Hiatus till early May

Blogging will be light to nonexistent until early May, as will answering email, approving comments that have gone into the moderation queue, and pretty much everything else.

124 Responses to “Hiatus till early May”

  1. Steve says:

    Video – David Cameron: A very Happy Easter to you and your family

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2015/04/video-david-cameron-very-happy-easter.html

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Steve”

      Not all that bad, though definitely could be somewhat closer to such topics as discussed on this blog!

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

  2. peppermint says:

    how can you stay away, Jim?

    My facebook friends are all preening about this and that in two-line slogans and I can’t point out how they contradict themselves because I would get fired. I try to console myself that their opinions do not matter in the long term, but it isn’t actually true, the unhinged opinion making in a social justice safe space that everyone to the left of me goes to does drive moral innovations. I can only resign myself to helplessness and argue that their individual beliefs are mostly irrelevant to anything other than their individual lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpLCLlqQyGc?t=2m

    If not here, will you write prayers to Hitler and Odin on /pol/?

    • Dave says:

      Only a Lamarckian would care if persons not related to him have an accurate mental model of the world. A Darwinist understands that when the environment changes, individuals unsuited to the new conditions die off, and are replaced by the offspring of those better adapted.

      If you fear that Leftism might continue forever, getting ever Lefter, that can only happen if God is a Leftist, in which case you should be too.

      • Just sayin' says:

        Leftism doesn’t have to continue forever. Leftists and leftism are changing the environment in which we live.

        It’s true that many leftists will be unsuited to the new environment, but many rightists will also be unsuited to the new environment.

        And it’s not enough to survive personally, you need to figure out how to put your descendants in a position that will ensure that they also manage to reproduce, despite the fact that the environment is creating a bunch of gays, trannies, cat ladies and other genetic dead ends.

        Finally, there are levels of survival. It’s probably not that hard to ensure that some of your genetic material survives. But unless you can come up with a good strategy, it is likely that your genetic material will survive in the form of mixed race low IQ mystery meat that will serve as cattle for the progressive elites of the future. Degeneration of that sort is arguably worse than death. A Darwinist might disagree, but that’s why Darwinism alone is not enough.

        Some forms of Christianity are decent at reproduction, but nobody really has a good strategy to deal with the second problem.

        • peppermint says:

          let’s release superbugs that are resistant to antibiotics and superweeds that are resistant to pesticides. Make non-productive work unsupportable.

          We are legion! Long live death!

        • Dave says:

          Leftists are *temporarily* changing our environment by spending capital accumulated by their forbears, who by today’s standards were right-wing extremists.

          “put your descendants in a position that will ensure that they also manage to reproduce”

          History and biology offer some clues but no guarantees: Don’t move your family to a warm climate, where your descendants will devolve into black apes and be conquered by the next wave of northerners (cf. India). Nothing selects for intelligence like six-month winters with no EBT cards! And stay out of cities, for they are sinks of perversion and extinction.

          The flow of evolution is that general forms branch into special forms to better exploit an ecological niche, which special forms then go extinct when the environment changes. So don’t get too specialized!

        • Mark Citadel says:

          Leftism inevitably does not continue forever, because rather than being static it is marked by a perpetual increasing entropy. A centrifuge can only spin so fast before it disintegrates.

        • B says:

          >And it’s not enough to survive personally, you need to figure out how to put your descendants in a position that will ensure that they also manage to reproduce, despite the fact that the environment is creating a bunch of gays, trannies, cat ladies and other genetic dead ends.

          >Finally, there are levels of survival. It’s probably not that hard to ensure that some of your genetic material survives. But unless you can come up with a good strategy, it is likely that your genetic material will survive in the form of mixed race low IQ mystery meat that will serve as cattle for the progressive elites of the future. Degeneration of that sort is arguably worse than death. A Darwinist might disagree, but that’s why Darwinism alone is not enough.

          Uhm. Err.

          Nevermind. Good point, the problem is completely unsolvable.

    • Samson J. says:

      My facebook friends are all preening

      Get off Facebook.

  3. Brit says:

    I am a student, will be a soldier in a few months, so I say what I like on Facebook. Does not change much, since typically the comments will get deleted and you’ll be unfriended. Problem is that most people cannot think critically, their method of working out what is true does not extend far beyond whatever feeling they get in their stomach when they hear certain words, which largely depends on what teachers tell them as children. If teachers tell them that they are all equal, that everyone should get one vote, then they will get a bad feeling when you tell them that they are not, and delete your evil comments.

    Though occasionally people who do not comment, when I see them, will quietly mention that they agree with me.

    • Samson J. says:

      Though occasionally people who do not comment, when I see them, will quietly mention that they agree with me.

      This is always refreshing to hear. As for me, I’m continually dismayed by the number of people who *do* seem genuinely to subscribe to PC.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        A lot of it depends on how you approach them, but, as Mr. Black says, most of them are like “dead batteries” on racial matters even if they are open to hearing about them. It’s probably true for the other anti-Cathedral topics, as well…

        A.J.P.

    • B says:

      When you’re a soldier, it will get worse.

    • Dave says:

      As in the 1930s, providing welfare benefits at home is a higher priority than supporting soldiers overseas. If you enlist now, you’re signing up for the next Bataan Death March.

      • jim says:

        America cannot evacuate its nationals from Yemen, yet India can.

        This is the logic of the nation as a hotel.

        Unfortunately, since the hotel will not fight for you, you will not fight for it.

        The west is weak and getting weaker, soon someone will call us on it,

  4. interested in your stance on recent drama but i’d rather not have details spread even if it is known

  5. Erik says:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urban-scientist/2015/03/26/when-discussing-humanitys-next-move-to-space-the-language-we-use-matters/

    Black woman: “I can’t spell ‘side’ or use the word ‘descendants’ in a sentence, and I unironically use *feels* in my writing, give me a slot at Scientific American to air all my grievances and pretend I’m in a position to tell off Elon Musk.”

    Along the way she tweets “Native Americans, Australians & Africas weren’t human yet.”

    It would almost be worth having Twitter if I could have made one of the obvious rejoinders.

  6. B says:

    In other news, ISIS Chechens are whining about uppity Chechen girls who think they’re all that and won’t give a brother the time of day:

    http://www.rferl.org/content/islamic-state-chechen-militant-women-playing-games/26972684.html

    It’s like an Onion article. I feel like something is missing: a picture of a faggot with a furry hat, eyeliner and an AK, holding up his index finger for the camera.

    • Hidden Author says:

      Speaking of ISIS, it’s disturbing to think to hear Jim say that the biggest problem with these practitioners of genocide, slavery and torture is that they may become progressives. The most progressive militia there the PKK is the one most respectful of the human rights of average civilians. My qualm with the PKK is: Did Ocalan sincerely renounce the dictatorial tendencies of his Stalinist past? Does his preference for Murray Bookchin’s model of grassroots democracy over the top-down conventional model allow for dissenting voices? But still Rojava is the most civilized section of Syria currently so Ocalan does deserve some credit. And his girl fighters are pretty hot too!

      • B says:

        It’s “disturbing”-but is it…problematic?

        • Hidden Author says:

          I know you’re toying with me with your word games but what’s your point?

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            The point is obvious: you’re a member of the outgroup, and you’re easily identified as a member of the outgroup.

            Name-dropping Murray Bookchin like anybody reading here is just naturally going to recognize and respect some minor far-left academic? C’mon, step up your game, HA.

            Pointing with false, self-righteous incredulity and horror at Jim’s indifference to “genocide, slavery and torture?” Get real. You don’t give a damn about Kurds, Iraqis, Syrians, or other miscellaneous Mid-East dwellers, and neither do we. They’re just convenient props for status contests closer to home.

          • Hidden Author says:

            True I don’t know any of these Mid-East dwellers but then I do not know the heroes of Narnia, of Middle Earth, of Westeros or of Xavier’s academy. Yet information leaks out and fictional or not, a good narrative is easy to get behind. The question is: Is the narrative of the PKK true? As I explained and as Jim ignored as part of his neoreactionary crimestop, I have reservations. But if the PKK is the one civilized faction in a sea of vicious savages, good for them and good for their action girls!

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            “The question is: Is the narrative of the PKK true?”

            No it’s not. The question is, how can I use this story to gain status and power, or at least make myself feel good?

            Like you said, the Kurds are about as real to you as the X-Men. What does it matter that the oppressed, suffering mutants of Genosha aren’t real? Their story moved millions of people one tiny step in the direction of Progress, and that’s what counts.

          • B says:

            “it is disturbing to hear”, “it’s problematic”, “here’s why that’s a problem”, “that’s triggering me” are dog whistle phrases in the current Goodthink discourse. For all the bad things about NRx, those don’t work here.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Just because twits speak that way, it doesn’t mean I can’t have an objection to rhetoric that practically quotes Satan. If you whine about that, then perhaps you should reconsider who’s the real twit!

            • jim says:

              If, as seems likely, Islamic state become good progressives, they might well do something as bad as the pacification of the Tutsi in the Congo, or the pacification of the Boers, which was many orders of magnitude more evil than anything that they have done for out of adherence to the Koran and the Hadiths.

              Your perception of progressives as sweet kindly gentle angels is not universally accepted.

          • Recusancy says:

            @Jim
            ISIS has done lots of nasty things because they are revolutionaries. I.e. stealing, raping and selling non-Muslim women (and a bunch of Muslim women, too).

            And if I understand Islam correctly, it is an inherently revolutionary religion. Unless you’re in the Dar al Islam, they’re supposed to wage jihad against you.

            Progressives deserve Muslims, and Muslims deserve Progressives.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Recusancy, Jim likes to argue that atrocities are bad when people he dislikes do them but are irrelevant when people he likes do them. In this, he is like so many zealots for totalitarianism whether they are communists, fascists or more religiously-inspired. Heck, even zealot libertarians act that way: Can acolytes of Rothbard/Rockwell/Paul honestly argue that the United States is more cruel than most or all of its opponents?

            • jim says:

              Recusancy, Jim likes to argue that atrocities are bad when people he dislikes do them but are irrelevant when people he likes do them

              Liar.

          • Recusancy says:

            @Hidden Author

            Jim isn’t a totalitarian. He just believes the exact opposite of what progressives believe. An understandable response to our current ideological police state.

          • peppermint says:

            if the Holocaust had happened, it would not have been an atrocity, just a waste of insecticide.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I’m a liar, Jim? So Boko Haram and ISIS killing men and taking women as sex slaves isn’t an atrocity? So if they did their dirty deeds with *your* family, you’d be equally amused at how they were defying the “progressive” norms of the “Cathedral”?

            • jim says:

              Cathedral activities to defeat Boko Haram are pretty similar to Boko Haram’s activities to defeat the Cathedral. For example the Cathedral recently “rescued” nine thousand civilians from Boko Haram who clearly did not want to be “rescued”, killing quite a few of them in the process, reminiscent of British tactics to defeat the Boers.

              Boko Haram’s objective is, as their name says, to end western education. Ask yourself why the Cathedral is prepared to go to war any place on earth to ensure that everyone gets western education. Why not just let Boko Haram have what they want? Why are we risking nuclear war with Russia?

        • Hidden Author says:

          Really the Establishment and Boko Haram are the same? I didn’t know you could buy sex slaves from America’s women’s prisons! Just more excuses for why the side you favor should get to commit atrocities…

          • jim says:

            You cannot buy sex slaves in America, but America’s prisons are full of sex slaves, and this is part of the American government program for destroying marriage. Wife charges man with being insufficiently enlightened, gets a court order to move him out of his home and pay her support. Due to the disruption of his life cannot pay support, gets sent to jail for non payment of support without any of the due process protections given to someone who perhaps tortured a small boy to death for sexual purposes, in prison becomes a sex slave.

            Whereas, where Boko Haram rules, there are no sex slaves, none. There are wives who lack the wonderful protections given to American wives.

            Or, to say the same thing in different words, the American government is using far more violence, and far more evil violence, to destroy marriage, than Boko Haram is using to uphold marriage.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Oh c’mon, Boko Haram sold captive women as slaves; you can’t honestly argue that these slaves were not used for sexual purposes. If you lie about matters of common knowledge, nothing else you say is credible!

            • jim says:

              Boko Haram sold captive women as wives, or so they say – a somewhat higher status than slaves.

              This program for promoting marriage inherently involves less violence, less oppression, and less unwanted sex, than the Cathedral program for destroying marriage.

          • Recusancy says:

            @Jim

            Anyone who knows anything about Islamic Law knows that it accepts, and for Jihad, promotes sex slavery “Anything your right hand posesses”.

            And it lets the men sell their slaves to other men, so long as they haven’t impregnated her.

            @Hidden Author

            The phrase “Boko Haram” is not inherently violent. Suppose parents were allowed to choose how to educate their children. Or suppose that the Islamic areas of Nigeria were allowed to vote on how to educate their children. Or Afghanistan. Or Saudi Arabia. It’s fair to say that their policy would be something like “Boko Haram”.

            And the US/UN will not permit them to be sovereign. We forcibly impose Western education on them. And governments that adopt “Boko Haram” as a policy will face sanctions, military support for rebels, no-fly zones that prevent the government from crushing rebels, et cetera.

            • jim says:

              Yes, but Boko Haram claims that the women it abducted were sold as wives, rather than for short term use. So Boko Haram, if it is to be believed, is not promoting sex slavery. .

          • Recusancy says:

            @Jim
            Boko Haram is filled with blacks jihadis. Do you actually believe them?

          • Hidden Author says:

            Why can’t I sell you to the highest bidder to be his wife, Jim? Don’t you want to promote marriage? Or does violating your personal autonomy and integrity count more than violating a woman’s personal autonomy and integrity because you say so? Regardless, if some gang sold you to the highest bidder as a wife, I’m sure you wouldn’t say, “Oh well, they’re less violent than the Cathedral because they promote marriage!” Because you acknowledge the villainy of atrocities when they are committed against people you care about, duh!

            • jim says:

              Obviously I am the wrong sex to be a wife – your argument assumes that both sexes have the same nature, which obviously they do not.

              Further, the Cathedral, being opposed to marriage, would never sell anyone male or female to be a wife. What it wants is short term sex, which is, in prisons, quite literal sex slavery.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Women ought to be the servants of men–because you say so.

            Likewise you are a woman-equivalent man–because I say so.

            Isn’t justifying things based on one’s say-so fun?

            • jim says:

              Isn’t justifying things based on one’s say-so fun?

              Try observing reality. The current shenangans about college “rape” illustrate that women lack agency – that they regret their decisions, and do not want to be held accountable for them, that women, like dogs, want and need external authority to constrain them from self destructive behavior. Boko Haram is using violent means to supply that authority. The USG is using even more violent and hurtful means to destroy that authority.

          • Hidden Author says:

            What gives Boko Haram the right to be that authority assuming that the women were as mentally ill as the false rape accusers? It seems that you are arguing based on your demographic self-interest rather than out of concern for women. Even if a woman was the most rational person in the world, you’d justify taking away her autonomy for giving her “a real man”.

            • jim says:

              What gives the Cathedral the right to throw men out of their homes and send them to prison in order to break up families?

              What Boko Haram is doing to women is simply the right thing to do and someone has to do it. What the Cathedral is doing to husbands is simply the wrong thing to do, whoever does it.

              This woman urgently needs to be auctioned off: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/style/modern-love-college-essay-winner.html

              If you look at any group of men who are bros, a brotherhood, they have a rule among themselves no moving in on another man’s girl, and that a man is responsible for his women’s behavior, that, as in the old testament, cuckoldry rather than rape is the big crime, and that girls should stick with their guy. Bros before hos is another way of saying that women do not have agency. But on the larger scale, we have the opposite rules.

              The rules applied by bros are right, and the rules applied on the larger scale are wrong. When you get a large enough bunch of bros, the bro rules start to have substantial impact, and the Cathedral goes to war.

      • jim says:

        Let us compare the record of the Stalinists, which you find so humane, with the record of the Islamists.

        Islamists toss perverts from high buildings. Stalinists liquidate the kulaks. Naturally you prefer the Stalinists. I am disinclined to believe in the human rights record of the PKK because you lot have lied barefaced about every similar movement, for example the Khmer Rouge, throughout the twentieth century.

        Remember when the Khmer Rouge were gentle hippie agrarian reformers?

        You don’t?

        That is because when the Soviet sponsored North Vietnamese invasion of Khmer Rouge Cambodia happened, the Khmer Rouge instantly transformed from gentle hippie agrarian reformers to demonic tools of the CIA, and absolutely no one showed any signs of remembering that yesterday they had been gentle hippie agrarian reformers.

        • Hidden Author says:

          First of all, I am not a Stalinist. Second of all, Ocalan apparently ditched Joseph Stalin for the anarchist American academic Murray Bookchin. Third of all, this would be obvious if you had read my posting. Hint: Get a brain, loser!

          • jim says:

            The worshipers of Pol Pot were, for the most part, left anarchists, most infamously Chomsky.

            In the Spanish Civil War, the Stalinists were the relatively humane and civilized faction of the left, the greatest excesses of terror and brutality being committed by the various left anarchist factions.

            If you were a Stalinist I would be less likely to assume that you worship terrorists and mass murderers.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes that’s it: Shift the goalposts–First, I am a bad guy for my Stalinism; now I’m a bad guy because I’m not a Stalinist. And you still missed my point: I’m not unreservedly behind the PKK, anarchism or Murray Bookchin. There’s plenty of collectivism, dogmatism and envy in the anarchist movement that’s unattractive plus the disingenuous way it treats the question of power. Still if the PKK can–and it’s a big if–create a model of grassroots guardianship of freedom to replace states that betray their citizens’ freedom–even then, I would not support them unreservedly but it would educate people who want autonomy in their lives. That and the action girls is what fascinates me about the Rojava Revolution. 😀

            • jim says:

              Yes that’s it: Shift the goalposts–First, I am a bad guy for my Stalinism; now I’m a bad guy because I’m not a Stalinist.

              You are a bad guy because you criticize Stalin from the left. Those who criticize Stalin from the left have always been either more murderous than Stalin, or, like Chomsky, a supporter of those more murderous than Stalin.

              Stalin, like Cromwell, was moderation crushing a movement that was becoming ever more extreme. He realized that movement ever leftwards would devour him as it had devoured Kerensky, and put an end to it, announcing that utopia had already arrived.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So what do you expect me to do at this point in the debate: Sigh and admit that I’m a bad person because of my alleged support for atrocities while passing over in silence your very real support for the worst atrocities of the 21st century?

            • jim says:

              The worst atrocities of the twenty first century by far were pacification of the Tutsi in the Congo – a progressive project with air and ground support from UN troops.

              And, of course, the worst atrocities of the twentieth century, far worse than the worst atrocities of the twenty first, are very recent, and progressives were complicit in them.

          • Hidden Author says:

            It depends on your perspective: You say that Africans eating and mutilating each other is the worst and I say that Muslims killing millions of people, reviving slavery and crucifying people was the worst. But because I internalize my ethics instead of treating them solely as a stick to rhetorically beat my enemies like you, I can concede that both sets of atrocities are almost if not exactly the epitome of evil.

          • Red says:

            >reviving slavery

            I read a pretty decent account of how sex slavery in Detroit works. Kidnap a white girl from an outlining area and whore her out, selling her between pimping crews. This has been going on for a good 20 or so years now. That fact that you nor any other progress cares about slavery in Detroit means you don’t really give fuck about slavery in Iraq.

          • k says:

            Some people really do give a fuck, some people are completely disingenuous, and some are in-between. Anyone who really tried hard to “not be a bad person” by progressive (Peter Singer) standards, with no compromises, would go insane. So genuine fuck-givers gradually become disingenuous over time, as contradictions pile up.

          • Hidden Author says:

            If you have real evidence for it, rather than lurid racist rumors, then of course I condemn it: you guys are the ones with blatant double standards that “prove” how OK your side’s atrocities are…not that I have any particular allegiance to black gangbangers to begin with…

            • jim says:

              Well I don’t have real evidence of it happening in Detroit (but then, any real evidence would be very politically incorrect, and therefore ignored and suppressed) but there is plenty of evidence of analogous slavery arrangements in Britain, which evidence was piously ignored for a very long time.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            @Hideen – I am quite perplexed about this “your side’s atrocities” stuff. What atrocities, in specific, are you talking about?

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Debate?

          • peppermint says:

            There is no debate. There is only death.

            The middle class became materially powerful through middle class values like fairness, industry, and feeding the animals before feeding themselves. Then the middle class abolished itself.

            Hitler’s ghost will not save us, he barely connived a takeover 80 years ago. The sheeple will not awaken, were that even desirable. The hipsters sense that something is wrong, but they will follow the middle class values their parents and grandparents have taught them forward unto doom.

            [doompaul.jpg] you couldn’t have listened anyway

          • B says:

            >feeding the animals before feeding themselves

            That’s not a “middle class value”-you got that from us.

          • peppermint says:

            The Judaeo-Christian aspect of Judaeo-Christian values is severely overstated

          • B says:

            I don’t know anything about Judeochristian anything, and don’t much care. I do know that feeding your animals before you eat is discussed in the Talmud (the Sages say it’s a Torah commandment and derive it from the text) and is completely absent from any Christian text.

          • peppermint says:

            yes, and it’s also the ancient way of the farmer. Do you need to write down everything farmers do, do you need to make it all commandments lest someone forget?

            Also, feeding the horses before you feed the Irish.

            Speaking of farmer values, it’s kind of deanimalizing to not grow any of your own food. People need to understand that chickens are slaves, just like Blacks, and that chickens, that tomatoes are given water, fertilizer, and healthcare, just like Mexicans, and that chickens need to be kept out of the tomato patch, just like Jews need to be kept out of the financial services industry.

            People end up thinking that they can just float through life like Superman and not do anything that affects any other forms of life. They become worse than herbivores, they become worse than the mighty oak tree that shades and chokes out its enemies, they become the most timid blade of grass, and merely ask that their sheeplike enemies only eat their top half.

            I mean, what else can you say about the people who killed Hitler so their little girls could explore their budding sexuality through non-consensual BDSM with Bretons of Asian descent?

          • B says:

            What is this “ancient way of the farmer” shit? Any sources for that?

            As for the rest of it, sniffing glue is BAD for you. Just say “no.”

    • jim says:

      Boko Haram has the answer to Mystery. I rather suspect Islamic State does not.

      Of course we don’t want to copy Boko Haram, because they are black. However, the Australian authorities in the early years of Australian settlement also had the answer, and we can copy them, without risk of exposure to black memetic diseases.

      • B says:

        I suspect Boko Haram doesn’t even have the answer to fecal contamination of their drinking water.

      • B says:

        The Islamic State absolutely has the answer to Casanovas: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/194644#.VT5dkSGqpBc

        Feces in the drinking water, a functional economy and all that other stuff, not so much.

        • jim says:

          Nah.

          Silly.

          Islamic State suffers from the Victorian delusion that the problem is controlling men, because women are naturally pure and chaste.

          As I said, progressives.

          • B says:

            I’m sorry, what was that you said about “Islamic State and Boko Haram are correctly following the letter and spirit of Islamic Law.

            Islamic State has a huge team of legal scholars analyzing and applying the Koran and the Haddith to the questions encountered by Islamic State. They don’t despise scholarship. They despise scholarship that tortures the text to get politically acceptable conclusions.”?

          • Dave says:

            If PUAs fuck around with Christian women, their actions are condemned in Sunday sermons that PUAs never attend. If PUAs fuck around with Muslim women, they are dragged to Friday sermon and publicly stoned to death. Big difference.

            • jim says:

              PUAs are not the problem. Loose women are the problem. So long as there is supply, men will demand.

          • Hidden Author says:

            As much as I condemn many mullahs for being repressed homo sadists, it seems contradictory to say that women are inferior but more responsible for being chaste. I mean, we don’t hold animals responsible for their actions like we do people but you guys seem to say that women are driven by animalistic sexual urges.

            • jim says:

              Sperm is cheap and in considerable oversupply, eggs are dear and valuable. Control what is dear and valuable, not what is cheap and oversupplied.

              Women can create life, men can only kill. Women are therefore more valuable than men – and correspondingly need greater control, supervision and protection.

          • peppermint says:

            Whites are industrious, fair-minded, compassionate, self-critical. Is it possible for women to be White?

            Far from it, they’re barely even human, they can talk, and even write structured sentences and coherent paragraphs, but that all just makes them all the more creepy, when you see how absolutely they are driven by these urges.

            But here’s from one of the Gospels that the Church Fathers rejected –

            » Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
            »Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

            That’s the true purpose of transgenderism. If we can find the right chemicals to free women of their urges, they can become living spirits like us.

            • jim says:

              Actually women calm down a lot at thirty, and become quite rational after menopause. But who cares about post menopausal women?

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Peppermint, you are a golden god.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Peppermint just admit you want to be sodomized! 😀

          • peppermint says:

            Is that really the best you can do? I was drunk last night, and less subtle than I think I’m supposed to be. I expected something along those lines, but more creative; while I’m in no position to demand top quality abuse, we are all namefagging it up here and it just makes you look like a low-effort person.

            You know, when I finished learning all about the progressive taboos, I started to wonder if there was something more to life than reciting the proper slogan. Maybe some day you’ll get bored and start looking for something new as well.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The Talmudic Jew is talking about poop again?

            Yeah, I agree with “Jim” early Australia was really good. Though I do wonder if one royally appointed governor is enough. If Britain hadn’t taken a turn toward demotism, I wonder if, or how long it would take for them to place earls, dukes, barons, and other peers in the colonies. Let’s find out!

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            Of course, you have a mother, and a grandmother, and aunts, and cousins, and nieces. You should, then, know about the unity of femininity. Perhaps older women are more ‘rational’. They retain the charming spontaneity and deep concern for children and carefree irresponsibility and the desire to be directed by a man. We told them to hook up with people like them; they choose niggers, who also display spontaneity and and are utterly unconcerned with how their world actually works.

            It doesn’t matter how old, women will read endlessly about wedding dresses and the children of royalty, including transmen and excluding transwomen. Go on, ask the transthingies you know, and the women, starting at age 30, because younger women might actually be ignoring the new royal baby’s birth weight and suggested names on some principle or other.

            Have you seen the modern couple, ca. 1990s, fighting, still fighting, with them both filled with the ideological conviction that the woman does not desire domination: but the woman, inherently tied to the world, knows something is wrong with her intuition, and the man, head in the clouds, resolutely not seeing it? Or do you truly only know about women through your work life?

          • Recusancy says:

            Chaste men leads to chaste women.

            Suppose men focus their energy, time, money, et cetera, on sluts. Sluts become higher-status, and thus more popular.

            Alternately, suppose men focus their energy, time, money, et cetera, on wives, and are repulsed by sluts. Sluts become lower-status, and thus less popular.

            A daughter (or wife) lives in a culture. Contrast these two cultures:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6e9T1FpG8
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDZX4ooRsWs

            Which will result in more female chastity? The one with more male chastity.

            • jim says:

              Men will stick their dicks into whatever is going. Eggs are valuable and scarce, sperm is cheap and abundant. Society needs to control and protect what is valuable and scarce, not what is cheap and abundant.

          • Recusancy says:

            @Jim

            You’re using poor reasoning.

            >Men will stick their dicks into whatever is going.
            If offered for free, then 80%-90% of single men will accept sex with an attractive female stranger. This percentage would be somewhat less in a sexually conservative society.

            However, men will not stick their dicks in pussy that is too expensive. And men who can get sex without any money or time/energy investment are rare.

            Men can pay $400 (or whatever) per prostitute visit. Or spend $200 and several hours of time/energy on a few dates, then have sex with a (slutty) woman. Or they can spend several hundred hours, and tens of thousands of dollars to find and marry a wife.

            If American men focused on marriage, and didn’t spend much money/time/energy on having sex with sluts, several things would happen. The marriage rate would go up. Men would be more invested in their marriages, prompting them to control their women better. Sluts would become lower-status.

            Not to mention the entire problem of adultery. As people are increasingly loose about premarital sex, they are increasingly loose about adultery. You will have difficulty finding a country that executes adulterers, and doesn’t restrict premarital male sexuality.

            Male chastity is less important than female chastity.

          • Recusancy says:

            @Jim
            Another way of putting it:

            If we want to restrict the supply of eggs, men must not value female promiscuity.

            In the average high school, a girl’s route to being popular with the boys (and thus the girls) is to be slutty. To stop this, you either need to place her under the control of her father/husband, who will home-school her (or something). Or have the popular boys shame her for being slutty. (and marriage-focused boys would not have anything to do with sluts)

            • jim says:

              A marriage focused girl will not engage in slutty behavior, because that will harm her prospects of marrying. A marriage focused male will fuck anything concave, because that will not harm his prospects of marrying in the least, will in fact improve them considerably.

              Recall the UVA rape case. Jackie Coakley claimed to have a handsome boyfriend and told the guy she was stalking all about her imaginary boyfriend in the hope of getting her crush to fuck her. When that did not work, had an imaginary rape by her imaginary boyfriend. When that did not work, had an imaginary rape by an entire college fraternity.

              Of course if the boy she was stalking had believed any of this, it would have made her less attractive, not more attractive, but girls think it makes them more attractive because the equivalent makes boys more attractive to them. Girls prefer married men, men with existing girlfriends, and men with several existing girlfriends. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

              Unstable polygyny is the natural state of women. It is what you get when you let women have their way. They wind up being whored out by a pimp who has half a dozen girls in his stable, then next year by a different pimp, and in due course have half a dozen thuglets to half a dozen different thugs.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Recusancy says:
            May 7, 2015 at 1:12 am

            “@Jim
            Another way of putting it:

            If we want to restrict the supply of eggs, men must not value female promiscuity.”

            No where at no time have men been unwilling to engage in all the promiscuous sex that women are willing to supply.

            Yeah, we’ll get right on re-engineering the male sex drive so you can have your feminist utopia.

            Maybe we could distribute pills to men to remove their libido – that way women won’t get male attention for looking easy. Oh wait, that wouldn’t work on the men who refuse to take the pills. Better make them mandatory!

          • Recusancy says:

            @Steve Johnson

            So anybody who believes male sexuality somewhat malleable is a feminist? I have news for Moses and Muhammad.

            Sex is an exchange. Women get money, or free meals and social status. Men get pussy. In a Patriarchy, women lose social status for slutty behavior.

            And if someone spends his life seducing sluts, he cannot be part of a Patriarchy. He is elevating female sluts, above the (relatively) more chaste females. If a promiscuous male has daughters, he must either change your behavior, or they will likely become sluts.

            • jim says:

              The big problem is going to be virgins getting deflowered by inappropriate men. Seems obvious that it is going to be a lot easier to control the virgins.

          • Recusancy says:

            *change his behavior, or they will become sluts

          • peppermint says:

            sex is not an exchange. It is a biological drive. And men need to, but can’t, control their drive, even when they would not be able to reproduce with the woman in question – if a post-menopausal woman, or a negress, or a tranny offers herself to a man, and he hasn’t already masturbated three times that day, well… it takes an especially thoughtful man to refuse.

            • jim says:

              When it comes to sex, I am the least thoughtful of men, but I never had any problem resisting trannies or post menopausal women – in fact I am absolutely transphobic, in that I perceive ladyboys as demons dressed in human skin, the remnant of the human that they devoured.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Are you sure you’re not a parody conservative, Jim? Liberals parody conservatives by accusing them of wanting control women’s sexuality because men’s sexuality is uncontrollable (but at the same time, it’s the woman’s sexuality that’s the dangerous problem and thus in need of control). Even conservatives will parody Muslims for displaying that attitude through honor killings and Sharia.

          • Recusancy says:

            >sex is not an exchange. It is a biological drive.
            Hunger is a biological drive, too. And I’m wondering how you get food without purchasing it.

            Gaining consent to sex is also purchased, albiet informally. (usually)

          • peppermint says:

            Calling it a purchase implies that it’s rational decision, which it isn’t, for the man, or for the woman.

            Sometimes, men even purchase sex from other men. No eggs there, so why do they do it? In order to rank themselves socially for when women become available, and to trade social status for other things of value until then – does that make it a rational purchase? Certainly, more so than when women are involved.

            You see a box of donuts on the table. Do you eat one, take one home to your cousin, and throw the ones you can’t eat in the garbage? That’s what Bretons of Asian descent do to the female children of Bretons of English descent.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Hidden Author – again, you don’t really understand what it means to be a Reactionary. The Reactionary doesn’t believe in Conservative bullshit. Call us the Taliban. We may take it as a compliment.

          • Recusancy says:

            @Peppermint
            >Calling it a purchase implies that it’s rational decision, which it isn’t, for the man, or for the woman.
            “not rational” is a phrase people use to pick on decisions they dislike.

          • Recusancy says:

            @Jim
            >A marriage focused male will fuck anything concave, because that will not harm his prospects of marrying in the least, will in fact improve them considerably.
            A man who wants to purchase a wife will accumulate social status, money, et cetera. He will not spend social status, money, et cetera on loose women. Of course, if the women offer themselves to him for free, that’s fine. But very few men can get women without an investment of money, time or energy.

            I doubt that having sex with lots of women increases your chances of marriage. If I were marrying off my daughter, I’d want to giver her to a man that is going to remain monogamous. And women prefer that their men be monogamous. (they want their men to have enough status/money to afford mistresses, but stay monogamous)

            >Girls prefer married men, men with existing girlfriends, and men with several existing girlfriends.
            No. A female wants resources (money, mostly) and social status from her husband/boyfriend/whatever.

            The reason that rich men and high-status men accumulate mistresses, is because they can pay for them. A man making $500,000/year can pay $80,000/year for three (high-quality) mistresses, alongside his wife. A man making $50,000/year can’t.

            A high-status man can convince four women to share him. Why? Because being one of the King’s mistress is higher-status than nearly every other woman in the Kingdom. (except for the Queen).

            >Unstable polygyny is the natural state of women. It is what you get when you let women have their way.
            Polygyny is the natural status of both men and women. Women gravitate to money and social status. Men are willing to pay significant money for multiple women.

            To reduce polygyny, you have two options. You can either convince/force the women to reject money and social status if offered in polygamous circumstances. Or you can convince/force the men to stop paying so much in polygamous circumstances.

            For example, the traditional Orthodox/Catholic sacrament of marriage can only be used for monogamous relationships. Monogamous marriage is socially protected, and concubinage is condemned. This increases the cost for men who want to engage in polygyny. They can have a mistress. But they have to keep it a semi-secret (which prevents him from paying her in social status), and since she can’t live in the same house as your wife, it increases costs.

            But what we’re facing is not “letting women have their way”. If women owned themselves in the same way they can own a dog or a house, they could sell themselves. And we’d end up with marriage.

            We’re facing a system where women “own themselves”, but cannot sell themselves. It’s like you owned a motorcycle, but couldn’t ever sell it. And if you don’t want a motorcycle anymore, but can’t sell it, you probably mistreat it. You wouldn’t repair it. You might use it for target practice.

            Likewise, women aren’t allowed to get married, but they don’t really want to be independent. So they find the nearby guy with the most money, charisma and social status, and hook up with him. And then when that relationship dies, they go on to the next guy.

            • jim says:

              But what we’re facing is not “letting women have their way”. If women owned themselves in the same way they can own a dog or a house, they could sell themselves. And we’d end up with marriage.

              The experiment has been done. Women, given the choice, behave in ways that would, in the ancestral environment, make it difficult to ascertain paternity. And they just have to be stopped from acting like that for the sake of civilization and posterity. Even if women could commit irrevocably to marriage, most of them would not.

          • Recusancy says:

            >The experiment has been done.
            Where?

            >Even if women could commit irrevocably to marriage, most of them would not.
            Most people (especially women) would sell themselves into slavery withing a year, if it were legal. If corporations were not prohibited from “exploiting” people in various ways, most people would end up agreeing to binding contracts with various slave-like arrangements.

            If people were actually free, we’d see corporate feudalism emerge. At present, our corporate overlords are blocked by a managerial bureaucratic-academic class who forces everyone to manage themselves properly.

            People are not naturally free, that is part of the mythos of classical liberalism.

            • jim says:

              >The experiment has been done.

              Where?

              1. Freshman girls at university

              2. Freshman girls at university in traditional Islamic countries.

              3. Convict women transported to Australia.

              They all fuck around a lot, and fuck around in ways that in the ancestral environment would have made it impossible to ascertain paternity. Further, they generally fucked around with men who were neither able nor willing to support a child.

              The early Australian authorities solved this problem with shotgun marriage. Their procedures for shotgun marriage showed that these women could have gotten married at the drop of a hat, but chose not to do so unless forced.

          • peppermint says:

            » manage themselves properly

            if it did, then it wouldn’t be that bad

          • Recusancy says:

            Unsure about the Australian example. What did you read to come to this conclusion? Since the women sent to Australia were very low quality women, and men outnumbered them with a ratio something like 5-to-1 I doubt this is a good example.

            The freshmen girls in Saudi Arabia are living at the expense of their fathers and the House of Saud. If they had to pay for college on their own, almost no women would save enough to afford it. Of course, if they got married and kept house, they would not receive this money any more. They are specifically encouraged (financially and by propaganda) to be independent.

          • Recusancy says:

            There have been plenty of societies where the choice to get married was left with the bride. Since her choice was usually prostitution, starvation, or marriage, she chose marriage.

            Absent a welfare state that encourages female independence, women would be very willing to commit.

            • jim says:

              A fertile age woman can always get a better deal in the short term, by making short term arrangements, whether for the most attractive man available, or for the man who leaves cash on the pillow in the morning, or indeed both simultaneously, resulting in cash left on the pillow in the morning by one man being handed over in the afternoon to another man.

              Society has to apply a great deal of coercion to prevent women from continually switching partners in endless search for a momentarily better deal when they are at the age that they are most fertile and attractive.

              There is clear and compelling evidence that what women are naturally inclined to do does not make them happy, and gets them a worse deal in the long run. The tendency of older women to aim for longer term arrangements is in part motivated by very harsh experience.

              So it is good for women that they be coercively restrained from changing partners.

            • jim says:

              Since her choice was usually prostitution, starvation, or marriage, she chose marriage.

              Rather, the standard choice under economic pressure is soft prostitution – she shacks up with a man who leaves a little something on the pillow, then not long after that with another man who leaves a little something on the pillow – or outright prostitution.

          • Recusancy says:

            >the standard choice under economic pressure is soft prostitution
            And in a welfare state with all her physical needs provided for, the result is also soft prostitution, where she is paid in social status and charisma rather than money.

            >A fertile age woman can always get a better deal in the short term, by making short term arrangements, whether for the most attractive man available, or for the man who leaves cash on the pillow in the morning, or indeed both simultaneously
            No. A woman who focuses on short-term benefit at the expense of long-term benefit will end up selling herself.

            We see people rack up large amounts of debt, because they want stuff in the short term, and it costs them dearly for the rest of their life. If freedom of contract were permitted, all sorts of slave-like agreement would be made. Women who went bankrupt would end up slaves, and creditors would not be restricted from “predatory lending”, which would result in a lot of bankruptcies.

            You mentioned pimps. How difficult would it be for a pimp to convince one of his women to permanently sell herself to him? And then once he has her, he can keep her as a concubine, prostitute, or sell her to somebody as a wife.

            Actual freedom would result in the majority of women selling themselves into (sexual or non-sexual) slavery. Women and lower-class men are not built for freedom, and without a monolithic state to protect them, would lose their freedom pretty quickly. Blacks were freed from slavery, and immediately ended up as share-croppers, which was pretty close to slavery.

            • jim says:

              You mentioned pimps. How difficult would it be for a pimp to convince one of his women to permanently sell herself to him?

              Probably not hard at all, but, being a pimp, would then rent her out short term, which is the opposite of the intended outcome.

              The libertarian solution is that in place of marriage, we should allow people to bind themselves with long term contracts, so that a woman could contract to always be sexually available to one man, and never to any other. This, however, assumes that women are competent to sign long term contracts, which they are not.

          • Recusancy says:

            >being a pimp, would then rent her out short term
            Assuming he wants to maximize his income, will prostitution or selling her as a wife be more profitable?

            Prostitutes are difficult to manage, are expensive to house and feed. And the market would be saturated with prostitutes. And men who see prostitutes regularly could get a much better deal by just saving their money, and buying a wife. I’d expect that the majority of women would be sold as wives or long-term concubines.

            And then the children of this woman would be owned by the pimp, or the man he sells her to. And the problem of female emancipation would not exist for the next generation.

            Modern American Libertarians believe in private property. However, they reject the concept of private property in government (monarchy) and people (slavery, marriage). So Libertarians are a weird synthesis of left-anarchists, who reject all property, and rightists, who support all property.

            • jim says:

              The experiment has been done. It is always necessary to suppress the overnight market.

              A libertarian society with female emancipation leads to low levels of reproduction because females make poor choices that they regret later in life.

  7. Thales says:

    Revolving door spins again.

  8. Observer says:

    Bruce Jenner: husband of three wives and father of 10 children (6 by his own seed.)

    Bruce Jenner loves women and loves himself. Through transsexualism, his sexual orientation and his narcissism have become one. How this can be taken as a triumph of social progress is beyond me.

  9. Zach says:

    All, please enjoy this music (and hopefully album):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUPILO5ycqg

    The moments in between 🙂

    (possibly the greatest indie rock album of all time ahem, seriously…)

  10. Recusancy says:

    Question for Jim

    The Roman Catholic church does not ordain women, and does not marry homosexuals. It is likely that they will marry homosexuals and ordain women in the near future.

    How will they sell this to red-state America, and Catholics who have read enough theology to see the clear inconsistency?

    • peppermint says:

      Female priests is just not done, but there’s no real reason it’s not done.

      Gay marriage can not be done in a Catholic church, it’s totally out of the question. Even consecrating a gay couple as a separate thing would be out of the question, as it would obviously give scandal.

      Instead, Catholics will have to “see no evil” and recognize gay marriages from elsewhere, as they recognize marriages from elsewhere.

      • Recusancy says:

        So your solution is that the Catholic church will grow a pair of balls, and stop abandoning previous Catholic teaching? Unlikely.

      • jim says:

        Female priests is just not done, but there’s no real reason it’s not done.

        It is not done because it is prohibited in the New Testament, and because it would undermine the family.

    • jim says:

      They will not sell it – and in consequence will disappear.

      • Recusancy says:

        In the past 100 years, the Catholic church has been quite good at persuading Catholics that their changes are consistent with Catholicism. I doubt they’ll abandon that tactic, especially when it could result in a schism.

        My guess is that they’ll just marginalize the priesthood, and give the central role in the worship service to female pastors. To a significant extent, this has already occurred. The sacrament of communion will be ignored, except for some Traditionalist congregations. And the central focus of the service will be some ritual enshrining equality.

        And they’ll have priests bless gay marriages in church, and ignore it. While officially condemning it from the Vatican.

Leave a Reply