In support of Roosh

Roosh is a great and valuable ideologue of the alt-right

A lot of white nationalists want to purge Roosh because he is a non white degenerate who sleeps with lots of white women.

If a virgin sleeps with Roosh, she slept with a man who made it perfectly clear he was only in town for a week, and was in town to sleep with as many women as possible.

If a non virgin sleeps with Roosh, where is the problem?

White knighting is a first step to cuckservatism.

Come the revolution, those sluts will get a caning, and Roosh will get a shotgun marriage, and will probably be much improved by it.

The red pill is the alt right’s killer app. If you know what women are like, you will conclude that emancipation was a really bad idea. If female emancipation was a bad idea, you are well and truly off the reservation.

393 Responses to “In support of Roosh”

  1. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    Well said, Jim. Roosh has plenty of points in his favour. It’s funny watching the AltRight white knights and NRx virgin spergs try to bully us into throwing him under the bus.

    • Corvinus says:

      It’s favor, not favour. You pretend to be English. Regardless, you compromise your own principles when you support a vibrant who, like yourself, has an uncontrollable urge to rut anything in sight.

      • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

        I control it very well, thank you very much. Perhaps you and men like you should control your girlfriends, daughters, sisters, and wives?

        No, it’s favour. Forgive my occasional lapses into proper English spelling. It’s all that overseas schooling.

        • peppermint says:

          Foreign-educated intellectuals must be executed

          • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

            We are going to conscript the hillbillies, gammas, and beta-boys first, and send the SJWs and Orcs to the ovens.

          • Corvinus says:

            “We are going to conscript the hillbillies, gammas, and beta-boys first, and send the SJWs and Orcs to the ovens.”

            Tough talk from a bankster. You won’t spill blood on your tweed.

          • B says:

            Just “foreign born” intellectuals?

            • jim says:

              Just “foreign born” intellectuals?

              Foreign educated, not foreign born.

              Peppermint was ironically referencing the Khmer Rouge policy. The Khmer Rouge were as much foreign educated intellectuals, as the Bolsheviks were Jewish. The Bolsheviks purged each other, and the Khmer Rouge liquidated each other.

        • B says:

          For some reason, it’s not letting me post in the relevant thread.

          Yeah, it was a typo. I got the Cambodian reference.

          Интеллектуальные силы рабочих и крестьян растут и крепнут в борьбе за свержение буржуазии и ее пособников, интеллигентиков, лакеев капитала, мнящих себя мозгом нации. На деле это не мозг, а говно

          The intellectual strength of the workers and peasants is increasing and becoming firmer in the struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and its cronies-the intellectuals, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In reality, they are not its brains but its shit.

          VI Lenin

  2. Glenfilthie says:

    LOL. Well, I admit I don’t know to much about him or care to, really – but when I saw that bat-shit crazy cankle throw a beer at him – and the greasy little mudflap tried to sue her for assault. Real manly, fellas, LOL.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to see my daughter mudsharking with that mutt but your mileage may vary. If some idiot wants to see him as a fount of manly virtue I suppose there is no harm in it.

    • jim says:

      I certainly wouldn’t want to see my daughter mudsharking with that mutt

      So control your daughter rather than try to emasculate all men in the vicinity of your daughter. We are planning to restore the patriarchy, remember.

      • Morkyz says:

        If Roosh were to try his PUA shtick on a woman in a Muslim country, what do you think the local men would do to him? Are Muslims cuckservatives?

        Not that I care about Roosh, only an idiot tries to treat all women of their race like a daughter.

        • CuiPertinebit says:

          I’m with Jim, insofar as I believe the priority is always to control one’s own women/daughters.

          Under certain circumstances (an healthy, patriarchal nation-state), foreigners can be emasculated vis-à-vis native girls; but under present circumstances, getting a lid on women and making them worthy of protection from foreigners is still prerequisite. Under no circumstances, should native sons be emasculated… that includes raising them with a strong sense of manly virtue and excellence, so that they minimize the temptation upon the populace to police them, by first policing themselves.

          • Morkyz says:

            If I control my property, doesn’t that include punishing someone who tries to make use of it without permission? Is there any actually existing “healthy patriarchy” where a PUA could operate and feel safe?

            • jim says:

              Seems to me that the operating procedure in existing patriarchies is controlling the women, not controlling the PUAs. If the girls at Cologne station had been accompanied by boyfriend, husband, brother, or father, they would not have been attacked. It was unaccompanied women that were attacked, and the women that were attacked chose to be out on New Years Eve unaccompanied.

              If they were raping accompanied women, then yes, I would totally support rounding them all up and shooting them, but when they rape unaccompanied women, that is what the women voted for.

          • B says:

            >If the girls at Cologne station had been accompanied by boyfriend, husband, brother, or father, they would not have been attacked.

            Bullshit.

            This guy apparently was attacked: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/07/watch-cologne-body-builder-tried-protect-women-rapist-migrants-beat/

            Also, here: http://newobserveronline.com/mass-invader-sex-attacks-in-stuttgart-hamburg/

            “The paper said the situation had “escalated” when the young girls refused the sexual advances made by the nonwhites. Their male partners—heavily outnumbered by the “refugees fleeing violence” were then savagely beaten, with one having to be admitted to the hospital with severe lacerations to the face.

            According to the paper, bouncers then “accompanied the troublemakers with an immigrant background to the door of the premises,” but they waited outside for the German girls to emerge.”

            Do not fool yourself. To these monkeys, a woman is just like any other piece of property, meaning, if you can be ganged up on and relieved of it, that’s what you deserve.

            • jim says:

              >If the girls at Cologne station had been accompanied by boyfriend, husband, brother, or father, they would not have been attacked.

              Bullshit.

              This guy apparently was attacked:

              Reread. He does not directly claim to have been attacked. He claims to have been successful in protecting multiple women. He is just one guy, while the invaders were working in teams. If he had been attacked, would have been defeated. He claims to have “beaten them all up” – beat up an entire team? I doubt it. I can well believe he intimidated entire teams – because not everyone in the team was willing to go for a woman with a protector, and he might well beat up a particular individual in the team who was pushier than the rest of the team would accept.

              He depicts every single women who sought his protection as unaccompanied – implying the accompanied ones did not seek his protection.

              Also, here:

              Granted. That is a case where women with partners were attacked – though not at Cologne station.

          • B says:

            >He is just one guy, while the invaders were working in teams. If he had been attacked, would have been defeated. He claims to have “beaten them all up” – beat up an entire team?

            Watch the video-that’s what he says.

            Given that he’s a big dude and a trained fighter, I don’t find it implausible. The rapefugees tend to be physically smaller, not very well trained, not a ton of cohesion or practice taking down hard targets, and mentally focused on attacking weak targets of opportunity. When you have a group of guys who have not practiced working together, they tend to get in each other’s way more than help.

            He says he saw rapefugees gangstomp guys who attempted to intervene-“they were jumping on his head.”

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            Morkyz:

            Nobody is saying you don’t defend your women if, in all subjection to male authority, they are being predated upon by other men.

            If your daughter is not in subjection to male authority, and is out in public hocking her wares, the answer is not to attempt to ensure that men are such gelded weaklings that they take no interest, but to either restore the woman to authoritative management, or abandon her to her fate.

          • peppermint says:

            If the women of Cologne had dressed in burkas and anointed themselves with camel piss and been accompanied? That’s sand nigger talk,, but not the first sand nigger talk I’ve heard from NRx.

            The White race has a long history of communally protecting women. That’s kind of why feminism kind of made sense to Whites.

            Quit talking like a camel jockey. Whites are not dune coons with yellow beards.

        • Dave says:

          “Bang Chechnya” or “Bang Yemen” would end with Roosh’s death on page one!

      • Irving says:

        >So control your daughter rather than try to emasculate all men in the vicinity of your daughter. We are planning to restore the patriarchy, remember.

        Control of daughters is impossible today, given how many of those daughters are exposed to mass media and corrupt modern education. Men need to restrain themselves, but of course that can’t happen. And because it is neither possible nor desirable to emasculate all men, the problem is insoluble. Women will continue destroying themselves to such an extent that the great majority of them will be lost, for good.

        Patriarchy isn’t going to fix society, when the vast majority of women in that society are filthy irremediable whores.

        • jim says:

          Patriarchy isn’t going to fix society, when the vast majority of women in that society are filthy irremediable whores.

          I like the solution to that problem that the prison authorities of Australia applied in the late eighteenth century. Worked, and worked well, despite quite a few dramatic incidents of it being conspicuously resisted.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Jim, would you mind expanding on that, or give some reading suggestions so that I can dig through them?

            The Shadowed Knight

            • jim says:

              I don’t remember my reading off hand. I will have to research it, and having researched it, will probably do a post on it some time in the future.

              They applied shotgun marriage, public floggings, and slavery to correct female misbehavior.

              Women had a choice of getting married immediately to someone pre-approved as capable of supporting them and any children they might have by that man. Most did in fact get married immediately. The alternative was being assigned to some man, assignment being less honorable – concubinage rather than marriage. Marriage was voluntary in that the woman and the man had to agree, involuntary in that the woman had marry or be assigned. Assignment was involuntary – only the man had to agree. Because of the large imbalance between males and females, it seems to have been taken for granted that any women who was willing to have a husband could find one – and find one immediately from a broad choice of suitable men.

              These extraordinarily drastic measures upped the marriage rate from near zero to near one hundred percent, with most women getting married immediately after they landed, though no one seems to have kept any statistics, dropped the infidelity rate from near one hundred percent to near zero. There still seems to have been a significant problem with illegitimate children of unknown fathers, or fathers that the women refused to identify, for fear of being forced into monogamy, but the great majority of women were successfully forced into patriarchal monogamy, one way or another.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Thank you, sir. I appreciate the response. I will have to do some reading of my own. The interesting part is the idea of being assigned a man, regardless of approval, with a status penalty for disobedience. Kneel at his side, or crawl at his feet. A masterful solution.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Irving says:

            “shotgun marriage, public floggings, and slavery” are a good start. But women of the late-eighteenth century did not debauch themselves in the way and to the extent that modern women. They couldn’t even if they wanted to. So they were amenable to the corrections that you’ve suggested. The modern situation, however, is quite different.

            The worst that a woman of the late-eighteenth century could do without completely destroying herself was have sex with a guy or two outside of marriage. Yet today, with the aid of birth control and modern medicine, the average woman under the age of 35 has likely had at least 10 male sex partners, probably higher. She’s dabbled in lesbianism or else has had a girlfriend or two. She’s been sodomized a number of times, and she enjoyed it. The odds are high that she’s participated in group sex. These women are irremediable. Even if patriarchy were to be restored, I can’t imagine that any respectable man would want to be connected in any way with any of these women. All of them are whores.

            • jim says:

              “shotgun marriage, public floggings, and slavery” are a good start. But women of the late-eighteenth century did not debauch themselves in the way and to the extent that modern women.

              You rather underestimate the debauchery. Read up on the divorce of Queen Caroline.

              To the extent that they did not debauch themselves it was because respectable unmarried fertile age women were locked up by their fathers.

              The worst that a woman of the late-eighteenth century could do without completely destroying herself was have sex with a guy or two outside of marriage.

              You over estimate the effect of incentives. A woman will crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with her demon lover.

              The conclusion of the Australian authorities was that neither shame nor the threat of dire punishment could restrain women from having illicit sex, and it was therefore necessary to provide licit sex for them (marriage) or failing that, less socially destructive and disruptive sex for them – sex with only one man, and that man with authority and opportunity to prevent them from having sex with anyone else.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The best way to say this is that, in the previous eras of Anglosphere, women had fewer venues for fornication which made the non-lothario men work harder to get sex, elevating society and strengthening both nuclear and extended family.

            A.J.P.

          • Irving says:

            >You rather underestimate the debauchery. Read up on the divorce of Queen Caroline.

            Nah, I recognize that the debauchery was there. I just meant that those participating in it could not have done so without destroying themselves.

            For example, I’ve read that somewhere around a quarter of the women living in the major European cities in the 18th century were prostitutes. Some accounts say that up to a half were, though that seems a bit high. In any case, these women must have been at least almost as bad as modern women. But of course everyone knew, or must have known, that these women could never have been made straight shotgun marriages, public floggings and slavery.

            They were recognized as lost causes. And I say that if they were lost causes, the vast majority of modern women, who are worse, are too.

            >To the extent that they did not debauch themselves it was because respectable unmarried fertile age women were locked up by their fathers.

            Yeah, but it is sadly illegal today for fathers to lock up their daughters. I say no way around it: the problem is insoluble.

            • jim says:

              For example, I’ve read that somewhere around a quarter of the women living in the major European cities in the 18th century were prostitutes. Some accounts say that up to a half were, though that seems a bit high.

              Translation problem: Half were “whores”, not necessarily prostitutes. “Whore” meant “easy woman”, not necessarily a woman who rents herself out by the hour. Could mean someone who rides the cock carousel for free – or indeed, very commonly for better than free – the most common reason maids stole from their employers was to give gifts to their lovers. Such a maid was a “whore” even though her income from her sexual activities was large and negative. It is probable that the number of “whores” whose income from their sexual activities was negative substantially outnumbered those whose income from their sexual activities was positive.

              And by that definition, yeah about half. That is a lot better than we are doing, because for us it is close to ninety five percent.

            • jim says:

              I say no way around it: the problem is insoluble.

              Japan before MacArthur and Australia during early settlement had a solution.

              You don’t let them engage in sex except in a durable monogamous patriarchal relationship. If they do engage in sex anyway, you conscript them into a durable monogamous patriarchal relationship whether they like it or not. They really do like it, and their vigorous resistance is just shit testing.

          • B says:

            >The worst that a woman of the late-eighteenth century could do without completely destroying herself was have sex with a guy or two outside of marriage.

            This is not so. The aristos were quite degenerate.

            Recommend you read John Wilmot’s poetry.

          • Dave says:

            Jim, Australia had a huge surplus of lonely men willing to “wife up those sluts”. Come the Restoration, what are we supposed to do with millions of used-up over-40 whores who can’t even cook, clean, or mend clothes? Offer a package deal, where the man who takes one in gets to ravish her cute teenage daughter?

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Who’s trying to emasculate anybody?

        The patriarchy will reassert itself with or without that fraud. Good grief – to be honest, I’m astonished that a man of your intellect would take that little rutting monkey seriously. I can forgive the celibate fanbois that don’t know any better…but you, Jim? I would have sworn you were smarter than that.

        But – when in Rom, I guess? All hail the Pied Paki Of Patriarchy!

      • viking says:

        the problem jim is its illegal to control your daughter, our daughter sre feminists by wight unless you home school them in some rural christian enclave and if your wife wasnt born into that world she will leave you if you try to raise your daughter that way actually she will if you do something even remotely close to that.mind fucking a woman into her place long enough for a fuck or even a relationship is one thing holding off cathedral think forever is another. sure there are still good girls out there but not a lor and they are not very interesting. you know i realized the other day i dont know another conservative in new york in over fifty years here i met only one who asked i keep it a secret in idaho my other home i meet more conservative people but not as many as you would think and there conservatism is always mixed with rural leftist economic ideas religious exceptions paranoia and ignorance

      • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

        Asking beta-boys to control their daughters is an impossible task.

        B-b-b-b-but “muh princess”!

    • Corvinus says:

      Glenn Filthie—”If some idiot wants to see him as a fount of manly virtue I suppose there is no harm in it.”



      Except it distinctly puts one’s credibility at risk.

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    My disgust with this situation is less about the Middle Easterner and more about the NRx scramble to try and appropriate the term Alternative Right…But it’s also about the non-white man having sex with white women and the cuckservatives keeping him in money by buying his erotic documentaries.

    A.J.P.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Iranians and Armenians are white people. Therefore, Roosh is white.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        In your world, Mr Jones, it might be easier to point out who isn’t white than who is white. Go ahead and compile the list…I’ll wait.

        • jim says:

          Iranians are noticeably whiter than arabs. And noticeably whiter than a lot of Israelis.

          But everyone who is conquered by Islam slowly turns brown. Islamic universalism has the same effect as prog universalism.

          • Irving says:

            >Iranians and Armenians are white people. Therefore, Roosh is white.

            There’s tremendous individual variation among these populations. Certainly there are Armenians and Iranians who could easily pass for white, but these are very, very few. But the vast majority of Iranians, even among the Persians, are pretty swarthy. With Armenians, though their skin might be white, they have a very distinctive, Oriental look about them. They don’t consider themselves white in the sense meant here, and most of them would never pass anyway.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Yeah, and the wogs begin at Calais, too.

            However, white identity is not really something that should be playfully teased, and if it should be then should also have a fair bit of teaching to those who cannot yet see:

            If there is value in pointing out any degree of whiteness outside of white countries, then one might expect Mexican government to have considerably laxer laws for migration and “anti-racism” than Venezuala, being that Mexico borders a white country. The same would then hold true for Turkey, which one would see as being less decisive on the issue of non-Turkish immigration and “anti-racism” laws than Iraq being that Greece is definitely “white” as far as the forcing of a White Genocide on their population is.

            Yet neither Turkey nor Mexico perform more genocidally on their population than much darker and more distant countries. There is no half-genocide going on against Mexicans and no half-genocide going on against Turks. Speaking of modern day laws causing White Genocide in genuinely white countries versus speaking of white, historical remnants still remaining is a big difference. It’s as if the border between white lands and non-white lands has been emblazoned with a wall of fire…Imagine how Black Genocide would look:

            Any countries deemed to be “too black” would be flooded with millions upon millions of non-blacks, and collectively they’d be flooded with hundreds of millions of non-blacks. The Carribean island of Hispanola would be starkly divided in two, with a genocide taking place against black Haitians but no racial “assimilating” genocide taking place against the brownish Dominicans. Belize would be picked out of the South American continent for being subject to genocide for being “too black” and a line would run through the Sahara and the top of Ethiopia separating areas to be flooded with non-blacks who would then be blended into the black populations, replacing them.

            But wait a minute, that would be anti-black, now wouldn’t it? Maybe even a little bit “racist”?

            In reality, there is no Black Genocide taking place, only a White Genocide. Aliens get thrown in jail for trespassing in Mexico, while in the United States they get put into a legal limbo, dehumanising the white citizens living in the U.S. lawfully in the process. It’s genocide.

            A.J.P.

          • Irving says:

            >…and the top of Ethiopia separating areas to be flooded with non-blacks who would then be blended into the black populations, replacing them.

            Well, something like this has already happened to Ethiopia. Ethiopia was conquered and flooded by a non-white population a few millennia ago which subsequently blended with the indigenous, non-Bantu black population, and the outcome was a hybrid race of basically mulattos who are roughly 40 to 60 percent Caucasoid.

            What I’ve just said concerning Ethiopia is not irrelevant here. About a century ago one of the guys who created the EU was openly writing about his plan to turn Europeans into a “Eurasian-Negroid race of the future”. Ethiopians are essentially Eurasian-Negroids.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Irving”,

            The law against genocide was only passed in 1948, though. Isn’t it interesting how the religion of Politcal Correctness, sort of necessitates a political theology of Political InCorrectness? That is sort of getting off of the subject though.

            If ALL and ONLY Black countries in 1965 let hundreds of millions of non-Blacks into their countries and encouraged the non-Blacks to assimilate. Then 90 years later, Blacks are expected to be minorities in those countries; that’s not done by accident. It’s obviously a plan to wipe out the Black race. AKA genocide.

            This is what’s been done to my people, White people. It’s genocide.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Alex J says:

            FWIW, I believe Roosh is only half Iranian. In a recent live chat on YouTube he said his parents got divorced, and then his father “married a woman from his own country” to whom he remains married.

        • Corvinus says:

          Why don’t you since you are the expert at who is and who is not “white”.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Why don’t you already know that whenever anti-white media writes about white people and the need for “Diversity” they know exactly who is white and who isn’t?

            Why did P.M. Cameron complain about a room full full of “white… faces?” He knows who is and who isn’t…

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

            You might ask Western Washington University President Bruce Shepard who is and isn’t white when he said:

            “If we, in ten years from now, are as white as we are today, we will have failed as a university” and then run a questionnaire asking:

            “How do we make sure that in future years ‘we are not as white as we are today?'”

            But everyone knows you won’t ask them “Corvinus” and that’s because it’s clear that you’re on their side, the anti-white side.

            A.J.P.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Why don’t you already know that whenever anti-white media writes about white people and the need for “Diversity” they know exactly who is white and who isn’t?”

            Exactly why no one knows what is and what is not white!

            “Why did P.M. Cameron complain about a room full full of “white… faces?” He knows who is and who isn’t…”

            The only thing he knows is how to string words together and make fuzzy statements about race. Therein lies the definitional quandry.

            “If we, in ten years from now, are as white as we are today, we will have
            failed as a university” and then run a questionnaire asking…”

            Race baiters on the left and the right have no boundaries.

            All you have given are quotations without clear criteria as to what is and what is not white.

            You are no different than them.

            Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Corvinus”,

            When you pretend not to know what a white person is in one comment, then you use the word white while talking about a group of people in another comment, you show an inability to grasp onto reality.

            Now that you’ve demanded that a white person, myself, define what is white, why don’t you go ask a black how he defines black?

            That might require you leaving your 99% white neighbourhood that you would deny other whites, would require you to surf on over to a majority black website, would you require you to leave the comfort of your white environ to ask a black how he defines black.

            Remember, that the anti-white position leads to a world where there are no 99% white neighbourhoods, no majority white websites, or anything else white… It’s an extreme position, to be sure. It’s _not_ recommended.

          • Corvinus says:

            “When you pretend not to know what a white person is in one comment, then you use the word white while talking about a group of people in another comment, you show an inability to grasp onto reality.”

            Actually, I’m showing you that white and “white” observably mean nothing anymore because of 1) vague or 2) personal definitions of this term.

            “Now that you’ve demanded that a white person, myself, define what is white, why don’t you go ask a black how he defines black?”

            Because I’m not talking to a darkie, I’m talking to a white or “white” person.

            “That might require you leaving your 99% white neighbourhood that you would deny other whites, would require you to surf on over to a majority black website, would you require you to leave the comfort of your white environ to ask a black how he defines black.”

            I’m not denying whites or “whites” anything.

            “Remember, that the anti-white position leads to a world where there are no 99% white neighbourhoods, no majority white websites, or anything else white… It’s an extreme position, to be sure. It’s _not_ recommended.”

            You throw around terms such as white and anti-white with callous disregard. I find it fascinating, considering that people have the liberty, regardless of their background, to associate with whomever they please, and yet you seek to call out at best and outright deny at worst those people who happen to be white or “white” their freedom and strip away their dignity.

            Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Why don’t you go ask a black man how he defines black, “Corvinus”? I’m sure the experience would be a special one for you, and you wouldn’t want to deny yourself that chance…

            Tell me, if you must, how asking a black man how he defines what is black and what is not would be in no way productive for you.

            You know, “Corvinus”, you only live once…

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            liberals love humanity and hate White men

            White men love their families and will start hanging liberals from trees if they get in the way of their families

            in 1984 Rush told White men that they don’t need to just sit there and be screamed at by liberals, but those White men had families to take care of and decency to uphold

            now they don’t

            White men can go from being “polygamous” celibate degenerates to monogamous Nazis in the blink of an eye. Then they’ll go after you, Corvinus.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Okay, “Peppermint Papist”, good response…

            And, “Corvinus”, what do you have to say in reply?

          • Corvinus says:

            “what is black and what is not would be in no way productive for you.
”

            To me, black and white are colors in a Crayola box. Imagine that, integrated.

            
Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

            “liberals love humanity and hate White men”

            Neo-reactionaries hate humanity and love chaos. Rhetoric with rhetoric.

            “White men love their families and will start hanging liberals from trees if they get in the way of their families.”

            Who are these “white men”? How many? When is this glorious event about to take place? Are not liberals already in the way of “white men”?

            “White men can go from being “polygamous” celibate degenerates to monogamous Nazis in the blink of an eye. Then they’ll go after you, Corvinus.”

            There’s other, more important people that these alleged strong-armed white men will turn on.

            • jim says:

              “what is black and what is not would be in no way productive for you.
”

              To me, black and white are colors in a Crayola box. Imagine that, integrated.

              Says Corvinus who pays a great deal of money to live in a location that is 99.9% white.

      • peppermint says:

        Did you see that White Iranian woman who got the Fields Medal? If you haven’t seen her picture yet, you will in two weeks when some feminist reposts it again.

        She’s not all Iranians, though.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      Persians and Armenians are non-European Whites.

  4. Dave says:

    The USSR was a femi-socialist country until it ran out of money. Now it’s not socialist, but not really capitalist either. It’s not feminist anymore, but it’s not exactly a bastion of Christian values either (if it were, it wouldn’t let Roosh fuck its daughters).

    In Russia a man can now divorce his wife in half an hour. He gets the children and all assets, she gets the clothes on her back, and the judge gets a wad of cash. Naturally, women are very sweet and sexy to their husbands! Gangsters routinely buy and sell young women like chattel.

    Do you think it will come to that in America?

    • Irving says:

      Like I said in a previous thread, Russia has the highest abortion and divorce rates in the world. That is clearly a legacy of their “femi-socialist” history, as you aptly put it.

    • jim says:

      While each approach to infinite leftism is alike, each collapse of infinite leftism is unique and surprising. Expect the unexpected.

      In the Trump campaign, Trump challenges the memetic sovereignty of the left, claiming high status despite the left positioning him, like Palin, as extremely low status. Despite his frequent, bombastic, and dubious, claims to have very large amounts of money, his main claim to status is something he never puts into words – Darwinian success: Lots of hot wives and lots of cute healthy successful children by lots of hot wives – children who obviously inherited their father’s abilities and their mother’s looks. Observe he has his way hot daughter introduce her father’s candidacy. The apples have not fallen far from the tree.

      It is a tactic he may well owe directly or indirectly to Heartiste. And it is working.

      Trump is not going to stop the endless movement left, though he may well slow it down substantially for few years. But the success of his tactics hints at what might happen in future. Cuck Christian Romney got shot out of the water. Trump seems to be doing considerably better. It is a hint. A hint of what, I am not entirely sure.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        “Trump is not going to stop the endless movement left, though he may well slow it down substantially for few years. But the success of his tactics hints at what might happen in future.”

        May The Donald delay such movement to grant Prophet Elon Musk the time to complete the Mars Colonial Transport and the BFR… Amen.

        • R7_Rocket says:

          Oops, I meant, “May The Donald delay such movement to the left, so that Prophet Elon Musk has the time to complete the Mars Colonial Transport and the BFR… Amen.”

      • Alan J. Perrickd says:

        I’m not into bondage, “Jim” the filtration of my comments is nasty business.

        I hope with your above post, by calling Mr Romney a Christian and not desrcribing Mister Trump as such you don’t mean to say that the former is less Christian than a Mormon. Doesn’t Trump often mention his religion? In fact, he seems to do quite well wearing it as did in this Tuesday in this brief back-and-forth discussion with a political hack.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&ebc=ANyPxKrgcrd6ojffQYrY_KMwa4zdqxU0WGZpP7t4Oc9PHJYhyC0LDxBIOTd_ssFg2lr5nHwPBE-J9M_BJ07MXBIo3S9ppNAE7Q&v=SHaN366ZvKc

        • jim says:

          I am using akismet as a filter. Akismet has no whitelist. People regularly complain about this, but Akismet has no plan to fix it. Presumably if they did fix it, spammers would start imitating regular commenters, which is worse.

  5. Morkyz says:

    Has anyone tried heaping praise on Roosh’s feminist detractors for “protecting our white women from defilement?”

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Nobody cared that much about him to begin with “Morxyz”, you must get your news and opinions from different places than many in this current environ.

      If you want to take his side, then please do so quietly, or else explain why the Middle Easterner’s content is invaluable and not even better taken from a white, ideally Anglo, father who would be a potential patriarch. The Middle Eastern man is a poor man’s “Jim” or “Cane Caldo”.

      A starving man will eat spam, but he’d prefer a hamburger, and if you gave him a steak, he’d be talking about that meal for months. Do you see what I’m getting at?

      A.J.P.

      • Morkyz says:

        please don’t talk to me

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Then you could avoid my interest, “Morkyz”, by avoiding talking about my people, white people…But the worst and most anti-white do obsess about whites, so it seems that you might be in a little bit of a sticky situation…

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

      • theshadowedknight says:

        Heartiste alone is probably responsible for more growth in the alternative right than the entirety of the white nationalist faction. Once you add the rest of the manosphere, including–yes–Roosh, it is not even close. Your white nationalist fantasy utopia is a joke because most of us showed up after our treatment at the hands of white women–who happen to be voting to bring in the very people you so despise. We lived the falsification of your ideology, which is why we are here in the first place.

        Once you have done half as much as the manosphere, we can talk about purges and separation. Until then, your only utility is as a stick to beat the left. “Give us what we want or we release these guys on you.” Do not get uppity. Your worldview has giant holes, and your only response is, “Jooos! JOOOS!” Once you form something a little more coherent, you can have a seat at the big boy table. Until then, know your place.

        The Shadowed Knight

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          T.S.K.,

          Yes, having a beige man with a beard as a guru is so enlightening and trendy… Only a simpleton would object!

          If you actually want to dialogue, then address the arguments I’ve brought up…If you want to use rhetoric, then well, be aware that you’re not the only game in town, manospherian.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Dialectic it is, then.

            Your points are in order, 1. No one cares about Roosh, 2. His knowledge is not valuable, and 3. Any knowledge gleaned from his exploits would be better served from someone like Jim or Cane Caldo. 4. Separately, you have the right to expel and purge elements of which you do not approve.

            1. If no one cared about him, no one would be trying to purge him. That you are making the effort to publicly purge because he is nobody is a self-refuting premise. You demonstrably do not believe your own rhetoric.

            2. His knowledge is valuable precisely because without it, the alt-right would fail to secure any gain they made. The white knighting from the white nationalists repulses women. White knights do not restrict women, they try to save them from their own mistakes. Said mistakes include inviting over the very people you are trying to protect them from. Only once game is introduced does the manospherian influx neutralize the reflexive white knationalists and allow women to suffer the consequences of their stupidity. Game puts women in their place, white nationalism puts them on a pedestal. White knationalists need game, or their women will choose the savage.

            3. Cane Caldo did his best to pretend that game was all a farce and that it did not exist, lalalalala. Dalrock and Jim are too dignified in their position to be discussing the depths of the depravity of women. It takes degenerates with a four-digit partner count to face the truth without dignity or illusion. Hot Dog would not and Jim or Dalrock should not. Rollo takes the detached, dispassionate analysis, while Heartiste and Roosh handle the gritty, grimy fieldwork.

            4. The Alt-Right culture is based on channer culture, manosphere social networking and blogging, and neoreactionary political theory. White nationalists failed to make anything of their own organizations, so they glommed onto the more successful groups. Same with paleocons, libertarians, and a few other ideologies that find themselves on the right. The manosphere connected with neoreaction, pulled out the bits of useful information from the factions of the marginalized right, then built something new. This is not a creation of the white nationalists. You have no right to it.

            5. Dialectic is not your strong point. I suggest you stick to rhetoric. I got the best game in town, white nationalist.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “It takes degenerates with a four digit partner count”…

            Then you’re looking for the temple of Aphrodite, not Neo-Reaction. I’m growing more sure that your champion “Roosh” is less relevant by the moment.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Roosh is not a champion. He is a degenerate, and an ally, and he has done far more than you and your contingent. If you were more useful, I would value your words commensurately. All you have done is make ludicrous poses of authority and sow division. The bearded wog is a better ally for a white ethno-nationalist than a white nationalist. Now consider how that reflects upon you.

            You asked for dialectic, yet you ignore the remaining points. Your dishonesty is despicable, and your weakness is repulsive. You shame your ancestors. Crawl away with what dignity and honesty you have left.

            The Shadowed Knight.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I don’t roll in the mud. You want to dialogue, then clean up before you do it. Your first comment doesn’t deserve a detailed response for the one that comes after…

            I am glad you have character T.S.K., though you don’t have much else. It’s not the way to Wisdom, that much is clear. As the Book of Songs is quoted: Man that is in honour but has no understanding is compared unto the beasts that perish.

            A.J.P.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Just so you know, you should have quit when you realized you were outmatched. That feeling of the skin on your neck and spine tightening is the feeling you get just before something pounces on you. Next time that happens, I suggest you run.

            I am one of LBF’s NRx virgin spergs. That means I get good at recognizing patterns, and you are not as clever as you think you are. I have seen most of this before when I was harassing feminists.

            **If you actually want to dialogue, then address the arguments I’ve brought up…If you want to use rhetoric, then well, be aware that you’re not the only game in town, manospherian.**
            Attempt to preemptively disqualify by appealing to dialectic over rhetoric. Itself a rhetorical trick to dismiss any criticism as mere rhetoric without substance. Neutralized by providing dialectical response which you were forced to ignore. Attempted othering, which fails because manospherian is more ingroup than white nationalist.

            **Then you’re looking for the temple of Aphrodite, not Neo-Reaction. I’m growing more sure that your champion “Roosh” is less relevant by the moment.**
            Now you are conflating NRx with PUA to confuse the two because of the notoriously spergy nature of NRx. This was the comment where you fucked up and showed your tell, and I figured what I was dealing with. I left it for that reason, so I could beat you with it later. An incompetent dialectical defense would have served you better here.

            **I don’t roll in the mud. You want to dialogue, then clean up before you do it. Your first comment doesn’t deserve a detailed response for the one that comes after…**
            The pretense of high-minded dialogue, which is an obvious–and thus pointless–pretense because of your constant attacks. Mud drips from your tongue in each post.

            You act like a SJW. Same patterns, which makes sense considering the typical white nationalist is some form of national socialist. Leftists, in the end.

            In your simple mind, white good; not-white not-good. I consider the holistic threat, a more sophisticated analysis. Black, brown, red, yellow, or even white; if you threaten the greater part, then you will find yourself against the wall in the end. Every enemy bleeds red.

            TL;DR 2/10 WNB

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Just because you say it’s not so, doesn’t mean it isn’t, T.S.K. I am actually pretty good at what I do, by the grace of God, and I’m happy doing it. That’s probably enough about me though.

            You call yourself a “sperg”…Well, that sounds kind of painful. Do you want to continue being a sperg? Why not apply your energies to useful things instead of the Pick-Up scene which might make you more self-conscious than ever. Maybe you like working off of a script, to some degree and that’s fine, probably even good and better than most.

            Study practical politics, ironically this is what that pagan man at the beginning of the video that “Mark Citadel” linked in the post was talking about. _Apply_ practical politics.

            I don’t know why more people don’t come on the PalTalks that Fight White Genocide does. It’s a good place to debate against other _men_. _Men_ who ought to be in competition with other _men_, not women and their coalition of cucky ducks. So, you challenge the groups of non-whites and especially anti-white, white traitors… This is where pro-white advocacy gets just as nitty gritty, and enjoyably _practical_ as any gamester opening a set to get his wingman and himself into position. Anti-white thugs can’t punch your face over the internet, so then it’s time for the pro-white to use his talking points and expose The Big Lie of White Genocide…

            You can hear me and others at the “eyeslevel” channel using the “voice over” PalTalk technology. Again, I don’t think that the game tactics are really good for anyone unless you’re looking at the meta-culture… On the dating game scene, the drinking at the clubs, the dealing with mindless frat. boy types, and the horrible music are all things that makes game miserable and even nihilistic.

            Here’s the link to the meeting that was held two Saturdays ago. You can hear people making their pro-white point and bullying the anti-white who is probably a self-hating white himself. The bullying is fun, and the room is even G rated which means that no cretin can come in there just shoot his mouth off without making a point.

            https://youtu.be/AtFzxcDE7yE?t=53m29s

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Anti-white gets bullied into quitting the room at 1:46:05.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Now, sensing that you are outclassed, you come in with a plea for common cause, just like SJW concern trolls. It is for my own good, I am sure, but I will pass. I have no more interest in bullying idiots for you than I have in picking up sluts at clubs or off of the street. That is not the part that interests me.

            I study theory, because while I have trouble with personal interactions, I can notice the patterns that emerge. Which allows me to notice things like the white knationalist trying to out-holy the master of the blog in the comment section of a post chiding white knationalists for trying to be more holy instead of trying to win.

            You handed me the rope I needed to hang you, but I chose to flog you instead because it allows me more time to make my points. You are clearly out of your depth, and you are digging the hole deeper.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Anon says:

            Both of you sound fucking autistic and you need to get your shit together

            You’re the reason the stereotype of the NRx / alt-right is a bunch of virgin dorks

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Anon, I am a virgin dork, which I mentioned earlier. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Who cares what I sound like? I have it together enough to know who my enemies are and what my priorities are.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Actually, T.S.K. really doesn’t come to this blog so often, so what I was doing was showing him a bit of hospitality even though he appears to be a level 10 keyboard commando…Trying to salvage something despite his crude rhetorical comment against me and excessive strawmanning that was and is his way of arguing his side.

            Anon., autisim doesn’t exist.

            A.J.P.

  6. spandrell says:

    Well it does look a bit weird to be out there loudly protesting the invasion of Europe by Middle Eastern men, and then go be friends with a dude who looks exactly the same and writes books about banging white girls.

    If some sort of reaction happens and Arabs are kicked out of Europe, in all likelihood Roosh would be forcibly put in the same ship back to Libya.

    Not that I’m against the guy, I find him lots of fun. But the aesthetics of his life are inconvenient.

    • jim says:

      Less weird when you reflect that it is single women of all ages who are voting for the invasion and continue to vote for it and a single woman who caused it.

      Heartiste:

      “The police does not attempt to prevent the rape just as it did not attempt to prevent Kristallnacht, because in truth, it is desired. The battered woman syndrome, the subconscious, the political correctness of Merkel and those who invite in the immigrants, actually desire it. […]

      “The circle closes with crazy speed,” Feiglin observed. “Women’s liberation disappears. The State will not protect you – get used to it. Your Godless religion has evaporated. Find yourself a man – a Muslim one, of course – to protect you. There is no other masculinity.”

      Women, deprived of manly men, demand to be raped.

      • theshadowedknight says:

        Women, when supplied with manly men, desire to be raped. The severity of the desired rape tends to correlate with the previous damage. A whore needs to be savagely raped to be satisfied, while the sheltered girl needs to be held down and fucked vigorously. If the native men are not willing to rape the women, then the women will find foreign men that are.

        Those twitter memes that go, “Immigrants: Doing the raping Americans won’t do,” are unintentionally correct.

        The Shadowed Knight

      • Corvinus says:

        Jim—“So control your daughter rather than try to emasculate all men in the vicinity of your daughter. We are planning to restore the patriarchy, remember.”

        Not by supporting a vibrant who procures sex by any means necessary. Manly virtue requires men, as the alleged superior being, to exercise complete restraint from mounting any and all women in their paths merely because they have the savior-faire to pull it off. The PUA”s are notorious for their disdain for patriarchy by seeking ways to overstimulate a female’s amygdala. PUA’s in the imaginary “reboot” will be shot, drawn, and quartered, much like anyone who cheats on their wife.

        Jim—“I would totally support rounding them all up and shooting them, but when they rape unaccompanied women, that is what the women voted for.”



        You are being totally dishonest here. Historically, man who embraces patriarchy has enabled his daughter to engage in social endeavors without strict supervision, with the explicit notion that the community of men at large will properly behave themselves because their fathers had taught them to curb their rutting instinct.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Filthy monogamist, better that you are shot before the degenerates then. Monogamy is a technology of Empire, and Empires are the destroyers of nations/races. Any patriarchy that forbids marriage will destroy the race that adopts it.

          • Corvinus says:

            Monogamy is the foundation of civilization, the lifeblood of nations/races. Are you that ignorant?

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Marriage and property rights are the foundation. You need to read the Bible. Jesus condemned those who “forbid to marry”.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Also, you have no historical clue; you cite history in your defense; so wrong as to be risible. Monogamy is evil, it is the thin edge of the wedge that brings in all the other forms of degeneracy. Any student of history and the Bible can confirm this.

          • Corvinus says:

            Stick to basketball, Jones.

            “Monogamy is evil, it is the thin edge of the wedge that brings in all the other forms of degeneracy. Any student of history and the Bible can confirm this.”

            The clearest evidence of monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 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 Eph. 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy—Jesus will NOT have multiple brides.

            The 10th Commandment –> You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife [singular]

            Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Tim. 3:2). Paul also wrote: ‘each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.’ Paul goes on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Like I said, risible. The way you twist and distort the Bible would be alarming if you had any real world power. Read the book of Revelations. God the polygamist had multiple churches. Seven. Monogamy is a disgrace.

            Funny, to rebut polygamous marriage, you skip forward hundreds of pages in the Bible. Even though the Bible talks about marriage and sex all the way from the beginning. Why is that? Takes that much to find some verse that you can twist to MAYBE APPEAR to be favorable to monogamy.

            The whole “elders must be monogamous” verse is a gross mistranslation; it says simply that elders and bishops must have AT LEAST one wife. So, no fags and eunuchs in positions of power in the Church. Earlier in the Old Testament, the requirements for political office also mandate one OR MORE wives, in the case of the first wife being infertile. No man without heirs could be elected to office.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            You shall not covet your neighbors donkey (singular). So, your neighbor is ONLY allowed to own one donkey? If your neighbor has two donkeys, I guess it is Ay-Oh-Kay to covet the second donkey?

            You are a good Christian Corvinus, but you have nothing to do with the pathways of Christ.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Like I said, risible. The way you twist and distort the Bible would be alarming if you had any real world power. Read the book of Revelations. God the polygamist had multiple churches. Seven. Monogamy is a disgrace.”

            We have a Mormon in the house. Of course it is “risible” from your perspective, but you’re going to have to use actual texts from Scripture to refute the passages I cited. Recall, too, that the Book Of Revelations has a wide variety of interpretations among its adherents.

            “Takes that much to find some verse that you can twist to MAYBE APPEAR to be favorable to monogamy.”

            There is no “maybe appear”, just clear analysis. Again, you’re going to have to do some homework here.

            “You shall not covet your neighbors donkey (singular). So, your neighbor is ONLY allowed to own one donkey?”

            “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between Himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages.

            The train is fine, Basketball Jones, the train is fine.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            You should do your own homework.

            “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2)

            In Greek, that verse is clearly pro-polygamy. The word “own” is different; it reads “each man have his own (personal/private) wife, and each woman have her own (public/collective) husband. A shovel has one owner; but a man can own many shovels.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            A city can have many citizens, but a man can only be citizen of one city. That is the express language used in the verse you quoted.

            Like I said, monogamy is Biblical “forbidding to marry”, and you monogamists will be first up against the wall. You are a greater danger than the degenerates.

          • peppermint says:

            monogamy is the reason White women are the most beautiful and White men the most cooperative

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            peppermint: you don’t know white history. Polygamy wasn’t stamped out among the Celto-Germanic peoples until 1000 years ago. And even then, people kept doing it quietly, that is why they outlawed it in the Council of Trent, 500 years ago. White women were beautiful, and have been losing their beauty as monogamy made its impact on our gene pool.

          • Corvinus says:

            “In Greek, that verse is clearly pro-polygamy. The word “own” is different; it reads “each man have his own (personal/private) wife, and each woman have her own (public/collective) husband. A shovel has one owner; but a man can own many shovels.”

            Actually, own means “pertaining to oneself” in this context. You are torturing the meaning of this Biblical quotation. Here, plurality of wives and husbands is strictly forbidden; and they are commanded to marry for the purpose of procreating children.

            “A city can have many citizens, but a man can only be citizen of one city. That is the express language used in the verse you quoted.”

            We’re not talking about citizens or shovels. We are talking about husbands and wives in a particular situation.

            “…and you monogamists will be first up against the wall. You are a greater danger than the degenerates.”

            And who will lining us monogamists at the wall? YOU? Merely because you are imposing what you assert is God’s will? Your thirst for blood betrays you.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            ~~”Actually, own means “pertaining to oneself” in this context.”

            Corvinus, you didn’t even research the Greek that the English was translated from. Why do you keep posting your ignorance? What next, you will name black as white and green, purple?

            ~~”We’re not talking about citizens or shovels. We are talking about husbands and wives in a particular situation.”

            We are talking about husbands and wives. And the Greek text refers to their relationships in the same terms as loyal citizenship of ONE city (for wives) and owning shovel(s) (for husbands). Different terms, different concepts. You’re way out of your depth, Christendomer.

            ~~”Your thirst for blood betrays you.”

            Your thirst for sterility betrays you. Your thirst to prevent marriage betrays you. Your enmity with life itself, which springs from the marriage bond, betrays you. Every child is born in blood. Childbirth is a bloody process. Live your clean life, and stay out of the way of those who pay the price of parenthood.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Corvinus, you didn’t even research the Greek that the English was translated from. Why do you keep posting your ignorance? What next, you will name black as white and green, purple?”

            I did research this translation and summarily corrected you.

            “We are talking about husbands and wives. And the Greek text refers to their relationships in the same terms as loyal citizenship of ONE city (for wives) and owning shovel(s) (for husbands). Different terms, different concepts. You’re way out of your depth, Christendomer.”

            You’re focusing on one particular passage which has been clearly established as meaning one husband, one wife by wrongly asserting that the Greek interpretation for “own” trumps the actual textual definition in accordance to Christian tradition.

            “Your thirst for sterility betrays you.”

            Considering I have sired offspring, you would be mistaken. Praytell, how many children do you have in your stable?

            “Your thirst to prevent marriage betrays you.”

            Considering that I am married and have attended other people’s weddings, you would be mistaken.

            “Live your clean life, and stay out of the way of those who pay the price of parenthood.”

            Considering that, as I stated before, that I have kids, I do pay this price willingly. How many kids again for you?

            • jim says:

              You’re focusing on one particular passage which has been clearly established as meaning one husband, one wife by wrongly asserting that the Greek interpretation for “own” trumps the actual textual definition in accordance to Christian tradition.

              Actually there are multiple independent indications that polygyny was common and tolerated among early christians, though discouraged.

              Banning polygyny altogether was a holiness spiral.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            ~~ You’re focusing on one particular passage which has been clearly established as meaning one husband, one wife by wrongly asserting that the Greek interpretation for “own” trumps the actual textual definition in accordance to Christian tradition

            In other words, to you, Christian tradition trumps the plain meaning of the Bible text. Jesus had something to say about that:

            Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition.

          • peppermint says:

            Polygyny did not happen in the ancient Whites.

            (1) Polygyny happens amongst rice niggers. As a result, despite having enough intelligence and foresight to plan cooperative farming operations, rice niggers have no social trust, and the average male rice nigger can be seen on YouTube begging a woman to forgive him, while the emperor of the rice niggers lives surrounded by eunuchs and multiple wives. Occasionally, the rice niggers get conquered, but the rice niggers don’t actually care, because they have no social trust.

            (2) Which of the Roman Emperors were polygynous?

            (3) “Athens rules Greece, I rule Athens, my wife rules me, and my infant son rules her”. Is that the sentiment of a polygynous people? You’re probably retarded enough to say that it is.

            (4) Oh, but the Celts weren’t the same as the Greeks? Okay, let’s look at the Druidic Triads. https://books.google.com/books?id=TMax0I6SCaYC&lpg=PA56&ots=9qVts9NdRx&dq=druidic%20triads%20marriage&pg=PA57#v=onepage&q&f=false

            (5) White women are beautiful because no matter how successful, a man could only have one wife, so he would choose the most beautiful, while ugly women got nothing, except for maybe one bastard child. White men are trusting of each other and can build each other up because married White men know that they are not in competition for sexual resources.

            (6) The reason a man can only have one woman is as a formalization of the condition that a woman could do better to find an unmarried man than to double up in the house of one man. This, in turn, is because there was a limit to how much resources one man could accumulate.

            (7) You’re probably a degenerate asshat hoping to feel less guilty about scoring with tons of bitchez by claiming that that’s how Whites used to behave.

            (8) http://8ch.net/cuckquean does exist. Women are much more willing to put up with being the second woman of a man or having a man with a second woman or bitchez on the side than other men are. The rules are set by the Männerbünd for the service of the Männerbünd. Degenerates get killed in bogs to prevent disruption of the Männerbünd.

            • jim says:

              While Greeks were monogamous a Greek could, and did, have slave girls mistresses and concubines in addition. His wife was in charge of her household.

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, the thing is that the average man needs to know that the average and above average man has nothing to gain by trying to get some action on the side. That’s how you get a high level of social trust.

            The king can have a mistress and a bastard son, but that bastard son can’t be permitted to have any of the king’s authority unless he proves himself.

            And the king can’t do it openly, because that sets a bad example. He needs to tell everyone that they’re no longer Roman Catholics and Jesus would approve of his annulment in order to get rid of his wife.

          • Eli says:

            Re: monogamy and “ancient Whites”

            We actually don’t know what the marriage of proto-Indo-Europeans was. Judging by the fact that they were semi-nomadic pastoralists, we can look at other such examples (Turkic, Tungusic, Amorites/Semites) and claim that, in fact, polygynous marriage was the norm.

            Who actually invented and actively practiced monogamy? Great question. It is most likely that the institution on of monogamy was invented by the first farmers from the Levant/Minor Asia. Joe Heinrich’s research supports this. Basically, the first European farmers (EEF) and related cultures (eg Sumerians, and likely proto-Elamites/Harrappians were the ones that did. http://www.ancient.eu/article/688/

            The incoming Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans either absorbed this practice (eg see Mycenaen civ as derivation of Minoan).

            Monogamy is a very sane arrangement, and it’s good to adhere to it for any sane, organized society capable of growth from the inside (eg via farming and tech).

          • Corvinus says:

            “In other words, to you, Christian tradition trumps the plain meaning of the Bible text. 

Christian tradition, as in the word of God. Recall I offered several passages that clearly delineate one husband, one wife.

          • peppermint says:

            we do, however, know that White women are remarkably beautiful and White men are remarkably cooperative, which indicates monogamy. We also know that every White civilization ever, with the exception of the Morons, is monogamous.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            ~peppermint, I read your link about the Celtics/Druids. There was NOTHING in there to support monogamy. Quite the contrary, it contained a section about enforced concubinage, so that all children would be born in wedlock.

            Monogamy lessens trust; the feral nature of women is a constant, and polygamy allows hypergamy to be both restrained, and optimally fulfilled, in an above-board and open way. Hypocrisy of the upper classes always filters down and destroys society. Greed also destroys society, but it is easier to recover from.

            ~Corvinus you offered “several verses in support of” monogamy. Your verses were garbage which didn’t say anything like what you think they say. Your best pro-monogamy verse turned out to be completely pro-polygamy in the original Greek. Just because you are locked into monogamy, don’t try to enforce it on other men, you communist. (Communism is the abolition of property; limiting marriage is the abolition of property for many classes of people)

            ~peppermint you obstinately ignore the fact that the white races were polygamous until sometime in the past 1000 years. Not counting Italians and Greeks as “white”, for they were conquered by Sumerian “empire tech” long ago. Empires are death, nations are life.

          • Eli says:

            For “ancient White,” if you are referring to certain Europeans (South Europe and Danube, till approx 4500 BC) post-5500, then yes. Likewise, the same goes for all Euros post Roman Empire.

            If by “ancient White” you refer to Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans, then no. For Indo-Aryans (the warrior caste) specifically: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_polygamy.asp

            In fact, in India, the Dravidians are more civilized and monogamous, as compared to the later Aryans.

            As to Indo-Europeans, in Europe, the Teutonic peoples, as well as Slavs and Celts practiced polygyny (maybe even polyandry, if Kalash people are to go by), until the spread of culture from Southern Europe (this being because the farmers of the EEF culture were not exterminated, unlike the situation in the North and most West). So that should take care of the “all the white civs, ever” part of your argument.

            I wanted to put this in the previous post, but didn’t want to clog it up. Again, all indications are that the semi-nomadic tribes were polygynous, and only became monogamous under influence of the farmers they conquered.

            The Semitic Amorites were, like the Indo-Euros and Indo-Aryans, culturally barbarians. There are, conflicting dynamics involved and this issue is not well understood, but polygyny normatively won out among the Abrahamic-derived cultures of the Middle-East, unlike Europe. My own conjecture is that the non-farmer cultural element tended to prevail: both because of the rise of massive-warfare oriented empires (Middle Eastern ones more than 1500 years before European-based ones) and because farming was easier in the Middle-East (in non-arid zones, that is) than in Europe, putting huge selective pressures (inter-cultural selection!) for the farmer-derived memes to survive and be re-established throughout Europe, unlike in the Levant.

            Having said that, nowadays, even among Muslim Arabs, monogamy is becoming a more normal phenomenon, a good thing.

            As to (modern) Indo-European women being the most beautiful: I agree, of course.

          • Corvinus says:

            ‘Your verses were garbage which didn’t say anything like what you think they say.”

            Not my verses, they are the Word Of God, as commanded by his followers. Moreover, saying something is “garbage” is rhetoric, not dialectic. Do you even understand how discourse works?

            “Your best pro-monogamy verse turned out to be completely pro-polygamy in the original Greek.“

            You completely took the verse out of context to suit your own narrative. Again, own refers to “pertaining to oneself” in this context. Having multiple wives according to the verses cited is off limits.

            In essence, it appears YOU and ONLY YOU are the sole arbiter of what constitutes marriage, and religious scholars, including the Apostles, across the board are fundamentally in error. What makes YOU God in this particular circumstance?

            “Just because you are locked into monogamy, don’t try to enforce it on other men, you communist. (Communism is the abolition of property; limiting marriage is the abolition of property for many classes of people)”

            Limiting MULTIPLE marriages has observably nothing to do with denying property rights, since the union was not constituted. A man or woman still has their own possessions intact.

            Praytell, do you have offspring?

            • jim says:

              Not my verses, they are the Word Of God, as commanded by his followers

              Actually the word of the church, radically reinterpreting the bible after Christianity gained power.

          • Eli says:

            @mycroft: the Nazi is correct here: monogamy is good for cooperation in sedentary farming societies. Joe Heinrich on this:
            http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657

            Also, google edge.org’s interview with him

            • jim says:

              I recommend the following form of monogamy, which appears to have been the standard form of monogamy until quite late in the Christian era:

              every man – according to his whims, needs, and resources – could add one or more `second wives’, or rather, concubines, to the first wife” (115). The first wife was often consulted in choosing the second wives, and it was her responsibility to make sure they fulfilled the duties for which they had been chosen. If a concubine had been added to the home because the first wife could not have children, the concubine’s offspring would become the children of the first wife and would be able to inherit and carry on the family name.

              As the primary purpose of marriage, as far as society was concerned, was to produce children, a man could add as many concubines to his home as he could afford. The continuation of the family line was most important and so concubines were fairly common in cases where the wife was ill, in generally poor health, or infertile. A man could not divorce his wife because of her state of health, however; he would continue to honor her as the first wife until she died. Under these circumstances, the concubine would become first wife upon the wife’s death and, if there were other women in the house, they would each move up one position in the home’s hierarchy.

          • ..peppermint says:

            Polygamy is practiced by sand niggers, rice niggers, and dirt niggers.

            Oh, but let the upper middle class have concubines?

            That means that instead of building up the community, they’ll all spend all day trying to screw over their competitors and score, i.e., the observed behavior of sand niggers, rice niggers, and dirt niggers.

            Fine, create your polygamous country. Then watch it be conquered by Whites.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Read your Bible Corvinus. Humans are property. Limiting marriage limits your ability to increase your amount of human property. Especially when you forbid divorce, as the church does.

          • peppermint says:

            » muh property

            Why do we like private property?

            Because if the person who creates something doesn’t get to control it, that means someone else does. That someone else is chosen not because of ability to create, but because of ability to signal, so is insane, and doesn’t care about the thing created to boot.

            Assigning control of everything to the government sounds like an optimization, but it comes at the cost of destroying the incentives that caused those things to be built in the first place.

            Assigning control of all the women to the government to be parceled out according to genetic quality or favor with the government sounds like an optimization as well, but what you get is the emperor of the rice niggers or the turks being surrounded by eunuchs and concubines while the upper class snipes at each other endlessly and the common man has nothing to live for.

            If you read the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, you would find out what happens when a polygynous society meets Christianity – specifically, the lower classes that have nothing to live for under polygyny are easily indoctrinated by the enemies of the people.

            Monogamy and private property create the incentives for building civilization.

            Do you want the lower 50% or 70% of men to be fapping and playing videogames all day? Destroying monogamy is how you get that.

            The attack on monogamy happened like this. First, anti-racists banned companies from testing employees because it would be discriminatory. As a result, White men need to be overeducated and take a bunch of internships before they can have a career.

            Delaying marriage causes pre-marital sex, which becomes extra-marital sex when it is delayed so much that a man needs to not only build a resume to get a career, but build a sexual resume to get a wife.

            And now there are 30 year old used up sluts on my Facebook and incel underemployed men. These people should have been married to each other ten years ago.

            But you want those women married to you, while the incel underemployed men stay incel and underemployed forever.

            This is not an optimization. It does not result in more self-motivated men who want to work for their family.

          • pdimov says:

            “Monogamy and private property create the incentives for building civilization.”

            Was not China both polygamous and civilized? How did it come into being?

          • peppermint says:

            if you can call it civilization. They got pushed over by drug dealing pirates, who were making a pretty penny selling drugs to ants with no reproductive future.

            Why are sand niggers so useless at fighting? Because they refuse to cooperate with each other at any level. When a sand nigger learns something, it keeps it to itself, because it knows that it makes it more valuable than the others. Whites cooperate with their buddies so they can all go home and raise their children together.

          • pdimov says:

            “if you can call it civilization.”

            In pretty much every sense of the word.

            “Why are sand niggers so useless at fighting?”

            Those guys?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate#/media/File:Abbasids850.png

          • pdimov says:

            JD Unwin, however, agrees with you according to Wikipedia, where he’s quoted as

            “The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. [3]”

            [3] is Unwin, J. D. (1927). “Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal, Vol. XXV, p. 662.

            but I can’t find it online.

            I’m still not sure about China though.

            • jim says:

              “The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. [3]”

              Yes, and no. Greeks insisted on strict and absolute chastity for their wives, and had only one wife – plus a whole bunch of additional girls for fun times.

              Unwin’s theory is that men built civilization because they were prevented from chasing sluts. But this theory would require male chastity.

              My theory is that men build civilization for their sons. Which only requires female chastity. My theory has better fit to observed civilizations. Xenophon’s ten thousand impregnated every concave surface between Greece and Persia.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            pdimov: funny thing about Unwin. I read his book. His definition of “monogamy” included what we call “polygyny” or “polygamy”. Basically, by “monogamy”, he didn’t mean what WE mean by it; he meant any patriarchal society that forbids whoredom or extra-marital sex.

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, see, this ‘build when prohibited from chasing sluts’ vs ‘build for their sons’ thing, ignores the actual reason for White supremacy, specifically, the level of social cohesion between White men, where White men willingly give resources to other White men with no obvious tit-for-tat.

            The reason for this cooperation is not a green beard, but the fact that once they get married, White men are not in competition with each other in the sexual marketplace.

            The only non-Whites ever to challenge Whites militarily, the Japanese, are also monogamous. Sand niggers could zerg decayed White empires, which is not the same as defeating Russia and then fighting the US.

            • jim says:

              where White men willingly give resources to other White men with no obvious tit-for-tat.

              I don’t think so. White men are good at positive sum cooperation, where both parties benefit. “Give”, not so much.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            peppermint consistently getting history wrong. First he claims that white people were monogamous, now he’s claiming the Japanese were monogamous. The mind boggles. Does peppermint do ANY fact checking before he posts his Omega male crap?

            Try keeping livestock, of ANY kind, and enforce some kind of monogamy. Compare your results to the herds who let the herd structure itself naturally. The elites are never monogamous; under a monogamous system they hide it and become disbelieving hypocrites. This becomes a corrosive poison that weakens that society over time.

            • jim says:

              I would go part way with peppermint. We want as many men willing to work and fight for their society as reasonably possible, so we want as many man able to marry as possible, thus too much polygyny is a bad thing, and it would be better to have as little as as reasonably practical. But strict monogamy is never going to fly, and never did fly.

          • Mackus says:

            All nominally monogamous societies had soft polygyny, where high-status men had mistresses, and all but far-lowest status men could afford at least occasional prostitute, in addition to their wives.
            That of course includes Europe at its strongest. Strictly monogamous European civilization which peppermint advocates never existed (just like “real communism”), since in reality it had soft polygyny.
            If you have no soft polygyny, you’ll end up with soft polyandry, where wives cheat on their husbands with cads, and then divorce their husband for watching porn, because somehow porn-for-men=cheating, porn-for-women(50shades.etc.)=literature

            You don’t need to restrict male sexuality, you just need high-trust society where men respect other men property to not steal it, that includes wives. You don’t stop car theft by legally obliging men to have one and only one car.

          • Eli says:

            This is a good debate here.

            It’s important to not conflate two types of cohesion: fighting cohesion and civic cohesion. They superficially appear the same, but are not.

            Fighting cohesion entails willingness to sacrifice life for clan/tribe. You get this type of cohesion in constantly fighting (pastoral) semi-nomads: Amorites/proto-Semites, proto-Indo-Iranians, proto-Indo-Europeans, today’s Bedouins, Turkoman, etc. You don’t need monogamy for this, but instead a certain genetico-cultural complex, what Turchin terms “asabiya.” Greg Cochran posted on that, advancing also the idea that empires need it to expand, but breed this “stupid” (in the context of large-scale society) trait out.

            Civic cohesion is something that helps to stabilize society from within. This is what slowly expanding, early sedentary farmers developed. And you certainly *do* need monogamy for that.

            Our warfare becomes increasingly more reliant on advanced tech, and we increasingly need more civic cohesion, with the need for heroes being reduced in relative-to-population size terms. However, the need for heroes will never go away.

            Although this blog often laments how problematic Westrn marriage has become, I think that Orthodox Jews and some other religious communities clearly illustrate a path forwards (in that regard), sans some kind of (likely fragile) authoritarian-totalitarian solution (which I think is what Jim is hinting at). Anyway, civic cohesion can not only survive but become universal, if monogamy is strictly followed and enforced.

            What worries me is the self-sacrifice trait. There is no clear path to preserving and propagating this trait, unless we are willing to revert back to inter-clan, inter-small-tribe warfare with total annihilation of losers. Obviously, asabiya was a very painful trait to develop, and breeding it out is not a good idea, for anti-fragility reasons.

            But therein lies a conundrum: how to keep large scale societies (of millions, if not billions or trillions) while at the same time keeping a trait that was developed in different context: when societies were, essentially, clan/tribe based?

            Again, asabiya is not like a heterozygote advantage to parasite infection: this we no longer need in advanced societies, due to advanced hygiene, antibiotics, and (future) genetic engineering (eg gene drives). Asabiya, however, will still be needed, one way or another: we will always need either courageous warriors or rescuers, or people willing to sacrifice themselves for whatever noble endeavor, for the benefit of society at large (tech won’t always be the answer).

            The problem with asabiya: it was a painful process to develop this trait — very painful! It involved continuous destruction of clans and tribes over millennia. Hopefully, a society can find a way to preserve/breed this trait in a more directed manner!

            I think that Medieval Europe and feudal Japan kind of hit the sweet spot in terms of selecting (or, at the very least, in case of elite-polygynous Japan, minimizing relative anti-selection) for both. However, history demanded: go big or go bust, so Europe is now nation-states and Japan is a single country, not fiefs.

            I think that the only way we can achieve both types of cohesion is, again, via preserving monogamy and…. using science to find what genes + non-large-civ-conflicting memetics help with asabiya, and subsequently incentivizing people with those, or at least a portion of them, to breed. Or we may use genetic engineering, assuming we find those behavioral genes. Or we may develop new, tech-based methods, where eg we hook people up to reality simulators, and test their ability to self-sacrifice in different scenarios, subsequently incentivizing those who pass and de-incentivizing those who don’t. Or something else that I can’t imagine right now.

            Or maybe self-sacrifice/asabiya will always remain as marginalized standing variation, a precious rarity when it’s needed. Maybe highly developed societies of rational cooperators / worker drones will be the norm. Maybe full-throttle asabiya, as in the case of WW2 Japan, is actually not a good thing: recall the amazing courage of Japanese occupied island defenders, but also the senselessness of it all. Or how about the certain mid-tier officers’ refusal to admit surrender in face of nuclear apocalypse? Is that a problem with asabiya per se or feeble mindedness of the ruler and generals? I don’t know

          • Eli says:

            @Mackus: not all polyandry is wives cheating on their husbands or Laqueefas having multiple baby daddies.

            In China, at least until a few decades ago, it was not unheard of for the very poorest of landworkers/farmers to “share a wife.” This was partly due to scarcity of women, due to elite practiced polygyny. Also, lack of resources on part of these marginalized men required pooling.

            Of course, this practice was very hushed and officially prohibited. Nonetheless, it’s hard to ignore a man’s desire for progeny and the lengths towards one could go towards securing a heir and/or caretaker

            I think you can probably find this article if you google China and polyandry.

          • Jack says:

            In fully monogamous societies there’s no struggle for mates, rather there’s struggle (cooperative rather than competitive, because full monogamies are necessarily high-trust) for resources to supply one’s children with, so traits for resource acquisition and long-term resource management are selected for on a genetic level, that is, low time-preference is selected for genetically, and the result is civilization. The further you drift from full monogamy, the more competition for mates and low-trust there are in your society, thus high time-preference is selected for, thus no civilization.

            When you have full-monogamy in place, trust is selected for, because you need resource acquisition for progeny, and if you’re selfish, you’ll be shunned and have no resources long-term, but if you’re kind, you’ll be treated kindly and your community will help you to acquire resources.

          • pdimov says:

            “The reason for this cooperation is not a green beard, but the fact that once they get married, White men are not in competition with each other in the sexual marketplace.”

            Some would say that the reason is Neanderthal ancestry.

            In either case, this theory doesn’t seem correct even by first principles alone. Eliminating sexual competition should be dysgenic in, for example, female beauty. Extraordinary beauty requires harsh selection – something like, say, half of the women not having surviving children. Under monogamy this could in principle happen if females outnumber males 2:1. Or, as Jack prefers, one could explain this in terms of resource acquisition and differential fertility, but I don’t think that this indirect and slower mechanism would give such a stunning result in practice.

            “The only non-Whites ever to challenge Whites militarily…”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire#/media/File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif

          • peppermint says:

            » Extraordinary beauty requires harsh selection – something like, say, half of the women not having surviving children.

            The women who can’t marry a reasonably wealthy man have a poor man’s single child, or a wealthy man’s bastard.

            That is much harsher female selection than exists in most other species. White women have developed larger boobies than other women, and endrometriosis increases boob size at the cost of severe pain.

            Permitting those women to sleep with men as they choose and raise bastards on welfare is an optimization for them. Of course, when we eliminate welfare, they’ll have to either be mistresses or prostitutes.

            Bastards must be shunned and perhaps aborted.

            The Japanese did a great job of fighting with us. Japanese babies have been noted to be less passive than Chinese babies, but more passive than White babies. There’s a reason Hitler recognized their racial character.

            They were mostly monogamous with open prostitution.

    • I doubt it. The ‘alt right’, with the exception of a small wn faction, knows Roosh is on their side. They would have to purge Milo, who is gay, too. Alt right is more about ideas than the person behind them.

      • Corvinus says:

        Then there’s observably no such thing as principles. Roosh and Milo embody evil with their degenerative lifestyles, yet because they promote an agenda similar to your own, they are given a pass by cucks such as yourself.

        • theshadowedknight says:

          Yes. This situation is known as an alliance. Once the progressives have been defeated, we can reevaluate alliances. Until then, no one cares how holy you are if you lose. Starting to fight your allies before you have defeated your enemies is a losing strategy.

          The Shadowed Knight

          • Corvinus says:

            “Until then, no one cares how holy you are if you lose.”

            Actually, those who are anti-SJW, anti-homo, AND pro-Christian male care deeply.

            “Starting to fight your allies before you have defeated your enemies is a losing strategy.”

            Except Roosh and Milo represent the enemy.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Then while you pick fights with people who will help you, your worst enemies will continue to fight you, unopposed. You do not find saints in the barracks. You find fighters. If you cannot understand the concept of alliance, then you are not ready for this fight.

            The Shadowed Knight

  7. Rabbit says:

    “If a virgin sleeps with Roosh, she slept with a man who made it perfectly clear he was only in town for a week, and was in town to sleep with as many women as possible.”

    You’re obviously not very familiar with Roosh. He frequently uses fake names and writes about how he makes the girl thinks he’s living wherever he is. These girls in 3rd world countries don’t read manosphere blogs lmao. They don’t know who he is. As far as I know there is no proof he has ever slept with anyone in the countries he’s visited. There aren’t even videos of him hanging out with girls in all his trips. There’s a good chance it’s all BS or just paid hookers or bottom of the barrel.

    2nd of all, he supports migrant rapists and wants Europe to become Islamic. That makes him an enemy of any European identitarian. These women aren’t voting for immigration because of some secret desire to be raped, because they aren’t aware these people are rapists until it’s too late. They’re indoctrinated into believing that other cultures and races are as civilized and altruistic as their own and many victims are just 14 or 15 year olds. Many feminists in Europe have opposed Islamic immigration for a long time. It is just as much the fault of greedy corporations who promote open borders and want cheap labor and also compassionate christians that drive third world immigration.

    Roosh is a literal misogynist with admitted mother issues who is a rapefugee apologist. He offers nothing of value, sells cheesy e-books and attacks low hanging fruit tumblr feminists. His scene is interesting briefly and can be fun for dudes looking to vent about women or to hear about social norms in various countries, but that’s about it.

    • Irving says:

      >These women aren’t voting for immigration because of some secret desire to be raped, because they aren’t aware these people are rapists until it’s too late.

      It is well-known that the majority of women fantasize about being raped. Studies that I’ve looked at show that this is the case with a little more than 60 percent of women. Here’s one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201508/why-do-women-have-rape-fantasies

      As well, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of European women are voting for the parties that are primarily responsible for bringing in the “refugees”. In that sense, these women are voting to be raped. You can argue that they are voting for these parties despite the fact, rather than because of the fact, that they support immigration. But I think the reality is different.

      I sent heartiste a paper a few weeks ago, which he linked to, by an evolutionary psychologist at LSE by the name of Satoshi Kanazawa. Here’s the link to heartiste and his commentary on the paper:

      https://heartiste.wordpress.com/category/science-validates-game/

      Here’s the paper itself:

      http://faculty.washington.edu/hechter/KanazawaPaper.pdf

      Basically the paper shows that pre-menopause women are vastly less xenophobic than men. It goes on to argue that the reason for this is that, because war is and has always been over wealth and women, women of child bearing age can always depend on being spared by enemy tribes, and being kept alive as another man’s sex slave or wife or whatever. Its an interesting argument and I think there’s a lot to it. Jim’s commentary on it would be appreciated. But in any case, I think it gives an interesting perspective on why European women are voting to be raped.

      >2nd of all, he supports migrant rapists and wants Europe to become Islamic.

      When has he ever supported “migrant rapists”? And when has he said that he wants Europe to become Muslim? You’re making all of this up.

      >Many feminists in Europe have opposed Islamic immigration for a long time.

      No they haven’t.

      >Roosh is a literal misogynist

      Every man should be “a literal misogynist”. Do you mean this as a condemnation of Roosh?

      • jim says:

        The demographic that votes most strongly, by far the most strongly, for policies likely to result in single fertile age women being raped by brown skinned foreigners is, surprise surprise, single fertile age women. Are you very surprised?

        Of course women want to be raped. Resisting rape is a shit test intended to make sure that they are only raped by sufficiently manly men.

        Not only are women far more inclined to accept and acquiesce in foreign conquest than men are, but also in an environment where the local men are insufficiently manly (perhaps because forbidden to be manly) women will hunger and thirst for foreign conquest and the rape that is likely to ensue in foreign conquest.

        • Ron says:

          I know two different women who have been raped. One by her brother and father, the other by her army commander. Both are insane. Really kind women, and totally insane. As in “hearing voices and making weird noises” kind of insane. The first one preferred to run away from home to become a street prostitute, her twin sister stayed home out of fear and eventually committed suicde that year. The second one had a total mental breakdown the next day at the bus station and hasnt been fullly sane since then.

          I think you have a real insight Jim, but I think your insight is not the whole story. We are more than just walking Ids.

          • peppermint says:

            I know at least three women who have been raped, all by niggers, and several who have been taken advantage of sexually by niggers in a way they expressed regrets about.

          • Irving says:

            How does one get “taken advantage of sexually”?

          • jim says:

            And you know they were raped how?

            Natural selection predicts that men should find it very distressing when their women are raped, but women should not find it very distressing at all. And this seems consistent with what I observe.

          • Ron says:

            When I was younger I used to hear these stories and go into a self righteous rage, now I know better.

            I dont “know” to the extent that I am willing to cause harm, to any of the men involved. That requires serious evidence in a court of law. And if I had that level of knowledge I would insist that the woman brings her accuser to court, otherwise I will not act. If she is unwilling to go that route then I am not willing to risk myself either.

            I would say “know” in the sense of “Based on my knowledge of the people involved and their character, I am willing to accept their testimony for the sake of argument, but I am not willing to act on it”

            On the other hand, even given the lack of objective evidence, had either of these women been a close family member, say a sister of mine that I grew up with and cared for, then I would have accepted their word for it enough that someone would be a corpse by this point.

            TL/DR: point taken, take the annecdote for what its worth.

      • pdimov says:

        “As well, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of European women are voting for the parties that are primarily responsible for bringing in the “refugees”. In that sense, these women are voting to be raped.”

        That’s a stretch. Women were also voting for these parties before they were bringing “refugees”, and it’s not clear whether they will continue to do so when the latest influx, whose effects are being covered up, registers in their minds in all its glory. It will, eventually.

        • Irving says:

          >and it’s not clear whether they will continue to do so when the latest influx,

          You sure about that? Report of rapes committed by “refugees” have been being made for years now, and there’s been no change in female voting patterns. Once things settle down, and these “refugees” are finally settled and given something to do besides raping, I think you’ll find that these women will go back to voting the way they were before.

          • pdimov says:

            “You sure about that?”

            Of course not. I’ll wait and see.

            “Report of rapes committed by “refugees” have been being made for years now…”

            No, they have not been. You would have been quite unable to read about rapes committed by “refugees” in the Swedish or German Luegenpresse until very recently, and most of the incidents are still not being reported.

          • Irving says:

            >You would have been quite unable to read about rapes committed by “refugees” in the Swedish or German Luegenpresse until very recently, and most of the incidents are still not being reported.

            This is a fair point.

      • Corvinus says:

        “It is well-known that the majority of women fantasize about being raped.”

        By someone they know in a familiar environment. Did you even read the study?

        • Irving says:

          Sure I read it. It says nothing about women wanting to be raped “by someone they know in a familiar environment”. Or maybe I’m missing something.

          In any case, the details of the study are extraordinary. 16 percent admit to wanting to be anally raped. A quarter want to be tied up, and then raped. 9 percent want to be raped by a woman. The prettiest women were most likely to want to be raped. In general, the more that these women think they are attractive, the more they want to be raped, so that they can be confirmed in their belief in their attractiveness. This is incredible. This shows how deranged women are.

          • Irving says:

            Correction: it isn’t that 24 percent want to be tied up and then raped, it is that 24 percent want to be drugged and then raped. That is even worse.

          • Corvinus says:

            “This shows how deranged women are.”

            It only demonstrates the sexual nature of women.

            “In general, the more that these women think they are attractive, the more they want to be raped, so that they can be confirmed in their belief in their attractiveness.”

            You are making a broad generalization about the results of that study without taking into account that fantasies do not necessarily reflect wishes, since the participants were fantasizing about being “forced” into sex rather than “raped”. Furthermore, the definition of “force” and “rape” was never given to the participants, allowing them the liberty to think for themselves what those terms mean.

          • Irving says:

            >It only demonstrates the sexual nature of women.

            Yes, their deranged sexual nature, and someone with a deranged sexual nature is deranged. similarly, if someone said that they were interested in having sex with donkeys, you wouldn’t just say that they had a deranged sexual nature, even though they do; you’d also say that the person is deranged, period.

            >You are making a broad generalization about the results of that study

            Quote from the study: “The women who considered themselves hotties also had frequent rape fantasies”. I was not generalizing in saying that the more a woman thinks she is attractive, the more she wants to be raped. We can say, then, that women who dress provocatively do so because they want to be raped, given that only a woman would only dress provocatively if she thought that she were attractive.

            >Furthermore, the definition of “force” and “rape” was never given to the participants

            Ha!

          • Corvinus says:

            “We can say, then, that women who dress provocatively do so because they want to be raped, given that only a woman would only dress provocatively if she thought that she were attractive.”

            Circular logic on your part. Women dress provocatively for a host of reasons–they are confident in their looks, they are enticing their boyfriend or a guy they like. Furthermore, one has to establish the standards as to what is dressing provocatively.

            “you wouldn’t just say that they had a deranged sexual nature, even though they do; you’d also say that the person is deranged, period.”

            No, you would not make that conclusion. Women who fantasize of being raped by someone they know is may be a deranged thought, but it does not make that person overall deranged, considering it is a fantasy.

          • Irving says:

            >Furthermore, one has to establish the standards as to what is dressing provocatively.

            By dressing provocatively, I mean dressing like a slut in public.

            >Women dress provocatively for a host of reasons–they are confident in their looks, they are enticing their boyfriend or a guy they like.

            Obviously. They have many reasons for dressing like sluts in public. But the main thing is that they do so only when they think they’re attractive, irrespective of whatever ulterior motives she may have for wanting to do so.

            >Women who fantasize of being raped by someone they know may be a deranged thought, but it does not make that person overall deranged, considering it is a fantasy.

            You keep dishonestly insisting that these women are fantasizing about being raped only “by someone they know” even though this isn’t the case, at least not according to the study I posted. Women want to be raped. It may be that they prefer being raped by people they know, although the study doesn’t say one way or the other. But the main thing is that they want to be raped, especially the attractive ones.

            Quit the white knighting and accept reality for what it is. I don’t want women to be raped any less than you do, but that doesn’t change the fact that women, deranged and irrational as they are, want to be raped.

          • Corvinus says:

            “By dressing provocatively, I mean dressing like a slut in public.”

            You still haven’t established the standards. “Dressing provactively” is the act of dressing evocatively and “dressing like a slut” is a reaction to a woman wearing revealing attire. Two separate things. You still have to be speciifc as to what is “dressing provactively” and “dressing like a slut”. You’re being vague.

            “Obviously. They have many reasons for dressing like sluts in public.”

            That’s not I said. People have different standards as to what constitutes “dressing like a slut”. You’re going to have to offer criteria.

            “But the main thing is that they want to be raped, especially the attractive ones.”

            As a fantasy, yes. But fantasies are wishes, not actual intentions.

            “Quit the white knighting and accept reality for what it is.”

            Sir Lancelot, it is YOUR reality, yes. Warped, assuredly.

            “I don’t want women to be raped any less than you do, but that doesn’t change the fact that women, deranged and irrational as they are, want to be raped.”

            As a fantasy, yes. It does not mean they will carry out with their wishes.
            It does not mean they are going to act on it and let some bbc take them.

          • Irving says:

            > You still have to be speciifc as to what is “dressing provactively” and “dressing like a slut”. You’re being vague.

            When a woman behaves/dresses in a way that is meant to attract the sexual attention of men, I say that she is behaving/dressing like a slut. There’s nothing vague about it.

            And when a women goes out of her way to attract the sexual attention of men, it is largely because she believes she is attractive, and she wants to be confirmed in that belief through provoking the sexual attention of men. Again, just look at the study. It found that the more attractive a woman thought she looked, the more likely she was to fantasize about being raped.

            >That’s not I said. People have different standards as to what constitutes “dressing like a slut”. You’re going to have to offer criteria.

            I elaborated my standards above.

            >As a fantasy, yes. But fantasies are wishes, not actual intentions.

            Nobody wishes for something that they don’t intend to have. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

            >As a fantasy, yes. It does not mean they will carry out with their wishes.

            Obviously you’ve never spent any time at a modern university.

            >It does not mean they are going to act on it and let some bbc take them.

            Obviously you don’t get out much. Interracial sex is totally the norm these days. Rare is the woman who has any sexual standards whatsoever; rare is the woman who hasn’t been ravaged by a bbc.

          • Corvinus says:

            “When a woman behaves/dresses in a way that is meant to attract the sexual attention of men, I say that she is behaving/dressing like a slut. There’s nothing vague about it.”

            YOU say, yes. So, if other people who state differently, are they wrong? What makes YOU the standard bearer here? See, you have to be exactly clear as to what attire is deemed “slutty” given that one person may find it acceptable and another person may find it unacceptable.

            “And when a women goes out of her way to attract the sexual attention of men, it is largely because she believes she is attractive, and she wants to be confirmed in that belief through provoking the sexual attention of men.”

            

Which means she is not desiring to be raped, but seek attention. Now, if she fantasizes about being raped, she is merely concocting a pleasurable story. Only until she actually acts on that fantasy can you legitimately say that a woman wants to be raped.

            “It found that the more attractive a woman thought she looked, the more likely she was to fantasize about being raped.”

            

Fantasize, yes.

            “I elaborated my standards above.”



            You offered a statement, not criteria. Try again.

            “Nobody wishes for something that they don’t intend to have.”

            Are you for real? A person can merely wish for something without working to or intending it to become “real”. It does not mean they are going to actively seek it out. I may wish to murder someone because they pissed me off, but it does not mean I am going to hack them into little pieces.

            “…rare is the woman who hasn’t been ravaged by a bbc.”



            Ok, you’re going to have offer some proof here. You’re a queen of generalizations.

          • Irving says:

            >What makes YOU the standard bearer here? See, you have to be exactly clear as to what attire is deemed “slutty” given that one person may find it acceptable and another person may find it unacceptable.

            If the word slutty bothers you, we can get rid of it. I only meant to refer to women who behave/dress in a way that is meant to attract sexual attention. I don’t get why you’re making such a big deal out of this.

            >A person can merely wish for something without working to or intending it to become “real”. It does not mean they are going to actively seek it out. I may wish to murder someone because they pissed me off, but it does not mean I am going to hack them into little pieces.

            Fair enough. Let me put it another way:

            It is impossible for a women to get raped ‘intentionally’. Rape, if we understand it by its dictionary definition, is when someone is sexually penetrated against their will. So, if someone says that they wish to be raped, as most women do, then it really isn’t possible for them to take the initiative by way of actualizing this wish. The whole point of the rape is that it is against your will; you’re intentions aren’t supposed to matter, because otherwise it isn’t rape. So it is enough for women to say that they wish to be raped. We don’t need to wait “until she actually acts on that fantasy” because if she were to act on the fantasy, that would defeat the whole purpose of the fantasy.

            As an aside, you’ve also tried to introduce a distinction between wishing and wanting, which is foolish. If you wish for something, you want it. In my last post, I falsely indicated that wishing was the same thing as intending, and I have cleared this up above.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Corvinus says:

            ““By dressing provocatively, I mean dressing like a slut in public.”

            You still haven’t established the standards. ”

            A skirt that is 3 inches or more above the knee or pants with a tightness index of .494 or greater.

            Or you could stop being an idiot sperg and admit that you damned well know exactly what people mean when they say “dress provocatively” or “white people” or any number of other things.

            Irving says:

            “If the word slutty bothers you, we can get rid of it. I only meant to refer to women who behave/dress in a way that is meant to attract sexual attention. I don’t get why you’re making such a big deal out of this.”

            Corvinus’s whole argument style is that he pretends to fail to understand very simple concepts so he doesn’t have to admit defeat. Then he endlessly repeats himself without acknowledging counterargument. This is a guy who thinks a Biblical list of prohibited sexual conducts that explicitly included “no goat fucking” and “no fucking your mother or sister” also included “no fucking willing unowned, unattached women” by implication. He fails to understand anything that would be uncomfortable for his progressive version of Christianity.

          • Corvinus says:

            Irving..

            “If the word slutty bothers you, we can get rid of it. I only meant to refer to women who behave/dress in a way that is meant to attract sexual attention. I don’t get why you’re making such a big deal out of this.”

            There’s no big deal about anything. Call women sluts. But you still have yet to offer distinct criteria as to what is “dressing provocatively” or “dressing like a slut”, especially when people have various interpretations. There needs to be a common starting point.

            “So, if someone says that they wish to be raped, as most women do, then it really isn’t possible for them to take the initiative by way of actualizing this wish.”

            
Corrected for accuracy —> So, if women says that they wish to be raped, as some women who were highly sexual in nature according to the study, then it depends whether or not they will act upon their wish and want to be raped by seeking a stranger, for added effect, or someone they know, to ensure that fantasy becomes reality.

            “So it is enough for women to say that they wish to be raped. We don’t need to wait “until she actually acts on that fantasy” because if she were to act on the fantasy, that would defeat the whole purpose of the fantasy.”

            A fantasy can be left unfilled, even if a person wishes to fulfill it or wants it to be fulfilled.

            “As an aside, you’ve also tried to introduce a distinction between wishing and wanting, which is foolish. If you wish for something, you want it. In my last post, I falsely indicated that wishing was the same thing as intending, and I have cleared this up above.”

            “I wish I could be raped” and “I want to be raped, that is my wish” are observably the same thing.

            Now, if a woman “wants” to be raped, she will take the initiative, which carries out the fantasy. If a woman “wishes” to be raped, she can take the initiative to act on it or not act on it.

            
Steve Johnson…

            “Or you could stop being an idiot sperg and admit that you damned well know exactly what people mean when they say “dress provocatively” or “white people” or any number of other things.”

            I see your back to take a swing at the champ. I will admit your courage. Again, some people believe that if a woman shows a bit of cleavage, then she is dressing provocatively. Other people could also think that that is “normal” and therefore not meeting the criteria. Therefore, one has to specifically define it to begin a discussion on it. You don’t understand how discourse works.

            Down goes Stevie, down goes Stevie.

            “This is a guy who thinks a Biblical list of prohibited sexual conducts that explicitly included “no goat fucking” and “no fucking your mother or sister” also included “no fucking willing unowned, unattached women” by implication. He fails to understand anything that would be uncomfortable for his progressive version of Christianity.”

            Really, you are bringing up a conversation that you got summarily thrashed? Is your ego that bruised?

          • Irving says:

            >So, if women says that they wish to be raped, as some women who were highly sexual in nature according to the study, then it depends whether or not they will act upon their wish and want to be raped by seeking a stranger, for added effect, or someone they know, to ensure that fantasy becomes reality.

            The study says absolutely NOTHING about who these women want to rape them. It just says that they want to be raped. As well, it says absolutely NOTHING about these fantasies being restricted to women of a “highly sexual”–and by this I presume you mean sexually promiscuous– nature. It just says that sexually promiscuous women and women who think they are attractive are more likely to have these fantasies. Quit lying about what the study really says.

            >A fantasy can be left unfilled, even if a person wishes to fulfill it or wants it to be fulfilled.

            Duh.

            >Now, if a woman “wants” to be raped, she will take the initiative, which carries out the fantasy. If a woman “wishes” to be raped, she can take the initiative to act on it or not act on it.

            >Now, if a woman “wants” to be raped, she will take the initiative, which carries out the fantasy. If a woman “wishes” to be raped, she can take the initiative to act on it or not act on it.

            Wishing for something and wanting something is the same thing. I won’t entertain this nonsense.

            Moreover, it is impossible for a women to “take the initiative to act on” her rape fantasy. If the rape happens due to her own initiative, then it isn’t rape. The whole point of the fantasy is that she doesn’t take the initiative. This is what you pretend not to understand.

          • pdimov says:

            “Moreover, it is impossible for a women to “take the initiative to act on” her rape fantasy. If the rape happens due to her own initiative, then it isn’t rape.”

            This is true in principle, but you are missing an opportunity here.

            “Taina Cederström said that she could not recall anything like that happening in Finland before; 30- and 40 year-old Finnish women, apparently intelligent and wealthy, now come to the station to buy sex from teenage boys.”

            http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160115/1033204184/finland-sex-money.html

          • Irving says:

            >“30- and 40 year-old Finnish women, apparently intelligent and wealthy, now come to the station to buy sex from teenage boys.”

            That is astonishing.

            I did, albeit obliquely, touch on this by pointing out to Corvinus that interracial sex is widely practiced among women today. The one possible exception to this is black women, given that they are–with the exception of Ethiopian women (to quote Jim, “Note that Ethiopian chicks are hot, while subsaharan chicks look like a cross between a man in drag and a gorilla”); but then they aren’t, properly speaking, black–less attractive than women of other races, and therefore less in demand sexually. But for sure, just ask any black guy at a modern American university, especially the elite ones; he’ll exaggerate, but he’ll nevertheless be telling the truth when he says that race isn’t an obstacle in his sex life.

            But again, astonishing — white women are paying these so-called “muds” for sex. There you have it Corvinus: women are malfunctioning, deranged beings, and there’s no saving them.

          • pdimov says:

            The Western woman is a fascinating creature. A cursory look shows complete lack of any instinct of self-preservation and a horribly broken ability to assess threats. (Anonymous Conservative’s amygdala theory may well hold water.)

            Nevertheless, I don’t think that she has completely lost her sense of fear. She’s just afraid of the wrong things, and this can change very, very quickly.

            Interesting times may await.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The study says absolutely NOTHING about who these women want to rape them. It just says that they want to be raped.”

            WISH to be raped. With the meaning of rape being left up to the woman to define.

            “Wishing for something and wanting something is the same thing. I won’t entertain this nonsense.”

            Want = Need
            
Wish = Could use sometime

            “Moreover, it is impossible for a women to “take the initiative to act on” her rape fantasy.”

            Remember, the developers of the study did not define “rape”. They left it to the discretion of the woman. She takes the initiative in allowing herself to let the fantasy be fulfilled. Women do not want to be raped. However, if she wishes to be raped, she will make herself open to that possibility with someone she knows.


            “If the rape happens due to her own initiative, then it isn’t rape. The whole point of the fantasy is that she doesn’t take the initiative. This is what you pretend not to understand.”

            The fantasy is allowing herself to be subjected to be raped. It is a conscious decision in this particular case. She is wishing someone rapes her.

            “I did, albeit obliquely, touch on this by pointing out to Corvinus that interracial sex is widely practiced among women today.”



            Without offering the requisite evidence to support your claim.

            “There you have it Corvinus: women are malfunctioning, deranged beings, and there’s no saving them.”



            Making a sweeping generalization based on a woman who said she was certain about at least TWO such cases, but added that there COULD have been more? Priceless.

            “(Anonymous Conservative’s amygdala theory may well hold water.)”

            
Really, you want to bring a practitioner of scientistry into the mix?

          • pdimov says:

            “Making a sweeping generalization based on a woman who said she was certain about at least TWO such cases, but added that there COULD have been more?”

            Your initial guess would have been zero, as would have been mine. Two confirmed is two more than that. Something isn’t right here. If you have an explanation that does not involve self-destructive desires or scientistry, everyone will be glad to hear it.

  8. If every feminist & JW is after Roosh, he is doing something right. The ‘game’ talk is part of an alternative persona. Online, WNs had a 20+ year headstart (since the launch of Storefront) to get their movement off the ground, and they have largely failed. They, the WNs, don’t want others on their turf. They see Roosh, NRx, and other ‘alt right’ groups as threats.

    • pdimov says:

      I’ve long suspected that Stormfront was a Jewish-operated honeypot.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Mr Dimov,

        I don’t think that Stormfront would hold much interest for Eastern Europeans, as it’s mostly a white American effort…

        • pdimov says:

          It doesn’t.

          The main reason I’ve even heard of Stormfront is that, a few years ago when anti-Semitism wasn’t yet cool, criticism of Jews in comment sections was invariably answered with an accusation that the poster “comes from Stormfront”. That is, the only people who ever mentioned Stormfront were Jewish.

          This led me to think that many of Stormfront’s readers (and, by extension, posters) were actually Jewish. (This was before I learned that Jews in America have a history of impersonating Nazis and anti-Semites, which seemed to lend further support to this hypothesis of mine.)

          I could have been wrong though. Perhaps Stormfront was (and is) just Stormfront. 🙂

      • peppermint says:

        if you doubt Don Black’s sincerity, you can hear him if you look through David Duke’s podcast archives. David Duke is of course disingenuous about some issues, but he is sincerely WN

  9. >The red pill is the alt right’s killer app.

    In more ways than one. I think having a masculine ideal is one of the best ways a man, or a group, or a nation can have a strong immune system against Prog ideas. There has been for a long time something whiny, unmasculine, and neutered about Prog types. I am no talking about the Che Guevara types: they were essentially thugs, and thugs aren’t so. I am talking about the “goodperson” enablers. https://dividuals.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/the-goodperson-problem/

    I mean, Progs do it all for status, but this kind of status is both repulsive to have to a masculine man, and does not actually get them into panties.

    THAT IS the killer app. When they realize having photo ops done with orphans from Malawi gets no panties wet, THAT is when they start jumping ship.

    The red-pills role in this emphasizing how little niceness buys and how far you can go and indulge in your wanting to NOT be nice and good and caring to strangers and it not only doesn’t harm your success with women, it even helps.

    Essentially our job is to reduce the Goodperson type of status (holiness status) is something like the status of of men who win championships in something dorky. Everybody else smiles, nods sarcastically and snickers. Especially pretty women.

  10. Jack says:

    I don’t care much about Roosh being non-White since he isn’t impregnating those chicks so there’s no miscegenation involved in his escapades, however, pumping and dumping chicks you could have otherwise married is societally destructive, likewise promoting such a promiscuous lifestyle to others. Roosh taught men to cheat on their women and claims to have seduced women in relationships iirc. Humans are naturally prone to sin, but that’s not an excuse to tempt them to sin. Roosh probably did not make saints into sinners, but he has brought sinners a few steps closer to the gates of Hell.

    Since no discussion is complete without mentioning Jews, please check out this article:

    http://www.dailystormer.com/the-jews-of-the-pick-up-artist-industry/

    PUA is essentially a Jewish movement. Roissy (James Weidmann) is probably a Mischling, wouldn’t be surprised if Rollo Tomassi has some Hebraic blood as well. Beware, White man.

    • B says:

      >PUA is essentially a Jewish movement.

      Can’t you people do anything yourselves?

      Next you’ll be telling me the Aryan Brotherhood is led by Jews.

      • Jack says:

        >Can’t you people do anything yourselves?

        You mean like build civilization? Look, you don’t need to be a kike-gassing race-warrior to realize that Jews create destructive movements. Now, cultural Marxism is perhaps excusable for Jews on the grounds of “we have to compel the Goyim not to re-holocaust us”, but what’s the excuse for PUA? Face it, you’re just evil.

        • Ron says:

          Jack you need help. For real.

          • Jack says:

            By insinuating that criticizing Jews (and mine is not some over-the-top complaint about Jews controlling NASA to manufacture false evidence for Earth’s spherical shape, or some such) is tantamount to being mentally-ill and probably in need of hospitalization, you prove a stereotype, ironically.

          • Ron says:

            Actually I wasnt trying to insinuate that at all. I was looking at your writing style and your total obsession with this one topic. There are other people on this comment board who see us in a similar light, Ive never written that to them. For the most part I obviousky dont agree with them, some I like and some I dont like.

            I dont think you are so bad, you said or at least tried to say kind things to me one time and I havent forgotten that.

            Im sorry I wrote it tho, I wasnt thinking and I see clearly why this comes off as an insult. I think any further explanation I give will just be insukting, so Im going to just drop it.

          • Jack says:

            That’s okay, if there’s one place where Jews, Christians, and National Socialists can put aside their differences and discuss things earnestly, that’s blog.jim.

        • B says:

          >what’s the excuse for PUA?

          If you wake up with shit in your pants, do you immediately assume the Jews are responsible?

          >Face it, you’re just evil.

          Of course not. Evil, by definition, is transitory and illusory. Today, it’s in full flower, honking loudly about how it’s ascendant and will soon triumph. Tomorrow, it’s gone, except for a fading memory.

          Who would remember Amalek and Haman, if it were not for us?

          Good, on the other hand, is eternal and true. And we are still here, and will be here when nobody even remembers you existed. After all, you are no Haman. Equally noxious, but much less significant.

          Does that keep you awake at night? The utter pointless insignificance of your existence? Is that why you come here to write about ovens and so forth?

          • Jack says:

            Ethnocentric fixation, glaring hypocrisy, narcissistic chutzpah, and overblown verbosity are manifest here, but these won’t overshadow the fact that PUA is Jewish, and you can’t blame its existence on “we fear another holocaust”. Your very core is rotten due to genes.

          • Corvinus says:

            Niwdog’s Law—As an online discussion continues with multiple posters, the likelihood of a person making assertions that the Jews are behind everything in the world that is “bad” exponentially grows.

          • SoC says:

            Pick up is Jewish? Where do you get these ideas from? Pick up is just recognizing female nature for what it is. For example women want to be raped. I’m currently courting a Christian virgin for marriage to create white babies with her. You know how I picked her up? I told her on a public forum, filled with feminists, that I want to hold her down by her hair and own her, while she screams. You know what the feminists on the forum had to say about that?

            “That’s so hot”

            You know how come I can pick up an attractive Christian virgin? Because I went out and practiced pick up, stuck it in many girls, and learned how to become a man that women will be honest with. And women certainly want to be raped.

            Am I a Jew conspiracy?

          • Corvinus says:

            Cool made up story, SoC.

          • SoC says:

            Corvinus, for more of my made up stories please go visit the red pill forum, where I am senior endorsed, and look through my 100,000 karma account. Though I have not posted there for some time. Since the Roosh schism. Where Roosh, along with myself, turned to the dark enlightenment and away from pick up.

            I’ll be making a post soon enough detailing my methods, and why they have worked, to find myself a Christian virgin wife. Should I feel the need to bother.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Corvinus, for more of my made up stories please go visit the red pill forum, where I am senior endorsed, and look through my 100,000 karma account. Though I have not posted there for some time. Since the Roosh schism. Where Roosh, along with myself, turned to the dark enlightenment and away from pick up.”

            I get it. PUA”s are hitting the wall, so they need to reinvent themselves to ensure their relevance. Hence, a new “brand”. You’re still heavily invested in pick up.

    • Y.Ilan says:

      Must be tough having all these sneaky Jews running around ruining your civilization. Poor whitey.

      • Jack says:

        See, now you’re arrogant and boastful, like an Arab, but your tears will be bitter when people wake up to your malicious conduct.

        • Y.Ilan says:

          I’m being facetious. I’m certainly not trying to boast, since the vast majority of Jews around the world and especially here in Israel have nothing to do with whatever immoral movement it is you wish to put at our feet. That progressive Jews tend to be a part of such movements is only because they, like everyone else, are incentivized by Western society to take a part in it… And because (Ashkenazi) Jews tend to be succesful at whatever they do, you see them everywhere. You can’t stop Western decadence because it is simply a part of the natural cycle of civilization, no matter how many Jews you out.

          • Jack says:

            If Jews only happened to dominate leftist and destructive movements, without inventing new ones, and without radicalizing established ones, you could argue that this is merely a consequence of Ashkenazi IQ. Since Jews create new destructive movements basically every decade, and since Jews always turn moderately destructive movements to perniciously destructive movements, it’s not just an IQ issue. At this point the evidence is overwhelming.

            You don’t have to accept Kevin MacDonald’s frame that Jews do all this to hurt Gentiles; your experience with leftist Israeli Jews should suffice to convince you that there is something inherently wrong with your race on a genetic level; my pet theory is that the toxic combination of high verbal IQ and low performance IQ predisposes Jews to leftism and general detachment from reality.

            If I’m correct, Jews with a high performance IQ to match their high verbal IQ should be considerably less leftist than ordinary Ashkenazim. It seems that Russian Jews and Mischlings in Israel, having all those Slavic genes, tend to lean right-wing, kinda proving my theory here. But even when Jewish leftism is, evidently, harmful to Jews themselves, you still won’t accept any blame whatsoever for your deeds vis-a-vis the Goyim. Very similar to Muslims, actually.

          • Ron says:

            Actually, its the “mud Jews” who tend far to the right. The explanation for why “slavic Jews” and “mud Jews” tend to vote right probably has a lot less to do with genetics and a lot more to do with r/K theory. There are also things such as culture, religious belief and free will.

            As for genetic damage, you might have a point. Our environment has been one that filters out traits for group survival. There are also theories of epigenetics implying that high stress environments have a negative impact on the DNA of a population. In which case, that is something our people will have to deal with.

            But if you start using DNA as the definition of good and evil then you are going to destroy your own people Jack.

          • Jack says:

            >Actually, its the “mud Jews” who tend far to the right.

            Right, tribalism is common among Middle-Easterners, and that includes Jewish Middle-Easterners. But besides tribalism, they’re not really right-wing; Mud Jews are socialist, although they fail to vote socialist because all the socialist parties are non-tribal. A credibly tribalist, Gibs-giving socialist party would attract Mud Jew votes.

            >The explanation for why “slavic Jews” and “mud Jews” tend to vote right probably has a lot less to do with genetics and a lot more to do with r/K theory.

            Nope, you’re presenting a false dilemma, as the r/K theory is itself a superstructure built upon a genetic base. It’s not either-or, it’s both.

          • Irving says:

            >It seems that Russian Jews and Mischlings in Israel, having all those Slavic genes, tend to lean right-wing, kinda proving my theory here.

            Many of these Russian Jews in Israel aren’t even really Jewish. These are the right wing voters you refer to.

          • Jack says:

            >Many of these Russian Jews in Israel aren’t even really Jewish. These are the right wing voters you refer to.

            WNs would do well to ask those Slavs how they are treated by the Israeli public, with an emphasis on treatment by moderately traditional Moroccans in southern Tel Aviv. A few years ago I heard about a Mischling from Latvia (mother not Jewish, but he always fasts on Yom Kippur, keeps some practices, looks Jewish and identifies as Jewish) who attempted aliyah and eventually returned to Latvia because the Jews won’t have him; did not surprise me, and I wasn’t a Super Hitler back then as I am today. Typical Jewish attitude.

          • Ron says:

            >But besides tribalism, they’re not really right-wing; Mud Jews are socialist

            Jack you make assertions like these all the time, but you arent correct. The right wing parties have (or at least had) a very high percentage of the Mizrahi vote, if anything its the Europeans that totally dominated the socialist parties

            As for tribalism, I really think you need to spend a month in Israel riding the buses at around 1-2 pm when the kids get out of school. Honestly, Im not being rhetorical. They are completely integrated. I mean, the ethiopians are still keeping to their own more than anyone else does, but even they are steadily being brought in. I see this all the time.

          • Ron says:

            @Jack

            >Nope, you’re presenting a false dilemma, as the r/K theory is itself a superstructure built upon a genetic base. It’s not either-or, it’s both.

            I dont think I presented a false dilemma. Look at my comment, I said “probabky has a lot more to do with .. than …”

            Believe me, everyone in Israel is well aware of different traits that different ethnic groups have. These things are running jokes among the populace because those traits are constantly observed. But by the same token everyone is also very well aware that genetic family types are not the absolutes that some of the WNs make it out to be.

            TL/DR: the sterotyoes have basis in fact, but they are not absolutes.

          • Jack says:

            >Jack you make assertions like these all the time, but you arent correct. The right wing parties have (or at least had) a very high percentage of the Mizrahi vote

            As I said, they don’t vote left-wing because the left-wing parties aren’t tribalist, but economically they’re socialist. It’s like Arabs in Europe, they aren’t Progressives, they just want Gibs, but their first priority is tribal interests.

          • peppermint says:

            r/K is retard-tier mathematical modeling applied due to retard-tier intellectual arrogance. It’s especially retarded for conservatives to bring up, because conservatives have larger families.

          • peppermint says:

            » the toxic combination of high verbal IQ and low performance IQ

            jews are all ass burgers who hang out on /pol/ and come up with hoax theories for the normies

          • ron says:

            >As I said, they don’t vote left-wing because the left-wing parties aren’t tribalist, but economically they’re socialist. It’s like Arabs in Europe, they aren’t Progressives, they just want Gibs, but their first priority is tribal interests.

            That makes no sense Jack. You are arguing like a man who’s decided the conclusion and then tries to come up with the rasons to justify that conclusion.

            The Mizrahi Jews are leftists even tho they vote Right wing at a higher percentage rate than Europeans. Next you will tell me their willingness to intermarry with Europeans is also evidence of tribalism.

          • ron says:

            @Jack

            For that matter, I don’t even know what the definition of “tribalism” is, or why it is good or bad.

            This is the definition I found online “the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group.”

            But how is this different than a lighter form of White ethno-nationalism? If Swedes are more partial to Swedes than to Finns, is that tribal? Is it bad? What does tribalism have to do with economic policy decision making?

            Is it tribalism if people you aren’t partial to engage in it, and ethnic nationalism otherwise? Is this all subjective or are there actual objective criteria involved?

          • Jack says:

            Mizrahim vote for right-wing parties, that’s a fact. If you measure someone’s political orientation based solely on the criterion that is one’s voting patterns, you can say they are “right-wing” for sure. If you allow for nuance and a wide array of attitudes, you may want to discern between voting for right-wing parties at the ballot and expecting your government to implement a certain policy. The policy Mizrahim want the Israeli government to implement is tribalism combined with socialism; since Likud and like-minded parties are not keen on socialism, while Labor is not tribalist enough for their tastes, Mizrahim are compelled to decide which value is dearer to their hearts: tribalism or Gibs – and evidently, they choose tribalism, then grumble and protest about the government not being socialist enough, though they’ll keep voting right-wing because tribalism is closer to heart.

            Ethno-nationalism is modern, tribalism is ancient. Original Zionists (who were Progressive for their era, but are outdated according to modern Progressivism; Cthulhu swims left and so forth) were deeply influenced by modern European conceptions of political sovereignty; Mizrahim, together with non-Zionist Orthodox Jews, were not influenced by these European notions, their attitude toward the desired structuring of society predates European Zionism or even disavows it utterly.

            Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing is a good question indeed, but there’s no question that Zionism has a distinctly Ashkenazi character whose previous manifestation was secular socialism in a national state (a sort of Jewish national socialism) and contemporary manifestation is religious Zionism (“Kookism”) and the settler movement: both overwhelmingly Ashkenazi, outliers notwithstanding. Religious Zionists are profoundly influenced by European thought regarding political sovereignty — though the Jewish habit is to deny outside influence, even when it’s pretty obviously there — while the rest of Jewry has either clung to its old tribal mindset, or Progressed beyond ethno-nationalism into modern liberalism.

            The answer to the question posited above is that it depends on your environment: tribalism works when in physical / metaphorical exile and when politically underprivileged (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism is an example you should be familiar with; see also Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option, Amish, Muslims in Europe, etc.) or when your empire is in decline (hence, for instance, American society going tribal); ethno-nationalism is the root of modern nation-states. Ethno-nationalists view national sovereignty as crucial, tribalists merely act in the interests of their tribe and judge everything accordingly, sovereignty or no sovereignty.

            WN, at least in its American version, seeks to have a nation-state for White people. The question of tribalism among Whites is complex because there are multiple White ethnicities in America, thus, distancing oneself completely from any form of pan-White collectivism for the sake of a particular European identity undermines the WN project, but renouncing all tribalism whatsoever leads to deracination and even miscegenation with non-Whites. Therefore, one has to be just tribal enough to identify with the White collective (rather than with “the whole human race” or whatever), but not so tribal as to reject all Whites who don’t belong to one’s particular European ethnos. This is the attitude WN in the US attempts to foster so eventually Whites could have a nation-state there.

          • Ron says:

            @Jack

            Reading what you wrote I get the following impression. Tribalism is the in group loyalty that allows people to override selfish considerations when weighed against the benefit to the group as a whole. Such that if certain group is predominated by selfish individualist considerations, they will put those considerations aside with the larger group that they identify with.

            Well, by that reasoning, New York Italians and Irish from Boston are tribal, so are Minnesotan Scandinavians, etc. I only see tribalism as a problem when one is acting as a bad neighbor to other clans or where one has obligations of loyalty to the super-tribe.

            For exampke, there are a lot of old family clans in Kentucky, if a particular clan went over the top in protecting their family rights at the expense of other groups, then yes, thats an example of tribalism run amock.

            Or if that same clan refused to stand up for the rest of their fellow Kentuckians, or if they refused to have anything to do with any other Kentuckian.

            These things we also have in Israel, usually with religious sects that are descended from specific European communities. Some less so, some more so. And yes, Russians form clans, Ethioians form clans, etc. but to the extent where they wont hace anything to do with other ethnic cultural groups, or to the extent where they only think about themselves? I havent seen or heard of this.

            The other day I was on a bus and I saw four Israeli teenagers. A russian princess, a polish punk rocker, a yeminite kid looking at his iohone, and a morrocan kid passed out on the yemenites backpack. That is significant because morrocans and yemenites are infamous for not getting along with each other. The russian princess sat down next to the yemenite and immediately started playing with his phone while the polish ounk rocker was mocking her to his yemenite friend. All these people were clearly old friends, and they clearly didnt see any big deal about any of it. So when you say europeans or middle eastern israelis are tribal, I think it has to depend on context.

            The original immigrants, yes obviously. The second genertion less so. The third generation even less so, etc.

            As for tribalism vs. selfish desire for handouts, Im very skeptical of your assertion. Mind you, if it was true, I wouldnt be upset about it, because I would simply use tht knowledge to try to account for those traits. I just dont see it at this moment.

          • Jack says:

            My original point wasn’t that Mizrahim are bad because they are tribalist; it was an elucidation of why your assertion that Mizrahim are far right-wingers is imprecise, as it’s not so much an embrace of right-wing ideology that drives their politics, but rather, it’s perceived tribal interests. An embrace of right-wing ideology you can find among the religious Ashkenazi journalists of Arutz Sheva, for instance.

            Mizrahim who vote Likud are no more genuinely right-wing than Blacks who vote Democrat are genuinely left-wing. The more complex a political ideology is, the higher is the IQ required to adhere to it. Simple people are driven by base interests, either tribal, economic, or both. If tomorrow Likud became totally socialist, but kept pandering to Jewish tribal sentiments as it does now, it would not lose the support of Mizrahim, on the contrary, they’d support it even more vociferously.

            Mizrahi tribalism is good, just as Ashkenazi tribalism is good, because racial segregation would preserve the Ashkenazi qualities that Mizrahim so conspicuously lack. But the Israeli regime suppresses ethnic-particularlism in favor of a pan-Jewish nationalism, so as you very aptly described, Russian princesses and Yemenite boys are sincerely convinced that they belong to the same people, so today they play with each other’s phones, but tomorrow they have vigorous sex and, as I often say here, Israel progresses along the path of a dysgenic melting pot, which is bound to end catastrophically.

            If an Ashkenazi is convinced that Ethiopians are his brothers and sisters, and is lectured constantly about how racism against any fellow Jewish ethnos is wrong, he may bring home that cute Ethiopian chick from the office, and produce multi-racial mongrels whose average IQ is quite modest (approximately 90); Mazel Tov! This is how civilizations die. Ashkenazim should therefore keep to themselves to avoid such a calamity, but if there’s no segregation, if intra-Jewish ethnic-particularism is discouraged, and Russians, Poles, Yemenites and Moroccans are oh so happy to coexist and later have reproductive sex with one another, you’ll inevitably become a nation of stupid and aggressive brown people.

            Israel is getting closer and closer to that point, but you don’t see any problem, this state of affairs of diminishing racial consciousness is idyllic in your view, right? It’s insane, really.

          • Jack says:

            Btw, let me refer you to Shas Party, which represents the religious Mizrahi establishment shorn of European conceptions of right-wing and left-wing: does it not proclaim to be socialist, albeit using different terminology, every so often? They call for increased welfare (mo’ money fo’ dem programs!), the complete dominance of Mizrahi interests regardless of the wishes of rightist West Bank settlers (with whom they compete for resource allocation) and considerations of national security, and the erasure of Israel’s Ashkenazi atmosphere and legacy. You can’t describe them as authentically right-wing; it’s naked, crude tribalism in distilled form. Which is all legitimate, but do take a moment to imagine an Israel that is majority Shas-voting North African and Yemenite paupers, and a bunch of Ethiopians too. It’s not a grave, it’s the future you pursue, and when it materializes, either Ashkenazim rediscover their ethnic-particularism, or integrate into Mud forever. Since Ashkenazim show no signs of gaining a racial consciousness even while Muds have become the unequivocal majority, and are eager to denounce racism, it’s clear where you’re headed.

          • peppermint says:

            » tl;dr political manifesto

            I’ve known so many mischlinge ass burgers, I conjecture that the spergs is caused by genetic incompatibility between the Jew brain and the Aryan brain

          • Jack says:

            And so, Peppermint concludes the debate by noting that all participants were autistic Jews. Which is, coincidentally, the full story of the rise and fall of NRx.

    • Irving says:

      >Roissy (James Weidmann) is probably a Mischling

      Interesting! I had no idea that was heartiste’s real name. He’s definitely a Jew.

      • Jack says:

        From his pic it’s hard to tell exactly how much Jewish blood circulates in his veins:

        https://tcdh.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/roissy.jpg

        I’d argue he’s not a full Jew, but is somewhat Jewish. He’s a childless, probably divorced, sex-obsessed degenerate with an unnecessarily fancy jargon, after all, so even without the German-derived surname, he’d be suspect.

        • ..peppermint says:

          …and, as seen in his more recent posts, he’s gone full Nazi, condemning immigration and the Eskimos who support it.

        • Corvinus says:

          That photograph has never been confirmed as being Roissy.

        • Jack says:

          Roissy is one of the useful Jews, just as Roosh is one of the useful Muds. Post restoration, both should be deported (to Israel and Iran, respectively) or killed.

          • Irving says:

            So then, jack, what happens to you, a Jew, come the restoration?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            L.O.L., but “Irving”, how do you know he doesn’t already live on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea?

          • Jack says:

            If AJP told you that he recalls, explicitly, how a week (or so) ago I confessed to being an ordained rabbi from Tampa, Florida, would you accept that as a trustworthy testimony?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            http://blog.jim.com/war/the-trouble-with-fashism-and-1488/#comment-1192235

            ->I’m guessing your father is Jewish, but your mother isn’t.

            Initially I was a self-hating Jew, then I metamorphosed to a skinhead Nazi, now those two opposing aspects of my personality have reconciled and amalgamated into a Mischling who’s insecure about his identity.-

            You can laugh it off or whatever, but it’s still strange. Yep, as I recall, from the 18th…

          • Jack says:

            Jim is correct, sarcasm is hard on the internet, especially when surrounded by Utility Maximizers.

          • Irving says:

            Yep. You said it yourself Jack. You’re a Jew.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The reason why the Talmudic types get into pro-white causes is to make it “funnier” by going Hollywood Nazi and refusing to allow whites to take themselves seriously…

            A.J.P.

          • Jack says:

            Actually, humor facilities the acceptance of WN ideology; it’s the types who march around in uniforms and take their own bullshit seriously who scare people out of the movement, and are Jewish provocateurs more often than not. The alt-right rises due to its profound sense of humor, not due to lack thereof.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            White anti-whites do the same thing, but they’re often portraying a Chinaman or a negro. Most whites actually don’t feel comfortable going full Hollywood Nazi, even as a joke, but they’re relatively comfortable hitting out against the “redneck” K.K.K. with a imitating mockery… But then you have Yisrael and Moeshe going and doing the haken-kreuz routine to fill in the gaps.

            Anti-whites are silly.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The most successful pro-white efforts at humour are the ones that mock anti-white regimes, not pro-white ones. N.S. Germany, in actuality, not in theater, tried but failed to set up a pro-white society. It had anti-miscegenation laws, remember? Just like the evil, awful American South…

            The pro-whites must mock anti-whites.

            “Anti-whites openly boast to each other about the ‘brown future’ they demand for White countries…
            until a pro-White enters the discussion and brings up #WhiteGenocide
            All of a sudden they have ‘no idea what he’s talking about'”

            Indian says:
            “Turning America into a 3rd World ‘Melting Pot’ will COMPLETELY eradicate Native Americans
            So please Anti-White, tell me again how much you care about Native Americans”

            “1965 – ‘CALIFORNIA WON’T BECOME NON-WHITE, THAT’S A NEO NAZI CONSPIRACY THEORY!’
            1975 – ‘AMERICA WON’T BECOME NON-WHITE, THAT’S A NEO NAZI CONSPIRACY THEORY!’
            1985 – ‘ONLY NEO-NAZIS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CALIFORNIA BECOMING NON-WHITE!’
            1995 – ‘ONLY NEO-NAZIS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AMERICA BECOMING NON-WHITE!’
            EUROPE WON’T BECOME NON-WHITE THAT’S A NEO NAZI CONSPIRACY THEORY!”

            Anti-white says:
            “So you’re saying that just because I support immigration & assimilation policies that force white children to become minorities in their own homes, and just because I harass & and call white people names if they object to these policies; this makes me an ANTI-WHITE GENOCIDAL SOCIOPATH?”
            Pro-white says:
            “YES Jackass, that’s EXACTLY what I’m Saying”

            “‘WE ARE ALL HUMAN!’
            ‘WE ALL BLEED RED!’
            ‘BECAUSE OF HISTORY’
            ‘FOR THE ECONOMY’
            ‘A SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS’
            ‘RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!’
            ‘WE ALL COME FROM AFRICA!’
            THESE ARE ALL PERFECT JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHITE GENOCIDE!”

            Anti-white with a bag labeled “anti-white” on his head, caption reads:
            “WHAT’S WRONG ANTI-WHITE?
            SUDDENLY YOU’RE ASHAMED OF YOUR VIEWS?”

            Focusing on Nazi-ism is a stupid way to use reverse psychology to promote a Roman Catholic, Austrian led regime of the past in Anglosphere territory in the 21st Century. It’s also Talmud-centric, because of its martyrology. It’s also lazy and boring.

            A.J.P.

          • jim says:

            There is absolutely no reason to believe Roissy is a Jew, and his writing style is the opposite of the stereotypical Jewish writing style, not that that is a very reliable tell.

          • Corvinus says:

            Either you are pure in your intentions or your not. There is no middle ground. If Roissy and Roosh are what personifies “evil” in your mind, and you still support them as useful idiots to your half-ass cause, then you clearly lack any scruples.

            Praytell, how are YOU contributing to this post restoration? What, you think posting on a blog is “fighting the good fight”?

        • jim says:

          To the extent that Heartiste uses jargon, his usage is unlike that of Jews.

          Stereotypical Jewish behavior is for a Jew to redefine words so that the words make him right by definition, so that you cannot disagree with him with displaying your ignorance by using words in a manner he deems incorrect, hence the saying “With Jews you lose”, and to define words and then attempt to deduce things about the world and reality from somewhat artificial definitions, as for example Marx’s labor theory of value. Not seeing that in Roissy.

      • Ron says:

        I encourage anyone flirting with ethnic fixation to take a good long look at this discussion and think about the ramifications of it to your lives and society.

        Roissy is the standard bearer for the Alt right, and he is now being demonized for the remote possibility that he might have Jewish blood in him. No one has a confirmed photo, no one is even sure what his name is, but damn the facts anyway. Because someone has an axe to grind, and racist accusations is the one sure fire way to take him down. Why? Because you cant argue a racist accusation.

        Now this wont affect Roissy. Hes too popular, too useful, and besides, hes probsbly a lilly white German going back a hundred generations. But the law is one thing for celevrities and another for the common man.

        If you are a common man, and you get hit with the Jew accusation, well you are going to simply get put in your place. What are you going to do, pull out an ancestral chart proving you arent a Jew? What if you had some Jew relative going back 5 gens? And what if your enemies decide to instead accuse you of Jew sympathies, or being a crypto Jew? How do you propose to fend that kind of accusation off?

        This is the problem with giving arbitrary power to the mob. It sounds really great when the other guy is getting torn apart by the mob in your favor. Its not so great when that same mob turns its attention to you.

        • Jack says:

          It’s not that Roissy is bad because he’s Jewish, it’s that Jews are bad because they produced Roissy, among other things.

          • ron says:

            Jack you completely missed my point.

            My point is that when you use a false, superficial method to determine whether someting is good or bad, that same method can be used to terrorize all innocent men.

            It’s a con Jack. It’s a trick to keep men toeing the social line. It’s no different than they arbitrary nonsense the SJW’s use. The purpose isn’t justice or order, it’s about control.

    • peppermint says:

      Feminists refer to the culture created by consent as rape culture, because to feminists, rape means women feeling degraded.

      PUA is created by Jews in the sense that consent culture and porn are created by Jews and it it the logical result.

      White men do not permit other men to have multiple wives or mistresses and shun the children of other men when those men aren’t part of the social contract.

      When those White men start barring each other from protecting women under the guise of protecting women, some men will take advantage of this, including Roissy, who has gone full Nazi, and Roosh, a mudblood.

      PUA is about how to maximize your count of sexual partners, which is important not only in the hope that at the end of your 20s you should marry one of them, but also because those women want to hear that you’ve done a lot of sex. Protip to 20 year olds: don’t fuck skanks you don’t want to marry, but lie to women you do want that you have. The fully redpilled life is better than living within the constraints of rape culture.

      We can condemn Roosh while daring feminists to condemn their creation.

      • Jack says:

        >PUA is created by Jews in the sense that consent culture and porn are created by Jews and it it the logical result.

        That’s the meta-level analysis, but on the object-level, too, we find that all the founders of PUA and “Game” are kikes. Funny how the Jews ruin an environment thoroughly and then offer themselves as the solution, for huge sums of shekels of course.

  11. Bob Wallace says:

    Roosh is a POS liar and fraud. Every PUA I’ve known has targeted ugly women and/or mentally-ill ones.

  12. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    “trying to be more holy instead of trying to win”

    An accurate description of the current Right, especially the cucks and tradcons and not a few white-knighting AltRighters.

    • theshadowedknight says:

      The white knationalists bravely defending milady and trying to purge anyone they disapprove of are trying to pull a William Buckley on the John Birch Society. Look how useless Buckley conservatism is, as his brainchild, NRO, defends pedophilia and attacks the alt right from the left.

      White knationalists and traditional conservatives have utterly failed to do anything meaningful. In four years, the manosphere has done more than they have in decades, and they are trying to tell us how to run our movement. Even NRx, with it’s weird ideas and resistance to anything remotely resembling demotism, has done more than they have. They can keep their advice.

      The Shadowed Knight

      • Laguna Beach Fogey says:

        Agreed. Equally amusing, to me at least, is the fact the same AltRighters attempting to drum Roosh (Persian/Armenian, Degenerate) out of the movement are the same ones only too happy to line up to kiss the ass of guys like Cernovich (Jew, Degenerate, Video Games), Milo (Homosexualist, Degenerate, Video Games) and Vox Day (Indian, Christian, Geek, Video Games). The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

        • Jack says:

          Milo is half-Jewish as well. But Roosh comes across as a foreign psychopath whose damage to the alt-right outweighs his contributions, whatever those are, while those other figures, less so. These manosphere con-men are only good for introducing clueless newbs to the alt-right. Any decent society would feed the “leaders” of the manosphere (menorahsphere) to the sharks. PUA/MRA/MGTOW has provided some valid insights, but in the grand scheme of things it’s yet another Jewish misdirection, not unlike the kosher segments of NRx.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            The manosphere con men are only good for introducing people to the alt right. The obvious response? Purge them!

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Jack says:

            Where did I advocate purging anyone? This strawmanning, or misattribution of argument, is sperg-tastic. These menorahsphere con-men should be utilized by the forces of reaction, then disposed of when their utility vanishes. It’s too early to take these degenerates on helicopter rides, they’re too useful currently. WNs are wrong to purge Roosh right now, should let him do his thing, and only when society is restored, shoot bullets through his skull.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Then I misunderstood you, and I apologize for that. We seem to be in agreement. I have no issue with your position. My argument is thus: Given that the manosphere is a flow of new recruits and is assisting in tearing down the cathedral, they should be tolerated and treated as allies until such time as they cease to be of utility. Their knowledge is already in the public domain, so they have served that purpose. If they were to get in the way of restoring order, at that point we turn on them and purge them, not before.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Yeah, this is kind of funny because “Jack” was discussing his own Talmudic Jewish background only a week or so ago… I don’t have the guts to get in the middle of this really, only maintaining a bit of objective perspective…

          • Bob Wallace says:

            “Milo is half-Jewish as well.”

            The fraud and liar “Roissy” is Jewish, which means “cultural destroyer.” “Roosh,” who was caught on TV posting a Russian women’s photo after saying he slept with her (she called him a liar to his face)…And “Vox Day” left America and lives in Italy.

            Much of the Manoshere is childish. Look at how well-known these clowns are.

            • jim says:

              There is no evidence that Roissy is Jewish, and considerable evidence that he is not.

              PUA methods work dramatically well, but are not easily taught or understood. Some PUAs are scammers, but some, many, sleep with a ridiculously large number of women.

          • Corvinus says:

            “The fraud and liar “Roissy” is Jewish, which means “cultural destroyer.””

            Niwdog’s Law—As an online discussion continues with multiple posters, the likelihood of a person making assertions that the Jews are behind everything in the world that is “bad” exponentially grows.

  13. Anon says:

    A lot of people are deriding Roissy, Roosh, Milo, Tomassi etc. as degenerates and they’re right of course, but you’re missing the point. In the Western sexual market if you don’t treat women as a cad would treat them you will end up either sexless or divorce-fucked. The optimum strategy is taking advantage of attractive but ruined women until you find one who is attractive but not ruined (submissive and feminine). Stay with her but don’t marry her, and kick her to the curb at the first incidence of infidelity. Hard, but not impossible. There is no other alternative until the West starts rolling back female emancipation.

    I’ll repeat from the other thread: there is absolutely zero incentive for a male to get married in the West in 2016, so we play the cards we’ve been dealt, which means withholding commitment and taking advantage of women. To go along with the current state of marriage would be to give legitimacy to a broken system where women are given 100% of the power the moment you say “I do”.

    To shit on Roissy et al because he’s contributing to degeneracy is to imply it would have made a difference had he not been a degenerate, which is asinine. Drop of piss in an ocean of piss. One degenerate refraining from degeneracy won’t put a dent in anything; women need to be subjugated again for there to be incentive not to act like a degenerate. Until that happens, not acting like a cad is a losing strategy.

    • Corvinus says:

      “In the Western sexual market if you don’t treat women as a cad would treat them you will end up either sexless or divorce-fucked.”

      Who talks that way? “Western sexual market”…seriously? It’s the American sexual market. And you are assuming that if guys act in the manner YOU prescribed then they will suffer enduring consequences.

      “The optimum strategy is taking advantage of attractive but ruined women until you find one who is attractive but not ruined (submissive and feminine). Stay with her but
      don’t marry her, and kick her to the curb at the first incidence of infidelity.”

      Your strategy is will inevitably result in continued moral degeneracy. Rather, a man should find a mate, marry, and have children, preferably white, right?

      Praytell, how are YOU aiding in the saving of “Western Civilization” via procreation?

      “There is no other alternative until the West starts rolling back female emancipation.”

      That’s observably false, since there is little or no need to roll back anything. Men and women will marry and have children.

      “I’ll repeat from the other thread: there is absolutely zero incentive for a male to get married in the West in 2016”

      You are the queen of grandiose statements. Are you married? Do you have children? If not, then you are a biological dead-end.

      “which means withholding commitment and taking advantage of women.”

      As the superior species, men have a duty to refrain from sexing up women PUA style, lest they demonstrate that their fathers failed in their patriarchial mission to teach their sons self-restraint.

      To shit on Roissy et al because he’s contributing to degeneracy is to imply it would have made a difference had he not been a degenerate, which is asinine.”

      It’s not one degenerate, but thousands of them. Taking the trash out permanently observably cleans up the system.

      • Anon says:

        “That’s observably false, since there is little or no need to roll back anything. Men and women will marry and have children.”

        And their children will grow to be the degenerates you shit on because their parents were degenerates, because idiots like you don’t see how female emancipation incentivizes cad behaviour

        • Corvinus says:

          “And their children will grow to be the degenerates you shit on because their parents were degenerates, because idiots like you don’t see how female emancipation incentivizes cad behaviour”

          Emancipation, whether male or female, incentivizes cad behavior only when parents neglect to teach their children how to act and behave properly with members of the opposite sex. Men and women have historically sinned, have found ways to use and abuse one another. It has nothing to do with women having more liberty, or men having more liberty, it has everything to do with how that freedom is implemented. If a man or woman knows that they get sex merely by uttering sweet nothings to their intended target, and they act upon their feelings rather than refrain from those instincts, it is failure upon mothers and fathers.

          Are you able as a man to not have sex with “loose” women? Or are you a cuck to your glands?

          Again, are you married? Do you have a litter of 3-6 children? Or are you one of those “men” whose parents neglected to instill the values of honor and dignity based on Christian ideals?

          • Anon says:

            I’m not a Christian so I’m not sure why you are talking to me as if I am one. You say I’m a cuck to my glands but everyone is a cuck to their genes, even you, and if you want to play the biology card you are the cuckiest of the cucks for investing time and effort into supporting a wife and children and then rationalizing it with the values of a Bronze Age offshoot of Judaism.

            Rhetoric aside, I do have a nice white girl and plan to have kids but you still have not addressed the central issue, nor do you want to take this conversation to its logical conclusion (the end to your “cuck to your glands” nonsense is antinatalism). The issue at play here is “Can I get away with being a cad until I’m ready to have kids?”. The answer is yes.

            The question you should have asked yourself is “Should I have gotten married?”. Let’s hope you picked a good one to wife up because given the current climate the government neither gives a shit about, nor will it enforce, your Christianity-based family patriarchy if your wife decides modern incentives are to her advantage. We’ll see how alpha dog you are when you’re splayed out on your lawn in handcuffs after your wife decides you have been physically abusing her.

          • jim says:

            Emancipation, whether male or female, incentivizes cad behavior only when parents neglect to teach their children how to act and behave properly with members of the opposite sex.

            If children were to follow parental teaching in our society, aka progressive teaching, the men would remain virgins and the women would become cat ladies after their pussies were worn out on the cock carousel.

            Girls do what they are taught to do at age twelve in school and on television – which is focus on on their careers and fucking Jeremy Meeks, because supposedly it is urgent to get ahead in a career, whereas girls supposedly have all the time in the world to have children.

          • Corvinus says:

            “I’m not a Christian so I’m not sure why you are talking to me as if I am one.”

            Then you are lost.

            “You say I’m a cuck to my glands but everyone is a cuck to their genes…”

            You and Peppermint would make a great team.

            “Rhetoric aside, I do have a nice white girl and plan to have kids”

            But not get married? And see girls on the sly as well? That’s exactly why Western Civilization is falling.

            “The issue at play here is “Can I get away with being a cad until I’m ready to have kids?”. The answer is yes.”

            It only proves my assertion you are a cuck to your glands.

            “The question you should have asked yourself is “Should I have gotten married?”.

            The answer is yes. No worries. It’s called trust. You make the assumption that all or most woman will act in a manner are going to cut off a man’s balls and eat them for breakfast.

            Stay single. Have kids out of wedlock if you want, but you’re no different than the darkies.

            “We’ll see how alpha dog you are when you’re splayed out on your lawn in handcuffs after your wife decides you have been physically abusing her.”

            That’s never going to happen, Cochise. You have a ton of issues, man.

          • Anon says:

            Yes, ignore the important parts of my post and reassert your initial nonsense, that will surely make it true. You accuse other people of having “issues” Corvinus but your posts are content-free, there’s nothing to respond to here.

          • peppermint says:

            Girls do what they are told. They are told to get careers. So they get careers.

            Girls are told by society and their hot sexy boyfriends that it’s okay to be a man’s second woman, even though if White, their genes scream against it if they have any feelings of social status. But they’re told that they have no social status and to feel guilty.

            And the men are held up by the depression from getting careers and have a hard time competing with Section Ape vouchers given to niggers and migrants or competing with welfare for niggers and migrants and careers handed to niggers and migrants.

            So they do what they are told. If you know how to ask them, they will tell you that they are not happy with the situation. But it is in the nature of women to endure.

            Kill all the migrants. Kill all the politicians who created this depression. Kill all the academics and journalists behind the politicians. Kill, White man, you spilled seed and the woman who was to be your wife cries out to you. Thanks to the liberals, there is no decency in this world, there is only death, and the White man is the master of death. Kill!

          • Corvinus says:

            “Kill all the migrants. Kill all the politicians who created this depression. Kill all the academics and journalists behind the politicians. Kill, White man, you spilled seed and the woman who was to be your wife cries out to you. Thanks to the liberals, there is no decency in this world, there is only death, and the White man is the master of death. Kill!”

            So Peppermint Patty is advocating 187. Praytell, are you merely an impotent armchair quarterback spouting off words, or do you have the guts to go all-Breivik.

    • Alan J. Perrickd says:

      There’s no use bemoaning life in a bad world while making extraordinarily scatalogical comments like yours. If you want to live in a nice place, you must to some degree build it yourself!

      A.J.P.

  14. Mister Grumpus says:

    All’s I’m sayin’…

    …is that had it not been for RooshV and Chateau Heartiste, I’d never have (eventually) gotten to Taki’s, and to Vdare, and to SPBDL (etc.), and to here.

    In fact RooshV himself said in that one Rebel Media interview that for most men, learning how women “work” is the gateway to all of this other knowledge and understanding of history, politics, mass psychology, you name it. Interest-in/frustration-with women is the doorway into ALL of this stuff.

    So yeah. He’s more effective as a messenger than all of us put together, so no need to shoot him, and pointless to try anyway.

  15. Morkyz says:

    One of the things I love about this blog is how every poster has his own unique crippling pathology.

    • ted nuisance says:

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I cannot agree enough.

      Too much internet for these fellas.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Morkyz”,

      Is that supposed to mean something coming from an individual with such a hot-link attached to his user name. You may pretend you have high standards, “Morkyz” but you may only pretend.

      A.J.P.

    • Jack says:

      It’s human pathological diversity.

  16. Alan J. Perrick says:

    I’d rather suffer name-calling than have signed off on approval of a coloured man sleeping with white women, “Jim”.

    And, yes you approve, since you follow up your fourth sentence-paragraph with a fifth sentence-pargraph opining on people who disagree with your lack of finding a problem with the coloured man “doing his thing”…

    Unless, you’re prepared to call your fifth paragraph-sentence a _non_sequitor_, you are approving of what he is doing… No wiggling out of your approval of his conduct. This is the problem with the conservative mindset, that it lacks vision. Sure, the negro is the worst type of coloured set loose in white society, but the Middle Easterner is not too much better. You, “Jim”, only suggest that the negro is dangerous, but now you’re approving of the sport-fucking that the individual in question is doing, meaning you’re showing a huge blind spot.

    Nobody’s asking you to purge, or if they are, then you shouldn’t take them seriously. The blogger “Free Northerner” already explained how such a purge is impossible, lacking institutional authority in the blogosphere. It is shown to be a strawman, which to be considered seriously means that you have some explaining to do…

    If you feel like worshipping supposed coloured virility, there is always Sunday football. I doubt you would have any ideological qualms in flipping on the “Big Game”.

    A.J.P.

    • Corvinus says:

      Those who support sanctions at best or laws at worst against a white person procreating with a non-white is fascist, as it seizes the liberty of humanity.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Corvinus”,

        Next you’ll say something like whites have no right to have land because “everywhere is for everyone”…

        How do yuppies like you find this blog?

        • Corvinus says:

          Whites have every right to own their own land and associate with whom they want to.

          “there is no act more senselessly cruel than race mixing.”

          Ok, so you stated an opinion. Congratulations.

      • peppermint says:

        there is no act more senselessly cruel than race mixing. the child is denied any sense of belonging except to hate both races.

      • Morkyz says:

        WTF is Corvinus’ shtick supposed to be? I can’t figure it out!!!!!

    • Dick Wagner says:

      Hey Alan I’m curious, what is it about browns banging whites that gets your goat exactly? For me it’s because I’m a white supremacist. If a brown alien race came to this planet and it was as smart as or smarter than whites I’d be all for race-mixing. But as things stand now breeding with browns would be a watering-down of our stock. Though I am in support of white/east-asian mating…

      • peppermint says:

        why the hell do you want beta faggot rice nigger DNA? There’s a reason General Tso’s fleet never made it to the Americas.

        • Dick Wagner says:

          We know the IQ thing – they’re koff koff better than us. Not to mention it’s no coincidence that there is the “asian fetish” phenomenon among white guys, and feminine beauty is important (however not as important as the fact that japs have never had a Bach or Goethe I concede).

          What seems to be taken for granted with a lot of you guys is that race-mixing as such is taboo, whereas to me that smacks of kneejerk monkey instinct.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Saying Asian women have more “feminine beauty” is pure sour grapes for having low status with white women.

            (NE) Asians are very much lower sexual dimorphism than whites. There are actually some attractive Asian women but there are no feminine Asian women – the closest they come is slightly childish.

            To put it bluntly, race mixing with an Asian woman is a bad idea because your sons will look like they have Down’s Syndrome. The girls will be prettier Asian women for what that’s worth.

          • Dick Wagner says:

            You’re just trying to rationalize white staying with white. That’s what everyone here is trying to rationalize. And frankly it makes whites look bad.

            If Asian women look like children white women look like old ladies. Even hardened klansmen know they’re hot as hell. Plus from my experience they tend to be less susceptible to feminist brainwash, i.e. more ineluctably submissive.

            I guess the question to ask yourself is whether you care more about having a son with a downie-face or one with lower IQ.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -look bad-

            That’s what

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -look bad-

            That’s what’s known as respectable conservatism, “Dick”.

            Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, it’s Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, and white countries for everybody.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            haha, no they’re not. They’re uncreative ants.

            You know, when rice niggers draw the most beautiful woman they can, their pictures have

            * Smaller noses than rice niggers
            * Larger eyes than sand niggers
            * Bigger boobs than Whites
            * Straight hair like rice niggers or Whites
            * Blonde, brunette, redhead, or blue hair
            * Blue, green, or purple eyes

            Our women are objectively the most beautiful, and everyone knows it.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Look at Donald Trump and Mark Zuckerberg. Which one of those guys has his pick of women? Which one of those guys married a homely Asian chick? Which of those two guys is a low test loser?

          • Dick Wagner says:

            You guys are obviously hiding something.

            Rightism is about allying with hierarchy, the high over the low. To care about whites just because they’re whites and not because they’re higher makes you an albino nigga.

            If not race-mixing with Asians, it’s pretty clear that we should be trying to marry Jews since they’re typically smarter than whites. But lmao I know how well that notion is going to fly with you albino niggas.

          • Corvinus says:

            “There are actually some attractive Asian women but there are no feminine Asian women – the closest they come is slightly childish.”

            How can anyone remotely give anyone Lil’ Stevie any credence to his position when he makes this statement, which is observably false.

            “The Chinese feminine ideal is for a wife to live absolutely, selflessly for her husband. Therefore when a husband who is sick or invalided from overwork requires a handmaid, a hand rack or eye rack [sic] to enable him to get well and to make him fit for his life work, the wife in China with her selflessness gives it to him just as a good wife in Europe and America gives an armchair or goat’s milk to her husband when he is sick or requires it.” (Gu Hongming, 1922)

          • peppermint says:

            » To care about whites just because they’re whites and not because they’re higher makes you an albino nigga.

            Whites are Whites, and Whites are superior, due to our unique history developing our genome to have cooperative, low time preference, and intelligent men, and beautiful women.

            » If not race-mixing with Asians, it’s pretty clear that we should be trying to marry Jews since they’re typically smarter than whites.

            What the fuck, no, we don’t want their shyster bullshit genes. There’s more to genetics or supremacy than IQ.

            • jim says:

              Cooperation is easier between people of high IQ, easier between people of similar IQ, easier between men than between men and women, or between women and women, easier between people racially similar, easier between people culturally similar. For well functioning religions, easier between people of the same religion.

              Diversity lowers trust, and thus results in national dysfuction and lower living standards. But diversity is not the only obstacle to cooperation.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            LMAO – for “observably” you use a 100 year old quote about what the Chinese feminine ideal is. For fuck’s sake it’s not even a quote that contains an observation!

            Also not surprising that you just had to chime in to defend the honor of the loser white guys who have to resort to Asian women.

            White guys who date white women – Donald Trump

            White-(ish) guys who date Asian women – Mark Zuckerberg

            Search some images to see the difference.

            The first step in learning to change is to admit you have a problem. Hit the gym. Learn a practical martial art. Start hunting. Do something masculine and maybe someday you can hope to attract a white woman.

          • Jack says:

            >Rightism is about allying with hierarchy, the high over the low.

            Is that you, Nick Land?

            >To care about whites just because they’re whites and not because they’re higher makes you an albino nigga.

            Globally this is correct, because a global meritocracy would advance humanity in terms of science more than clannishness. Locally, one is better off surrounded by one’s own, generally speaking, whatever merits and utilities those others may posses.

            >If not race-mixing with Asians, it’s pretty clear that we should be trying to marry Jews since they’re typically smarter than whites. But lmao I know how well that notion is going to fly with you albino niggas.

            Breeding with a straight-nosed, round-blue-eyed, blonde-haired Ashkenazi chick whose behavior does not convey the impression of a Callous Reptilian Evil Entity of Predation (CREEP) is safe if you’re willing to accept the fact that your children will never, ever be great artists of any conceivable form of art (except the art of bullshitting), and will have severely diminished creativity compared to normal Whites, probably diminished curiosity as well. Also myopia. Only 3% at best of Ashkenazi chicks fit my description anyway, go find ’em. The rest are biological suicide.

            Race-mixing is beneficial if you’re Black, since everyone’s genes are superior to yours. If you’re White? The 14 words and nothing else will do.

          • Dave says:

            Read “hapas” blogs and you’ll see that White-Asian hybrids are a total mess. Being good Progressives, they attribute their mental illness to their parents’ racism and self-hatred. In fact their brains, like their faces, are an incoherent mashup of White and Asian features. Normally when two populations suffer this level of hybrid dysfunction, biologists classify them as different species, but humans are excepted for purely political reasons.

            • jim says:

              East Asians and whites split far more recently than asians and blacks, and it is often hard to spot a half asian. It is the hairlessness that is the tell, you cannot tell by looking at their faces.

              West Hunter’s analysis is that the original Indo European conquerors, or the male line of the legendary kings of the original Indo European conquerors, came from east Siberia, hence were somewhat similar to Asians – came from somewhere along the cline between whites and Asians.

              In this thread by “Asian” we mean Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. English people use “Asian” as a euphemism for Muslim and/or to refer to people on the cline between white and black.

          • Jack says:

            What Dave said. Hapas are overwhelmingly dysfunctional, males in particular, moreso than black-white hybrids. It’s strange but true. Asian thinking patterns are completely foreign to the White brain, are more incompatible than African or Semitic thinking patterns. Not sure which exact mechanism accounts for this fact, but it is what it is. People who suffer the “yellow fever” must be quite miserable.

          • Jack says:

            Perhaps the explanation is different non-cro-magnon ancestors who couldn’t mix on their own. Just a theory.

          • Dave says:

            When photos of Elliot Rodger flashed across the Internet, I had no idea he was “hapa”. But when I saw a video of his face on TV, I knew it instantly. With Daniel Holtzclaw, a still photo was enough. There is no typical “hapa face”, but when you see a random mix of White and Asian features, you know.

          • Jack says:

            The appeal of Asians to certain White demographics seems fetishistic in nature, due mostly to pornography. Specifically, Asians are masters of the scatological arts, producing masterpieces of involuntarily enema and vomiting videos, and other bizarre themes pertaining to various forms of incontinence, which White and Jewish fetishists crave in their own females, and project unto Asian females. There probably really is nothing degrading that Asians won’t do, so the projection isn’t far off the mark.

            Anime also seems quite pornographic, though the irony is lost on those who masturbate to depictions of White chicks based on the fantasies of Asian males.

            Also, the rise of “not racist” “race realism” on the alt-right brought some individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome to slavishly worship Jews and Asians based on IQ tests, as if all other qualities are irrelevant. That Asians only thrive by mimicking the West, and Jews may be smart but undermine their hosts viciously, will forever go unmentioned by these folks. At least they can brag to their liberal Facebook friends about how enlighteningly “not racist” they are because they only dislike spics and spooks but not chinks and gooks, it’s all purely “scientific” and seems like a winning strategy to those spergs.

            Ultimately it’s about deracination, people who are cut off from their own cultural roots seek an exotic substitute elsewhere, so utilize Asians for that purpose. “Yellow fever” only strikes the lowest of Whites, it’s a genetic culling process against dysfunctional Whites.

          • Dave says:

            Jack, I was attracted to Asian women long before I ever saw them in porn. Just as Blacks of both sexes are more masculine than their White counterparts (except in their ability to earn a living), Asians are more feminine and neotenous — shorter, thinner build, smaller breasts, higher voices, less body hair, etc. Asian girls with vaguely Caucasian faces are absolutely stunning, but not a good choice for marriage, as explained above.

          • Corvinus says:

            Jack…

            “At least they can brag to their liberal Facebook friends about how enlighteningly “not racist” they are because they only dislike spics and spooks but not chinks and gooks, it’s all purely “scientific” and seems like a winning strategy to those spergs.”

            That’s what the venerable Charles Murray prescribes.

            “Ultimately it’s about deracination, people who are cut off from their own cultural roots seek an exotic substitute elsewhere, so utilize Asians for that purpose. “Yellow fever” only strikes the lowest of Whites, it’s a genetic culling process against dysfunctional Whites.”

            Corrected for accuracy —> Some people, regardless of their racial, ethnic, or cultural background, marvel other races, ethnicities, and cultures. In some cases, they may associate with them on professional or personal grounds. For those people who develop intimate relationships with, say Asians, it is because of their mutual affinities. They marry and sire offspring. In a number of instances, family bonds and strengthened, with high IQ children as a result.

            “Normally when two populations suffer this level of hybrid dysfunction, biologists classify them as different species.”

            You assume there is this “hybrid dysfunction”.

            Lil’ Stevie…

            “for “observably” you use a 100 year old quote about what the Chinese feminine ideal is. For fuck’s sake it’s not even a quote that contains an observation!”

            Listen, I know you’re preferred reading is Return of Kings, and such high-brow intellectualism as found on Jim’s blog is beyond your pay grade. The quotation says in the first line what is Chinese femininity and specifically discusses how and why women embrace that role. You made the statement that there are “no feminine Asian women”. I offered a specific instance that utterly destroys your absolute claim.

          • Jack says:

            >Asians are more feminine and neotenous — shorter, thinner build, smaller breasts, higher voices, less body hair, etc.

            It’s more juvenile than feminine. Men are generally attracted to indicators of sexual maturity: tits and ass, plus a nice face. Asians don’t have tits, ass, or a nice face going for them. They look anorexic, lack meat in the right places. Voice should be high, but not shrill. This blog has a reputation for being a pedophiles’ den, but pretty sure most of us here prefer normal to large breasts rather than “small breasts”, so I hope. As for body hair, well yeah, teenage boys have little body hair too, yet I don’t find them attractive.

            I can see the appeal of some Negresses who have human, non-gorilla faces, perhaps due to White admixture. Can also understand the seductive prowess of Jewesses. Asians? Never found them attractive at all. They’re like extraterrestrial children. 13 year old White chicks are attractive because you can see the blossoming of their sexual maturity. Asians, meanwhile, look prepubescent forever.

            >Asian girls with vaguely Caucasian faces are absolutely stunning

            Of course the more Caucasian they look, the more appealing they are. For obvious reasons.

            >They marry and sire offspring. In a number of instances, family bonds and strengthened, with high IQ children as a result.

            Let’s ignore the sleazy fetishism and the reality of total mongrel dysfunction and imagine — no evidence, or counter-evidence in this case, is ever provided — that Hapas are just as functional as normal humans. What is amusing with Leftards is the complete lack of input from reality when ideals are violated thereby, and how they demonstrate zero integration of information when said input finally passes their thick skulls. First they deny it vehemently, then when pressed to the wall, admit the truth, and proceed to preach the same old lies like no lesson has been learned.

            Inability to integrate information is a Jewish trait as well, hence the affinity between Jews and the Left. It’s a distinct type of retardation, as a matter of fact.

            • jim says:

              Asians don’t have tits, ass, or a nice face going for them.

              Tits and ass means WHR – waist hip ratio. And it is simple fact that Asians have better WHR than whites. You can find plenty of asians with WHR below 0.7, while 0.7 is as low as the hottest white chicks go.

              Asians are slimmer than whites, so have smaller boobs.

              Take a look at porn stars. Most porn stars are slim, so have asian sized boobs.

              Everyone prefers the fifty kilo woman – see, for example Barbie and most popular porn stars. If you want a fifty kilo woman, have to go yellow. Barbie’s figure is a lot closer to Asian norms than white norms.

          • Anon says:

            If you’re white and you have a ching chong fetish you should probably get your testosterone levels checked

          • Jack says:

            Barbie is for little girls, and pornstars similarly to models are slim because it looks better on camera, not because men truly desire those mere 50 kilos. Also the pornstars I most cherish have average to bigger-than-average boobs, Asian sized boobs are too tiny for my taste. It seems that people attracted to Asians are more likely to be attracted to very young women, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

            Peppermint is rigt, White women are the most attractive.

            Not sure where you get your WHR figures from, when White women are clearly hourglass or pear shaped, while Asians are clearly banana shaped, to use Roissy’s symbolism. Those bananas are too skeleton-like in my view. Perhaps other men prefer the banana, but I don’t.

      • Dick Wagner says:

        Jack be honest for a second. The Jews rule the world. I want to breed with a Jew.

        • Jack says:

          It’s a very materialistic objective, so you’d fit in among the Tribe.

          Also, it’s a high-risk, medium-reward strategy, because the chance your child will grow up to be a Moldbug is statistically quite slim, but the prospects of him struggling with deep-rooted and persistent identity issues like all mongrels, being constantly shunned by Jews and Jew-haters alike, and not possessing precious superior Aryan mental and physical characteristics are pretty high. To ameliorate your child’s sordid state of affairs, at least pick a White(-passing) Jewess.

          Jews are despicable but at least breeding with them is better than doing so with a Gook whose chest is flatter than an ironing board. We can debate all day long which race is superior, Ashkenazim or Aryans (it’s definitely Aryans), but Gooks are undoubtedly and by far beneath both because, well, look at them. Of course the Jews are more Satanic because the reckless damage they inflict on humanity is objectively much greater than whatever the anthropomorphic ants of Asia are capable of, but even a Hitler Incarnate, gas-chamber technician, Zyklon B manufacturer such as myself has to admit that 2% Moldbug > 90% Elliot Rodgers.

          tl;dr Your optimal choice is a White chick, Whites are nice to be around and are the civilization-building race, go find a nice White chick. Don’t be ruthless by rendering your descendants rootless.

          • jim says:

            tl;dr Your optimal choice is a White chick, Whites are nice to be around and are the civilization-building race, go find a nice White chick. Don’t be ruthless by rendering your descendants rootless.

            But whites are already rootless. Our roots have been cut off. And it is clearly easier to find a virtuous asian female than a virtuous white female, and a virtuous white female than a virtuous Jewish female

          • Jack says:

            >But whites are already rootless. Our roots have been cut off.

            Cultural links to ancestors have been cut off, but genetic links to said ancestors are still there, will remain there as long as Whites remain. What you’re saying is that because White culture went to Hell, White genes may as well follow it. I don’t see why that should be the case, culture can be-rebuilt in a few generations, but an extinct race can’t be resurrected.

            >And it is clearly easier to find a virtuous asian female than a virtuous white female, and a virtuous white female than a virtuous Jewish female

            No disputing the last part, but in what sense are Asian women more likely to be virtuous than White women? Watch Japanese porn. Asians are immune to feelings of disgust, it reflects in their cuisine, sexual practices, and cruelty. (With Indians, hygiene is also an issue) Asian women are not more subservient to their White Western husbands than White women are, it’s just a cliche promoted by PUAs. They are quite dominant actually. White women may cheat more often, but that’s a technicality, because Asians in the West simply get divorced and then fuck around afterwards, not much of an improvement. Overall the merits of pro-Asian breeding remain illusive.

            • jim says:

              No disputing the last part, but in what sense are Asian women more likely to be virtuous than White women?

              Personal survey. Have not had a white virgin since I was eighteen. And that was a mighty long time ago and things have gotten worse since then.

          • Jack says:

            I recall a study showing Asians experience a diminished sense of empathy compared to other races. You can call it “Cathedral lies”, but why would the Cathedral manufacture such a lie? It also suits to a T everything we see coming from their societies and communities worldwide, with human organ harvesting farms and purposefully driving over people to ensure fatalities after slightly bumping into them, etc. Have read about an Asian practice of fetus-eating, apparently they see nothing wrong with that. Ashkenazim could seem practically angelic after observing the Asian manner of conduct.

            • jim says:

              Adaption to civilization and living in very large groups. Empathy to strangers is weak, counterproductive, and ineffectual.

          • Jack says:

            A major difference between Black-Semitic cruelty and Asian cruelty is that the former is animalistic while the latter is robotic. Asians, alas, are not benevolent robots, they can get quite malignant. Just because you were robbed by Dontavious, doesn’t mean Cheng won’t put you in a wood-chopper if he could get away with it in order to possess your stuff or merely out of spite for Whitey. Asians and their genes don’t belong in the Western world.

            • jim says:

              There is no Asian equivalent of “polar bear hunting”. If you get up someone’s nose, you can get quite suddenly dead in an Asian country, but if you act courteous, will receive courtesy. A white cop will push you around because he can. A black cop will push you around without regard for whether he can get away with it or not. Speaking from personal experience, a member of Asian death squad will treat you with the courtesy and respect that white western cops so regularly fail to display – unless, of course, you are doing the political or criminal stuff the death squads are there to suppress, in which case he might courteously and respectfully kill you.

          • Jack says:

            >Personal survey. Have not had a white virgin since I was eighteen. And that was a mighty long time ago and things have gotten worse since then.

            Asians put great effort into mimicking their hosts; if White sluthood is the norm, so is Asian sluthood. If White public morality forbade sluthood, Asians could easily switch from promiscuity to chastity. They’re tone deaf, so they take public morality at face value, internalize social values that could help them assimilate. Not more virtuous than Whites, just more conformist, and as their participation in SJW indicates, more holy.

            >Adaption to civilization and living in very large groups. Empathy to strangers is weak, counterproductive, and ineffectual.

            If by “strangers” you mean people you have nothing in common with (read: Syrian invaders), that’s true. If strangers are random people on the street, who belong to your race and culture, then no reason to treat them unempathically, unless they give you a reason. Asians are low trust; cooperation based on trust is what allowed the West to conquer Earth and advance far beyond the backward Asians in all domains. (Unfortunately, in holiness too) Of course, trusting everyone is detrimental, which is a dire problem inherent and endemic to the West, but that you should trust in moderation, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust at all.

            >If you get up someone’s nose, you can get quite suddenly dead in an Asian country, but if you act courteous, will receive courtesy.

            Whites can pull this off given the right environment, have pulled this off. The Asian model of crushing dissent is why Communism is so widespread in those corners, it’s far from ideal for Whites. Honor cultures wherein the populace has absolutely no internal constraints on behavior are either thoroughly totalitarian, or in an infinite holiness spiral like Muslims, or both. It’s bad for Whites.

      • Irving says:

        It seems to me that the only thing that should dictate one’s mating preferences, besides sexual attraction, is the quality of the children that will result from the mating. To say that you prefer to mate with someone of your own race no matter what, even though there may be many perfectly suitable mates with whom you could produce high quality children, isn’t rational and is really just an aesthetic preference.

        >why the hell do you want beta faggot rice nigger DNA? There’s a reason General Tso’s fleet never made it to the Americas.

        Attitudes like this seem particularly unhinged.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Irving”,

          You are coming across as somewhat anti-white right now.

          If, in your mind, “being rational” is a good enough code word for White Genocide, then I would say that you are definitely being anti-white right now.

          A.J.P.

        • Jack says:

          >Attitudes like this seem particularly unhinged.

          Why? Asians can’t interbreed successfully. They can have their own weird civilization — did you know that Japanese women give their husbands chocolate filled with their own menstrual blood as a Valentine gift? — but should not infiltrate genetically or otherwise into Western civilization. These anthropomorphic ants may not chimp around stabbing people randomly, but they are as incompatible with Whites as it gets.

          Not need to hate them, though they are extremely viscerally and morally appalling, just need to keep a safe distance away from them (“That’s what different countries are for” in Sailer’s words). If you don’t, you’ll end up with Elliot Rodgers or Emma Sulkowicz as your progeny. Yikes!

          Breed with Blacks, have dumb kids. Breed with Asians, have batshit insane kids. Breed with Whites, have lovely, normal, beautiful, charming kids. Not a much of a dilemma, is it?

        • Irving says:

          >You are coming across as somewhat anti-white right now.

          The main concern for anyone that is preparing to get involved in a long-term relationship is whether the children that will come out of that relationship are going to be of sufficiently high quality. I’m just pointing out that bad genes are bad genes, irrespective of whether they belong to a white, a yellow or a black. I guess you can say that I espouse the kind of “”non racist” “race realism”” that Jack derides above.

          Of course, all things being equal, people, except maybe for black men, will prefer to mate within their own race; I think this is healthy. That being said, I think that (for example) a white man, if his only options for having children were to either have children with an inferior white woman or a superior nonwhite woman, should have children with the superior nonwhite woman.

          >These anthropomorphic ants may not chimp around stabbing people randomly, but they are as incompatible with Whites as it gets.

          >Not need to hate them, though they are extremely viscerally and morally appalling

          I don’t know what the Chinese/Koreans/Japanese get up to in their own country, but the ones here in America seem pretty functional. Weird in some ways, sure, but pretty functional.

          >Breed with Blacks, have dumb kids.

          Having children with most blacks will lead to dumb kids. With some blacks, you can have perfectly sane, healthy and intelligent kids.

          >Breed with Whites, have lovely, normal, beautiful, charming kids.

          With many whites, yes, this is the case. But what I think you’re doing is taking the qualities that are characteristic of the best northwestern Europeans and projecting them onto the white race as a whole. Doing this gives a warped picture of reality. For example, minus Croatia, the average IQ in the Balkans is not much higher than that of African Americans; in some places there (i.e. Albania and Montenegro), it is even lower. Also, there is a vast and still proliferating white underclass in Western Europe and North America, especially North America. The point here is that having “lovely, normal, beautiful, charming kids” is not really possible with a huge number of white people.

          • Jack says:

            Come on, Irving. You’re not new to the HBD scene, so you must be familiar with the concept of “regression to the mean”. Yeah, if you breed with a White chick whose all family are violent alcoholic mentally-ill unemployed hobbos, you’ll have crappy kids. But if your White wife is herself suboptimal, but comes from a good family, then you’ll probably have normal descendants. Similarly, even if your Black wife is an exceptional individual, if her family are typical Blacks = dumb progeny. It’s not enough to find a high-quality high-functioning member of a certain race, because there is regression to the mean; those fetishists married to Asians probably believed they’ve hit the jackpot, then due to their delusional wishful thinking were surprised at their children’s weirdness and dysfunction.

            By “Whites” I meant Germanics, not Albanians, lol.

            • jim says:

              those fetishists married to Asians probably believed they’ve hit the jackpot, then due to their delusional wishful thinking were surprised at their children’s weirdness and dysfunction.

              This would only be the case if Asians were typically weird and dysfunctional, which is not the case.

              Functional to me, means can be an engineer. All women capable of being engineers, women you don’t have to talk down to using Roissy scripts and magician patter, are east Asian. East Asian women are the only females capable of logic. They are also substantially more obedient.

              Similarly, you cannot complain that Asians are weird and at the same time complain that they are excessively conformist and uncreative. Opposite pathologies.

              Elliot Rodgers did not go crazy because of natural craziness, but because of natural betaness. Lacked the balls to handle his first and last shit test. Had he been hitting on Asian women, the shit tests would have been less brutal, and he might well have remained sane. His first shit test was so brutal that he never hit on a woman again, and then was forever puzzled that no women hit on him. In a society that valorized manliness and taught the differences between men and women, he would have known to shape up, and being conformist and obedient would have done so. Prewar Japanese were plenty manly. He would have been plenty manly if his dad had taken him in hand and told him to be.

          • Irving says:

            >Come on, Irving. You’re not new to the HBD scene, so you must be familiar with the concept of “regression to the mean”.

            I’ve been around long enough to be utterly confused as to how “regression to the mean” actually works out in real life. The concept isn’t as uncomplicated and straightforward as many people think. And anyway, it’s going to be something that happens anyway, whether who you marry is a smart white or black person, so I don’t know that its relevant in this case.

            >even if your Black wife is an exceptional individual, if her family are typical Blacks = dumb progeny

            In principle this is true, but how many exceptional individuals actually come from typical black families? Every exceptional black that I’ve ever met have come from african american families with significant nonblack admixture or from upper class African immigrant families. None of them have come from south side Chicago, for example.

            >By “Whites” I meant Germanics, not Albanians, lol.

            So you don’t consider Slavs as white? Montenegrins are basically Serbs.

          • Corvinus says:

            Jack–“Breed with Blacks, have dumb kids. Breed with Asians, have batshit insane kids. Breed with Whites, have lovely, normal, beautiful, charming kids. Not a much of a dilemma, is it?”

            The dilemma is actually you making extreme generalizations and whether anyone should believe you as being normal.

            “Asians are low trust.”

            Corrected for accuracy –> Some people are low trust.

            Irving–“Also, there is a vast and still proliferating white underclass in Western Europe and North America, especially North America. The point here is that having “lovely, normal, beautiful, charming kids” is not really possible with a huge number of white people.”

            Wait a minute, are you saying that whites (gasp) may have a lower IQ than non-whites in certain instances? How dare you!

            “Having children with most blacks will lead to dumb kids. With some blacks, you can have perfectly sane, healthy and intelligent kids.”

            If a white person has a child with a black person, naturally the white genes will prevail.

            “That being said, I think that (for example) a white man, if his only options for having children were to either have children with an inferior white woman or a superior nonwhite woman, should have children with the superior nonwhite woman.”

            How civilized. Although, what does “inferior” and “superior” mean in this context? Solely IQ? What about looks? athleticism? manners? There a shit ton of variables here.

            • jim says:

              Wait a minute, are you saying that whites (gasp) may have a lower IQ than non-whites in certain instances? How dare you!

              In this case, it is more that that east Asians have less sexual dimorphism in brain size. As professor Higgins said “Why can’t a woman, be more like a man?” – meaning why cannot women be logical and intelligent? Asian women, unlike white women, can be logical and intelligent. It is a trade off for the generally smaller boob size. Smaller boobs, bigger brains.

              It is far from clear that east Asian men are smarter than white men, but it is glaringly obvious that east Asian women are smarter than white women.

              My feeling is that all of a boob that cannot fit into my hand is wasted, while it is nice to be able to talk to a woman as if she was a real person rather than using semi scripted patter that has been focus grouped for morons.

          • Jack says:

            >And anyway, it’s going to be something that happens anyway, whether who you marry is a smart white or black person, so I don’t know that its relevant in this case.

            Wrong: Whites and Blacks have different means, so a regression to the White mean and a regression to the Black mean would yield dissimilar outcomes. It’s exactly relevant.

            >So you don’t consider Slavs as white?

            Very close to Whites, but when people, at least in these corners, speak of Whites, they generally refer to Northwestern Europeans. It’s like Pygmies are Black, but we don’t care much about them when describing the traits of Africans. My comparison is between Aryans and Afro-Americans, not Slavs and Pygmies, even though both pairs contain “Whites” and “Blacks”, technically.

            Oh and Corvinus, nice (((Lewontin’s))) fallacy you have there.

          • Irving says:

            >Functional to me, means can be an engineer.

            What would you say is the minimum IQ required to be a successful engineer?

            >Wait a minute, are you saying that whites (gasp) may have a lower IQ than non-whites in certain instances? How dare you!

            Yeah, surprising isn’t it? White nationalists seem particularly oblivious to this fact. The average IQ of white

            >Although, what does “inferior” and “superior” mean in this context? Solely IQ? What about looks? athleticism? manners? There a shit ton of variables here.

            Yeah, its not just IQ, its everything. The point that I was making was that I don’t see it as some kind of moral obligation to mate or marry within one’s racial group. The main consideration when choosing a mate/spouse should be the quality of the children that you and your prospective mate/spouse will produce. To say that interracial mating/marriage is wrong simply because it threatens the purity of your race is, I think, misguided, because it reduces everything to concerns that are purely aesthetic. Obviously the quality of the children is more important than their racial purity.

          • Irving says:

            >Wrong: Whites and Blacks have different means, so a regression to the White mean and a regression to the Black mean would yield dissimilar outcomes. It’s exactly relevant.

            This is all very well, but a black man/woman with an IQ of 130 is still a more suitable person to have children with than a white man/woman with an IQ of 100.

            >Very close to Whites, but when people, at least in these corners, speak of Whites, they generally refer to Northwestern Europeans.

            Ah, this clarifies things. I don’t know that this is a tenable definition of “white” however.

          • pdimov says:

            “Obviously the quality of the children is more important than their racial purity.”

            Obviously these two things are not independent variables.

          • pdimov says:

            “This is all very well, but a black man/woman with an IQ of 130 is still a more suitable person to have children with than a white man/woman with an IQ of 100.”

            Not necessarily.

          • Jack says:

            >Similarly, you cannot complain that Asians are weird and at the same time complain that they are excessively conformist and uncreative. Opposite pathologies.

            Their nature is weird, as can be observed from their organic practices when not in the vicinity of other races. But they can conform to human mores, so if told to get over their naturally weird inclinations, they can do so to some extent, culturally more so than routinely, meaning, can give up the fetus-eating, but can hardly give up the introversion and neuroticism. Psychologically they will always be incompatible, but they can adopt the outward practices of their hosts, those that require not deep emotional reflection, but mere praxis.

            Jews, in contrast, are psychologically somewhat more compatible, but refuse to adopt outward practices of their hosts, like Christmas celebration. There are assimilated Jews, but prominent Jews react hysterically to their very existence. This applies to Muslims as well. Asians are glad to assimilate, take pride in assimilation. Semitic peoples can’t help themselves, must create antagonisms and tensions everywhere they go. Then invent various “-isms” and “phobias” when the inevitable reaction arrives.

          • Anon says:

            “All women capable of being engineers, women you don’t have to talk down to using Roissy scripts and magician patter, are east Asian.”

            Experience dictates that this is demonstrably untrue. There are white women who are perfectly capable of this. Rare maybe, but not impossible. Your Asian fetish is making you biased. Would it be out

            “Functional to me, means can be an engineer.”

            I also never understood this haughty attitude from engineers about the nature of their work. No one is disputing that it takes a good degree of intelligence to be an engineer but you aren’t exactly a genius for playing mad libs with someone else’s equation. Experience (in this case military experience) once again dictates that a significant portion of the officers, of whom a a significant portion were engineers, were actually some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the base, even moreso than some of the higher-IQ enlisted jobs (air traffic controller, linguist, etc.). Many of them were dysfunctional and unfit for command, which is no doubt due to the utterly compromised and Cathedralized status of the modern military, but the point remains. Clearly raw intelligence is not everything. Important, absolutely, but not everything, which is why Japan will be extinct in a handful of decades and the Jewish vampire will continue hopping from host to host until someone decides it’s been enough.

            Tellingly one of the most unfit officers I worked with had poached an East Asian wife (at the time I had assumed this was because he was incapable of getting it with a white woman and I’d still put money on it). The trope of pasty white anime enthusiast nerd with yellow fever is propagated for a reason and I think it needs to be reflected on and addressed.

            • jim says:

              “All women capable of being engineers, women you don’t have to talk down to using Roissy scripts and magician patter, are east Asian.”

              Experience dictates that this is demonstrably untrue. There are white women who are perfectly capable of this

              Scratch a nazi, he is red underneath.

              If they could find white women who could be engineers, they would not be hiring trannies to meet their female quota, nor putting their affirmative action engineer girls in the art harem.

              It is the Marie Curie principle. If white women could be engineers, they would have more plausible poster girls. Similarly, if gays adopted children to raise them rather than as sex slaves, they would have better poster boys.

          • Anon says:

            That should have been

            “Would it be out of order to guess that your wife is Asian”

          • Anon says:

            “If they could find white women who could be engineers, they would not be hiring trannies to meet their female quota, nor putting their affirmative action engineer girls in the art harem.”

            Again my personal experience tells me that the white girls who were smart enough to an engineer were also smart (and feminine) enough to ditch the career and cat-riddled future by staying home and having nice white babies, where they should be.

            The career women who did make it to the positions (where they should not be and which could be occupied more productively by men) you’re talking about are notoriously dysfunctional and notoriously single and childless (strangely just like the trannies), at least in the military.

        • Irving says:

          >Obviously these two things are not independent variables.

          Of course they aren’t. But what I meant is that there is no intrinsic value to racial purity. All things being equal, purely white idiot is obviously inferior to a mongrel genius.

          >Not necessarily

          Care to explain?

          • Anon says:

            There isn’t “an intrinsic value” to anything, value is categorically subjective. You’re right that all things being equal, a purely white idiot is obviously inferior to a mongrel genius, but it doesn’t follow at all that you should then mate with a mongrel even though she happens to be a genius.

            Associate with, work with, and befriend? Of course. But the reasons stated upthread for mating with an Asian or a Jew are no less aesthetically motivated for only mating with a white woman.

            Elliot Rodger and others have already been touched on so I won’t harp on the point of hapas being prime candidates for batshit insanity.

          • Jack says:

            If you’re White, the genetic material provided to your progeny by an average White woman is superior to the genetic material provided to your progeny by an exceptional Asian woman. Actually, even a White woman who’s below average is generally, though not always, a safer bet, due to the rarer corollary to “regression to the mean” which is “progression to the mean”.

          • pdimov says:

            “[T]here is no intrinsic value to racial purity.”

            If racial purity correlates with offspring quality, it doesn’t matter that it has no intrinsic value.

            “All things being equal, purely white idiot is obviously inferior to a mongrel genius.”

            Ceteris is never paribus, and the choice is never between a white idiot and a black genius. In the cases where it matters, racial purity is a good enough proxy for offspring quality, which is why it’s instinctive to seek it.

            “Care to explain?”

            130 IQ black is +3 SD, which is likely to regress significantly, and ceteris isn’t paribus.

          • Irving says:

            Jack,

            I hope you realize that regression to the mean doesn’t mean that an individuals progeny will necessarily regress to the mean of his or her racial group. For instance, if a black American guy with an IQ of 130 and a black America woman with an IQ of 130 get together and have children, and those children have children, and so on, they aren’t going to regress to the black American IQ of 85. It seems as if you wrongly think that the “mean” in the term “regression to the mean” is referring to the mean of one’s racial group.

          • Jack says:

            The mean is more closely correlated with one’s immediate family than with one’s race, yes. All my examples above point out to this interpretation.

            Do you know any Black families in which the average IQ is above 100? If you can find such a family, then breeding with them is not disastrous IQ-wise, though still has its issues if you’re White, because IQ isn’t everything.

          • pdimov says:

            “For instance, if a black American guy with an IQ of 130 and a black America woman with an IQ of 130 get together and have children, and those children have children, and so on, they aren’t going to regress to the black American IQ of 85.”

            I wonder what IQ do you expect to be the result of this thought experiment. If it’s 130… you’ll have to start with a brother and a sister.

            In general, the closer the man and the woman are genetically, the higher IQ I would expect, and vice versa; regression to 85 is not that unlikely if they are completely unrelated.

          • Jack says:

            Marrying into a family of genius Blacks who’ve been genius for generations could potentially be better than marrying into a family of utterly dysfunctional Whites who’ve been utterly dysfunctional for generations, but unlike the latter, the former exists only in theory. So the answer to the question of whether any White should take any Black as a mate is a resounding “no.”

          • Jack says:

            It’s also completely hypothetical, because no White actually has to choose between a normal Black family and an utterly dysfunctional White family, because if you can marry quality Blacks, you can probably marry quality Whites as well, so there’s no dilemma at all, in reality.

          • Jack says:

            Not to mention the fact that “quality Black families” don’t seem to actually exist. As Pdimov said, even two Black geniuses can produce dumb offspring, and most genius Blacks probably don’t even go after other Black geniuses, rather they choose functioning but not brilliant Blacks, believing in vain that having one smart parent and lots of “education” could produce genius offspring. Regression to the mean is a real nasty bitch.

          • peppermint says:

            » would you marry a nigger if it and its family acted like Whites

            there’s a reason niggers act like niggers and Whites act like Whites. Once you handwave that away, ex falso quod libet

          • Jack says:

            See: Barack Obongo. Now granted he’s no genius, but he could do better than marrying a tranny gorilla, and unless we buy the “gay nigger” theory, there’s no reason why he couldn’t find a charming Black chick or just a White chick. He compromised on the tranny gorilla because his Black narcissism lead him to believe that it’ll work out, it must work out, because he’s so awesome. That’s how Blacks actually think, this is evidenced in their conduct and reflected in their life choices, so they constantly fail the game of eugenics.

          • Irving says:

            >Do you know any Black families in which the average IQ is above 100?

            I know a few, but except for two of them, they all, from what I can tell, have significant white admixture. The two exceptions are Igbo-Nigerian immigrant families.

            >because if you can marry quality Blacks, you can probably marry quality Whites as well, so there’s no dilemma at all, in reality.

            My assumption is that the vast majority of people will, all things being equal and when they have the opportunity, marry within their own race. I have no problem with this, this is as it should be.

            >I wonder what IQ do you expect to be the result of this thought experiment. If it’s 130… you’ll have to start with a brother and a sister.

            I don’t mean that there won’t be regression, I just mean that the regression won’t be to 85. I used the example because from what Jack was saying, it seems as if he thought regression to the mean meant regression to the mean of one’s racial group.

            >130 IQ black is +3 SD, which is likely to regress significantly, and ceteris isn’t paribus.

            Yes, but they won’t regress to 85. That’s the point. It isn’t clear to me, by the way, that a 130 IQ black would regress any more than a 130 IQ white.

            >Not to mention the fact that “quality Black families” don’t seem to actually exist

            I don’t mean to say that blacks don’t, as a group, suck, but I don’t know where you could ever have gotten the idea that decent black families don’t exist. There are plenty.

          • Jack says:

            Dunno. I’m not a zealous adherent of the “one drop rule”, so if you’re willing to define families that are genetically only 20% (or even less) Black as “Black families”, then I guess there are a few decent such families.

          • pdimov says:

            “I used the example because from what Jack was saying, it seems as if he thought regression to the mean meant regression to the mean of one’s racial group.”

            Regression to the mean, in this case, means regression to the mean of the common group that encompasses the man and the woman.

            “>130 IQ black is +3 SD, which is likely to regress significantly, and ceteris isn’t paribus.

            Yes, but they won’t regress to 85.”

            In the absence of any other information, I would expect a regression to +1.5SD, or 107.5, in the first generation, but since whites and blacks are genetically somewhat distant, this may be an overestimation.

            Still, as I alluded to, and Jack spelled out, if you are in a position to choose a 130 IQ black, you’ll probably be able to choose a 130 IQ white as well, the latter being significantly more common.

          • Corvinus says:

            “My assumption is that the vast majority of people will, all things being equal and when they have the opportunity, marry within their own race. I have no problem with this, this is as it should be.”

            No, it’s not as it should be. People have the liberty to choose whomever they want to marry and procreate.

            “That’s how Blacks actually think, this is evidenced in their conduct and reflected in their life choices, so they constantly fail the game of eugenics.”

            Are you an actual darkie? Then, and only then, do you know “how they think”.

            “Not to mention the fact that “quality Black families” don’t seem to actually exist.”


            Define “quality black families”.

            
“As Pdimov said, even two Black geniuses can produce dumb offspring, and most genius Blacks probably don’t even go after other Black geniuses”

            Most, eh. Probably, huh. So, you really don’t know, you’re just guessing.

            “rather they choose functioning but not brilliant Blacks, believing in vain that having one smart parent and lots of “education” could produce genius offspring.”


            And you know this, how?

            
“Regression to the mean is a real nasty bitch…”

            

Well, you are the epitome of that trend.

    • Dick Wagner says:

      Jim, would you like to breed your granddaughter with B’s grandson? You either answer this faithfully or you’re a priest.

      • B says:

        Jim’s granddaughter will be too old for my grandkids, who will be getting married in 40 years or so with G-d’s help.

        If you’re talking about Jim’s greatgranddaughter, she’d have to 1) exist, 2) convert.

        • Eli says:

          A really good one. But way too generous. In the spirit of conversion we should not encourage those perverted goyims to convert, unless things beyond their animistic volition push them into it.

          The “priest” part of the OP: you’re all priests of your toy religions that exist mostly in your own minds, with all “prophecies” coming from your dicks. You’ve got, in the words of Mobutu from Zoolander, “Nothing!!”

          • B says:

            It’s incumbent on us to encourage the nations to observe the Seven Noahide Commandments.

            Which are a pretty good deal, and much better than the alternatives (whose outcomes we’re witnessing right now.)

      • Jack says:

        Since B could as well have a Berber, Arab, or Ethiopian granddaughter, whom he’ll consider to be not essentially different than any ordinary scion of Ashkenaz, Jim is well advised not to breed his grandson with her. Then again, B seems like the swarthy type of Ashkenazi, so even if he meticulously maintains his progeny’s racial purity vis-a-vis the Shwartze Hayes, Jim is still well advised not to accept B’s granddaughter into his White family.

  17. narmno says:

    The red pill is nice not just because it makes us see acceptable opinions are a lie, but also because it makes independent rationality pay off, which means you want order, so that you can cultivate such rationality.

  18. Dick Wagner says:

    This is a thought-provoking piece Jim but I’ve noticed that you don’t really dip into ontological matters at all on this blog. What’s up with that? Politics is so low and dirty–I mean, it has its place but – could you make a post on your idea of the nature of God once in a while?

    • peppermint says:

      what, you mean like that Orthosphere jackass who writes ineffable twaddle while his commenters pat him on the back?

      • Dick Wagner says:

        I don’t know who you’re talking about but the vulgarity of your response is symptomatic of the deficiency I am trying to call attention to.

      • Dick Wagner says:

        You don’t want to put a dent in your narrative so you avoid this subject; your Koan is a good parable why not do more of those, are you a “politics-type” or something, Jim? Land deviated from politics the other day with his exegesis of the Anaximander fragment. Do something like that, draw on Homer, he suits you. I mean, I’m not a Christian either but there is a religious-impulse that your blog is lacking, it draws in all sorts of cretans from B’s to peppermints.

        • Morkyz says:

          The irony is that B and peppermint are the two best commenters, a guy can actually read what they write and not feel compelled to self harm.

          Someone needs to invite the guy from racehist here so he can slapfight with B, that would be something to watch.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Morkyz”,

            You could always have a go at B., though chances are you two would find more in common than elsewise. But, if you’re so confident in your eye for fine-quality posts…

            A.J.P.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          If we could extract the Christianese from it, I expect most of Rushdoony’s political platform would do well here. He was discussing holyness spirals back in the 60’s.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Jim”,

        Does _religio_ mean to tie together or to tie back? You defined it as the former, but U.S.G. schools are teaching the latter…

        Best regards,

        A.J.P.

    • Jack says:

      It would be nigh impossible to conduct a proper theological debate when so many commenters think exclusively in terms of rational utility maximization (a hallmark of the ’tism) with little regard for transcendent truth. B is not the worst offender in this regard, he seems quite capable of participating in discussions of the metaphysical variety, but the rest of the cohort here is more interested in discussing the mechanism of religious radicalization and its implications for modern political discourse than actually delving into the nature of the divine. Some other alt-right blogs may serve as more appropriate venues for this kind of contemplation.

  19. Menschsplainer says:

    Completely agreed. You can’t rape the willing, and none of Roosh’s sexual conquests constitute any loss. Too many white knights on the Alt Right.

    Once again, I accuse you of Lurking on the TRS forums. What’s your handle?

  20. peppermint says:

    » Is it good to have other, unrelated strong men in the area?

    White people: Yes, then we can collaborate

    Mud people: No, they are competitors

    » Mud people move into White area

    White people: Good, they can enrich the culture, marry my daughters and pay my pension

    Mud people: Ficki ficki allahu ackbar, gringo!

    Unmarried White women want invaders because they hope to be able to have more legitimate children by an invader than by a poor White man.

    • jim says:

      Unmarried White women want invaders because they hope to be able to have more legitimate children by an invader than by a poor White man.

      Ummarried white women want invaders because they intend to be raped by a manly man and have their bastard children supported by welfare.

      • peppermint says:

        they want to be “raped” by billionaires and raise bastards on HR catlady salaries, that’s why they read 50 shades.

        There’s this motif in our culture of a woman marrying a bad boy and turning him into a solid middle class good guy. Because our people evolved under strict monogamy, and a woman who isn’t the most beautiful reeds to consider her options carefully to determine which guy she can marry is going to have the most resources in five to fifteen years to support her children.

        These invaders come here with nothing, but a lot of unearned prestige and bullshit claims from the professional left that they will be big earners like Steve Jobs soon. 30 years ago they tried to sell niggers to these White women claiming that now that there wasn’t any more oppression, the niggers would get jobs and the one you open your legs for today is going to earn more in ten years than the White loser you turn up. But the new immigrants are less butt ugly than niggers.

        • jim says:

          You seriously under estimate female perversity.

          • peppermint says:

            what’s in a woman’s soul isn’t darkness, but a calculator. They’ve been developing these huehuehueristics for a billion years, inputs include mate strength, likeliness and importance of fatherhood behavior, and, in the many species in which women are apportioned by the men, possibility of cheating on the man who picked her.

            Importance of fatherhood behavior could possibly be determined by how easy a life she had in her childhood as well as of course the existence of welfare and jobs for coeds.

            Some White women truly expect a nigger to marry them, specifically, women from the ’70s who didn’t have niggers in their schools, weren’t exposed to hip-hop music as children, but were told by their schools *and parents* about how great it will be when Whites accept niggers as the equals they are. There’s one woman in particular that I’m thinking about whose father died before he could tell her not to take his support for civil rights to its logical conclusion.

            Some women don’t really care about fatherhood and get a nigger because that’s easier to get than a billionaire. They don’t say that, they say “oops, I forgot birth control” and “he’s so sexy, I feel so safe with him”. Then you say women are insane and perverse.

            • jim says:

              Billionaires did not exist in the ancestral environment, and fatherhood behavior was imposed and enforced by patriarchs, not selected for by females. Women want to be ravished by conquering invaders.

          • peppermint says:

            the possibility of fatherhood behavior exists in many other species and fatherhood behavior is obviously less important to dirt niggers than most human subspecies.

            Men who are regarded by everyone as having high prestige have always existed. Ask an average bull what he thinks of the alpha in the herd. The possibility of a man being all-powerful in the social group has existed for longer than the kind of organization needed for an invasion to be a meaningful thing, much less the kind of organization needed for an invasion of inferiors.

            A woman is told that a nigger is going to be wealthier than the White guy she turns down in the future, and the men are already afraid of him. If her father can’t tell her not to, now she’s called a coalburner with daddy issues who gets off on the thought of her race being humiliated, because that’s what happens when men try to psychologize women.

  21. Snurf says:

    Real men are going to destroy you. We can see that you’re ugly, anti social, rancid little things that women won’t talk to. You have to resort to rape and bully tactics. As factors of utter rancidity, you’re no doubt evolutionarily defunct – either weedy little limp biscuits or overlarge, tubby neckbeards. Society rejects you. Decent folk reject you. But you’ve known this all your life, which is why you’re doing this. Step up, make your views known as publicly as possible. Please, make it easier to find you 🙂

    • Johnathan Doe says:

      To rape someone, don’t you have to actually have some form of sex with them???

      In that case, how can DooshV be called a “rapist”?

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Smurf”,

      The manosphere is a good idea in premise, but the fact that so many white men are falling for the sales tactics of a Middle Eastern alien is a sign that it may not be the complete package. But your words are music to the ears of a reformer or a revolutionist looking for direction (hint: it’s the opposite of yours)…Just saying’.

      A.J.P.

  22. peppermint says:

    Return of Kings? More like Return of Cucks. Pick up artistry means taking many women, which is polygamy, and letting go of women, which is cuckoldry. Polygamy and cuckoldry are the last sins of the damned.

    Does spinning plates mean finding a bunch of women at your SMV, one of whom to marry? No, it means having a bunch of low-tier prostitutes who you will never respect, until you are 40, can only find a broken woman of childbearing age, and are too old to be a father. It also means purging your social circle of men who might try to flirt with your plates and replacing them with mud people.

    Do Edward in Twilight or Christian Grey in 50 Shades have oneitis? Sure, the only form of pressure you can apply to a woman today is threatening to leave. But if you actually leave when she hasn’t given you a reason to, you’re a cuckold.

    Roosh is a non-White degenerate who teaches degeneracy, his pick up methods don’t actually work when applied to Polish women, *and* he’s folds when the pressure is on from the progressive media.

    He is a degenerate, a failure, a coward, and the biggest embarrassment the right has right now.

    National Socialism is the only answer to maximizing the quantity and quality of your children’s children. All else is unscientific hokum.

    • jim says:

      Roosh’s behavior is adaption to female emancipation.

      Since 1800-1820 we have been in denial about how bad female sexual choice is.

      Female control of sex, children, and reproduction results in defect defect equilibrium, where the guys spin plates to avoid being cuckolded rather than mate guarding to avoid being cuckolded, and males reduce investment in posterity. Yes, living in mom’s basement.

      To get cooperate cooperate equilibrium needs enforcement – in substantial part enforcement by dad.

      Iterated prisoner’s dilemma does not work because insufficient interations

      Social support for mate guarding and condemnation of plate spinning is needed to tip the balance so that mate guarding is more profitable than plate spinning – which requires a social order where men can beat their wives for cause. And daughters are not emancipated from their parents till marriage or menopause

      My position would be managed choice (parentally selected suitors, engagement which is an enforceable ageement to marry if sex, preceding any romantic activity, any opportunity to engage in sex) for most girls. Backed up by shotgun marriage or worse for girls that are non compliant with parental management.

      The issue of age only matters if you think consent matters. Women of all ages are apt to make bad sexual choices, and should not be allowed to do so. Female consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make it wrong.

      In an environment of female choice, Roosh’s behavior follows. The problem is not that Roosh is behaving badly, it is that women are behaving badly, and will always do so if permitted.

      • peppermint says:

        Managed choice is obviously preferable.

        Failing that, it is possible for a man to do better than the PUAs by following national socialist principles. It is also possible for a woman to do better than the PUAs by following national socialist principles, but, women aren’t very good at saying no to sexy men or authoritative feminists.

        You need to keep your options open, oneitis isn’t a good strategy unless you have something compelling like being a billionaire/vampire. Telling your woman you have oneitis is a boner killer for her, which, bizarrely, I saw an explicitly polygamous man doing to an explicitly polygamous woman he was dating (she, of course, was giving him exclusivity, because talking about poly doesn’t mean you behave any differently, it just means you hate the White middle class).

        You need to flirt with other women in front of her. A bit of flirting is socially required in many circumstances, and your woman wants to know that other women find you desirable.

        You can’t invest in a woman. That’s okay, because investing in her means buying her clothing and jewelry. She won’t like it because it implies that you have power over her when she knows you don’t, and she’ll cuck you out of it. Just buy her stuff at thrift stores.

        You can still have a career, you need to be around for your woman when she needs you, but she wants you to have a respectable career and she will even help you with it. The reason Roosh is in his mother’s basement is that he is a jerk and not even McDonalds wants to touch him.

        Age matters because you need to be young enough to be capable of being a father.

        It’s made intentionally difficult. So is finding a job, but everyone recognizes that that’s no excuse for not trying.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      National Socialism was only effective to the extent it returned to the Law of Moses. People would be surprised of the extent to which it did.

  23. […] (1, 2). On loudmouths. Power. Signals (also). Libertarianism on a knife edge. Defending Roosh (1, 2). The weekly […]

  24. […] (1, 2). On loudmouths. Power. Signals (also). Libertarianism on a knife edge. Defending Roosh (1, 2). The <a target="_blank" […]

  25. Cloudswrest says:

    This is priceless! No groveling here!


    Female Reporter: Do you acknowledge that any of your writing might be genuinely offensive or upsetting to some people?

    Roosh: So what?

  26. Morkyz says:

    Apparently during the crusades the Muslims were shocked to see how much freedom the crusaders afforded their women, more like cucksaders, am I right?

    • jim says:

      We don’t have to go all the way to traditional Muslim to restore fertility.

      I favor a system where contractual companionate and romantic marriage is normal and normative, backed up by a system of outright pet status for women who are unfortunate or engage in misbehavior, rather than pet status being normal and normative.

      All fertile age women should normatively and socially belong to some male, normally father or husband, who is responsible for their good behavior.

      Exceptions are viewed with pity (widows and orphans) or contempt (sluts). Sometimes the state will grab exceptions, independent women who are conspicuously misbehaving or who find themselves in difficulties, like the dog catcher grabbing a stray dog, and assign them to a good home whether they like it or not. However the iron fist shouuld be kept well inside the velvet glove, and we should not entirely suppress independent fertile age women just as we should not entirely suppress polygyny and prostitution. But independence in fertile age women should be discouraged legally and socially, sometimes by shotgun marriage.

Leave a Reply