Pushing back on social justice warriors.

Remember how Github went social justice?

Well elections have consequences

“Coraline”, an autogynophilic male to female transexual, competent programmer, and political commissar, recently got purged from Github by the mandarinate.

Mandarins are priests, and Social Justice Warriors are priests, but social Justice Warriors are primarily into runaway extreme holier than thou holiness, while mandarins are more into politely conforming to the official religion and emitting all the right social signals. Thus the holiness spiral with mandarins tends to be <the current generation>, while the holiness spiral with social justice warriors rolls a lot faster, tending to be <the current year>

“Coraline” claims to be a good programmer by the objective standard of high lines of code contributed, high bugs fixed, high features added, low bugs caused. This is plausible because autogynophiles tend to be good programmers, combining the male propensity for strong and rigid logic, with the female propensity for conformity, obedience, and rule following. Effeminate gay male to female transexuals, on the other hand, combine the female incapacity to do logic, with an extreme form of the male propensity to break the rules and defy authority, showing up for work infrequently, late, and stoned.

But “Coraline” was not hired as a good engineer, but as a social justice warrior that other engineers could respect and take seriously, as a political commissar that could understand what the engineers were actually doing. It was hired by its female non engineer boss, to impose social justice on its fellow engineers.

In restrospect, should have stuck to engineering, for women will never perceive a male to female transexual as genuinely female, and thus, never perceive it as genuinely deserving of their own immensely high social status, thus always in their hearts perceive it as a low status male (redundant, I know, because males are always and automatically low status – observe how the guy in the corner office gets interrupted by his female staff and does not get laid) thus denying it the power and authority that a political commissar needs to be effective, needs to do its political job.

If you want to check to see whether your company’s organization chart corresponds to actual status, pay no attention to mere words, but rather watch who interrupts whom, who speaks over whom. Chances are the women speak over and interrupt their merely male boss. The words of the interruption are invariably courteous, helpful, respectful, friendly, and polite, but the fact that it is an interruption is the opposite of courteous, the opposite of helpful, is disrespectful, unfriendly, hostile, hateful, and impolite. It is a shit test. Fertile age women cannot help shit testing men, just as men cannot help looking at a woman’s boobs. And if she gets away with interrupting and speaking over your boss, he failed the shit test, no matter how superficially friendly, respectful, and polite the words of her interruption are. Conversely, if he regularly and routinely passes her shit tests, she will probably fuck him, no matter how old, bald, fat, and married he is. No action of his, no matter how gross, will ever constitute sexual harrassment.

Yes, if you are a boss who regularly and routinely passes their inevitable shit tests “you can do anything, you can grab them by the pussy.”

“Coraline” was working as an engineer, and was successful as an engineer, and appreciated for its engineering, when Github recruited it as a political commissar:

They wanted to offer me a job. They had just created a team called Community & Safety, charged with making GitHub more safe for marginalized people

Danger Will Robinson!

Its team was one normal male, two male to female transexuals, two colored women, and a normal female manager. Thus, three real engineers, all low status, and three fake engineers, all high status. And it is a real engineer, and a good one. Danger Will Robinson!

“Coraline” found itself socially isolated at Github. Danger Will Robertson!

This was the first instance of what came to be referred to as my “non-empathetic communication style”.

“Coraline” was talking about social justice issues in the direct, logical, unemotional, and factual style of a male, rather than in the socially required female style. The mandarinate found this low class, which is to say masculine, and did not like it. Danger Will Robinson!

when I joined the video call with my manager, it became clear that something was wrong. She went back to the issue of my lack of empathy in communications and collaboration.

“Coraline” was claiming status as a very holy social justice warrior that the mandarinate was reluctant to grant to a white male – and women will always see an autogynophile as a male, no matter what delusions the autogynophile harbors. So all the high status people on his team were reluctant to accept his holiness status, and incapable of perceiving his competent engineer status.
So, perceiving his attempt at female status had failed, he attempts to kill himself and is involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.

It is not people like me who keep using the wrong pronouns who drive people like “Coraline” to suicide. It is people like his manager, who no matter what pronouns they use, keep acting as if they perceive him as what he is – a man wearing a dress who has cut his dick off and grown boobs. The Opalgate incident, when lots of people piled on him calling him a man in a dress, did not make him in the least suicidal. It was the bad review by his boss, which review effectively amounted to “I can still sense the masculinity in your communication style” that caused his suicide attempt.

When the politically correct say “empathic” they actually mean feminine. If his female boss had actually been empathic, would not have driven him to suicide. They wanted someone who was a competent engineer, but who could also pass as a female social justice warrior, not just in carefully posed still photographs, but interactively. And that is not what they got. Indeed, it is never what they get.

He irreversibly mutilated himself to elevate his status to that of a woman, and his status did not in fact rise. Hence, suicide. Calling him a man in a dress did not adversely affect his perception of his own status, because he perceived those using the wrong pronoun as low status. But he perceived the women in his group as high status, they perceived him as a mere male, no matter what pronoun they used, thus, suicide.

In the past several months GitHub has fired at least three transgender engineers

He was fired for being interactively unconvincing as a woman.

and many more cisgender women.

With Trump in power, less need to pretend women are engineerettes.

Prominent people who were trying to effect positive change in the company culture have quit.

Social Justice Warriors have quit, perhaps one step ahead of being fired.

… In a return to its meritocratic roots, the company has decided to move forward with a merit-based stock option program despite criticism from employees who tried to point out its inherent unfairness.

That merit is inherently “unfair” is an implicit admission that women are inferior at activites in the male sphere and coloreds are just inferior.

And the widely publicized results of the open source survey show that the company’s platform is still not appealing to anyone but straight white guys.

The company’s platform is quite appealing to autogynophilic male to female transexuals, who are heavily overrepresented. And the rest cannot code. Ability to code is a pre-requisite for actually finding the company’s platform useful.

Tags: , , , ,

200 Responses to “Pushing back on social justice warriors.”

  1. Mister Grumpus says:

    All hail the Jim’s Status Filter of psychology and politics. I love you man!

  2. Alrenous says:

    No action of his, no matter how gross, will ever constitute sexual harrassment.

    Refusing to fuck her is apt to constitute sexual harassment, unless she’s really really ugly.

  3. onezeno says:

    Shouldn’t that be Danger Will Robinson, or am I missing something?

  4. jim says:

    In a follow up tweet “Coraline” tells us that his firing cannot be an example of Xism, because women caused him to be fired, thus implicitly admitting that “equality” for women is necessarily female supremacy, which implies that “equality” for coloreds is necessarily colored supremacy.

    “Equality” for women necessarily requires that women be emancipated, that women should be able to make their own decisions about their own lives. Whereupon, surprise surprise, they make such bad decisions that men have to pay the costs of female decisions.

    This goes all the way back to the Victorian era. Female emancipation meant too many women giving birth in the rain in dark muddy alleys, hence “Oliver Twist” and “Les Misérables”, hence the welfare state, affirmative action, and child support.

    Similarly, Obamacare is white males taking care of coloreds and single women.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      This one is going on my wall in a picture frame. I love you man.

      • Anonymous says:

        Christ, can Grumpus suck Jim’s ass while possibly slurping any louder? Talk about “autogynophilic male to female transexuals”…

        “Election have Consequences” – have you not been paying any attention to the numerous “scandals” in silicon valley about its “culture problems”? You think Trump brought that on as well?

        • jim says:

          These “scandals” are brought on by women who received power and wealth as social justice warriors in the startup business under Obama, losing it under Trump.

          • Anonymous says:

            Eh? I’m obviously talking about Kalanic, Caldback, Dave McClure, etc.

            What you said makes zero sense. These ultra wealthy male CEOs and VCs aren’t resigning because women have lost power and wealth?

            It seems to be precisely the opposite. For whatever reason, despite Trump, the “matriarchy” apparently marches on, at least in Silicon Valley ;). Lol

            • peppermint says:

              it’s now or never for them, while they still have the legacy media kookspiracy on the cable channels and in the failing newspapers. Meanwhile, I expect that some of these resigning cxos are cucks who want liberalism to win more than they want themselves to win.

            • jim says:

              The archetype of all these incidents is cheryl, a social justice commissar granted control over other people’s power and wealth by Obama, losing it under Trump, therefore casually lashing out with her rapidly diminishing power to destroy men’s lives.

              You see powerful males being destroyed – but there is something not very alpha at all about these males, reflecting the fact that they fall on their knees to suck the dicks of those better politically connected. I see weak and terrified men, who were weak and terrified before, and are weak and terrified now, men who like Cheryl herself were creations of the regulatory state, and were and are utterly dependent upon it.

              Cheryl had a job created for her by Obama. What is her job now?

              • Cavalier says:

                Power is coercion. Tech geeks have money but not power, made worse by the fact that tech geeks come into their money with no understanding of coercive power whatever.

                Powerful men never come into contact with “Cheryl” or anyone remotely like her.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You speak from experience, no doubt?

                  I have a feeling “powerful” men don’t waste their time LARPing about the best way to make the Handmaidens Tale a reality. Jim and you and all his other scrotum licking sycophants are just so many “cucks”, a word and concept so obviously derived from your own atavistic insecurities (or fantasies).

                • jim says:

                  “Fifty shades of gray” massively outsold the “Handmaiden’s tale” and has far more influence.

                  Women have a primitive concept of power. And we men are all dancing monkeys. So, the thing to do is to become powerful as women understand power.

                  Which unfortunately is anti civilizational and counter civilizational. Hence the need to modify civilization so that high status males get to perform more private violence. It is easier to have more private policing, to make male status hierarchies more convincing to women, that it is to make women have sex with the men that they should, and refrain from having sex with the men that they should not.

                  But that said, women are quite agreeable to being made to have sex. They prefer it that way. Resistance is a shit test, and they are turned on by being overpowered. So we need to make it the law that the man that they should have sex with, their husband, the father of their children, gets to overpower them.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >atavistic

                  Oh yes goyim; the enlightenment says that (((cuckoldry is the kink of intellectuals))). A man secure in his masculinity flips the script and voluntarily INVITES Dontavious to have his way with his wife loloooool

                  (You are cuck)

                • Turtle says:

                  >> Women have a primitive concept of power.

                  But today, when a young, fat, Latina neighbor saw my neck cross, she stopped looking at me, after leering. Spirituality is real too, and my faith repulses nonChristians. I mean that their concept of power is guaranteed by God to allow them some free will, enough to obey God or not, be women under His patriarchy or not, enjoy life or not, etc. So their power-concept is enough for me, once it is reformed by the Church.

        • Alf says:

          Maybe I can slurp louder?

          Dunno. If you’re right you’re right, and Jim is exceedingly often right.

  5. ivvenalis says:

    …was not hired as a good engineer, but as a social justice warrior that other engineers could respect and take seriously, as a political commissar that could understand what the engineers were actually doing. It was hired by its female non engineer boss, to impose social justice on its fellow engineers.

    This is a common tactic with underachieving populations: identify someone who can unrepresentatively hack it, then use them to browbeat everyone else. This is (or was, haven’t heard much lately) in progress in the military. The Army doesn’t need to find a +4SD female because they’re short competent soldiers (produced by the thousands) or operational commanders (by the dozens) but because they need a few credible commissars. The current crop of pogue strivers wearing oakleaves are too ridiculous, even if no one’s allowed to say it.

  6. Ron says:

    “and colords are just inferior”

    This is exactly why I believe in getting out of peoples way. There are many tasks that need to be done, but when we drive people insane and push them beyond what they are capable of, they get nothing and we get worse than nothing.

    Sure, if a guy is black and he can code, he’s in. But if he doesnt have that ability, then there is plenty of real work that needs doing. Not every man can learn every skill. But every man can learn some skill that is important somewhere. And every skill requires the dedication to work and integrity which is one thing every man can provide.

    There is nothing dishonorable in honest work. Only dishonesty is dishonorable.

    • viking says:

      yeah but
      Most blacks are not capable of a skill that is worth really anything because quite frankly they are not even worth mcdonald’s employment. so whats to be done? we have proven ourselves unwilling to enslave them or let them deteriorate in apartheid, this leaves only repatriation to a nation where they can do their thing or nor who cares

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        What is to be done?
        Either
        -kill them
        -genetic engineering (essentially 1 but slower)
        -segregation
        -expulsion
        -social collapse (a combination of 1, 3 and 4)

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Word. As far as I can tell, steam power pretty well obsoleted the black man, and then electric kitchen appliances obsoleted the black woman.

          “But steam power and electric kitchen appliances were white inventions.”

          Excellent point.

          How that’s anything other than an argument for managed zoos/reservations for black people though, well, beats me.

          • viking says:

            I actually think eco parks for blacks is the answer. There are still many populations of african tribes that have enough of their pre colonial culture in tact that one could remove the adidas sneakers and AK47s and the the most westernized among them and contain them in wildlife sanctuaries forbidden contact and policed by drones. The other 99.9999 percent should be euthanized. These drone eventually they will come to think of as animals and we can keep them and the other large fauna in these large parks while keeping them out of areas we need to extract resources from.

            • peppermint says:

              One day a nigger came to a hackerspace.

              This ugly faggot boomer cuck engineer was happy to assist him in any way with his project:

              He had a little robot on the ground with a face glued to it. He tried to tell it to move or speak through a microphone instead of his laptop keyboard while debugging its movement.

              When he demonstrated it he looked at everyone expecting them to clap for him the way Whites used to when Whites were christcucks.

              Niggers already think of robots as animals and expect the same accolades for assembling them from kits as White women with big tits do. White women with big tits understand that robots aren’t animals and they’re getting the accolades for their tits.

        • Garr says:

          What’s to be done with the whole human race? It’s all ugly. Let 1000 super-geniuses assimilate everyone else’s brain-matter, attach unlimited quantities of hardware to themselves, and just space out or whatever. The ultimate individualistic liberal society. It would be beautiful.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Mulattoes make incredible hackers. Something about their brain structure let’s them identify and exploit weaknesses in code in an amazing way.

        • peppermint says:

          then whats the point of inporting curry niggers

          is google racist

        • pdimov says:

          “Mulattoes make incredible hackers.”

          In movies.

        • Turtle says:

          This is really funny whether it’s true or not. Do you have evidence of such hackers?

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Evidence that I’m willing to share in public? No. First hand experience, for n greater than 1? Yes. Just combine white brains with black personality, and you can see the one possible cause for the phenomenon.

            • jim says:

              If these competent nonwhite hackers existed, I would have met them, and surveys like the Github survey would have found them.

              Blacks are not as severely underrepresented in engineering as females, but they are under represented. Competent black engineers exist, but not a whole lot of them, and they are at best merely competent.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Or should I say, combine white IQ with black motivations and focus.

            • peppermint says:

              right, and since it takes better than average White IQ to be a good engineer, and the IQ of a nigger is theoretically one or two standard deviations below average for Whites, what you’re actually talking about is octaroons with ruinously bad eugenics from their White great-grandparents, who are affecting nigger behaviors in order to pass as niggers for affirmative action, and even so, aren’t capable or numerous enough to be noticed by anyone other than yourself

              and no, muh dik, social status consciousness, inattentiveness to details that don’t seem relevant, lack of concern for official policy, deep concern for personal respect, are not characteristics of good engineers

              do you know how many catladies and government agencies would literally throw money at a computer company with a plausibly black ceo even if its product was inferior? Enough that a felon out of nigger university with a bachelor’s degree from a university and a computer company is a routine kind of speaker at boomer christcuck virtue signaling events

            • jim says:

              Not seeing any black motivation and focus. Blacks are notoriously lazy, feckless, and easily distracted by shinies.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                And you don’t see the connection between that and hacking?

                • peppermint says:

                  niggers ignore platitudes and have a much more realistic view of human nature and human systems than the humans who pride themselves on not understanding, and are all inherently sociopaths befitting their evolution as throwaway kids of single economically empowered mothers and random guys those single moms hooked up with, and use those skills as scammers

                  but hackers need to understand *computer* systems

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  that is where the IQ from their white half comes in, Pepper

        • jim says:

          If nonwhites were capable of being hackers, they would show up in the Github survey.

  7. Glenfilthie says:

    I wonder if you’re not reading too much into it.

    People that are bat-shit crazy tend to get fired a lot. With Trump a lot of this gender-lunacy is just going to go away as are the morons that got immersed in it.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Trannies cannot be high status under a purity spiral. A tranny is a male prostitute who has daily chemsex orgies with the most desperate men, a male prostitute whose notch count is close to 1,000 or higher. Trannies, in other words, fill a niche that belongs to extremely low status women, thus confirming both womanhood, and heterosexuality. Uh oh.

    The real holy victim group has always been and will forever remain the dykes. A tranny will fuck you for 5$ or for free. A dyke will not fuck you, and will not fuck anyone – if not a virgin, she may as well be a virgin, going decades voluntarily sexless or with very few sexual encounters. How’s that for purity! Plus, they have a clear incentive (inborn misandry) that goes beyond muh self-esteem issues. And it is not surprising that “social conservatives” find dykes much nicer than trannies, when it should be the opposite. 50 shades of purity.

    The truth of the matter is that MRAism — or whatever you wanna call it — is infinitely more radical than Nazism, because sexual husbandry is, in the long term, more crucial (genetics-wise) than racial husbandry. What are 300k years compared to billions of years? The male/female distinction will remain decades or centuries after the racial distinctions are rendered obsolete through wide-scale genetic engineering and/or wide-scale ethnocide.

    Which is not to say that Nazism is false, but that a bigger question requires a bigger answer, and the sex question will ultimately prove the bigger question. Paradoxically, sex isn’t as nearly as “sexy” as race talk, which is why all the Manospherians eventually become Nazis. And that’s okay, as long as they remember what they’ve learned in their former ideological camp. Which is to say, it isn’t okay, since they quickly forget all of it, and while becoming redpilled about coloreds and kikes, projectile-vomit the more essential redpill about women.

    It’s a perplexing dynamic, how social purism triumphs on the left and on the right, whatever the point of departure on each side. I can only blame myself for pushing the right in the direction it evidently went; in retrospect the Manosphere in 2013 and NRx in 2014 were way more interesting than Nazism in 2017 is. But, here we are, so may as well give it a try. I do hope that Fragmentation of Sovereignty will create the best possible geopolitical scenario, breaking down not merely America but Russia and China as well, thus allowing puritan whites and non-puritan whites to have their own separate paradises.

    If I were Peter Thiel I’d fund raging agitated incel blogs rather than raging agitated nazi blogs, because the thoughtcrimes emanating from the former are more subversive than those of the latter, and I know it’s true because “nazism” aka ethnonationalism has only become verboten some 40 years ago while opposition to what Rollo calls the “feminine imperative” has been proscribed since the days of Ernest Belfort Bax.

    The reason non-puritan whites need free association is because Timothy Temple and Morgan Hunt (fucking white males) are rotting in jail getting ass-raped by niggers every day — http://www.heraldstandard.com/gcm/news/local_news/men-charged-with-having-sex-with–year-old/article_699f833d-ac2b-5151-a729-991aa4d8bf77.html — and the reason it’s so is because you, the reader, and people with similar mindsets to yours, only get riled up when force is being used by non-whites against whites, which you correctly identify as white genocide, but don’t give a damn when force is used by puritan whites against non-puritan whites, which use of force you often condone. Now Timothy and Morgan are farting nigger-semen in their prison cells, thanks a lot puritans and collaborators.

    “But why are you bringing this up, anon” – because it’s a sex topic and I’m using this precious opportunity to point out that your priorities are completely fucked up and basically you’re a cuck, dear reader.

    • Cavalier says:

      >Timothy Temple and Morgan Hunt
      >Waynesburg police have charged two men with rape of a child after both reportedly admitted to having sex with a 12-year-old Spraggs girl last year.

      I’m supposed to feel bad… why?

      >white genocide

      Stale meme.

      >you, the reader, only get riled up when force is being used by non-whites against whites

      Your premise is faulty: nonwhites are incapable.

      >but don’t give a damn when force is used by puritan whites against non-puritan whites, which use of force you often condone

      A. The Puritans went extinct some time back. If you have in mind an extant clade, please specify, accurately.
      B. All force against whites is exacted by other whites.
      C. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse…

      • Garr says:

        I googled “Cotton Mather” to see how many kids he had — 15, but only 2 survived him. So he had sex at least 15 times. Apparently he was pushing the Salem Witch Trials, so that’s not likable, but a separate issue from sex unless maybe you link the first Witch cases to out-of-control-girl-behavior.
        By the way, Cavalier, I haven’t been able to get a sense of your general take on things. Are you sort of a techno-feudalist or something? Independent corporate barons with retainers and serfs? Kind of like in Neuromancer?

        • Garr says:

          Make that “only 2 outlived him”

        • Cavalier says:

          Puritans in the sense of the identifiable behaviors and traditions and ideas went extinct; their descendants live on, in both the memetic and genetic senses: memetically, to varying degrees most of the world; genetically, most of the English-descended population of New England — both now substantially degraded to the point of unrecognizability, the first by hundreds of years of the worst natural selection, as well as infection by Jewish memes, the second by intermarriage with ethnic whites.

          Referring to progs as “puritans” is about as accurate as referring to CTVT as a canine.

          • jim says:

            Referring to progs as “puritans” is about as accurate as referring to CTVT as a canine.

            Hating Christmas, desecrating marriage, preventing sex, and hating decoration and color has not changed.

            • Garr says:

              Jonathan Edwards — 11 children. Puritanism doesn’t seem to have prevented sex.

            • Cavalier says:

              Christmas is essentially pagan, which is what makes it so excellent.

              The Puritans got marriage right.

              Did they ever prevent sex between man and wife? Please provide a specific example. I am aware of a specific example in which a man was banished from his village for refusing to fuck his wife.

              Suspicion of song, dance, and color is what earned them the name “puritan”. I suggest we admire their successes and revile their failings, this being one of the latter. Though, to be fair, as I read their canon I cannot help but think that maybe, just maybe, they were right.

              • peppermint says:

                Did I hallucinate the separate beds for the husband and wife in the puritan house we visited in school?

                Naturally, the girls didn’t like that idea, though they were eight and nine.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Did I hallucinate the separate beds for the husband and wife in the puritan house we visited in school?

                  Yes, surely separate beds will prevent two young horndogs from fucking each other’s brains out.

                  Probably some of them slept in several beds — if now, why not then? However, if I recall correctly, many of them put even courting couples in bed together separated by sackcloths or some such thing.

              • jim says:

                Did they ever prevent sex between man and wife?

                The puritans introduced divorce.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Marriage is a contract. There are circumstances under which it should be terminated.

                  “Adultery is extremely rare among so numerous a people. Its punishment is instant, and at the pleasure of the husband. He cuts off the hair of the offender, strips her, and in presence of her relations expels her from his house, and pursues her with stripes through the whole village.” — Tacitus, Germania

                  Maybe it shouldn’t even be a contract.

                • jim says:

                  Terminated by execution of the wife and her lover.

                • peppermint says:

                  Marriage pre-exists contracts. Calling marriage a contract is a metaphor used by people who like words.

                  Penguins have marriages and property rights over their individual nests. They have no contracts because they need no contracts.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Marriage pre-exists contracts.

                  State power precedes natural order, warping it like matter warps spacetime. When the state intervenes, marriage becomes a contract.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Terminated by execution of the wife and her lover.

                  I think there’s a reason that punishment of adultery involving execution is generally found to be by the community at large, that reason being that a live wife is worth more than a dead one, and if you’re a not-so-eligible beta male, you might not get another, so you whip the wayward woman soundly, quarantine her for a month or two, and proceed in the name of Darwin.

                  If you’re a cold-hearted son-of-a-bitch Darwinist with a crown, a sword, and an eugenics plan, you ensure that cheating wives die whether or not their husbands want them to die, you don’t worry much about the interloper males, and you also bury the children. Personally, I prefer CRISPR.

                • jim says:

                  Every major holy book prescribes the death penalty for adultery, (defined as misbehavior by the wife, for men do not bring their bastards home) and we had the death penalty for adultery until the eighteenth century. It is our present era that is weird and abnormal.

                  Plus it is just human nature. If someone fucks your girl, difficult and humiliating to refrain from killing them. We should not have laws that go uphill against human nature. Being forbidden to kill adulterers is emasculating.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Leviticus 20:10 — And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

                  Surely put to death… by whom? Who is the implied subject? We find it both earlier and later in this chapter:

                  2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

                  26 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

                  How about Deuteronomy 22, my favorite part of the Bible?

                  20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

                  So, not the husband. And though the law guarantees a virtuous punishment, it’s very naturally up to him to decide whether he thinks he can get a younger, hotter, nicer, better girl, or if maybe sloppy seconds is preferable to the very real — and terrifying — prospect of jerking off into his hand for the rest of his life (which may well be short) and dying without a single son to his name.

                  As I review some other passages, I don’t find anything permitting the husband to kill his wife. Indirectly, of course, by leveling such charges, but not personally; it all seemed to go through the village elders.

                  Incidentally, it would appear that communal stoning is a form of group selection, and the point of stoning specifically that no one knows quite who dealt the killing blow and that all share the guilt.

                  Some other interesting things:

                  Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

                  2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

                  3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

                  4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

                  5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

                  Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

                  20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

                  24 When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.

                  25 When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.

                • jim says:

                  “Seed unto Moloch” refers to sacrificing one’s children to Moloch, burning them alive in the fire. This shall be punished by stoning, which is to say, stoned by the congregation of the true and official state religion.

                  Proverbs 6:32-35 specifies that the penalty for adultery shall be carried out by the offended husband, and Deuteronomy does not contradict this, merely implying the possibility that it alternatively be carried out by the congregation if the husband is not up for it.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Hey guyz have you seen this:

                  http://www.larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Main_Page

                  I don’t agree with 100% of Larson’s positions. But damn, he’s right on the money most of the time.

                • Anonymous says:

                  No, really. This is the best thing that has ever happened. Okay, not “really.” Some things in his platform are not good. But the overall intention is quite good. Here are the issues of his platform – which is pure lulz. (If you do go over to his site, note that some of the links there are NSFW — it contains some nude jailbait, probably taken from nudist websites — you know, for illustration purposes)

                  -Abolition of the age of marriageability

                  -Abolition of restraining orders

                  -Enactment of a male sexual liberation constitutional amendment

                  -Immigration privatization

                  -Instituting capital punishment for defilement of another man’s wife

                  -Instituting shotgun weddings as a remedy in cases of premarital defloration

                  -Legalization of incestuous marriage

                  -Legalization of interspecies marriage

                  -Legalization of marital rape

                  -Legalization of polygynous marriage

                  -Marriage privatization

                  -Punishment of disloyal spouses

                  -Recognizing the limits of what same-sex marriage can accomplish

                  -Repealing the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

                  -Upholding the right of fathers to make decisions for their unmarried daughters

                  -Upholding the right of men to physically discipline their wives

                  -Abolition of compulsory education

                  -Abolition of Child Protective Services

                  -Elimination of all state funding for young women to attend high school and college

                  -Emancipation of young men

                  -Keeping abortion legal

                  -Legalization of child pornography possession and distribution

                  -Abolition of postrelease supervision

                  -Allowing defendants to pay fines and restitution on a reasonable schedule

                  -Allowing photography and broadcasting of judicial proceedings

                  -Ending felony disenfranchisement

                  -Granting immunity to defendants for statements made during allocution‎

                  -Making inculpatory statements and the fruits of consent searches inadmissible in court

                  -Requiring witnesses to testify in open court rather than by closed-circuit television

                  -Using starvation as an execution method

                  -Abolition of the minimum wage

                  -Abolition of welfare

                  -Opposing right-to-work laws

                  -Repealing the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

                  -Borrowing ideas from foreign countries to fix our transportation system

                  -Legalization of autonomous cars

                  -Legalization of radar detectors

                  -Ending gerrymandering

                  -Giving Washington, DC voting representation in the United States Congress

                  -Repealing the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

                  -Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

                  -Running the government as a business

                  -Abolition of Daylight Savings Time

                  -Abolition of gun control

                  -Drug legalization

                  -Legalization of defamation

                  -Legalization of public nudity

                  -Making public restrooms single-occupancy

                • Anonymous says:

                  If the articles and the argumentation presented therein do not make you chuckle at least a little bit, your sense of humor is essentially null. It’s amusing, whether or not you agree. “Peak comedy” is when you can’t differentiate between trolling and non-trolling, and that’s precisely what makes people such as Nathan Larson, Lorenz Kraus of renegadetribune, and yours humbly funny. “Y so srs?” should be the motto of all activism.

                • peppermint says:

                  state power also precedes formal contracts

                • Cavalier says:

                  >state power also precedes formal contracts

                  Without state power, it’s just a gentleman’s agreement.

                • Turtle says:

                  > > note that some of the links there are NSFW

                  Thanks for the warning. I am surprised he’s so thorough in stating his platform already. Where’ is he from / running for office?

                • Anonymous says:

                  >I am surprised he’s so thorough in stating his platform already. Where’ is he from / running for office?

                  Virginia House of Delegates. Of course he won’t be elected, but it doesn’t matter. His very troll-candidacy serves as an uppercut punch directly into the collective throat of the cuck & catlady alliance of pearl clutchers and couch fainters.

                  As Moldbug would say if he knew how to meme (he doesn’t know how to meme because he’s Jewish):

                  “Don’t go postal. Go institutional.”

                  And I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a regular lurker on this blog, because his positions on several issues are directly aligned with all that we’ve been discussing here, including early marriage, authority of fathers over unmarried daughters, shotgun marriage if a virgin is “raped”, opposition to mandatory schooling, and so on.

                  Of course, things get weird when he advocates for legalizing dolphin marriage. But do go over there and read the article, because it’s hilarious. All of the stuff on his site is just so freaking funny. I stand with Nathan the Scandinavian ubermencsh 100%, even though I only agree with 90% of what he proposes. Finally, someone with a plan that can *actually* raise the TFR of whites. That he’s married (second marriage) to a Filipina only adds to the lulziness. From the FAQ section of his site:

                  Q: “How do you respond to white nationalists who oppose your being married to a Filipina?”

                  A: “Hey, I would’ve been happy to put it in a white woman, except that I don’t want to get frivorced again.”

                  I’m so happy this individual exists.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Proverbs 6:32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

                  33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

                  34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.

                  35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.

                  So, this is what occurs to me:

                  Deuteronomy 22 was a set of laws regulating societal conduct. Proverbs 6 is not; it isn’t worded like law is worded, like Deuteronomy 22 is worded, and if the first two words are to be believed (“my son”), it’s advice from a father to a son.

                  Furthermore, it’s clear from the passage that it’s referring to a man taking vengeance on the adulterous interloper, not the adulteress wife.

                  >and Deuteronomy does not contradict this, merely implying the possibility that it alternatively be carried out by the congregation if the husband is not up for it

                  Deuteronomy came before Proverbs, several hundred years before. If anyone’s doing any contradicting, it’s the author(s) of Proverbs rather than Deuteronomy.

                  Even assuming the husband wants to kill his wife, if a collective punishment exacted by the community is a threat held in reserve, it isn’t really up to the husband, is it?

                  P.S. You use “congregation” in an interesting way. My spidey senses are telling me that this use of the word only makes sense in the context of liberal (tolerant) Protestantism; or, in an environment in which one’s closest community and specific religious sect are not necessarily one and the same.

                • jim says:

                  Fact is, there is nothing in “Deuteronomy” specifying who kills the misbehaving wife and her lover, and Proverbs assumes a society where it is legal for the offended husband to personally seek vengeance on his wife’s lover, where the primary danger facing the adulterer is the vengeance of the husband.

                  Which, assuming that the author of “Proverbs” lived under the legal regime of Deuteronomy …

                  I think Deuteronomy did not cover this issue because they simply assumed husbands took care of this. You need collective religious action to suppress evil false enemy religions, and you cannot get much more evil and false than Moloch, but when it comes to adultery, they assumed things would take care of themselves.

                • jim says:

                  My use of “congregation” applies in an environment where states are defined by religious adherence rather than geographic boundaries.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >who kills the misbehaving wife and her lover

                  Not specifically; it’s merely implied, with a possibly permissive attitude towards what might happen if it shakes out some other way.

                  “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”

                  As I’ve said before, there’s no subject here, and the only subject that appears in Deuteronomy 22 is “the people of the land”, “they”, and “you” — but “you” in this context is clearly plural.

                  >and Proverbs assumes a society where it is legal for the offended husband to personally seek vengeance on his wife’s lover, where the primary danger facing the adulterer is the vengeance of the husband

                  …Implying a very weak state. What is the historical context for Proverbs? Goatherd nomads living in the desert fringe?

                  >I think Deuteronomy did not cover this issue because they simply assumed husbands took care of this.

                  And they probably did. The thing is, you assume that the husband wants to kill his wife for her treachery. The only problem is that that’s not how men act at all. The male instinct is to take vengeance on the interloper male much more so than on the treasonous woman.

                  Look, I’m not saying that a rich and successful man might not nevertheless want to slit his wife’s throat in response to her unfaithfulness, I’m saying that in the case of the lower-end male, or possibly even average male, the incentives just aren’t aligned, [i]especially[/i] in a polygamous mating scenario. If you snagged a wife despite your poor marriage prospects, killing your only wife isn’t going to help your fitness, and the entirety of your brain is really little more than a Darwinian Calculus Module working all day, every day, and harder at night.

                  >My use of “congregation” applies in an environment where states are defined by religious adherence rather than geographic boundaries.

                  That’s an error-prone definition. It doesn’t work very well for the pre-Westphalian Catholic tyranny, nor for the modern-day America & Satellites. The US and Mexico, or Germany, or Australia, are clearly different states, even though only one is fully sovereign, and that only if for some odd reason you think that USG is holding its own marionette strings.

                  Hitler would have liked you, though.

                • jim says:

                  >who kills the misbehaving wife and her lover

                  Not specifically; it’s merely implied, with a possibly permissive attitude towards what might happen if it shakes out some other way.

                  “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”

                  The details of enforcement are left open, and “Proverbs” presupposes that the enforcement will be done by the husband, who will likely refuse a “ransom”. This presupposes and seems to imply a system of courts plus private vengeance, where the courts do not get involved when private vengeance shakes out in accordance with the law.

                  “Proverbs” tells us that if you committed adultery in Israel, your big worry was that the husband will kill you, rather than the court will kill you, and the reference to ransom implies that killing adulterers is legal – what is illegal is adultery, but “ransom” implies the courts generally do not get involved in enforcing that law, whereas the reference to public stoning in suppressing the worship of Moloch implies that the courts generally are the ones suppressing the worship of Moloch.

                  What is the historical context for Proverbs? Goatherd nomads living in the desert fringe?

                  “Proverbs” was written, or at least put together, at the time of King Solomon, when Israel had a strong state with a strongly enforced theocratic state religion, high taxes, and mass conscription. King Solomon’s PR department clearly had a heavy hand in the composition. “Proverbs” is the voice of a strong, deeply religious, state, the very archetype of Moldbuggian absolutism. Probably reissued in a revised form under each King subsequent to Solomon, with the final version issued by King Hezekiah.

                  A truly strong state does not intrude itself into every family.

                  The truly strong state relies on private incentives as far as possible. Socialism, bureaucracy and explicit regulation are weakness, not strength. (Compare communist China with the China that allows successful entrepreneurs to get rich) And when it comes to enforcing the law on adultery, private incentives are aligned with sound public policy.

                  “Proverbs” is the voice of a strong theocratic state issuing guidance to private individuals acting in their individual roles, reminding them of those private incentives that are aligned with sound public policy. It does not encourage husbands to kill adulterers, but it lets you know that they will not be prevented from doing so.

                  The truly absolute state has the power to intervene in any matter, but does not interfere in every matter. And “Proverbs” is the voice of a powerful, absolute, and deeply religious theocratic state issuing guidance on those matters where it does not interfere.

                  “Proverbs” is intended to be read in small villages by grandmothers to their children, and taught to your goat herders on the fringes of the desert. It intends to guide individuals in their private lives, not state officials in public policy. But it explicitly identifies itself as issued by the powerful royal bureaucracy of a powerful highly centralized theocratic state.

                  The final section explicitly identifies itself as issued by the royal bureaucracy of King Hezekiah, and the first section identifies itself as the words of Solomon, presumably collected, edited, and perhaps revised by the royal bureaucracy of Solomon, and quite like re-revised by each subsequent King up to Hezekiah.

                  “Proverbs” is the voice of a state that is sufficiently strong, sufficiently confident in its righteousness, and sufficiently certain of the truth of its official faith, that it can afford to let private individuals get on with their private lives. And that appears to include allowing husbands to kill adulterers.

                • peppermint says:

                  Women expect their man to threaten to kill them. They like it when their man puts his hand on their throat. If you don’t follow through and beat her if she cheats or is raped, she won’t respect you.

                  She’ll probably try to get you to fuck her while you’re beating her, because women are more like female cats than people are comfortable talking about, because offering sex is the logical response to being beaten by a man, and to confuse paternity. You need to not give it to her to maoe it clear that you care about paternity even though there are other ways to determine paternity now. You need to beat her as if you were trying to induce miscarriage that way even though you can get an abortion and use techniques that are painful but not damaging long term.

                  The only way a woman will respect you is if you’re not a cuck.

                  Feminists go on and on about how much they respect and cherish women. In reality the alt-right is the only political movement that actually respects and cherishes women enough to do what women actually like.

          • peppermint says:

            Puritans believe that they are Elect and their role in the world is to virtue signal to everyone else in the probably vain hope of discovering more Elect.

            Puritans believe that every nigger can be Elect, but slaveowners have already demonstrated that they aren’t. Thus Lincoln’s famous quote that to see a man’s character give him power.

            Puritans believe that the aristocracy used to keep plebs out of politics thus preventing their true nature from shining through and when people are given the chance to vote some of them become worthy, which makes it worth doing, while many who take the vote for granted are unworthy because they vote for impure things.

            The difference between puritans and transcendentalists is that transcendentalists don’t talk about God very much, as God is an embarrassment, and claim that all cultural traditions lead people towards Election, but ours, with so much wealth, has not produced a bumper crop of Elect.

            Transcendentalism is the state religion of the US. In the 20th century all conservatives were transcendentalists and believed that spics and niggers were natural conservatives while asserting that liberals were secular humanists instead and without the explicit belief in souls would end up being unable to fight the war against atheist racist nazis and commies and thinking ill of niggers and spics.

            The left destoyed religion in the US because the left is mindless. Consequently the supply of cucks has dried up. Only a Christian can be told that unconditional love is virtuous or educated into transcendentalism and secular humanism.

            • peppermint says:

              Ps puritanism is a winning meme in a university of more orthodox christcucks. Transcendetalism is a winning meme in a university of puritans and secular humanism is a winning meme in a university of transcendentalists.

              The journalist and education world system must be destroyed.

        • peppermint says:

          starting witch trials is incredibly sexy behavior, ask any woman

          • Anonymous says:

            >starting witch trials is incredibly sexy behavior, ask any woman

            There are worldwide witch trials against “child porn” and “revenge porn” but BDSM porn and tentacle-monster porn are perfectly legal. This goes to show that everyone has been PWNED by puritanism. Were it the other way around — were CP and RP perfectly legal (as they should be) while BDSM and tentacle monsters illegal — we’d know that the catladies and the males who possess a catlady mindset are kept in line. And the TFR would be higher because more testosterone and less estrogen in the metaphorical water supply.

            Incidentally, CP and RP are usually homemade (because it’s videos of one’s girlfriend), not produced by Jew pornographers in Jew-owned studios, while BDSM and tentacle-monsters are by and large produced by Jew and Jap pornographers. I say, shut down the Jew studios, but otherwise make homemade CP/RP 100% legal. Somehow, I suspect that the Jews in the porn industry won’t like this idea very much.

      • Anonymous says:

        >I’m supposed to feel bad… why?

        Because two males (you are a male) who are white (you are white) went to jail for a bullshit crime invented by puritans and supported by catladies, and given you are a Machiavellian type and not some cuck-idealist, you should understand that such laws are against your rational self-interest as an individual and as a collective and therefore you should oppose them. Your emotional state is irrelevant, but if I need to make you feel certain emotions in order to impel you to grasp certain abstract ideas then yeah I’ll appeal to your emotion. I wish I needn’t appeal to your (by which I mean _anyone’s_) emotions to get things through, but around hominids act hominid, just ask Haidt.

        It could be that the people supporting these laws are pussyfaggots who aren’t strong enough to defend their families so they want the state to defend their families from “predators” in their stead so their daughter could remain in an infantile state for eternity to serve their romantic ideation for infanthood, but I’m not implying that you or the rest of the readership here are pussyfaggots which is why I present my argument to you in the first place. Surely, if you had a daughter (perhaps you have) and the state got out of the way completely, you could find effective ways to protect her, wouldn’t you? Then why not incentivize all men to be able to defend their families? That already excludes niggers and other dysfunctional inferiors, so we could safely rape teen negresses whose dad doesn’t give a fuck, but white men by and large are competent enough to defend their families, and those who aren’t deserve whatever they get – this is darwinism.

        >All force against whites is exacted by other whites.

        This is the root of the problem.

        • Cavalier says:

          Yeah, I’m not going to fucking any 12 year olds. For one thing, I’m not an [a href=”http://i.imgur.com/2oam2SK.jpg”]inbred, low-IQ borderline-mongoloid[/a].

          There are some very early bloomers, but the vast majority of future-hot girls aren’t even attractive until they’ve hit 18-20, and even then the K-selected ones still have more development to do.

          I want my bloodline to continue being so excellent that its female members continue to be capable of regulating themselves. Most rape, isn’t, and most of this “predator” stuff is (((CNN))) bullshit.

          • Anonymous says:

            >Yeah, I’m not going to fucking any 12 year olds.

            We agree that most 12 y/os aren’t into sex.
            We agree that a small minority are into sex.

            Why can’t we agree that, when members of the small minority have sex, men shouldn’t be thrown in jail for it?

            (Obviously, it’s the ones who are sexually mature for their age, not the ones who are sexually immature, who are having the sex)

            It’s not some blanket “teens generally should fuck” statement. It’s the recognition that when they *do* fuck, it’s shouldn’t be considered “rape” or “molestation”, because it isn’t.

            • Anonymous says:

              In other words, when they fuck, it indicates that they are — no surprise here — sexually mature enough to fuck. If they don’t fuck, it’s possible that they aren’t sexually enough for it. The answer to the question “should teens fuck?” is almost tautological: the ones who fuck, should fuck (and I would add: should then get married, but that’s a different issue); the ones who don’t fuck, let them remain so till after marriage.

              99% of sexcrime legislation should be abolished.

              • Cavalier says:

                “Should females of the human species be sexually mature at 12?”

                No.

                And if you want that, you should curse your ancestors for forking along the human rather than the chimp line.

            • jim says:

              We agree that most 12 y/os aren’t into sex.
              We agree that a small minority are into sex.

              Personal experience: A very large minority of ten year olds with no boobs who have not yet experienced menarche are into sex. A very large minority, likely a majority, of twelve year olds have boobs, have experienced menarche and are therefore potentially capable of bearing children, though substantially less fertile than sixteen year olds, and are into sex. If not all of them have done it yet, they are intensely interested, and keep aggressively inserting themselves into situations where sex is likely to ensue.

              If you think only a very small minority are into sex, that tells me that only a very small minority are into sex with you.

              Women are hypergamous, and very young girls are very hypergamous. If you don’t have money, charisma, and substantial and obvious adult female preselection, you are invisible to them. You should not conclude from your own invisibility that they are not into sex. Plot line of “Cinderella”: He is a prince, he is rich, and older higher status females want him. You will notice that his age and physical appearance is not mentioned, while the story pretty much drools over all the loot and his personal power. The target audience for “Cinderalla” are rubbing their pussies against their broomstick.

              • Cavalier says:

                10, 11, 12 seem a little weak to me. 14, 15, 16, certainly.

                • jim says:

                  Plot of Cinderella: Love interest who is rich, powerful and preselected.

                  What age is the audience for Cinderella?

                • Cavalier says:

                  girls 6-14

                  I don’t think the “princess instinct” is sexual in origin. Cinderella is qualitatively different from the sorts of stories older girls like — which do have clear sexual undertones.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Girls 11 and up are no longer into Cinderella. Once they get period, are interested in real life men, not imaginary faggot princes. 11 and up, she no longer wants to be a vanilla princess, she wants to be a slutty “bad girl”, and that tells you that soon she will need sex. Which, again, should be in the context of marriage – but that’s beside the point

                • jim says:

                  The difference between a moderately successful rock musician and Cinderella’s prince is insignificant. Both exemplify preselection and status. Both are essence of hypergamy.

                  And both should tell you that your ten or eleven year old daughter is likely to bad things to an adult male with pre selection and charisma.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Look at these Orthodox Jewesses:

                  imgur.com/a/Ynpxv

                  Granted, are Jewesses. Still – what age do they look like? I’d say 13. Do you think they have Cinderella on their minds? No. They have something else occupying their minds. Many such cases!

                  (Use this pic to troll B)

              • viking says:

                Jim i thought you had children theres a long in between period from having a period to being a very young woman it last several years and then they are only teen agers sexually mature but hardly adults.They have the minds of children and this is why we forbid courting them by adults but allow a sort of supervised mock courting by other children their age.If sone correctly they get through this period physically and mentally matured and with some experience of the mating game.

                • jim says:

                  They have the minds of children

                  Women continue to have the minds of children until menopause. If we wait for them to be competent, responsible, and capable of rational consent, we are never going to reproduce.

          • jim says:

            Yeah, I’m not going to fucking any 12 year olds.

            Not these?

            A few years ago my thirty year old son hit on a fully developed twelve year old, who was hanging around in a pickup joint. He did not realize she was all that young, and neither did I. She looked adult to me.

            • Cavalier says:

              >https://i.imgur.com/NTtsu4I.jpg
              Fully developed.

              >https://i.imgur.com/zgF8Rdd.jpg
              Mostly developed.

              >https://i.imgur.com/sPSBN0q.jpg
              Fully developed.

              >https://i.imgur.com/4ndeMlu.jpg
              Fully develophnnngghg

              >https://i.imgur.com/GEoIWdy.jpg
              Not now, not ever.

              >https://i.imgur.com/WOzmwtg.jpg
              Fully developed.

              >https://i.imgur.com/pwIpkp5.jpg
              Fully developed.

              >Photo #1
              Not fully developed.

              >Photo #2
              Not fully developed.

              >Photo #3
              Not fully developed.

              >https://i.imgur.com/WgSxxgT.jpg
              Fully developed.

              P.S. Wtf, seriously, did you just assault me with child pr0nz?

              • jim says:

                P.S. Wtf, seriously, did you just assault me with child pr0nz?

                Every “child” in that image is capable of conceiving, bearing, and suckling children, none of them are engaged in sexual activity, nor are any of them posed in a sexually suggestive manner. If you felt yourself assaulted, it was because you felt desires that you found disturbing.

                The desire for a wife who is young enough to likely be virgin, while old enough to be capable of bearing children, is not a perversion, it is the very essence of normality.

                The women depicted in that image are the ideal age to begin lifelong monogamous patriarchal marriage, and in a healthy society, would promptly do so.

                • viking says:

                  LOL get help Jim we are not fucking afghanis we have a civilization easily capable of keeping girls virgins till at least 17, and we have a long long history of actually marrying virgins in early twenties. you are proposing niggerfication.This theory of yours you have backed yourself into a corner with is hopefully rhetorical stubbornness.White men would kill you for doing what you propose, many would kill you for simply proposing it. Yes sure if we were nigger bushman or found ourselves in some nigger bushman environment where we needed to act like savages to survive youre technically correct.niggers hit puberty by about 9 are you good with that too?.Im the one asking how does reactinary patriarchy differ from say Islamic patriarchy your answer is it doesnt, in fact manyof your answers seem to be lets just be lke nigger jews and towel heads fuck that static. lets be like like we were before jews started running us.

                • jim says:

                  LOL get help Jim we are not fucking afghanis we have a civilization easily capable of keeping girls virgins till at least 17,

                  It is a lot easier to keep girls virgins when you don’t have privacy and you don’t have transport, when you have half a dozen cousins sleeping in the same room, and there is always dad’s driver driving the cart.

                  And even so, they still found disturbingly drastic measures were necessary, or, lacking contraception and Cathedral training in condoms and oral sex, they got pregnant at fourteen.

                  Back when girls married late, but usually still virgins, they had a startlingly forceful apparatus of coercion and tight supervision and control to keep them that way.

                • Anonymous says:

                  What was the AOC in Delaware in 1880, Viking?

                  Google it.

                • Cavalier says:

                  On point, viking, on point.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >What was the AOC in Delaware in 1880, Viking?

                  Low. 8, probably. Doesn’t change the facts.

                • Anonymous says:

                  7.

                  And the facts are indeed the facts – sexual maturity of women often enough begins at 12. And the sexual impulse itself (as evidenced by masturbation) sometimes manifests all throughout childhood, likely beginning pre-birth inside the womb, though that’s not necessarily an argument for pedophilia – yet, again, white men of the past had a different perspective than yours and Viking’s, and were aware of that stuff, hence AOC being 7 in Delaware and in the 10-12 bracket elsewhere, *in countries where it existed at all*.

                • Anonymous says:

                  And I don’t mean accidental masturbation either. Purposeful masturbation to a climax. Just to get this point clear.

                  Older folks often develop a mysterious amnesia regarding what their and their pals’ youth was like. 20 or 30 years after the events, the majority of people remember nothing but pure chastity and innocence. But ask people who are young right now, and you will hear from the horse’s mouth what youthful energy, in all aspects if life, feels like.

                • Anonymous says:

                  And take note, Jim, that most of the alt-right thinks like Viking. That was my initial realization and by cultivating this debate I have proven it. The normies think that 17 is “underage”, and the people I see ’round these corners — in forums, comment sections, and so on — are of a similar mindset. Some are just less hysterical about it than others. They all invariably agree that a 15 y/o woman is a “child”. To even suggest that women younger than that are fully sexual beings is unpalatable and unfathomable to them.

                  Scrap that. MPC asserted that Macron, when he was 15 y/o, was — and that’s the exact word they used — “molested” by his future wife, since, you know, they had sex while he was a “child”.

                  That kind of uber-puritanical thinking is the toxic, infantilizing, romantic Enlightenment ideology taken to its logical conclusion. Which is why I support Exit and Fragmentation. Nick Land is right. The only way forward is voluntary communities of puritan and non-puritan whites, separated. I suspect, however, that the puritans will be against that, because their worldview is inherently evangelizing.

                  And by “suspect”, I mean “know”.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >If you felt yourself assaulted, it was because you felt desires that you found disturbing.

                  No desire at all. Neither well-developed nor hot.

                  One of them was not well developed. The rest of them are very nicely developed. That you are in denial about the objective fact of their curves tells me that you are in denial about the subjective fact of how hot you found them.

                  Once more, I challenge you to find anything objectionable about this:

                  ““West of this line, the average age of marriage for women was 23 or more, men 26, spouses were relatively close in age, a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, and 10% to 20% of adults never married. East of the line, the mean age of both sexes at marriage was earlier, spousal age disparity was greater and marriage more nearly universal. Subsequent research has amply confirmed Hajnal’s continental divide, and what has come to be known as the ‘Western European marriage pattern’, although historical demographers have also noted that there are significant variations within the region; to the west of the line, about half of all women aged 15 to 50 years of age were married while the other half were widows or spinsters; to the east of the line, about seventy percent of women in that age bracket were married while the other thirty percent were widows or nuns….”

                  And read the rest of the article for good measure: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

                  Societies where late virgin marriage was normal were societies where the rich high status people frequently married their daughters off well before puberty. Consider the marriage pattern for orphan females with substantial dowries in eighteenth century England. If an orphan, therefore needs a husband (otherwise immorality will ensue). If a dowry, can obtain one. Therefore married off as soon as legal. Which was, in eighteenth century England, very early indeed.

                  Every society where late virgin marriage was common was a society where very early marriage was legal, socially acceptable, and, for middle and upper class respectable people, far from rare.

                  Late virgin marriage worked, because forcefully protected by early virgin marriage. You want to look not at the typical woman in societies west of the Hajnal line, but at the typical affluent woman subject to moral risk west of the Hajnal line. The cure for that problem was extremely early marriage.

                  You want the result, late virgin marriage, while rejecting a key part of the social technology that made it possible – the recognition of, and the capability to forcefully deal with, early female sexuality.

                  Societies with late virgin marriage did not have late virgin marriage because they told themselves that women would be fine with late virgin marriage if only evil lecherous males would leave them alone.

                • Cavalier says:

                  > Societies where late virgin marriage was normal were societies where the rich high status people frequently married their daughters off well before puberty.

                  Yes.

                  And proceeded to be out-reproduced by their subjects.

                  >The Southwestern English seemed retain the manor system that had already disappeared in much of Western Europe. Gregory Clark noted that the most successful Englishmen had not been the underclass; nor had it been the upper nobility, who tended to die off in violent conflicts with each other. The successful Englishmen (and by extension Medieval European and East Asians) were the yeoman farmers. These diligent, hardworking, and clever farmers had a distinct fertility advantage, and came to numerically dominate the English population. This process explains the subdued, introverted, academic and industrial traits of the Puritans and the Quakers – who also seemed to be fairly outbred as well – likely having gone through the standard processes occurring throughout Northwestern Europe. But what of the Cavaliers? They retained traits similar to their feudal aristocratic ancestors. What if in southwestern Britain, the most evolutionarily successful weren’t the yeoman farmers, but the aristocrat manor lords who still ruled over them?

                  https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/the-cavaliers

                  https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton/dp/0691141282

                  >That you are in denial about the objective fact of their curves tells me that you are in denial about the subjective fact of how hot you found them.

                  Nope. I like what I like and it’s always been the Hajnalien type. http://i.imgur.com/xIyMDBE.jpg High school girls don’t look like that, to my high school self’s great chagrin.

                  >their curves

                  It’s the same girl. And I rather suspect her a very unfortunate 18.

                  >You want the result, late virgin marriage, while rejecting a key part of the social technology that made it possible – the recognition of, and the capability to forcefully deal with, early female sexuality.

                  No; the result is Core Europe, the capital of high culture… the epicenter of civilization… the West. The thing that made it possible was a millennium of late marriage, outbreeding, and truncation selection of those that couldn’t make the cut — the Hajnalien Meat Grinder.

                • jim says:

                  > >You want the result, late virgin marriage, while rejecting a key part of the social technology that made it possible – the recognition of, and the capability to forcefully deal with, early female sexuality.

                  > No; the result is Core Europe, the capital of high culture… the epicenter of civilization… the West. The thing that made it possible was a millennium of late marriage.

                  The thing that made late virgin marriage possible was early virgin marriage: that in core Europe at the time of which you speak the age of consent was ten or earlier.

                  Late virgin marriage was possible because they were willing and able to deal forcefully with female sexuality, and part of dealing forcefully with female sexuality is dealing forcefully with early female sexuality. Which means shotgun marrying misbehaving female children, sometimes at age ten.

        • Cavalier says:

          Oops on the brackets. Parse it with your miiiind.

    • pdimov says:

      “Timothy Temple and Morgan Hunt (fucking white males) are rotting in jail getting ass-raped by niggers every day…”

      Well that’s a racial problem, is it not?

      I mean… even when you want to communicate that race is less important, you still use race to stress the point.

      Funny that.

      • Anonymous says:

        As I explained to Cavalier above, my argument is not 100% logic-grounded because were it 100% logic-grounded you’d dismiss me as a goofy autist; in his excellent book “The Righteous Mind”, (((Jonathan Haidt))) has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you convince people by appealing to their emotion rather than merely appealing to their logic, so I have no choice but to appeal to your white nationalism, in which you are emotionally invested to a degree, in order to get you to consider, perhaps even approve of, my position.

        So I say present it in terms of “look, here are white males who are raped in the ass by niggers” and your response should be “hmm, I’m against that” followed by “do they really deserve this fate?” and then you may or may not consider my proposition. Whereas, if I just told you “statutory rape is a shitty concept because it doesn’t match reality on the ground and the reasoning behind it is senseless” you’d probably scroll down my comment without giving a second’s thought to my argument, and obviously I do want you to consider my argument, hence my appeal to your ethnonationalism. Cynical? Probably, but the puritans who present their argument to you appeal EXCLUSIVELY to your emotion (hence, they are very persuasive) whereas with me, my appeal to your emotion is merely the GETAWAY intended to foster a logic-based debate.

        The short of it is that the puritans who made you support these laws (or ignore these laws’ detrimental consequences) have convinced you by appealing to emotion, and only to emotion, as puritanism is essentially an emotional rather than rational tendency of the mind. To counter them, I must also appeal to your emotion. Once I get you “hooked”, we can have a logical exchange of ideas. Had the puritans used pure logic to convince you, I’d use pure logic to de-convince you. Since they haven’t, I didn’t. Say what you will about this strategy, it works, and Hitler/Goebbles/Streicher and Haidt are on my side here.

    • jim says:

      I have repeatedly made my position on “pedophilia” perfectly clear. The girl that seduced those boys obviously needed a whipping, shortly followed by shotgun marriage.

      Women are incapable of consent at any age. Consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong.

      Sex between males past puberty and girls past menarche is normal sex, not pedophilia.

      Immoral sexual activities between adult men and girls who have not yet developed breasts or menarche is usually a result of sexual aggression by those girls, because there are a lot more pre menarche girls who want to have sex with adult males, than there are adult males who want to have sex with pre menarche girls.

      The problem is predominantly one of misbehaving girls, and is not separate from nor very different from the problem of misbehaving women. The problem is that they need control and supervision, often starting at a quite early age, and they do not stop needing control and supervision until menopause. The problem of ten year old girls improperly engaging in sex with adult males is not a separate problem, nor a different problem, from twenty year old girls improperly engaging in sex with adult males. Except that twenty year olds pose a more serious problem requiring more drastic and firmer measures, because of the likelihood of fatherless offspring.

      • Anonymous says:

        >I have repeatedly made my position on “pedophilia” perfectly clear.

        Right, but the prevalent position on /pol/ and MyPostingCareer, as well as among normies, is diametrically opposed to your position on “pedophilia”. Indeed, the number of individuals who either publicly or anonymously agree with your position is incredibly slim, though I’m sure many men agree with your position in the privacy of their minds, as is evidenced by the fact that every week or so, some fucking white male such as Luke Bozier* or Austin Jones** is arrested for and charged with crimes invented by puritans and supported by catladies – that is, their actions demonstrate better than all verbal argumentation that they see eye-to-eye with you about “pedophilia”.

        *(“Bozier told Halliday that he had not viewed sexually explicit images of children, and had instead looked at what the Guardian described as “non-sexual, non-pornographic pictures of teenagers”. Bozier hits out at what he views as the “hypocrisy” of the UK’s Sexual Offences Act 2003, which lists viewing “suggestive pictures of women” between the age of 16-18 as a crime.”)

        **http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/austin-jones-child-pornography-arrest

        Men are afraid of standing up against this puritanical crap, because they fear being labelled “perverts”, “creeps”, and “pedophiles”. Since I don’t actually care about such labels, I write down my thoughts on these matters as they are, and so do you.

        It’s a good thing we now have a word for this moral panic — puritanism — and it’s unfortunate that intelligent people (like Cavalier and others) don’t grasp the utility in conceiving of it as puritanism, a notion popularized by Mencken who has written very extensively about puritanism as we understand it, and insist on sticking to a strictly cladistic interpretation of the word. My schedule is quite busy so I haven’t the time to peruse all of Mencken’s stuff that I find interesting, but the material that I have read so far is all very solid. His article on cigarettes is funny – because it nails down a truth.

        • jim says:

          >I have repeatedly made my position on “pedophilia” perfectly clear.

          Right, but the prevalent position on /pol/ and MyPostingCareer, as well as among normies, is diametrically opposed to your position on “pedophilia”.

          Is it now? I have been posting on Pol under another identity, and did not get any pushback. Nathan Larson seems to have swiped my position on pedophilia wholesale. Not seeing pushback from the redpill community against his enthusiastic “pedophilia”, only against his libertarianism.

          People are reluctant to say what I say, but red pillers, Kekistanis, ironic nazis, and such don’t seem to push back against what I say. I see some pushback from actual unironic nazis, but nazis are commies.

          • Alf says:

            > but red pillers, Kekistanis, ironic nazis, and such don’t seem to push back against what I say.

            https://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/7929-jims-blog/

            MPC consensus from last year seems to be that you are a child-raping wife-beating kike.

            • jim says:

              The argument in that thread is that the critic is higher status than me, because his account of female sexual nature is more politically correct than mine.

              The alt right is generally red pilled. The mpc consensus, on the other hand, comes from people who are clearly unfamiliar with women. Now if Roosh or Heartiste disapproved of my blog, then I would be dismayed. A bunch of obvious virgins don’t like it, not so worried.

              • Alf says:

                This is true.

                I am still waiting for a Heartiste shout-out though. He makes all the right observations, for which you pose the solutions, but perhaps he is scared of losing readership (too soft on the jews unsubbed!).

        • viking says:

          How many children have you raised you stupid fuckin idiot, do you know anything about human maturation and psychology? The fact that a girl might be able to conceive is not even relevant.My guess is youre some betafag that needs an excuse to raise your odds of getting some.We dont have a problem with conformity we have a problem with chomos.Do I really need to dig up all the other ways we are not like animals and niggers? we are men stop telling me what nigger animals do.

          • jim says:

            The fact that a girl might be able to conceive is not even relevant

            Sexual desire sets in at roughly the time the ability to conceive sets in. Sometimes inconveniently it sets in quite a bit later. Sometimes, quite often, even more inconveniently, quite a bit earlier.

            As for the ability to make sound judgments about sex and reproduction, that that remains dreadful until menopause, and does not significantly improve between ten and thirty.

            If two people make the decision to exchange wheat for iron, we should conclude that the decision is rational and in the best interests of both of them, and has no significant externalities. But despite this intellectuals are full of clever reasons for interfering in such decisions and overruling them.

            If two people make the decision to have sex, or to refrain from having sex, we should not conclude that the decision is rational and in their best interests, because of volcanic irrational forces that we have difficulty comprehending at the best of times. Further, this decision is apt to have enormous and devastating externalities on other people.

            And the power of these irrational forces, and the likely externalities, are apt to increase from age ten to age thirty, not decrease. If anything we should have a reverse age of consent – that women above a certain age should have the decision to have sex or refrain from having sex made for them by someone else.

            • viking says:

              JIm that was addressed to anonymous but since you insist on repeatedly kicking yourself in the mouth Ill oblige you to remove it again so you can kick yourself again its clear from your comment you too have not raised many kids they begin pleasuring themselves almost immediately not after puberty.So unless you are now going to argue that fucking my toddler is OK too which frankly after the past year wouldnt surprise me your arguments is in the trash. But its worse they flirt almost as young both boys with their mothers and other women and girls with dads and other men. they get crushes and I suppose to some extent its sexualy drivenl but they have not yet that connection between that feeling down there and the feeling in their heads. And its not all sexual its also about manipulation learning to extend their power as they see adults do. they are mimicking, child development is about empowerment gaining adult power. This is why its unethical to take advantage of teenage girls they dont understand the stakes they are playing for. They are like a child that has wondered into a casino with a parents checkbook they may see how a bet is placed, be capable of placing it even have by some fluke the money but they have no conception of the risk and the values at stake. jesus Jim youre a valuable reactionary give this up your blowing yourself up

              • viking says:

                youre making Milos case, but milo was the product of the child molesting youre championing and it so warps him that he is now saying at a certain point he liked it. And that is what happens when sex is introduced to early it warps the personality. Much of the behavior youre using to argue for child molestation is the result of child molestation. Not only is it evil its really selling short what western civilization can accomplish has accomplished and ought to be defended and conserved not surrendered to the deviants. Seriously how to you proceed with this utilitarian sexuality to defend against the Milos wanting to seduce your sons hey if theyre fay anyway and sexually ready why shouldn’t he its not lke your gay son has any sexual utility to – well I was going to say community but its clear you have no sense of community only self interest

                • jim says:

                  Yes, adult homosexuals teaching young boys to like homosexuality is a problem. But young girls do not need anyone teaching them to like heterosex.

                  If you want a society where women commonly get married as twenty six year old virgins, you need a society where daughters are strongly under parental authority till they get married.

                  And if you want a society where daughters are strongly under parental authority, you need a society like the ones where daughters remained virgins, and in such a society ten year old girls could be, and often enough were, shotgun married.

                  You say that in the old days women remained virgins for long periods. Well, some girls, many girls, remained virgins for long periods. Not all of them. And part of what kept them virtuous was that one of the remedies fathers had against the disturbingly common problem of daughters disinclined to remain virgin for long periods was marrying them off as early as necessary. Which was in those societies sometimes very early indeed.

              • jim says:

                This is why its unethical to take advantage of teenage girls they dont understand the stakes they are playing for.

                I really do not see any improvement in female ability to make sexual choices until thirty years old or so. And the only reason that their choices improve at thirty or so is that they have fallen off the bottom of Jeremy Meeks booty call list.

                • viking says:

                  Yes well obviously I have no problem with fathers having authority over wives and children, and that authority ought include whether to execute man for rape or force man to marry.

                  You’re suggesting the rapist get to choose his fate. Its a given the daughter is my property until I deed her therefore it is always rape if i say so.

                  Since rapists make poor son in laws Im usually going to execute.

                  The concepts of “rape” and “rapist” attributes too much agency to women. In the eighteenth century, a “rapist” was someone who dated a girl without her father’s permission. In the old testament, there is no concept of “rapist”, and the penalty for what we would call “rape” was marriage.

                  When you talk about “rape” you are attributing blue pill behavior to women. They don’t in fact behave like that. When a girl complains to police, she is complaining that a man bungled a shit test, or that she gave him an impossible shit test. The blue pill concepts of rape and consent maps poorly to actual male and female interactions.

                  Consent can only meaningfully be attributed to women when a whore accepts payment, or a bride says “I do” before God and Man. The rest of the time, not a concept that can be clearly applied to sexual and romantic interactions. We had sex before we had language and contracts, and people still have sex without language and contracts unless society forcibly and coercively imposes language and contracts around the sexual act. In practice, women “consent” to sex non verbally in ways that they are not consciously aware of, and are unable to consciously control. “It just happened.”

              • Anonymous says:

                Btw, Vik, this is reality talking:

                Women on the tiny Pacific colony of Pitcairn, where seven men stand trial today on multiple charges of sexually abusing minors, said yesterday it was perfectly normal for girls to have sex as early as 12.

                Prosecutors had misunderstood the island’s culture, which condoned consensual sex with under-16s, they said.

                Fourteen women, almost all of the island’s adult females and representing three generations, said the charges were designed to ruin the population of just 47.

                Determined to defend their males, they called a press conference for the six journalists who have travelled to the island.

                Many carry the surname Christian, inherited through blood or marriage from Fletcher Christian, the leader of the rebellion against Captain William Bligh and who founded the community in 1790 with eight other mutineers from the Bounty and their Tahitian consorts.

                Carol Warren, 51, admitted to having sex with men on the island at the age of 12. It was, she says, not unusual at the time and did not indicate a sexually violent society. The girls were as responsible as the men. “They wanted it just as bad as the men did,” she says. “I was a wild one then and I wanted it. You can’t blame the men. We know better now, and I would never recommend that for girls now, but it was the way then.”

                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1472891/Sex-at-12-is-normal-say-Pitcairn-women.html

                Carol is wrong at the end, of course – we now certainly *do not* know better. We are today more ignorant than ever about human nature, and as I have explained here, the Cathedral is zealously making sure that people will remain ignorant, through its mad jihad against “CP”, which is the ultimate evidence that teens are as sexual as it can get.

                If teens are sexual, and need sex, then perhaps need marriage, need a family, need reproduction, and need not be imprisoned in school where there are actual pedophiles running the place. But the Cathedral needs its bureaucrats and cogs, and so everyone has to be imprisoned in school.

                Do you see the big picture already?

                • viking says:

                  youre a moron youre comparing pitcairn island to western civilization jesus you fucking millennials are hopeless

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Pitcairn
                  >your case study
                  >Pitcairn
                  >Pitcairn is your case study
                  >an island with an effective population of 50 over the last 300 years
                  >founded by a few pirates and some Polynesian “women”
                  >Pitcairn
                  https://i.imgur.com/VWk3OsR.gif

          • Anonymous says:

            Your guesses are false, Vik, and I’m pretty sure that one can discuss teen sexuality without personally having a 12+ y/o daughter.

            • viking says:

              sure can you discuss it, but either you have the actual experience of what youre discussing or you have actually learned about it I have both so my “guesses” are not guesses, you and jim obviously have neither experience nor education and are asserting wildly absurd ideas which would require a lot of citation to even be worth a reply. It really leaves one wondering what sort of man argues so recklessly for having sex with children, the only ones I know are men who do have sex with or wish to have sex with children. Jim at least we can all see has dug himself into a rhetorical corner while being typically Jim whats your excuse chomo?

              • Anonymous says:

                Experience doesn’t mean what you think it means. Some people — not saying I’m one of them — were *there* back in the day when the hair wasn’t gray, y’know.

                Nobody here has argued “for” sex with “children”.

                The argument is that when a young fertile-age woman engages in sex, she is not somehow magically victimized on account of being a young fertile-age woman; and whoever she has sex with is not an “abuser” or a “molester”, and shouldn’t go to jail for fucking her. (but he should marry her, as we keep saying) My experience tells me that most 12 y/o females aren’t very horny, but a minority of them definitely are very horny, and sex-drive is not something to be taken lightly. Jim claims that I’m wrong, and in fact most 12 y/o females are very horny.

                I know some “stuff”, mkay? Knowledge is power! Keep in mind that knowledge may come by many ways, not necessarily through personal participation, though that’s certainly the most indubitable kind of knowledge. Now, read this account:

                Kieran Dalton, from Wirral, admitted the statutory rape of a child under 13, when he was aged 18.

                However, the girl – who said it was consensual – refused to make a complaint and the prosecution was based on his admissions, the Liverpool Echo reported .

                Dalton, who suffers from ADHD, said the girl told him she was 16, and that when he met her, he “thought perhaps she was only 15”.

                Liverpool Crown Court heard a police officer said: “I will accept having met her she doesn’t look 12, but I don’t think she looks 16 either.”

                Charles Lander, prosecuting, said the matter came to light when the girl visited a sexual health clinic.

                He said she told workers “she had been talking to an older male on Facebook who told her to come to his flat”.

                Mr Lander said: “She said she knew he was 18 and mentioned it was all consensual.”

                He said there was evidence she made sexually explicit suggestions to Dalton and wanted to meet near his parents’ home.

                The teenager said he just intended to watch a film, but “she was all over me, she was kissing me, and then she eventually got on top of me”.

                Dalton, who is 5ft 8in, said the 5ft 1in girl never mentioned being at school.

                Mr Lander said: “He was very surprised when it was put to him that she was only 12.”

                http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-19-who-admitted-sex-7865901

                I have enough of these stories to go on. Want another one? Okay:

                “PICTOU, N.S. – A Nova Scotia youth court judge has found a teenager guilty of sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl he met on Facebook.

                The 16-year-old boy’s identity is protected by the Youth Criminal Justice act, as is the identity of the victim.

                The two arranged to meet face to face after corresponding through Facebook . They bought wine with the help of someone the court called a “liquor Samaritan” and went to a friend’s home where they spent the night. The next day, the two had unprotected sex.

                The boy was charged, but pleaded not guilty. He told the court he believed the girl was 14 at the time.

                The boy also testified that the entire encounter was the girl’s idea, including the meet-up, drinking binge and sex.”

                ————————————

                Again: personal experience tells me that some “girls” — young fertile age women — know exactly what they are doing, and if someone should be considered a predator, it’s the female, not the male. What I have in front of me is reality. What you have in front of you is your over-reactive protective instinct, and a bunch of enlightenment-era delusions. I’m right because the facts support me. You are wrong because all you have is ad-hominems, which aren’t even true.

                When white nationalists argue for nigger-removal, they give you plenty of news stories where niggers brutally terrorize innocent humans, and after reading the gruesome accounts, and especially if you’ve got your own personal experience with “diversity”, you realize what is going on.

                Should I flood you with news stories about teen sex until you get my point? If I could flood you with “child porn” (reminder: 90% of so-called CP is teenagers well past puberty, just younger than 18) I’d do so gladly, but alas. Read the news stories, and use your brains cells to “infer the details”.

                Btw, conservadads (a portmanteau of “conservative” and “dad”) like you have a really constrained imaginative faculty. If you could imagine these situations, you’d realize how insane your moralizing is. Since you can’t imagine these situations, and since you have no personal experience thereof, you are dumbfounded when confronted by them.

                • viking says:

                  Both you and jim certainly are arguing for having sex with underage girls youre just being coy about it and using proxy examples oh and really creepy child porn pics. and youre both referring to personal knowledge of 12 year old girld sexual desires how might you come by this having raised girls and known hundreds of their friends and having before that had almost a thousand girlfriends I know how difficult that sort of knowledge is to come by you either are making up misinterpreting or you have been attempting to seduce 12 year old girls.

                  It matter not what the village idiot thought about some greater fool of a girl he seduced he knew what he was doing was wrong he knew she was young enough she might be too young and what the penalty was if he did not make sure. he knew her parents had authority over her and though she might lie and she might acquiesce the parents were going to prosecute him for taking their property or the state would forthe good of parent s everywhere.

                  Dont try the youre a square dadyo toutine on me creep I wrote that book back in the 60s Im no conservative Im just not a creep loser that needs to seduce 12 year olds or that has grown up in a niggerfied white trash environment where this nigger behavior seems normal. I have had literally almost a thousand women and never had to rape one or seduce a child or interpret no as yes because i couldnt control myself if she wanted to stop or change her mind. Obviously with numbers like mine im no white night cuck but I am a man as opposed to a nigger. If I invest 25 years and hundreds of thousands and my heart into a daugter and some piece of shit nigger like you comes and damages my property expect consequences. you want to live lke you do go to fuckng africa

                • jim says:

                  You say that back a long time ago, girls generally married at age twenty six as virgins. Yes, and back when girls generally married at age twenty six as virgins, age of consent was ten or so, and often younger.

                  Now the age of consent is eighteen and rising, and yet by the time a girl is sixteen, she has slept with several men more alpha than you, more charismatic than you, richer than you, and with bigger dicks than you, with the result that she will never be content with any man whose sexual market value is so low that she might make a chance of getting to the top of his booty call list.

                  Age of consent was low because they thought that serial monogamy was bad, and early marriage an important tool in preventing it. Rising age of consent is a reflection of rising acceptance of female serial monogamy and and polyandry.

                  If you think that women should only have sex with one man all their lives, you accept that sometimes they are going to start very early and therefore need to get married very early. If you are fine with girls sleeping around, then you put age of consent at forty five, not because you really object to them having sex, which you cannot really prevent, but because you object to them becoming wives, because you object to them being always sexually available to one man, who takes care of them and of their children by him, and never sexually available to any other man. You cannot ban female children from engaging in early sex, you cannot ban them from position nine on Jeremy Meeks’ midnight booty call list but you can ban them from early durable monogamous relationships.

              • jim says:

                My personal experience is substantial. If you have charisma for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and a display of nice stuff for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and then you get preselection from adult women, then their little sisters, often very little indeed, are apt to sexually harass you.

                Freudians are correct about what fitting the glass slipper stands for. Conan has his terrible swift sword, Cinderella has her glass slipper. The prince fucks all the girls of the land (preselection) until he finds the girl who fucks like Cinderella.

                If you want to invoke the Hajnal line, ask not what when the average female west of the Hajnal line got married, but when orphaned heiresses west of the Hajnal line got married. They tended to get married at age ten, when the typical age of puberty back then was sixteen. That is equivalent to marrying them off at age eight today. This tells us that women did not have late virgin marriage merely because women are just naturally wonderful. We are looking a rather fierce, forceful, and determined coercive apparatus for keeping women from immoral conduct at very early ages.

                And extremely early marriage was an important backup part of that apparatus.

                • viking says:

                  you know jim we all know if we go back enough years we actually were niggers thats hardly an argument for what our ideal should be today.

                  I already said that behavior of little sisters is part of the childs learning process. I dont usually invoke the hajinal line because its problematic, one way its problematic is the hajinal elites were the least likely to marry out and marry late often being married young to fellow elites for strategic reasons. So i find the hajinal and the elite theories to contradict a bit. but its neither here nor there euros on average married late and it served us well and there will be exceptions for good and bad reasons and today we are marrying too late and in some places like idaho teen marriage is common and works well but society is still strong there and there are other supports that help that, but your not argiung a 19 year old logger son marry his 17 year old sweetheart after she graduates youre arguing raping unaccompanied minors to prove some drunken rant theory

                • jim says:

                  euros on average married late

                  Marrying late is a very bad thing if girls are having sex early. We need virgin marriage. The important factor is control over female sexuality, and an important part of control over female sexuality is that their father can, and often does, marry them off at an extremely early age. Societies that mostly had late virgin marriage also had extremely early virgin marriage.

                  Rising age of consent went hand in hand with intolerable levels of illegitimacy (“Oliver Twist”, “Les miserables”) the collapse of marriage, and falling total fertility. As age of consent went up, marriage went down, fertility went down, and illegitimacy went up.

                  This is because rising age of consent means you are not allowing men to control female sexuality. Rising age of consent means less early sex only because it means less marital sex, less sex between husbands and their virgin wives, but it necessarily means more extramarital early sex, necessarily means that fewer men get to marry virgins.

                  Imposing restraints on men, necessarily results in abandoning restraints on women. We are guarding sperm, when we should be guarding eggs, because eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.

                  And as the age of consent rose, we saw the horrifying consequences of failure to guard eggs. The alternative to ten year old brides, is eleven year olds at position nine on Jeremy Meek’s midnight booty call list.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Oh, for fucks sake, viking, pay attention to what is being said. No one, Jim or otherwise, is calling for women to be married off at 12. No one is interested in marrying 12 year old girls.

                  What we are saying is that some, not all–I SAY AGAIN, SOME, NOT ALL–girls are going to have to be married off at 12 to keep them under control. It is not the standard, it is a special case that is still common enough that it needs to to be taken into account.

                  I met a girl at college that is 15, and I did not realize it until months after I met her. Smart girl, pretty, and reasonably feminine, relative to the other girls I have met. Unfortunately, I cannot act on that because her age makes it socially untenable, but if you did not know she was underage, you would not be able to tell. She will probably end up fucking around like a bigger because no one can marry her until she is several years past being a virgin. How is that an improvement?

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Fucking like a nigger I meant to say. You are not going to stop her from having sex. As Jim says, all you are stopping her from doing is having sex with only one man that will take care of her. Then she becomes another wasted white woman.

                  You are trying to be more holy than Jim, arguing that Jim is less in tune with the sexual morals of the day. Raping unaccompanied minors does not exist in the context of a marriage; cannot be rape because marriage and her husband accompanies her. Emotional attack, not rational, shows the weakness in your position.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • Anonymous says:

                  A few things must be noted in light of this discussion:

                  1) The average alt-righter has a similar mindset to Viking’s, lamentably. That should tell you that optimism about the future, at this stage, is awfully misguided. Andrew Anglin is not a puritan, and when he lived in the Philippines, where the AOC actually is 12, I’m pretty sure he had “lots of fun.” But the average alt-righter isn’t Andrew Anglin.

                  2) My theory about conservadads being motivated primarily by an over-reactive protective instinct is vindicated yet again.

                  3) Puritans enable blue-haired dyke feminists because they are useful to them, for the same reason puritans enable (((other))) groups that are useful to them. Note how similar Vik’s reasoning is to that of a feminist, notwithstanding the inane bragging about sex with a thousand women. But feminists came later, and puritans came first; and puritans will never genuinely oppose feminism, because they are on the same side, if not on the same page. Puritans are the puppeteer.

                • viking says:

                  “Marrying late is a very bad thing if girls are having sex early”
                  – spoken like a libtard. propose a stupid solution to solve the last unintended consequence.”

                  “The important factor is control over female sexuality, and an important part of control over female sexuality is that their father can, and often does, marry them off at an extremely early age.”
                  -Men that have such little control over their civilizations that they have to marry their daughter off at 10 or 12 are niggers that need to be conquered and their daughters put under competent authority.

                  “Rising age of consent went hand in hand with intolerable levels of illegitimacy ” ——–seriously? youre saying that was the cause? Anything else happening about that time? Industrial revolution destroying the culture and impoverishing the lower classes maybe? leftism hitting its stride?

                  “We are guarding sperm, when we should be guarding eggs, because eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.”
                  – no Jim Im guarding eggs and Im not selling them cheap I put a lot into raising the eggs and I will get have my price, Im not having your jew culture try and scare me iinto a fire sale i will kill the jew not sell my 12 year old daughter.

                  Jim youre playing catch up to the jew he wrecks your culture and you try to patch it up with a fix that degrades you. spend less time responding tothese wounds and kill the jew then rebuild your culture and you wont have to marry off your 10 year old

                • jim says:

                  > > “The important factor is control over female sexuality, and an important part of control over female sexuality is that their father can, and often does, marry them off at an extremely early age.”

                  > -Men that have such little control over their civilizations that they have to marry their daughter off at 10 or 12 are niggers

                  White civilization that was successful in controlling female misbehavior had an age of consent around ten or so. White civilizations and cultures with a later age of consent were unsuccessful in controlling female misbehavior and thus had the intolerable and unacceptable problems depicted in “Les Miserables” and “Oliver Twist”

                  White civilization has never been successful in preventing intolerable levels of female misconduct except the age of consent was ten years or younger.

                  Transferring sexually uncontrollable females to the authority of a man highly motivated to control their sexual activity, which is to say, marrying them off, is an absolutely essential social technology without which the family is going to collapse, and society, civilization, and the state is built on top of the family.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Rising age of consent went hand in hand with intolerable levels of illegitimacy ”

                  > ——–seriously? youre saying that was the cause? Anything else happening about that time? Industrial revolution destroying the culture and impoverishing the lower classes maybe? leftism hitting its stride?

                  Typical commie thinking. The industrial revolution raised the standard of living of the masses. The age of consent was raised as part of a package of changes reducing controls on female misbehavior. Since women are wonderful, except men cruelly force them to bad things, there is of course no need for such harsh control. And the ensuing flood of bastards born in dark alleys in the rain is the result of a mysterious increase in cruel men cruelly forcing women to do bad things.

                  Every society that was successful in controlling women had an age of consent that was around ten or younger, or else completely disregarded female consent altogether.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Typical commie thinking. The industrial revolution raised the standard of living of the masses.

                  Commieism, though nightmarish and despicable, was a real reaction to a real problem, namely a social breakdown caused by greatly degraded living conditions as nameless factory wage-serfs wholly dependent on bigcorp vis-a-vis independent peasant farmers with long-established traditions, folkways, local governance, and suchlike.

                  The Industrial Revolution dramatically raised the standard of living in some ways and dramatically depressed the standard of living in some other ways: great material improvement at the expense of all ancestral tradition. We’re still dealing with the fallout, and in fact with offshoring and automation it just keeps getting worse.

                  Nobody wants to talk about it, but the Industrial Revolution, in the end, may very well may end up eating our entire civilization alive and shitting it out as niggers. The possibility exists.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Unfortunately, I cannot act on that because her age makes it socially untenable

                  No, you can’t act on it because you’re a pussy.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “Commieism, though nightmarish and despicable, was a real reaction to a real problem, namely a social breakdown caused by greatly degraded living conditions as nameless factory wage-serfs wholly dependent on bigcorp vis-a-vis independent peasant farmers with long-established traditions, folkways, local governance, and suchlike.”

                  Communism was a real reaction to the real problem of high verbal IQ low spatial IQ people becoming increasingly less valuable to society than the reverse so they used the high verbal IQ to make up a story about a plausible sounding reorganized society that (of course) didn’t deliver the promised results. Of course this caused the high verbal IQ supports of communism (aka “power to the high verbal IQ people” plan) to use their high verbal IQ to make up elaborate excuses.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >No, you can’t act on it because you’re a pussy.

                  If sexcrime legislation formally forbids “sexual harassment”, men — mainly but not exclusively white men from west of the Hajnal Line — will, to a certain degree, be disinclined to pursue women with the requisite self-assurance to attract the women. Only the Melaninoids are wholly immunized against such an “incentive”, and since TSK is not a nigger, he feels the weight of the law encumbering him.

                  The presence of estrogen in the metaphorical water supply is obligatory according the the Cathedral. Filtering it out is against the law. Shaming works, and men — white men, Jewish men, Indian men, and Eastasian men — are constantly publicly shamed (usually by other men) for displays of active sexuality. Resultant TFR – predictable!

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Communism was a real reaction to the real problem of high verbal IQ low spatial IQ people becoming increasingly less valuable to society than the reverse so they used the high verbal IQ to make up a story about a plausible sounding reorganized society that (of course) didn’t deliver the promised results. Of course this caused the high verbal IQ supports of communism (aka “power to the high verbal IQ people” plan) to use their high verbal IQ to make up elaborate excuses.

                  Critical insanity.

                  “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

                  Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

                  What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

                  The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

                  In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

                  From On the Jewish Question, by Marx himself, via Wikipedia.

                  >This tells us that women did not have late virgin marriage merely because women are just naturally wonderful.

                  It tells us that late marriage, and truncation of 10-20% of perfectly fertile females, happened in exactly one significant region in the historical record because of very specific economic circumstances in spite of the high innate reproductive value of all perfectly fertile females. It tells us that our ancestors (well, mine, maybe not yours) were under the best selection of any population anywhere in the world in the history of the world on top of many more thousands of years of the best selection which produced whites… and us.

                  It doesn’t tell us that people waited longer than they had to because white women are magic (though they are). It tells us that the most magical of the white women are Hajnaliens because the bottom 10-20% of Hajnalien women were culled generation after generation after generation.

                  It tells us that relaxed selection, which we already have thanks to the New World and the Industrial Revolution, is substantially eroding the white magic, and now you, knowing all of this, advocate still further the sort of system that produced 2000BC sand-Jews, Mohammed-era sandnigger Arabs, modern Afghanis, and Chechens — lunatics, one and all.

                  No thanks, brodin. I choose civilization. I choose the sun.

                • jim says:

                  you, knowing all of this, advocate still further the sort of system that produced 2000BC sand-Jews, Mohammed-era sandnigger Arabs, modern Afghanis, and Chechens — lunatics, one and all.

                  No thanks, brodin. I choose civilization. I choose the sun.

                  And what was the age of consent during Hajnalien selection?

                  You are not choosing civilization. You are choosing our smartest women to become cat ladies, and our cutest women to become coal burners and Muslims.

                • peppermint says:

                  Grrl power cuckservativism was tried in the 90s. The reason the young women in the original survey had higher self esteem and had sex later was that they has strong fathers.

                  Viking is the guy with the “You don’t make the rules, I don’t make the rules, she makes the rules” t-shirt, and Cavalier is the guy standing next to him with the paperclip maximizer t-shirt.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >And what was the age of consent during Hajnalien selection?

                  Age of consent doesn’t matter in the slightest. It’s an irrelevant question.

                  You yourself have said that female consent is inconsequential. Any historical evidence of “age of consent” law should therefore be regarded as proto-liberal, and be treated as irrelevant.

                  It’s only useful to talk of human populations in terms of real natural selection. Hajnalien selection was clearly eugenic and clearly responsible for the greatness of industrial civilization, including, among other things, capitalism and science, both invented in the cradle of Western civilization. There have been white people roaming the earth for millennia. A Roman invented the steam engine in the first century AD. So, why the West? Why the West indeed.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Cavalier is the guy standing next to him with the paperclip maximizer t-shirt

                  Chimps enter adolescence at age 9 and exit at age 15.

        • peppermint says:

          Cavalier’s problem is that he’s too attached to the Yankee puritans who ruined the South, then turned into transcendentalists and universalists and ruined the entire West.

          There are very few Yankees left. I don’t know a single person in this region who has even three grandparents from this region. These grandparents don’t even have four White grandchildren.

          We know why it happened: the university. Cavalier loves Yankees, who are dead, and thinks he thus loves Puritanism, which is what happens when Christians hang out in a university and develop Christianity. As soon as the Yankees achieved the supremacy that Cavalier thinks they richly deserved, the university destroyed them.

          But why did the North become richer than the South? The North had a long history of trade and industry, and had lax intellectual property allowing it to pirate the best tech.

          But why did the North have that history?

          Because the North was a dense forest settled from the sea, with the Connecticut river being settled up the river from the south, not from Boston to the east (and therefore should belong to Connecticut), and Worcester more attached to Providence up the river than to Boston, with wood everywhere for fuel (Vermont still has a wood-based power plant after getting rid of their last nuclear), and mill brooks and mill brook roads everywhere.

          • peppermint says:

            Jim: we should restore restoration Anglicanism because it tolerated science while excluding SJW supererogation

            Cavalier: no, we should restore puritanism for great induſtry

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              You and Jim are both Papists who haven’t worked through to the logical conclusions yet. Next time, the Puritans will win, and if we don’t, you will be Muslims, or you will be dhimmi.

          • Cavalier says:

            The Industrial Revolution began in England, by the people with the same genetic inclinations as the Puritans, in the same areas with the same selective pressures as the Puritans once lived.

            Why did the North become richer than the South? Because the South was a throwback to an earlier millennium, a preindustrial economy powered by serf-slaves, while the North was a rapidly industrializing modern civilization powered by fossil fuels.

            I was just reading Asimov and he was on to this as early as 1956:

            “Baley knew the situation and so did every man on Earth. The fifty Outer Worlds, with a far smaller population, in combination, than that of Earth alone, nevertheless maintained a military potential perhaps a hundred times greater. With their underpopulated worlds resting on a positronic robot economy, their energy production per human was thousands of times that of Earth. And it was the amount of energy a single human could produce that dictated military potential, standard of living, happiness, and all besides.”

            In 1800, the South could whip the North ten ways to Sunday, up and down the Atlantic coast, on any battlefield, with its hands tied behind its back. Thus, the Cavalier planters ruled FedGov. By 1861, there were Gatling guns, railroads all over the place, and John D. Rockefeller was a young businessman.

            Maybe the Industrial Revolution should be called the Puritan Revolution.

            • peppermint says:

              Ah yes, Asimov, the good Jew, with Lucky Starr books about black-skinned space nazis, then Elijah Bailey stories about sex in a post-scarcity paradise, then a galaxy consolidating with a star cluster where redheads one one planet are colonized by niggers from another to pick cotton, then under an emperor who didn’t develop the ultimate theory of human behavior soon enough to preserve civilization.

              Well, we have that ultimate theory now, and it’s not the Auroran / Mycogenian theory of worshipping robots and letting women do as they please.

      • viking says:

        usually the problem of misbehaving chldren is not to have the adults try to beat them at their misbehavior it for the adults to control themselves and the children

    • peppermint says:

      Manospherians who give up on their hollow PUA pursuits and settle down to try a White sharia family instead, as their instincts tell them to, become compatible with naziism, while at the same time when they leave or anticipate leaving the sexual marketplace, they want community, and need naziism.

      Every White man who isn’t a faggot is going to be a nazi — Anglin

      • Turtle says:

        You’re resorting to no true Scotsman, here- “no true white man.” “Whites are faggots or Nazis” is splitting, too. In reality, fags can be nazis and nazis can be fags.

        There’s nothing straight about nazism, or gay about non-naziness. You’re conflating different factors, because you dream of concocting a utopia. It won’t happen; God’s Kingdom already exists, suffering no competition. All you have to do for admission is Christianity 🙂 .

        • peppermint says:

          no, the opposite of a nazi is a faggot, and the opposite of a faggot is a nazi

          a nazi faggot once existed, he tried to fill party positions with fellow fudgepackers and was thrown off a building or whatever

          there are some faggot nazis, they all recognize heteronormativity

          for ordinary White men in the current year, the only ones who don’t suck a dick to prove that they’re open-minded are nazis, the only ones who actually score with women are nazis, and the ones who tell you why you shouldn’t say nigger are reliably cucksucker cuck faggots who share an ugly thot with half the world if not a tranny

          • Turtle says:

            At least I now know you’re being ridiculous. I don’t think almost anyone agrees with you, and there literally cannot be so many cuck-fags in the world for you to complain about them.

            You might hate non-nazis, but I don’t see why. Can you prove that gays are anti-nazi, and nazis are nati-gay really, not just oppressing them but defeating sodomic lust? I don’t think so.

            • Cavalier says:

              Agreement is a spectrum. Peppermint is a lot more like me than is Obama, or a late-night talk show host, or some other iconic prog type, and we all like our kind in proportion to their likeness of ourselves. This is why we are made, unfailingly indeed, in God’s own image.

            • viking says:

              what did jesus tell you to come heal the hearts of the nigger haters or something? WTF are you doing here?you have nothing intelligent to say, your deluded magical thinking is anathema in every possible way we dont need saving we like crucifying jews, we will not give our coat to the beggar we will give him the boot. WE are the peope that would have thrown you to lions we will notlet another cuckchristian ever into the right again you will be deported to haiti to be raped to death. you have destroyed your last white empire you crypto jew cuck

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Don’t be an idiot, listen to Varg at Thulean Perspective. The Vikings accepted Christianity without bloodshed. Celtic Christianity, not Catholicism. Research that and find out why they became Christians. Real benefits. One that Odin couldn’t provide, but Adon provided in plenty.

                • viking says:

                  No ones arguing christianity never did anything good for euroman. when we were isolated its altruism accrued to us, when religion was a given it was a better religion than human sacrifice. That over and done. It does not accrue to us it accrues to the niggers it is supposed to be given to the least among us- the niggers receive we give and the jews collect a cut. religion is no longer a given we have learned that god id a myth so any belief is harmful because its not real.

            • viking says:

              If you really want to be taken apart from a christian perspective go to one of the reactionary christian blogs, they exist strangely enough and they will give a shit enough about your faery frame to deconstruct your cuckedness within it.

  9. Dividualist says:

    >If you want to check to see whether your company’s organization chart corresponds to actual status, pay no attention to mere words, but rather watch who interrupts whom, who speaks over whom.

    Well, nobody here. What then? Partially that people don’t speak much. Vienna is really weird in this regard, even for me who are from the same general region. People on the subway try to avoid speaking at all costs, if they want you to give way they will either hover and hope you notice or push.

    Partially that they are polite, formal and patient. Interrupting others would be seen as a sign of poor upbringing, poor etiquette.

    Body language is another way to check social status. Higher status people break eye contact upwards (almost rolling eyes), low status people downwards (eyes cast down), same level sidewards. Well, women here just stare at me waiting for me to break eye contact. Not flirty, they are old. Just, I don’t know, because staring at a man is less boring than staring at the wall or something.

    Using a few of this resource: http://www.pantomime-popkultur.de/2016/04/status-signs-of-body-language-for-improv-theater-and-stage/?lang=en

    Well according this women in my office show both high status signs, relaxed, confident moving, relaxed voice, straight pose, comfortable eye contact, not touching themselves, and low status, like never touching others and fairly quick reactions. But in my impression they are simply comfortable and polite rather than dominant. Again we are talking grandmother age women here.

    I don’t know why I don’t see young and hot women working. I suppose it would be more interesting with them. We have good HR and tend to hire people with long experience, likely that’s why. Most of these old women I see working seem to be like my grandma was, simply beyond status games and relaxed.

    Hot young women on the subway behave extremely high status, looking at men with thinly veiled disgust. But to be fair, I also look at this carneval of small souled bugmen cucks with thinly veiled disgust. I think it is reasonable that women hot enough to get a rich and athletic man should behave high status. Reasonable given current social conditions, I mean, not ideal, although I still think it would be weird if a princess would be submissive to a male peasant.

  10. Dividualist says:

    Jim,

    But the interesting thing is that the GitHub userbase, which is strongly overlapping the Rails/Ruby userbase used to be easily the other extreme. Look at what Zed Shaw wrote:

    GitHub userbase:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20120309160859/http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1306816425.html

    Rails userbase:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20080107085941/http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/rails_is_a_ghetto.html?

    How do we call this behavior? Puerile is the word that comes to mind, as in: stupid, but in an unashamedly male way.

    How comes that perhaps the most stereotypically young-masculine brogramming subculture, where calling each other dicks is normal and writing code to make ASCII art dicks goes the other extreme and becomes the most feminist?

    • peppermint says:

      Maybe it isn’t a problem and doesn’t need to be solved. Maybe you should stop telling men to be transcendentalists and White men to act like puritans while worshippimg nigger rap. Maybe it would be a problem if shipped code showed someone’s wife or kid a dick and the solution to that is a duel or civil suit.

      • Dividualist says:

        Sorry, was it an attempt to explain how it went from one end to the other end? Not sure I understand. Do you think someone moral-panicked, called the SJW SWAT, they poured in, and commenced to push it to the other extreme? But when exactly did that happen and who called them and is is it a general lesson that the most unashamedly masculine places will fall first to the SJWs or what?

        • Turtle says:

          Peppermint thought you were siding with the feminists, against the bros. He didn’t answer your question because he felt offended.

          (to my understanding of his comment)

        • Turtle says:

          Or maybe he’s ambivalent, realizing dick-ism is wrong, but not wanting to be a puritan either, and yet not having a solution to the dual problems of prudishness and lust. Surprisingly, prudes are lechers, generally, and lechers are prudes. They have arbitrary standards, mostly hypocritical ones, like Sarah Palin screaming “I fucked a black man” after doing it (with a younger basketball star visiting Alaska), both proudly and with desperate shame. She couldn’t decide whether she made a mistake or deserved a Nobel Harlotry Prize.

          Lechers are prudes in that they find affection and warmth disgusting; they often can only have sex while drunk or high, not sober. They resort to fornication because they hate marriage, love, etc.

          Meanwhile, prudes are phonies, pretending at chastity, but really being as sleazy as those they condemn. Prudes are not all fake; the real ones are saints, and some of these saints do have sex, in marriage. There’s also the alleged story of a monk who visited brothels, but I’m not sure about its veracity.

          Only saints are innocent, and peppermint could become one.

          • peppermint says:

            Lust is not a sin. It is a biological drive that most individuals are expected to fulfil. All men should be married, even the bottom 10% to the bottom 10% of women, and men who don’t have the number of kids that the eugenics board recomends place an unnecessary burden on the old age pension system.

            The whole concept of sin is a problem, because the consequences of actions are how they should be judged. The inverse of the ends justify the means is the means justify the ends (–Anglin) and moral masturbation leads otherwise civilized people to support sexual mutilation of children.

            Unmarriageable women should end up in bars and hospitals instead of brothels, and brothels should try to use some of the proceeds for their whores’ dowries. If a man can make a living, he shouldn’t be a monk, and if he’s a monk he shouldn’t be visiting brothels, but maybe some monks could marry and live in their subsidized communities with their wife and no children.

            • Turtle says:

              Biological drives are, almost by definition, sin, when indulged in excessively, disobediently (forbiddenly), or ungratefully. They’re imperfect mostly because of the fall; Adam and Eve did not succumb to lust until they fell.

              >> eugenics board

              As in utopia? That’s sci-fi.

              Burdens are not ours to bear; Christ takes them on.

              Sin is not a concept; it is a real description of moral destruction, and the essence of hell.

              I don’t think you realize that mutilation is *standard* masturbation, as in, only perverts circumcise boys and cut off girls’ genitals too. It’s not a moralistic Puritan problem only.

              No women are unmarriageable, except that God prevents those He does not want married from marrying. No man can make a living in the sense of creating life or initial productivity (God’s work in Genesis).

              Monks can visit brothels to be helpful, as spiritual servants. Not everyone there is a customer.

              There’s not so much scarcity and struggle to survive in life that we must all be maximally efficient and reproduce to the utmost. I don’t get where this idea comes from- since when is civilization and mankind so fragile and needy? Haven’t we done alright, by God’s forgiving grace? I don’t feel pessimistic about the birth rate, for example, because the human population was much smaller in the past, and that was fine.

              I am concerned, sincerely, that you’re inconsistent- if biology is all that has meaning to you, why don’t you farm, work in a zoo, do “full quiver” natalism, etc. ? You could, right?
              Anyway, I was much more similar to you only, say, 5 years ago (which was embarrassing), so I’m not really worried, just offended by your rhetoric | behavior discrepancy.

              • peppermint says:

                Burdens are for Christ, no man can make a living -> communism

                No women are unmarriageable -> feminism

                Biological drives are sin -> puritanism

                You left out the part where all talents come from God therefore all glory is vain therefore Atticus doesn’t brag about being a great shot and Scout didn’t know and the natural heirarchy of men should be made invisible to women and women should choose men based purely on love instead of the natural eugenics of White sharia.

                • Turtle says:

                  “Man was made to work” is in the Bible but it does not mean man was made to do God’s work. Serving God, cooperating with Him, is an inferior role. Our work is insufficient to support us- can we make the sun rise and set? No, we need God to order His principalities, powers, etc. All those angelic forces do His will, just like His human saints.

                  Women are marriageable if and only if God marries them to a man. That’s the only standard, a tautological one. God decides if she is worthy, even if we disagree. God can also decide He wants her to be His nun, while we want to fuck her. That often leads to virgins being martyred, rather than submitting to rape. It’s impossible to truly rape a woman, in that she can insist on being killed instead. If she is raped, she wanted it. Similarly, if she is married in the Church, God wants her marriage.

                  Biological drives are good and innocent if and only if they are controlled and gratefully expressed. That’s judged by God, again. All of the drives were created by God, so sin is always a perversion or distortion of what He wants us to want and do. I’m not against sex, as I’ve stated many times. I’m against lust, because it is hatred.

                  Talents do not only come from God. We can squander or invest them, as in the parable of the three servants with talents. Good servants develop their talents into more wealth. That’s our duty, to become greater beings.

                  And all vanity is vain, because it is false. True glory is the only glory there is! Vainglory is actually blasphemous, like saying MLK is a saint. Plenty of cuck churches say just that, and commemorate him on their evil calendars. To boast proudly of real saints is a cure for vanity. I don’t consider my talents very great, only enough for my life to be productive and pleasant. I am talented in some ways, to some extent. I don’t know how much, or how I would compare with others with these talents. A vain man would insist that he’s special regardless of his talents’ context. And you seem to think all whites are glorious equally, with no regard for what they individually do. I disagree, because some whites are better than others.

                  While some nations have patron saints, it’s unfortunate that the races do not. But I think you’d like these whites:

                  http://d2aic5im1if5n2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/559-nicholas-tsar-3t-hae-61-800-285×600.jpg

                  http://d2aic5im1if5n2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/594-EulaliaBarcelona-dpd-40-800-481×600.jpg

                  There is a great iconographic focus on their clothing, not nude skin, because they are civilized. This indicates that race is not a defining factor, only part of human nature.

                  Would you be unworthy of life if you were not white? Would God love you less then?

                • jim says:

                  Would you be unworthy of life if you were not white? Would God love you less then?

                  It is obvious at any school that the black students differ by more than a standard deviation, which is to say, differ so much that there is not a lot of overlap with white students, in characteristics that almost all religions agree that God strongly disapproves of.

              • peppermint says:

                The biological drive to insert one’s penis into a woman’s vagina so that one’s balls can inject sperm into her fallopian tubes and complete the egg’s biological program being a sin, but love being a commandment, there is surely no reason you wouldn’t insert your penis into a former man’s neovagina or a man’s anus or mouth or your fist into a man’s anus or any kind of versatile love, love, love is all you need. All you need is love, do do do do do

            • >The whole concept of sin is a problem, because the consequences of actions are how they should be judged.

              You are amusical to religion. Like Max Weber, I borrowed this term from him. Not an insult, but just pointing out you really don’t bellyfeel at a fundamental level how the religious work.

              • peppermint says:

                Sin means an offence against God as crime is an offence against the State. Sin is also seen by christcucks as the default state opposed to the state of grace, thus when intellectual christcucks get together agreeing on christcuck axioms, puritanism is the only possible result. And puritanism gets outcompeted by transcendentalism, which gets outcompeted by secular humanism.

                All other senses are metaphorical. Sin is intrinsically a christcuck word belonging to that fusion of Greek philosophy and Jewish tribal religion. The etymology is missing the mark as in archery as if each individual is born with a cosmic destiny to fulfil, where cosmic refers to the order of the universe.

                The reality that individuals are created by their parents because their parents have a biological drive to get horny, fuck, and raise them, that civilization, far from being commanded by a loving cosmic order, is the expression of White masculinity which evolved in a particular location at a particlar time, is sometimes hard even for nazi leaders to appreciate.

                Gas the professors, weltanschauung war now.

              • Turtle says:

                “Original sin” is mistaken, if not intentional heresy. People like the not-saint AUgustine teach it, because they hate mankind, out of guilt and contempt. It’s popular in the West, because they schismed away, and needed an excuse for this fall. To claim the Orthodox are too easy-going and tolerant of sin is the excuse.

                You’re not getting that the etymology of sin is mystical’ we don’t know what mark is referred to- it could be the cross.

                While the ‘immaculate conception’ is a Latin heresy, and feminist, the ORthodox do belive that the Holy Virgin Mary’s conception was sinful, and that she sinned. Our theology says only God is innocent.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Despite your papistry, there is hope for you if you acknowledge Augustine was a heretic from the pits of hell.

        • peppermint says:

          Problem: women need to be liberated to have sex with playboys and rockstars, but get hit on by inferior men in the workplace
          Solution: ban inferior masculinity, except for nigger masculinity, and kike behavior that vaguely counts as masculinity

          The NRx thing to say is that when a woman enters the workforce, she destroys her family, the man she cheats with’s family, and the man she replaces’ family.

          The nazi thing to say is that when a woman enters the workplace, she only destroys her family, not the man she cheats with’s family because all women are cuckquean fetishists and his wife understands that her children have legal priority, and women don’t ever actually replace men, but are a drag on the economy when affirmative actioned in.

          Women don’t not want to see dicks. They don’t want to see cucks’ dicks. The most unashamedly masculine places attract women who want to observe whatever rules they impose, and cucky places get destroyed noy so much by shit tests as by cucks thinking to gain advantage and women by cucking.

          Today cucks get nothing, and in the near future they’ll get beat up by other men looking to raise their profile with women through violence against the enemies of civilization.

        • jim says:

          Obama called. Justice Department announces that the reason women are under represented in the software industry is bro culture, so the Silicon Valley exemption is over. Going to be sued for a trillion dollars if bro culture is not utterly crushed.

    • jim says:

      How comes that perhaps the most stereotypically young-masculine brogramming subculture, where calling each other dicks is normal and writing code to make ASCII art dicks goes the other extreme and becomes the most feminist?

      Duh.

      The application of state power.

      The top boss is such an important powerful man that he gets to kiss the ass and suck the dick of some man who is so powerful and important that he gets to kiss the ass and suck the dick of some man who is on the revolving door between regulators and regulated. And word comes down during the dick sucking sessions that Github better go feminist, or else will be sued a trillion dollars by the justice department because women and blacks are not as successful as white males. And Github hires a horde of fat blue haired feminists with Ivy League degrees in women’s studies and room temperature IQs, and gives them limitless power to capriciously and whimsically destroy men’s lives.

      Then Trump comes to power, and word comes down during the dick sucking sessions that bro culture is OK. And lo and behold, Github starts firing social justice warriors.

      • Alrenous says:

        I suspect bro culture is still not okay. However, between Trump’s people sending the word to everyone, thus making far too many targets to deal with, plus Trump himself constantly stirring shit up, they don’t have time to go around squashing every little micro-rebellion.

        • Anonymous says:

          Bro culture is still being destroyed by feminists pushing their endless hysterical “campus rape” hoaxes. The system is designed in such a way that only men are ever punished for “sex crimes”, not women, even though it is female sexuality, not male sexuality, that is wreaking havoc everywhere.

          Hence, I support the men who accuse women of raping them, not because I’m egalitarian, but because I’m fond of appropriating leftist memes and using them against leftists; in this case, appropriating a meme that serves the feminine imperative and throwing it back against the feminine imperative itself. On this issue I differ radically from Eivind Berge, the Norwegian MRA, who thinks that women being accused of any sex-crime is just a horrible tragedy. Actually, women being accused of sex-crimes is totally hilarious, and I support the accusers. Also, as I said, it is female sexuality that has to be regulated *somehow*, not male sexuality.

          After the entire system collapses, and moreso during the restoration, the notion of rape as “violation of consent” will evaporate in an instant, and the notion of rape as “violation of a male’s property rights over a female” will re-emerge triumphantly, vindicated as never before. Eivind Berge will not be satisfied, and theantifeminist will also not be particularly glad since his PUA days would be over, but others in the redpill community will understand why “rape” of unowned women — strong! independent! — should be absolutely legal while “rape” of owned women should result in either a shotgun marriage (if she’s unmarried, that is, if she’s under the authority of her father or some male relatives) or the actual shooting of a shotgun (if she’s married).

          Those will be the days.

          • Anonymous says:

            Generally, the family itself should be privatized. All life-and-death decisions, such as who gets to use the lifeboats on a sinking ship, will be given to fathers, who are the heads of the household. Hey, if the husband voluntarily decides that he prefers drowning to having his wife drown, that’s fine; but likewise, if he decides to save himself and render his wife unto the ocean, that is equally his right — he owns her like a cow, and all his decisions regarding her are sacred and ipso facto justified — and the state has no business intervening as regards his decisions on this matter, at all.

            Privatize the family — institute patriarchy by recognizing paternal authority as absolute in all family matters, making fatherhood basically sacred — and you will save the family.

Leave a Reply