Moldbug model of communism

The Moldbug account of communism, simplified, is that the that the Soviets were Democrat agents, a proxy force for the blue empire of the consulates against the red empire of the bases, and they were collapsed when they started to break free of the Democrats.

Simplified even further: “America is a communist country”.

Of course any useful truth is necessarily a simplification. Reality is always more complex than even the best descriptions. Puritan derived leftism (progressivism) both cooperated and competed with Judaism derived leftism (Marxism) and each infiltrated and attempted to use and manipulate the other. Both engaged in entryism, and entryist agents would turn, becoming double and triple agents, creating a dense maze of camouflage and lies. Obama is a red diaper Marxist, but he is progressive, and his Marxist mother was a double agent, probably a triple agent, who like most female agents, had sex with the enemy becoming unreliable as a result.

The Czars lost intellectual sovereignty to English intellectuals. Instead of the Czar being fount of all honors, mortal and divine, which is to say instead of the Czar setting the rules for status competition, the Czars competed in a status competition with the rules set by English intellectuals with Puritan derived memes, and thus sawed of the branch on which they sat, by disempowering aristocrats and empowering leftists. The bureaucratic government was left and getting lefter, and so eventually staged a coup against the traditional and legitimate government.

While the Czar was away at the front, the bureaucracy flooded the streets with rioters and protestors, forbade the army and police from taking care of them, and then piously announced that they had to surrender to the might of the justly enraged masses, though in truth no one except brewers, distillers, Jews, and pawnshops had much to fear from the rioting masses. This coup installed Puritan derived leftism in charge of Russia, but, of course, it found itself in dangerous alliance with Judaism derived leftism, which loudly announced itself to be lefter than thou. And since no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, puritan derived leftism in Russia had disarmed itself. So in due course the leftmost faction of Judaism derived leftism was victorious, under the slogan “All power to the Soviets”. Which workers soviets they immediately dismantled.

Thereafter there was alternate cooperation, competition, collaboration, and armed conflict between the blue empire of the consulates, and Soviet Russia, with cooperation and collaboration being dominant until shortly after World War II, competition and armed conflict from World War II to the Berlin airlift, and cooperation and collaboration from the Berlin Airlift till about 1980.

Russian leftism froze in place during Stalin’s rule, and ceased to move leftwards, while Puritan derived anglosphere leftism continued to move leftwards. As time passed, the blue empire became increasingly pissed off because Russia, like Charles Murray, was not keeping up, was not left enough. Did not those damned Russians know it is <the current year> now?

The blue empire strategy and meme had long been “Oh we must surrender to the might of the Soviets and their tremendously successful socialism”,  since surrendering to the distinctly right wing gun owning American masses was unattractive.  This is the vision depicted in the future history of “Startreck the Next Generation” episodes produced before the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it became less attractive and less plausible because of the increasingly obvious economic failure and military weakness of socialism and because the Soviets were increasingly abandoning the claim to be lefter than thou, abandoning the claim to be the leftmost.

In the future history depicted in Startreck, reflecting the progressive wet dream, the Soviets theoretically win, but actually the permanent government of the US wins, just as in Russia, the masses theoretically won, then the Soviets theoretically won, but in fact the actual Soviets generally got shot or sent to slave labor camps while the bureaucracy that formerly answered to the Czar kept their jobs and increased their power.

371 Responses to “Moldbug model of communism”

  1. Lalit says:

    Fascinating! Any figures on what percentage of czarist bureaucrats were sent to the gulag under the soviets and what percentage kept their jobs? Any breakup as to who among the czarist bureaucrats kept their jobs or increased their power and who got fired or sent to the Gulag? Has anyone got the statistics on this? Any analysis? Links? References?

    • jim says:

      I don’t have any data on this. I am merely guessing it cannot have been very many, because otherwise our bureaucracy would not have been having wet dreams about Soviet domination.

      • Lalit says:

        Boris Pasternak’s novel, Dr Zhivago does allude to your assertion that the tsarist bureaucracy just went to work for the soviets. So do some soviet era jokes. But hard data I am unable to come across. Also I am hearing for the first time that the bureaucracy actively undermined the tsar in favor of the Mensheviks/Bolsheviks. It’s possible, but could it be the case here? What a pity no one has investigated this. And even if investigated, what a pity it is not in the public domain.

        • jim says:

          They did not undermine the Tsars in favor of the bolsheviks, but in favor of the “moderate opposition”.

          But due to the no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, things got out of control.

          • Lalit says:

            By moderate opposition, you mean the Mensheviks?

            • jim says:

              Constitutional Democrats. The intention was to replace Czardom with democracy, but, of course, the movement ever leftwards was uncontrollable and accelerating. The Constitutional Democrats begat Kerensky’s socialists, and Kerensky’s socialists begat Lenin’s Bolsheviks, coup following coup.

              The Czar ruled through a council of ministers, granting people who oppose Czarist autocracy power, and disempowering those who support Czarist autocracy, thereby winning praise from progressives. The council of ministers stages a riot, announces itself powerless to stop it, and ditches the Czar – but this coup sets in motion forces that they cannot control, resulting in coup after coup after coup.

              • Jew613 says:

                Jim, didn’t units of the Russian Imperial military mutiny and refuse to put down the rioting and unrest? Wasn’t this the excuse to overthrow the czar?

                • jim says:

                  The failure to control the Petrograd disorder was due to concerns with hypothetical, not actual, mutiny.

                  Somewhere, sometime, some military units mutinied. But this was not a general or widespread problem at the time of the Petrograd disorder, rather it was an excuse for not allowing the military and the police to restore order. The decision was made to not command them to restore order, or even allow them to restore order, supposedly because they might mutiny.

                  Orders were not given because supposedly they would have been disobeyed.

                  Supposing this was a real concern, which I doubt, the solution to this problem is well known. You bring in troops from far away, who speak with a different dialect to the people you are trying to quell, and tell them: “Quell this mob, and then you can rape, kill, loot and burn.” And watch while disciplined well armed trained troops in formation slaughter an unruly undisciplined unorganized and half drunk mob (saving the fertile age females in the mob for later)

                  See, for example, the UN quelling the people of the Ivory coast, or quelling the Tutsis in the Congo. Except that in the Ivory Coast they allowed the troops from far away to eat the Ivory coast natives as well as rape them.

                  The Petrograd rioters were merely mascots for a seizure of power at the top, conducted while the Czar was away at the front. But having seized power, those that seized it could not keep it.

          • Lalit says:

            When I say Mensheviks, I’m really referring to the Kerensky government.

        • jim says:

          I would say that the Soviets went to work for the Tsarist beauracracy.

      • B says:

        ie, making shit up because it sounds good.

  2. Cavalier says:

    Incidentally, is progressivism so powerful because it is so persuasive, or is progressivism so persuasive because it is so powerful?

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Progressivism is so pervasive because two giant oceans separated progressives from any enemies – except for the Southern aristocracy which they defeated in war.

    • jim says:

      Progressivism was persuasive in 1820-1860, when it was libertarianism plus women-are-wonderful, and blacks-would-be-natures-noblemen-if-we-let-them, and bastards-would-be-middle-class-children-if-we-gave-them-money.

      But then we cut women and blacks loose, and gave bastards money, and lo and behold, considerably less persuasive.

      • Cavalier says:

        If not persuasive, then why gene-shredding cities, general dysgenesis, Benedictine Options, twerking videos with hundreds of millions of views, hand-wringing over immunity to Cathedral memetics, and sacraments in dunes?

        • jim says:

          Power intimidates people into agreeing.

          • Cavalier says:

            Soft power is all carrot and no stick, and Cathedral has the highest soft:hard ratio than any other system in the history of the world.

            Nobody forces anyone to move to New York to act out _Friends_ in real life, and in fact there is no law enforced by men with guns for the vast majority of what the Cathedral wills.

            • Dave says:

              People act out “Friends” when they’re young because it’s a lot of fun. When they get old, and that life path stops being “fun”, it’s too late to go back.

              • Cavalier says:

                They act it out not because it’s fun or not-fun but because humans mimick the behavior of their peers. More soft power.

            • peppermint says:

              why do men let their daughters move to the cities and act out those soap operas?

              Because their daughters need to go to college to meet men in college who they could marry. Also they are required to believe in grrl power.

              Why do all men need to go to college?

              Because it’s illegal to employ White men without college degrees, as niggers with college degrees are by definition more qualified. The exception is in union jobs.

              Why are there so many thots/tramps?

              Because women are required to start sleeping with men at age 13 and changing boyfriends every two years as they and their boyfriends switch between schools.

              Why do people say “Friends” is fun?

              Because they have a stable group of friends on the show, because millennials who have serious financial issues people in the 80s didn’t even think about see it as better than them, and because millennials can’t imagine a world where they would be able to have good relationships with their neighbors since they assume that their neighbors are going in include people they don’t want to associate with.

              You say it’s all carrot and no stick. Civil rights is a stick. Title IX is a stick. The immivasion is a stick. Section 8 is a stick. Social security is a stick.

              In truth, the Cathedral is running out of carrots, since the boomercucks who farmed carrots for the Cathedral are dying out and the genxers are lazy. White millennials see the lack of carrots and all the sticks and feel confused and depressed. Generation Zyklon is coming.

              • Cavalier says:

                >You say it’s all carrot and no stick. Civil rights is a stick. Title IX is a stick. The immivasion is a stick. Section 8 is a stick. Social security is a stick.

                And yet all these things are invisible to the mind of the faithful Cathedralite. Soft power. (Anyway, Social Security is a carrot.) They also didn’t matter much before say 1995 because it was so easy and inexpensive to route around them.

                >In truth, the Cathedral is running out of carrots, since the boomercucks who farmed carrots for the Cathedral are dying out and the genxers are lazy.

                They’re running out of as-yet-undespoiled marriageable women is what they’re running out of, hence the laziness of the Xes and the apathetic and defective Millennials.

              • B says:

                “Generation Zyklon” is the Beautiful Ones.

                Those poor rats couldn’t even get it together enough to reproduce.

                Stop fantasizing.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Don’t you believe in cyclical history? Of all the commenters here, it is you who should be in favor of accepting the premise behind Gen Zyk.

                  https://www.youthdebates.org/uploads/db0565/original/2X/a/a824ee2a53ca8436c27d87f712032e078ea3c8be.JPG

                  Hard times create strong men.
                  Strong men create good times.
                  Good times create weak men.
                  Weak men create hard times.

                • B says:

                  I believe that history repeats itself as farce, or I guess as meme.

                  Hitler, despite his unpleasant qualities, idiotic philosophy, creepy Wall Street backers and terrible facial hair, was a genuinely hard combat veteran, as were his compatriots.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Heh. I guess you have a point – millennials and GenZ (in the West) are softies, unaccustomed to real battle. But who knows? The thing is, softies make way for tyranny. And if the tyranny becomes too oppressive, there may be revolt. Revolt, if widespread and prolonged, if real blood is spilled, means gaining warfare experience.

                  Right now the prospects for the US aren’t promising. The West really is dying. It could be that Russia and China will step into the shoes of USG. They are tough on the inside as well as on the outside. All for the best – the evangelizing universalist hyper-moralism characterizing the Cathedral worldview will be conspicuously, and pleasantly, absent.

                  Of these two competing sovereign hegemons, I hope that Russia becomes the world empire, not China. Strange as that may sound, Russia is a tolerant country. Not a “paradise for human rights”, just a sane country with a sane government. Whites who would want to save their skin when the collapse occurs, when the US becomes Brazil and Europe is a bloodbath, should go to Russia, not China. That applies to Jews too, btw.

                  The Russian leader of that time should be ready to accept white emigrants. Shadilay, shadilay, la mia libertà.

                • B says:

                  > But who knows? The thing is, softies make way for tyranny. And if the tyranny becomes too oppressive, there may be revolt.

                  And if grandma grows a crank, she’ll be grandpa.

                  What is this “tyranny becomes too oppressive” prog nonsense? Were there successful rebellions in the really oppressive 20th century states?

                  Typically, the cycle of empires involves the dominant nationality rotting out and barbarians coming in. The modern youths are so rotten from tv, internet, porn and video games that I can’t see them coming up with the basic gumption needed for a revolt (by the way, the same is happening to black kids, if you believe James LaFond.)

                  This is EXACTLY what Nietzsche was talking about with all that stuff about the Last Men:

                  “What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?” — so asks the Last Man, and blinks.

                  The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.

                  “We have discovered happiness” — say the Last Men, and they blink.

                  “Formerly all the world was insane,” — say the subtlest of them, and they blink.

                  Look at our host, for instance, who can’t conceptualize G-d except as a vehicle for the advancement of interests (his own or those of his society, it really makes no difference.)

                  I hope that we can help the West break the cycle of moral decline. It got where it is by following the idolatrous religion of Hollywood, where happiness is everyone’s idol, which you can sacrifice everything for including your family. It follows that the only way out is an honest belief in G-d, i.e., repentance.

                  Russia and China have the same disease, in slightly different form. And are also a thin crust of order on an ocean of anarchy.

                  >That applies to Jews too, btw.

                  The path forward for the Jews is to fill the role G-d told us to aspire towards, through which the nations of the world will also be saved (to the degree that they want to participate.) To be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. Not to run away to Russia, China or Fiji.

                • jim says:

                  Look at our host, for instance, who can’t conceptualize G-d except as a vehicle for the advancement of interests (his own or those of his society, it really makes no difference.)

                  Your God clearly intends Judaism in substantial part as a vehicle for the advancement of the Jewish people and the Jewish state, and you are profoundly reluctant to get with the program laid out in the prophecies, instead waiting for God to do the heavy lifting.

                • jim says:

                  The path forward for the Jews is to fill the role G-d told us to aspire towards

                  Which, among other things, requires you to take possession of the Dome of the Rock, requires the rock to be in the charge of priests of the patrilineal line of Aaron, and requires Judaism to become once again a state religion, in the way that progressivism is now the state religion, with Judges as Mosaic they are now progressive. The latter will require substantial changes in a religion that has become a religion of exile, and has in many important ways ceased to be capable of being a state religion, has become inherently subversive of its host state and hostile to its host state even when that state is Israel.

                  And you don’t really want to take possession of the Dome of the Rock, because of all the old fashion religious requirements that activates – in particular it activates the big thing that I want, and you do not really want: Judaism as the state religion of the state of Israel. Religious Jews have become far too comfortable with Judaism as a hostile and subversive religion of exile, rather than a national and patriotic religion of the state of Israel.

                • Barnabas says:

                  If repentance was the answer then shouldn’t faithful Christian’s or clergy have the answers? Why is a lifelong Christian such as myself led to truth on these matters by Heartiste rather than a theologian?

                • B says:

                  Jim-

                  You are putting the cart before the horse, and confusing the outcome with the process.

                  The rebuilding of the Temple etc. is the culmination of a long process. Not something where you snap your fingers and build it. The nation needs to go through a mental transformation, and that doesn’t happen overnight, or even in a single generation.

                  While you think of life as an 80s action movie, with heroes swinging swords around and doing other photogenic stuff, the people on whom those heroes were based had spent a long time doing non-photogenic stuff to get to that point.

                  Premature optimization is the root of all evil.

                  >Your God clearly intends Judaism in substantial part as a vehicle for the advancement of the Jewish people and the Jewish state

                  Not “advancement” in the sense that you understand the word. And certainly those Jews who were primarily interested in such advancement ceased to be Jewish in every generation.

                  Prime example: Marx’s father became a lawyer under Napoleonic occupation, when legal restrictions on Jews were lifted. After the Prussian government returned and brought those restrictions back, Marx Sr. converted to Christianity, in order to keep practicing law.

                • jim says:

                  The rebuilding of the Temple etc. is the culmination of a long process. Not something where you snap your fingers and build it.

                  You are just procrastinating, waiting for God to the heavy lifting. Nehemiah built the Altar and the Sanctuary first, then the walls, then after altar and walls, Ezra brought the laws.

                  First victory, then peace, then order, then law.

                  You, Israel, needs a state religion, in place of your current state religion of progressivism, which will destroy you as it did the whites of South Africa.

                  You don’t like my proposed state religion. Fine. Go with Judaism as the state religion. But before Judaism can be your state religion, you need the altar and the sanctuary – at which point it becomes possible, and according to Jewish law, legally necessary, for Judaism to re-acquire those characteristics necessary for it to be a state religion.

                  You don’t want a physical center of Judaism in this world, because you don’t want to let go of exile Judaism.

                • B says:

                  Barnabas-I don’t know what Christian repentance is. I know what Jewish repentance means-announcing that one was wrong and will not sin again, and then not sinning again when the opportunity arises. This process can happen nationally-for instance, in the Book of Esther, or with non-Jews in the Book of Jonah.

                  As to why you have to discover truths about humans from Heartiste (whose truths are actually lies, but in the opposite direction from the modern Christian lies)-it’s exactly because you’re a Christian. Had you learned the Talmud’s perspective on human inclinations and behavior, you would not be surprised.

                • B says:

                  >You are just procrastinating, waiting for God to the heavy lifting. Nehemiah built the Altar and the Sanctuary first, then the walls, then after altar and walls, Ezra brought the laws.

                  Before Nehemiah built, other things happened.

                  This is how the Book of Ezra starts:

                  1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 2 ‘Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whosoever there is among you of all His people–his God be with him–let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD, the God of Israel, He is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4 And whosoever is left, in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill-offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.’ 5 Then rose up the heads of fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, even all whose spirit God had stirred to go up to build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem. 6 And all they that were round about them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with precious things, beside all that was willingly offered.

                  In other words, two things happened.

                  First, the Jewish people were ready (a small part of the Jewish people were ready to actively participate, and the rest were mentally ready to support them.)

                  Second, the political situation was right.

                  You should also note that the First Temple, which unlike the Second Temple was built by the Nation of Israel at a time when we were sovereign, united under a strong and religious king, prosperous and not dealing with massive external pressures, was NOT built right away, as soon as all those conditions were met. It was built decades later. Despite King David’s explicit desire to build it, and his ability to build it!

                  You are putting the cart before the horse, demanding that the spectacular culmination of a process take place while the process is nowhere near complete, and accusing those who understand that there is a process of cowardice and hypocrisy.

                  Of course, building a Temple under present conditions would involve civil war and external war, and in the same breath, you condemn the Jews of the Great Revolt for fighting among themselves, and with the Greeks and Romans…

                • jim says:

                  You are rationalizing. Before the temple, they had a tent that served the same purpose.

                  And when you say the political situation is not right: Recall General Sharon taking a little stroll around the temple mound. Note the total lack of enthusiasm among orthodox Jews for taking a similar stroll.

                  Why is it that a secular ruler who eats pork is the one hinting at reclaiming the temple?

                  Maybe they would not let you have the temple back, quite likely they would not let you, but you are not asking them to let you have temple back.

                  No one religious actually wants to reach out for the temple the way Sharon did, everyone, yourself included, is comfortable with exile Judaism remaining exile Judaism, nobody actually wants the temple back, because that would trigger a whole pile of disturbingly archaic Jewish religion.

                  For Judaism to once again become a state religion, you have to make changes or reversions – and you have to want to make those changes or reversions. Which obviously you do not want. And part of wanting those changes or reversions, is wanting the temple back.

                • Anonymous says:

                  B won’t do the heavy lifting because he’s a globalist. Jewish globalists, in America and in Israel, were opposed to Le Pen and overwhelmingly supported Macron. Why? Because French Jews fretted about circumcisions, about yarmulkes, and about religious-Jewish education under Le Pen.

                  Likewise in Norway, the Jews and the Muslims are united in favor of Semitic practices, *and are supported by the international Jewish and Muslim communities* respectively. When one of the Nordic countries attempted to illegalize circumcision, PM Netanyahu and President Rivlin were flipping out and lashing out.

                  French Jews in Israel voted 96% for Macron, not Le Pen, because they want to force Jewish interests, or perceived Jewish interests, on the entire world. No country, or no country with Jews in it, can pass legislation that Jews disapprove of – such as banning public displays of religiosity like (hijabs and) yarmulkes, or banning the mutilation of genitalia, or banning separatist education.

                  http://forward.com/fast-forward/371217/96-of-french-israelis-vote-for-macron/

                  When Jews like B leave the rest of the world alone, let the French and the Norwegians do whatever they want in their own countries – when Jews stop being globalists and become actual nationalists, *then* you’ll see havy lifting.

                  Right now, they’re a globalist mercantilist cabal of scheming, deceitful, and calculating itinerant rootless cosmopolitans (the hand-rubbing is real), and that includes the “based” “right-wing” “traditional” Jews of Israel, as you can see.

                  You can love Jews, but the evidence keeps piling up: they hate your guts.

                  96%!!!

                • B says:

                  Maricon is Maricon-a Rothschild banker toady, representing more of the same: a France made unlivable by Muslim refuse.

                  Le Pen could have had 90% of the Jewish vote, had she said “it is unacceptable that the French Jewish community is being attacked and ethnically cleansed by Muslims, and I will protect them and their right to live a Jewish life” and left it at that.

                  But, like the idiot she is, she had to make it very clear that she considers the Jews her enemy and wishes to persecute them. Oh, excuse me-“it would simply not be FAIR to forbid the religious Muslims to wear their hijabs and so on while allowing the Jews to wear their kippot, etc. As a French humanitarian, it pains me to think that Jews cut an animal’s throat while it is conscious. I even lose my appetite for my foie gras while thinking of those poor cows who don’t get the pleasure of being knocked in the head with a bolt gun. My first priority, the most important thing for France, is to forbid those Jews from wearing kippot, circumcision, kosher slaughter, etc/”

                  What are French Jews supposed to think-that Le Pen does not understand the difference between a religious Jew and a Muslim where security is concerned? There have been Jews living in France since before the Franks came there-why the hell should they vote for someone who is going to forbid them from wearing a kippah, circumcising their sons, slaughtering animals the kosher way, etc? Because French elites decided to import a bunch of Arab scum, who are now doing what Arab scum always do, but now in France? Is that it?

                  Were I a French Jew, obviously, I would go to Israel. Barring that, I would perhaps grit my teeth and vote for Le Pen on the theory that, once in office, she could be bribed (excuse me, lobbied) into not attacking Jewish rights. And barring that, I would do what most of Le Pen’s potential voters apparently did, and not vote.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >why the hell should they vote for someone who is going to [do stuff Jews dislike]

                  You are running with the hares and concomitantly hunting with the hounds. If Jews are legitimate white Frenchmen (let’s ignore the fact that the Jews in contemporary France are almost all recent immigrants from North Africa) and “equal citizens”, they should assimilate. If Jews are a distinct nation, well, I’ve heard Israel exists – let them live there.

                  [You claim Jews have been in France for long. Have *these* Jews, these NA Mizrahim, been there for long? No, the bulk of them have immigrated to France after colonialism. Also: are Polish and German Jews “Frenchman”, too? Are Spanish Jews? Do all Jews, from anywhere in the world, have a right to live in every single country they randomly pick on the globe, huh, globalist?]

                  If Jews are Frenchmen, let them behave like it and stop with the cultural barriers and particularist practices. Wanna keep your distinct culture and particularism? Then don’t pretend to be a legitimate white Frenchman. You aren’t. You belong somewhere else. This game of “I’m a hare just like you, but when it suits me, I’m in fact a hound” is the reason there was nazism.

                  “But, of course, even this comparison between the two wandering peoples [Jews and gypsies] fails in the presence of the greater problem. Here again even the attempt at a parallel leaves the primary thing more unique. The gipsies do not become municipal merely by passing through a number of parishes, and it would seem equally obvious that a Jew need not become English merely by passing through England on his way from Germany to America. But the gipsy not only is not municipal, but he is not called municipal. His caravan is not immediately painted outside with the number and name of 123 Laburnam Road, Clapham. The municipal authorities generally notice the wheels attached to the new cottage, and therefore do not fall into the error. The gipsy may halt in a particular parish, but he is not as a rule immediately made a parish councillor. The cases in which a travelling tinker has been suddenly made the mayor of an important industrial town must be comparatively rare. And if the poor vagabonds of the Romany blood are bullied by mayors and magistrates, kicked off the land by landlords, pursued by policemen and generally knocked about from pillar to post, nobody raises an outcry that _they_ are the victims of religious persecution; nobody summons meetings in public halls, collects subscriptions or sends petitions to parliament; nobody threatens anybody else with the organised indignation of the gipsies all over the world. The case of the Jew in the nation is very different from that of the tinker in the town. The moral elements that can be appealed to are of a very different style and scale. No gipsies are millionaires.” – Chesterton

                  The Jew need not become French merely by passing through France on his way from Italy to Germany.

                  The Jew need not become German merely by passing through Germany on his way from France to Austria.

                  The Jew need not become Austrian merely by passing through Austria on his way from Germany to Ukraine.

                  The Jew need not become Ukrainian merely by passing through Ukraine on his way from Austria to Russia.

                  The Jew need not become Russian merely by passing through Russia on his way from Ukraine to America.

                  The Jew need not become American merely by passing through America on his way from Russia to Israel.

                  Do you understand the argument being made here? Do you think I’m calling you a globalist at random, just to insult you? Are you *this* dense?

                  You’re not only running with the hares and hunting with the hounds in one place. No – you want Jews in the entire world to have the liberty to engage in such duplicitous shape-shifting, to serve the interests of Jewry when those clash with the interests (or collective will) of the nation they live amidst, yet have full civic and political rights in that country. A Jewish “ummah”, like the Muslims.

                  “We are just like you goy, gives us equal rights… actually we are distinct from you, our interests aren’t aligned.”

                  How long will this global whack-a-mole game keep going?

                • Anonymous says:

                  This “I’m an Israeli-American-Russian-Ukrainian-Austrian-German-French-Italian, because my family has travelled through those countries at some point” con is getting old.

                  People are noticing that something doesn’t compute here.

                • pdimov says:

                  “No country, or no country with Jews in it, can pass legislation that Jews disapprove of…”

                  There is hope.

                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4484456/Belgium-bans-halal-kosher-slaughter-Walloon.html

                  “A Belgian region has banned halal and kosher slaughter in a move condemned as the greatest assault on Jewish religious rights since Nazi occupation.”

                  “The European Jewish Congress called the law, which will be implemented by September 2019, scandalous and its president Moshe Kantor told The Independent it sends a terrible message to Jewish communities throughout Europe that Jews are unwanted.”

                • B says:

                  >they should assimilate

                  That’s what really chaps you, isn’t it? The audacity of the Jews who persist in staying Jewish.

                  >Have *these* Jews, these NA Mizrahim, been there for long?

                  First, it doesn’t matter, any more than it matters whether a given Frenchman’s grandpa came from Belgium or whatever. Point is, there were Jews in what is now France long before it was known as France, and before there were Franks.

                  Second, they came from those parts of North Africa which were first conquered by the French, then given the same legal status as metropolitan France. They received French citizenship at a time when this was considered something that France extended to those residents of North Africa who fit certain criteria. Then France shamefully abandoned North Africa to Muslim savagery. Now they want to change the rules of the game again?

                  >If Jews are legitimate white Frenchmen

                  White or not has nothing to do with it. At the time that France extended citizenship to the Jews of North Africa, it did not say anything about being white, Christian, etc. The criteria were different. I recommend reading something on the history before running your face.

                  >“No country, or no country with Jews in it, can pass legislation that Jews disapprove of…”

                  Any country can pass whatever it wants, but why are you upset that the Jews of France did not vote for the candidate who promised to target them with completely unjustified legal discrimination?

                  Do you expect the French Jews to be idiots?

                • B says:

                  >Before the temple, they had a tent that served the same purpose

                  Not the same purpose.

                  You should ask why the Jews didn’t just set up a tent once the First Temple and Second Temple were destroyed. Who cares, it’s just a tent, right? A GP Medium should do!

                  >.Recall General Sharon taking a little stroll around the temple mound.

                  Sharon did not want the Temple. He didn’t even want Gaza, Judah and Samaria. In this case, he wanted to kick off a war and use it to his political advantage, and did.

                  >Note the total lack of enthusiasm among orthodox Jews for taking a similar stroll.

                  Note the fact that you are an ignorant idiot. Orthodox Jews go up on the Temple Mount (not “mound”-a mound is an accurate description of your opinions) every single day.

                • jim says:

                  When the Hebrews were nomadic, but were together and were one people and one state, and Judaism the state religion of that state, the Arc of the Covenant and the tent that contained was the physical and spiritual symbol of that union. When in exile, no longer a state, and no longer a state religion, a tent would not work.

                  Today, a tent would work, if Jews had an interest in Judaism being a state religion, in Jews being one people and one state, and that state an actually Jewish state, rather than yet another progressive state, if Jews actually wanted to cease being exiles.

                  But having adapted to statelessness, Jews find exile too handy to let go of.

                  Your religion and your prophecies clearly states that this is a heresy. You are supposed to let go of it.

                  You torture the text of your holy books as if they were a contract with someone you don’t much like and are trying to swindle, because they are a contract with someone you don’t much like and are trying to swindle.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Do you expect the French Jews to be idiots?”

                  They were overwhelmingly in favor of Muslim immigration right until having to flee the country because Muslims made it impossible for them to live there. Wouldn’t be surprised if some of them continued being in favor.

                  To answer the question, no, I didn’t expect them to be idiots, but my expectations turned out wrong.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >That’s what really chaps you, isn’t it? The audacity of the Jews who persist in staying Jewish.

                  Here goes the paranoia again. It’s important to understand that in the psyche of religious Jews, the whole world is a conspiracy to deprive them of their precious Pharisaic cult. So when someone says: “the Jews who live in my land need to assimilate, or else” they don’t take it with any gratitude, realizing that someone is letting them into his homeland, just provided they behave well. Nope – it’s instant kvetching.

                  Because you see – the Jew must be allowed to “be Jewish” not only in his own country, but everywhere. This rightly gives you off the impression that the Jew doesn’t ever really have his own country; that he is a rootless cosmopolitan. Someone with no country of his own, doesn’t respect the national rights of other ethnicities:

                  Jews behave like they have no country of their own – the exile is never over, even when it is. So the answer, B, is no – what annoys me is that they “act Jewish” globally, for the same reason I’m pissed off at Muslims “acting Muslim” globally. Obviously, being pissed off at Muslims-being-Muslims when they infiltrate Western society is not a conspiracy to deprive the Muzzies of their precious Mohammed – they are incompatible, as you are.

                  No one here has yet argued that Israeli Jews must be deprived of kosher slaughter, dick-cutting, or kippot. The argument is that if Jews want to live among Gentiles, need to accept the laws of the Gentiles, and adopt Gentile culture.

                  But forget it. To hell with it. You give the Jew some, he only wants more. The alt-right should probably just say outright “gas all the kikes, put them on pikes, spare not the tykes”, because as you see here, right in front of you, giving the Jews an opportunity to assimilate is never met with gratitude and appreciation – they want to keep running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, forever.

                  The truth of the matter is that “assimilation” is the most dreadful word an Orthodox Jew can hear. Which is why, when Orthodox Judaism in America grows exponentially, you simply can’t argue that “the problem is solving itself because the Jews are assimilating”. No. Orthodox Jews are not assimilating, and they are the ones who reproduce.

                  >First, it doesn’t matter, any more than it matters whether a given Frenchman’s grandpa came from Belgium or whatever.

                  You’re a retard. Let’s go over what we’ve had here: first, you claim that Jews lived in France before the Franks. Well, that should mean, in your view, that those Jews who are the direct descendants of those who lived in France before the Franks, have a right to live in France as they please. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that. But then, you scum, you do the unbelievable, and claim that every Jew, from anywhere in the world, has a right to be in France. Not merely those who’ve been there for a dozen centuries, but literally random Jews from anywhere, like the North African Jews who’ve been there for about 50 years, who constitute 90% of modern “French” Jews.

                  Only in the diseased, diabolical mind of the religious Jew, does the fact that *some* Jews may have lived in France a long time ago, give all Jews from anywhere in the world the right to live in France today. That’s what we’re dealing with.

                  >Point is, there were Jews in what is now France long before it was known as France, and before there were Franks.

                  Yes, retardo, everyone gets your “point”. It’s one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said here. Should Ethiopian Jews be allowed in France because a millennium ago there were some Jews in France? Should Chinese Jews and Indian Jews and Iranian Jews and Iraqi Jews and Yemenite Jews all be allowed into France because a millennium ago some Jews lived there?
                  That’s what you’re arguing, and you’re not getting away with it, you prick.

                  For pieces of shit like you, nothing is ever enough. It’s not enough to argue that the descendants of the ancient Jewish community have a right to be in France. No, you must also argue that Arab, Berber, and African Jews, and every other Jew in the world, has a right to live in France. That’s your “point”. You’re a globalist and I hope your whiskey is mixed with cyanide.

                  >Second, they came from those parts of North Africa which were first conquered by the French, then given the same legal status as metropolitan France.

                  Who cares?

                  >They received French citizenship at a time when this was considered something that France extended to those residents of North Africa who fit certain criteria.

                  Who cares?

                  >Then France shamefully abandoned North Africa to Muslim savagery. Now they want to change the rules of the game again?

                  No one changed any rules. Neither the sandnigger Muslims nor the sandnigger Jews should have been allowed into France. Two wrongs don’t make a right. What the Frogs did was stupid altogether, but it’s irrelevant: NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING. They make the rules, not you, and they should make them as serves the interests of their country and their people, not the irrelevant interests of a certain segment, a certain tribe, of their barbarian subjects.

                  This is really a dumb argument you’ve got here. The French should not take any Dune-Coon as either refugee or “former subject”, and if the Jews suffer, or the Muslims suffer, or all the Hagarians suffer, it’s not the business of the French. No one owes you anything, you entitled cunt.

                  >White or not has nothing to do with it.

                  It has everything to do with it. Why is it that Africa is for Africans, Asia is for Asians, Israel is for Jews, but white countries are for EVERYONE? I don’t give a flying fuck when the Jews arrived in France (on one of their many worldwide travels); they did not build it, they are not French, they don’t belong, they refuse to assimilate, they are today overwhelmingly sandniggers from North Africa – GTFO. No one owes you shit.

                  >At the time that France extended citizenship to the Jews of North Africa, it did not say anything about being white, Christian, etc.

                  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

                  >The criteria were different.

                  Who cares?

                  >I recommend reading something on the history before running your face.

                  I know the history, and you’re a retard.

                  >Any country can pass whatever it wants, but why are you upset that the Jews of France did not vote for the candidate who promised to target them with completely unjustified legal discrimination?

                  I’m upset because international (((foreigners))) keep meddling in the affairs of white countries in a way that serves the interests of those (((foreigners))) and is against the decisions, the will, and the culture of the indigenous whites, all while claiming the same civic and political rights as the indigenous whites; maintaining their own separatism while denying Gentiles their own “non-kosher” cultural expression. In short, you, the “right-wing” “conservative” “MUH BASED” Jew fit exactly the same pattern as Kevin MacDonald wrote about regarding leftie Jews. Two sides of the same shit-covered shekel.

                  It is the *reasoning* behind the decision of “French” (lololol) Jews to act as they did, due to feeling in a certain way, that is upsetting, not the mere vote itself. Also:

                  >promised to target them with completely unjustified legal discrimination

                  OY VEY, THE GOYIM WON’T LET US, FOREIGN ELEMENTS WHO DON’T EVEN NECESSARILY LIVE IN FRANCE, DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT POPS INTO TO OUR MINDS *IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES*, HOW HORRIBLE, THE UBNJUST OPPRESSION.

                  Your chutzpah is astounding.

                  >Do you expect the French Jews to be idiots?

                  I expect globalist anti-white faggots like you to be nuked to death and finally erased from the future of the world. Not a religious prophesy, just an expectation. You’ll be remembered as the people who believed they were invincible and entitled to absolute world-domination, entitled to tell everyone what to do and to live in everyone else’s homelands, until A HERO put an end to your existence.

                  As Pdimov says, there’s only one way to disprove Jewish invincibility. Satan’s Chosen People will be gathered in Zion, and once concentrated there, you’ll be treated as the Germans were treated in 1945. But with nuclear bombs.

                  * * *

                  inb4 “let’s dismiss what this man is arguing because oyyyy veyyyy the nazism and/or he must be a secret Jew himself”. O you defenders of Judea! You are running out of excuses for Kikedom. B the anti-white globalist thinks that every Jew from anywhere in the world has a right to live in France, or in any white country, really, every Jew has a right to live anywhere on the globe he so chooses, locals be damned. That includes sandnigger mud shitskin “Jews”, as we’ve seen.

                  That’s what (((the eternal enemy))) actually believes. Never be soft on Jews. The next holocaust will be so extreme, so absolute, so comprehensive, that the goriest lyrics of death-metal songs will seem like baby-lullabies next to the utter hell that the Jews will face in their final hour.

                • jim says:

                  > Jews behave like they have no country of their own – the exile is never over, even when it is.

                  Jews are in exile as long as they do not have the temple. So, I say, “take the temple, damn it.” But they do not wanna.

                • Anonymous says:

                  And btw, turdhead:

                  >any more than it matters whether a given Frenchman’s grandpa came from Belgium or whatever.

                  Yeah, Frenchmen are as close to North African muds as they are to Belgians. (sarcasm) Fuck off, bitch.

                • B says:

                  You ought to drink some water. Are you on meds? Have you considered getting some prescribed?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The thoughts of jews are inordinately preoccupied by the subject of mental illnesses; since of course they’re undisputed world champs at being mentally ill, and its only natural to project.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >You ought to drink some water.

                  Your anti-white globalism will lead to the destruction of western civilization, and very likely, the destruction of all civilization. At a time when the white race in Europe and America is being displaced by shitskin barbarians, your shilling for the same is atrocious.

                  I want the future, man. I want accelerating scientific progress. I want the singularity. Who can deliver those if not whites, with perhaps some help from yellows? You can say “Ashkenazim”, but look at what you’re doing around the world. Madness. The shitskins will not make my wishes come true. Realistically speaking, only Aryans, East-Asians, and those Ashkenazim who aren’t insane-in-the-membrane can deliver it. But Ashkenazim are annihilating civilization, destroying white countries from the inside and from the outside.

                  I hate you.

            • jim says:

              The destruction of marriage is enforced by men with guns, by hard power.

              Regimes that the Cathedral seriously does not like are overthrown by extremely brutal hard power.

              • Cavalier says:

                The Eye of Sauron is utterly catastrophic but extremely limited in scope, insufficient to explain the state of the world. And even this extremely brutal hard power is generally carried out through proxies and intermediaries powered mostly by the soft power of arms and aid.

                Soft power must be backed by hard power, of course, but that doesn’t mean that the Cathedral rolls tanks through Tiananmen Square. Somehow (“somehow”) the Cathedral touch is pervasive and persistent while being virtually invisible. Hard power cannot make you sing the anthem with a swell of pride in your heart.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You are mostly correct. The fact of the matter is that the US can enforce the poz on Islamic countries only by pointing the loaded pistol to their figurative heads, and since it doesn’t do it, their marital state-of-affairs is generally poz-lacking. For example: the CIA is banking on “spontaneous” regime change in Iran within the following two decades, so they “advise” (order) POTUS to refrain from bombing Iran – the idea is to employ psy-ops, which is soft-power, to bring down the ayatollahs.

                  The Cathedral destabilizes un-pozzed regimes by pouring money into NGOs and by other methods of mind-manipulation; after all, the global media apparatus is but a department of the American media apparatus – American memes are international memes. The same is true of entertainment and, most importantly, “academic research” of the “social science” kind.

                  When (((Will and Grace))) teaches you to stop being an uptight-square-prejudiced-bigot and to spread wild-open your buttcheeks for the GRIDS-faggots, you’re not the only audience for this message. When the filthy kikess Judith Butler came up with her convoluted and tortured “gender-theory” horsecrap, also known as the “agender agenda”, suddenly all universities everywhere in the world commenced emitting the foul, rancid, reeking stench of that ipecac-incarnate entity.

                  The Cathedral has the power to bomb the shit out of you. I don’t believe in the “inflatable tanks” theory – no, oh no, the tanks are very real. Not balloons! But that’s just not how it operates. That’s not the Cathedral’s preferred “style”. Rather, they intoxicate, in both meanings of the word, your mind with an endless barrage of dexterously-crafted propaganda. You can’t avoid it. The intelligentsia of every Western or non-Western country is teeming with the voluntary lackeys of Pozdom.

                  Washington loves its local, indigenous, grassroots loyalists. Showers them with shekels, often blood-shekels. Did you know that Viktor Orban was fostered by none other than George Sorrows aka Tsuris aka Soros? It’s a case study. Fortunately for Hungary, he #woke up to the machinations of his masters, and reneged on them. Death to Israel? Yes – but more importantly, death to America. I may be deliberately provocative, but it’s a point worth making. America is the Big Satan.

                  The Ford mafia, the Rockefeller mafia, the Open Society mafia – all are arms of the sinister globe-engulfing octopus that is Yankee-Judea. Through them, not through the implied threat of military confrontation, does the Cathedral consolidate its grasp over the affected countries. This is not to diminish from the wickedness of the MIC. But in the competition for clients between the Cathedral and the MIC, it’s usually the Cathedral that has the upper hand. Both are staffed to the brim by Puritans. The Federal Government is the Puritan Government.

                  In the final analysis, it’s only the break-up of USG that will allow the world some breath of fresh air. As the nigger Kurtis Blow raps: “break it up, break it up, break it up – break down!”

                • peppermint says:

                  Civil rights and no fault divorce is huge stick that prevents parents from teaching their children properly and lets individual women leave their husbands and take the kids. Then there’s that family court and police.

                  If you don’t see tax and spend as a stick, congratulations, you’re a commie. You see the carrot of all manner of social spending being given to thots to maintain their lifestyle. You don’t see the stick extracting that money from men who would prefer to give it to one of them in exchange for children.

                  Genxers are less willingly surrendering their children to the schools than boomers who assume it’s just like what they had which wasn’t that bad, but everyone knows what compulsory in compulsory education means.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Part of the problem is that the Right outside of here and maybe to a degree Vox Day’s blog doesn’t have any alternative plan to speak of. Worse the plans that do exists aren’t practical , Jim’s is pretty spot on “return to patriarchy” but it can’t be made to happen on the current world and Vox’s 16 points while great are entirely predicated on A Christian revival that may never happen

                  On top of that a huge number of putative Conservatives are anarchists more or less and obsessed with “muh Constitution” “muh freedom” and all that squill

                  That always leads back to Leftism.

                  To rule in times of prosperity a Right wing state basically has to put a lot of boots on the right necks, controlling trade, managing alien religions, controlling institutions , controlling business, Think Medieval logic not 18th century Enlightenment bunkum

                  Our Right is terrified of that and lazy on top of it instead of accepting the next 40 years will be all signing death warrants and slavery warrants they want to run home to Monticello 2 and hide.

                  This isn’t going to work and nature abhors a vacuum . Rule or be ruled.

                  When a plan comes out that actually deals with the real world as it is now , deals with the material needs as well as the Cathedral does or at least did and is best for human nature, so long as people are willing to kill or oppress to get it , they can have it

                  The Left is unworthy but according to the mandate at least will accept power and rule

                  The Right is partially unworthy, won’t accept power , hell he establishment flees responsibility for looting and as such can’t rule period

                • peppermint says:

                  the Anglin plan is White sharia and military or militaristic dictatorship with a goal not of “til all are one” like in the ’80s Transformers movie but of galactic lebensraum.

                • Anonymous says:

                  http://malcolmpollack.com/2017/05/11/you-may-say-that-im-a-dreamer/

                  Break it up, break it up, break it up – break down.

            • jim says:

              > Soft power is all carrot and no stick, and Cathedral has the highest soft:hard ratio than any other system in the history of the world.

              Tell that to Tutsis in the Congo. Seems to me that having your women vaginally impaled with objects larger than themselves looks mighty like a stick.

              > Nobody forces anyone to move to New York to act out _Friends_ in real life,

              It is just that you cannot get a high status high pay job unless you are close to someone who is close to someone who is close to someone on the regulatory revolving door. And the people on the regulatory revolving door, though they do not apply sticks to you directly, do apply sticks to any potential employer.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Until recently the Cathedral did a very good job of dealing with material concerns.

            Most Cathedral nations are cradle to grave welfare states and this is far more attractive than the alternatives for most people.

            • peppermint says:

              the welfare state has failed, and its failure was obvious before it began, and most people knew it would fail which is why they were never asked

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                That’s not entirely true. Diversity made the welfare state fail.

                Anyway baring collapse you are going to have one, probably bigger than the one now. Its the only way to prevent further demand destruction via automation.

                Any policy that fails to take technlogy into account will fail hard and a lot of social policy seems to have been made pre Internet or half of it, pre TV

                These things are not going away for decades at least and at the rate they are going, you’ll have sex bots, immersive VR, automated cars and even more destructive tech long before anything Right wing

                This will further suppress fertility and cut wages and therefore family formation

                Now if you can get rid of the foreign invasion somehow and cure the schools of the poz you should be able to reverse the problem somewhat but the underlying issue of lack of work isn’t going away

                As for the notion of Christian/White Sharia, even reactionaries don’t want that. Such a system only helps the top tier . There is no constituency nor will there be any. More importantly, Right wing people in the US have a Libertarian bent . Yes yes I know this is a Leftist notion, it doesn’t matter

                Try and impose and it everyone will turn on you.

                They might let you regulate the economy but that notion isn’t widespread yet, It may get there though and regulation that pushes stable well remunerated work and a less female centered work force along with divorce reforms, will over time increase fertility a bit. Probably.

                Really reaction will just have to live in the world we have not the one we want while making the policy choices that lead to fertility and stability . No idea if they can do it, a lot of stuck on stupid and a lot of “moar gawd required” is out there and these are a hindrance,

                • jim says:

                  As for the notion of Christian/White Sharia, even reactionaries don’t want that. Such a system only helps the top tier . There is no constituency nor will there be any.

                  Pretty sure there is near one hundred percent support on Pol for unemancipating women. Which implies, or presupposes, something like Sharia, in that women should not be allowed to go places except that they under the supervision of a male who has proper and legitimate authority over them, and is responsible for their behavior. Also implies abandoning the culture of consent, abandoning the theory that moment to moment consent makes sex right, and moment to moment withdrawal of consent makes sex wrong.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “That’s not entirely true. Diversity made the welfare state fail.”

                  The welfare state caused diversity.

                  White people are too expensive to bribe without crashing the productive economy.

        • Garr says:

          Two things — (1) bratty girls can be cute; (2) imaginative Black nerds such as George Clinton, Jimi Hendrix, and Sly Stone are lovable.

          • peppermint says:

            bratty girls are attractive because you feel an impulse to dominate them, if they’re young, they’re cute because it implies vitality and humans like seeing healthy fellow citizens

            black nerds are cool because you need to find something cool about blacks so you won’t look like you don’t know anything about blacks

            • Garr says:

              I agree with you about bratty girls. As for Black nerds — I actually really like Jimi Hendrix and to a lesser extent George Cinton and Sly Stone and find that there’s something earnest and appealing about my (rare) Black nerd students who want to have Deep Thoughts. I was on the Staten Island Ferry today noting a group of 6 voluble young male Arab tourists and thinking that part of the threatfulness of Arabs and Blacks is that they tend to move around in large groups. (With Sicilians or Puerto Ricans, on the other hand, it’s rarely more than two or three and usually just two.) But Black nerds, like Whites, tend to walk around alone. They’re in a different spiritual category.

      • pdimov says:

        Progressivism is cool in ascent, uncool in decline. Its content pretty much doesn’t matter.

        • Cavalier says:

          [Literally anything] is cool in ascent, uncool in decline. Its content pretty much doesn’t matter.

          • pdimov says:

            Nope. I didn’t mean X is cool in X’s ascent. I meant that progressivism is cool when society ascends (per Fate of Empires). That’s because in ascent, the future is better than the past and therefore progress is good, whereas in decline, the future is worse than the past and therefore progress towards that future is bad.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        I’m still unpersuaded by your claims cutting women loose in 1850 resulted in bad things. In 1800s, TFR was still high, wives were still (theoretically) virgin and any productive man who wanted to marry, did.

        If 1850s lead to a severe decrease in sexual morality for Anglosphere(e.g. the orgies LKY witnessed), I would be persuaded that the neo confucian solution is necessary, but so far nothing. Nothing like the 1947 collapse of fertility in Japan.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          It’s pretty funny how you say “we cannot allow women to have property rights, they will have bastards and men will inevitably pay for it” and then propose a solution that requires men to throw sluts into lakes chained to a board. If we can throw sluts in a lake, we can avoid paying for bastards.

          • peppermint says:

            throwing sluts in a lake is going overboard. Either prostitution will be legal and looked down on or get whores committed to insane asylums / convent, but for the bulk of people, they will be controlled not so much directly by White sharia but by the regrowth of social norms.

            Fathers and brothers don’t want them to be sluts, but they’re largely prohibited from taking an interest. Women themselves don’t want to be sluts, but by the fourth boyfriend they figure that’s just the way things are.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            In the last 30 years we went from sluts being shunned and low status to tinder.

            There has never been a white society that let bastards starvesurvive.

            • Vienna says:

              C’mon, a lot of us have fun with this larping game, but you’re a fucking pathetic idiot if this comment isn’t ironic. Besides the loads of Noble bastards that were allowed to survive and rule the peasants weren’t exactly not allowing their bastards to survive either.

              While your other point about shunning sluts has a little bit mpre of a point Americans and Westerners have allowed sluts to be stars in Music and Entertainments since atleast the 60s and 70s, and really before then too.

              • pdimov says:

                starve != survive

              • Steve Johnson says:

                The strikethrough wasn’t mine.

                Slut intolerance and shunning have been done.
                Callousness towards bastard starving with modern or even industrial levels of resources? Not done. Orphanages, charity, etc. Whites have empathy and especially so for children.

                Much, much easier to control women than to let bastards starve.

        • jim says:

          TFR had been rising as a result of rising living standard and falling infant mortality until King George the fourth was unable to divorce the slut queen Caroline. Total fertility rate proceeded to fall steadily from then to the end of first wave feminism.

          So the rot set in when King George could not divorce queen Caroline for adultery, and the entire Victorian period things were going to hell in a handbasket.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Birth rate peaked in 1860 or so was steady until the rise of serious leftism in the 1880s / 1890s. http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year%2012/Population/DTM/Britains%20DT.bmp

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            When infant mortality is lower, its not necessary to have a high TFR . In those times a few generations at high TFR means mass starvation and poverty for at least some of your offspring.

            In modern times, it means a life of mediocrity for many and if we have a consistent TFR of 3 or higher for long period, even if entirely White, we turn into a crowded shit-ball country with a lower standard of living and will inevitably turn Leftist since its a product of modernity, urbanization and crowding

            I’d far prefer a stable population, 90%+ Anglo of around 250 million.

            Given automation suppressing the demand for labor which is the approximate cause of the fertility crashes (along with the Poz) it may be lower than that.

            Unless the efficiency trap is dealt with , expect less children until the inability of the system to sustain itself occurs .

            • Anonymous says:

              >if we have a consistent TFR of 3 or higher for long period, even if entirely White, we turn into a crowded shit-ball country

              >I’d far prefer a stable population, 90%+ Anglo of around 250 million.

              Age. Look at Japan. Stable and homogeneous, but geriatric. No future unless they change course. Bad!

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                A TFR of 2.1 or a tiny bit more easily prevents this.

                In any case, population aging is a short term self correcting problem unless your entire society is predicated around growth

                In not that long Japan will lose enough people fro there to be a need for labor and will reboot itself.

                • jim says:

                  Wrong.

                  Peoples with a total fertility rate below two simply disappear from history. Recovery is rare, perhaps unknown. They just vanish.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  I’m not disagreeing with you but the US White fertility is 1.77 at least as of 2013 (the last year I can easily find) its not that low and a modest increase would push it to stable.

                  The amount required, .4 TFR is doable, Russia managed it pretty easily and while they roughly match ours, they went as low as 1.1 or 1.3 at times.

                  However the economy picked up, Putin brought hope and viola

                  Its far from insurmountable if we make good policy choices we don’t need much more than , reduced feminism/Cultural Marxism , stable well remunerated work for men , that is about it

                  And note, religion doesn’t help at all . Highly religious societies like Poland and Hungary have less children than White Swedes do

                  The US of course is going to have a hefty diversity problem on its hands as well, assuming that can be dealt with we’ll need to die with the Ayn Rand Jihad types and push wages as percent GDP up.

                  I’m not sure how that can be done though.

        • jim says:

          Total fertility rate in England started its long collapse in 1820, when King George the fourth was unable to divorce his filthy adulterous slut wife Caroline, and continued to collapse in more or less a straight line until first wave feminism ended during the great depression.

          At the same time illegitimacy soared. Because far too many women were giving birth in dark alleys in the rain, the welfare state got started in approximately 1870, primarily to subsidize sluts and slutting, wherupon the decline of fertility accellerated.

          Cutting women loose resulted in far too many women giving birth in dark alleys in the rain, resulting in the welfare state.

          The level of female misbehavior was not so high as to immediately collapse fertility.

        • jim says:

          The 1947 collapse in fertility happened abruptly. The Victorian collapse in fertility happened over the reign of Queen Victoria, which is to say, the collapse was slower.

        • A.B. Prosper says:

          1850 didn’t have much in the way of birth control and getting pregnant could be a disaster for woman who was unmarried or even poorly married ,

          On top of that being sick or incapacitated while giving birth was a real risk and a woman needed a man for safety .

          Still The Comstock Act was passed a coup,e of decades later so I am assuming there was one of the innumerable stupid moral panics the US has been prone too.

          However a hundred years and change later, the pill, abortion, IUD, diaphragms and the like became ubiquitous. Trying to ignore them and hope they just go away is foolish.

          They are here and other than abortion aren’t going away , people including stable married couples use them.

          In any case, even if some of them were hard to get, neither TV nor the Internet are going to vanish. Those two things are responsible for a lot of the lower fertility levels

          • jim says:

            We have had condoms since the late bronze age, and infanticide, sodomy, and pulling out, since forever.

            We see poor third world societies with fertility down around 1.5 side by side with poor third world societies with fertility around 6 or 7.

            The difference is emancipation of women. Nothing else makes a substantial difference.

            In the late seventeenth, early eighteenth century, rising living standard and falling infant mortality caused fertility to rise, not fall.

            War or peace, boom or bust, first world or third world, nothing has much effect on fertility except changes in the relationship between men and women.

            Observe Afghanistan, poor and Muslim, is right next door to Iran, poor and Muslim.

            Afghan TFR 4.8, Iran TFR 1.7

            Difference is status of women.

            Timor Leste Christian, TFR 5.9, Substantially wealthier than India, TFR 2.4

            • A.B. Prosper says:

              Timor Leste is majority rural and poor as is India though India is better developed in many areas . Both are above replacement

              Iran is a developed nation more or less , not a 4th world pest hole. Television is common as are computers and the like. Almost no where is poorer than in Afghanistan

              Also the US had fairly high status for women in the 1950’s vastly higher than Afghanistan and yet managed very high fertility nearly 4 at peak which given lower mortality rates, was higher growth than current Afghanistan !

              We can also chart increases in technology and an economic collapse from 1973-1981 which show increasingly lower fertility

              Granted female “power” was higher after the mid 60’s it wasn’t higher than now, women were far moire feminine and most did not work. The White TFR has stayed fairly consistent since the 80’s

              And note, you can’t blame divorce either. The TFR started to freefall before most states had no fault divorce and it hasn’t changed much.

              This suggests to me that the natural TFR of developed countries is not more than two period not matter what system is chosen

              Note too that Russia while developed has a lower status for women, is far less safe and secure and yet its TFR with religion is no more than that of Swedish Whites . It went to 1.1 for a while.

              Muslim Chechnya which has lower status for women than anywhere in the West has the same White fertility rate as Utah where women have all the rights as every other state.

              In any case, we really do not need more than “replacement” fertility and only that after a time. we need to remove foreigners

              We do have too many immigrants right now, far too many but we don’t have too few people . If anything the west is grossly overcrowded especially considering our unemployment rates

              we don’t have work for people that remunerates well enough to live well.

              There is not racial or national glory and given such “glory” only benefits the elite anyway, average folks don’t need to take a hit for “the greater good” its no such thing .

              White people should not be asked and if asked should not comply to squat out poverty babies so the elite can manipulate them . They are in every way better without children

              Unless the elite work to the common good , they are illegitimate and given nearly all of them are perverts, sociopaths or money junkies, nothing they say is worth listening too.

              Now there is a best way to get fertility up and its a good chunk of the reason the Middle East is as fertile as it is.

              bring back clans, that way children directly benefit me and mine

              However kicking off 1000 year of Catholic meddling and the states hunger for atomozation and interchangeable consumer units instead of citizens will take time and come at a healthy cost

              Long and short though, a high fertility society is completely incompatible with modernity in any way and while a short term bump can occurs after a war (which I think is part of Timor Leste’s fertility)

              Frankli I don’t want to turn Europe in Timor Leste anyway and I don’t see people clamoring to get onto that country

              Modern life can be pleasant and I see no reason to throw it away so “society” can have more mediocre babies even if they are White

              And while I get the idea there is some Hobbesian survival context all against all , there really isn’t. Holding on and having enough reserves to withstand problems is sufficient for the long haul. A small bump is enough

              There is a caveat , if there is a total collapse, female status will brick. However given the ecological damage, most people will die anyway and the hardscrabble life on bad land will limit population size.

              Once we fall, we don’t get up period and natural limits will kick in.

              • B says:

                Australian aborigine TFR is 2.74.

                Australian aborigines routinely torture and murder their women, with total impunity.

                Australian non-aboriginal TFR is somewhere around 1.8.

                Maybe, instead of Jim reinventing the wheel (and making it square in the process,) we could look at the classical explanation of why populations crater:

                https://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah.pdf

                23. A nation that has been defeated and come under the rule of another nation will quickly perish. The 136 reason for this may possibly lie in the apathy that comes over people when they lose control of their own affairs and, through enslavement, become the instrument of others and dependent upon them. Hope diminishes and weakens. Now, propagation and an increase in civilization (population) take place only as the result of strong hope and of the energy that hope creates in the animal powers (of man). When hope and the things it stimulates are gone through apathy, and when group feeling has disappeared under the impact of defeat, civilization decreases and business and other activities stop.

                When a leader is deprived of his leadership and prevented from exercising all his powers, he becomes apathetic, even down to such matters as food and drink. This is in the human character. A similar observation may be made with regard to beasts of prey. They do not cohabit when they are in human captivity. The group that has lost control of its own affairs thus continues to weaken and to disintegrate until it
                perishes. Duration be longs to God alone.

                This may be illustrated by the Persian nation. In the past, the Persians filled the world with their great numbers. When their military force was annihilated in the days of the Arabs, they were still very numerous. It is said that Sa’d (b. Abi Waqqas) counted (the population) beyond Ctesiphon. It numbered 137,000 (individuals), with 37,000 heads of families. But when the Persians came under the rule of the Arabs and were made subject to (oppression by) force, they lasted only a short while and were wiped out as if they had never been. One should not think that this was the result of some (specific) persecution or aggression perpetrated against them. The rule of Islam is known for its justice. Such (disintegration as befell the Persians) is in human nature. It happens when people lose control of their own affairs and become the instrument of someone else.

                Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little (that is essentially) human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.

                (Ibn Khaldun is not familiar with the Igbo)

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Aboriginal Australians are generally poor with low IQ’s , They are literally less intelligent on average than Sub Saharan Africans (average of 62, around half STD below Africans)

                  The only valid comparison is Timor Leste as Timorese while not White have an IQ around 95 on average which is close to ours and are Christian . However its not a developed nation for the most part being mainly poor and rural and is still having a patriotism/genocide recovery bump to fertility from the Indonesian occupation . Given a few years and some urbanization , its population growth rate will probably decline

                  All the other groups mentioned have IQ’s in the 80-90 range or lower including the Chechens

                  Basically and this is a guess on my part you can’t have modern development and long term high fertility as they are not compatible.

                  No doubt some of this is cultural but a lot of is probably economic and technological as well.

                  IMO here, other than immigration fostered by the elite, its not a crisis. Long term population will stabilize from increased religiosity, a smaller population creating more demand for labor , cultural push back and other sources

                  The trick is to get foreigners out and keep them out.

                • jim says:

                  You alternately claim that prosperity causes fertility, and that poverty causes fertility, depending on which data you need to explain.

                  In fact, for constant patriarchy, people respond to increased prosperity and reduced infant mortality by having moderately more children, but the effect is so undramatic as to be difficult to detect.

                  The effect of patriarchy, on the other hand, is dramatic and glaringly obvious.

                  Basically and this is a guess on my part you can’t have modern development and long term high fertility as they are not compatible.

                  Japan had modern development and high fertility, until McArthur emancipated women.

                  Countries poor and rich with emancipated women have low fertility. We don’t see any rich countries with unemancipated women – because the Cathedral crushed them and emancipated their women with military force, in part because it feared their fertility.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Jim you are right, my explanation is a bit incoherent

                  Among low IQ low education people, less development mostly means less fertility since they have a short term time preference and low parental investment .

                  Among more developed people, less relative wealth means less fertility. Its tied to development and occurs roughly the time TV becomes common

                  As an example, Brazil. Brazil got more developed, TV became ubiquitous (with some less children propaganda) and the TFR went from 4 or so to 1.76 .

                  Basically they achieved a certain level of development and the fertility rate went down and it will stay down.

                  Now I do not know if an increase in wealth will increase fertility and for the US we will never know since relative wealth levels measured as percent GDP have been in decline for nearly half a century and will baring a dictatorship or mass population die back will never rise.

                  Sufficient automation will probably end up with a TFR around 1 or so and that will self correct

                  Now as to Japan, a wartime population boom or one driven by population is a semi modern nation doesn’t translate, The 1930’s and 40’s were in many ways as distant a past as 310 BC

                  Japanese TFR in 1980 was 1.76 or so, roughly the same as ours.I suspect this is a product of the post war production culture and twelve hour work days

                  Functionally Japanese work too hard to reproduce and Japanese men are worked to death by the Japanese elite .

                  This was regarded as tolerable as it was exchanged for lifetime employment at enough wages to support a child, even in a small Island with twice the population of the UK and little arable land

                  However it was clearly not sustainable since every soon after Japan became a manufacturing power house its fertility dropped

                  Too much work, too much push to export and too little time to live

                  Frankly Japanese men are smart to opt out, not only is the relationship between men and women screwed up (on that we agree) but the actual conditions of work/life are very bad, there is no benefit to marriage or frankly even trying. A disposable slave to be worked into an early grave . Not good.

                  And note re: divorce. Its TFR bricked back when the divorce rate was 1/5 of that of the US. They had the same TFR we did at the time.

                  And yes granted the Cathedral did impose equality , the Japanese as US papers complained found the law more honored in the breach than the observance

                  Basically, you can substitute patriarchy for wages in modernity of you want fertility. You must have well remunerated stable work and a higher degree of patriarchy

                  Its also necessary that men want children, given how easy it is to get birth rates down, it may be the desire for children, despite what people tell pollsters isn’t that high

                  This makes sense given increasing urbanization and the fact people have more things to do that are more enjoyable than parenting

                  Bleats to have babies for the greater good fall on deaf ears as they should since the greater good isn’t doing shit for anyone not on top.

                • jim says:

                  Japanese TFR in 1980 was 1.76 or so, roughly the same as ours.I suspect this is a product of the post war production culture and twelve hour work days

                  No it is a product of General McArthur emancipating women. You think that before General McArthur, they had more leisure time.

                • B says:

                  Ibn Khaldun is correct.

                  Free people have more children when they have the resources to raise them (nowadays, practically everyone has the resources to raise as many children as they can have.)

                  Enslaved, conquered, degenerate people tend to stop having children, because their spirit is broken.

                  People in today’s West are largely enslaved, with a soft slavery.

                  The model is that you teach people that happiness, feeling good, enjoying themselves, are the highest goals, the only real valid goals.

                  The only real life is the pursuit of one’s pleasure. That’s why a common American insult used by children on other children who are not getting high, having sex, consuming conspicuously is “you have no life.”

                  Then you’ve made them slaves to their desires. Then it’s only a question of marketing-convincing them that their desires will be met by the shit you’re selling them.

                  Coke-Taste The Feeling! Life Tastes Good! Make It Real! Open Happiness! Barramundi is deservedly high status!

                  And on the flip side, you market fear. Outside the happiness of Coke, porn, promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, vacations, nice cars, McMansions, a college degree, a job-there is nothing.

                  If Coke is Life, the absence of Coke is Death.

                  A good slave does not want to leave his plantation and his master-if not for the master, who will feed us? Who will clothe us? Who will tell us what to do?

                  Only, the problem is, slaves do not reproduce much.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Enslaved, conquered, degenerate people tend to stop having children”

                  This does not pass the laugh test. Why did googles, Latin Americans, Muslims and Russians reproduce throughout history? The fact that is the majority of mankind only has simple desires and want someone to tell them what to do. If they can tell the difference between freedom and slavery except on the material side, America would not be in this shit show in the first place.

                • B says:

                  >Why did googles, Latin Americans, Muslims and Russians reproduce throughout history?

                  Re: blacks, Ibn Khaldun discusses this.

                  Latin Americans are largely either mestizos or Indians who lived in their mountain and jungle villages and were not messed with. Indians who were enslaved did not reproduced but died out, hence the need to import Africans.

                  Muslims and Russians were largely not slaves, did not perceive themselves to be conquered and oppressed people (a serf is not usually the same as a slave.)

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  All Indians under Spanish rule had to serve a Spanish encomiendero, at least during the early colonial period (later they were assigned a master by the state). Doesn’t look too autonomous to me.

                  Blacks in America don’t reproduce, while blacks in DR / Africa reproduce. The difference is clearly feminist state policy.

                  Similarly, the Japanese reproduced before MacArthur and did not reproduce after. I doubt the reason is because they were free pre 1947 and enslaved post 1947, Japanese militarism is not exactly big on freedom.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Some Amerindians survived and some did not. Many died from disease, many fell to conquistador weapons, and many were worked to death. The selection overwhelmingly favored the highly mobile hunter-gatherers, hard to pin down and relatively resistant to disease. Most Amerindian blood still extant is not of the predominant Amerindian blood pre-conquest.

    • Alrenous says:

      Early progressivism is persuasive because it’s specifically, consciously, and intentionally designed to exploit psychological flaws. Being persuasive is its thing.
      (E.g. in fact communism doesn’t work on paper and this is obvious to anyone who hasn’t been public schooled. It’s designed to give communist agitators power by preying on weak minds. It was never designed to be good for serfs.)

      Now the army feels throwing commies out of helicopters is a disproportionate response, so they give their tacit approval by default. Meanwhile, cops are slavering authority fetishists who will obey pretty much anything. In combination, progressives can claim to have the hard power, which women find sexy. This drags men along, as they have to imitate what women find sexy.

      There’s some limit to how far the proggies can push the allegiance of the hard powers. Look for progressive rhetoric designed to make the hard powers accept being pushed further. While it’s usually designed for a specific place and time to demoralize a particular opponent, it’s almost always designed to push the above general goal first, and the specific one second.

      Progressivism is still highly evolved to exploit psychological weaknesses. Most so-called opponents of progressivism are timorous and conflicted because they don’t fully believe in their own cause, despite mountains of obvious conflicts between reality and the progressive rhetoric.

  3. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    I don’t think Anglo leftism was a decisive factor in the disaster of 1917. German Kaiser had a bigger effect.

    Up until 1933, I would say Anglo leftism was conservative and cautious relative to German leftism. Germany was the homeland and arguably exported communism and “social democracy” to Russia and America respectively, although in the latter case it was reinforcing the Puritan derived homegrown Anglo leftism and not supplanting it.

    Post 1933 and especially 1940, Anglo leftists became allied with the Soviets. Moldbug puts the Anglo Soviet split too early. Anglo leftism continued to openly ally with the Soviets until the mid-1960s, as shown in the Suez, Cuba and the Congo.

    • jim says:

      Moldbug puts the Anglo Soviet split too early

      It was an on again off again romance, different parts of the anglosphere ruling elite split at different times.

  4. Turtle says:

    I think we’re over-weighting politics, at the expense of culture, economics, biology, etc.

    The USSR, for example, was held back by having more affirmative action than most places. But Nazis ignore how successful the USSR elite was at staying judenrein (better than Germany, in the 20th c. overall- far more decades of discrimination, and perhaps equal genocide, given that the Soviets did not prevent the holocaust, and probably participated in it). Lower-level Jews got the message, and were obedient public servants, probably like Disraeli or Frankfurter at their most loyal (which is still unsatisfactory, but substantial).

    The Beatles, with M16 handlers at least as soon as they went viral, took down both American folk/ modern white culture, and Soviet Russian culture too. Both were fragile already, and both had a mostly biological problem- feminism, causing nearly all women to prefer the Beatles as imaginary lovers to their own suitors, boyfriends, etc. So men worldwide sang the Beatles songs, being beta followers, just to emulate the boy bands’ alpha appeal. And this came at the expense of patriarchy- a punk kid growing his hair out long is equally offensive and disobedient in any country where men follow the military norm of cutting their hair much shorter than women do.

    The “British Invasion” was scary for conservative Americans, Soviets, and really, everyone normal. They realized it was an act of war, stealing many generations of people, especially vain men and lascivious women, like my stupid kindergarten teacher (case in point: she had only one child, because the Beatles never showed up to gangbang her while singing “Imagine {All the Beatles, Fucking You American Sluts…}”).

    One time, the police told the Beatles they cannot be hanging out with women at night, because the law actually prohibited promiscuity. This was an outrage to sluts’ rights advocates. The scandal was about as big as when the Beatles announced during a press conference that they are more popular than Jesus- back then, slut-walks were perhaps only 2x more socially important than Cross Walks (a pun, for both everyday law and order, and the Christian rite).

    But later on, as the story goes, Paul died on a rainy morning because his sports car crashed. Like a good prog, he picked up a young woman who was standing or walking in the rain, and she fangirl-maniacally seized hm while he was driving, so they left this world early. Then Paul was, according to the conspiracy theory, replaced by an American wannabe Beatle through a lookalike contest, which is why new-Paul acts American. Soviet Boomers hate Yoko Ono as much as Americans do – the divide between them is exaggerated, I think.

    And I do believe that John Lennon only ‘married’ Yoko (whose art consisted of photos of her ass, and whose singign is screaming) to protect his real family. That M16 could not handle them, is another case of leftism being uncontrollable- Lenin in a sealed train car is a weapon, while the Beatles being worldwide, even when banned and available only thorugh illegal contraband records, is a mess. The Beatles, Michael Jackson, etc. are all famous because they died early, and JFK, Lincoln, etc. are similar. If they had aged and retired, their cults would be limited by reality – they would not have become demig-gods, which is the prog. expectation for their heroes.

    Memes are not new, so my analysis above is not outdated. The alt-white calling Charlie Chaplin a white hero is bizarre though- is Snow White a goddess? Will they raise their kids on Black Sambo, or real stories, like “It was a Dark and Stormy Night…when ZimZam proved, TrayTray can’t flim-flam the mestizo man!”? They have no real folk art right now- fashwave is lame and thus impotent. I prefer what Vox Day adores, Babymetal (shinto-ish samurai- and geisha- inspired rock band, which is a delicious combination, even for me), and European neo-folk is very similar in its themes.

    Almost no whites listen to good white music, so… there’s not much political victories can accomplish. Trump fans are exaggerating the cultural shift he has won for us. The Trump Organization needs a record company, with or without Jews staffing it.

    I’m surprised he didn’t buy Playboy, by the way. He was in one of their videos… cameoing. That’s beta. Trumpboy heterosupremacist erotica magazine would sell almost as well as a masturbatory mold of Ivanka’s pussy. Why are my degenerate business ideas not implemented? Capitalism is about money! /s

    • Garr says:

      Rolling Stones were proto-alt-right. (“Street Fighting Man” is about the Battle of Berkeley, although Mick didn’t quite realize it.) (I was presenting Schopenhauer-excerpts in my class tonight and Schop’s idea that moral behavior is based on a “we’re all one” insight made me think of the George Harrison song “Me My Mine” so I said that I’d give any kid who knew who George Harrison was an extra-credit point and two kids out of 45 sort of knew but not quite; one of those two might have googled it on his phone.) (Mick Jagger’s IQ must be 145; the reason 60s bands were so good is that the smartest creative entrepreneurs in the West were doing that stuff. Today Mick Jagger would be doing Let’s Play Videos on Youtube; he’d be Dan from Diamond Minecart; John Lennon would be Stampy Long Nose. Johnny Rotten (okay, not 60s; now we’re down to 135 IQ) would be Jack Septiceye. (I know about this stuff because my son watches these videos at my place every morning before I take him to school.))

      • peppermint says:

        “meanwhile back at home there’s nineteen pakistanis living in a council flat, candidate for labor tell them what the plan is then he tells them where it’s at”

        they must be judged by their results.

      • Turtle says:

        The Rolling Stones were at Altamont. I’m sure you know about that concert gone bad, ending the ‘hippie era’ of the 60’s. And Mick Jagger cucked out on it, saying he didn’t notice the violence very near to the stage. Maybe that’s true, but it’s unbelievable, and he in general handled the fiasco very poorly, pretending to be innocent. I do admire George Harrison, in particular his audio tapes after he was almost stabbed to death, detailing how the Beatles were subverted by M16. But rock stars were not the smartest of their time- scientists are smarter, and good artists are equally creative.

        Anyway, the most popular bands are not the best. I don’t know all the best bands of prior decades, only a few of them. That your students don’t know the Beatles by name is great. Good riddance, overall. I can’t wait for a new music scene to arrive, beyond the ‘post-war’ era. Today, there are no rock stars- rock is mostly white, with a few blacks and others, like Hendrix and Santana. The most talented musicians today are not picked up by record labels- they’re not PR-appropriate, sothey stay unpopular. Sometimes I find them on YouTube.
        Vidya videos are not very difficult to make…the entertaining personality type is not so smart either. It’s more of a condescension with good humor, like writing kids’ books.

    • peppermint says:

      — Soviets did not prevent the holocaust, and probably participated in it

      Listen to this for what the Soviets were up to between the wars http://www.alexlinder.com/audiobooks/day-ocs.html

      — buy Playboy

      no longer exciting

      — masturbatory mold of Ivanka’s pussy

      that could be a way to take down Kushner

      • Cavalier says:

        >that could be a way to take down Kushner

        The Kushner thing is a sideshow, a distraction for the media. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kushner is on the short list to chair the Fed. I would be surprised if he didn’t obey Trump.

        • Turtle says:

          Kushner is too young for politics. Trump’s idea is that it’s a form of retirement, I think. Kushner, being a real estate magnate, will not be conventionally political as lawyers are in America. He can be an executive in public office, but not a ‘public servant’ style bureaucrat. So the Fed is not his thing, I’m sure. The Fed is for economists- nerds who get salaries, not profits.

          Kushner is also a father of young children, and while that is mostly managed by nannies, he probably doesn’t want to do much actual work. I think he will stay in business, and expand the Trump Organization into new industries, like mid-income housing.

          • Cavalier says:

            Look, I honestly don’t know what Trump will do, and I don’t know to what extent the Chairman really directs Fed policy, but I know that the infinite money spigot is the only thing propping up the dollar, and I know that the continued existence of the dollar is the leverage point over the continued existence of USG, and I know that Trump values loyalty über alles.

      • Turtle says:

        I’ll listen to the book. And the website looks pretty- plain and simple design is great, just like here.

        I suspect that Jews obsessing over Nazi Germany is fueled by envy- why not note that the east European progroms taught the Germans how to do it on a larger scale? And I think the USSR is more responsible for WWII than Germany is, but that’s extra anti-narrative, because it focuses on armed conflict, not civilian massacres. It would have been militarily smart for the USSR to fight Germany by sending weapons to the ghettos, perhaps air-dropping them. But any Allied forces could have done that. Some Jews were too whipped to fight, but some, maybe even many, only needed weapons to distract the Nazis from killing enemy soldiers.

        Hugh Hefner’s jewishness is a big part of the brand’s fall, but him lacking a ny successors is a bigger part- playboys must be young, archetypally. He’s not cool in part because his blonde babes have lost status- men have less androgenosity, thus less libido, thus less respect for sexually prolific players. So Hefner is respected less- is he good at video games? Do feminists like his smile? And so on, not forgetting that he valorized white sluts, and that, these days, is reactionary.

        Taking down Kushner is funny to imagine- I bet he would just remarry into some other rich family, or remain friends with the Trump family in general, because they seem to like him. The mold would, I thought when imagining it, make Trump popular with sexually unsuccessful high-libido men, who are largely ignored as a polity, only marketed to for profit. I suppose the molds could be given away as gifts in gratitude for campaign donations, once Ivanka runs for office. This would be a great way to restore public decency / vulgarity laws, with absurd prog qualifications like ‘yes homo porn, yes tranny dolls, but no Ivanka’.

        I haven’t had a pet idea like this in a long time. I don’t know why it came to mind, but I needed to listen to good music before expressing admiration for Ivanka. Musical culture is crucial, so fashwave is a problem- it distracts people who dislike pop, rap, R&B, etc. from good music, including some electronica. Fashwave is a marketing gimmick, unlike sincere, talented music by rightists. I get a sense of transvestitism from fashwave, as the noise is androgynous. But #IvankasPussy has wonderful potential, at least on Gab.ai, if not Twatter.

        • peppermint says:

          — why not note that the east European progroms taught the Germans how to do it on a larger scale

          because that never happened

          — but him lacking a ny successors is a bigger part

          the culture changed

          — his blonde babes have lost status

          only in the sense that everyone officially hates them for being White and jumps at any opportunity to make fun of them

          — men have less androgenosity, thus less libido,

          this is true

          — thus less respect for sexually prolific players.

          this is false. In fact, what happens with pretty much everyone younger than me is, since women never try to save themselves for marriage or even for a serious relationship anymore, if a woman doesn’t casually have sex with you, it means she doesn’t respect you. Women continue to look up to high notch count men and men continue to make fun of other men for being incel.

          But now men also cuck-shame, a vast improvement. Soon there will be a restoration of White sharia. It will not necessarily require any legal changes to implement, just consciousness raising in the beginning; we ultimately do need to restore marriage in law but for now marriage is for faggots and no one actually does that anymore.

        • peppermint says:

          — It would have been militarily smart for the USSR to fight Germany by sending weapons to the ghettos, perhaps air-dropping them.

          implying that jews can fight

          — sexually unsuccessful high-libido men, who are largely ignored as a polity

          sexually relatively unsuccessful men of any income level are irrelevant because only weak men are sexually relatively unsuccessful

          — fashwave is a problem- it distracts people who dislike pop, rap, R&B,

          As a genrdw rap and R&B is a combination of heavy drums, samples, and heavily masculine and sexually aggressive lyrics that would be brutally suppressed if they weren’t from niggers or humans pretending to be niggers. Technically rap is not a genre, but simply when you speak instead of sing.

          Pop not a genre. Today’s greatest pop star, Taylor Swift, used to be called country, which means White.

          Here, listen to Taylor Swift tell you what it’s like to be a woman in the 2000s.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKJWTWOFYl0

          — unlike sincere, talented music by rightists

          I think Xurious is breddy guud

          — sense of transvestitism from fashwave, as the noise is androgynous

          evidently you remember the ’80s as transvestites and don’t think of rap as My Sex Junk by Rachel Bloom

          • Anonymous says:

            >sexually relatively unsuccessful men of any income level are irrelevant because only weak men are sexually relatively unsuccessful

            Weaponized autism is irrelevant?

            • peppermint says:

              men who are successful at anything can show that success to women, unless they are required to behave like a faggot

              they won’t get top tier women, but there’s a huge difference in partner count between the best at various types of bullshit and a middling guy who is required to act like a faggot

              in the past that middling guy would call the guy who is the best at nonsense garbage and his partners trash. but now the middling guy doesn’t have a wife

              which is why White sharia will be implemented soon

              • Anonymous says:

                Women are not impressed by every kind of male-defined “success”. Aaronson is successful at whatever it is he’s doing – still an incel. To get their dicks wet, nerds need social skills and charisma as much as anyone, and if you have social skills and charisma, the nerddiness is just seasoning.

                • peppermint says:

                  To get women, you need to not be a faggot, and you also need to be able to plausibly tell them you’re good at something cool.

                  Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander act like faggots, thus are disqualified.

                  I don’t even need to brag about anything, just imply that I’m good at stuff and talk about computers and vidya.

                  In the future, people like Scott Alexander but less Jewish and in a real medical field will get all the women I get, while I’ll have to substantiate my bragging to get anything.

                  We’ll move from “you seem competent, that’s sexy, let’s fuck” to “…so how are you going to support our baby?”

                  Shadilay.

    • peppermint says:

      fashwave is great. take the best of EDM and remove the whores and niggers. more than that, take the best of 80s futurism and remove the communism and degeneracy.

      • Turtle says:

        “the best of EDM”

        I know ravers who are alt-right, and they don’t like fashwave because it’s not good music. Ravers see fashwave the way country folk see the Nashville ‘country’ music scene- a way to market pickup trucks (fashwave symbolically markets the internet, telecommunications, satellites, bluetooth, etc.) with slick lyrics, wrongly reassure oppressed people that they should just feel good no matter what, and dilute folk traditions.

        This movement is not about the 80’s- Reagan is dead, just like Marx, Hitler, Rousseau, Socrates, Buckley, the Bush dynasty’s power, etc. Reagan-era optimism was misguided, about surviving the 60’s and 70’s anarchy and violence, though it felt surprisingly good.

        The tight jeans, huge hairstyles, and glam metal are perplexing, however. I conclude the point was to be a little ridiculous, a part of an exclusive scene, to show loyalty and humility. Puritanism makes everyone look and act the same, and generic people won’t value each other, so they will be selfish, valuing themselves at others’ expense. Being a good friend is the way to be confident, in short- self-repression fails, because it violates hierarchy.

        80s futurism is more archaeofuturism, which was popular then, than 90’s-style hyper-modern futurism. I should mention that back then, consevatives where first debating sociobiology- can and should we ‘animalize’ the humanities, calling sex mating, and love bonding? The alt-right’s original founder, Paul Gottfried, a Yale Ph.D. and assimilated Jew, wrote a long article saying, in short, humans are exceptional, so know bestiality please, even if we’re not a religious society anymore. I’ll look for the link, but it’s not in my bookmarks. Maybe unz has it.

        Compare cinemas, for an easy memes lesson- 80’s movies were about teens being primitive in their basic urges (which can be called vice/shaming, instincts/amorally neutral, or desire/accepting) and advanced in their poetic ways of expressing themselves and caring for each other, while competing for scarce resources. This was natural, social, and spiritual, even with ‘consumeristic’ shopping malls and ‘bimbo’ valley girl accents.

        GATTICA is so 90’s, because it’s an attempt to make The Bell Curve a failed meme. Obvious now, not when I watched this film. I like GATTICA for the good dramatic acting, but the writing is bad, a hack job. The 90’s were much more forced, as in propaganda, so when you say fashwave is great, guess what- I know the 90’s rave scene was worse than the 80’s one, but it just keeps getting worse over time. Now corporate types run the EDM festivals, just like Disneyland, cruise ships, or golf courses!

        Here’s my main point- Fashwave is undanceable. No way to party to it. No way to enjoy it with friends and trusted strangers. So, no go, at least for me. It’s for lonely people who are too embarrassed to dance, just like indie rock is for lonely apartment dwellers, and some basement ones too.

        The difference between the 80’s tribal movement, including tattoos and piercings, and 70’s back-to-nature earth day stuff is more visceral- body modification is related to bdsm, meaning people are so insensitive that they need pain to feel anything (the world record for most piercings is held by a bdsm gay guy), while earth day is a fun excuse for smoking weed at a park with other young hot people, besides much later blaming fireplaces for the apocalypse, despite enjoying the burning of herbs. Earth Day gets work done- people would clean up trash, for free. Volunteering is foreign to people with tattoos, generally- there’s a huge negative correlation between bodily vanity and being selfish in general. The generous look plain, like the plain Dutch, not fancy Dutch (Amish/ Pennsylvanian sociology stuff).

        Anyway, there’s not much 80’s resurgence these days. I think we’re in the neo-1880s, because it’s 16 years after 9/11, which was like a civil war in scope. Trump is reconstructing- MAGA means, let’s heal from our war wounds. It’s spiritual, not cultish like cynics feel whenever someone is enthusiastic about a strong leader. So fashwave is misguided, like wearing bellbottom jeans.

        Peppermint, pleaes consider that raves are very similar to Trump rallies. Trump’s initials, Donald John, make him… DJ TRUMP, remixing Holy American folk tunes, with a fetal hearbeat as the fast drum!

        And that’s better than fash__ anything.

        • peppermint says:

          — Fashwave is undanceable. No way to party to it.

          congratulations. Yes, it isn’t as possible to fashwave to have a dance party and have sex than more degenerate music, and there aren’t very many fashwave artists.

          — It’s spiritual, not cultish like cynics feel whenever someone is enthusiastic about a strong leader.

          yes, that describes fashwave

          — DJ TRUMP

          DJ X is a nigger meme. Trump makes his own memes.

          • Turtle says:

            Who makes DJs’ equipment? Isn’t the medium the message, to some extent, so high-tech music, unlike animal skins tightened on a drum, is eucivic? I know that electronica was much better when only smarter, rich or patronized people could use the equipment. Restricting entry to the arts marketplace is important. Censorship by price/cost is natural. And job titles, even of musicians, are not memes. The memes of hip hop are like the artists becoming martyrs through a shooting death, or stupid words like ‘fashizzle,’ to not use proper English. It’s about violence and rebellion, and it isn’t even profitable. Rap loses money, I have read. It’s propaganda, and so, I hope you buy the fashwave albums you like. The verb ‘rap’ is a pun, I think.

            I do like Xurious now, but the fashwave I’ve heard is terrible in comparison. Xurious is a virtuoso in comparison, and talent makes a big difference.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              There’s just something great about analogue synths.

              Newretrowave, vaporwave, synthwave in general, its tapping into something essential and archetypical. The kind that fills the mind with a void of potential. Can one feel nostalgic for the future? It can be hard to describe.

              Whitewoods, HOME, Boards of Canada, there’s a lot of good ones out there.

    • Cavalier says:

      >And this came at the expense of patriarchy- a punk kid growing his hair out long is equally offensive and disobedient in any country where men follow the military norm of cutting their hair much shorter than women do.

      Ironically, short hair is a core component of the Puritan aesthetic.

      • Turtle says:

        There’s a difference between head hair and other, body hair, including facial hair. To Puritans, facial hair is like pubic hair. They’re weird about mustaches, as in, “oh no, Hitler had one!” Communists and other pagans sometimes burn monks’ beards before martyring them. That’s weird too.

        Puritans remind me of Muslims, who are told in the koran to shave their hair, wash their feet before prayer, etc. The excuse that ‘desert regions have hygiene requirements we can’t understand’ is telling- why is the rule universal, if not all Muslims live in Arabia? Also, wearing wigs is what the Founding Fathers did, to emulate French fashions, except Ben Franklin and the other sane, smarter ones. Franklin was, at a very advanced age, when serving as a diplomat in France, quite a hit with French ladies, many of whom treated him like an 18th century rock star. If he had worn a wig, he would have probably been rejected. I like Franklin and other good 18th century Americans, generally the true aristocrats, just not Jefferson or other leftists. I don’t think these aristocrats really hated the British king or wanted independence much. They picked the winning side, for personal gain and safety.

        Short hair is a core component of gayness, according to akinokure.blogspot.com. It’s childish, somehow immature, even though young boys used to have long hair, because they, with the same testosterone levels as girls, were considered feminine, so it fit them, just like wearing tights. Now, everyone’s afraid that’ll arouse pederasts. I don’t think so, because it’s elegant, and pedos don’t like elegance.

        The Puritan aesthetic’s dominance is exaggerated by Jim, because he loves the anglosphere- French Huguenots and other European cults of Christianity also contributed to the Founding Fathers’ and subsequent heresies. One Huguenot-descended man I know is a marxist, and that’s rare these days. Looking at marxists’ photos, they don’t look anglo to me, much more continental, as in lowland european, from the agricultural plains. Britons, if not Angles and Saxons per se, are more pastoral, especially in the highlands.

        The Amish and other Germanics are moderately prog-like without any actual Puritan or anglo influence I know of. Calvin is huge in Protestantism, greater in influence than Luther himself. So we may want to investigate Protestantism. Perhaps Lutherans are high-church progs, the happy-yet-dour, more democratic, less hierarchical, more domestic, less industrial counterpart to Anglicans. I have tried to study Protestantism, but there’s tons of misinfo, more than in most fields.
        Since I kept looking for better sources, I now have the new Orthodox book about the Protestant ‘Reformation’ Rock and Sand on my reading list, by an Orthodox priest from LA. He’s reactionary, with many children. And the Rock and Sand book interviews are on YouTube, parts I and II. It’s more theological than political, but I’m sure the bibliography is great. So it’s the place I’m starting.

        I don’t even like it when women shave anything- it makes them seem holier than us, so it’s at our expense, even if we like the neotenous look. They’re just as human, not angelic at all. I think men who want to be women truly believe women are angelic. That’s easy enough to fix… with mentorship and sexual experience. But it’s hard to get there. Women shaving also makes men seem like pedos, which is even worse for us.

        It’s reactionary to insist on keeping our body hair, though Jim finds huge beards ridiculous. Actually, they help with thermoregulation, which is biologically important. If they were more common, they would seem normal, and shaved male faces would seem off.

        The relatively hard-drinking Irish, Germans, and others did not prevent prohibition, so maybe they like anglos’ domination of them. I wonder who campaigned against it- did bartenders, brewers, etc. realize their livelihoods could be saved, if they lobbied skillfully and organized politically?

        • peppermint says:

          — I don’t even like it when women shave anything

          Women have less body hair than men. When they remove all their body hair, it heightens the differences, and is therefore sexy. Feminists hate it so you know it’s good.

          Women are supposed to have hair down their back that they have to take care of constantly for months. Men are not, women make fun of men for having hair any longer than Thor did in in the Thor movie, or maybe Nightmare in Soul Calibur.

          However, women need to stop shaving their pussies completely. Chateau Heartiste had an article about that, comparing some pussy hair to none. Having some makes it look more inviting. Not that that matters, because under White sharia women are obviously forbidden to show anyone but their husband and required to obey him, and husbands are unlikely to reveal any details as that’s next to showing pictures which is next to getting cucked.

          — The relatively hard-drinking Irish, Germans, and others did not prevent prohibition, so maybe they like anglos’ domination of them

          prohibition happened not because the people in charge were necessarily teetotalers but because it was the progressive thing. Then when it was passed, rather than move on to the next drug, it became the progressive thing to not do prohibition. This is not a mistake that advocates for queers made. They instead are mutilating children to keep their ideology going for a few more years.

        • Anonymous says:

          >Women shaving also makes men seem like pedos, which is even worse for us.

          While I am not a shaving-enthusiast whatsoever, this is crap reasoning. Who cares about seeming like a pedo? It’s just social-shaming mumbo-jumbo which ultimately serves the interests of the CIA, which is the engine behind the Cathedral memeplex. By saying “I don’t care if I seem like a pedo”, you fire a silver bullet into the arteries of the regime. The very foundations of its legitimacy are vaporized. Poof! All legitimacy gone.

          How does the media-academia monster gets its paws and tusks around your soul? By shaming you into following along. You see fake-news false-flags on the TV screen and think “I don’t want to be a homophobic bigot caveman”, “Islam is a religion of peace and opposition to it is not nice”, “women should run the household because men like me are idiots”, “racists are icky, I’ll stay away from them” and so on. It all works by shaming. All of it. No shaming –> no signalling. You can’t signal if the people you signal against are shame-proof or status-oblivious. You can’t shame Anonymous.

          By discarding altogether the pretenses required of you by Cathedral-dominated society, you tell the (((social engineers))) to get lost. Agree, amplify, and accelerate. I’m a pedo? I anally destroyed 39 kindergarten boipussies this very morning, then slaughtered them all, put their corpses inside pre-arranged body-bags, loaded them one atop another into my pedo-van, and disposed of their delicate remains in an undisclosed location. Leave the Deep State speechless. A speechless spook is a powerless spook.

          Respectability is for cucks.

        • jim says:

          Women shaving also makes men seem like pedos, which is even worse for us.

          Nobody worried about pedophilia back when everyone knew that adult women were no more competent to consent than any child.

          • Anonymous says:

            If the following link is accurate, not sure that’s the case:

            https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

            “An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to “ravish” a “maiden within age,” whether with or without her consent. The phrase “within age” was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

            A 1576 law making it a felony to “unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years” was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England’s North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years.

            An underage girl did not have to physically struggle and resist to the limit of her capacity in order to convince a court of her lack of consent to a sexual act, as older females did; in other words, the age of consent made it easier to prosecute a man who sexually assaulted an underage girl. However, since the age of consent applied in all circumstances, not just in physical assaults, the law also made it impossible for an underage female to consent to sexual activity. There was one exception: a man’s acts with his wife, to which rape law, and hence the age of consent, did not apply.”

            The tl:dr is that the Eternal Anglo has always been “at it”.

          • Anonymous says:

            Also of interest:

            “Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth. This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty. The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years. The age of consent, which applied to boys as well as girls, was increased to 13 years in 1863.”

          • Turtle says:

            Men allowed to consent for the women they have property rights over are allowed to punish pedos, too, without jury trials. Men’s sexual license corresponds roughly to their license to commit violence. So, when only men could consent to sex, criminal men violating that consent were executed. That’s why it was not a problem. But it did happen, anyway, because pervs exist. There were far more of them, allegedly- in the 19th century, doctors explained away epidemics of STDs among children. So I think you’re oversimplifying this- feminism is not childism.

            Women shaving makes men seem like pedos because they are simulating neotony, which enhances their ability to make false accusations of sexual wrongdoing. A typical jury doesn’t care if a hairy women is raped. So… while the main issue is that stubble is unpleasant, I really think we would do well by discouraging women shaving their bodies.

            • Anonymous says:

              Punish people who, in Jim’s parlance, “sniff around where they should not”.

              The problem is that the anti-pedo crusade (which smells like a psy-ops) has nothing to do with actual kid-raping pedophiles. No, the issue is that if your hypothetical 15-year-old girlfriend sends you her nudes, congratulations, you’re now a “child-porn-possessing pedophile”, and the Puritans are on their way to arrest you. In short, “pedophilia” has become just another thoughtcrime.

              Noticing the fact that young women enjoy being fucked, and perhaps even having a healthy erection while noticing it, is now a thoughtcrime.

              The vast majority of “child porn” does not actually involve kids being raped. That’s maybe 3% of it. No – the feds are worried that you’ll discover the politically-incorrect reality about “teens” (young adults) being as sexual as you are, maybe more sexual than you are.

              They resent young, fertile-age sexuality not because it’s disgusting, but exactly because it’s very hot. Puritans are only ever against the fun stuff. After all, only fringe sickos think that penetrating prepubescent kids is fun, so expectedly, Puritans don’t care about this issue of actual pedophilia at all. Actual pedophilia isn’t fun, isn’t appealing. What the spooks care about is teen sex, because teen sex is fun, and Puritans are the global anti-fun force.

              Also — and this is key here — the feds tasked with combating “child porn”, like all useless leeches who’ve got nothing real to do, need to justify their employment by proving that their job isn’t a worthless waste of taxpayer money, that is, by proving that what they’re doing is somehow “important”, so they chase-down to the ends of the Earth innocent people who happen to view/possess videos of 14 and 15 year-old sluts.

              Let me assure you, this anti-pedo hysteria does nothing to save prepubescent boys from being brutally sodomized. That’s because it got nothing to do with actual pedophiles, and everything to do with regular men who merely view things as they are. All this witch-hunt does is garner support for the spooks. Works as intended.

              And btw, the spooks are jerking off to those very videos of 14-year-old women which they forbid you from watching. It’s “part of the job”, you see. In other words, they’re trying to preserve their prerogative. Makes them feel superior.

              * * *

              Shaved pussy is fun. As I said, caring about respectability is for cucks.

              • Cavalier says:

                The only fully sexually mature girls at age 17 are niggers, brown mestizos, brown Arabs, and miscellaneous muds. …And maybe also the least white whites, like Southern Italians and Ukrainians.

                • jim says:

                  Oh come on.

                  A woman is fully sexually mature and best able to bear children when her breasts are fully developed, and her breasts are fully developed when her breast fills out to follow the contour of the colored area around her nipples.

                  Which is usually at sixteen years. Girls should generally have menarche at thirteen or fourteen, get married at sixteen, and bear children at seventeen.

                  Nature intended boobs to signal female readiness to marry and have children. Fully completed boob development signifies full readiness to bear children. And fully completed boob development generally happens at sixteen or so.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Humans have so many spine-related health problems because we have spent so little of our evolutionary lifetime standing upright.

                • peppermint says:

                  Quadrupeds have so many choking problems because we’ve spent so little time beathing air. Seriously, the spine needs to support 200+ pounds at a time and be flexible. How are you going to do better, what’s your design?

                  Boobs grow in fully in human females between 16 and 22. Human males find boobs very sexy, more so than nigger males, as evidenced by porn searches. Human females have significantly larger boobs than nigger females.

                  You can’t tell if a woman has hair on her pussy unless you already own her, and she isn’t ready just because she has hair on her pussy. Human females should optimally wait until their boobies are grown in – which is when human males pay attention.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I don’t remember the last time I choked, anyone I know choked, or witnessed anyone choke in public.

                  In contrast, every blue-collar guy over the age of 50 has back problems of one kind or another.

                  But it doesn’t really matter, because Hajnal-type marriage patterns only occurred in the last 800-1000 years and didn’t affect the visceral attraction instinct.

                • peppermint says:

                  White sharia has existed for as long as there have been Whites and the biggest boobies are on Germans and Russians.

                  I’ve had to do the Heimlich maneuver on family members.

                  Can you design a flexible spine that can be loaded with 200+ pounds every day and last for 50 years? Backpack culture is certainly going to affect the spines of my generation in a way that previous generations never had to deal with, while general fatness and lack of fitness has unknown effects. How many men have a third the strength of torso musculature that their grandparents had? Maybe the spine is supposed to have those muscles.

              • Ryan C says:

                >The problem is that the anti-pedo crusade (which smells like a psy-ops)

                The evidence for pedophiles in the media and entertainment industry is strong enough for the typical asset forfeiture law.

                Of course asset forfeiture is really about requiring drug money to go through legal channels with the help of a banker, but ignoring that the legal standard of evidence for employee discipline is probable cause.

                But the media and entertainment industry seemingly operate on at least clear and convincing evidence, which requires someone to look to convict.

            • Anonymous says:

              Let’s just call it what it is: holiness-signalling. You don’t holiness-signal against actual pedophilia, because it’s taken for granted that actual pedophilia is abhorrent. It would be like holiness-signalling against cannibalism.

              No. You holiness-signal against fake “pedophilia”, i.e teen sexuality, i.e normal hominid fertile-age sexuality. Everyone feels, deny vehemently as they will, that it’s hot when teens fuck. Because it *is* hot when teens fuck. Which is exactly why holiness is to be signalled by proclaiming that teen sex is horrible, oh how horrible. That’s why the Puritans, usually spectacular hypocrites, are knocking at your door.

              No holiness is holier than denial of nature. When you deny the inherent inequality of the races, or of the sexes, when you proclaim equal that which is demonstrably not equal, you are signalling sainthood. When you signal against young ferile-age sexuality by denying its very existence, by pretending young adults are free of carnality, and by extension, you are free of carnality, you are signalling sainthood.

              No one cares about actual pedophilia because like cannibalism, you don’t score social-status points by denouncing it. You score social-status points by being counterintuitive – by claiming that you are okay with homosexuals being in charge of your prepubescent son, while raging with histrionic furor at videos of 14 year old women doing naughty things.

              Puritanism: anti-fun, anti-nature. Like run-of-the-mill leftists but with a slightly stiffer lip.

              • jim says:

                > Let’s just call it what it is: holiness-signalling. You don’t holiness-signal against actual pedophilia, because it’s taken for granted that actual pedophilia is abhorrent. It would be like holiness-signalling against cannibalism.

                Back in the day, nobody cared that much about pedophilia. They were a lot more worried about misbehavior by women capable of bearing children and men going after women with boobs. And they were right to not care all that much about pedophilia.

                We make a fuss about very young people having sex with whom they should not, because we are forbidden to worry about the far more serious problem of adult women having sex with whom they should not.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >And they were right to not care all that much about pedophilia.

                  Right – actual pedophilia is very rare; for every real pedophile, you’ve got 20,000 (not exaggerating) cases of naughty young people choosing to have sex with someone, whether or not that someone is also young.

                  >We make a fuss about very young people having sex with whom they should not, because we are forbidden to worry about the far more serious problem of adult women having sex with whom they should not.

                  And also because it’s forbidden to implement the actual solution to the problem, which is to get horny 12-year-old women married to 22-year-old men, or to 17-year-old men, or to men their age.

                  Women should start popping-out kids before reaching 16, so getting married around puberty, when the age of menstruation and masturbation begins, and having “unprotected” sex with their husband soon thereafter, seems about right.

                  Age-of-marriage laws, like age-of-consent laws, are rooted in puritanism. No escaping it. Were it not for the puritanical conception of “women and children” as basically angelic beings in need of ever-vigilant supervision by the state and in need of perpetual protection by the state from evil men, no such laws would’ve been passed.

                  Even if one doesn’t personally want one’s daughter to marry at 12, if other men think that this is the right age for their daughters to marry, one shouldn’t act to prevent them from choosing this path.

                  12 is not 6. This is not Aisha-tier stuff. At 12, the girl has already become a young woman. So let her be a woman.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Women should start popping-out kids before reaching 16, so getting married around puberty, when the age of menstruation and masturbation begins, and having “unprotected” sex with their husband soon thereafter, seems about right.

                  Late marriage following a lengthy period of post-sexual-maturity celibacy typifies Hajnalien whites, the pinnacle of civilization. Niggers, Arabs, Amerindians, and other muds have such fast life histories as you describe. For example, my family, Hajnaliens among Hajnaliens, has an average intergenerational length of 38 years. Say No To Rabbit Reproduction.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Also, everyone is equal…except pedophiles. Humans have a primal need for an outgroup to bully. Since proggies have banned bullying just about everyone cuz muh egalitarianism, almost all of that vicious hate falls onto pedophiles.

                  Can also try to bully a white man of course, but they occasionally have a disturbing and frightening tendency to fight back.

            • Anonymous says:

              Being against pussy-shaving is actually a prime example of holiness-signalling. It’s trying to score social-status points by pandering to the puritanical mindset of the masses, elevating yourself by going against something that men generally enjoy. You may as well go full-Abolition.

          • Turtle says:

            “Paul’s prescriptions for giving males higher status than females consisted entirely of symbolic status…without imposing any real disadvantages or disabilities on females. A really conservative prescription…would impose real disabilities on females, granting them, like children, substantially less sexual and reproductive freedom than males and substantially greater protection than males.”

            https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-watchmaker-is-dead/

            What has changed, Jim?

            You used to say children have less sexual and reproductive freedom than males, either in the is sense, the ought sense, or both. If children cannot consent at all, then they have no sexual freedom to speak of at all.
            More importantly, you said children have greater protection than (adult, I think you meant) males. I’m trying to understand where this ‘we should say pedo is okay, to protect our justified sexual rights to fertile adult women’ sentiment comes from (not that I think Jim fully agrees with Anonymous). It doesn’t seem strategically valid, because you wouldn’t actually do this idea as a practice.

            So you’ve gone further anarcho-patriarchalist since 2012. And I don’t mean to take what you said out of context. I just remember that you were not flippant about the pedo problem before.

            Nobody worried about the pedo problem when men could execute child molesters. Men who can execute molesters without police interfering as if they are ‘competing’ with the police are allowed to fuck their wives, too. Husband’s rights = father’s rights. There’s overlap here, if not an synonymity.

            We mostly agree… but you’re disagreeing on rhetoric. I like reasonably forgiving rhetoric, as in, sentencing for convicted pedophiles has gone up 5x recently, and the prisoner’s rights lobby is against this change, so let’s just bring it back down. And let fathers punish the molesters themselves, without a jury process that just stalls what would happen in prison anyway.

            We probably agree on policy even more than I state here. But you sometimes express yourself in a way that displeases me- how can you be sure that feminism causes pedophilia? The fall of patriarchy allows molestation, but it is not clear if feminism actually makes men resort to pedophilia to not lust after women, thinking that women are holier than children, so it’s better to do sex with the less holy humans. I do believe feminism contributes to pedophilia.Maybe we disagree on how much.

            By the way, repeating a prior question that came up today:
            what should I read by Ayn Rand?

            • jim says:

              it is not clear if feminism actually makes men resort to pedophilia

              The question presupposes that predatory men are the problem, rather than early sexually immorality among girls.

              Which should be treated no differently than later sexual immorality among girls. By and large, much of the time, girls start getting interested in men at andrenarche, but girls do not interest men until menarche. Thus between andrenarche and menarche, the problem is primarily predatory girls hunting older men, not the other way around.

              Clitoridectomy is an attempt to deal with this problem, but now we have a better technological solution. We can artificially delay andrenarche until menarche, and probably should.

              Probably a good system would be to block andrenarche and menarche till fourteen, then two years after menarche have a coming out season, where girls engage in ballroom dancing with parentally selected suitors, (but no dating or unsupervised physical contact allowed until they get engaged) and then get married very shortly thereafter.

              This would mean that you would only have to keep girls under tight restraint and supervision for two years.

              • Turtle says:

                I expect men to have both adult wives who sexually satisfy them and self-control, and so, to not get seduced by predatory girls or any women. How did Milo seduce that priest, anyway? Why do you think young people are so horny, if they are not having much sex, according to recent statistics?

                I’m fine with children having sex with other children near their age, with their parents’ permission. This is already legal, with ‘Romeo and Juliet’ laws.

                When I speak of pedophilia, I mean the actual baby-fuckers (one infant I recall, some toddlers…one current case) who rarely get caught where I live, whose conduct bothers even other criminals. I don’t mean 17 year olds with 18 y.o. boyfriends.

                I don’t see why you would wait till 16 for the debutantes. Is it just for further physical development? I think the coming out could be 13-15, ranging with a bell curve, and marriage whenever a suitable, selected suitor proposes.

                2 years of supervision is too long; I theoretically prefer traditional promises of marriage made ahead of time. That way, the future wife has a specific man she is expected to wed, who she knows will cherish her and get along with his in-laws.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “A 17-year-old who sent her boyfriend intimate photographs has been left shattered after police decided to charge him for possession of child pornography. Alison (not her real name), who is four months away from being 18, says she’s been traumatised by the way that she and her partner Peter, 22, (also not his real name) have been treated by police, the stress of which has forced them both out of education…people aged 16 and 17 can legally consent to sex but can get into trouble for making “child pornography” if they possess and share images of their own lawful sexual activities…Alison and her mother are now calling for a change in the law to protect consenting couples from getting into distressing legal situations like this…”I feel my consent has been total violated by the people who are supposed to be protecting children…I chose to send pictures of myself to Peter. I did NOT choose for all those detectives, solicitors and goodness knows who else to see them…””

                  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/sent-boyfriend-sexy-selfies-now-5652793

                  Legalize “child porn” immediately. Gas the romantics and sentimentalists, anti-infantilozation war now.

        • Dan Kurt says:

          re: “Franklin and other good 18th century Americans, generally the true aristocrats, just not Jefferson or other leftists. I don’t think these aristocrats really hated the British king or wanted independence much.” Turtle

          Franklin was a British Agent. Writing two books on this cost Cecil B. Currey his academic career. Try and find Currey’s two books on Franklin as a traitor:
          Code Number 72/Ben Franklin: Patriot or Spy?
          Road to Revolution: Benjamin Franklin in England, 1765-1775

          Dan Kurt

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          >Short hair is a core component of gayness, according to akinokure.blogspot.com. It’s childish, somehow immature, even though young boys used to have long hair, because they, with the same testosterone levels as girls, were considered feminine, so it fit them, just like wearing tights. Now, everyone’s afraid that’ll arouse pederasts. I don’t think so, because it’s elegant, and pedos don’t like elegance.

          Traps patrician taste confirmed?

    • Space Ghost says:

      Kantbot is that you

      • Turtle says:

        How about Sorokinbot? lol, we’re all inspired by prior thinkers, and I prefer the Russian sociologist Sorokin to Kant.

        I’m no ‘philosophe’ – I write for actual readers here, not an imaginary academic journal. But I do note that leftists are the heretic Hegelians, in biblical terms both being prodigal sons leaving home for foreign casinos and whores, and also stealing their brother’s inheritance, and Kant is a modern Jacob, wrestling God’s angel. I like to believe that we can’t wrestle God himself, because he always touches us mercifully.

        But you might have a point, that I write too much for a comments section. I’ll start a blog eventually, at this rate.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >there are people on the internet RIGHT NOW that don’t dig vaporwave a e s t h e t i c

      • peppermint says:

        To me, what’s liberating about fashwave is openly embracing the cool militaristic stuff that was portrayed as generic enemies in the actual 80s, removing even the pretense of nigger worship or women’s liberation, and bringing back the futuristic hopefulness. A civilization needs men to plant trees they will never sit in the shade of, while the genxers and millennials were raised to only think about their orgasms. And the reality of the situation is no Aryans, not even the workong class that Marx spat on, are satisfied with only thinking about their orgasms. So they transparently translate that into living for total liberation of everything through communism and wealth transfers to subsidize any kind of sex junk. Nazis offer a different vision of the future – space colonies full of Aryans living by White sharia. Shadilay.

        Xurious is much better at portraying emotion in music: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OD04F2c6bec , while Cybernazi picks better pictures. Those two make the majority of explicitly fashwave music, but fashwave has effects beyond music that are already tangible.

        The female equivalent of fashwave is Enya, an Aryan woman proud of her heritage living according to White sharia with no degenerate songs and even a requiem for African colonies (storms in Africa) (Taylor Swift did the same thing with Wildest Dreams).

        • Vienna says:

          Ah yes, Enya, the girl who sitill regularly sings in her Catholic church choir she had been going to all her life.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Anglo-Feminists introduced age-of-consent laws in Russia during Yeltsin, not during Communism, which proves that by the time the Soviet Union dismantled, the Anglosphere-Left has been holier than the old-school Marxists, and by the way, holier than the Francosphere-Left.

    In the current year, the only game in town is between Judaism-derived leftism and Anglo-derived leftism. Franco-derived leftism has thoroughly fallen from grace, and “German leftism” as ROL mentions above has culminated in EU-ism, the EU being a lowly subsidiary of the State Department. Within the world-dominant Cathedral, it’s only Jews and Anglos signalling and out-signalling each other, everything else being background noise.

    • Cavalier says:

      Age of consent laws are slow life history people screwing fast life history people.

      Divorce laws are stable marriage type people screwing unstable marriage type people.

      As always, who, whom?

      • Turtle says:

        Age of consent laws mostly screw men, who sexually develop much slower. See Rollo Tomassi’s (rationalmale) graph of SMV over age.

        “stable marriage type people screwing unstable marriage type people”

        Stable people are good friends, not selfish at others’ expense. They are good role models, and there are network effects- having divorced friends leads to more divorce.

        Divorce type people screw everyone, especially their children. So I disagree, though your idea is interesting. My focus is on actual couples’ interactions as couples, not their competing styles of marriage. People, not relationships, make decisions.

        • Cavalier says:

          Age of consent laws screw promiscuous, polygamoua type men, who generally have a large age difference between them and their mates. K-selected-ish monogamous type men are usually close in age to their mates, 0-3 years. Yes, technically 19M-16F then violates age of consent law, but in practice this is usually not enforced and in many places there are “proximity of age” exceptions.

          All behavior is significantly and substantially genetic and heritable. If women are given incentive to divorce their husbands for cash and prizes, then the population rapidly sorts into two subpopulations: those with a family history of divorce, and those without. Those without a family history of divorce are substantially less likely to possess any genetic predisposition to divorce. Naturally, this fully stabilized, fully stable marriage type population will be a small proportion of the overall population. And, as the reigning orthodoxy intensely encourages assortative mating, thereby tremendously concentrating other “good genes”, the tendency of stable marriage is also tremendously concentrating — and as it concentrates, getting stronger, at least in this subpopulation.

          P.S. Also, genetic load.

          • jim says:

            K-selected-ish monogamous type men are usually close in age to their mates, 0-3 years.

            Not seeing that at all. All men, regardless of age, want a fertile age woman with most of her fertile years ahead of her. And the more one intends a durable relationship, the more important it is that she has a lot of fertile years ahead of her.

            Darwinian logic is that men who intend or expect durable marriage should pursue sixteen year olds (maximum fertility remaining) regardless of their own age, while men interested in casual sex should pursue twenty four year olds (maximum fertility right now) regardless of their own age.

            Not seeing a whole lot of assortative mating.

            • Turtle says:

              I think Cavalier meant what Charles Murray write about, a Coming Apart of socioeconomic classes, where the different segments of the IQ bell curve do not interact with each other. This IQ segregation is not about mating, but that’s what people focus on.

              The idea here is that people want to be part of the ‘smart fraction’ with no stupid friends, and a smart spouse for smart babies. Some guys marry Asian women because of this, but they are very few, and quite high in their mental:emotion ratio of cognition. It’s rational, perhaps, but few people are rational.

              In other words, do you know anyone who would marry someone like your housekeeper?

              • jim says:

                Murray’s tale of a smart elite is flattery to appease the elites, sugar to make the medicine go down.

                University entrance tests tell the same story as the art and culture of our elite, and the reading level of their words and speeches. Our elite used to be very smart, is now scarcely different from the prole masses Our elite is less and less IQ selected.

                IQ test results are that people who graduate with a four year college degree have exactly average IQ. A four year college degree is today completely uncorrelated with IQ. The correlation has been declining since measurements are available.

                If all graduates with a four year college degree married only graduates with a four year college degree, that would be precisely zero IQ assortative mating.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  If the elite’s intelligence is so average, then why are you smarties whining about being dominated and successfully manipulated by the Cathedral?

                • jim says:

                  Are you claiming that never in history did stupid people rule over and persecute smart people?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Are you claiming that never in history did stupid people rule over and persecute smart people?

                  gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8

                • peppermint says:

                  The fact that the elites are so retarded is the reason we can say they’re retarded and evil with pseudonyms here and more or less openly call for the abolition of the universities, legacy media, judiciary, and ngos on normiebook. All the smart people have left by now. Colbert’s live audience doesn’t know whether they should cheer or boo without him telling them directly.

                  Miley Cyrus recently took a glamor shot in a pretty dress. She looked nice except her hair needs several months to grow back.

                  Feminists called for a brick to her face. Feminism no longer means sexy women. It means ugly women who aren’t going to have your babies and are going to take everything they can get from you, and it means this frankly and openly.

                  If the elites were competent Jim would be in jail somehow, maybe dead like Yockey, and I’d probably have my legs broken and be denied SSI and have any prospective employer getting a harassing phone call.

                • Turtle says:

                  Now I agree. Murray’s Bell Curve thesis was convincing, because I don’t know what life was like in prior centuries, and trusted his data. The main thing was that IQ matters, so I extended acceptance of this valid claim to believing his corollary claim, that IQ now matters more than ever before.

                  If we disagree with Murray, we might sound like sjws, who say he is racist and so forth. So, I think we should be specific in where we disagree with him.

                  And while I did know college does not guarantee intelligence, my college experience was that stupider students dropped out, leaving slightly smarter ones, and the smartest ones got into the best colleges to begin with… so it seemed like assortment was happening. And girls would tell me they needed to go to a good college to marry a high-ranking beta husband, as if I didn’t know about hypergamy. It felt like assortment had increased, because competitiveness was crazy high.

                  In the silicon valley, some teens kill themselves just because of a bad grade. It’s truly crazy, and ‘the community’ there is not willing to admit they have a problem. That indicates they are fools, not stupid IQ-wise. I don’t know why they think over-competing will improve outcomes for their upper-middle class ‘dynasties,’ and I can’t relate.

                  But I think there’s something true in Murray’s description of ‘super zips,’ meaning that the elite only live near each other, in anti-gettoes. That, geographic segregation, is a low-level civilization solution to class conflict and safety issues.

                  So they’re stupid and foolish… but act smart, convincingly. I was duped by posers 🙁 .

                • jim says:

                  Average IQ of college graduates by decade of graduation

                  Statistics confirm declining selection for IQ, which decline is already evident from the the tastes of our elite, and the reading level of their discourse.

                  Elite urban districts are primarily elite in that law enforcement actually happens in certain zones. This indicates reversion to the urban jungle outside ever shrinking areas, not hypercivilization within certain areas.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Over 50% of high school graduates go on to college of some kind.

                  The colleges are accepting everyone with a pulse and a body temperature above 90F.

                  The behavior of the average tells us absolutely nothing about the top shelf.

                • jim says:

                  The tastes of our elite are depressingly similar to the tastes of the masses.

  6. Koanic says:

    Brilliant, thanks.

  7. Garr says:

    So you think that the Russian Revolution was driven by people’s commitment to certain ideas and to the tendency of these idea (e.g. Puritan-style leftism requiring “no enemies to the left” which requires acceptance of leadership by Bolsheviks) rather than by any given group’s conception of its self-interest and place in a scheme of things that it’s trying to bring about? So that, applying this to, say, the French election, it’s not as though the Euro-elite wants to establish itself as the Master-Caste ruling an Islamically-regimented vast underclass; rather, the dominant people in Europe are committed to ideas (feminism, we-are-the-worldism) that will lead to their own demise, and are helpless to save themselves given their commitment to these ideas?

    • jim says:

      Exactly so.

      Alexander the liberator the status game according to English progressive rules, so progressivism became high status, so removing the Czar became high status.

    • peppermint says:

      Christianity fundamentally believes in the noble lie and so do all forms of “post”-Christian progressivism. Today’s naziism recognizes that if the elites tell a noble lie the next generation of elites will believe it, so rejects the noble lie as a challenge to the chaos god Kek, destroyer of lies.

  8. I don’t know. I lived the last years of that system on the westernmost periphery of the Soviet empire and I felt about nothing American about it. People didn’t behave like “pious Prius driver” virtue signalling types. Almost everybody grudgingly ignored official ideology, did not try to signal being a Good Guy, in fact people tried to signal being rich in a ghetto bling-bling way. (The similarity between a 2Pac type black thug and some local cool guy of a rural, say, Slovak discotheque of 1993 never ceases to amaze me, everything from liking gold shit to driving newly expensive but old cars like a 15 years old Bimmer to drinking stuff that looks expensive like Chivas Regal and Henessy. I get the common biological motive, but where the fuck did they get the common cultural symbols from? It really amused me.)

    While the official slogan was anti-racism, not so in the practice where there was no affirmative action effort whatsoever to give gypsies better jobs than unskilled laborers, nor did anyone worry about their inequal educational outcomes. it did not tolerate gays and beyond a few token feminist institutions the the whole culture seemed generally masculine, perhaps due to the working class and military focus, it sort of wanted both men and women be masculne but men significantly more. Sexual mores were generally repressed. They were not redpilled, though, there was no idea that womens sexuality needs to be repressed more. Nevertheless girls behaved pretty sweetly.

    Some of my friends who arrived to a right-wing attitude in an instinctive not intellectual way basically said if it has been nationalist and not internationalist it would have been far more acceptable than the current stuff. But we are talking 1985, around the Hajnal Line, not 1965, Smolensk. Things were a whole lot milder then and there.

  9. Alrenous says:

    Brothers on average share 50% of their alleles, but it’s not impossible to share much more. Despite being so similar, they still get into sibling-rivalry spats.

    • peppermint says:

      The probability of sharing a different amount than 50% is exponentially suppressed. Recombination happens at gamete formation and there are plenty of different snippets for the law of large numbers to kick in.

  10. John Wallis says:

    Jim, I did some data collection:

    Currently, the house and senate have between them 290 Republicans and 239 Democrats. The Republicans had 656 biological children (TFR 2.26); And the Democrats had 398 biological children (TFR 1.67).

    Given that roughly 80% of the Republicans and Democrats counted were non-Hispanic white, this data suggests that at the time these children were born, the white Republican TFR was roughly 0.60 points higher (2.26 – 1.67 = 0.59) than the white Democrat TFR.

    The average year of birth of these children was about 1990. The U.S. census bureau states that the non-Hispanic white TFR in 1990 was 1.85.

    If, in 1990, the right-leaning white TFR was truly 0.60 points higher than the left-leaning white TFR; and if we assume that in 1990 right-leaning whites made up 60% of the total white population, this suggests that in 1990 the right-leaning white TFR was 2.09, and the left-leaning white TFR was 1.49.

    (2.09 * 0.6) + (1.49 * 0.4) = 1.85.

    The U.S. census bureau lists the 2015 non-Hispanic white TFR (the most recent year for which data is available) as 1.75. If the drop in fertility since 1990 has been proportional, this suggests that 2015 right-leaning white TFR was 1.99, and the left-leaning TFR was 1.39.

  11. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Recently I have been watching late Soviet cinema.

    The late Soviets were openly lampooning economic socialism and planning, which is perhaps not surprising, but they were also starting to lampoon sexual equality, and to portray Armenians and such as shifty weirdos rather than as New Soviet Man, which perhaps is surprising.

    The late Soviet Empire was turning reactionary on all fronts, albeit from a very progressive base, not just the economic front. Like if the US started making films on the premise that blacks are dumb and violent but sometimes kinda funny in the process.

    The Soviet collapse, though, was a result of a hard lurch toward progressivism on the nationalities question, i.e. all the non-Russians declared independence of the Russians and the Russians let them go. This seems to be a separate and unrelated development, one that originated in Harvard and the LSE.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Freeman Dyson reports that Brezhnev said to the British Prime Minister, “there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question of whether the white race will survive.”

    • Art says:

      I love late Soviet cinema, and it is reactionary in the sense that they made all kinds of subtle observations unconstrained by any ideology.
      I am guessing you watched Mimino, and you probably missed the point of cultural references. They are not trying to portray Armenians as dumb.

  12. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you man. I hereby bestow upon you the inaugural sadly-status-free honorary professorship at the today-LARP-only Shitlord University.

    • peppermint says:

      You’re not thinking big enough. Universities have no purpose in the modern world and thus can’t but be pozzed. Burn them down and call the best people something other than professor. Professor is now a dirty word.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Ace. If no longer useful, then rent-seeking, thus poz.

        But tell me this:
        What helpful role — if any — can you imagine for a brick-and-mortar educational/indoctrinational institution?

        • peppermint says:

          While everything else is best studied alone or online – the best recent philosophy has not come from universities – hard sciences are arguably most efficiently taught in classrooms and studied by dedicated people. Thus there is arguably a future for scientists in training people in the kind of scientific thinking and engineering background they need for their jobs. This could be a service companies may choose to pay for externally instead of purely through in-house mentoring, and may help pay for the further research that provides these scientists with the credentials to perform this service.

          The government must not get involved and provide perverse incentives, but there may even be opportunities for bankers to loan people money to pay for training and then take some amount of their future earnings, like in the paradox of the Athenian lawyer.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            That’s largely not true. The best scientists are self-teaching spergs. The rest just didn’t want to leave the comfortable environment of the university.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            I’m hearing this.

            Indeed the super-great’s are self-taught spergs, but I wasn’t one of those myself, and I needed college very much to learn what I needed to know.

            There’s some sort of low-poz private “certification center” waiting to be offered somewhere. Perhaps in Mexico or Cambodia or Russia or someplace where the Ivy League can’t get to it.

  13. B says:

    >Soviets were Democrat agents, a proxy force for the blue empire of the consulates

    This is dumb. Soviets were working for the same people that the consulates were working for. Look up the career of Averell Harriman, for instance (Skull and Bones, elder statesman for the Democratic party, instrumental in the development of Soviet industry from the 1920s onwards, Andropov consulted with him personally.)

    Wall Street (certain sectors of it, centered around 120 Broadway,) supported the Bolshevik Revolution, rebuilt Soviet industry in the 1920s and 1930s, designed the Five Year Plans, and reaped the benefits. And told people in the State Department to be quiet and play ball.

    >Judaism derived leftism (Marxism)

    Marxism is informed by Judaism in the exact same way that Catholicism is informed by pre-Columbian cults. Marx plagiarized his Manifesto from Victor Considerant, who was not Jewish. Marx himself grew up in an environment completely devoid of Judaism-his father had converted to Christianity.

    >Both engaged in entryism, and entryist agents would turn, becoming double and triple agents, creating a dense maze of camouflage and lies.

    What a beautifully parsimonious explanation. Maybe you could ask viking to expand on it, for clarity.

    >While the Czar was away at the front, the bureaucracy flooded the streets with rioters and protestors

    The Czar was as useful at the front as he would have been at home, i.e., like tits on a boar hog.

    >while the bureaucracy that formerly answered to the Czar kept their jobs and increased their power.

    The bureaucracy that formerly answered to the Czar was, after the revolution, either dead or refugees. The Soviet post-revolutionary bureaucracy was largely composed of people who had been nobodies before the revolution. Most of those people got purged during the 30s and replaced with young men from a peasant or proletarian background. Darkness at Noon gives a pretty good fictional example, where the head NKVD investigator explains that the first time he saw a clock, he was sixteen. Until then, he lived as a peasant in a village where there was no such thing.

    Forget bureaucrats-even the pre-revolutionary skilled workforce was devastated. All the factories survived the revolution, but there was nobody to run the machinery, no machinists, no foremen, no engineers. Half of the re-industrialization and building of the 20s and 30s involved bringing American machinists, foremen and engineers through Amtorg and having them train up their Russian equivalents.

    Russia had a 60% literacy rate in 1917. The revolution and civil war killed off 5-10 million people, and another 1-2 million left. Disproportionately, these were educated people in the cities, who died of hunger, cold and epidemics. The backbone of the Czarist bureaucracy, the Baltic Germans, either died, fled or ended up in the breakaway Baltic states. The minor clerks who were revolutionarily inclined tended to be SD’s, with the appropriate post-war consequences.

    The idea that the Czarist bureaucracy started the revolution and benefited from it is bizzaro-world.

    • Hidden Author says:

      Isn’t the truth somewhere between the two of you’s contentions? Yes, a lot of the old Czarist elite were purged as counter-revolutionaries or fled the country but even Trotsky recognized the need for “bourgeois experts”, to the point where the Soviet state was organized into two parallel hierarchies, a state hierarchy with the old bourgeois experts and a party hierarchy with party commissars possessing veto power over the actions of the state hierarchy. Oddly enough, even when the Party trained its experts to staff the state hierarchy, it still maintained a parallel Party hierarchy for supervisory purposes…

      • B says:

        The few Czarist returnee experts usually filled technical and advisory roles, usually in the military. An example is General Shaposhnikov, who got to write doctrine and serve in staff, educational and administrative roles, but never was in charge of operational units.

        On the civilian side, it was worse. Again, look at Amtorg. They literally had to build the industrial specialist classes back up from nothing. There were American foremen working in those factories, training up Russian peasants to run machinery and eventually run shop floors. Not to mention engineers and administrators. The financial bureaucracy was destroyed as well.

        • jim says:

          There were no “Czarist Returnees”

          Not a one, because almost no one was purged until ten years later.

          The communists did not set up a new government from scratch. The existing government bureaucrats kept their jobs, apart from a reshuffle at the top with each coup.

          They destroyed the middle class, and had to set up new business management from scratch, which Hitler correctly described as a huge and disastrous error, but the government was unchanged, apart from a modest acceleration in the existing ever leftwards movement.

          The whites were a revolutionary force, setting up a new government from scratch. The reds were the existing Russian government. Hence precisely zero “Czarist returnees”

          • B says:

            >There were no “Czarist Returnees”

            >Not a one, because almost no one was purged until ten years later.

            Oh, look, we got us a scholar of Soviet history here!

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Slashchov

            “Slashchov, known among his subordinates by the name of General Yasha, joined the Volunteer Army in December 1917 and was appointed Andrei Shkuro’s chief of staff in May 1918. He was promoted to the rank of Major General in May 1919, to that of Lieutenant General in May 1920 and was put in charge of the Crimean Corps of the Volunteer Army in December 1919. He succeeded in defending the Perekop Isthmus from the Red Army in late December 1919 and prevented the Bolsheviks from penetrating the Crimea.

            Slashchov and his aide Sharov were notorious for their cruelty against the Jews and looting the population (often against Wrangel’s orders).

            [1] Slashchov’s sometimes bitter criticism of Wrangel’s decisions led to his being convicted of insubordination and stripped of his rank. He retired to Constantinople where he earned his living by gardening before returning to the Soviet Crimea.

            Slashov’s example was instrumental in bringing many other retired White Army officers back to Soviet Russia. He published a memoir entitled The Crimea in 1920 and delivered lectures at the Vystrel Higher Officers’ Courses (other languages) before he was killed by a man avenging a relative’s death. ”

            In short, as usual, you’re spouting gibberish, using the fact that your readers know even less than you do.

            • Cavalier says:

              >In short, as usual, you’re spouting gibberish, using the fact that your readers know even less than you do.

              Jim is usually right where you are wrong… but I’m beginning to see your point.

              • Art says:

                I have been following B/Jim exchanges, and according to my tally, the score is about even. But when it comes to Russian history – the subject I know something about – Jim’s point of view comes across to me as bizarre.

                • Art says:

                  I am curious what pdimov has to say.

                • jim says:

                  So, did the masses smash their way into government offices in Saint Petersburg?

                  In order for my view to be bizarre, the government in Saint Petersburg had to be compelled to surrender. It loudly announced it was compelled to surrender, historians swear on a stack of bibles that it was compelled to surrender to the might of the justly enraged revolting masses, but we see a curious absence of any incidents of actual compulsion.

                • jim says:

                  If you think you know something about the Russian Revolution, how do you know what you think you know? On the face of it, seems likely to be the most lied about event in all of world history.

                • Alrenous says:

                  When a government is genuinely attacked, they fight tooth and nail to stay in power. If their offices are taken then they make new offices, form a government in exile, and try to gather military defectors. They do not go “Oh geeze, good show guys, I guess we lost!”

                  In silverback apes, when the alpha loses his spot he becomes so depressed he often dies of starvation due to lacking the motivation to feed himself. While an alpha, he fights with a vigor and ferocity which implies he is aware this will be his fate if he loses.

                  Government officials in apex social status positions do not magically stop being dire apes upon promotion.

                • pdimov says:

                  “I am curious what pdimov has to say.”

                  I don’t know Russian history, but B reads Russian, which gives him an edge. Jim’s theory that czarist bureaucrats stayed bureaucrats doesn’t match what happened in my country when communists took power – there was a thorough purge – many shot – with everyone associated with the old regime (if alive) not allowed near government jobs. But that was after WW2, and it could have been different in 1917.

                • jim says:

                  Your government was conquered by another government, a foreign army moved in.

                  Communists in Russia took power in a coup.

                • pdimov says:

                  True. 1917 does look like a coup. 1918 on the other hand seems indistinguishable from what communists did everywhere when they took power.

                  Looking at the big picture, this doesn’t ring like a bureaucratic coup to me. It rings more like a German coup. (The new Russian government unilaterally stopped fighting, pulled the army, and let Germany take 1/3 of Russia. I wonder why.)

                  I’m also not seeing the English leftism you’re seeing. I’m seeing German leftism.

                • jim says:

                  Obviously German leftism in the subsequent coups but the Kadets look like English leftism to me.

                  What do the Kadets look like to you?

                • pdimov says:

                  Yes, I agree, Kadets are English leftism.

            • jim says:

              Your quote and your source fails to refute my claims, and is not particularly relevant to them.

              From which I conclude you cannot find anything that actually supports your claims.

              • Hidden Author says:

                Jim: There were no Czarist returnees.

                B: Refers to sources referring to the case of one Czarist returnee, in particular.

                Jim: Irrelevant!

                • jim says:

                  Not a returnee

                  To be a returnee, he would have to have been in the government before the communists took charge, left the government when the communists took charge, and then returned to government under the communists.

                  Since he was not in the government before the communists took charge, or at least this is not mentioned in the material quoted, not a returnee.

                  You cannot “return” to a place that you have never been before.

                  There were no Czarist returnees because very few people who had been bureaucrats under the Czar left the government when the communists took charge. Or when the Constitutional Democrats took charge. Or when Kerensky’s socialists took charge. The purges of government bureaucrats did not happen until much later. The permanent government was largely unaffected by these coups, just as in America it has been largely unaffected when Trump replaced Obama.

                  There were no more Czarist returnees than there have been Obama returnees. And for the same reason. The permanent government remained in power when it dumped the Czar for the communists, and the permanent government is still in power under Trump.

                • B says:

                  B: refers to sources referring to the case of one Czarist returnee, who was influential in convincing many others to become returnees.

                  Jim: CRIMESTOP CRIMESTOP CRIMESTOP

                  Slaschev was a colonel and regimental commander in the Imperial Russian army, which, last I checked, was part of the Imperial Russian government. The Whites didn’t make him a corps commander, and the Communists didn’t make him a lecturer at their officer higher education school because of his expertise in selling apples.

                  Of course, EVERYTHING Jim has to say on the subject of Russian history is bullshit. For instance: “almost no one was purged until ten years later”. Anyone who knows anything knows that there were all sorts of purges in the early 20s. For instance:

                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%84%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4

                  You can run this paragraph through autotranslate:

                  Операция советских властей по насильственной высылке за границу деятелей науки, медицины и литературы была произведена по инициативе В. И. Ленина в 1922—1923 годах в рамках борьбы с инакомыслием[2]. В отличие от расстрела, повсеместно применявшегося к представителям «контрреволюционной» интеллигенции ранее, такая «гуманная» акция как высылка была вызвана в первую очередь желанием советского режима получить признание правительствами других стран.

                  (I can’t be bothered to translate right now-and anyway, as a former Communist, and someone with so many strong opinions on Russian and Soviet history, Jim surely reads Russian-right?)

                  Or, for instance:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Yitzchak_Schneersohn#Imprisonment_and_release

                  The Rebbe, in his memoir of his imprisonment, mentions that he was in jail with all sorts of other religious figures, Muslim imams, Buddhist lamas, etc., all of whom were executed. He himself was sentenced to death, which sentence was commuted to deportation under international pressure. This was in 1927.

                  So, what’s this about “no one was purged”?

            • Turtle says:

              I translated the Russian below.

              The operation of Soviet powers/forces on forceful expulsion out of the borders of doers of science, medicine and literature was implemented upon the initiative of V.I. Lenin in the years 1922-1933 in the borders of struggle with other-thinking (dissent).
              Differing from execution by shooting, the universally utilized (action of expulsion) of representatives of “counterrevolutionary” intelligentsia earlier, this action, “humanely” sending them out, was called in the first place by the wish of the Soviet regime to get recognition from rulers of other countries.

              This shows, I think, that Lenin was a relatively nice guy. he liked the old art which communists destroyed, and so was a moderate. But there’s no government or politics directly involved in “science, medicine and literature,” so these expulsions were of intelligentsia targets who were not considered evil or dangerous. They were treated well because they were partial allies, I think.

              • peppermint says:

                science, medicine and literature

                Evolution denied by commies and proggers. Medicine steered to faggots with a denial that circumcision and buttsex are harmful, bullshit against eating meat and smoking cannabis, support for worthless treatments for heroin addiction and free needle programmes that the needles from end up clogging toilets. Literature like To Kill a Mockingbird and Night and Diary of Anne Frank.

    • jim says:

      Marx plagiarized his Manifesto from Victor Considerant, who was not Jewish. Marx himself grew up in an environment completely devoid of Judaism-his father had converted to Christianity.

      Regardless, Marxism is Judaism immanentized. Marxist “History” is the Jewish God. Marxist dialectics is Talmudism. The Marxist Vanguard of the Proletariat are the new Jews.

      Marxism is Judaism immanentized, as progressivism is Puritanism immanentized, regardless of where Marx got his Judaism from.

      As far as we know, Mohammed was not in the slightest bit Jewish, but it is obvious that his religion was influenced by and in substantial part plagiarized from Judaism. And even if Marx had not been the slightest bit Jewish, even if he had been as German as I am anglo, it would still be obvious that his religion was influenced by and in substantial part plagiarized from Judaism.

      • Art says:

        Jim:
        “As far as we know, Mohammed was not in the slightest bit Jewish, but it is obvious that his religion was influenced by and in substantial part plagiarized from Judaism. And even if Marx had not been the slightest bit Jewish, even if he had been as German as I am anglo, it would still be obvious that his religion was influenced by and in substantial part plagiarized from Judaism.”

        From that perspective it would be true to characterize ISIS as a Jewish movement. True in a sense, but not very useful.

        • peppermint says:

          Christianity and Buddhism are progressivism, emerging from a self-confident empire’s state religion to cuck the ruling ethnicity and it’s best people and the empire and in order to prove that this world doesn’t matter to leave behind mud people squatting on ruins. Christianity failed 1000 years ago to destroy the Aryan race but looks like it’s succeeding now – if it fails again, it will be for basically the same reason, cucks running out of other people’s money being replaced by virile warlords before they can finish their mission. Mahometanism is not a cuck religion, it is much more like Judaism for Saracens.

        • jim says:

          It is useful to interpret Marxism as a heresy of Judaism, because that viewpoint makes its dynamics as a religious movement and a state religion intelligible. It works as state Judaism worked.

          Whereas, Islam is quite openly a state religious movement and state religion, hence interpreting it as a heresy of Judaism, though just as true as interpreting Marxism as a heresy of Judaism, is not useful. Islam’s dynamics as a religious movement and a state religion are already perfectly clear.

          Understanding Marxism as a Jewish heresy makes it intellgible when Marxists talk about “History”. We don’t need to explicitly think of Islam as a Jewish heresy when Muslims say “Allah”, because we already understand Islam as a Jewish heresy.

    • jim says:

      The bureaucracy that formerly answered to the Czar was, after the revolution, either dead or refugees.

      Bullshit.

      For starters, there was no revolution, just a series of coups. The actual revolution was the whites revolting against a government that had been steadily moving left since Alexander the Liberator.

      The Constitutional Democrats took power from the Czar in a coup while he was away at the front with the loyal elements of his army, the socialists took power from the Constitutional Democrats in a coup, and the Bolsheviks took power from the Socialists in a coup.

      The Whites had to create a new government from scratch. The Bolsheviks were the government.

      • B says:

        >Regardless, Marxism is Judaism immanentized. Marxist “History” is the Jewish God. Marxist dialectics is Talmudism.

        What is this gibberish?

        Why “Talmudism”? Why not Shintoism? Since you’re as familiar with the one as with the other…

        Marxist dialectics are Hegelianism. Was Hegel a Talmudic scholar? Does the Pope play hackey sack?

        >The Bolsheviks were the government.

        I’m sure you can quote some primary sources for this original assertion. You wouldn’t just be making shit up, right?

        • Turtle says:

          “Was Hegel a Talmudic scholar?”

          Yes! (Kabbalah is close enough to Talmud, for most scholars of religion).
          This time, B, you’re not getting away with your empty sarcasm.

          Here’s the evidence:
          https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpkabala.htm

          I referenced this the last time Hegel came up.
          http://blog.jim.com/war/the-enemy-within/#comment-1580646

          You should be able to tell when Jim is wrong or not on Jewish issues, especially Judaism ones. Now what do you have to say?

        • jim says:

          Marxist dialectics are Hegelianism. Was Hegel a Talmudic scholar? Does the Pope play hackey sack?

          Hegelianism did not catch on a religion. Marx modified Hegel so that his doctrine works as a religion, plaigarizing that father of religions, Judaism, as Mohammed did.

          • B says:

            Hegelianism caught on as an ideology and worldview for the elite. For instance, Skull and Bones is an explicitly Hegelian organization.

            You are making empty assertions, relying on the fact that your readers have mostly neither studied Marx nor the Talmud.

            Turtle-your assertion is weak on several points.

            First, kabala and the Talmud are very different things. The Talmud does not rely on the kabala to stand. There is a lot of evidence pointing to the Zohar, or large parts of it, having been written in the Middle Ages, as a sort of mystical retrofit of the Talmud. I see it as more of an adaptation of Gnosticism/Pythagoreanism to the Jewish framework, or vice versa.

            Second, what does your source tell us? That Hegel made a brief note about kabala in one of his books? If he’d made a note about Shinto, that would make Hegelianism tantamount to Shintoism?

            Here, look, by the same logic, Hegel was a Muslim (note that Legenhausen is more honest and doesn’t actually claim that the mentions of Islam in Hegel’s work literally make this the case): http://www.academia.edu/2515384/_Was_Hegel_a_Muslim_

            Carlyle wrote a whole book on Muhammad, of whom he thought very highly. Which, I guess, makes Carlyle a Muslim. And Moldbug is a Carlylean, so also a Muslim. And of course we are all followers of Moldbug, so Muslims too!

            A more convincing case could be made that Newton and Leibniz were heavily informed by Jewish thought and specifically mysticism.

  14. peppermint says:

    We do need to remain cognizant of the fact that the story of Job that all christcucks worship and the miracles that most christcucks worship imply that God is teling us to follow a moral code that He does not follow, therefore christcucks worship power, not virtue.

    The way around this is to declare that the Bible never actually happened and miracles don’t exist and basically be a unitarian, deist, atheist, thus become holier than God.

    The other thing to do is frankly recognize the worship of power and build power on Earth as above to build a Year Zero of perfect felicity.

    Liberals follow both of these paths. They are entirely incapable of answering the challenge of the novel Camp of the Saints with anything other than, why even care? It is moral to be destroyed and so be it.

    The rejection of God that has accelerated over the past few decades, that Jews encouraged in order to break down goyische society, is what will save goysiche society – and not so much from the Jews, but from ourselves.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Camp of the Saints, man. Camp of the Motherfucking Saints.

      I got into that just in time. As soon as those talk-show cuts of Steve Bannon talking about it got piped out on social media:
      1: It sold out on Amazon.
      2: Amazon pulled the Kindle version. Assholes.

      When there’s no intellectual answer, but instead everyone just runs from the Witch, you know you’ve found the gold.

  15. peppermint says:

    When you discuss politics with women, you discover that their concern is securing the existence of themselves and a future for their children. Nazis are incredibly sympathetic to them and consider their concerns to be an important part of the Nazi concerns, to be considered in a larger framework.

    Liberals, by contrast, hate women, calling them selfish, then when they cry make fun of them for White girl tears.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      Yes peppermint nails it.

      The securing existence of self and children overweighs any putative thoughts or values of women, quite explains attraction of Islam, bad boys etc.

      Women don’t think they emote.

      We essentially gave political decisions to animals and wonder what went wrong.

      I revere women in their proper context but in thinking terms they’re animals.
      All instincts. Thought for women is inverse of psychopaths: Psychopath fakes emotion and is all calculation, women all instincts and feign thought, parrot reason.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        > Thought for women is inverse of psychopaths:
        > Psychopath fakes emotion and is all calculation,
        > women all instincts and feign thought, parrot reason.

        You pimp you. I love this.

      • Garr says:

        On women “feigning thought” — this is based on my classroom-experience (I try to explain excerpts from big-name philosophers to “students” at fifth-rate “colleges”): while they’re speaking they’re actually thinking, but the thought is primarily a social response (they’re being nice to me, showing me that they care enough to “participate”) and they’re not going to go on thinking about the problem afterwards, or even return to it. Whereas, some of the male stoners who speak more stupidly than the nice girls do probably talk at least tangentially about some of the same subjects while they’re hanging out together getting stoned.
        (I don’t “revere women,” but I like them when they’re being sweet. Old, post-sexual women are often very nice, and its calming to chat with them.)

        • Turtle says:

          Why only big-name philosophers? Elitism?

          Women are almost as thoughtless in private, I think, because they are unable to de-converse their cognition. They aren’t actually thinking whether talking or not; it’s all talking, in my experience. It’s always socially mediated, manipulative, and annoying. There are some exceptions, I don’t know how many. But most women struggle to think, and are ambivalent about thought itself.

          I know one girl who tragically tries to analyze society, the way she was taught to in school, and her confusion is a sorry sight. She’s intellectually and personally lost unless someone dominantly leads her, every day. And this is typical, in the ‘women are like water filling a container’ model popular in the manosphere. I don’t think smart women are more independent, either.

          • peppermint says:

            Only philosophers whose names are attached to ideas or movements are worth mentioning. Yes. Elitism, if you can call it elitism to pay attention to the lucky. Elitism today, elitism tomorrow, elitism forever. Only big name musicians and artists too, ignoring most of the last 100 years of garbage making it big because of Jews and mass marketing.

            (Jews aren’t purely responsible for the increasing levels of blatant sex themes in music. For the most recent sixty years, one must have degenerate sexy songs to have a degenerate sexy party. Those parties are going away as soon as people get serious about marriage again, and return to the ancient tradition of our people to painstakingly memorize steps for line dances to show off and perform with young and old. Before then, it’s just the nature of things for young men and women to want to talk about sex and bring up sexy song lyrics in terms that are appropriately coded for the times, which is why music should not be sold to the people directly but supported by patrons who aren’t 15-25. Abolish copyright in music)

          • Garr says:

            No, not elitism, just that those are the guys (Plato, Descartes, Hume, Nietzsche) I’m most familiar with, plus they’re good writers and pleasant to read. Probably there are other guys from the same periods who are just as interesting (e.g. some of the people Descartes was corresponding with in the Objections and Replies to the Meditations) but it’s easier for me just to accept the official History of Philosophy as it was presented to me. I can see that someone might object to my historical (as opposed to issues-oriented) approach — I do it this way because I like to attune myself to basic overall world-views that are imaginatively presented, and that’s what these guys do. Anyway, I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on any of this stuff — probably you, Peppermint, Anonymous, and others here would do at least as good a job “teaching” this stuff as I do. It’s just a job. I was just noting that some of the girls in my classes actually do seem to be thinking during the episodes of their “class-participation”, and was suggesting that the difference between these episodes of girl-thought and the often clumsier episodes of boy-thought is that the boys seem likelier to think about these things on their own at other times, in a “Whoa, dude!” kind of way.

  16. Pseiudo-chrysostom says:

    So Trump just fired Comey.

    • jim says:

      The question that I immediately asked is: Did Trump fire him for investigating Hillary, or for failing to investigate Hillary?

      Here is Trump’s answer:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/859601184285491201

      • JT91 says:

        Did you see the Roger Stone quote? Seems to lean towards the former suspicion

      • viking says:

        Seriously jim, he fired him because he was mad at him for not ending the russia BS. Trump doesn’t get he couldn’t end it if he wanted to,because trump doesn’t have a fifth graders grasp of american civics.
        Trump doesn’t get these are not little problems, this is the world against him. Hes an idiot he doesnt get anything he doesn’t even get his only hope was actually deporting them all as promised, not cucking to the neocons wars and the international jews globalist economics.In short that his ONLY hope was to keep the people that voted for him on his side and triangulate even more democrats to his side with blue collar and millennial woe collar policy. What kind of MORON doesn’t get keep the people on your side?

        • jim says:

          Such an idiot who wound up with the presidency despite the whole world against him, doubtless by sheer dumb luck </sarcasm>

          • viking says:

            Yeah pretty Much – never before or again will you get elected calling mexican pieces of shit rapists and running as a tax and spend anti free trade republican. It was the perfect storm for this idiot from queens to roll out his resentments hes had for 60 years just when everyone else was catching on. But as i keep saying and you keep denying he has no clue how the world or washington works so no understanding of how his salad of resentments could actually be turned into a coherent policy

        • peppermint says:

          Look at how the legacy media pushed their retarded Russian hoax, then stopped for five weeks, then started again. Is there anyone who isn’t fully on board with the Cathedral’s world program that still trusts them in the slightest?

          “Two scoops” is the final word on the legacy media.

          The courts still have to finish ruling against Trump before the Supreme Court can gainsay them.

          You still think the legacy media has all the power. So do they.

    • pdimov says:

      “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.”

      LOL

    • Jack Highlands says:

      If Comey is 1% as acquisitive of information as Hoover was, he must have some dirt on Trump or key Trump people. We can expect some to start leaking out. Trump would factor in this risk, yet still considered Comey had to go. Why? Surely not just to dampen the #RussiaHoax – 59 cruise missiles dampened that more than intrigue ever could.

      • Space Ghost says:

        > If Comey is 1% as acquisitive of information as Hoover was, he must have some dirt on Trump or key Trump people. We can expect some to start leaking out.

        That’s why the Holy American Emperor shitcanned him with no warning whatsoever, while Comey was thousands of miles from his office. I’m sure whatever he had on his computer got locked down so that he could no longer access it.

      • EdensThaw says:

        If Comey had real dirt on Trump, he would still have a job.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        @Space Ghost: Yeah, as a boomer, Comey never figured out Ctrl-C.

        @EdensThaw: I agree- Trump seems pretty clean. But it seems impossible that all his key people could be that clean, which is why I specified them too.

        • Turtle says:

          Trump leaked this idea that he is not vetting his staff at all, not giving them the “sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll” questionnaires, perhaps because it doesn’t matter. Or he is doing it, secretly. I don’t see why he would let them in without, say, making sure they paid taxes on their servants’ salaries.It’s something I can’t understand without being part of the D.C. scene, I guess.

          • B says:

            You can’t get a clearance without those questionnaires. Unless the rules change somehow once you are on the President’s staff, but I don’t think so.

  17. TTAAC says:

    “I don’t even like it when women shave anything- it makes them seem holier than us, so it’s at our expense.”-Turtle revealing his profound insecurities to the Internet rather than a psychiatrist and making Peppermint seem reasonable by comparison. (cf. Cavalier’s peculiar obsession with twerking, which he brings up in every thread.)

    “Observe Afghanistan, poor and Muslim, is right next door to Iran, poor and Muslim. Afghan TFR 4.8, Iran TFR 1.7.”-Afghanistan under the Taliban also had a prehistoric life expectancy in the early 40s; Iran is a vastly more advanced society. Jim’s comparison is ludicrous, while war-ravaged Timor and Afghanistan actually prove the opposite of what he leads readers to believe they do.

    Richard Spencer is a lot more reasonable and open to evidence than this blog’s bizarre cult community.

    Also, B seems to know Russian history a lot better than Jim. For the thousandth time, “Doctor Zhivago” is a work of fiction.

    • Cavalier says:

      Likely, fertility goes up in response to certain key “occupation” social triggers.

    • jim says:

      > > “Observe Afghanistan, poor and Muslim, is right next door to Iran, poor and Muslim. Afghan TFR 4.8, Iran TFR 1.7.”-

      > Afghanistan under the Taliban also had a prehistoric life expectancy in the early 40s; Iran is a vastly more advanced society. Jim’s comparison is ludicrous, while war-ravaged Timor and Afghanistan actually prove the opposite of what he leads readers to believe they do.

      Timor is not war ravaged, has not been war ravaged for three decades, and actual war ravage reduces fertility, not increases it.

      Life expectancy in Afghanistan is sixty, not forty. Sixties is still low, but life expectancy in Timor Leste is seventy, the same as in Iran, yet Timor Leste has three times the fertility of Iran.

      What Timor Leste and Afghanistan have in common is the status of women, who cannot own property in Timor Leste and must always be under the supervision of a male with legitimate authority over them, husband or father, whereas in Iran, they can own property and can have their own apartment.

      War and peace, rich or poor, boom or bust, conscription or demobilization, has little effect on fertility. What controls fertility is whether women are permitted to defect on their husbands, whether women are permitted to have a succession of boyfriends, playing one partner off against another.

      If women are allowed to defect, you get defect/defect. Men, expecting defection, decline to invest in wives and children. If you do not allow farmers to own their land, their cattle, and their crops, you are not going to get much cattle or crops. And, similarly, you have to allow husbands to own their wives and their children.

      If women are compelled to cooperate, then men have an incentive to invest in wives and children.

      To get children, men and women must cooperate. If they are stuck with each other in one household, have little choice but to cooperate. And one household requires one head. And that head must be the man, for women will not stay in a household where they are the head of the household.

      Thus enforced cooperation is almost the same thing as enforced transfer of value from women to beta males. Monogamy and chastity is a beta male plot against women to seize control of the means of reproduction.

      It is also almost the same thing as price control plus rationing. State and Church price controls pussy down to what productive beta males can afford (patriarchy). Price control leads to shortage, which is dealt with by rationing pussy to one per customer (monogamy and chastity).

      A fertile age woman can always in the short run get more value by switching partners, or threatening to do so. But, if she can do so, males will be reluctant to invest in wife and children. Preventing women from giving pussy to one man, then withholding it, then giving it to another, drastically reduces female bargaining power.

      Paradox of prisoner’s dilemma: A woman is better off defecting, but worse off if she is allowed to defect. Thus a system designed to control and restrain women for the benefit of beta males also benefits women, though of course it benefits males, and especially beta males, a lot more.

      While a man is always on the prowl for a new woman to add to the women he already possesses, a woman is always on the prowl for a new man to replace her existing man, and it is primarily this latter problem that undermines the family, society, and the state, thus it is primarily women, not men, that need to be controlled.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I love you man.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        While a man is always on the prowl for a new woman to add to the women he already possesses, a woman is always on the prowl for a woman’s-eye-view BETTER man to replace her existing man, and it is primarily this latter problem that undermines the family, society, and the state, thus it is primarily women, not men, that need to be controlled.

        Hergamous, higamous
        Man is polygamous.
        Higamous, hergamous
        Woman’s hypergamous.

        • B says:

          Higamous hogamous
          You niggas is hilarious

          You’re describing a cartoon version of men and women. The cartoon exaggerates actually existing traits.

          Unless your family is from Subsaharan Africa, your male ancestors going back many generations lived in villages where there was no polygamy, and not a lot of sexual choice beside one’s wife and maybe a village whore. And they made do just fine.

          For every “polygamous” man in a European society, there’s three monogamous ones, and another one who trades in his older wife for a newer model-a very non-polygamist thing to do (unimaginable in West Africa, for instance.)

          Judging by the low incidence of false paternity, as revealed by genetic testing, even in today’s degenerate Western society, most women are not particularly hypergamous either. It’s certainly not for lack of opportunity.

          http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.WRS1u2iGNPY

    • Cavalier says:

      >cf. Cavalier’s peculiar obsession with twerking, which he brings up in every thread

      I like twerking because it’s the most obvious, unignorable, degenerate thing I can think of. In certain key aspects it surpasses hardcore pornography and other related things. A man fucking a woman is at least a normal act, and video of it violates its privacy but otherwise isn’t… twisted. But twerking is the most blatant female advertisement possible. Even niggers in their native habitat before contact didn’t do twerking, and many animals are more subtle.

      So, I like it because it’s utterly shocking and equally undeniable, especially to the old farts I expect to frequent this blog.

      • Cavalier says:

        It is what it is, and there’s no rationalization for it. Like, what do you even say to this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ns-1zm5LoaM?

        It’s the ultimate trump card.

      • Anonymous says:

        You know how women take pictures looking up at the camera, with their tongues out? Equally blatant, in my view. An example, look at the picture on the right here:

        https://pinkmirror.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FaceSlimmingExercises-1200×630.jpg

        Yeah… they’re advertising a certain “skill”, alright.

      • peppermint says:

        So women make sexual displays. BFD, evolutionarily speaking.

        This is the same kind of Christianity that, had the alt-right begun five years earlier, would have given the government deanonymization of porn viewers, which would immediately have been followed by deanonymization of nazis.

        There are real wtfy things about liberal women. Not duckface, fishmouth. Not yoga pants, pussy hats. Not twerking, the lack of splits and ballet because their parents never encouraged them to git gud. Not bare midriffs with body paint, vagina masks.

        But you Christians just want to continue rejecting the thought that women have sexual desire, followed by giving pure princesses every benefit of the doubt in divorce court.

        • peppermint says:

          “You are making yourself too sexy” is not what the Nietzschean superwoman doesn’t want to hear. “You are making yourself ugly and ridiculous” is.

          You say twerking isn’t attractive and functions as sexual display. This is incoherent. It isn’t as attractive as the splits, tumbling, and contortionism women did 50 years ago.

          Liberal women frequently make themselves ugly with dreadlocks or shaved heads instead of conditioner and braids, black lipstick instead of pink lip gloss, unshaved and dyed armpits, adipositivity, and other cult of ugliness and despair stuff.

        • Anonymous says:

          >So women make sexual displays.

          They make those temptations promiscuously, towards all men, including men they won’t sleep with, instead of doing it privately to a husband.

          This is not a Christian argument. A Christian argument would focus on sexual desire or eros being “original sin”, including eros within marriage, and would blame men for being tempted. That’s not at all what I’m arguing, and I don’t think Cavalier is arguing that either. I have no problem with sexual desire, and I certainly don’t blame men for being tempted.

          It’s strange that you want women unrestrained. Pretty sure that wearing yoga pants *in public* is against White Sharia. I don’t bloody-think it’s allowed!

          >But you Christians just want to continue rejecting the thought that women have sexual desire

          Lol wut? I know very well what female sexual desire is like. You don’t even realize what kinds of sluts I’m familiar with. Sluts with notch-counts so high (some of them are far above 100), and with blog-entries so lascivious, it’s an absolute certainty that they’d be willing to fuck every single commenter on this blog – you, me, Cavalier, Pdimov, Cromwell, B, and our host Jim himself, and everyone else who’s here.

          So while it’s true that men, in general, have a much drastically higher sex-drive than women, I’ve never denied that women can be very horny, and again, I don’t think Cavalier has denied that. You’re arguing with imaginary Christians.

          • peppermint says:

            Temptation is a Christian argument. Women should make sexual displays to men they want to marry. Then their husband should forbid them to make sexual displays to other men, a condition that they should readily accept.

            Much of the impulse behind older women adopting mud slime fashion is that they know they can’t compete with younger women thus want to cover up what they don’t have. Fathers don’t need to forbid their daughters to wear yoga pants. Fathers should forbid their daughters to be around men they shouldn’t be making sexual displays towards. Abolish coeducation immediately.

            Working class women who interact with strange men in their jobs have always been suspected of cucking their husbands. Yoga pants are harder to have a quickie in than a burka.

            It is absolutely ridiculous to say women have less sex drive than men. Reproduction is the only thing women are for. Men need to juggle reproduction with getting resources, and can spend years in school thinking very little of sex. Even amongst the feral Yanomami of the Amazon rainforest, men become witch-doctors by taking a no-sex pledge for a year.

            • peppermint says:

              Ban yoga pants to not tempt men is a Christian cucked argument that basically came direct from ((Jesus)). White sharia controls women’s reproduction, not their appearance, to protect men’s reproduction, not their souls.

              • peppermint says:

                pps women need to wear dresses because dresses are sexy, not black shirts and pants like puritans

                and you will never get young men and women to agree that women should look undifferentiated and ugly unless you have some religion held over them

                does Melania wear a burka? Is she a whore?

                • peppermint says:

                  Humans wear plain clothes themselves and decorate their women. Niggers make their women cover up to keep them from seducing other men and wear bling themselves to attract other women, and spend all of their days not building their civilization.

                  The best way to not have a mass movement is to prevent the sexy young men who would be the background of the movement from having cute girlfriends that everyone else wants because they have the best dresses.

                • peppermint says:

                  By the way, except for the top percentage of porn stars, shirtlessness isn’t even hot. Women need bras to support and separate their boobs. Queen Caroline was probably not 23 years old when she was dancing shirtless. Thus she wasn’t doing it to be sexy, but to be transgressive and let men other than her husband see her naughty bits. Thus she should have been slapped and, being as she belonged to the king, the men should have been slapped too. She should also have been divorced at least for cucking him, but cucking the king is the one circumstance in which I would advocate capital punishment for women.

                  But christcucks babbled about temptation and purity and women don’t have sex drives so probably it had to have been her husband wanting her to do it or whatever.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >women need to wear dresses because dresses are sexy, not black shirts and pants like puritans

                  Yes. Long dresses, so I don’t see their ass and pussy.

                  >and you will never get young men and women to agree that women should look undifferentiated and ugly unless you have some religion held over them

                  You can be modest and beautiful at the same time. Women need not look like degenerate sluts to be attractive. Yes, ban yoga pants. Modest clothes can be colorful and well-designed, you know.

                  >does Melania wear a burka? Is she a whore?

                  I don’t see her as a role-model. Just a stupid literal model.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >cucking the king is the one circumstance in which I would advocate capital punishment for women.

                  You’re a real softie. Many women need to die, just as many men need to die. The blood of women is not more red than ours. It’s time to put evolutionary pressure on women by getting rid of bitches, as well as getting rid of thugs. Both groups are shit, and need to be removed from the gene pool. Women carry bad genes just as much as men do, and can spread them more easily. Get rid of bad women.

                  >Humans wear plain clothes themselves and decorate their women. Niggers make their women cover up to keep them from seducing other men and wear bling themselves to attract other women, and spend all of their days not building their civilization.

                  This is not an argument against modesty. The people who built civilization had modest women. Well-dressed and modest. Not yoga pants or other slutty garbage. And niggers don’t cover anything.

                  >The best way to not have a mass movement is to prevent the sexy young men who would be the background of the movement from having cute girlfriends that everyone else wants because they have the best dresses.

                  Dignified, modest wives is what men need. Not thots. Yes to dresses, no to short dresses. Need mothers, or potential mothers at least, not thots.

                • peppermint says:

                  Modesty means nothing other than disarmament, as evidenced by https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outbursts_of_Everett_True_comic_strip_ankle_ogling.jpg. In that time, women agreed with each other not to try showing off their legs at all.

                  Yes, short dresses are cute.

                  You’re a bitter old Puritan in a world turned suddenly against that religion.

                • peppermint says:

                  Killing women means taking them seriously. Otoh, the king can’t be limited in his authority to punish lese majeste for any reason.

                  Most thots just need to be assigned a husband, particularly incorrigible women can probably still be turned into barmaids with enough physical coercion.

                  Beating a slave girl doesn’t make you low status. Taking her seriously and killing her does. To a Christian, of course, it’s the other way around.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Yes, short dresses are cute.

                  That may be so, but I’ll pass on titillating cuteness if I can get modesty and elegance.

                  >You’re a bitter old Puritan in a world turned suddenly against that religion.

                  There’s a difference between “voluntary consumption” and “involuntary exposure”. I want prostitution to be legal, and porn including “child porn” also, yet I’m a Puritan? Lol. No, not a Puritan. There should be monogamy and modesty in society, in public, but privately, Aleister Crowley had it right: “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”.

                  I care about faggots holding hands in the streets, but I don’t care about private sodomy in bedrooms or toilets. Do you understand the essential difference? All private vices – degeneracy, faggotry, cuckoldry, whatever, should be allowed, but not (((promoted))). Publicly, none should be seen or heard. Sex-shops for sex-toys can exist, but can’t advertise – let them exist in dank basements. That’s the idea. Privately everything, publicly nothing.

                  >Killing women means taking them seriously.

                  I take the issue of female conduct very seriously. The female problem is more severe than the Kike, Puritan, and Shitskin problems combined. Killing scum is easy and doesn’t require much effort, and antisocial bitches deserve killing. Violent women should be involuntarily euthanized, while merely annoying women should be merely involuntarily sterilized. Zero mercy.

                • peppermint says:

                  If you don’t kill a man, but beat him, he’ll resent you and wait until his chance to strike back.

                  If you don’t kill a woman, but beat her, she’ll get “Stockholm syndrome” and be pretty loyal.

                  Kill violent men. Beat violent women in places that will show if they show too much skin, then force them to work as barmaids.

              • pdimov says:

                “Ban yoga pants to not tempt men” sounds more like an Islamic argument to me. Whoever tempts, sins – Islam. Whoever yields to temptation, sins – Christianity.

                • Turtle says:

                  Nobody in my parish complains when some young couple, who has never been there before, chooses to make out and fondle each other during holiday services. We’re ‘tolerant.’ It was funny, though, to realize that they ‘tolerate’ all sorts of things, including yoga pants in church, not tithing, divorce, unsubtle heresy, women speaking in church, but not intolerance. That’s one of the few things deemed ‘unacceptable.’

                  Cucks have a consistent policy- do it if it’s cucked. They’re principled, see? It’s not like they walk their talk, that would be judaizing or something.

                  Anyway, I am glad when thots stop showing up. They’re a serious distraction, and that’s the main issue with yoga pants- they’re for yoga, not outerwear. Jeans are revealing enough, and really, it doesn’t make much of a difference what women wear. Their faces matter more, as they reveal the ‘neural crest’ which is developmentally connected to the forebrain, and we can’t really like ugly-faced women. So I’m not concerned by yoga pants per se, rather, vanity is the sin.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 Jeans are revealing enough

                  The polyurethane shiny stretchy jeans the hot girls at high school wore are revealing. The boy style and cargo jeans the modest girls wear are not.

              • Anonymous says:

                >White sharia controls women’s reproduction, not their appearance, to protect men’s reproduction, not their souls.

                Not “souls”, but psychological well-being. I don’t need to see female genitalia when walking down the street. It bothers me not because I’m gay, but exactly because I’m not gay. Modesty is a virtue.

                • peppermint says:

                  Modesty is a cuck virtue. Making a virtue of modesty means unilateral disarmament, which you may get men to do, but you will never extract from women.

                  Showing nipples will never be acceptable or done, but women will always flaunt what they have with as much makeup as they can buy, they always have, and morons and losers like Plato and Augustine will always call for the inposition of communism on them, which they would like more than men like communism applied to the economy: even the ones who win because of it would in the back of their mind know they’re cheating, but being women, they wouldn’t care.

                  You don’t like seeing all the sexual displays of the deranged women of our current culture and don’t want to see them start running around naked because you see it as a sign of societal decay. If women didn’t vote or go to college but got married at a normal time, there would be less sexual displays because they would spend less time single and looking, and you also wouldn’t mind seeing them.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >You don’t like seeing all the sexual displays of the deranged women of our current culture and don’t want to see them start running around naked because you see it as a sign of societal decay.

                  Sexual frustration – bad.
                  Sexual contentment – good.

                  Going around like a slut, arousing the desires of men, attention whoring, and baiting, is bad for sexual contentment. It ruins harmony and inner peace, if I may sound like a Buddhist. Modesty makes everything, everyday interactions and routine, go much smoother. A well-dressed, modest woman is easy to interact with.

                  Thots have an aura of sexual innuendo about them, giving you unwanted boners, distracting you. Instead of concentrating on the important stuff, the brain-blood goes somewhere else. Not good. Public sphere shouldn’t be a porn vid. It’s degenerate.

                • peppermint says:

                  What the fuck? Sexual frustration is not bad and Sexual contentment is not good. That’s modern Christianity in a nutshell. 14w is good and everything else is only good as it assists 14w.

                  I was hanging out with this chick at Occupy. She was wearing black jeans and a black short sleeved shirt. If everyone had been wearing dresses she would be below average in cuteness, so the Puritan modesty worked for her. An old guy walked up and started trying to talk to her about dildoes. She didn’t know how to reply because women aren’t even supposed to be talked to by men who are beneath them, and only talk to people they want to talk to. The other occutards didn’t know what to do because he had a right to talk to anyone about anything and they certainly can’t be seen patriarchally oppressing her by restricting who she’s allowed to talk to. Eventually I grabbed her arm and we walked away.

                  Under White sharia, I wouldn’t have been the only man willing to act, and she would be wearing a dress to try to look cute instead of countersignaling the concept of trying to look cute in order to look average.

                  Christians hate the beautiful because it steals eyeballs from other image bearers who are probably morally superior. When I started talking about White sharia countersignaling was of the form, that’s for those ugly sand nigger heretic image bearers who are morally superior. Now it’s, yes, let’s have modesty and redistribute eyeballs to ensure that all image bearers are equally loved.

                  If good husbands are redistributed to ugly women, or ugly women can get in the house in a french maid dress and the man can support the bastards, we’re going to end up putting bags over the heads of all the ugly women so they won’t be able to seduce the uncontrollably horny men who are always looking for another cunt to seed, like the sand niggers.

                • peppermint says:

                  Women like feeling sexual frustration – intense frustration is almost as good as an orgasm, and certainly better than the wrong guy’s orgasm – and like being given impossible challenges by a man who barely looks at them excel when they pick up coffee for him in the morning.

                  This is how women want to feel: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSjNWnzpjg

                  And this is what they’ll accept before they so much as look at the pretty cake you bought for them randomly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQW88-yPys

                  Do you get it yet? 14w. The woman wants that frustration because deep down inside she feels like she’s building up to getting married. You feel the same way about getting your dick wet, because women respect partner count.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Women like feeling sexual frustration

                  Some of them do, but then again, women are not men. When I’m trying to concentrate, for example, the last thing I need is for the slut standing or sitting before me to bend over and reveal her deep cleavage, or ass-shape if she’s standing and facing the same direction as I am.

                  >women respect partner count.

                  Not as much as you claim. Women are uncomfortable with men who are very inexperienced, but women who are serious about building a family, or who are greatly infatuated with a man, will not care all that much about his experience or lack thereof, and in fact, could even take comfort in the fact that he has nobody or almost nobody to compare them to, as it reduces the likelihood that he’ll cheat, since “he doesn’t know what he’s (potentially) missing”.

                  This may not fully apply to the average American skank. In Europe, it does apply very well to the average woman. American women are social-status-obsessed, so they often reject men for dumb reasons, such as not having an impressively high n-count, which impressively high n-count, and its glorification, are nigger traits, degenerate nigger traits. Muh-Dik.

                  There are normal women in the world who don’t glorify Muh-Dikking, but lamentably, plenty of women do glorify profligate, promiscuous, impulsive, savanna-optimized, nigger-like conduct on the part of men. If you make it low-status to go Muh-Dikking, you’ll dramatically reduce race-mixing, since niggers will no longer seem “hip”. Here’re your 14w.

                  Thots, at any rate, do indeed care about experience, and feel that “the more, the better”, but a high-quality man, or really any man, shouldn’t build a family or even just start a romantic relationship with a trashy bitchy thot. Leave them to niggers and wiggers, by whom they’re used to being ditched and “kicked to the curb”, and who pass them around like an STD in a chemsex-fuelled fag bathhouse.

                • jim says:

                  > > women respect partner count.

                  > women who are serious about building a family, or who are greatly infatuated with a man, will not care all that much about his experience or lack thereof, and in fact, could even take comfort in the fact that he has nobody or almost nobody to compare them to, as it reduces the likelihood that he’ll cheat, since “he doesn’t know what he’s (potentially) missing”.
                  >
                  > This may not fully apply to the average American skank. In Europe, it does apply very well to the average woman.

                  Bunkum. All women are like that. All women get the hots for someone who has had lots of women, even if he is old, fat, and bald, and not all that rich.

                  Maybe not if he is old, fat, bald, and poor, but old fat, bald, affluent, and a big partner count can do OK with women.

                • Alf says:

                  All women respect partner count.

                • peppermint says:

                  Women are a menace to intellectual clubs, first as a distraction which is bad enough, and then any that doesn’t keep out women will get invaded by midwits. We absolutely need male only spaces.

            • Anonymous says:

              >Women should make sexual displays to men they want to marry.

              No, men should make personality displays to the fathers of women they want to marry. Women should be modest.

              >It is absolutely ridiculous to say women have less sex drive than men.

              These are the facts. Both men and women want to fuck, but men are hornier on average. It’s somewhat mitigated by the fact that men have strong self-control, unlike women, but men still have more *to* control.

              >Reproduction is the only thing women are for.

              Irrelevant. The sex act itself is the simplest part of reproduction. Women have been selected for the ability to spot attractive genes, to carry out pregnancy, and to raise kids. Not selected to have a vigorous sex-drive, unlike men, who have lots of cheap sperm to spread around.

              >Men need to juggle reproduction with getting resources,

              Yes, but for men “reproduction” means the sex act itself, in contrast to women, for whom “reproduction” is much more than that. Getting resources is a bonus that doesn’t diminish from the sex drive. The juggling is not by being less horny, but by having a stronger self-control.

              >and can spend years in school thinking very little of sex

              LOL, what a low-t school you’ve been to? In school, men think about sex all the time.

              • peppermint says:

                Hurrrrrrrr OK you went to a party school, which, to be fair, is every school for the past at least 30 years.

                Men voluntarily forswear seeking a mate for a year or two or four all the time in the hope of being in a better position. Women, not so much. Women go in countdown starting around 24 and if they don’t have a mate by 34 they’re done.

                For men reproduction doesn’t just mean sex because bastards are scarcely above outlaws, except in modern times where modesty is the highest virtue.

                What’s the point of being evolved to select good genes if the woman has no input anyway? But women have always had input. Her parents are supposed to preselect people and give their opinions of the people she shows them. She’s supposed to make the ones she likes like her back. Not by taking her shirt off – coming on too strong is more unsexy for women than it is for men – but with sexual displays like dancing. And a triple pirouette is sexier than twerking.

                Women will let men beat them and come back for more. Every aspect of a woman’s personality and outlook is centered on sex and babies. But you think men have a higher sex drive because you’re a Christian.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Men voluntarily forswear seeking a mate for a year or two or four all the time in the hope of being in a better position.

                  And masturbate profusely all the while, having a raging boner whenever an average-looking girl walks past by them.

                  >in modern times where modesty is the highest virtue.

                  HAHAHA modesty is considered the highest virtue today? Get outside and report on the state of modesty.

                  >but with sexual displays like dancing. And a triple pirouette is sexier than twerking.

                  Let it be private. If a girl doesn’t intend to marry you or get pregnant by you, she shouldn’t seduce you.

                  >But you think men have a higher sex drive because you’re a Christian.

                  Nope. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree; I’m firmly convinced that men are hornier, not because of dead Anglo memes from 200 years ago, but because of what I see in front of me. Actual sexual desperation, a real crisis, is something only men can understand, or almost only men. Women can be dissatisfied and irritated, but it’s not the same. Since you and Jim don’t see what I see, guess that’s that.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Every aspect of a woman’s personality and outlook is centered on sex and babies.

                  Every aspect of their personality is centered on “self-esteem”. Self-esteem among solipsistic women is influenced by many factors, factors that have everything to do with acceptance by the herd (women hate marginalizion and social shaming more than anything), which pertains, but is certainly not confined to, sex and babies. Resources and attention hold just as much sway.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 sexual desperation, a real crisis, is something only men can understand

                  I take it you don’t know any 32 year old single women, or single moms, but only comfy 22 year old women surrounded by sexy young men they just have to speak in guarded terms with and choose between and your own boner set to spread your wild oats to build sexual market capital.

                  The only way to determine who wants something more is to find out who’s thinking about it more and willing to accept a worse deal for it.

                  And yes, modesty is considered a great virtue today, as expressed in the holy book To Kill a Mockingbird, when Atticus never told anyone he was a good shot because God gave him that talent. Aryan women are seen dying their hair away from the beautiful Aryan-only colors, cutting it ridiculously or leaving it as dreadlocks, being so lazy as to only learn twerking instead of more complicated dance moves, and wearing yoga pants instead of finding or making a dress to wear. Educators have actually managed to teach modesty to women. And as a good Christian, you think it’s a good thing, but they need more modesty.

                • jim says:

                  The only way to determine who wants something more is to find out who’s thinking about it more and willing to accept a worse deal for it.

                  Eighteenth century, when women were literally locked up to keep them from getting their hands on men, answers this. They tended to go mad from lust, and seldom hesitated to accept a deal where they belonged absolutely to their husbands, agreed to honor and obey, and were socially required to keep to that promise, and were subject to beating by husband and whipping by magistrate if they were disrespectful or disobedient.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The only way to determine who wants something more is to find out who’s thinking about it more and willing to accept a worse deal for it.

                  Low-value women have sex with high-value men.

                  Low-value men don’t have anything at all with high-value women, and often, don’t have anything at all with low-value women.

                  Every low-value woman can get into a committed sexual relationship with a low-value man, but they often prefer either having non-committed sex with high-value men, or being alone.

                  Low-value men take anything. Low-value women don’t take anything.

                  Q.E.D

                • Anonymous says:

                  Also, prostitutes exist, gigolos don’t.

                  Men spend way more time and money on sex or porn, while women may read erotica here and there, and own a sex-toy, but that’s about it. They don’t jerk off 3 times a day every day between 16 and 19 years of age. They don’t need to spend time and money GETTING RIPPED at the gym and buying whey-protein while learning PUA and stuff like that, in order to find sex.

                  The women you are studying with don’t go home and climax fantasizing about you, assuming you’re not super-attractive. Meanwhile, pretty sure you or other males in your class have fantasized about the females in the class, perhaps fantasized about all the females in the class.

                  Welcome to reality.

                • jim says:

                  Also, prostitutes exist, gigolos don’t.

                  When a girl is young and hot, she can get sex by snapping her fingers. When she is a bit older … the poolboy gets a big tip.

                  There seems to be a lot of female sex tourism to poor countries

                  Women do not buy sex by the hour, because it takes them seven to ten hours to get warmed up to a guy. And when they are buying sex by the day, we don’t call him a gigolo, but a poolboy, hairdresser, whatever the cover is, because it is less blatant than selling sex by the hour.

                  But when they go to a poor country because gigolos there cost a hell of a lot less, it gets mighty blatant.

                  Gigolos do exist, but they are more expensive than whores, because female sexual nature being what it is, they rent him by the day instead of by the hour. Which is hard for an ordinary person to afford if they and the gigolo are comparably affluent.

                  But in a poor country, both male and female sex tourists can afford to rent by the day, so the males often do, and the females invariably do, so the sex industry looks pretty much the same. Except, of course, women prefer blacks to Asians, and men prefer Asians to blacks.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 women you are studying with don’t go home and climax fantasizing about you

                  Who do you think they’re fantasizing about? I was the alpha male. You weren’t, so you think they’re all angels saving it for marriage. You know what they’re actually doing? Waiting for a chance to switch from their current boyfriend to me.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jim says women will crawl over crushed glass to get to their demon lover. [Name redacted] walked half a mile in a snowstorm wearing a sweatshirt just to walk with me.

                • peppermint says:

                  Gf’s little sister fucked up her hair trying to dye it. A week later, she still hadn’t fixed it, so I asked her if she liked guys not only liking her for her body. She giggled, because women like being made fun of about their favorite subject, their appearance, by preselected hot guys, but she was actually pretty fanny flustered. Maybe I bullycided her into fixing her appearance.

                  Also, she said no, because everyone, especially women, know that it’s proper for men to mostly care about the appearance of women they approach.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Who do you think they’re fantasizing about?

                  When touching themselves, most women either fantasize about the last time they had sex, or about a particularly vigorous sex session they once had, or about nothing at all – just enjoying the pleasant sensation.

                  Men, in contrast, often think about the chick from work; not just when jerking off, but also during sex with their gf/wife.

                  And that’s the point: it’s normal and okay for men to fantasize about female peers, because men have enough seed for siring basically infinity humans. Women only have a few eggs, so it’s unnatural and deranged if they fantasize about the dude from work during sex with bf/husband.

                  >I was the alpha male. You weren’t, so you think they’re all angels saving it for marriage.

                  Nope. The sluts I know are sluttier than the sluts you know. But that’s the thing – they are rare. Average girl doesn’t sexually fantasize about her male peers, while average guy definitely sexually fantasizes about his female peers, sometimes about all of them.

                  >You know what they’re actually doing? Waiting for a chance to switch from their current boyfriend to me.

                  This is weird: why should they “wait for a chance”? If you’re so inclined, they can seduce you, cucking their boyfriends, without waiting and without switching.

                  If you’re not lying and they really are looking to dump their boyfriends so they can be with you, then they’re degenerate cunts. Honorable women are monogamous in thought and in deed. Granted, honorable women are not common. Fine. But back before muh contraception and muh (((sexual liberation))), women used to be far less degenerate, and far more loyal in thought and in deed, than what you report on.

                • jim says:

                  > The sluts I know are sluttier than the sluts you know. But that’s the thing – they are rare. Average girl doesn’t sexually fantasize about her male peers, while average guy definitely sexually fantasizes about his female peers, sometimes about all of them.

                  Wrong: The man will sexually fantasize about most of his female peers, the woman will fantasize about one of her male superiors. And this is not rare. All women are like that.

                  Which is why wives should not go out to work. Woman always have an eye out for a better deal, for a superior dick.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 This is weird: why should they “wait for a chance”? If you’re so inclined, they can seduce you, cucking their boyfriends, without waiting and without switching.

                  Why are you assuming I would just give it to the first chick who makes a move? Two of them tried behind their boyfriends’ backs. I didn’t want to cause drama just to nail them, because as soon as one of them made it she would make sure everyone else knew I was hers and all the others should find someone else. Also I was kind of moralfag even beyond being concerned about having the kind of gf who cheats on her bf.

                  》If you’re not lying and they really are looking to dump their boyfriends so they can be with you, then they’re degenerate cunts. Honorable women are monogamous in thought and in deed.

                  Yes, Christians “post”-Christian liberals hate women when forced to confront what women are actually like. Maybe at some point you can get rid of the preconceived notions, interact with women based on true understanding of them, and you’ll probably like it a lot more than what you’re doing now, trying to make them act like gay men.

                • peppermint says:

                  What did I get out of not picking one of those women and settling down? I got to nail every hot blonde who drifted through our social circle, relieve myself in the ugly chick whenever, and extract coffee and car rides from the others. But those hot blondes were actually Jews, the ugly chick was a green eyed Aryan, and tying down those other women meant they’re all childless now. I really, really shouldn’t have been like that or able to act like that. We need White sharia.

                • peppermint says:

                  Women prefer men to either think that they’re single and chaste or have an annoying stupid boyfriend they’re waiting for a chance to get rid of. They want other women to know who they’re sleeping with, though. One woman I had over talked really loud to let female roommate know she was there. Another left the receipt from buying condoms out for roommate to find.

                  Christian men who take women at their word assume that all women have stupid boyfriends who aren’t good Christians and men need to step up their game and do cute stuff like buy flowers for their gf if they want to keep her.

                  I’ve never been able to perceive the signals women send each other, so I’ve always just assumed that every woman knows everything I do or say to every other woman.

              • jim says:

                > > It is absolutely ridiculous to say women have less sex drive than men.

                > These are the facts. Both men and women want to fuck, but men are hornier on average. I

                Those are not the facts.

                The facts are that the normal man would, if he could, fuck every fertile age women he meets within sixty seconds of meeting her. Women take about seven to ten hours to warm up, and would only fuck the top ten percent of men. But a woman would crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with her demon lover. She will give her lover the housekeeping money and be unable to pay the rent, she will prostitute her children for him. The normal man will not.

                Women are immensely more selective than men. That does not make them any the less horny. Makes them more horny.

                • Turtle says:

                  “seven to ten hours to warm up”

                  Ouch. I’m surprised anyone is that patient, unless you mean total time, not all at once. And the pick-up/game sexperts claim time-to-fuck varies, with a modified bell curve distro. They specify 3-6 hours, I remember. Sounds more reasonable than 10 hours.

                • jim says:

                  When I say it takes several hours for a woman to get in the mood, that several hours can be spread over several dates.

                  Seven to ten hours is total time required before a girl is comfortable with sex.

                  Can be spread over several dates over several weeks.

                  If you are living together or dating regularly, you can just bang right away with no real warmup, other than what is needed to get her lubricated, which can take less than sixty seconds (Honey, I am home, bend over) but if you have been apart for several months, have to wait a few hours, or even a day or so, all over again. And for the first day or so after a long separation, takes them considerably longer to get wet. Also time spent together in public is considerably less effective than time spent, say walking on a deserted beach, and time spent showering with you gets them warmed up mighty fast. Not all time spent together is equal. Traveling together just the two of you works, as in walking together from date location A to date location B, traveling together in a crowded plane scarcely counts.

                  When a girl says “long walks on a deserted beach”, she is saying “get me ready for the main event as fast as possible”.

                  A pub crawl works faster than hanging out in just one pub, and a tour of deserted beaches works faster than a pub crawl. Swimming together on a deserted beach, or showering together, works faster than anything. But it is still going to take a while. Gardening together works quite well also.

                  Seven to ten hours means total time spent together under romantic circumstances over the past several weeks.

            • Anonymous says:

              >Even amongst the feral Yanomami of the Amazon rainforest, men become witch-doctors by taking a no-sex pledge for a year.

              Some people are just weird. Ascetics gonna ascetic. Doesn’t mean that men can cope better than wonen with sexlessness. I’ve read a study – women cope with sexlessness much better than men. Of course, don’t get me wrong, both sexes need sex, and a lot of it. But men are evidently hornier, on average.

              • peppermint says:

                Of course yout read a study that said that about the self-reported feelings of 18-22 year old college students.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It confirms what I see in real life. Men will do literally everything you can imagine to get their dick wet. Women, on average, won’t.

                • jim says:

                  That depends on which man they are after. Watch girls go crazy for pop stars. You never see men acting that crazy.

                • peppermint says:

                  Women don’t need to do anything, they pretty much just need to spread. But they’ll sneak out of their parents’ house to meet some guy who has a car. They’ll gladly pay for dates – it’s happened to me many times – and while I’ve never beaten a woman or told her to do anything, they’ll gladly go along with that.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Has it occurred to you that these aspects of female personality are not, as in the case of male personality, centered on mate-acquisition, but rather on other dimensions of biological fitness?

                  It’s not the clitoris that is primarily excited in these instances, albeit it’s definitely excited, but the family-oriented part of their brains.

                • peppermint says:

                  Mate acquisition is literally the only thing women do that matters. Of course they’re focused on mate acquisition.

                  What other fitness are you thinking of? Women go to the gym for the same reason men do, except that sometimes men go to the gym just to get buff and be able to beat up commies without immediate thoughts of how much it’s going to impress Stacy.

  18. Mister Grumpus says:

    (SHIT man are you racking up the traffic and comments now or what.)

  19. Glenfilthie says:

    Ive always been taught that soviet history was rife with systemic and brutal pages of the bureaucracy, Jim…

  20. guest says:

    B: So how much time is enough time then to acclimate before discarding the kippah and putting on the proverbial beret, before tossing the bagel and putting the proverbial baguette under your arm? After 100, 200 or 300 years? At which point shall proper assimilation be expected or even demanded?

    Or is the plan to be a foreign other, forever?

    Even Mexicans are already wearing cowboy hats!

    • Anonymous says:

      >Or is the plan to be a foreign other, forever?

      That’s exactly the Judeo-Globalist plan. Live in everyone else’s homelands forever, but “G-d” forbid, never assimilate, and while at it, don’t let the Goyim express their own will and culture freely – only jews are allowed to express their national will and culture.

      “Oy oy oy oy oy vey, the evil Goyim want to take away ARE RELIGION because of genetic antisemitism. Such horrible oppression, everyone victimizes us for no reason. Only we, the chosen ones, are allowed to tell everyone in the world what to do, but no one will tell us what to do, hahaha”.

      Nobody wants, nobody likes
      Kikes, kikes, kikes

      Hitler did nothing wrong, should’ve won the war, and exterminated all Jews everywhere. The next Hitler will do that, this time finally ridding the world of the eternal parasite, the corruptor of nations and cultures. Hell is the jew’s only home. Never forget that.

      We now have the technology to catch ’em all. No longer does one need to guess the jews in order to gas the jews. Furthermore, in the future there will be killer robots that exterminate “people” with kike and shitskin DNA that is above 6%. There will be no escape for any kike in the world from death. A right world is a White world.

      Shadilay.

      • Cavalier says:

        Genetically, most Jewish blood is assimilated into the general white gene pool.

        Memetically, most self-proclaimed Jews adhere to Progressivism over Judaism.

        Politically, you attribute bad white behavior to Jewish mind control rays, Jews becoming the collective physical incarnation of the devil, display a striking tendency to in-group all whites, and subscribe apparently without reservation to nationalism, a distinctly universalistic, (((Mosaic))) phenomenon.

        In short, your ideology is fucking retarded.

        • peppermint says:

          Kike blood will never be White. We will tactically accept 85% human quarter Ashkenazim because their children will be 93% human at least and in the future their children cah have their genes mechanically selected.

          It doesn’t matter if most kikes say they’re progressive.

          Nationality within the human race is important in Europe. In America, you’d be disappointed about southern Europeans, which you call dagos with the implication that their swarthiness comes from sand bigger rapes. Disappointment is not rejection.

          There must be a distinction between in group and out group for humans because humans want to build human civilization and that means supporting in group and opposing out group. Dirt and sand niggers only care about their immediate relatives, and get steamrolled by humans whenever humans are ready to outgroup them.

          Individualism is for faggots.

          Elitism forever.

      • Garr says:

        You’re such a FIERCE little fellow! Cutie.

  21. peppermint says:

    When you see a White woman with dreadlocks or stupid looking hair, black loose fitting jeans and t-shirts, not shaving her legs when wearing shorts or pits when wearing tank tops, etc, thank them for checking their privilege and giving other women a chance who are equally beautiful inside.

    • Cavalier says:

      >[woman clothing]

      The pinnacle of civilization: https://imgur.com/a/4wlbo

      Modesty, a Christcuck invention: https://i.imgur.com/g5WyDbS.jpg

      • peppermint says:

        You can clearly see her assets outlined in that, except that she might be hiding tats, scars, or bad skin. Modesty is a sweatshirt and loose sweatpants or jeans.

        • Anonymous says:

          >Modesty is a sweatshirt and loose sweatpants or jeans.

          Modest =/= lesbian.

          Cavalier is correct; revealing slut-clothes are degenerate. “Beauty is truth”, and real beauty is modest, not lurid.

          • peppermint says:

            yes, slut clothes are degenerate and not sexy. Miley Cyrus recently took a glamour shot in a dress and feminists got really, really butthurt. Miley has always done her best to look sexy and now that feminism and the social approval for slut clothes doesn’t get sexy men talking about her, she’s trying something actually sexy.

            I don’t see what you’re even arguing.

            Do you dispute that women try to present themselves in as sexy a manner as they possibly can?

            Do you dispute that open nudity and garish slut shorts and women shaving their heads to half an inch aren’t actually sexy?

            • jim says:

              Going back to covering up women is just replacing new type Puritanism with old type Puritanism. We don’t want to cover women up. But we do want to signify that sluts are disgraceful and of low value.

              Woman should be dressed as if an accessory to an alpha male, like Trump’s women at the inauguration.
              http://www.socialmatter.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/girl_in_wheat_field-wallpaper-1280×720.jpg
              http://www.socialmatter.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/kristin-kreuk-13056.jpg

              You should be able to form a pretty good guess as to what the alpha male sees at bedtime, without actually seeing it yourself.

              • peppermint says:

                Sluts are inherently low status and anti-slut shaming propaganda just means men and their women need to find euphemisms and assert monogamy as a personal quirk of sexual behavior that is the sovereign right of the woman to choose.

                I think people who grew up in the 80s and 90s and saw women wearing fishnets to signal that they would have sex regardless of whether it was true think that women just need to cover up because immodesty isn’t beautiful. Modesty existed then, drab sweatshirts and jeans, while in the movies women wore pretty sweatshirts and tight form fitting jeans. What’s been missing is the recognition that traditional dresses are sexy.

                • Turtle says:

                  There’s chaste eros, a spiritual form of love, and there’s craven lust. We, and women too, are capable of both. Only one is good- the holy way, which is mystical, as in, how is it that whichever spouse is dominant, resembles the couple’s children more closely? How do gametes and genomes express our relationship dynamics? Such scientific questions, and I only gave 1 example, are not too abstract to answer.

                  They’re easy to answer with theology- dominance pleases God, the Holy Master, so he rewards it with fertility, and, more controversially, the devil temps everyone equally, so every parent is torn by wanting their children to have what they consider their good traits, and all of their traits too, and godly traits, and fun traits, and so on, so resemblances really don’t matter. Children will change in appearance due to divorce, stepparents, chaniging family dynamics, etc. All of this is natural, because God is truth, not knowledge. If God were knowledge, maybe time would freeze, which is why gnostics love ‘freezeframe’ in their videos and xeno’s arrow type thought puzzles. Our normal exerience of time proves that we are ignorant, only living one moment at a time, only in one place per moment, missing out on almost everything, yet functioning quite well overall.

                  Wearing dresses dishonestly represents a stable civilization, just like togas (look at ancient art, like the pharaoh’s wives and concubines- that’s what you really want, not sharia. You want a pharaoh, not an emir, and kek is an egyptian god, besides a word in the Korean language. Be true to your religious desire already, and please stop calling ancient Egypt Muslim). You” get what you want faster with the truth.

                  Togas and robes are sexy too, at least attractive to the flesh it adorns and stimulates (there are perverse fetishes like rubbing one’s genitals on other’s clothes, and this is what taught me every sinner is unchaste) , and worn by seniors in many high schools to celebrate their top status, besides everyone at graduation ceremonies, especially the false priests in special robes on stage. Strong principles tend to vaguely lie about the truth – flowing fabric symbolizes music, caresses, and temperance, all puritan values (no dancing, no sex, no fun- just titillation, like algorithm-designed radio station playlists, strip clubs, or cuddle puddles).I don’t like dresses any better than pants on women- both are bad. I like how nuns, Christ’s brides, are adorned, not how women are ‘dressed’. Plenty of nuns (and monks; no homo) are gorgeous.

                  And for ‘status management’ (Jim’s fave topic 🙂 ) purposes, it is good to rely on the Church’s vestments, which express clergymen’s true identity, not masks or personas.They are mostly the same, with varying details to show one’s hierachical rank. Ultimately, they are all equal, the way a man loves his wife year after year, whether she is still hot enough to turn him on or not. This is not sameness- in sameness culture, as in hijabs and suicide vests, everyone is expendable and unique. To live together in peace is to sacrifice one’s persona_l (ego-self) preferences and whimsy.

                  And then there’s my answer- the child chooses to obey the parent whom he prefers, whether by submission to strength, or to goodness, whether wrongly perceived or true (heretics often claim God is either good or strong, but not both- this is dualism, which means negative-sum quid pro quo, not charity or property, which are really the same thing).

                  So, of course, married couples could all dress like monastics do, and this would satisfy me, because chastity with a spouse is the same as celibate chastity. Sluts making out in my chruch are not the problem- that others are jealous of them reveals they are only participants in the cuck party. The sluts who are too ashamed to show up anymore, the good people who were bullied into leaving, the divorces, the bickering, the bigotry of saying “my sins are less wrong than yours are”, these are why sluts fit right in, and I am glad to see them.

                  As long as a church has sluts, it is doing well. One Alaskan saint the only requirement to join the Church is being a sinner. I’m in! 😉

                  Saints are well-known for having slutty friends, from St. Mary of Egypt, formerly a sex-addicted seductress who lived in the wilderness for decades, nude but not hot at all because she wasn’t horny anymore, and only saw one priest-monk in person right before her repose, to the canonized monk who would bang hos and get drunk (I forget his name, he’s kind of a secret because puritanism infects us), to St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who ‘kept bad company’ but had no enemies (his fiercest haters all repented and pray to him, with no known exceptions). Someone who is chaste is not hot. A requirement to wanting to fuck a person is that they reciprocate this lust. It doesn’t take two to tango, it takes one spritually isolated sinner, whether acting alone or not.

                  I have a whole book of the theology of thots, focusing on those who repented and became saints. I have procrastinated reading it, even though it’s short and sweet, because I’m in love, and a coward. But it’s great that my Church has covered all topics of ordinary life, from food to sex.

                  We can make mistakes, which is why I grew up in a cuck church. Commenting here helps me clarify what went wrong, and what to do next. My ideas today are unusual, but happy.

                • jim says:

                  > There’s chaste eros, a spiritual form of love, and there’s craven lust.

                  Bullshit. That is Romance theory, a doctrine that idealizes adultery. It is always the husband that engaged in craven lust (Honey, I am home, bend over) and it is always the wife’s adulterous love interest that engages in chaste eros. Which never remains chaste very long. The old testament celebrates physical desire. There is just no mention of this chaste eros stuff. Sexual love and sexual desire are inseparable. That is what makes them sexual.

                  When a women is up for changing partners at frequent intervals, there is a lot more courtship and a lot less sex. And that is this “chaste eros” stuff. “Chaste eros” is the cock carousel. “Chaste Eros” is the “long walks together on a deserted beach” – which walks are invariably intended as a prelude to sex with a new man.

                  When a woman is banging a new man every fortnight, she is going to be spending a lot of time going for “long walks together on a deserted beach”. That is your chaste eros right there. If she sticks with her husband, foreplay probably consists of “get me a beer, make me a sandwich, then get the lubricant, honey”. That is your craven lust right there.

                  “Chaste eros” is the seven hour or so warmup a woman needs before she fucks a new man.

                  “Chaste eros” is what you get when feral women run wild.

                • peppermint says:

                  》 There’s chaste eros, a spiritual form of love, and there’s craven lust.

                  There are much better ways of examining sexuality than philosophizing about it, you raging homosexual. Why don’t you express this highest form of love with another virile sage somewhere else.

                  》Wearing dresses dishonestly represents a stable civilization, just like togas

                  Why yes. We want a stable civilization and the mannerisms thereof and we will get it.

                  I told my gf that once upon a time Dorothy could go walking around and talk to strange men and none of them when they were talking and joking with her were concerned that the next man she would meet would be a pedophile kidnapper or that they would be accused of being one, that once upon a time not too long ago the streets were safe for little girls, and they will be again.

                  She replied that it wasn’t safe but people just didn’t know it wasn’t safe and shunned girls who talked about it being unsafe. Which is, in fact, the experience of women in the cities for a significant portion of the last hundred years, thanks to Christianity.

                  Of course, I can’t just tell her to watch old movies, because they are pozzed for their times by the filthy rat kikes.

                  The puritans and the kikes said they would make the world better. When they did quite the opposite, they said it was never good. How can our people be inspired to restore what has been systematically forgotten?

                  When the sand niggers blow up Roman stuff, they are destroying other people’s history. When the sand niggerized afghanistani (I quite like xstani with the implication that they are people of states, not nations) Taliban blew up the ancent Buddha statues, they destroy history they don’t want to be associated with.

                  When the kikes and puritans destroy our history, they do it to tell us that we never had any history except for oppression of women and jews.

                  Around the time the Taliban blew up the Buddhas, the evilminded puritan “conservative” running the DoJ put a burka on Lady Justice, because her beauty was immodest.

                  Ancient statues of Platonic forms are considered indecent by puritans because puritans hate all pure forms other than slavery in which all are equal. Other pure forms are pride, which is equated with vanity.

                  For the immediate needs of building a mass movement, we require Nietzschean supermen who are immodest in their abilities, and they demand Nietzschean superwomen who dress as sexy as possible, first to get their man, then to be shown off by him. Long term, we want a stable society that channels people’s instincts in pro-social ways.

                • Garr says:

                  Turtle’s essay is beautiful and endearing, although I don’t understand it. Jim’s response is wise and true. Peppermint’s close to be able to say wise and true things, but is too scary and snarling; he should learn the ways of his father, Master Jim.

                • Turtle says:

                  Jim, it’s hard to comment when the threads are so long that the Reply buttons disappear. We could use a new post, at least for comments.

                  > There’s chaste eros, a spiritual form of love, and there’s craven lust.

                  — Bullshit.

                  I speak for myself, not of women. Big difference, Jim.

                  When I used porn, I developed some rational fetishes, like nude gymnasts and “lesbians” (both ways to not look at porn-dudes). I quit this waste
                  of libido, and these unnatural lusts all went away. Now I’m normal, to my own grateful surprise. So I’ve suffered my own lust, and won’t blame God
                  for being long-suffering while I chose vidya whores over pretty, kind, faithful would-be girlfriends for a third of my life. He did not make me a perv. I did that, accepting the devil’s temptation, a false gift.

                  {Contrasting God’s perfect action with sinful behavior is not dualism- free will is one (obeying the Holy Trinity’s single will), sin is none (worldly and fleetingly temporal, it will all be destroyed), and God is who He is. Do the math 😉 }

                  As with any true confession, which almost requires weeping in contrition, my repented moralistic pride allows me ‘insider access’ to puritanism- it’s about power.

                  I wanted to be so cool that all girls would idolize me, and this might be a popular fantasy. But I didn’t want to admit I was straight, because I was so self-disrespecting that I was sure girls who liked me couldn’t really mean it or treat me well, so wanting them seemed like a dangerous weakness, one which could get me hurt badly. And in part, I based this off of all the divorces us kids suffered under, besides high-conflict, low-sex, spiritually decayed marriages among those who stayed ‘together.’

                  I’m writing autobiographically these days… but I’ll moderate it.

                  I would describe chaste eros as the anticipation and afterglow of sacramental sex (consummating a marriage blessed by God), which begins when people are conceived, is consummated in their wedding, and lasts forever.

                  I am no puritan/ romantic (romanticism is the positive poetry of this religion, and purity is their negative ideal), or I would say there are moral categorical-universals (the meme-form of this heresy): innocent, angelic women, and guilty,
                  demonic men. Actually, girls have technically molested me (no biggie) – I know they are freaks, just like me, and forgive them. But sexual forgiveness means I greatly enjoy my erotic manhood, and share it with every single-looking, hot woman I meet. They often like me back- great!

                  About the heretical maltheology of puritans… here we go with a single example:
                  “Paul Evdokimov was as much at home in the world of the invisible, heavenly beings…perhaps even more so than his lively presence here. He became prayer, as his writings taught, but he never was less than deeply human.”

                  My translation: Our dear leader was a successful gnostic. He must have been even holier in heaven, which is like Paris, but with taller skyscrapers and free baguettes. He was not even a creature, rather, he created the object of his religion by spiritual ejaculation. And he was niceeeee, from feminism to remarrying a Japanese woman.
                  http://orthodoxoasis.com/files/vitamins/Paul%20Evdokimov%20-%20General%20Thoughts.pdf

                  I do like exposing false faith, which is always generic gnosis-signalling. I know a former communist, much like Evdokimov, who too believes in ‘tending God’s garden’ as if Adam was a day laborer in Eden, and Eve was a maid. Communists idolize labor, and are intellectual fools. Similarly, capitalists idolize dominance, and are overindulgent, from Buckley’s obsession with fine dining to Sarah Palin’s fetish for black dick (and both public figures represent whole demographics). Both are spiritually isolated, focusing on competition, contribution, and division. Both are imbalanced.

                • Turtle says:

                  — That is Romance theory, a doctrine that idealizes adultery. It is always the husband that engaged in craven lust (Honey, I am home, bend over) and it is always the wife’s adulterous love interest that engages in chaste eros. Which never remains chaste very long. The Old Testament celebrates physical desire. There is just no mention of this chaste eros stuff. Sexual love and sexual desire are inseparable. That is what makes them sexual.

                  Adultery strikes me as a consequence of monogamy itself. I believe polygyny is the sociosexual technology ‘cure’ for adultery. Honey should say, so to speak, “bend me over, I’m ovulating.” I have read romance novels to learn about female psychology, and it’s boring. There’s no chaste eros there, or in women’s fantasies. They might use this excuse when it helps them get away with cheating, yes. So what, if it’s insincere?

                  I read the erotic Song of Solomon more often than most of the O.T., because it’s so enjoyable. I don’t separate love from desire- love fulfills itself, so lovers are not desirous. Love is a benevolent act of will, not satisfaction of personal desires; to get specific, lust is mental, neediness is emotional, desire is general, urges are physical. Longing is spiritual, not because these words are magical, just arbitrarily.

                  I will confess my lust, sexual or not, whenever it crosses my conscience, hoping everyone in church hears me. I am just as eager to have many children,
                  perhaps polygamously, if I keep meeting marriageable women and can own them all. At the same time, formerly polygamous mormons are
                  puritans, at least since they gave up polygamy. Earlierin LDS history, I don’t know. I like that the Egyptian pharaohs had both wives and concubines, just like Hebrew kings did.

                  Lust is not “too horny, too male, too much dick” – my definition is: blasphemy towards God, the Bridegroom (one of Christ’s canonical names) of
                  Orthodox marriage (he’s also depicted as a bishop). To treat each other as sex and other slaves is normal for humanity, but not enough to please God. He wants us to own our spouses, making us kings and queens. It’s also important to sometimes fast from sex, during Lent at the least, for the holiday calendar to be obeyed. This helps with gratitude and сooperation, too, whether the husband and wife have similar sexual desires or not. They should, not because of the hindu model where everyone is sexually described as a rabbit or elephant, based on genital size, but because Adam and Eve were of one flesh.

                  This was before the flesh of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil ‘mutated’ them into fallen creatures who do keep God’s own image, whether they like it or not, but violate his will, intentionally and unintentionally (we’re not told everything is our fault- “original sin” is Augistine’s mistake, in fact the Orthodox teachings on sin do not allow for blame or lenience, only forgiveness and repentance, of all involved, which means, all of God’s creatures, fallen or not). Any temptation takes the form of *a* lust, and lust can be described as occuring in pairs, such as “get laid, stop being a loser” or “get married, stop being a slut” or both at once “stop being a virgin, get sexual experience with serial mongamy, convert the best one into a marriage, then stop rotating pseudo-spouses until it’s time to divorce-upgrade” and everyone in post-modernity takes this bs seriously. As if lust is rational when phrased with “goal orientation” and active verbs. How about obeying the Decalogue instead, for starters?

                  So… for once I am agreeing with B that Jim does not know some things, namely what I learned in Sunday school and in reading Orthodox writings, he has not read about, despite my recent book recommendations. I’m not a catechist… yet at least. If you want more serious learning, start with orthodoxwiki, not telling me I’m a romantic puritan.

                  I’ve had crushes when I thought they were a good excuse for wanting women. That was in middle school, when I was offended that girls wanted me more than I wanted them, and decided to equalize the situation by increasing my lust. Get how foolish horny boys can be? That’s the craven part of lust- giving up on truth, beauty, and goodness, just because, with my personal example, I wanted to stroke my pathetic ego more than I wanted to play with eagerly available girls. I’m saying that true eros is, as C.S. Lewis said mostly correctly, despite marrying a divorcee, much more intense and deep than lust. It’s love with sexuality, not a neurotic, primitive attempt at sex, as in pick-up.

                • peppermint says:

                  》Adultery strikes me as a consequence of monogamy itself. I believe polygyny is the sociosexual technology ‘cure’ for adultery.

                  Communism is the social technology cure for theft.

                  This implies that women under polygyny don’t need to have bags over their heads to keep them from detaching themselves from one man and attaching themselves to another.

                  There is clear biological evidence that White sharia (sharia is Persian for tradition) included monogamy. Where evidence contradicts it, let reason be silent.

                  》 Honey should say, so to speak, “bend me over, I’m ovulating.” I have read romance novels to learn about female psychology, and it’s boring. There’s no chaste eros there, or in women’s fantasies.

                  So basically, you hate women because you’re a Christian and women don’t act like pure souls enough. Try to interact with them understanding and loving them as they are and you’ll probably have better luck.

                  》 They might use this excuse when it helps them get away with cheating, yes. So what, if it’s insincere?

                  Everyone uses it as an excuse for cheating and women understand that more than men because women are insistently focused on themselves and their families and friends and don’t evaluate propositions in the abstract. Which is actually a good idea with your evil philosophy. Your willful ignorance is disgusting.

                  》I read the erotic Song of Solomon…

                  Erotica is so much more intellectual than nude gymnasts or women pantomiming sex acts on each other, therefore more soulful instead of carnal. You make me sick.

                  》 I don’t separate love from desire- love fulfills itself,

                  hurrrrrrrrrrr what am I reading poetry from 15 year olds trying to get a girls’ attention?

                  》so lovers are not desirous.

                  WHAT THE FUCK

                  》Love is a benevolent act of will,

                  Oh look, more Christianity. You forgot to involve God for a threesome. He’s a jealous God and He’s probably going to send you to Hell for that.

                  》to get specific, lust is mental, neediness is emotional, desire is general, urges are physical. Longing is spiritual

                  Now if only these compartments had evolved separately, or been Designed separately, there would be sense in separating them. “Lust is mental” would be news to Aquinas, who considered it a desire shared with the animals, while love was mental and shared with the angels, and romantic love a passion, the passions being exclusive to hybrid beings with a soul and a body.

                  Aquinas was a stupid faggot who swept the problem of God violating God’s moral code under the rug because that wasn’t interesting. Which is true. But he was stuck using God’s Word everywhere because he lived in a fully christcucked society. He never had any kids, so his faggotry died with him.

                  》I will confess my lust, sexual or not, whenever it crosses my conscience,

                  Yes, telling women you find them irresistible can work sometimes, especially if you can make it sound like you’re philosophically committed to not doing so. Women like causing trouble.

                • peppermint says:

                  While you insult Aryan women babbling about chaste eros and non-exclusivity, young Aryan women are being raped by pakis, while the people who would ordinarily be expected to have the job of protecting them, the young Aryan men, are confused by chaste eros, non-exclusivity, modesty, and other slave morality, while the institutions like the schools and police are run according to strict Christian morality that views sex as legitimate only where there is consent and assumes that women accuse pakis of rape only because the women are evil.

                  What will it take for you to recognize not only that you have been lied to about bare facts but also about what is good, let alone traditional, to value?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  I do not often agree with peppermint, but he has it dead to rights in his last post. God is perfectly okay with raping slave women as long as you take care of them afterwards. Sexytime has to involve sex, and gold sex is rough and primal. You get married, and then you vigorously bang your wife. Lovemaking is what she does while you are pounding her out, and that is about as nice as it gets.

                  Chaste Eros is for fags and sexual deviants. Panting, Sweating, Screaming Eros is what men want and women need. Chaste Eros is sterile and anti-life and evil. If your marriage is full of Chaste Eros, you are not fucking your wife the way the Good Book commands and you are a heretic and we will beat you until you stop being a heretic and start fucking your wife properly, or we will burn you for your crimes against God and Race.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • peppermint says:

                  》God is perfectly okay with raping slave women as long as you take care of them afterwards.

                  Why take care of them?

                  Slave women don’t need to be raped. They’ll fuck you in the hope that you’ll care about them in the future. You don’t even need to enslave them first. Female prison guards will even help the alpha male prisoner fuck all the female prison guards.

                  Make it normative to take care of slave girls you fuck, now they don’t even need to fuck you, just say you’re fucking them and receive special privileges. In fact, since they hold that power over you, they’re less likely to fuck you.

                  Any why God? After being nobly lied to for so long, do you really intend to nobly lie some more? All lies are stupid and ugly and all liars are evil.

                  Slave women need to be bought as wives by low class men. The fear of being bought by a low class man should control women much more than fear of God or anything else. The ones who are impossible for a low class man to control with a belt should be forced to serve as barmaids.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so. Female sexuality is maladapted to circumstances where women have power, so any protection you give women runs the risk of eliciting maladaptive and self destructive behavior.

                  Which does not mean we should not protect women. Obviously we should protect women. But we have to be mindful that protection has to avoid encouraging, empowering, and valorizing wicked, improperly lustfull, and self destructive behavior.

                • Turtle says:

                  I can’t reply to these response comments without a new thread. I’ve written out my replies, but don’t know if Jim wants me to start a new thread for them. I want to do what Jim asks of me in commenting here.

                • Turtle says:

                  @Jim

                  >> Exactly so. Female sexuality is maladapted to circumstances where women have power, so any protection you give women runs the risk of eliciting maladaptive and self destructive behavior.

                  >> Which does not mean we should not protect women. Obviously we should protect women. But we have to be mindful that protection has to avoid encouraging, empowering, and valorizing wicked, improperly lustfull, and self destructive behavior.

                  “Improperly lustful” is the heart of our disagreement. I say, no lust in love, and no love in lust. You say lust is lovely, and love is lustful. If they’re synonyms, is virtue vice? I prefer keeping clear distinctions, not confused overlapping vagueness. You’re making post-modern arguments here, as in (paraphrasing the implications I perceive) {if your actions cause harm, you should have hedged your risks while still making the same mistake; women always have more sexual power than men, but their sexuality is maladapted to their normal condition (how is this not an obvious contradiction to you, Jim?); women will strain to overcome their protectors out of rebellion, but we can keept this in check by being as asshole-ish as the bad boys they want; we can engage with sin without letting it infect us, but we can’t just forgive and punish it either, we need to ‘be mindful’ (how can you refer to mindfulness, which is absurd, given that monks sometimes say their dying wish is to pray for once without distraction, after a lifetime of spiritual effort?); we can reject and condemn women’s sins while protecting them from the consequences of said sin, as if they do not
                  deserve to experience how they treat themselves; and finally, we are capable of defending women, even though we are tempted by their wiles as
                  much as the bad boys are, setting aside alleged libido differences.}

                  Total disagreements are almost always caused by vagueness (bad definitions and hasty assumptions). I’m really specific in my statements, but they still are spliced out of context. So I’ll be even more specific, with mathematical (very precise) formulas. This is fun, but weird.

                  More seriously, you’re a Marcionist, Jim.

                  “[Marcion of Sinope, around the year 144, before heresy was officially a thing] regarded the arguments of Paul regarding law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, and death and life as the essence of religious truth. He ascribed these aspects and characteristics to two principles, the righteous and wrathful god of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and a second God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy.”

                  And I’m not blaming you; rather, please read the Holy Bible, all the way through. Exegesis commentaries can help, but it’s pointless without prayer and a catechist (teacher).

                  I am also retracting my recommendation of the Orthodox Way by Ware. He’s unreliable, perhaps too eloquent. I don’t trust his translations from Greek either anymore.

                • jim says:

                  > More seriously, you’re a Marcionist, Jim.

                  No I am not, and I have absolutely no idea what could possibly give you that impression.

                  I say, no lust in love, and no love in lust.

                  You are simply wrong. And not only wrong, but pushing a morality and theory created to celebrate adultery and flatter adulterers.

                  If a woman has sex with a man regularly, and no other man, he will come to love her.

                  women always have more sexual power than men, but their sexuality is maladapted to their normal condition (how is this not an obvious contradiction to you, Jim?);

                  Where is the contradiction? Explain. You are not making any sense.

                  Further, their sexuality is not maladapted to their normal condition, their normal condition being that they are property, to which their sexuality is adapted just fine. Their sexuality is maladapted to the highly abnormal condition of the modern environment.

                • Turtle says:

                  @Theshadowedknight

                  >> God is perfectly okay with raping slave women as long as you take care of them afterwards.

                  I’ll respond briefly, because I already think all sinners are slaves, and all sex is rape, and no sinner can take care of anyone, not even himself, on his own. Relying on God’s judgment prevents a man from telling other men what God is ok with. I never say “God will punish or reward you for this deed…” because I’m not his judicial spokesman, only a spiritual disciple.

                  You have no idea how liberating it is to treat all women as the same- inherently good, but corrupted by sin. And I’ve only begun to know this moral freedom recently.

                  Relatedly:
                  The LDS Mormons say God has countless thot/ princess concubines in his harem. Are you then going to accept the following Native American-
                  derived religion? : Mormons believe that God … was originally a … human being, who was spiritually “begotten” by another “god” (and his “godess” wife) and then physically born on another planet (not Earth). “Elohim” lived a normal human life, and by embracing his world’s version of
                  Mormonism, he “progressed” to become the “god” he is today…
                  https://orthodoxwiki.org/Mormonism#The_.22Doctrine_of_Eternal_Progression.22

                  It’s not white at all. It’s Indian, like the idea that the world lies on many layers of spirit-matter, including a giant turtle’s back (iterative explanations of ultimate things are lies, like saying “Because I said so!” to answer a child’s “But why is it like that?” , and I’ve studied ‘world religions.’ They’re fraudulent sales tactics, not good gifts. Such myth is not relevant to Christianity.

                  You’re conflating sexualist heresy (where married couples who don’t have sex are rejected as being worse than fornicators and even violent perverts, just because they don’t indulge in their lusts, at least seemingly pursuing chastity instead) with actual dogma. It’s also feminist to claim sex with women is really important. Monks and celibates/ bachelors can live well without any pussy, and it’s just as hard for women to be chaste, but just as holy when they succeed.

                  I’m not telling you to be celibate; follow your conscience. Moral courage, to do what you believe in, is all I ask of anyone. And I am confident God teaches us to obey Him, so we won’t be off-course for long, if ever, if and when we put forth good faith effort.

                  Calling me a heretic is irrelevant- you’re not a bishop. The whole point of martyrdom is that we, and others, attempt to punish true Christian faith,
                  whether it’s our own faith or someoen else’s. So of course I get criticized- every sinner is hateful and foolish. Also, heresy is a relatively new concept, not one Christ taught to the Apostles. It developed later, and might itself be “heresy.” Every Christian makes theological mistakes; only faith justifies us. We’re biased by our sin, not blinded by low IQ or a lack of experience. Lastly, please cite some sources, as Church hierarchs do in their sermons and writings.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Peppermint, Jim, both of you missed the point I was making. Peppermint, you are a monomania idiot. Jim, you are reading to much into what I said. Feeding her and giving her a place to sleep is plenty of support, not building a slave girl a golden palace and clothing her in silks and jewels.

                  My actual point, aside from peppermint’s retarded interpretation, is that God has no problem with sex if He gives the conquered women to the conquering men. If He accepts that, fucking a wife is totally normal and acceptable. If something egregious is permissable, so is something less egregious in the same vein.

                  Turtle, the marriage bed is undefiled, and a man should hold fast his woman lest they be tempted is the biblical view on sex. All sex is rape is feminasty fantasy, not Christian doctrine. You are a heretic, and for your offenses against God and His order, you must burn.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • Turtle says:

                  @peppermint

                  “There is just no mention of this chaste eros stuff. Sexual love and sexual desire are inseparable. That is what makes them sexual.”

                  I went back to the Holy Bible’s Book of Wisdom, right before Ecclesiasticus. Here’s the most relevant excerpt:

                  Blessed the barren woman if she be blameless, she who has known no guilty bed; her fruitfulness will be seen at the scrutiny of souls. (3:13)
                  Blessed, too, the eunuch whose hand has committed no crime, who has contemplated no wrong against the Lord; for his loyalty special favour will be granted him, a most desirable portion in the temple of the Lord. (3:14)

                  But children of adulterers, these shall have no future, the offspring of an unlawful bed must vanish (3:16)…Yes, harsh is the fate of a race of evil-doers. (3:19)

                  But the swarming brood of the godless shall bring no advantage; offspring of bastard stock (4:3)… children begotten of unlawful intercourse witness, when God judges them, to the wrong their parents did. (4:6)

                  One aspect of chastity, which is not just about sex, is temperance:
                  …give me neither poverty nor riches, grant me only my share of bread to eat, for feat that surrounded by plenty, I should fall away and say, ‘Yahweh- who is Yahweh?’ or else, in destitution, take to stealing and profane the name of God. Do not denounce a slave to his master, lest he curse, and you suffer for it. (Proverbs 30:8-10).

                  As for the Song of Songs, it’s about Jesus and his Bride, the Church. It’s literal and physical, but not sexual:
                  As a lily among the thistles, so is my love among the maidens (2:2). My beloved is mine and I am his. He pastures his flock among the lilies (2:16). My Beloved went down to his garden…to gather lilies (6:2).

                  There are sixty queens and eighty concubines (and countless maidens (6:8). I don’t know why people think I’m anti-sex. I believe in good human sex, not angelic ghost-sex or animal rutting.

                  There is a society in these poems- Bride, Chorus, Bridegroom. The Chorus seems to be angels, while the Church is Christ the Bridegroom’s female bride.

                  I charge you…not to stir my love, nor rouse it, until it please to awake (2:7). And people want to be ‘woke’ ASAP 😉

                  I know I’m too technically specific with words, but that’s easy to understand- translations vary between Bible versions.

                • jim says:

                  The verses you quote are not particularly relevant to your claim. You read into them meanings that other people are unlikely to read into them.

                  As I said, nothing about chaste eros in the old testament, no separation of desire and sexual love.

                • Turtle says:

                  >> No I am not, and I have absolutely no idea what could possibly give you that impression.

                  Maybe I exaggerated based on other writings of yours. Here, you have a syncretized and split view, where sex done right, with lust but somehow without marriage, will cause love. This implies sin causes virtue, while remaining separate (not identical). That’s similar to Marcion’s dualism, in that you claim there is a difference between sexual desire/ lust and love, but they mingle and merge. Right? I don’t think we can logically say P=P or P => P, over time, but not at once. P is P always, if at all.

                  I say, no lust in love, and no love in lust.

                  >> You are simply wrong. And not only wrong, but pushing a morality and theory created to celebrate adultery and flatter adulterers.

                  Adulterers can be stoned or forgiven, or both. Chastity describes the relationships between monks and nuns. They physically share love, without having sex. Eros is not cuddly oxytocin highs or emotional liking, it’s mystical.

                  >> If a woman has sex with a man regularly, and no other man, he will come to love her.

                  Next, your commitment fetish is almost the same as a whore being friends with her regular customers. They smile at each other AND fuck, so they get extra dopamine, wow! Iterating {not P} cannot cause P. 100% Lust+ 0%Love does not transmutate into a mixture of the two, or pure love. Can greed be generous, if someone donates for the tax deduction, but also to do charity? I think their is no greed in this example, because paying taxes to good government is just as good as real charity. And while love is sex, sex is not lust. You must know that being anxiously overaroused causes premature ejaculation and weak orgasms, for example. Not much fun there, because lust kills joy. Chaste sex is fertile and pleasant.

                  >> Where is the contradiction? Explain. You are not making any sense.

                  >> Further, their sexuality is not maladapted to their normal condition, their normal condition being that they are property, to which their sexuality is adapted just fine. Their sexuality is maladapted to the highly abnormal condition of the modern environment.

                  If women are more powerful, I think that means men are their sexual property, finding pussy both irresistible and uncontrollable. If women are normally property, then they are not so powerful. You say “…the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity…” but somehow these drastic means are normal? Do you mean rather that it should happen, not that patriarchal societies are very common?

                  Women being adapted just fine to the imagined goldilocks zone of patriarchy (only lasting specific decades, but somehow ending even though it’s great while it lasts) implies they are only sinners in consequence, when men fail them, not by their own initiative. That means women are innocent, and we’re just guilty of not controlling them well. If they sin when allowed to, then I believe they are sinners continuously, until repentance. We disagree on time’s effects- does it change God’s judgment, or only our perceived circumstances?

                • jim says:

                  If women are more powerful, I think that means men are their sexual property, finding pussy both irresistible and uncontrollable. If women are normally property, then they are not so powerful

                  Many a sultan was bullied by a slave girl, even though had a thousand like her and could execute her or torture her at whim. Women can be property and still be powerful, and throughout history they usually have been. To be property, and to be loved, and have power through being loved, is the normal and proper condition of women, to which condition they are psychologically well adapted.

                • Turtle says:

                  >>> WHAT THE FUCK

                  I mean that I’m not dependent on the pleasure I get from women enjoying our interactions, and I can be just as happy with men only or alone. Sex is not a big deal when you are determined to love everyone equally, not as if they are God, but in charity which glorifies God. Desire can be defined as “wanting more than one has had previously” so it is is nostalgic, wishful, etc. -stuck in broken time, relying on memories and plans, like “our first date went well, and improving my game will get me laid next time” instead of doing sexual telepathy. And I prefer the latter, not that it is a common blessing. How’s that for WTF?

                  Love is a benevolent act of will…

                  >>> Oh look, more Christianity. You forgot to involve God for a threesome. He’s a jealous God and He’s probably going to send you to Hell for that.

                  God is love Himself. God’s presence in human life is benevolent and peaceful- it’s easy for him to work miracles, such as pure pleasure (with no pain). God can send me to hell if he wants to, and I don’t mind this. I know I deserve an opportunity to repent, and if I fail, then I had a fair chance. I don’t expect lax standards for salvation, as in ‘no child left behind,’ the recent educational politics expression of universalist Calvinism (“only the elect are spared damnation, but everyone is elect, including the devil” https://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis .

                  A Wrinkle in Time is the leader in the sci-fi subgenre of Christian heresy, called fantasy fiction, which taught me that dignity, human rights, diversity, etc. are false goods. The story’s peak is a spunky genius teen saying (paraphrase) “Equality is not being the same, we can treat each other fairly without forced conformity.” That’s besides the point- “I live, therefore I deserve” (the wrong logic of leftism) assumes we are immortal if we exist at all. We’re not, only God can grant us victory over death, and this issue is ancient- the serpent told Eve the forbidden fruit would make her immortal. And soon
                  after, Cain murders Abel, and asks a question you likely agree with- “Am I my brother’s keeper?” If God is jealous, then he guards us from ourselves and other sinners, and then we are not responsible for our brother’s wellbeing, only getting our own pleasure and resources.

                  God is merciful, so I don’t mind hell. I’ve felt like I was in hell before, when I deserved it, and it went away with contrite prayer. I don’t think my spiritual experience is typical, but it is real to me.

                  >>> Aquinas

                  I don’t know Aquinas or his funny mixture of sci-fi and fantasy, he’s mostly a distraction like Bob Dylan or tv.

                  Lust is impatience (imagined urgent entitlement)+anger, in a loop: I want fun now, it’s not easy to get, that pisses me off, so I want it even more, even faster, because it will helped me feel better from the disappointment, frustration, rejection, etc. which result from not getting pleasure,
                  whether from life, God, other creatures, or whatever else. And it repeats until we have created our own hell, which binds us to our sin (disobedience+stubborness).
                  Neediness = coy flirting, like making a face with puppy eyes and one’s lower lip rolled down, + disdain. We don’t respect those we are needy onto. We respect those we truly need, because they are godly, even if it’s just a janitor or farmer doing his job. We don’t respect the tempting thot who teases us into a frenzy. We desire conquest of her will, and domination of the metahuman territory she represents, but not meaningful contact with her.

                  And this is the essence of ‘gamma’ cognition.

                  A thot I love (soberly, no going gaga just because she’s really cute) is needy, often with her gaze cast down in a theatrical manner, to shit test me and everyone else in her life, and I am reluctant to pass
                  the testing because then I eventually, probably soon, have to marry and/or fuck her, making a ho (I mean any fallen woman is slutty) a housewife. It’s doable, by God’s grace, and there are no better women to wed. So I’m either going to get with other girls, or stay with this one. Then we’ll see if I’m romantic (lust+pride) or honest (worshipping truth+venerating innocence).

                  Urges are not appetites or need-based. It’s instinct+wrath, meaning that our fallen human nature is always dissatisfied with itself, God, life, etc.,
                  but it keeps trying to win, and even acts like we can wrestle God and defeat him, just by the force of our spiteful anger.

                  >>> Yes, telling women you find them irresistible can work sometimes, especially if you can make it sound like you’re philosophically committed to not doing so. Women like causing trouble.

                  At my best, I tell women whatever I think and feel- doing honesty. Their appeals are resistible, or we would all be rapists, and if we could not forgive them for tempting us, voluntarily or not, we would be murderers. Such violent crime is rare; we do have temperance and free will.

                  It’s a manosphere meme that being straight means dominating women with strategy and resources, while they dominate us with emotion and tactics. This is worldly nonsense, a false equivalence with contrast of false opposites. Telling women they are irresistible is just lying. Suffering lust (it hurts, being a form of pain) does not mean I act on it beyond my heart and loins. And even that is only a choice, not compulsory. Sin is not automatic, even when habitual, as it always is, because we learn it from older sinners (but there’s no original sin, Augustine can keep that superstitious African mistake). I’m committed to trust- women, like any creatures, like pleasure, and when we teach them to receive pleasure in truly good ways, that’s what they do. They learn from us, and we from them. Women improve who I am and my behavior. They’re not trouble for me, because I am both grateful and forgiving. I can handle good or bad behavior, in this theory.

                • peppermint says:

                  I get the sense that in between injecting your God everywhere you imagine that because God you can live like a sultan. That that will lead to women evolving to be uglier and hornier while men grow more aggressive and less competent.

                  Meanwhile because sex is only appropriate as pleases God there’s no difference between sex with your wife and a slave. In reality men treat one night stands completely differently from women they respect. A one night stand, you want to jab it up her butthole to brag to your future wife about. Your wife, you don’t want to injure her.

                  Everyone knows that men treat one night stands differently from wives, including the young women who try to make sure that the really hot guy they’re trying to sleep with takes them seriously, including God if he created us, but evidently not his devotees. The way women get on the carousel is one of the most godly things about our culture, and the way to stop it isn’t to tell women to keep their legs shut (not gonna happen) but eliminate the legacy educational system, eliminate the evilminded pro-adultery “chaste eros” propaganda, and keep young women at their fathers’ houses so their father can know who they’re dating.

                  I felt really bad about offering this one chick’s father a cookie before he left for the night and I did stuff with his daughter. He shouldn’t have left her with me, why didn’t he get her mom to hang out and keep me off her?

                  Realistically, she wasn’t even necessarily wrong about me. I wish I had married her.

                  White sharia is the only system that makes people’s instinctual behavior pro-social. Christians hate it because they want pro-social behavior to be a cross to bear.

                • peppermint says:

                  Oh hey, that’s the thing about philosophy, when it doesn’t work use more.

                • peppermint says:

                  =only God can grant us victory over death

                  only in decadent societies do people start worshipping kikes for victory over death. Ask anyone in Generation Zyklon or millennials who haven’t been completely insulated from the world Christians have prepared for our people. The biggest concern is victory over the enemies of our people.

                  And in the future we build, we will never go back to bullshitting about chaste eros or victory over death. People who talk about chaste eros will have the chastity of their eros secured by removal of their gonads, and people who talk about victory over death will be crucified to see if they rise again.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Peppe thinks that rational opposition to hypergamy equals misogyny, because you “don’t love women as they actually are”. Silly.

                  Women control men with their sexuality, and if you condone the sexualization of the public domain through salacious attire and conduct, you condone female domination of males. So much for “sharia”.

                  I would make teen (ages 12-18) prostitution and teen pornography legal if I could, institute a government-subsidized prostitution-service for the sexless, and eliminate the age of consent altogether, yet I get called a “puritan” on this blog. Some people’s thought-process goes outside-in and downside-up, it seems.

                  My general sex-philosophy is “privately everything, publicly nothing”. I want the streets to be clean off sexualization of any kind. But what happens behind closed doors is none of my business and I needn’t worry at all about it. Hence, no problem with faggots having scat-party mass-orgies in the closet, but would stone faggots for holding hands when taking a walk in the park.

                  Scat-party mass gay and tranny orgies, when in the closet, don’t threaten the social fabric one bit. Two men kissing in public is hazardous. Likewise, a teen prostitute may end-up saving the integrity of one’s marriage, and married women wouldn’t be particularly upset about it, because it’s not “emotional cheating”. Whereas, a 30-year-old bitch who dresses immodestly, especially when in a work-environment, is a threat to marriage, and should be made to cease the tease.

                  So a woman, starting at age 12, should be allowed to sexually please men in private, but should not be allowed to walk around with her erogenous contours visible. Can be an actual whore, but can’t wear the uniform of a whore in public.

                  I want monogamy to be the norm, which can be achieved by abolishing schools (in their stead, arranged teen marriages will be established, with teen male providers being matched with teen housewives, receiving ample support from the local community) and banning women from 90% of jobs.

                  Since pre-marital sex is not ideal, the program should be: first, abolish the age of consent, or lower it to somewhere between 10 and 12; then, get rid of “consent morality” altogether, effacing 95% or 100% of sex-legislation; now, when it’s perfectly legal to approach your teen daughter and fuck the shit out of her, whether she likes it or not, you have incentivized fathers, competent fathers, to get their daughters married as early as possible, married in their early teens, to husbands who would have an acute incentive to keep their wives in line and in the kitchen.

                  You preclude pre-marital sex not by raising the age of consent, but — counterintuitively — by getting rid of it, and by getting rid of the very notion that the “consent” of women matters. The only consent that matters is that of fathers or husbands, and if a woman is fatherless and unmarried, she is fair game, especially if she’s a teen. If fair game, especially as a teen, then there will be teen prostitutes, as there should be, but most teens will be married under patriarchal monogamy, also as it should be.

                  When fatherless and unmarried teens are fair game (in which case they are, literally, “fair game”), you have society re-structured so that men can be husbands and fathers, are incentivized and expected to be husbands and fathers, and social conventions will be tailored to this end.

                  If low-functioning and incompetent fathers fail to get their daughters married early enough to a husband patriarch, the daughters of those low-functioning and incompetent fathers will be sluts and whores, and it doesn’t matter that they’ll be sluts and whores, because low-functioning incompetent people should serve their betters, and there’s hardly a service that befits them more than providing a sexual outlet for beta males whose wives are frigid or adulterous, or for non-beta-male husbands who are simply bored with their wives.

                  There are indeed plenty of beta males whose wives are either frigid or adulterous, and husbands bored with their wives also exist, and they should all be able to legally console themselves with the teen pussies of low-class cum-dumpsters from dysfunctional families. Not to mention all the men who’ve never had a sex-life when young, who have spent their teens masturbating lonely, and whose psychological health would be greatly ameliorated if they could legally cum inside teen pussy.

                  Omega males who’ve been rejected their whole young adulthood should have legal access to the teen pussy they’ve never had, and if these omega males ever sire daughters, it’s likely that these daughters will be among the sluts and whores:

                  And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, because sluts and whores from dysfunctional households, when no one sees their lasciviousness in broad daylight, when they are active exclusively within the shadows — when during the day they dress modestly, but privately give their pussy to everyone — are saviors of marriage, possibly saviors of civilization, satisfying the urgent and compelling needs of men, so that men, builders of civilization, could focus on building civilization, and not be limited by the modern anglo-puritan state-enforced chastity whereby their unfulfilled sex-needs constantly remain unfulfilled, because it’s illegal for their unfulfilled sex-needs to be fulfilled.

                  Long-term concubinage (“sex slavery”) of teens from broken families is good for the stability of patriarchy, allowing men to spice things up if they are bored with their wives (but don’t want to leave them), or if they are, as is commonly the case, beta males with freezing-cold bedrooms; and it’s also good for those teens involved, who are better off being concubines with a roof above their heads than junkie street-tramps.

                  And big-daddy government should nowhere to be seen.

                  Now if you’ve read so far, and still consider me a puritan (or worse: “Christian puritan”), then you’ve got one strange definition of puritanism.

                  “Privately everything, publicly nothing.”

                • peppermint says:

                  》or if they are, as is commonly the case, beta males with freezing-cold bedrooms;

                  Those bedrooms would heat up in a hurry if the men started to pretend to act like men.

                  》 and it’s also good for those teens involved, who are better off being concubines with a roof above their heads than junkie street-tramps.

                  They’d be even better sold as wives on the open market instead of captured into the harem of the first man they find. But they would prefer to be in the harem of an alpha than being the wife of a man who has to buy a wife. But White sharia is about what’s good for the race as a whole, not what’s best for individuals.

                  You’re the same kind of utopian as Plato and Augustine. Ordering women to be ugly is demoralizing for alpha males who want to decorate and show off their arm candy, and screws up the biological evolution of beauty since beauty becomes impossible to signal. This feminist communism under which all women are equal is, of course, being tried now.

                • peppermint says:

                  I mean to day they’re trying to try it. Women are hard to control if you try to make them behave in a manner totally against their instincts. White sharia is fully compatible with the instinctual behavior of the Aryan race, which is how Christians started deconstructing it, claiming that they had it all figured out.

                • peppermint says:

                  Also, feminism was instituted with the Christian claim that White sharia oppressed women. It will be difficult to convince White men to actually oppress women by intentionally making them ugly, especially with White sharia right there as an alternative.

                  The time for utopianism and philosophy is over. We demand science and tradition now.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Broken dysfunctional people are generally worthless, but they can redeem themselves by serving society, which service should take the form of indentured labor for teen males aka “slavery”, and sexual servitude, whether voluntary as slut cum-dumpsters, porn actresses, and whores, or semi-voluntary as concubines, for teen females.

                  If it were legal — were it not for the puritan-religious-occupied-world (PROG) — there would be a tremendous market for it. Men would pay fortunes to get a whiff of teen pussy, and there’s nothing wrong with it, on the contrary, patriarchy and civilization are enshrined by legal teen sex and legal teen concubinage, which would come parallel to arranged teen marriage being the norm for functional people, who are the majority, and are the only people who are relevant.

                  Most fathers and husbands will find a way to keep the woman in the household, and if they fail, the consequences are well-merited. Teen females from broken low-class families should not be “saved” from providing the only kind of service they actually have to offer the rest of us, supplying men, builders of civilization, with the only resource they can “produce”, so to speak.

                  It’s literally the sole thing they are good for, the hole between their legs being more precious, in terms of objective value, than anything else they and their dysfunctional families can do for society. Legalize it!

                • peppermint says:

                  》 Broken dysfunctional people are generally worthless, but they can redeem themselves by serving society,

                  redeem themselves by serving God, as interpreted by boomers and you.

                  》 which service should take the form of indentured labor for teen males aka “slavery”, and sexual servitude, whether voluntary as slut cum-dumpsters, porn actresses, and whores, or semi-voluntary as concubines, for teen females.

                  Hard labor improves lazy men. Being used as a cum dumpster reduces the value of women. Furthermore, women by and large act the way the men around them allow, therefore they don’t need to be punished, they need to have different men around them.

                  Therefore, sell them to betas.

                  》 If it were legal — were it not for the puritan-religious-occupied-world (PROG) — there would be a tremendous market for it. Men would pay fortunes to get a whiff of teen pussy,

                  PROGs observable love female empowerment to suck rich old men’s dicks.

                  》 and there’s nothing wrong with it, on the contrary, patriarchy and civilization are enshrined by legal teen sex and legal teen concubinage, which would come parallel to arranged teen marriage being the norm for functional people, who are the majority, and are the only people who are relevant.

                  So basically, sandnigger sharia. In which those alpha males fight with each other to score slave girls for their harems, who they cover up to keep them from seducing other alpha males. And those girls who are being arrange married to a guy they don’t like, they’ll see an alpha male’s harem and working their way to the top of it as an escape route, instead of being afraid of being sold to the kind of guy who has to buy a wife.

                  And the women evolve to be hornier, less pretty but more fertile, and keep their looks for longer, and the men evolve for backbiting conflict instead of shared prosperity and building great things.

                • peppermint says:

                  Here’s a Christian saying women are chaste and a “post”-Christian saying concubinage to an alpha male is a punishment for women.

                  I blame philosophy.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Concubinage is a rather long-term arrangement and therefore it’s more likely that a well-established man would be able to keep a concubine than some pauper. But short-duration sexual servitude from teen females should be accessible even to the paupers, which supply of teen females will not dry-up for as long as unmarried, fatherless, or dysfunctional-household women exist.

                  And if you don’t want them to exist, you make them fair game, make it legal to rape the shit out of them, so there’s an acute incentive for them to get married as young as possible. Since it should not be up to women to make sexual choices (women generally should have as few choices as possible), the marriage will be arranged by fathers or at least some other male relatives.

                  And the mating would be rather assortative, since high-class women will be matched with high-class men, and low-class women who have functional fathers will be matched with low-class men, whether they like it or not, because daddy doesn’t want his lil’ princess to become a cum-receptacle.

                  So there’s monogamy and even beta and omega males can get married, but pretty sure there will still be teen sluts and whores to go around, which there should be, because the public (or the race, if you will) is served thereby, since the sex-needs of men sometimes require short-duration instant fulfillment, which is best provided by teen sluts and teen whores from dysfunctional households, whose sexual servitude, whether long- or short-term, would be more valuable than anything else they may ever offer.

                  It is better to nut inside a teen pussy than to nut inside your co-worker,

                  first, because the co-worker, unlike the teen whore, may seduce you away from your wife (“affairs” often end-up in divorced families, whereas teenage cum-receptacles are not going to break-up your family, plus, your wife won’t particularly mind it, since it’s not “emotional cheating”);

                  secondly, because it feels much better, in terms of sexual gratification regardless of any “romantic eros”, to nut inside a teen pussy than to nut inside anything else, drastically more pleasant, and unlike actual puritans, I am pro-pleasure;

                  and thirdly, because it allows low-class teen women to serve society — or “the Aryan race” — to the best of their ability, and I think people giving their full services to society is a good thing and should be encouraged.

                  (They’ve got nothing else to offer, anyway. We’re not dealing with “wife material” here, though of course, it’s not impossible that women from dysfunctional households will end up married to someone, since the lifestyle of infinite rape by everyone does not remain appealing for long – it’s better to get married to an omega male, and then cuck him, but still fuck him because women are required to fuck their husbands, than to live in the street and get raped by several omegas and betas every day. It’s a deal that both omegas and broken-home women may accept, if only for lack of a more alluring alternative.

                  And if these women choose to slut it up with alpha males, that also is a service to the race, for the aforementioned reasons; but an alpha male won’t stick around for long to entertain a low-class slut, so she goes back to the streets, sooner or later ends-up married to an omega male or a lower beta male who can offer her a roof above the head, and then proceeds to cuck him with the occasional alphas, and everyone benefits from this arrangement, since everyone is offered the best deal that could be conceivably offered within a society that nominally, if not officially, embraces monogamy)

                  Which is why the sex-legislation of the last 250 years, all of it, has to go.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It is better that a woman cucks her omega male husband, whom she still needs to fuck at least sometimes, than if she hops from one alpha-male harem to another forever.

                  If you don’t want sluts hopping from harem to harem forever, if you want them to settle-down instead of playing one alpha male against another, then you make it legal to rape unmarried women starting from age 12, so if they’re running around unmarried, they get raped by infinity omega males several times every day, and no alpha male would stick around for long to entertain them, so it’s a huge incentive to get married, and marriage here refers to monogamy.

                  Everyone benefits, and the choices females have in this matter are greatly curtailed, as they should be, because again, monogamy is officially the rule, and besides, alphas don’t stick around to entertain a teen cum-dumpster for longer than it takes them to find some other pleasant pursuit, plus, having a roof over one’s head is much appreciated by bottom-of-the-barrel sluts and whores. What’s not to like about this arrangement?

                • jim says:

                  I think you seriously over estimate the extent to which women dislike being raped.

                  Their dislike of rape is more of a shit test.

                  To compel a woman of middling sexual market value to settle down for a beta male of middling sexual market value, and be faithful to him, you just have to compel her to settle down and forbid her from fornicating with anyone else, and also forbid her from engaging in behaviors that expose her to a risk of being raped or “raped”.

                  Normalizing the rape of a certain category of women is not going to deter women from being in that category, resulting in an outcome that is the opposite of what we want. Rather, we should forcefully detain women in that category in “Homes for wayward girls”, or the “Female Factory” of the early Australian settlement.

                • Anonymous says:

                  The purpose isn’t scaring women with the prospect of “rape”. That would be an exercise in futility. The purpose of my proposal is to scare fathers with the prospect of their daughters getting raped, so as to incentivize them to marry off their daughters around puberty.

                  Also, to make it acceptable — that is, unpunishable — for men to have sex with, or “rape”, fertile-age women who don’t feel like monogamy is their thing.

                  That way, most women, 90% of women, will be married monogamously under patriarchy (their fathers will make sure of that), while low-class sluts from dysfunctional households will be fair game, so that chastity won’t be enforced on men, because enforcing chastity on men is puritanism, which is against nature. I see no flaw in this program.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Also, you’re missing something: most women only like rape because in their fantasy, the rapist is a charming and dangerous demon-lover. After a woman is raped repeatedly by low-value omega males who are repellent and entirely unsexy, no longer likes rape.

                  But this is beside the point, because you want to scare fathers, not daughters.

                • Turtle says:

                  I think I’ll comment less to not start so many too long, not so related threads between peppermint and Anonymous. You can keep quibbling without me.

                  >> I get the sense that in between injecting your God everywhere you imagine that because God you can live like a sultan. That that will lead to women evolving to be uglier and hornier while men grow more aggressive and less competent.

                  God does not get jizzed into my life. The Holy Spirit enters mankind in Holy Baptism. Sultans live poorly, from getting backstabbed by their servants to the pain of ennui (sloth+pride). I have felt like a spoiled kid before, and that’s enough to ward off faith in worldly privilege.

                  Women do not evolve, nothing does.

                  Change is illusory, only of this age.

                  >> In reality men treat one night stands completely differently from women they respect. A one night stand, you want to jab it up her butthole to brag to your
                  future wife about. Your wife, you don’t want to injure her.

                  Plenty of men miss their one night stands and want to have married them. A ho is a housewife, and a housewife is a ho, in moral terms. I don’t do splitting of people according to my own standards of goodness, which is judgmental, I do theological splitting of good and evil (a housewife who never prays is no better or worse than a godless whore, but a pious barren woman or eunuch is blessed, as I cited earlier, and barrenness and eunuchhood are not just about reproduction, these people include neets for example).

                  Everything is only good as pleases God, given my absolutist faith (no objective morality as in objectivism or gnostic darwinism; the Way is just obeying God). I don’t consider sex a special case in morality, it’s treated the same as food and games. One monk saint, Basil the Great, is famed for playing sports with the village guys when spiritual seekers, like hippies, wanted him to be their guru and he decided to enjoy a game with his friends instead, and another monk saint is far less well-known but equally venerated for binge drinking and sleeping with whores. We don’t judge, except in sin.

                  >> (not gonna happen)

                  There are plenty of hot nuns in their 20s. They’re just as unjudgable as the porn stars I liked, but they don’t turn me on as much. What does that mean, I wonder.

                  About offering that cookie, oddly baked by someone else I’m sure, maybe you meant it as a brideprice/sum. If so, that’s great content for a short story (not fiction though, lying is boring).

                  I believe in arranged marriage, meaning both universal soul mate theory, where all people with souls, thus everyone, can mate (no homo) except for miscegenation and incest, and obedience. I have always felt that I have a duty to make women who like me happy. You might think that I was their foolish slave, but really, I rejected them, knowing I would dump them unfairly or get them to dump me. And this was a mistake as bad as insincere dating or hooking up. So I know my sins in this area, and my virtues too, because I repent.

                  You seem remorseful about your own promiscuity, but why not be contrite instead, and now marry that woman you wish you had married? Is it really too late, is she too old and used up? I don’t accept the manosphere meme that women’s fertility is vital to a marriage’s success. Recently, it was found that women can generate new eggs. So I don’t want cuck-style adoptions instead of siring and birthing children, but we do need orphanages run by monastics, and homes for lost adults too, especially the mentally/emotionally/spiritually ill and runaways. So we need the Church, institutionally speaking, because she invented schools and hospitals. Civilization is a Christian repertoire.

                  You talk about sharia, which reminds me of the white guys I’ve met who are Muslim because the Arabs are rich and have worldly splendors, like ice rinks in the desert. I talk about the spiritual wealth of monastic life, which requires a vow of poverty. Big difference- my asceticism includes luxuries, as taught by St. John Chrysostom, because pleasure is itself good, a gift from God. But I don’t call painful wealth (e.g. skyscrapers where the workers fall and die just because they don’t have safety equipment, not because they’re doing dangerous work) a good, so there is no worldly wealth I formally want. I am more tempted by being proudly charitable than conventional self-indulgence, and fight to discipline women as much as I fight my lust; being beta is perversion.

                  Patriarchy is chastity, and marriage is as erotic as monasticism.

                • Turtle says:

                  >> The biggest concern is victory over the enemies of our people.

                  >> And in the future we build, we will never go back to bullshitting about chaste eros or victory over death. People who talk about chaste eros will have the chastity of their eros secured by removal of their gonads, and people who talk about victory over death will be crucified to see if they rise again.

                  If you encounter ghosts, demons, etc. then you’re no longer a humanist worried about kikes or niggers. I’m too experienced for cults of humanity, judging
                  different groups as good or bad based on ignorant preferences and ideas- been there, moved on.

                  Russia had a tiny cult of repugnant puritan-type people who would mutilate their genitals, both sexes, not just eunuchs. It’s not an anglo-only thing.

                  I do not call women chaste, or sex bad. I think you’re straw-manning against the argument you have heard elsewhere, that women are angelic and men are demonic. I say, angels are angelic, and fallen angels are demonic. Only humans are made in God’s image, importantly. That doesn’t mean we can’t fuck women, it means we look like Jesus and his mother, and, unknowably, God the Father too.
                  My mother admits to my father when she finds some other man attractive, and they then leave, not blaming the handsome guy or getting upset. They’re adults about it. I think this is normal.
                  But normalcy aside, you are offended that I “insult Aryan women.” Have I said a single thing about this race of people, not about sex in general? I think you’re unreasonably upset.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Russia had a tiny cult of repugnant puritan-type people who would mutilate their genitals, both sexes, not just eunuchs. It’s not an anglo-only thing.

                  Yeah, and that scares the shit out of me. Are all whites potential puritans? If so, then the situation is really bad. Really really bad. Hope that’s not the case.

Leave a Reply