Teaching boys to be beta

I was watching “Troy”. And for the first hour it was totally great. The mother of Achilles, who has the power of prophesy, and is believed to be a goddess or something similar, prophesies that if he goes to war with Troy, he will die in that war, but his name will live for a thousand years.

This is actually conservative, for Achilles was part of the collapse of Bronze age civilization, three thousand years ago, and his name still lives.

And Achilles, being warlord, a king, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, and incredibly brave and manly, naturally decides to go to Troy.

He goes to Troy, and after the first battle, orders his men to loot the temple of Apollo. So his men dump a kingly share of the temple loot in his tent, part of that loot being a dazzlingly beautiful girl, a virgin dedicated to Apollo tied up in his tent.

And then he just … he … he just totally fails to act like a man. In addition to being famous, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, he is also unbelievably handsome. But I swear, that there is no way that girl would voluntarily bed him in real life, if he acts like that.

Now I am old, and fat, and no one terribly important, and I look like Jabba the Hut, but if I had had a few hours with that girl in my tent, she and I would have been going at it like weasels in heat. (Voltaire said all he needed was ten minutes, but I think he was lying, and in any case, I am not as good as Voltaire.)

Everything Achilles does prior to going into that tent is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. Everything he does in the first hour of the movie is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. And then he goes into that tent and he is just …

You know why boys are no damn good with girls these days. Because they watch movies like that. They are taught to respect women. But women do not really want to be respected. And what is this girl that Achilles should respect her? We see him disrespect King Agamemnon. Until this scene we only see him respecting mighty warriors who have earned it by their courage and their prowess, or King Odysseus, whom he respects for his cunning. What has this chick done to earn respect?

After that scene, I just could not watch the film any more, because I just could not see Achilles as a man. Just some kind of cuck. Real men just don’t treat women like that. It is not just that it will not get you laid. It is unmanly. It is wrong. It is gay. It is effeminate.

OK. In the workplace I have to treat women like that or be fired, but it burns. OK, I bend to power and grit my teeth and suffer the humiliation, but the whole Achilles story is that he does not bend to power. Show him acting like a cuck, then there is no story any more.

Achilles does not respect King Agamemnon. He does not respect the King of Thessaly. He does not respect the champion of Thessaly. He does not respect the troops of Thessaly. He does not respect the ambassadors of King Odysseus. Why is he so damn respectful to some speaking temple loot?

129 Responses to “Teaching boys to be beta”

  1. Samson J. says:

    Sorry, what does he do in the tent that is so unmanly?

  2. Nxx says:

    Yes, please explain what he does that’s so cucked.

    Don’t make me watch the whole film just to get to that part.

    • cloudswrest says:

      You don’t need to watch the whole movie. Here is the scene. https://youtu.be/fW6SiquXjTk

      • Samson J. says:

        I am not watching a video. I can’t abide this newfangled trend of linking to videos as if I am actually to watch them.

        • jim says:

          He acts like a beta cuck. He acts like a male feminist studies major instead of a warlord and warrior. He acts like this piece of speaking temple loot is higher status than he is because in possession of a holy pussy.

          • Anonymous says:

            Are you okay, Jim? You’re starting to sound more and more like the average r/theredpill poster as of late.

          • Corvinus says:

            “He acts like a beta cuck. He acts like a male feminist studies major instead of a warlord and warrior. He acts like this piece of speaking temple loot is higher status than he is because in possession of a holy pussy.”

            Actually, he completely acts like an alpha. He knows he can take her, he knows he can rut her, but chooses not to. That’s how real alphas act. Rather than be brutal in this situation, he is manipulating her. He can get what he wants when he wants it, he chooses this is not the time and place.

            That’s why Jim is comedy gold. He takes his own insecurities and imposes them on others.

            “Now I am old, and fat, and no one terribly important, and I look like Jabba the Hut, but if I had had a few hours with that girl in my tent, she and I would have been going at it like weasels in heat.”

            That’s the only way to take her is by force. That’s is completely gamma. Besides, your wife would have cut your nuts off. You never had had any concubines or side dishes during your marriage. You come across that way, but we all know better here. And brutally taking her is an action that Jesus Christ would send you to hell in the afterlife.

            “Real men just don’t treat women like that. It is not just that it will not get you laid. It is unmanly. It is wrong. It is gay. It is effeminate.”

            YET, you make this statement!

            “OK. In the workplace I have to treat women like that or be fired, but it burns. OK, I bend to power and grit my teeth and suffer the humiliation, but the whole Achilles story is that he does not bend to power. Show him acting like a cuck, then there is no story any more.”

            So, by your own definition and actions, you are a cuck. Go ahead, Jim. Show everyone in the workplace that you are an alpha. Demand to the women folk there that they ought to heed your beck and call. So what if you get fired, you have your alphaness and dignity intact.

            “You know why boys are no damn good with girls these days. Because they watch movies like that. They are taught to respect women. But women do not really want to be respected. ”

            Wait, I thought the Roosh’s and Roissy’s of the world are showing boys and young men how to be damn good with the ladies. On their blogs, fine fellows there on a daily basis describe in detail their cunning tales of pumping and dumping. So it would appear that boys and young men ARE really successful in modern times.

            Besides, you really don’t know for certain whether today’s boys and young men are failing to slay the poon.

            Again, keep up the laughs and humor.

            • jon dough says:

              gay

            • peppermint says:

              “The true alpha alphas without alphaing” — Corvinus

            • peppermint says:

              who is going to fire Achilles for not being sufficiently respectful of women?

              Is ((Yahweh)) going to punish the Achaean army for his sins?

              Is ((the arc of moral progress)) going to bend against the Achaean army for his sins?

              • Corvinus says:

                Peppermint, it’s a movie. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter.

                Jon Dough, glad to know your intellectual capability resides with one word responses. I would properly calculate your IQ at being around 80.

                • jon dough says:

                  k

                • jim says:

                  it’s a movie. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter.

                  It is brainwashing. It is teaching men to be cucks. In the grand scheme of things, it prevents people from successfully reproducing, which is the most important thing there is. It prevents men and women from successfully forming relationships and getting married.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “It is brainwashing.”

                  No, what is brainwashing is neoreactionalism, or the Alt Right, or whatever you call this “philosophy”.

                  “It prevents men and women from successfully forming relationships and getting married.”

                  Tens of thousands of men and women in the United States each year form relationships and get married. They certainly do not need you badgering them with your “advice”.

                • jim says:

                  Tens of thousands of men and women in the United States each year form relationships and get married.

                  Only tens of thousands! Further, a lot of these marriages are some aging slut realizing it is her last chance to grab a meal ticked and have babies, and then discovering she cannot stand having sex with her beta husband, so they do not have babies.

                  Reproduction is collapsing because marriage is collapsing. Marriage is collapsing in substantial part because of hateful brainwashing like this stuff.

                  The scene in question is Achilles massively failing a shit test set by a twenty first century women’s studies major.

                  If men were men, women would be a lot more inclined to get married right away, like the eager giggling schoolgirls who sing “Three little maids are we”, and a lot less inclined to wait to their eggs run out, marry some beta desperate enough to endure marrying an aging slut, and then discover that they cannot stand sex with their husbands.

              • Alan J. Perrick says:

                Aren’t the (((elbows))) supposed to be for Talmudic Jewish objects? No, wait, I’m giving “Peppermint Papist” far too much credit when ()Militant (Humanism( is ))nothing more( than a religion )of edginess).

                Let’s be edgy just like a pack of wolverines!

            • jim says:

              “He acts like a beta cuck. He acts like a male feminist studies major instead of a warlord and warrior. He acts like this piece of speaking temple loot is higher status than he is because in possession of a holy pussy.”

              Actually, he completely acts like an alpha.

              I know what women like. And women don’t think that this beta cuck male feminist studies major is acting alpha.

              • Corvinus says:

                No, you THINK you know what women like.

                • jim says:

                  I get laid. I know what women like. A lot better than women know what they like.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “I get laid. I know what women like. A lot better than women know what they like.”

                  How did your wife appreciate you getting laid outside of marriage, thus breaking that sacred bond and casting you in God’s eyes as a transgressor worthy of hell?

                • Kudzu Bob says:

                  >How did your wife appreciate you getting laid outside of marriage, thus breaking that sacred bond and casting you in God’s eyes as a transgressor worthy of hell?

                  Your clumsy and obvious attempt to change the subject has been noted.

  3. Dankeverry says:

    The post-Victorian conflation of domesticity with civilization has ruined civilization. The female-domain of domesticity has usurped the male-domain of civilization, spawning hordes of emasculated savages. The “well-educated” passive-aggressive betas are the barbarians.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Nah, the Victorian Era was a good one, as long as you weren’t an outgroup. But if you were, you may still be yowling, centuries later!!

      A.J.P.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        The people the Victorians smashed aren’t yowling.

        Old black guys in the West Indies love the British, who caned them in school so they’d learn some damn manners, and are outraged that the British won’t cane their immigrant grandchildren.

        When the British Empire sewed rebellious Muslims into pig skins, shot them from cannons, and buried the bits mashed up with pig bones, Muslims loved, respected, and fought for the British. And nationalist Brits like Kipling loved their brave and loyal Muslim sidekicks. Contrast with today.

        It didn’t stop in 1900.

        The Filipinos love the Americans, who tortured their separatist rebels to death.

        The Germans and Japanese love the Americans and the Germans love the British, who slaughtered their children in their beds by the hundreds of thousand.

        People (men at least) love and respect strength, despise weakness. All the groups complaining most now (black Americans, black South Africans, Aborigines of all sorts) are the ones most molly-coddled by the Victorians.

        • This sounds unfortunately true. When people get angry over perceived injustice, what actually happens is that they think claiming the other committed injustice makes them socially vulnerable hence weak hence an ideal target for a dominance challenge. And respect for the moral and the virtuous is largely respect for the fact that they are socially strong, influential, due to their popularity.

          And thus feminists leave the openly asshole away and the weak nerd apologizing that he somehow cannot help but stare gets savaged.

          When an entrepreneur gives me an offer, I gave half of that as a counter-offer, and it shocking often works, the audacity of it. However I must also admit it does not work in job interviews, I lost a couple of them by naming a very audaciously high salary expectation.

        • Corvinus says:

          The Africans and the Muslims and the Filipinos and the Germans and the Japanese assuredly did NOT love the British and Americans for “keeping them in line”, as evident by current and rising anti-European and anti-American sentiments.

          You really have an imagination.

          • Gilberto Dorneles da Rocha says:

            Yes, they don’t anymore, funny enough, now that the they are treated nicely, they stopped loving, and you use this as proving your point of view.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Is Jamaica jowling? Germany? Japan? Hong Kong? These are the places that were held under thumb of the Anglos latest. Far more damage was done by the Anglos to the Germans than to any lesser breed in the colonies.

              All the “ruling minorities” of today started becoming recipients of special treatment as long ago as the mid 19th century.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          In your opinion they’re not yowling, O.C., in _your_ opinion they aren’t…

      • Ulick McGee says:

        Ha! So true. Yesterday, I came upon this gem:

        Comparative Physiognomy: or, Resemblances Between Men and Animals (1852)

        http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/comparative-physiognomy-or-resemblances-between-men-and-animals-1852/

  4. Dankeverry says:

    Odysseus had marked the domestic domain as his territory. Achilles did not lay claim to his.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    It seems to me that the sex-stuffed filming is done for Northern European themed shows like Game of Thrones (too much) and less for the Mediterranean themed ones anymore, while in this case Mr Pitt is also an actor whose personal life is dulling his art.

  6. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Troy, btw, is not “totally great”, although it is better than Alexander.

  7. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    His mistake was putting the pussy on a pedestal.

    Don’t do that.

  8. Casual says:

    Seems to me Achilles was showing deference to presumed royalty. He wanted Briseis, but was willing to give a woman of her station space to come around.

    • jim says:

      He does not show similar deference the King Agamemnon, nor the King of Thessaly.

    • peppermint says:

      » a woman of her station space to come around

      That is not how you get a woman to come around. The idea that that is how you get a woman to come around has been planted in your mind by brutal feminist terror when you were a child, and is one major reason the White birth rate is below replacement.

      Gas the academics, education war now.

  9. Jack Highlands says:

    “Achilles does not respect King Agamemnon . . . Why is he so damn respectful to some speaking temple loot?”

    In Homer’s version, Briseis and Achilles are already sleeping together at the opening of the action, and Achilles likens having to give up his ‘war-bride’ to Agamemnon as similar to Paris stealing Helen from Menelaus, the proximate cause of the war in the first place. Homer could do this because the audience he recited his dactyls to knew all the story and more; they knew that if they spent ten or twenty evenings listening to half the tales of the Trojan War and its outcome, the story of how Agamemnon eventually met his due fate would come out (murdered on his return from Troy by Aigisthus, lover of his wife Clytemnestra, at her behest), and they would have moral closure.

    In (((David Benioff’s))) script, he only had 163 minutes to provide moral closure, not twenty evenings. Therefore, in accordance with flakey modern morality and the exigencies of short modern attention spans and shallow modern brains, he felt compelled to draw a more striking and immediate moral contrast between Achilles and Agamemnon. So he had Achilles treat Briseis like Berkeley frosh following Womens’ Studies dictat at Indoctrination Week and not at all like the warlord he was, before giving her up to the ‘king of kings.’ That way, today’s audience gets more satisfying moral closure two hours later, when Briseis herself kills Agamemnon in the sack of Troy (another feminist trope – have the injured woman do the killing, not incite it).

    PS: Note the cultural (((appropriation))).

    • Corvinus says:

      “Therefore, in accordance with flakey modern morality and the exigencies of short modern attention spans and shallow modern brains…”

      But, of course, that doesn’t fit your description. Praytell, why would white men desire to follow you if you have such disdain for them in general?

    • peppermint says:

      it is rewritten as feminist propaganda in order to preserve the “moral relationships between the characters” while playing to the warped expectations of a generation raised by feminists, and this is good because the “moral relationships between the characters” are the sacred purpose of the story, not the values they express?

      typical intellectual garbage 0/10 gas the cucks sex war now

      • Corvinus says:

        [stupid and false insult censored. Entertaining or plausible insults will be allowed.]

        • Texas_Lamar_ says:

          Can I ask what the general nature of the insult was? Presumably it was against Peppermint, or Jim or anybody who isn’t in total denial of the nature of the human sexes.

        • Corvinus says:

          The insult dealt with how Peppermint enjoys perusing his Stormfrontess Calendar Girls, especially the July 2016 leather face centerfold with the sagging breasts and drooping ass.

          • EH says:

            Not bad, for one of your talents. I’d trade you for half of one of Anita Sarkeesian’s used tampons, but I wouldn’t want to overpay.

          • peppermint says:

            Funny you should mention Nazi pinup girls. Please compare Evalion to 18 year old pansexuals.

            Young women below the age of 25 know that they want to be dominated, only women who are currently aging past 35 actually believe in feminism. Young men below the age of 25 know that they are expected to dominate, only men aging past 35 actually believe in feminism.

            I know several young men. They were all Bernie Bros or Trump supporters, the Bernie bros are either Hillary or quiet now. But, since they grew up without cuckstainty, they have no reason to actually believe in feminism or socialism.

  10. Grotesque Body says:

    Jim,

    The girl is bound, defenceless and completely exposed to the whims of her captor. The only logistical challenge to going like “weasels in heat” here is perhaps untying a few ropes and perhaps tying a few new ones.

    My question is, how fat and ungainly are you that this would take you a matter of hours?

    Love,

    GB

    • jim says:

      The male preference for a strong, indeed violent, female response probably reflects the fact that females have ultimate control of whether sperm makes it from the pussy to the womb. If a man does not get a good reaction, his sperm is probably going nowhere.

      If I had been in Achilles shoes and merely adjusted the ropes and done her right away, high risk that my sperm would be wasted, high risk I would just be masturbating, so Nature’s God tells me to get her responding, tells me get her in the mood, tells me to get her hot.

      If I had been in Achilles shoes I might well get her in the mood by tightening the ropes and beating her up, but, due to my age and looks, would still take a while to get her in the mood, even employing such highly effective methods. And even employing such highly effective methods, need some honey mixed with the lemon juice, quite a lot of honey. Hence the popular technique of harshly yanking a woman’s tits, then pinning her down, apologizing profusely, and gently kissing them. One is apt to get swift forgiveness.

      Men don’t like to literally rape women in the sense of having sex with a woman who really does not like it. They like to rape women in the sense of coercing women into submission, and then the woman likes it because she is coerced and submitting.

      Feminists have rape fantasies where they are raped and they really really hate being raped, because the more they hate it the greater the submission, and the more the submission, the more they like it. As for example Jackie Coakley’s rape fantasy. The male fantasy is that she hates it, and then she loves it. This sometimes takes a little while.

      • Grotesque Body says:

        “If I had been in Achilles shoes and merely adjusted the ropes and done her right away, high risk that my sperm would be wasted, high risk I would just be masturbating”

        *tips fedora*

        • Corvinus says:

          “The male preference for a strong, indeed violent, female response probably reflects the fact that females have ultimate control of whether sperm makes it from the pussy to the womb.”

          Yet another classic Jim bullshit statement. I assume that you have actual scientific evidence of this phenomenon, right?

          “Feminists have rape fantasies where they are raped and they really really hate being raped, because the more they hate it the greater the submission, and the more the submission, the more they like it.”

          Because the fantasy is with a guy they like, not some complete stranger, so that is why the women is willing to play “hard to get” and eventually submit.

          Try it sometime, Jim. Go up to a hot woman of your choice. Tell them they have rape fantasies, and that you will take them violently. Never mind your self-described body issues, she will be putty in your hands. That’s what alphas do. They don’t talk, they actually get things done. Go do it Jim. Make sure to have proper documentation and write a blog post on your exploits.

          Otherwise, all you are doing is talking more shit.

          • Mackus says:

            So, you want jim to bring in filled and signed “yes means yes” consent forms, in three copies?

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            Wow, what a moron you are.

            • Corvinus says:

              Haven’t you been paying close attention? There is no such thing as consent forms in Jim’s world. A man takes a women violently. That’s it. But, I’m sure Jim appreciates your effort at white knighting.

              The “proper documentation” I was referring to is giving us, his loyal readers, VISUAL EVIDENCE that indeed he accomplished what he set out to accomplish, rather than his usual verbal bullshit.

              In fact, Mackus, why don’t YOU take on Jim’s task and report back to us. That’s what alphas do, they act.

              • Mackus says:

                I am not your bitch.

                I bet you’ve done everything other kids at playground told you to do, just because they’d call you a chicken if you tried to refuse:
                “Eat this earthworm or we’ll think you are uncool!”

              • Mackus says:

                Do you know that white knighting actually refers to defending women? Especially on manosphere/alt-right/neoreactionary blogs?
                Are you too stupid to know that, or too slow to came up with better taunt without wasting day to think on one?
                If you’d, for example, say I was his fanboy, that at least wouldn’t be automatically proven false on basis of very definition of words you used.
                But would require you to have a minimum of wit and imagination.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “I am not your bitch.”

                  Go on, show us your alphaness. Don’t you know ALL women want to be taken with extreme aggression?

                  “I bet you’ve done everything other kids at playground told you to do, just because they’d call you a chicken if you tried to refuse: “Eat this earthworm or we’ll think you are uncool!”

                  Project much?

                  “Do you know that white knighting actually refers to defending women?”

                  I used it properly.

                • Mackus says:

                  You think one is unmanly unless he does exactly what strangers on internet goad him to do.

                  What a bitch you are.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “You think one is unmanly unless he does exactly what strangers on internet goad him to do.”

                  You do realize your description fits Jim to a T, right?

              • jim says:

                Visual evidence would give too many people my identity, would embarrass people I love, and would expose myself and others to political reprisals.

                And I never claimed to be a good PUA. To the extent that I am successful with women, it is partly because I feel it entirely right and proper for women to behave as they do, and for men to behave in the way that excites desire in women, feel that men should rule over women, but largely because I irrationally expect to succeed, regardless of very large differences in age and physical attractiveness, and therefore hit on more women with more success than most males. I allow myself to be irrational about my prospects of success with women, because in the long run, I do succeed often enough to make a big difference in my life, whereas I do not allow myself to be irrational about beating the house while gambling with money, because in the long run, house always wins.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Visual evidence would give too many people my identity, would embarrass people I love, and would expose myself and others to political reprisals.”

                  That’s not alpha. That’s a cuck talking.

          • peppermint says:

            » Because the fantasy is with a guy they like

            you know, some women write down their sex fantasies, try looking at literotica.com. But knowing you, you’re probably going to come back with explicit feminist stuff about pegging that got upvoted for political reasons, and claim that that’s what women want, historical and biological arguments be damned.

            » Go up to a hot woman of your choice. Tell them they have rape fantasies, and that you will take them violently.

            …and because that’s known to not be the way it’s done, therefore women don’t have rape fantasies, QED. Another fact of human nature, though all academics know there is no such thing as human nature, proven through pure logic and political correctness.

            It would be equally meaningless to challenge you to go up to a hot woman and tell her effusively how much you respect her in between apologizing for wasting her time and offer to buy her a drink in between apologizing for patriarchially oppressing her.

            Gas the intellectuals, observation war now.

            • Corvinus says:

              “you know, some women write down their sex fantasies,”

              No shit, Sherlock. Those fantasies are rooted in someone they know. They may write about being anally taken by a “stranger”, but that “stranger” in reality is someone in their mind that they know or want to know.

              No doubt as you wrote this, you gaze wantonly at the Stormfrontress Calendar Girls, July 2016. All in a twitter as the 52 year-old hag with two buck teeth and leather skin shows off her sagging breasts and drooping ass.

              “It would be equally meaningless to challenge you to go up to a hot woman and tell her effusively how much you respect her in between apologizing for wasting her time and offer to buy her a drink in between apologizing for patriarchially oppressing her.”

              Except, using Roissy’s techniques, I throw a line out and instantly I bed her. That’s how it works today.

              “Gas the intellectuals, observation war now.”

              Spoken like a true sociopath.

              • jim says:

                Those fantasies are rooted in someone they know. They may write about being anally taken by a “stranger”, but that “stranger” in reality is someone in their mind that they know or want to know.

                I am pretty sure that when they write about being anally taken from behind by a stranger, they are fantasizing about being anally taken from behind by a stranger.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “I am pretty sure that when they write about being anally taken from behind by a stranger, they are fantasizing about being anally taken from behind by a stranger.”

                  With your penchant for outright lying, pretty sure equates to having absolutely no clue.

                  Relationally, the female’s paramount need, whoch is consonant with evolutionary biology), is to have a strong, dominant male care for and protect her whom she has already made a physical and mental connection with. Her eroticized image of being thrown against the bed and fucked hard lacks the real danger inherent in an actual rape situation.

                • jim says:

                  Relationally, the female’s paramount need, whoch is consonant with evolutionary biology), is to have a strong, dominant male care for and protect her

                  Observed behavior is that a rather large proportion of the population is these days born fatherless, (black African mating pattern) and that a tiny proportion of all males spawn the vast majority of these fatherless children (also black African mating pattern) which is to say, there are some males that have a huge number of offspring, while most males have about 0.8 offspring. From the point of view of the female, that is top quality semen, even though these men tend to be stupid, violent, poor, and live by taking their baby mommas child support money. Evolutionary biology is that she would “like” to have sons that have a huge number of offspring. So she would like to be supported by a nice guy, and avoid fucking him (child support) and like to be brutally raped by a bad boy who has forty children by forty different baby mommas, because that way she is likely to produce a son who might also have forty children by forty different baby mommas.

                  This is called the sexy sons theory. That women will prefer those men that are reproductively successful. If being a bad boy works, women will prefer bad boys, making it work even better, resulting in boys being even badder. Thus do peacock tails become impractically and ridiculously large. The only solution is to restrain female sexual and reproductive choice, to force women to marry men who work for their family and for society, fight for their family and society, and raise their sons, to compel women to have sex with their husbands, and forbid women to disobey their husbands or to have sex with anyone other than their husbands.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Corvinus, birds do not fly by flapping their feet. They use their wings. You would watch a bird walk and hop around and conclude that they cannot fly.

            You go up to a hot woman and behave like the kind of man she would like. Then she will like you. Then you become the man that she likes, and your face will be on the man fucking her and pulling her hair and telling her that you are in charge. You get her to like you by acting like the kind of man that would take her in the bedroom and and fuck her and pull her hair and tell her you are in charge.

            The Shadowed Knight

            • Corvinus says:

              Did you not admit in the past that you lacked sufficient experience when it comes to pursuing women?

              Regardless, if you are a Roissy acolyte, then all you have to do is follow his advice and {presto{ you are behaving like the man women like and you will be fucking her. Or, you can be like Jim and take them violently because that is what they secretly desire.

              Either way, it’s a win-win, right? Either way, it’s not a problem, right? RIGHT?

              • theshadowedknight says:

                I have trouble pursuing women because I want a wife, not a hookup. Keeping a woman around for decades is a much harder prospect than keeping her around for a night.

                Of course it is a problem. The whole point of modern law enforcement and social science is to make it a problem for White men who are not criminals to get women. White men who are not criminals do not support the progressive project, so they need to be wiped out or brought to heel. White men are dangerously monogamous, and that is a threat to progress.

                The Shadowed Knight

                • jim says:

                  Quite so. The program is to impose black African mating patterns on white men.

                  Not being monogamous myself, I don’t think white men are monogamous. What we are is not serially monogamous. We don’t want to let our wife and children go.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Not being monogamous myself…”

                  And you would be an absolute degenerate.

                  Was your wife aware of your cheating? Did she condone it or condemn it?

                  The clearest evidence monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6, who cites the Genesis creation account, in particular Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.

                  Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy—Jesus will NOT have multiple brides.

                  Even the 10th Commandment presupposes the absolute certainty that there is only one wife. Paul also wrote “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” and explains marital duties in terms of one husband and one wife.

                  Furthermore, the only survivors of the Flood were four monogamous couples.

                  “What we are is not serially monogamous. We don’t want to let our wife and children go.”

                  Which is the result of degenerative genes and piss poor parental upbringing. Fuck stick.

                • jim says:

                  Paul also wrote “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband”

                  He uses different words that are both translated as “own”

                  Polygyny is normal and arguably normative in the old testament, and is discouraged, but not clearly forbidden in the new testament.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “White men are dangerously monogamous, and that is a threat to progress.”

                  Jim just admitted he is NOT monogamous, so there goes your theory.

                  “Keeping a woman around for decades is a much harder prospect than keeping her around for a night.”

                  It’s YOU, not them.

                • Koanic says:

                  You are completely correct re that verse.

                  Re polygamy in the New Testament, I would not say it is discouraged so much as that marriage is discouraged by Paul, and only in his opinion, not as a word from God.

                  It is apparently discouraged for those over the church to have more than one wife. This is a good rule for avoiding the Mormon syndrome, in which young men are kicked out of the church for tiny infractions to increase the women available to elders. This is an abomination.

                • Koanic says:

                  Also, I am chagrined that I missed this dishonest word substitution. “Own” should be translated as “have himself a wife”, whereas the woman’s “Own” should be translated as “have a private, or separate husband”, ie singleness not implied by the man’s possessive.

                  Even the Modern Literal Version I rely upon does not correct this error. I had to go back to strong’s concordance to verify it.

                  Is that what you use, Jim? Or something else? How did you best my Bible knowledge there?

          • Alf says:

            > Yet another classic Jim bullshit statement. I assume that you have actual scientific evidence of this phenomenon, right?

            Jim’s description matches Sperm Wars pretty well. Otherwise try Atavisionary’s book.

            > Because the fantasy is with a guy they like, not some complete stranger

            The stories in My Secret Garden have plenty of sexual fantasies with complete strangers.

            > Try it sometime, Jim. Go up to a hot woman of your choice. Tell them they have rape fantasies, and that you will take them violently. Never mind your self-described body issues, she will be putty in your hands. That’s what alphas do. They don’t talk, they actually get things done. Go do it Jim. Make sure to have proper documentation and write a blog post on your exploits.

            What would Genghis Khan do?

      • Grotesque Body says:

        Also,

        “females have ultimate control of whether sperm makes it from the pussy to the womb.”

        I’m skeptical. Have you read Visions of the Daughters of Albion, Jim? I highly recommend it.

        Love,

        GB

        • jim says:

          Between the womb and the pussy, there is a pair of lips. What are lips for, if not to permit or prevent entrance?

          Plus, my personal observation, these lips open, or markedly relax, when the girl is fertile and sexually turned on. I have felt the lips closed, and felt the lips opening. So I am pretty damned sure they function to let one man’s sperm in, and not another’s.

          • Corvinus says:

            Your personal observation is horseshit. Besides, it doesn’t pass the smell test and doesn’t mean that what you have seen is the truth in all situations.

            Typical, you changed the goalposts. You first stated that females have ultimate control of whether sperm makes it from the pussy to the womb.
            Now you backtrack, and say that women let sperm in their pussy. Dude, show us the scientific evidence–not your “personal observation” which means absolute shit–in which the women actually controls the sperm from going from her pussy to the womb.

            • Grotesque Body says:

              “What are lips for, if not to permit or prevent entrance?”

              Have you ever seen a Rare Pepe without lips?

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “You first stated that females have ultimate control of whether sperm makes it from the pussy to the womb.
              Now you backtrack, and say that women let sperm in their pussy. Dude, show us the scientific evidence”

              You are jaw-droppingly stupid.

              Think about what the experiment design would have to be to “scientifically” prove Jim’s speculation. Sure – why not have a science experiment where women get inseminated by some men they find attractive and some they don’t find attractive and observe the cervical dilation during these events? Then you’d need controls where the women were inseminated by men they thought were attractive men but weren’t and the reverse.

              You should go hang out with the sperges on less wrong or slate star.

              • Corvinus says:

                White knight, I’m not the jaw-droppingly stupid “man” who is claiming that women have ultimate control of whether sperm makes it from the pussy to the womb.

                Jim makes an asinine statement, is called out on it, and rather than the fine fellows here take him to task for said asinine statement, they come to his defense.

                • izvirk says:

                  Jim won’t ban you Corvinus, but I really wish he would.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Jim won’t ban you Corvinus, but I really wish he would.”

                  Thanks for the support!

                • peppermint says:

                  women don’t have conscious control, nor do they have total control, but they somehow have more control than is politically correct to believe, even though it is supposed to be politically correct to say that women have all kinds of super powers

  11. Hidden Author says:

    Don’t you want to fuck people you like? Or do you believe in hate-fucking people?

    • theshadowedknight says:

      Some women need a hate-fucking, and it would do them a lot of good. By making it difficult for White men to give White women what they need, it drives discontent in between White women and their men, and pushes them towards the men who can give them what they want. Namely, criminals and the inferior races. It also contributes to feral behavior among women, as they treat their men progressively worse trying to provoke a reaction.

      Pin a woman to the bed and fuck her until she cannot walk and she is going to have a realistic understanding of the hierarchy at play. She will be tired and less likely to cause trouble. She will be content that her man has the animal nature she desires. All that, and you got laid. What is not to like?

      The Shadowed Knight

      • peppermint says:

        » She will be tired and less likely to cause trouble.

        that is not why she would be less likely to cause trouble.

        In most species with fatherhood behavior, a woman is biologically inclined to do anything for her man. She is biologically inclined to want a man who she believes to be capable of protecting and making good decisions for the family.

        If he is excessively respectful towards her, she concludes that he is afraid of someone else, and if that person isn’t her father, she concludes that he is incapable of protecting her.

  12. Jack Highlands says:

    I love my girlfriend deeply. Yet I like to call her my bitch and smack her ass when the hormones are raging. And she likes it right back.

    The feminists are right about one thing. Sex and violence are much closer than the over-civilized pretend. They are just wrong in their insistence on abolishing the connection.

    • Jack Highlands says:

      PS: @ Hidden Author

    • Zach says:

      Ever see Lions fucking? My brother thinks natural human sex should be naturally similar.

    • Corvinus says:

      Because she is WILLING to submit because there is a personal relationship and a sense of trust.

      Would you be able to have called her a bitch and slapped her on the ass upon first being introduced to her?

      Her–Hi, my name is X.

      You–Hello, bitch. [Slaps hand on ass] You know you’re mine, right?

      So, in Jim’s world, this approach works because women LOVE being dominated. Do you agree, Jack Highlands? Or were you a cuck who wined and dined her without going through this process first and foremost?

      • jim says:

        I get her into a suitable place for sex before proceeding to the slap on the ass and the cruder and more direct forms of physical domination.

        I start off with more genteel forms of domination, for example flipping the dancing monkey script: “I am bored. What can you do to entertain me?”

        Of course, before you can flip the standard script, you have to build enough credibility to get away with it, so I don’t actually start with flipping the script, but with forms of domination too subtle to be easily conveyed in words. And then progressing to forms of domination that can be described in words. And then I get her to some place suitable, and proceed with more physical forms of domination.

        Of course in Achilles shoes, he can skip that part. Briseis is already in a place suitable for more physical forms of domination. Obviously the script is that she is supposed to entertain him, and he can then whack her for being insufficiently entertaining, get her doing her best to please, and get her not at all sure her best is good enough.

        • Corvinus says:

          You may have found one or two women who were absolutely willing to be treated in this fashion perhaps on the first date. But not all women, and not in all circumstances.

          This is Jim’s imagination running wild yet again.

  13. Glenfilthie says:

    PBBFBFBFBFBFFFFFT! Hollyweird? Those guys are pushing homosexuality now – they’ve literally become the artistic asshole of American culture. We should not be surprised by what’s coming out of that orifice I suppose.

    I was watching Zootopia with the kids – a cartoon about a city of talking animals where predator and prey live harmoniously in splendour and opulence. To the kids it was just a bad cartoon. From the little I could stomach of it, I saw affirmative action being avidly pushed, reverse racism, socialism, feminism – all the lefty wet dreams rolled into one. I got up and left the little ones to their cartoon but soon they had walked away from it too. Disney is actively pushing all this shite at children and wondering why their profits are diving.

    Can you teach kids to be betas Jim? The reason I ask is that if it were possible – given the environments like public school you would be a beta today too! They had these same bullshit movies playing when we were kids…

    • peppermint says:

      Milennials had this brainwashing the worst, but, don’t have the same feeling of guilt for privilege that GenXers do, because the privilege was completely eliminated by the time Milennials were in school, making us ready to be radicalized, which many of us have been on the chans.

      The post-milennial kids, they have the official brainwashing, but at the same time find out what radicalized Milennials are saying on the Internet, and get to choose, and because they get to choose, the brainwashing loses its sense of inevitability.

      Gas the boomers, generation war now.

      • imho, there is still hope for the millennials. They created and or constitute a majority of gamergate, the ‘alt right’, ‘Nrx’, ‘red pill’, and other right-wing ideologies and movements. Of course there are many idiot millennials, too, like SJWs, but the backlash against SJWs keeps growing.

    • EH says:

      From Steve Sailer:

      Here the creative team talks about their original vision, which is pretty great: the prey have subdued the predators with “tame collars” that shock the predators any time their predatory instincts start to kick in (much like the Ludovico Technique does to Alex in A Clockwork Orange). The hero fox, Nick Wild, discovers when a doctor temporarily removes his collar that he feels free and happy. So he comes up with the idea of a Chompers Only speakeasy / amusement park, Wild Times, where predators can get their collars illegally removed and enjoy their innate selves.

      http://www.unz.com/isteve/creators-of-zootopia-intended-it-originally-as-an-attack-on-stifling-political-correctness/

  14. Alan J. Perrick says:

    L.O.L. Watched the clip that the others were linking, it’s such a pretentious scene (written by pagans about pagans) that it strikes me as ridiculous especially in the context of this blog which is good at cutting through the nonsense. Because the woman, who was found in a temple, spoke confidently of her god, albeit in a somewhat dry way, the general Achilles loses his tempo enough so that he ends up throwing water at her to show his disgust for her temperament and then says she’s nobility? After he unties her, she should pat him on the head and address him as “My loyal servant”.

    A.J.P.

  15. lalit says:

    Jim, You once said something about Eastern European whites being inferior to Western European whites when it comes to fighting qualities. I have finally found proof. Compare Cologne with Murmansk and experience the warm after-glow of being right yet again. Below is the link for your reading pleasure

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/refugees-go-clubbing-in-russia-harass-girls-wake-up-in-hospital-the-next-morning/

  16. glenfilthie says:

    Just to play the Devil’s Advocate (and be a prick) – an historical note is in order. holly weird might have accidentally gotten this right!

    Until very recently (historically speaking) – when soldiers sacked a city the policy was ‘hands off’ when it came to the nobility. Captured nobles were treated with the utmost care and respect and ransomed back to their families. Often the clergy got a free ride too. You may or may not believe in religion but most of your men would have… and the gods get mightily pissed if you start raping and offing the clerics. In fact, that was one of the few acknowledged ‘war crimes’ in early Christiandom.

    Would any of this be applicable as far back to the battle for Troy?

    • jim says:

      In the move Achilles deliberately desecrates the temple of Apollo and murders the priests of Apollo.

      So no.

      In this, the move deviates from the Iliad, but a serious lack of respect for Apollo is totally in character for Achilles, who performed various sacrilegious and shocking acts, defying both Kings and Gods.

  17. Grotesque Body says:

    What kind of degenerate NEET has time to sit around watching (((Troy))) and swill like this?

    Jim, if you’re going to watch an Eric Bana movie, make it ‘Chopper’.

    Love,

    GB

  18. Crowder says:

    See also: this latest season of Game of Thrones. Holy moly.

    • jim says:

      Not really watching Game of Thrones. I hear Jon Snow got resurrected as Leeroy Jenkins, and Princess Yara Greyjoy, heiress to the salt throne because her brother was castrated, is the only man still alive in the cast, since Ned Stark, Ramsay Bolton, and Khal Drogo were killed off.

      I used to think Tyrion Lannister was a man till I saw him with his wife.

      Ramsay Bolton is a caricature of evil masculinity, but would you rather be led by Ramsay Bolton or Leeroy Jenkins?

      • Koanic says:

        Correct. The franchise is basically an exercise in hostility towards virtue, non-deviance and Christendom. The perspective character of Tyrion reveals the author’s self-hatred.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          GoT has some counter-narrative elements.

          Killing the “Mad King” was a disaster that largely causes all the problems depicted in the show.

          Liberating the slaves is a disaster that leads to civil war and little real change in the slaves’ condition.

          The abolitionist Queen 21st century stand-in character eventually allies with warbands of barbarian rapists in order to rape and destroy and… err… liberate Westeros/Europe.

          If this were a real Young Adult leftist fantasy thing then killing the Mad King would only have gone wrong because of the actions of one single stereotypically evil villain, liberating the slaves would instantly uniy the country and the abolitionist 21st century Queen would invade Westeros/Europe at the head of an army of freedmen that is far more powerful than mercenaries or dragons or barbarian horsemen.

          • jim says:

            Yes, but this is out of nihilism rather than out of reaction.

            He is not rejecting Left wing “morality” for a more ancient and decent morality, he is rejecting morality, and so some left wing sacred items get stomped in the process.

            Daenerys is the rightful ruler – but she is a woman, and caused the death of actual rightful ruler, her own brother.

            If this story was based on reactionary morality, the rightful king (eldest son of the mad king) would have inherited the fire and dragon sorcery, and would not have perished by fire.

            All nice guy characters have nigerian sex lives – incapable of having a normal husband wife relationship they sleep with whores. All husband wife relationships are evil or not depicted at all. Sons hate fathers and fathers hate sons.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Robb Stark seems to have a European temperament. He abandons a strategically important marriage in favour of a peasant girl whom he loves because she is a 21st century leftist stand-in.

              This results in his death, her death, the deaths of most of those he loves, and the destruction of his political cause.

              I suggest most YA schlock would be written differently.

              (I do not strongly disagree with you, but there are enough counter-examples to make the show interesting. I am not certain what the author really thinks, whether it’s accidental, or whether he is a man with a lot to lose trying to tell a bit of the truth.)

          • Crowder says:

            I would call it rejection of fantasy tropes rather than rejection of morality, but yeah, I think it’s more reflexive contrarianism than any principled opposition to the progressive consensus.

            In any case, most of the details of this season are coming from Benioff and Weiss. And so we get constant woman-warrior shilling (nicely timed for an election year) and Jorah just wallowing in the friend zone (I would have fallen hard for that shit when I was 13 or 14–I can’t blame the authors too much, write what sells and so on, but that’s gonna fuck some boy’s life up) and the Faith Militant as evil because they’re mean to the gays (there’s an interesting angle there about the proper relationship between the throne and the church, but shockingly nobody is taking it) und zo on und zo on.

      • Alf says:

        I watched the first 2 seasons of GoT. Lost interest. Recently saw a clip of Tyrion killing his father, I thought that was appropriate symbolism.

  19. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The issue of the bond of wedlock is a mailed fist in velvet glove as one of the major sources of Church power. A seemingly healthful thing, which it is, gives the Church a lot of say-so when it comes to the required amount of grace and also material resources required in order to administer the institution.

    • jim says:

      All actually existent churches are falling into line with progressive morality, which is that whites should follow the sexual practices of Nigerians. If a wife does not have a legally and socially enforceable obligation to have sex with her husband, and a husband a legally and socially enforceable obligation to sexually comfort his wife, and a wife does not have a legally and socially enforceable obligation to obey and follow her husband, marriage as it has been understood for the last several thousand years does not exist. Polygyny versus monogamy is, compared to that issue, the most minor and trivial of details.

  20. Alan J. Perrick says:

    As the Revererd Richard Hooker, most notable of Anglican Christian theologians, instructs:

    _”Now that which is born of man must be nourished with far more travail, as being of greater price in nature and of slower pace to perfection, than the offspring of any other creature besides. Man and woman being therefore to join themselves for such a purpose, they were of necessity to be linked with some strait and insoluble knot.”_

    That allowed middle and upper class fathers to not have to babysit and instead be productive, and the alternative means that society falls apart.

    Lest anyone think that I’m saying that women should be pushed into church so that they can learn obedience, my meaning is not one of such cretinous simplicity but on the contrary, one which would point to episcopals being guaranteed spots in the legislative assembly.

    A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      Without marriage, as marriage used to be understood, it is difficult to reproduce, as Richard Hooker observes.

      The church, however, has abandoned marriage, and I am inclined to feel that if we attempt to re-institute Christianity, we will get an undead Christianity, as Julian got an undead Paganism.

      As you say above, the Church used to perform the important function of mediating the social and legal enforcement of marriage. The legal function was taken from it, and now it has abandoned the social function. The state can mediate the legal enforcement of marriage, but how shall we mediate the social enforcement of marriage?

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Yes, you are something of a rebel.

        • jim says:

          If marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have children.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Marriage doesn’t get outlawed, as you’re saying. As an intitution, it gets abolished when it goes away.

            Unless, you’re talking about the kind of marriage that Saint Valentine stood up for, my friend. Were you?

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

      • Alrenous says:

        Christianity is already undead.
        This happened because it asserts contradictions and falsehoods. It is plausible that truth is holy, but if so it is impossible that gestalt Christianity is holy.

        • peppermint says:

          More to the point, Aquinas’ hyelomorphism is dead, and dualism contradicts biological determinism which everyone secretly knows to be true, for the individual and for the society.

          Thus Freud’s Wikipedia page says he was a neurologist, even though no one said that then and he was a philosopher most notably giving Aquinas’ three layer mind some pseudoscientific clothing.

          No one believes the overarching world view of Christianity anymore, only pseudoscientific “human nationalism”.

          • Alrenous says:

            Form don’t real. There’s a bunch of points with locations that are contingently related to each other. (Caveat: definitions.) However, we can see points&space perform the philosophical function that Aristotle’s ‘form’ did, and he would likely be delighted at the correction.

  21. Alan J. Perrick says:

    I published my first official blogpost in more than two years.

    http://rmonarchism.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-american-founding-fathers-were.html “Why the American Founding Fathers were the Henry the VIIIs of the New World”

    A.J.P.

  22. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Another aspect of the media influence may be the infamous Bread & Circus which would have a negative effect on morality, at worst becoming idolatry.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9TsviKA7p4 “The Idolatry of Cleveland Cavaliers Fanatics and Worship of Lebron James (NBA Champions)”

    This vlogger is red-pilled, uses King James’ Version of scripture and also says he has 9 children- I believe him.

  23. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Reminder that one of the secular types’ greatest pleasures is talking about religion because they come across (and feel, quite pleasurably) conversationally nimble when they discuss things that others are considerably more attached to, yet that the secularists are not loyal to.

    • peppermint says:

      Reminder that the nationalist’s derisive response to Scholasticism is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while the religionist’s best derisive response to nationalism is probably Chesterton’s “democracy of the dead” and a reductio ad absurdum of biological determinism like necessarily broadly accepted ideologies which I guess would be historical materialism, and to assert tradition as the only way to preserve the existence of our people and a future for White children.

      Reminder that tradition consists of either looking at a woman with lust is morally equivalent to cheating on your wife, or looking at your wife with lust is morally equivalent to forcing her to have sex.

      Reminder that either your personal relationship with ((Jesus)) is the the most important thing, or preserving the existence of our people and a future for White children is.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        No, “Peppermint Papist”, you are misusing the meme, which shows how much legitimacy anyone should give the rest of your output….None.

  24. Alan J. Perrick says:

    No, you’re not invited to discourse about this religion every time it’s brought up. There are many reasons why you take a stand against spiritual discipline and none of them are at all interesting, P.P., A., “Jim” I think you may have been relating a stream of consciousness and had only gotten drawn in by my inadvertent magnetism and for that you’re forgiven. But, goodness, look at these hangers-on!

    A.J.P.

  25. Randy says:

    What do you expect, it’s the (((movies))).

  26. […] And next, and example from Troy of the Anglosphere Teaching boys to be beta. […]

Leave a Reply