times that of a population bumping up against the ceiling.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  There is no reason why an industrial society would have a fertility below replacement except for leftism given that 1950s America 1940s Japan and 1960s Hong Kong all had 3-4 kids per woman easily.

      • jim says:

        Relative to East Asians, whites are like Jews – which is to say, we manipulate people by gaming their moral code, by priestly activities. East Asians have trouble understanding what whites are doing to them, just as whites have trouble understanding what Jews are doing to them.

        However the leftist moral code is not natural to whites, rather it is what you get when one white, often a Jew, is industriously being holier than another white, thus the code is continually made more difficult for the other guy to comply with.

        So we now have a moral code that profoundly obstructs that thing that people most of all want to do, which is to form families. PUAs call the various falsehoods and self destructive prescriptions in this moral code “The blue pill”

        It is not so much that the code is anti family, though it is, as that it is anti human and anti life. You get holiness points by making it difficult for the other guys to be holy.

Leave a Reply