The cervix and rape

tl;dr: Legalize rape. Ban fornication. Old Testament got it right.

It is often said, and it is largely true, that women cannot get pregnant by rape. Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.

To get a woman pregnant, the sperm has to swim from the vagina to the womb, which is a mighty marathon race for something the size of a sperm. And between the vagina and the womb, there is the cervix, which is a pair of lips.

What are lips for?

Lips are for opening and closing entrance to an orifice. They are to keep out some things, and allow entrance to other things.

So that sperm is not going anywhere unless those lips open.

If you touch a woman’s cervix and it is not her fertile period, the lips feel hard closed, like the lips of a woman’s mouth when you go for the kiss too soon, and do not permit her to turn her head away, so she purses her lips against the kiss.

If you touch a woman’s cervix in her fertile period, it is like touching the lips of a woman’s mouth when she is ready to be kissed. They feel like they are about to open, and if you keep on diddling her pussy, they do indeed open.

It seems likely that if a nice guy were to touch those lips, he would feel them hard, as if the girl was not in her fertile period, but being an asshole, I have not been able to do that experiment.

So from the point of view of natural selection rape is not a problem for women. Women have control of who can impregnate them. She has lips where it counts.

Rape is however a huge problem for husbands, who get cucked, and moderate problem for fathers, who find that they, rather than their son in law, is supporting their grandchild.

Observing female behavior, many of them do not seem to be trying very hard to avoid rape. One does not see businessmen wandering in dark and sketchy places with two bulging wallets half falling out of their top pockets.

If you see a woman in a laundromat late at night, and there is no one around, it is always a single woman. A husband will usually put his foot down and forbid the risky behavior that women so easily engage in.

Emancipating women means treating female consent as more meaningful than it actually is. Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want. Their sexual choices are erratic, incompetent, inconsistent, incoherent, and frequently self harming. They lack agency.

“Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women. It is harmful to husbands as a particular case of cuckoldry. We are very severe against rape because we wish we could be severe against cuckoldry, but forbidding cuckoldry is a thought crime, so we displace our rage against cuckoldry to rage against rape.

Similarly, college girls get chewed up and spat out by the cock carousel, so we fetishize ever higher standards of consent for college, when the problem is not lack of consent, but a superabundance of foolish and self destructive consent. The problem is not lecherous college males, but lecherous college females.

Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.

However, safe forms of corporal punishment, such as whipping a woman on the buttocks or the upper back, should not be considered harm when done by proper authority, such as husband or father, for proper reason.

Nor should sex without the consent of the woman be considered harm of the woman in itself, since female consent is erratic and mysterious even to the woman herself, but rather, sex with a married or betrothed women should be considered harm against the husband or fiance, and sex without the permission of the father should be considered harm against the father – illicit sex should be a crime against the man who has proper authority over the woman.

And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.

134 Responses to “The cervix and rape”

  1. Wrong Side of History says:

    There is the red pill – and then there is Jim.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Wrong Side”,

      The Manosphere writes from the perspective of suitors or husbands, but “Jim” thankfully writes from that of fathers.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

  2. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Rape is however a huge problem for husbands, who get cucked, and moderate problem for fathers, who find that they, rather than their son in law, is supporting their grandchild.”

    Orphanages are also an option and a great target for charitable works, provided they are privately funded to a sufficient degree.

    A.J.P.

    • Mackus says:

      No. Bastards ought to be aborted, if their mothers are married/engaged. If she runs away to avoid having her bastard aborted, marriage/engagement would be dissolved, and she would be guilty of abandonment, and liable for any damages she caused by abandonment.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        If…If… The March of the Straw-Men.

        A.J.P.

        • Mackus says:

          Whats your point?

        • Mark Citadel says:

          Agree with you AJP. Mackus is foolish. Historically, orphans often went on to become great monks to maintain monastic retreats, raised in the priesthood. They are very useful provided you have an institution that can put them to work. One of the key responsibilities of a Church is dealing with unfortunately orphaned children, though in a well functioning society, 90% of such orphans would be orphans as a result of tragedy rather than promiscuity.

          • Mackus says:

            Just because something is useful, it doesn’t mean its justifiable. Would you allow someone to impregnate your wife, just because he has high IQ and society needs high IQ people?
            Orphanages might be totally awesome at raising bastards into next generation, sure, why not, but husbands have their rights, those rights include to kill any offspring of their wives that aren’t his.
            >> in a well functioning society, 90% of such orphans would be orphans as a result of tragedy rather than promiscuity.
            Well, society could survive having 10% less priests and monks, but if women are allowed to have babies not with their husbands (no consequences! she gives bastard away and church will raise it! no expenses! alpha fucks, church bucks!), society will quickly cease to be “well functioning”

          • peppermint says:

            yes, stuff any orphans, oldfags without any money, tramps, aidsfags, etc. in the monastery/no-kill human shelter; make the monastery/no-kill human shelter as self-sustaining as possible with a minimum of confessors/psychologists and abbots/wardens from the outside

  3. Herald says:

    “Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.”

    Hindbrain may enjoy; other parts of the brain may not. Just because some areas of the brain/body were on board, it doesn’t mean she wasn’t harmed.

    “Rape is not in itself harmful to women.”

    It’s not that simple. I get your point that women’s agency around sex is so shitty, and consent and nonconsent is hard to diagnose, so it should be outsourced to patriarchy. It does not follow, however, that there aren’t genuine cases of rape that harm the woman. People with low and conflicting agency get harmed all the time, through a combination of their efforts and others’: see alcoholics and schizophrenics.

    • jim says:

      “Of course they can get pregnant as a result of someone having sex with them while holding a knife to their throat while they scream and weep and struggle and protest, but unlikely to get pregnant unless they rather enjoyed the knife and the screaming and the weeping and the struggling and the protest.”

      Hindbrain may enjoy; other parts of the brain may not. Just because some areas of the brain/body were on board, it doesn’t mean she wasn’t harmed.

      Yes, but the same is true of partying at college.

      We should stop harmful sex. Female consent is a poor criterion for what is harmful and what is not.

  4. B says:

    The one thing I can say about your plan for sure is that it will result in a lot more colored kids born to white women.

    >And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.

    This is not what the Torah says. For instance see the betrothed maiden who was raped in a field-the court presumes she did not consent.

    I would also like to point out that supposedly (I haven’t tried the experiment) men who are raped involuntarily become erect and orgasm, and that one of the aftereffects of being tortured is sexual arousal (J the Water Engineer says he was told this by his Argentine friends who suffered during Op Condor.) Does this mean the raped or tortured man gave consent?

    If a woman is infertile (due to age, like the Tel Aviv grandmother who was raped by Sudanese “refugees,” or for other reasons,) does this mean her rape is inconsequential?

    What about a woman who is a ward of the state?

    In short, this is what happens when you read Torah without context.

    • jim says:

      >And whether the woman herself consented to that illicit sex should be a matter for the man that has proper authority over that woman, and should be not a matter of interest for the law or the courts.

      True: but:

      The Old Testament policy of banning illicit sex rather than rape is correct. The Old Testament policy of reaching into the patriarchal family and regulating patriarchal authority is a slippery slope that has brought us to our present condition. (Insert Peppermint Papist rant. Yes, I am criticizing the Old Testament as too far left.)

      supposedly (I haven’t tried the experiment) men who are raped involuntarily become erect and orgasm

      Men resist being dominated because they really do not want to be dominated. Women resist being dominated because they want to be dominated by worthy men. Female resistance to rape is akin to a shit test, to filter out unworthy rapists. Male resistance to rape is usually entirely real.

      If a woman is infertile (due to age, like the Tel Aviv grandmother who was raped by Sudanese “refugees,” or for other reasons,) does this mean her rape is inconsequential

      Was she widowed? If widowed and unmarried the Old Testament does not seem to find so minor a matter worthy of being specifically addressed.

      If someone’s wife, still an insult to the husband. Wife goggles.

      • B says:

        The Torah bans rape as well as illicit sex and makes a distinction between the two. A betrothed girl who is caught having sex with someone in a place where there was a reasonable expectation that had she resisted, people would have come to her rescue is put to death along with the man. A betrothed girl who is raped in a secluded place is explicitly compared to a murder victim, is innocent and is not put to death.

        Needless to say, the Torah brings edge cases. Being the Torah of Israel and not the Torah of fools, it does not need to exhaustively list every single possibility, and the possibilities it lists are not exhaustive but delimit a framework, as it were. The Torah does not need to explain that raping widows is a serious crime explicitly because its target audience is not dummies with no context. It also doesn’t need to list all the possible things you can steal when it teaches us that stealing is prohibited and about the penalties, or to explain all the different ways you can have sex with an animal when it tells us that this brings the death penalty.

        We know that widows have serious rights because, for instance, of the daughters of Zelopehad, who argued with Moses and were correct. In general, we see the Torah is explicitly concerned with human dignity and with women’s dignity specifically in several places.

        Adultery is not prohibited because it is “an insult to the husband,” any more than having sex with a sheep is prohibited because it is an insult to the owner of the sheep. It is punished with death. Insults carry a fine.

        Women resist being raped for the same reason that men resist being raped, i.e., that they do not want to be raped. Some women do desire sex with men which are forbidden to them, just as some men are passive homosexuals.

        Both men and women have involuntary physiological responses to rape, which does not make it less rape. Both of course can claim that they were raped when they were willing participants, and we know from the Torah that there are guidelines to how to judge the truth of these claims.

        • BobbyBrigs says:

          >Women resist being raped for the same reason that men resist being raped, i.e., that they do not want to be raped.

          I belived that when I was a teenager. Experience in my 20s with women who were raped tells a much different tale. Again B, you have almost actual experience outside your cathedral controlled bubble.

          Jim is largely correct and you as usual are full of donkey excrement.

          • peppermint says:

            I know of three women who were raped.

            One of them, it was the first week of school, everyone was getting to know everyone else, and she let dis nigga get up in her dorm room, later he came back with his frien dey raped de wyte bish an take her computer. Only consensual if women understand that niggas like vampires.

            One of them, she was sitting in the car because underage while her friends were getting drinks. Even if any time a woman enters a nigga geto unaccompanied, it means she wants the black dik, it wasn’t her choice, her friends left her.

            One of them, yeah, college age White woman tryna cross a ghetto alone dont she kno if she enters alone she ain’t be leaving alone?

            All of this of course means segregation is absolutely necessary as a bare minimum, but it also means rape isn’t always the women’s choice.

            • jim says:

              Went to the ghetto under own power. Engaged in risky behavior under own power. I would say it was her choice. I bet some male authority figure told her “If you go to the ghetto, you will get raped”, and five minutes later she heads off to the ghetto and arranges to be by herself in the ghetto.

          • B says:

            >Experience in my 20s with women who were raped tells a much different tale.

            With women who were raped or with women who were “raped”?

          • peppermint says:

            okay, but a lot of colleges where college age White women hang out are surrounded by the ghetto, most notoriously, the University of Chicago

          • Dan Kurt says:

            re: “a lot of colleges where college age White women hang out are surrounded by the ghetto” peppermint

            I know of three Ivys that fit tis bill and in the ’60s and early ’70s I was there at one of them. Except for muggings the blacks left students alone and rape was not a problem at the one I attended. Thirty years later things had changed. A class mate of mine took his daughter to the Ivy campus for a tour when the daughter was considering colleges. The place was in veritable lockdown unlike when we were there. Security cops were rampant. Key cards were needed to get into previous open buildings. I am not sure the unusually bright girls on campus were actually looking for Mud Sharking as they (as in my time) were hoping to get an Ivy Husband and the danger poised by the surrounding blacks was recognized by the Administration of the Ivy as it would be hard on recruiting girls should there be too much rape.

            Dan Kurt

          • peppermint says:

            Funny thing. That White woman I was talking about who was raped in the coontown next to the college, that was during the ’70s. University police didn’t want to hear about it, since it’s racist to know about and makes the university look bad as well. City police took the report, found the dindus, sentenced them to community service.

            This happened enough times that Congress passed a law requiring universities to tell people about crimes…

            …so when I went to college, every other week, there were emails from campus police saying that there was some crime or other and police are looking for a dindu.

        • jim says:

          The Torah bans rape as well as illicit sex and makes a distinction between the two.

          The only distinction being that if rape, the female is not punished.

          For the male, the punishment is for adultery. It makes no difference whether the woman consented or not.

          • B says:

            >The only distinction being that if rape, the female is not punished.

            Which distinction would be meaningless if the Torah held the point of view you ascribe to it, which is that women have no real agency.

            >For the male, the punishment is for adultery.

            What do you want them to do, kill him twice?

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Jim”,

        People who believe the holy Scripture is wrong are better served buying a dictionary than straying to any other book for commentary…

        A.J.P.

        • jim says:

          I believe my only criticism of holy scripture in this post is that I criticized the provision for executing a woman who has been seduced, arguing that decision should be left to the father or husband.

          But I suspect that is not the criticism that you have in mind.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            Whatever your father or husband tells you about it is probably right.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Whatever is wrong about it is not actually wrong about it. It’s man that is wrong, and lack of faith is what ruins civilisations.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              So where is the Christianity that is willing to defend marriage in particular and civilization in general?

              God is dead not because the laity have lost faith, but because the priests and churches have lost faith.

              Zippy argues the (stupid and incoherent) traditional Christian position on usury, while rationalizing that racism is a sin, and a wife’s disobedience is not.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “God is dead” said a man, many years ago.

            “That man is dead” said God, only yesterday.

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >“That man is dead” said God, only yesterday.
            Of course, not literally. Because God either doesn’t literally talk, or stopped literally talking around 33 AD.

            Hmmm…

          • peppermint says:

            In Mark Citadel’s East, and in Poland.

            http://www.dailystormer.com/poland-football-fans-unfurl-huge-defend-christianity-banner/

            Everywhere else, it’s all Jesus pardoned the adulteress and demanded that men police their thoughts to not even think about women they’re not married to, welcome the stranger or go to hell, no Greek or Jew or male or female but all are one in Christ, the meek shall inherit the Earth, and the grasshopper Lazarus goes to heaven while the ant who didn’t share goes to hell.

            The West only has cuckstainty and atheistic cuckstainty. There’s no going back to the days when it was possible for Black and White to live in the same places, ostensibly worship the same God, and not have much miscegenation or violence. The only other option is to take biology seriously.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            R.N.G., not interested in your secular point of view. Commie-land is far away in a different direction.

            Stop bothering me.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The reason I tell you to go seek your man is because women or the androgynous can’t understand philosophy and especially not theology.

            Literally, the way you read what I just wrote is “blah blah… I tell you to go seek a man to tell you what you’re interested in ..blah blah blah blah blah”

            And if you, off-line, do find the man that you care enough for to submit to, your respect for the things he tells you about would be precisely tied to your respect for he, himself.

            That’s why what I write to you is actually more for the non-commenting reader than for you…

            Such is the important of institutions, and quality institutions, in a civilisation. Guidance. Shepherding. Instruction.

            A.J.P.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “So where is the Christianity that is willing to defend marriage in particular and civilization in general?”

            In my view, it largely went away when Christians stopped equating self-defense with defense of heritage. They ceased being willing to kill the enemy, not the personal enemy, but the enemy of the group. I’d say there exists still this spirit in the heartland of Orthodoxy (I see it in Novorossiya), but it is practically extinct in the West.

            Christians have to realize that to survive, you behave like Hezbollah. To die you behave like Joel Osteen.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Oriental Church is very far from being Orthodox. There literally have a saint with the head of a dog! Barbarous.

            Self-hate requires Westerners to look far away for orthodox Christianity, when it lies right under the Cathedral’s scab.

            A.J.P.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            AJP – St. Christopher is depicted in art with a dog’s head due to an unfortunate mistranslation of the word Cananeus by Byzantines.

            You may be right about the scab of the Cathedral in the West, but the scab better come off soon because Christianity there is dying on the vine while its ministers favor the importing of the third world.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            M.C.,

            The Restoration Church of England looks plenty Orthodox to me.

          • peppermint says:

            “Restoration Church of England”

            I even took time out of my busy day to google that denomination. Came up with nothing. But if it’s a branch of the Church of England, presumably it recognizes Queen Elizabeth II, defenser fidei, and her Archbishop of Canterbury, Desmond Tutu.

            When will one of them call for Minister Pigfucker to resign?

          • Mark Citadel says:

            can you provide information on that, AJP? Like Peppermint, I’m having trouble finding it.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            AJP is referring to a period of the Anglican church. Not a modern denomination. Of course, he can’t attend a church that only exists in the past. If we could, perhaps you could all just drop by the Last Supper, rather than attending a modern Divine Liturgy.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England)

            @Mark Citadel
            >In my view, it largely went away when Christians stopped equating self-defense with defense of heritage.
            More likely, it largely went away when Christians started following the gospels. Prior to the modern era, the crazy stuff in the sermon in the mount was only for monastics. In the modern era, everyone is expected to share Jesus’ attitude on sex, money, violence, et cetera.

            And even in 1000 AD, the most dedicated Christians (monastics) took vows of poverty, celibacy and pacifism. Modern socialism is descended from the gospel’s ideas on wealth.

            Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

            Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

            A Marxist might prefer. “If society would be perfect”. A Marxist would also object to the idea that the “The Kingdom of Heaven” is allegorical. He would have understood it as a this-worldly Kingdom. Of course, historians (and the 1st century Romans) tend to see Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary, and the Kingdom of Heaven as a literal Kingdom. So perhaps the Marxists are right.

            Progressive sexual norms are descended from Jesus’ ideas on women, marriage and the Jewish Law.

            John 8:5-7 “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”. This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

            Matthew 19:8-12 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.

            Celibacy is best. Cuckoldry is second best. Mistreating women is worst. You should forgive cuckoldry without a display of contrition, or a period of repentance. As Obama said on NPR a few months ago, “there is no excuse to hit a woman”.

            Progressive ideas on violence are descended from Jesus’ ideas on violence. I don’t think I need to cite verses to demonstrate this one.

        • peppermint says:

          hey AJP, what do you think about the story of La’Zarus and the rich Brad in Luke 16?

    • Mark Citadel says:

      How would it result in this if all colored people were deported from white society? Hint: it wouldn’t.

      • B says:

        Hint: when they shot all the wolves in any given state, in 50 years the coyotes had grown to 70 pounds and taken what used to be the wolves’ niche.

        • Eli says:

          Great analogy, B! (Though, wolves and coyotes are related, but that’s a minor nitpick.)

          This list contains some more examples from the animal kingdom (though more pertinent here is to focus on behavioral traits):

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

          • peppermint says:

            the fact that wolves and coyotes are related is definitely relevant here, because the new coyotes are actually hybrid coywolves, who are better suited to the new environment than either coyotes or wolves

          • B says:

            Well, American blacks and whites are also related. So what?

            This idea that American whites are these angelic creatures and it’s only the black underclass that is the issue is idiotic. There is an American white underclass which is not quite as large or degenerate, but quite comparable overall. What, you think meth and oxycontin are recreationally consumed by mostly physics grad students? So in Citadel’s system, which is Jim’s system minus blacks and hispanics, and where raping an unmarried woman living on her own is not a crime, you’d have a lot of kids descended from white underclass fathers.

            • jim says:

              So in Citadel’s system, which is Jim’s system minus blacks and hispanics, and where raping an unmarried woman living on her own is not a crime, you’d have a lot of kids descended from white underclass fathers.

              No. You would have few or no unmarried women living on their own.

              At present, in practice, fertile age women do not really live on their own. Rather they have a stream of alpha males passing through their apartments.

              It really is in a woman’s long term interest to choose one man and stick faithfully to him, but in practice fairly dire coercion is required to force most women to do that during their hottest years when they have too many options, as the experience of the early settlement of Australia demonstrated. The proposal is to supply that dire coercion, to make women do what they should do and think that they are trying to do, think that they want to do but are somehow mysteriously failing to do.

          • B says:

            Your system is more or less in practice in ghetto black and hispanic society. Rape is not reported or punished unless by the male family members of the rape victim. Does this lead to an increase in stable monogamous families?

            • jim says:

              The problem is not rape, but fatherlessness, and fatherlessness is a recent phenomenon caused by female emancipation.

              Which is the absolute opposite of my system.

              Children in the black community are not fatherless by rape, but by hypergamy, not fatherless by male lust but by female lust.

              The problem is not that the wise decisions of black females are being overruled by male rapists, but that the unwise decisions of black females are permitted.

              Single women living alone are in effect a commons. The solution to the tragedy of the commons is to propertize it.

          • B says:

            The unwise decisions of black females are quite rational given the menu of choices they have.

            In an anarchical environment, having kids with a thug is pretty reasonable. While he’s around, you might get some protection. When he goes to jail, replace him with another thug.

            In this kind of environment, for non-pack leader types, rape might be a reasonable sexual option. If you can’t compete sexually in the open, stealing what you want is a reasonable way to go.

            Obviously, this selects for thugs and rapists.

            Basic animal planet stuff.

            • jim says:

              The unwise decisions of black females are quite rational given the menu of choices they have.

              Rational given that Uncle Sam the Big Pimp funds fatherless children.

              But the reason we wound up funding fatherless children was that emancipated women were apt to have fatherless children whether funded or not. The problem then is to coercively stop them from choosing to have fatherless chidren whether funded or not.

              There was a time when black males were a lot poorer than they are today, yet every black child had a black father.

              To get cooperate cooperate, rather than defect defect, you need enforcement. Sex and reproduction switched from cooperate cooperate to defect defect because we abandoned enforcement on women, not because we abandoned enforcement on men.

          • B says:

            >But the reason we wound up funding fatherless children was that emancipated women were apt to have fatherless children whether funded or not.

            This is not so.

            They were apt to have fatherless children once guaranteed funding from the father extracted and supplemented by the state if he couldn’t pay. The War on Poverty and the War on Deadbeat Dads and the War on Drugs.

            They did not start having fatherless children because all of a sudden rape became a crime. Rape has been a crime forever and a day. Black fatherlessness took off in the 60s.

            They also did not start having fatherless children when “rape” became a crime, because it became a crime long after the massive wave of black bastards took off, and because in their ghettoes, “rape” is not a thing. Neither is actual rape for that matter-snitches get stitches.

            • jim says:

              >But the reason we wound up funding fatherless children was that emancipated women were apt to have fatherless children whether funded or not.

              This is not so.
              They were apt to have fatherless children once guaranteed funding from the father extracted and supplemented by the state if he couldn’t pay. The War on Poverty and the War on Deadbeat Dads and the War on Drugs.

              The level of fatherlessness before world war II, though considerably less than at present, was intolerable for lack of the war on poverty etc, was a compelling reason for the war on poverty and all that.

              First we allowed women to behave badly. Then they behaved badly. Then we were horrified by the suffering they inflicted on themselves and their children, and so proceeded to subsidize their bad behavior, which of course increased the bad behavior.

              But the bad behavior came first.

              Men are innately protective towards women. If we allow women to behave badly, we will not allow them to suffer the natural consequences of their bad behavior.

          • B says:

            >The level of fatherlessness before world war II, though considerably less than at present, was intolerable

            Do you have a source for levels of fatherlessness over time and their relative intolerability?

            >First we allowed women to behave badly.

            When, exactly?

            • jim says:

              >First we allowed women to behave badly.

              When, exactly?

              Starting with Queen Caroline, and then it escalated over time and worked its way down to the masses.

          • B says:

            Well, there was quite a period between Queen Catherine, who lived in the beginning of the 19th century, and the Great Society. All sorts of stuff happened in that period-for instance, it can’t be said that the US of the mid- and late-19th century was particularly Puritanical, and the Civil War and following social disruption did not contribute to a drop in fatherlessness.

            Yet you are saying that all of that did not result in “intolerable” levels of fatherlessness.

            But the period immediately before the Great Society and the introduction of massive subsidies to single mothers as well as the war on drugs saw “intolerable” levels of fatherlessness, you say.

            OK-what is the source for this assertion?

            I suspect that the level of fatherlessness was not the issue, but rather that the whole project was just typical social engineering by the Foundations. But anyway would like to see some sources.

            • jim says:

              No, none of that is what I say. You are, as usual, going talmudic on my words. You are not arguing in good faith.

              You treat my words and your sources with the same disrespect that Jews treat the Old Testament. You torture the text until it confesses its crimes.

              Taking care of “fallen women” (and thus incentivizing them to fall) was a continuous movement left, that started in Victorian times and has been continually escalating ever since, and every step of that movement left was motivated and justified by the very real, serious, and substantial problems faced by fallen women, which problems would be inhumane and unmanly to ignore.

              Example: “Les Miserables”.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Jim, you say that men should coerce women because women’s decisions become men’s responsibility anyways because men care about women. Yet the coercion occurring in the history you reference involved beatings, forced intercourse and murder as enforcement–and this is necessary because men care? It seems like a rationalization for instituting BDSM as the law of the land. But if even the men reject your BDSM, why would women want some?

            • jim says:

              Reading contemporary sources, not nearly enough beatings and forced intercourse.

              During the early period of settlement of Australia, women had far too many options, because men heavily outnumbered women, so were inclined to fuck around rather than marry. The government theoretically applied extreme measures such as public floggings to enforce sexual submission to one man and no others, but there were plenty of examples of women openly and publicly engaging in immorality.

              A bunch of women were detained for illicit pregnancy and the pastor/jailer demanded to know the father, with the intent of imposing shotgun marriage on the women and the men that they named. The women engaged in a mass protest by removing their clothes, assuming the position, slapping their own backsides, and naming the pastor as father. There were several such protests against forced marriage as a remedy for illicit pregnancy – by women, not men, where women protested in an indecent manner, individually or collectively.

              For a group subject to beatings and forced intercourse, seem mighty saucy.

          • B says:

            “Les Miserables” is your source?

            Do you have any sources indicating that over the 150 years from 1810 to 1960 there was an increase in “fallen women” or fatherless children?

            • jim says:

              I am not going to debate sources with someone who habitually ignores or lies about sources, including a source that he theoretically regards as holy and sacred.

          • B says:

            And with your little “Talmudic” insults, I have to tell you that reading a text closely is a sign of respect. Just throwing stuff out there which is either unfalsifiable or plainly contradicted is disrespectful, and you do it all the time. Anything from asserting that Shabbat is for bass fishing to saying that the Torah sees no difference between rape and adultery.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            B, try to keep up. I want ethnically homogeneous societies. I never said there wouldn’t still be an underclass. Your original statement was “The one thing I can say about your plan for sure is that it will result in a lot more colored kids born to white women.” and my counter-point was that this would not occur in an ethnically homogeneous society.

            Obviously there are lower classes. Is everyone a Brahmin? No.

            But you avoid having children of other ethnicities born in large numbers when those ethnicities are not present or easily accessible. I find it especially funny when Israelis try to make points against ethnically homogeneous societies. What, is it too good for us?

          • B says:

            You are missing the point that your system would incentivize the underclass males to reproduce by rape, whichever color they were.

            Thanks for the implication that we have an ethnically homogeneous society. I won’t tell my Yemenite, Polish, Russian, Persian and French-Tunisian neighbors, or the Ethiopian, Indian and Bnei Menashe Jews, or they might leave.

          • Jack says:

            B is correct. Israel, which is 20% Muslim, is not homogeneous. What B won’t admit to is that without those 20% Muslims, Israel would have descended into ethno-religious strife between different Jewish factions, with secular Ashkenazim, quasi-Slavic Russian Jews, traditionalist Mizrahim of different ethnicities, Orthodox fundamentalists, and Niggers engaging in the same race war as any other peoples in the Diversified West. As always, artificial nations are united against a common enemy. B won’t admit to it because he paints a rosy picture of Jews having a “unifying vision” which he identifies as his Torah, whereas actually nothing unites Israeli Jews, nothing since the expulsion of Mizrahim from the Middle-East to Israel, besides the Palestinian menace.

            I see a parallel between WN and Israel, as both are artificial and exist due to outside adversaries. Though Germans and Italians still have more in common than Yemenites and Russians.

          • B says:

            >without those 20% Muslims, Israel would have descended into ethno-religious strife between different Jewish factions, with secular Ashkenazim, quasi-Slavic Russian Jews, traditionalist Mizrahim of different ethnicities, Orthodox fundamentalists, and Niggers engaging in the same race war as any other peoples in the Diversified West.

            Unlikely.

            First, because besides the Muslim population within Israel’s borders, we have a massive hostile Muslim population around those borders.

            Second, because we see ourselves as fundamentally one people. We speak the same language, intermarry, pray together and live in mixed communities unlike “whites” who have nothing whatsoever in common. The people who do not share this sense of commonality also do not follow the Torah and do not have children, so they are not an issue in the long term.

            Third, there is always an exit; Israelis, with their drive, ambition, multiple languages, etc., can always make a living outside the Land. And this is a pressure release valve; the people who do not feel themselves to be Jews first and Georgians, Ashkenazim, Bukharim or whatever second, tend to leave. After all, life is easier outside; here you constantly have to fight.

            It is wrong to project non-Jewish realities on Jews; we’re “a nation that dwells apart” in more senses than one. There is a sense of brotherhood which I have not seen in the other nations of the world. I spent a year, while working on my master’s degree, hitchhiking to and from school. I got rides from secular, Orthodox, Ashkenazi, Sepharadi, Bukhari, etc. Jews at all hours of the day and night. I pick up hitchhikers daily myself. Everything is like that here. Even a mechanic who screws you over will stop if he sees you standing on the side of the road with thumb out.

            In short-we are not you.

          • Jack says:

            There’s more solidarity among Jews because of a shared religion that is very ethnocentric, but American Whites all speak English and have an American identity, plus many still retain a Christian mindset, so it seems more likely that Muslims unite the Israelis rather than merely Judaism; Israeli society was cohesive even while socialist atheists ruled it. Muslims have Asabiyah in spades, yet still butcher one another. I guess Jews, being tribal, can maintain high trust communities composed exclusively of Jews, and being neurotic, clever, and averse to physical confrontation, do not rush to behead people. But without Arab Muslims, Jews would drift apart, each Jewish faction pursuing its own interests, till civil war. As Israel becomes blacker, the likelihood of civil war increases. Arabs save Jews from themselves, but not forever.

          • Jack says:

            Remove kebab, and civil war between Zionists who want to rebuild the Temple, Orthodox who want to impose the Sanhedrin’s Halachic rule on all the rest, darkies who want gibsmedat, Progs who want soshul jushtish, and embittered atheists will commence. Those tensions are given a respite by Palestinian knives. Remove the kebab, and bagels, matsos, falafels and bacon go to war.

            • jim says:

              Diversity plus proximity means war

              B, I suspect, believes that God has given the Jews a horde of enemies to force them to be one people.

          • Eli says:

            Having an “American” identity means very little nowadays, even for the born majority, unless one has been living in an American town/locale for generations. In fact, today, being an American citizen is almost like being a citizen of Roman Empire: one needs to pay taxes, has good protections/benefits. That’s about it, the most distinguishing factor being common language, English. Of course, I used to think otherwise, when I was younger and sincerely pledging the Oath of Allegiance. I am no longer of the view. I am now merely a citizen of the Empire. And those who think otherwise are fools who are used by the establishment, many members of which are far from cohesive and, worse, lack a strong vision and stake beyond a single generation or two.

          • B says:

            >I guess Jews, being tribal

            We’re not “tribal.” We’re supertribal.

            >being neurotic, clever, and averse to physical confrontation

            Yes, that is totally us. You might want to update your stereotypes.

            >Muslims have Asabiyah in spades,

            No, they don’t, and have not for a very long time.

            >American Whites all speak English and have an American identity

            Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Vlachs all spoke more or less the same language and had a Yugoslav identity.

            How did that turn out?

            I told you-we are not you.

            >Zionists who want to rebuild the Temple, Orthodox who want to impose the Sanhedrin’s Halachic rule on all the rest

            You are an idiot. These are the same thing-there is no Temple without a Sanhedrin and vice versa.

            >darkies who want gibsmedat

            Our “darkies” do not want gibs.

            >Progs who want soshul jushtish, and embittered atheists

            These last two are the same thing. And as I told you, they are leaving/not having children.

          • Jack says:

            >We’re not “tribal.” We’re supertribal.

            Not to question your self-declared special snowflakism, but what does it even mean?

            >You are an idiot. These are the same thing

            Liar. Avraham Stern wanted Temple and transfer, did not want Sanhendrin. Plenty of secular Israelis want Temple and transfer, while only a minority wants Sanhedrin. Secular Zionist and religious Zionist Jews are sympathetic to the idea of rebuilding the Temple, while non-Zionist Orthodox Jews for the most part aren’t.

            >there is no Temple without a Sanhedrin and vice versa.

            “And vice versa”? Lol, there already is a semi-official Sanhedrin, headed by Yisrael Ariel, yet no Temple in sight. Also see Haggai 2:11 for Temple priests independent of, not beholden to any Sanhedrin. You’re lying again.

            >These last two are the same thing.

            Nope, another lie. Russian Jews are mostly avowed atheists, militant atheists, and also want to kick the Arabs out & are fierce nationalists. In contrast, Progressive Jews sometimes pander to Judaism (their version of it) and seek to coalesce with some religious Jews, doing everything to advance the Cathedral (State Department) agenda. Thus, not “the same thing” whatsoever.

            You engage in Jewish thaqiya. You twist reality to suit your Judeocentric weltanschauung rather than report on it as is, using lies and distortions.

          • pdimov says:

            “Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Vlachs all spoke more or less the same language and had a Yugoslav identity.

            How did that turn out?”

            Because history.

            Israel has no history. Not yet. Acquire one, get feuds for free.

          • B says:

            >During the early period of settlement of Australia

            This is not germane to the discussion. We are talking about the period leading up to the Great Society in America.

            >I am not going to debate sources with someone who habitually ignores or lies about sources

            That’s squid ink for “I don’t have any sources other than Les Miz and some story I keep rehashing about Australian hookers from 1823.”

          • B says:

            >Israel has no history. Not yet. Acquire one, get feuds for free.

            Yeah, who ever heard of Ashkenazim or Sepharadim before 1947?

          • pdimov says:

            “In short-we are not you.”

            How very antisemitic.

            More seriously, in what way? The behavior you describe (giving strangers a lift) is so common between whites it goes without saying.

            Or is your point that Serbs and Croats don’t give each other a lift? They do.

          • Jack says:

            >Yeah, who ever heard of Ashkenazim or Sepharadim before 1947?

            Running a single, sovereign nation that calls itself Jewish? Not before 1948. That’s only 67 years, during which there has always been an ethno-religious strife, though not much intra-Jewish bloodshed… Yet.

          • Jack says:

            By the way B, how do you reconcile your ardent special snowflakism, your “we are fundamentally different from you Goyim” proclamations, with intra-Jewish tribal wars as documented by the Bible (not even getting into the religious war between Pharisees and Sadducees, etc.)? Different Israelite tribes literally engaged in extermination of fellow Israelites. Happened before, happened throughout all of Jewish history, happened recently when Karaites cooperated with Nazis in removing Rabbinics, happened very recently when Haganah and Revisionists were sabotaging one another’s strategies leading to the spilling of blood, yet you arrogantly assume that won’t happen again.

          • B says:

            >your self-declared special snowflakism

            Obviously, you agree, since you dedicate an amount of time and energy to us out of all proportion to our numbers.

            >what does it even mean?

            It means that a tribe has a fairly limited amount of people linked closely genetically. We have a large amount of people who maintain an organic identity, cohesion and loyalty, which does not work in a tribal structure (where you are mainly a function of the specific family you come from and its position in a subtribe, etc.)

            >Avraham Stern wanted Temple and transfer, did not want Sanhendrin.

            Source? In any case, he’s been dead for quite a long time now.

            >Plenty of secular Israelis want Temple and transfer

            If they want a Temple, they are not secular.

            >while only a minority wants Sanhedrin.

            The Sanhedrin comes from the same exact source as the Temple-the Torah. The Temple includes a chamber for the Sanhedrin, which is fully operative only when it presides in that chamber. I mean, these are basics here.

            >Secular Zionist and religious Zionist Jews are sympathetic to the idea of rebuilding the Temple, while non-Zionist Orthodox Jews for the most part aren’t.

            No secular Zionists I’ve ever spoken with have wanted to build a Temple.

            >there is no Temple without a Sanhedrin and vice versa.

            “And vice versa”? Lol, there already is a semi-official Sanhedrin, headed by Yisrael Ariel, yet no Temple in sight. Also see Haggai 2:11 for Temple priests independent of, not beholden to any Sanhedrin. You’re lying again.

            You are an idiot. The Sanhedrin is, even when it is an official Sanhedrin, severely limited in its powers, unless it sits in the Chamber of Hewed Stone. “In that place.”

            Haggai is not asking the priests for a judicial ruling here. He is asking a rhetorical question. The question is relevant to the priests, since they are the ones by definition dealing with consecrated food.

            The current “Sanhedrin” is not a Sanhedrin, and in large part precisely because there is no Temple.

            > Russian Jews are mostly avowed atheists, militant atheists, and also want to kick the Arabs out & are fierce nationalists.

            Not really. Many of the older ones are like this, but the younger ones have assimilated into either Judaism or secularism, and of course the second generation is indistinguishable. 70 year old retired Soviet engineers living in Holon or Ariel are not really very interesting.

            >In contrast, Progressive Jews sometimes pander to Judaism (their version of it)

            “Pander to their version of Judaism”=declare that gay marriage is kosher? Or what?

            >and seek to coalesce with some religious Jews, doing everything to advance the Cathedral (State Department) agenda. Thus, not “the same thing” whatsoever.

            Secular, progressive Jews occasionally halfheartedly try entryism, but are put off by the high amount of effort required. This does not mean that there are (in any significant numbers) progressive religious Jews. Obviously, when you have millions of people you can always find an exception.

            >You twist reality to suit your Judeocentric weltanschauung

            No, you twist reality to suit your Judeocentric weltanschauung.

          • B says:

            >More seriously, in what way? The behavior you describe (giving strangers a lift) is so common between whites it goes without saying.

            I have spent the majority of my life living with non-Jewish whites. I have seen zero hitchhikers that were not underclass (crunchy hippies) in America or Britain (on visits.)

            >Or is your point that Serbs and Croats don’t give each other a lift? They do.

            I travelled through Yugoslavia pretty extensively, and speak the language. Hitchhiking happens but it is nowhere near as frequent as here. In general, I like the Yugos-they still have some sort of social values-but you can’t compare.

            >with intra-Jewish tribal wars as documented by the Bible

            There was one war, where they wiped out Binyamin, which was a tragedy and presented as an example of how bad it can get when you don’t have a king and you have tribal rule.

            That’s over several centuries of tribal rule. Compare with the frequency of internecine warfare in Europe, Afghanistan, etc.

            >happened very recently when Haganah and Revisionists were sabotaging one another’s strategies leading to the spilling of blood

            Which, again, was a tragedy. But keeping things in perspective, 1) there was no established Jewish government in the Land, 2) how many Jews died as a result-several dozen? Compare with any other insurrection, where several insurrectionary factions are fighting against the occupier and each other. And when the Labor faction (which were a bunch of socialists) won, did they send their enemies to go mine copper in the Negev with no water? In a couple of decades, Begin was the prime minister. Can you imagine an American Tory president in 1810, or a Socialist Democrat General Secretary of the USSR in 1940?

            As I said, we are fundamentally different from you. You seem to agree, in general.

          • pdimov says:

            “I travelled through Yugoslavia pretty extensively, and speak the language. Hitchhiking happens but it is nowhere near as frequent as here.”

            Hitchhiking was very common during communism. It’s rare now.

            “I have seen zero hitchhikers that were not underclass (crunchy hippies) in America or Britain (on visits.)”

            When people can easily afford to have three cars each, it’s normal for hitchhiking to become an underclass/hippie thing. Even so I’d expect it to be common in rural white states, but have no experience.

          • B says:

            >Hitchhiking was very common during communism. It’s rare now.

            “Jebo te sunce, kada je bio Tito, nije bilo ovog sranja”! (shakes head, chugs a Jelen)

            Communism was a long time ago.

            Point I’m making is that despite first socialism and then a free market, and despite big surface ethnic differences between, say, Jews from Kiev and Sanaa, or between hipsters from North Tel Aviv and bearder Samarian settlers, there’s a depth of social cohesion which I haven’t seen anywhere else.

            >When people can easily afford to have three cars each, it’s normal for hitchhiking to become an underclass/hippie thing.

            First of all, most Americans can’t easily afford to have three cars each, unless we’re talking about beaters. Second, even if they could, the people who stand most to benefit from hitchhiking are senior citizens, high school kids and college students. And anyway, here I’ve no kidding seen a guy who’s a consultant for DeLoitte hitch a ride to the train to work, and if I hadn’t picked him up, he might have gotten a ride from a carpenter. It’s a convenient option if it’s available.

            The reason they don’t hitchhike or give hitchhikers rides in the West (I am literally the only American I know who has picked up hitchhikers after 1980) is not money. It’s that every American is trained to see his fellow Americans as a threat first and foremost. If they’re not rapists, they’re false rape accusers. If they’re not serial killers, they’re pedophiles. If they’re cops, they just want to seize your assets and throw you in jail on a trumped up charge after shooting your dog. If they’re black, they’re obviously thugs. If white, Klan members. And of course as a group they are trying to kill you either through contributing to global warming or the New World Order and Plan 21.

            You would have to be insane to stop and give someone a ride in this environment, let alone thumb a ride or let your kid do so. It’s the surest way to end up starring in a snuff film!

            This sort of institutionalized paranoia may or may not be consciously fomented in order to divide and conquer. That’s not very interesting.

            What is interesting is that it represents a loss of asabiyya.

            And why? Because Americans have stopped believing in G-d. And therefore all that is left is self-worship. Since the average American knows that all that keeps his or her worst instincts at bay is the fear of punishment, he has no trouble believing that the world is full of people who have no such fear and thus can be fully expected to destroy him for their entertainment. Therefore, you get atomization, as everyone retreats to their private suburban/office womb and constantly focuses on minimizing risk to his or her self.

            Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
            Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
            The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
            The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
            The best lack all conviction, while the worst
            Are full of passionate intensity.

            >Even so I’d expect it to be common in rural white states, but have no experience.

            Nope, not any more. I’ve lived there, haven’t seen a lot of hitchhiking. Even rural white states have TV, internet and public education.

            • jim says:

              Point I’m making is that despite first socialism and then a free market, and despite big surface ethnic differences between, say, Jews from Kiev and Sanaa, or between hipsters from North Tel Aviv and bearder Samarian settlers, there’s a depth of social cohesion which I haven’t seen anywhere else.

              As others have remarked, it helps that you are surrounded by outsiders screaming for your blood who consider you one people.

          • pdimov says:

            “This sort of institutionalized paranoia may or may not be consciously fomented in order to divide and conquer. That’s not very interesting.”

            It is interesting because when you say “we are not like you”, you could mean either genetically, or culturally. Genetically, whites are very much still inclined to trust and help each other. The culture of paranoia you describe is imposed, not organic.

          • B says:

            >It is interesting because when you say “we are not like you”, you could mean either genetically, or culturally.

            We don’t go by genes, and culture is such a vague concept…

            (am I not allowed to troll antisemites a bit?)

            Anyway, we are different in terms of our national character and destiny. “For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, it is a people that dwells apart, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”

            > Genetically, whites are very much still inclined to trust and help each other.

            I don’t know about “genetically”-got a source for that?

            Empirically, I notice that some whites are inclined to trust and help each other, and other whites are inclined to screw each other over. There has been so much fratricidal warfare in Europe among people who were ethnically very close or indistinguishable that I don’t know where to start. Some white societies at some times had high social cohesion, and others were the opposite. I know that the best place, socially speaking, that I’ve lived in in the US was Wisconsin, heavily populated by Finns, while other places full of white people were cold and unpleasant (won’t start getting into specifics.)

            • jim says:

              (am I not allowed to troll antisemites a bit?)

              Well of course you are. And they are allowed to troll you.

              But I wish you would not use the word “antisemite”, that being a Cathedral owned word almost as bad as “racist”

              But there is a real category that needs to be named – people who think all the bad things whites do to each other are the result of evil Jewish mind control rays and who obsessively think about Jews more than Jews think about Jews. You are trolling those guys.

              But I am pretty sure that I meet the Cathedral definition of “anti semite” since I think the Nazi mass murder of the Jews resembled the communist mass murders of all sorts of groups and categories, both in motive and method, rather than being especial and unique, and also resembled other, smaller, mass murders of market dominant minorities, and I am pretty sure you are not trolling me.

          • pdimov says:

            “Empirically, I notice that some whites are inclined to trust and help each other, and other whites are inclined to screw each other over. There has been so much fratricidal warfare in Europe among people who were ethnically very close or indistinguishable that I don’t know where to start. Some white societies at some times had high social cohesion, and others were the opposite.”

            You have to compare apples to apples. The equivalent would be to populate a Europe-size continent with Jews and wait a few thousand years. I’m saying that you’ll get similar amounts of fratricidal warfare and all the rest.

            High social cohesion is possible to achieve and maintain, for a while. The early days of communism, for example, were very much like what you describe, from what I heard. Yes, it lasted less, 30 years or so (around these parts at least). On the other hand, being constantly at war with people who consider you one does wonders to make you consider yourselves one as well, so you’ve got that going for you.

            TL;DR: you’re not special.

          • pdimov says:

            Or, the reverse comparison would be to look at the social cohesion for the first hundred years in a new territory settled by various white ethnicities, like for example Australia.

          • pdimov says:

            “… and who obsessively think about Jews more than Jews think about Jews …”

            Spotting patterns is what the (normal and healthy) brain does. Once you spot a pattern, you start seeing it more. That’s just how it works.

          • B says:

            >TL;DR: you’re not special.

            Notice that there are a billion Hindus who do not occupy 1/1000th of the space in the Western public discourse that Jews and Israel do.

            And notice that we’ve spent the last 2000 years spread out all over the world with constant pressure to assimilate or die, and did neither, and never quit saying that we will go back to our land. Imagine Jews in Mexico and Poland and Yemen with the insane idea that they will return to a place which they’ve never even seen for many centuries. And notice that we did it-how many third generation Yugo immigrants to the US or Germany pine for their mountains, genuinely and truly?

            And notice that when we did, those immigrants from Yemen and Poland and the rest of it had near-instant interoperability, intermarrying and working together on all sorts of crazy projects (for instance, there were Poles and Yemenites aplenty in Irgun Lehi.) That’s like bringing a bunch of Irish and Greeks and Yugos together and watching them build a country together with no major issues-unimaginable, almost (the American experiment aside).

            TL;DR-we are different.

            >I think the Nazi mass murder of the Jews resembled the communist mass murders of all sorts of groups and categories

            I agree. Although I think that the Communists never sought to exterminate an entire ethnic group and wipe their traces off the earth. But yes, they were both very bad.

            >But I wish you would not use the word “antisemite”, that being a Cathedral owned word almost as bad as “racist”

            But it was not originally a Cathedral-owned word, but a word that people who disliked Jews used to describe themselves in a way that sounded more high brow. And what are we supposed to call people who talk about kikes and ovens and physical removal and the 6 billion killed in the shoah holyhaux oy vey? Why do I need to invent a new word, and to whom do I owe it?

          • pdimov says:

            “TL;DR-we are different.”

            Different yes. The only group in the universe immune to internecine warfare and reversion to the mean after settling down in a state of their own… no.

            If you believe Ron Unz, reversion to the mean with respect to IQ has already begun in America.

          • B says:

            >The only group in the universe immune to internecine warfare and reversion to the mean after settling down in a state of their own… no.

            Typically, internecine warfare does not depend on the existence of a state. For instance, neither American blacks nor American Mexicans have a state, which does not prevent internecine warfare.

            >If you believe Ron Unz, reversion to the mean with respect to IQ has already begun in America.

            Perhaps, but we do not live or die by IQ.

            In any case, America is exile, and the worst kind-the seductive assimilation kind. So obviously the Jews there are being absorbed. I suspect Unz’s results would have been different had he sorted by religious observance levels.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Even so I’d expect it to be common in rural white states, but have no experience.
            I have plenty of experience. No hitchhikers around here.

            Of course, there is plenty of ATV riding, bike riding, and “can you give me a ride” to friends and acquaintances, but I assume that’s universal.

  5. Mark Citadel says:

    You make some very salient points here, that no doubt many would find as controversial as Vox Day’s infamous yet true claim that marital rape is fictitious.

    Many problems are solved by saying that women should not be in any kind of education system, especially not a co-ed one. The Muslims have this point correct, and I think their desire to have women only travel accompanied by a male relative is related to what you have said. Feminists when lamenting that Saudi women cannot go anywhere without their brothers or husbands neglect to mention that this is to prevent rape.

    A key platform of any Reactionary position is the proper norms between the sexes. In fact, it is almost THE CENTRAL plank of a functioning society.

    • Jack says:

      Yep. Women should work in proximity to their husbands, as aides, if they are to work at all. Women should always remain under male supervision, their husband’s or that of any close male relative. “Rape victims” should be presumed to be liars deserving of punishment, so as to incentivize women not to get raped, which would eliminate most “rapes” as women would then want, if only out of necessity, to be supervised by close males. Punish “rape victims”, as severely as you’d punish a rapist, and you’ll see rape disappear.

      Somewhat off-topic musing. New families should be given by their clan / extended family a lebensraum for intimacy, breeding, and raising children. As society grows massive and crowded, this last function is lost almost entirely, and predictably, families fail to reproduce. Reproduction requires space.

      Intimate space and women being under their husband’s supervision would incentivize families to breed more.

  6. peppermint says:

    More Jim truths. Of course animals are conscious, or what does it mean for them to be unconscious? Of course women can’t be impregnated non-consensually, that’s what the cervix is for. They don’t intellectually know when they are consenting simply because they didn’t evolve to know themselves, they evolved to know their men.

    Well, I’ve never really thought about this, but I guess it’s time for experimental confirmation.

    Are there any beta males here or men who are willing to voluntarily fail shit tests while their gf is ovulating? And who regularly finger their gf, of course. The amount of foreplay a woman demands is inversely proportional to how much she likes you, so, by responding, you admit to being a beta who will never be chosen to impregnate a woman and will die alone and peniless while the woman who allowed you to touch her is an alpha widow to an imprisoned AIDS nigger and raises her coffee colored mud children with your alimony.

    • “by responding, you admit to being a beta who will never be chosen to impregnate a woman and will die alone and peniless”

      ironic comment to make to other jim.blog readers

      what’s the ratio of commenters to active pedophiles here? looks like close to 1:1

      • jim says:

        The accusation of being an active pedophile implies a suspicion that those accused get laid.

        Feminism is a shit test. If fail the shit test, hard to get laid. If you pass the shit test, easy to get laid. Women hunger for patriarchy and ownership.

      • UpChuck says:

        How many kids do you have, Kermit? Stop worrying, then!

  7. peppermint says:

    Who’s responsible for feminism? Germans (lit. spear man) who think it’s cute ( http://www.youporn.com/porntags/kinky_german/ ) to name their girls Gertrude (spear strength or spear chucking accuracy) or Amalie (work) or Hildegard (battle+guard) or Wilhelmina (will+helmet) or Adalinde (noble snake).

    They should use more feminine names like Shira (white) or Shoshanna (lily) or Nurit (buttercup)

  8. Glenfilthie says:

    “Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women.”
    ————————————

    Jesus, Jim – rapists commonly beat the shit out of their victims before and while they’re raping them. I admit I am not criminologist but from what I’ve read, you can’t have sex with a woman that is actively resisting and struggling against you – which is why so many of them got beaten to a bloody pulp first – an act which is a proven turn-on for a lot of serial rapists.

    I think rapists should spend a couple years in the slam with Bubba or better yet, frog marched out into the courtyard, stood up against the wall and shot! In a perfect world, women that falsely accuse good men of rape should get the same treatment.

    • Erik says:

      What you’re proposing sounds like fine treatment for *men who steal other men’s women*.

      It is a terrible idea to inflict on *men who have sex with drunken women*.

      Both of these are currently classified as “rape”. Sort that out before you start proposing what to do about “rapists”.

    • Dave says:

      When I went to college c. 1990, the rape hysteria was already in full swing. My woman’s-psych teacher even said, if you’re a guy, chances are you’ve raped someone. And yet in my four years there, with 10,000 other students, there was exactly *one* rape of the sort Glenfilthie describes!

      Come to Reynolds Online University, where nobody gets raped:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ShuCkqHUQ

      • Dan says:

        “Come to Reynolds Online University, where nobody gets raped”

        Haven’t you ever heard of cyber violence? Online insults can be rape also. In fact, an SJW or two no doubt feel raped by this very post.

    • jim says:

      Jesus, Jim – rapists commonly beat the shit out of their victims before and while they’re raping them.

      That is very seldom true – in part because such violence is very seldom necessary. Most rapes, even rapes of the kind where a gang of blacks waylay a white girl in an alley or a naked man jumps out of the bushes, do not involve overt violence.

      Beating the shit out of anyone should of course be illegal, and beating the shit out of a woman should of course be especially harshly punished, because women are the precious sex, and men are the expendable sex. But it is a lot easier to say whether a woman was beaten, than to say whether she consented, in substantial part because female consent to sex is complex and self contradictory.

      • peppermint says:

        This one time, a bipolar White girl was arrested at the Chicago airport. When it came time to cut her loose, her parents were on the phone with the police pleading to be allowed to come pick her up, but the police were not allowed to recognize that the nigger neighborhood was not a safe place for an unaccompanied White girl in broad daylight.

        She was dragged inside a building, gang raped, and thrown out a 7th story window.

        An old nigger sow that saw it happen refused to aid the investigation.

        The city of Chicago eventually had to pay the parents tens of millions of dollars to get the whole situation hushed up.

        The Daily Mail has a story about the case, which ties it to an unrelated case involving some dindu suing the city after his conviction was overturned.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262958/Christina-Eilman-Chicago-pays-22-5-MILLION-woman-gang-raped-plummeted-seventh-story-window-police-failed-proper-care-her.html

        Niggers will rape and beat young White women and old White women. I realize you’re talking about rape as sex. But rape isn’t just about sex with the niggers who have been taught to hate by the government.

      • glenfilthie says:

        I’m not knowledgeable on this and admit in advance I may be full of beans…but I’m sure I’ve seen our morally and intellectually superior liberal friends counsel women not to struggle during a rape – The theory being that it will only induce more severe and violent efforts to subdue the woman.

        I will admit that I don’t pay much attention to stupid people and liberals… And I will concede that rape is typically not a problem with people that have triple digit IQ’s. I have no patience or sympathy for the slut walkers, but by the same token I have no sympathy for the toad that hops from bed to bed and screws anything that comes along without getting to know her first.

        There Is no such thing as free love and the man that engages in one night stands and pump-n-dumps – deserves what he gets. Stupid people have stupid problems and always will.

  9. […] never let it be said that Jim isn’t the Most Right-Wing Person on the Entire […]

  10. Twisted Monarchist says:

    ‘Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.’

    I’ve found it amazing that my and Jim’s thoughts on this are virtually parallel here. I only discovered the DE/NRX in late May, just under 6 months ago, but having my current positions on Democracy/Feminism/politics and so on for over 6 years, I’m truly interested in the level of convergent evolution in mental reasoning going on.

  11. Marlon says:

    ‘Women are of course more precious than men, for women can create life while men can only to destroy life. So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man. Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.’

    Disagree; one law for both men and women.
    The belief women are more precious than men has led to our current women as goddesses, men as beasts dysfunctional society.
    Seems you are trying to out-holy the Bible here, Jim.

  12. Jack says:

    >women can create life while men can only to destroy life.

    Not true. Take war, for instance. If taken captive by one’s enemy, women create lives for the enemy, empowering the enemy. Men can destroy the life of the enemy more efficiently. If you save lotsa women and only few men, your enemy will easily destroy you, since women can’t fight very well, and you don’t have enough male warriors. If you save lotsa men and only few women, you may still defeat your enemy and get your men some wives. So men’s life can be more precious than women’s life. For civilization, it is.

    In primitive dysfunctional Matriarchies, women’s lives are infinitely more precious than men’s lives. As we move toward civilization, we see the importance of men’s life relative to women’s life rising sharply; arguably, increasing male status versus women is a preliminary condition for establishing civilization, for without it you have Matriarchy or egalitarianism, thus no civilization.

    >So harming a woman, or threatening a woman with harm, should be more severely punished than harming a man or threatening to harm a man.

    Not really. Ideally women should belong as property to their husbands, and only the husband, not the lawgivers or the community elders, has the final word on whose life is more important. For instance, on a drowning ship, a husband may decide to sacrifice his life for his wife, or to sacrifice his wife to save his own life – he is her sovereign and it’s up to him, not to any outside force, to make such a decision. Don’t undermine husbands’ (or fathers’, for that matter) direct authority over women, Jim, don’t be Leftist. Husbands are sovereign in Patriarchy and it is they who decide what punishments to inflict on those who transgress against them and their wives, as they see fit.

    You may want to punish those who harm your wife or your daughter more severely than those who harm you or your son, but your neighbor Alex doesn’t share this gynocentric sentiment and it’s up to him to decide the appropriate measures to deal with any harm committed against himself and his subjects. The lawmakers and judges should recognize the husband’s authority as such rather than attempt to legislate any kind of gynocentric morality and force husbands to adhere to such counter-civilizational mores; law and order are to be maintained not on behalf of the poor wimminz but on the request of sovereign Patriarchs, whose responsibility it is to settle disputes, and only failing to solve disputes should invoke intervention by the community in congruence with the harmed Patriarch’s own judgement, whatever it be.

    >Men are the expendable sex. Women are the precious sex.

    You’re making an “is” into an “ought”.

    • Anon says:

      I think jim is just describing the prevailing reasoning (whether conscious or unconscious) for why modern women are so pedestalized. It is hammered into kids’ heads that girls are perfect angels, that they are more moral and caring, and that they have empathy (they only have emparhy insofar as it advantages them in securing a mate, which is to say they don’t really have it at all). It comes from a natalist, bilogically-utilitarian advantage-maximizing mindset, and it might as well be called feminist. Girls today have inflated egos because amidst the desperate throng of betas supplicating to her, there are very few men willing to tell her to shut the fuck up and sit down.

    • pdimov says:

      “Jim, don’t be Leftist.”

      You know you’re deep into the reactosphere when such a post is criticized for leftism in the comments.

      • peppermint says:

        Jack is right, of course. Also, women implicitly know this.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        Welcome to the theater of dreams.

        On an unrelated note, I think Aurini actually had it right on Malala Youseff (not sure if you addressed her, Jim). She’s now back in the news next to billionaire feminazi Emma Watson, yeah, that sisterhood sure is consistent in terms of suffering. She’s a prop, serving the interests of the Liberal elite. And yes, a girl wanting an education is fucking retarded.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Jack”,

      I read it as prime irony, myself. He writes about woman and woman’s sexuality as a farmer would consider the land he owns and cultivates. Which is right, of course. Fields bring forth crops as a woman bears, births, or carries children.

      There’s more to it then that, but in a world gone mad, the basics need to be learned.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

  13. John Jones says:

    I’ve read all the comments and find them very interesting. I wanted to add 2 cents that may or may not be relevant: this dude in St. Louis raped 100s of women and claims he gave them orgasms. It was in the trial records too (confirmed by his criminal defense attorney). Of course Cathedral Media Inc. is quick to dismiss this as a “fear shudder” from the rape victim and not an orgasm. If you read these articles his modus is very interesting:

    “Rabbitt started raping in the early 1970s, as a teenager, and is estimated to have raped more than 100 women across Missouri and Illinois and, at the end, in New Mexico. The victims’ ages (14 to 82), traits and appearance were irrelevant–he says he thought them all beautiful and performed oral sex to bring them pleasure. On a few occasions he turned explosively violent; most of the time he menaced the women into submission and then acted like a rough, awkward but eager suitor. He boasts, face flushed, about what he took to be orgasms, dismissing any suggestion that fear might make a woman tremble and breathe hard. ”

    http://www.stlmag.com/Chasing-Rabbitt/

    And then the detective struggling to fit in the expected SJW narrative of rape having nothing to do with sex, only violence:

    Mark Chambers, Investigator: “I remember Dennis Rabbitt, the Southside rapist, making some profound statement that he never hurt anyone, that he was not violent. And I’m thinking, you know crawling through someone’s window in the middle of the night and putting a gun to their head and covering their head with a pillow… if that’s not violent I don’t know what violence is. Every rape is violent. Even if there’s no physical injury, it’s still a violent act. ”

    http://fox2now.com/2013/01/31/extra-new-dna-helping-solve-rape-cold-cases/

    • Dave says:

      “the expected SJW narrative of rape having nothing to do with sex, only violence”

      SJW-ism and feminism are forms of Marxism. The idée fixe of Marxism is that if you need something, you have the right to take it, by force if necessary. Men need sex, therefore they have the right to commit rape if sex is otherwise unavailable to them.

      SJWs don’t want to reject Marxism or say that rape is OK, so they make the nonsensical assertion that rape has nothing to do with sex.

  14. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Incredible Restoration era and Restoration-themed ballad.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV-eGJ6xXZ4

    A.J.P.

    • peppermint says:

      Henry VIII Tudor was the last king of England who was descended from Brutus of Troy. His heresy was the end of the the line of Brutus and the beginning of the end for his people, the Bretons. After the restoration, Charles II Stewart was deposed for being too sympathetic towards Catholicism, and the circumcised George of Hanover was installed.

      Years later, Anglican priests would be openly gay, female, or black, and demand that English men not flirt with women while demanding that English men ignore English women being taken by mud people, by flirting that would be illegal for Whites or by force.

      You can’t go back. Whites lost WWII. We can survive, but only if we stop larping and start thinking seriously about the future.

  15. Alan J. Perrick says:

    One more going out to all the white anti-whites:

    “Cuckolds All a Row”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIiQyd2jVu8

  16. RedErik says:

    Hey I’m new to this forum. Like a lot of the ideas here. I just wanted to comment on a few missed points I never see addressed about the state of blacks in the US. There are 3 main factors, slavery, financial disenfranchisement and black female independence (+ white feminism). White men also allowed the sassy independent, sexually immoral black bitch collide with the precious white girl on a pedestal & the enterprising upper class white wife we allowed to influence society.

    Slavery did two main things to the black family unit, black men were routinely removed from the home leaving their women to raise their pups on her own.
    Black men were made to look weak in the eyes of black slave wenches. Being the property of the master who had authority over the bucks and the wenches was able to use the wenches as he pleased. They were turned into whores who could gain favor by having mixed race babies. They did this generation after generation. With no man in the home black families were forced to become matriarchal.

    Post slavery this and the war on drugs again removing black men from the home has affected the lower class adversely. Because of their domineering ways they habitually ran black men off forced to raise the kids on their own. Ultimately corrupt female nature of theses cunts is to blame for how they’ve lives have ended up.

    Hope I make sense I’m ready for a nap.

    • jim says:

      And yet blacks had patriarchal families before civil rights.

      • Turtle says:

        This guy sounds like a troll, mostly based on his lame, simplistic ideas and the strange “Like a lot of the ideas here. I just wanted to comment on a few missed points I never see addressed about the state of blacks in the US.”

        If he likes the ideas, he will talk about that. If he has his own opinion, he will comment where it is relevant, in a discussion of blacks.

        Or, he expresses him unpleasantly. And I don’t like his false facts.

  17. Sarah says:

    PLEASE tell me this freak is joking. PLEASE, someone reassure me there’s not actually a man out there who thinks rape is okay, or that the cervix prevents it; PLEAse tell me this useless pile of flesh self-castrated to spare all women ever from him!

    • peppermint says:

      Evidently your husband didn’t slap you hard enough with his dick. If he’s neglecting his duties, I could help ;]

    • Turtle says:

      The joke is that no true virgin has ever been raped. There are many virgin martyrs, the handmaidens of Christ the Bridegroom, who were killed because they refused to have sex with a man you would call a “useless freak,” though they often were powerful rulers.

      I want to keep responding to your hysteria, but wait…
      “Sarah,” how small is your dick?
      (counter-trolling)

    • jim says:

      Some things that are called rape are really bad. Some things that are called rape are fine. We need to forbid the bad things and allow the good things, and “rape” and “consent” turn out to be dangerously unclear criteria for making this distinction. Women do not rationally and consciously decide to have sex the way they rationally and consciously decide to accept a job, which leads to enormous problems in applying the “consenting adults” standard.

      The kind of “rape” that needs to be suppressed looks very similar to the kind of “consensual sex between adults” that needs to be suppressed.

      One really cannot tell marital rape from a performing one’s marital duty according to one’s wedding vows and the command of Saint Paul – nor can one tell the difference between a woman being raped in a dark alley, and a woman cruising a dark alley for a dicking with tits half hanging out. Best to ban both activities in the dark alley, rather than try to distinguish between them.

      Old Testament got it right.

Leave a Reply