Not time for war yet

A lot of people are saying that Charlotsville means time for war.

No, not time for war yet, because the God Emperor says to cool it. You have to go with the King you have, rather than the King you would like to have, because otherwise it is democracy, and we know democracy does not work.

When they arrest him using a warrant from some judge no one has heard of, then likely it will be time for war.

80 Responses to “Not time for war yet”

  1. Stripes Duncan says:

    “When they arrest him using a warrant from some judge no one has heard of, then likely it will be time for war.”

    And it will be too late.

    • Dave says:

      Too late to save Trump and his family, I suppose, but reality is right-wing and always wins in the end. In such a vast country, there are many places for aware people to lie low while the Left exterminates itself.

      College towns like Charlottesville are not such places; they are enemy territories where proud white men and non-coal-burning white women are not welcome.

      • gkruz says:

        “In such a vast country, there are many places for aware people to lie low while the Left exterminates itself.”
        Russia was even vaster, and the Bolsheviks made sure no one could hide anywhere in it, and no one, not even the Czech Legion on their hijacked train, could find the Czar and his family before they were slaughtered/sacrificed. They were able to hide the gulags within their even vaster continent/country, until the very end. Those death camps were never liberated by any invading army. And every time the Left in the USSR “exterminated” themselves, they only came back stronger and more in control. Let’s not let that happen here!

    • jim says:

      You may well be correct, you probably are correct – but you are going to have to persuade Trump.

      We can meme on our own initiative, but for war, need a King.

      • Weird idea, to start a war exactly when your King is taken by the enemy. Kind of goes against the idea that you need him for your war, doesn’t it? In any case, I highly doubt Trump sees himself as your “King” or will take any kind of “kingly” action or issue “kingly” directives. I’m not a monarchist, but even if I was I’d say you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

        Call me naive, but I’m quite optimistic that the radical left will simply burn itself up as its ridiculousness accelerates to insane levels, and “war” will not be necessary. It already happened once, as the violent student radicals of the ’60s and ’70s became staid bourgeois; “cultural Marxism” is bad, but miles better than actual Marxism.

        And I really think it will happen again. Already here at university (disclosure: I’m a grad student, technical field) I see spreading discontent at the ideological control. I’ve don’t know a single person who has defended Google’s decision to fire James Damore; several of my friends even pre-empted me with “I know what you’re going to say about it, and I already agree”. I’m not advocating just sitting back and waiting, indeed the point is that we are not doing that. Even as “social justice” becomes more draconian I’m seeing backbones stiffening. People who used to slouch are standing straight again. Etc.

        • jim says:

          Call me naive, but I’m quite optimistic that the radical left will simply burn itself up as its ridiculousness accelerates to insane levels,

          The left was biting mad frothing at the mouth insane in 1820, and has been escalating the madness ever since. It is already nine tenths of the way to the Red Guards and Khmer Rouge Cambodia,

          From the inside, reaching and surpassing that level of madness will scarcely be noticeable, and the outside will be ignored, being deplorables and nazis and all that. Consider, for example, South Africa and Rhodesia.

          It is not a large step from preventing family formation and breaking up people’s families, to killing them.

          • I’ve read pretty much all of Moldbug, I know how this argument goes, I respect it, but it’s too simplified. Various ‘resets’ of radical leftism have happened in the US, and some have been quite serious. See the example of Marxism I gave above – since the ’60s the radicals have all but abandoned Marxism in favor of this new “cultural Marxism” or whatever the hell you want to call it. As bad as the New Left is, I’ll take it any day over communists.

            And an escalation of the proportions you imagine is unprecedented in countries with a strong (classical) liberal tradition. [Not saying it’s impossible, only that your certainty is misplaced.] So far, only autocratic leftist countries have managed to produce things like the Red Guards or the GULAG system.

            And having leftism pushed by a loose coalition by cultural means, rather than by a unified party by military means, is reason for optimism. It means different parts of the country will move leftwards at different speeds (unlike in e.g. Russia or China, were the party’s conformity meant the whole country went at once), and when some parts of the country hit disastrous levels of leftist madness they can serve as a warning to other parts. And the parts that remained sane can take the same role Hong Kong did for China.

            [Of course, this is why it’s necessary to protect states’ rights. But a lot of people who have drunk the kool-aid regarding many other issues (libertarians, basically) are still quite clear-minded on states’ rights, and there will be a very stubborn defense of states’ rights. Which will buy time to allow the radical left to tear itself apart.]

            • jim says:

              And an escalation of the proportions you imagine is unprecedented in countries with a strong (classical) liberal tradition

              Classical liberalism lasted thirty years or so, from around 1820 to 1850 or so, and always had massive exceptions which rapidly grew, and are still growing. When you say that democide is unprecedented, all you are saying is that peak leftism has not happened yet. We have been moving steadily and rapidly left since 1800 or so, maybe 1790 or so. Things got seriously insane in 1820 or so, and have been steadily getting more insane since then.

              “Leftism pushed by a loose coalition by cultural means” is exactly what we had in France and Russia – until they started pushing it by terror and mass murder.

              • You have your model; I have mine. Both can be argued to fit past facts, though I tend to think that in, say, 1970, you’d have made the same prediction of imminent doom – while the truth was that the American left would recede away from Marxism over the next two decades.

                So we’ll see whose predictions come true. Go ahead and prepare for your war if you like; I’m not even sure what kind of preparations you’re making. Stocking up on spam? Militia training? Moving to North Dakota?

                [I’m assuming you are preparing because if I thought such a war was coming – especially in the next couple of years, as you seem to believe – I’d for sure be preparing something for it.]

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  The 1970s was followed by a mass crime wave unleashed due to the activities of the left.

                  Also, the present is different from the 70s in ethnic composition, family formation, fertility rate, etc. All of them are worse for social stability and point towards things being more likely to spiral out of control.

                • Well, well, look what the cat dragged in. In all seriousness, good to bump into you here – despite our disagreements.

                  I’m not disputing the problems of the ’70s and ’80’s. But the point is that there was no ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny between lefties and righties. The Black Panthers, Weathermen, and their various radical buddies simply fell out of favor in the left, which had to regroup and re-brand itself. BLM can be awful, but it is nowhere near Eldridge Cleaver levels.

                  I see signs everywhere that people are sick of the radical left – even at my university, which is of course a radical left stronghold. This doesn’t mean we should be complacent; we still need to fight it. But it does mean that it seems likely the craziest groups will become unmoored from the great mass of lukewarm leftists and self-immolate.

                • Clarification for my reply above: many people e.g. Billy Ayers who were in the Weathermen, Panthers, etc. did not fall out of favor and continued to be feted by the “moderate” left.

                  But the Weathermen / Panther / SDS / SLA ideology of Marxism and violent revolution fell out of favor. The fact that the USSR and China no longer seemed romantic (oddly, because those two countries had regained some sanity) surely had something to do with it; but that can’t be the whole story. Simply put, the moderate leftists won a victory over the radicals and re-branded.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Well, well, look what the cat dragged in.”

                  I’ve been here for months.

                  “despite our disagreements.”

                  Mass murder and human sacrifice are slightly more then disagreements.

                  “But the point is that there was no ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny between lefties and righties.”

                  My post explicitly laid out why this was different. If you want to ignore what I said and talk about unrelated topics, you are free to. Don’t expect me to humor you though.

                • “Look what the cat dragged in” was a joke; you don’t have to be such a grouch about it.

                  And I did in fact address your points, by explaining why I don’t think “war” is a particularly likely outcome. And you never challenged my basic point in the first place, which is that the certainty that war is just around the corner is misplaced.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Words actually have meanings here. Feel free to lie as much as you like, but don’t expect anyone to care.

            • Anonymous says:

              >As bad as the New Left is, I’ll take it any day over communists.

              The New Left is outright opposed to white reproduction, and is flooding the West with infinity third-worlders. Feminism consuming your internal organs from within, Islam gnawing at your flesh from without.

              >So far, only autocratic leftist countries have managed to produce things like the Red Guards or the GULAG system.

              Dying from anarcho-tyranny is still dying.

        • Antipas says:

          I fail to see how “cultural Marxism” isn’t just regular Marxism without the purist economic socialism (AKA government runs means of production).

          The only thing they’ve really modified is a substitution of race for class.

          The modern left is much more in the spirit of Trotsky than Stalin.

        • Johnb says:

          Georgia has a black female Demo party candidate who is currently in the lead
          for her party’s nomination. There’s a window of opportunity here before whites become a minority. If Dems become the black/brown party, with all the corruption, incompetence and hate that implies, even a lot of white liberals will desert it. The didn’t hang around in Detroit, did they? This won’t save America, it’s too late for that, but it might push back the meltdown a few decades. (On the other hand there’s no underestimating the Republican party’s crookedness, do-nothingness, and penchant for shooting themselves in the foot.)

      • Stripes Duncan says:

        Trump is not that king. More and more I see a man who wanted to be president for his own purposes (which is fine) and has no desire to be any kind of standard-bearer for the people he rode into office.

        I always felt the man was a necessary symbol and we needed him to win, but I think we’ve seen the extent of his usefulness to our movement. America will not be redeemed through the political process. The king you seek won’t come from elected government. He will rise organically from the movement, or not at all.

        • Stripes Duncan says:

          Well I just watched his press conference and I think I need to eat my hat…he just slayed them while they yelled stupid questions at him like “Do you support the Confederacy” and “Why are bigots drawn to you”?

          I get a sense that he knows the score but is reluctantly thrust into a role as “the man at the moment.” He stuck to his guns though and made it clear that the left showed up to a protest looking for a fight and shouldn’t cry that they got one.

          • Kgaard says:

            Yeah that was my take. Stellar performance by Trump. Hopefully good for the cause of peace at the street level.

          • Corvinus says:

            You got duped. He did it for show. At his core, Trump is an elitist and globalist. And you are shilling for him.

  2. bartok says:

    It’s never too late – look how well Russia has recovered from communism. America can recover from communism as well.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      God Bless Holy Mother Russia.

    • jim says:

      Russia recovered because Stalin stopped leftism from moving ever further left. England recovered the same way, thanks to Cromwell.

      • Bonnie Garrison says:

        Russia recovered because Stalin died.

        • jim says:

          No, Russia recovered because Stalin lived.

          Which was by no means a sure outcome. He killed the left communists, but the left communists might well have killed him, in which case Russia would have been Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            The key evidence for this interpretation is that the Communist Party of the USSR proclaimed damnatio memoriae on Stalin after he died. They never did this to Lenin or any of the other criminals against humanity and the Russian people. Stalin was different because he was a criminal against the Communist Party.

          • gkruz says:

            “Left communists”, i.e., Jews. You know it’s so.

            • jim says:

              Purging the communist party of left communists had disparate impact on Jews, but was not a purge of Jews.

              Stopping the left singularity involved Stalin killing off almost all Jewish members of the communist party, but he did not do anything all that drastic about regular Jews.

              Yes, when we purge the Ivies and the public service of leftists, they will wind up almost Judenrein, but a purge of only Jews from the Ivies and the public service would not fix the problem, and a purge of Jews from distilleries and pawnshops would be irrelevant to the problem, a distraction from it.

  3. Oliver Cromwell says:

    The left is openly advocating Cambodia on social media. If not now, soon.

  4. Turtle says:

    Trump is fine. I expected an apocalypse under Obama, and was very wrong.

    Now, I am sure you are wrong to doubt God’s protection and His servants’ dominion. Do you really think the devil and his minions can defeat the King of Kings? Or do you mean spiritual history is detached from American politics, such that we can be oppressed while our souls are saved? Really, if God is good and strong, He will save His people.

    So your religious decision is to be faithful or not; God will guide your actions either way, just differently (charitably or wrathfully). I don’t notice people at church worrying about politics anymore, because they are busy with their personal issues. I’m bored of civil affairs myself, and have better things to do locally. So I hopefully am done worrying, and invite everyone else to stop predicting the future, and live courageously instead.

    Courage is easy; just trust God and His servants to bless you,then return the favor. What other courage is there? Self-reliance and prepping for a collapse? Making memes while the new white baby boom needs godfathers and patriarchal neighbors?

    Here’s an example of how controversial patriarchy is *in the American church* :
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/doug-wilson-reluctant-response/
    http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/this-morning.html

    That’s quite the man-on-cuck exchange of letters. And really, a repentant sex criminal husband is better than no husband, or a divorced one. I’m tired of the local desirable girls I have met mostly being unfathered, making them undatable for me. I’m torn between ignoring the issue and telling them to reconnect with their Dads. I have decided to be honest about patriarchy, and not let their broken families deter my desires. But that means I need to mature in other ways, too, and this is what I should be doing instead of masturbatory, weak politics.

    If you don’t pray to the Tsar-Passion Bearer Nicholas II, who is historically best qualified to help Trump in a similar situation, then why make vague promises of loyalty to Trump? Obviously, Trump’s patron saint helps too, and I have concluded that he is St. John of Kronstadt, who has a similar character and biography,and even the same broad, ancestrally Viking appearance, and infidel-triggering reputation (boldness inspires or irks).

    It’s telling that Russian saints will help rescue us, while Russia’s president seems to not return salutes to his soldiers (which is gestural abdication, and how can he be divorced?). I mean that God has moved the world’s form of grace from Providence to Opportunity. We can win, because God has given us life, and because my Church is good, America will be holy again.

    Barron’s ‘comedy writer’ enemy, who called him a home-schooled shooter [if he joins the military, maybe that’s an accurate prophecy, but she meant murder 😉 ], is back “at work” at SNL telling evil, unfunny jokes. I think Barron is a forgiving pre-teen, but for media consumers, this scandal disgraces SNL. May the Lord rebuke her (wasn’t she just projecting her own violent impulses?), with a fair lese majeste trial, under a Restored Constitution.

  5. Learner says:

    It was unnecessary to kill anyone. Ordinary people don’t like killers. All you need to discredit a political movement is for such a movement to start killing people. Wearing KKK costumes is a close second.

    • peppermint says:

      Incorrect. People, especially women, love high status killers who take out the trash and hate low status killers who murder their betters.

      The refusal to recognize that social status exists while vying for status by any means necessary is justified here by soul theory and the need for the Elect to preach to the damned.

      • Dave says:

        Females lust for any man who kills people without being killed. The fact that Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Charles Manson will die in prison has no effect on female instinct, which has changed little since our ancestors squatted in trees picking lice out of each other’s fur.

        • Anonymous says:

          It is because you are correct, that MGTOWs must also be correct: anything that could diminish the value of bio-women and their bargaining power vis-a-vis men, such as sexbots, VR porn, and artificial wombs — and other things more technologically advanced, such as synthetic eggs for instance — is a justified means for the achievement of this end, an end whose ultimate upshot should be the absolute obviation of female sexual choice.

          Every time I suggest that women control men because men have a substantially higher sex-drive (on average) than women, the denizens of this esteemed abode pounce on me and, with what appears to be denial induced by an ego-preservation mechanism, claim just the opposite. If my thesis were accepted, we could then discuss how biologically-constructed “sex-drive egalitarianism” would fundamentally undermine social egalitarianism, as men would no longer succumb to female demands with such servility. The implication being that a method to increase female sex-drive (what the horny Jews would prefer) or, conversely, a method to reduce male sex-drive without a corresponding reduction of testosterone (the better option), should be devised. But because various ideological conceptions and ego-investments prevent the people here from accepting my premise, no such discussion could be had here.

          The puritans would not like to see any reduction in male sex-drive, because they confer feelgood/skydaddy points on humanity in accordance with their conception of “the struggle against sin”, so if we simply remove the “sinful” desire itself, that would deprive them of the immense pleasure they gain from upbraiding fellow man and guilt-tripping their own selves over the “omnipresent temptation”. Puritans enjoy nothing more than to tell you that you should struggle and struggle and struggle against your natural biological drives, and instilling a sense of guilt in you for failing to do so. That’s why puritans are vehemently against modesty: modesty reduces the temptation, ergo “the struggle against sin” becomes easier, and so fewer feelgood/skydaddy points can be conferred thereby. The puritans — MODERN DAY puritans — support immodesty, because that way they can high-five one another for not giving in to temptation.

          Thus, they would be vehemently against any attempt to simply reduce the “sinful” desire by scientific means. In case you still don’t grok my point:

          The puritan tells himself “I feel very strong temptations, but I resist them,” and after telling himself that, he experiences a pleasant sensation known as the “feelgood” in his brain, and if religious, invokes skydaddy’s abstracted approval, though most modern-day puritans aren’t very religious. Because of the brain-sensation known as “feelgood”, he persists in his struggle against sin, and when he occasionally fails in the struggle, for instance by jerking off to Eichenwald-tier pornography, he feels a sense of guilt; but the sense of guilt eventually brings a smile to his face, because puritans are masochists who feel superior for their exquisite self-abnegation, and so the emotion of guilt also results in a “feelgood” sensation in their brains. (that’s right, there I said it: puritans enjoy feeling guilt and enjoy making you feel guilty)

          The non-puritan, who is often in the minority unfortunately, has no time for this feelgood-accumulation psychology, he just wants the “struggle” to be over with so he won’t have to be distracted by the incessant “noise” that is liberated female sexuality, therefore he supports modesty and he supports the alleviation of the sex-problem by means of reducing female control over males through sexuality. I’m the only one here who is 100% consistent about this issue, so naturally all the confused fellas attack me for my clear-cut exposition of my view.

          Most of you haven’t dug as deep down into the rabbit hole as I have, so you are unfamiliar with the great MGTOW website “No Ma’am”, which is one of the websites that have inspired the whole manosphere. On no-maam dot blogspot, titled “Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise is Deafening”, there is a great post which I would like to share for your edification:

          – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

          “Quote: “… young women tend to get away with murder just by flaunting it.”

          Remember another feminist slogan of recent years: “If you’ve got it, flaunt it!”

          I for one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I’ve seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris’ classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species’ sexual signals may be olfactory (scents–which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it’s never an accident: it’s an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.

          If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.

          Once again, women don’t make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males “can’t keep their eyes to themselves.” It’s just more testing. If nothing else, it’s a test of the male’s ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. “I’m not logical. Deal with it.” What does not destroy you … makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; she will escalate every contest to the ultimate.

          In “traditional” cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behaviour, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn’t cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.

          In our “modern,” revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it’s a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don’t feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the “patriarchy” women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our “enlightened” social order, where women are “free to be themselves.” The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don’t know what’s best for their own welfare.

          People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you’re selling what you’re showing? But of course, as our “modern” culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures’ restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behaviour becomes the norm.

          Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I’ve encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behaviour of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn’t know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, “This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?” It was sad.

          I was amused to see the following passage in the Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments”:

          The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

          The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less “nasty, brutish and short” than that of the animal world from which we came–and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.””

          – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

          Lastly, I (Anonymous, in case you are retarded and don’t realize the quote from the website is over now) would suggest reading the entire website of No Ma’am as that’s one of the best anti-feminist websites that have ever existed. Take the damn redpill motherfuckers.

          • Anonymous says:

            Inb4 peppermint will assault me with his gaslighting about how “modesty means looking like a dyke”, no peppermint, modesty means that I don’t have to constantly see the contours’ of whorish Anglosphere-raised women’s asses, their panties (which they sometimes forget to wear), their very protruding nipples, their bras, their cleavage deep as the ocean, the easily-gaugeable size of their boobs, their chest, the erogenous area above their ass, and all things pertaining to their SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS.

            And you can be an atheist who wants to bulldoze all the churches/synagogues/mosques in the world and *as such* make an argument for modesty. The tolerance of immodesty is religious in nature, in fact, because it’s a religious impulse which impels the puritan to feel the emotion of “feelgood” whenever he is tempted and resists the temptation. Immodesty is actually a deeply religious phenomenon, while modesty is the scientific restraint of the religious madness. Counterintuitive? But look at the whorehouse that is the modern West and tell me I’m wrong! The West today is the most religious it has ever been in history, it’s just that now religion is 100% unrestrained emotion, free of rationalizing dogma, a crypto-religion if you will, and this crypto-religion rules with no opposition the entire West and especially Anglo countries.

            It is exactly if you have no religious bone in your body that you must understand why modesty is indispensable for social health; it is the religious types who make abstracted rationalizations of the EMOTION of feelgood which they feel inside their brains when they can pat themselves on the back for “resisting sin”. The religious-types tolerate and even encourage immodesty so that skydaddy will give them cookies for exerting self-control; the irreligious, non-puritan impose modesty and tell the THOTs to get in line and stop showing me their secondary sexual characteristics against me will.

          • Anonymous says:

            Modesty is scientific, it’s the purely scientific application of the technology of clothing to restrain the “sexual noise” emanating from female hominids.

            Because even niggers know about clothing, any society that tolerates immodesty is doing so because there’s an emotional, which is to say religious, impulse driving people to accord one another feelgood-points for “resisting sin” whenever they encounter immodesty. It’s a game of signalling and masochism.

            When you come around and put some clothes on their slutfaced cunty women, you tell the puritans: “your faggy emotions are irrelevant, from now on there will be civilizational order.” Which they resist kicking and screaming, because you’ve destroyed their childish game.

          • peppermint says:

            (1) Women are consumed by thoughts of sex and only thoughts of sex. Men, in addition to thinking about sex, think about their career – many millennial men aren’t dating because they don’t feel ready in their career – and whether or not they’re likely to be killed for hitting on a particular woman.

            (2) that noise is irrelevant, men know how they present themselves regardless. This is why the same response to fishnet leggings is observed as to skirts that showed ankle a century ago. Fishnet leggings aren’t directly sexy as in showing off desirable physical traits. The only way to stop women from advertising themselves as easy in order to try to entrap or simply fuck a higher status man than they think they honestly deserve is to tell them not to do that and police their behavior in individual terms through awareness of current cultural norms.

            Meanwhile, all women want to show their physical traits, first to honestly advertise their value, and then to assist their man in demonstrating his status.

          • jim says:

            Every time I suggest that women control men because men have a substantially higher sex-drive (on average) than women, the denizens of this esteemed abode pounce on me

            No, men do not have a substantially higher sex drive than women. If anything, it is the other way around. Rather, the problem is that eggs are precious, sperm is cheap, therefore women are precious, men are expendable. This is an objective fact of reality unrelated to sex drives, a simple fact that it is pointless to deny.

            The man desires to impregnate as many women as possible, the woman desires to be impregnated by the highest value man available, thus ninety percent of men experience female sex drive as low and their own sex drive as high, but they are very badly mistaken. A woman will crawl nine miles over broken glass to gratify her demon lover, damaging her kinfolk, her husband, and her children.

            Women’s sex drives are powerful, dangerous, volcanic, and very difficult to control. If not restrained, they will destroy society and the family.

            The idea that women’s sex drives are low leads to the Victorian fallacy that the marital contract only needs to be enforced upon men, not upon women. Rather, the primary threat to family and society is the volcanic sex drives of women.

          • Dave says:

            Women compete for male attention; modesty rules force them to compete fairly. We want women competing on natural beauty, personality, and domestic skills, not on who’s willing to wear the tiniest bikini.

            It’s the same reason NASCAR holds all cars to a very tight spec. We want to see who’s the best driver, not who has the fastest car.

            • peppermint says:

              Women will find a signal to advertise easy sex regardless of clothing rules. If not smaller bikinis and nipple slips, less petticoats and ankle slips.

              Normal women will show the goods to confirm their status.

              A woman who has just been taken off the market, on the other hand, will want to dress modestly to demonstrate that she is taken, preferably in bf’s sweatshirt.

          • Corvinus says:

            In a nutshell, you’re pissed off because you lack significant Game to procure trim.

            “Most of you haven’t dug as deep down into the rabbit hole as I have, so you are unfamiliar with the great MGTOW website “No Ma’am”, which is one of the websites that have inspired the whole manosphere.”

            Go your own way. We. Don’t. Care. Life will go on. Men will continue to get poon and/or marry and have children.

            • jim says:

              Ninety percent of men are getting very little young fresh poon, and most men are unable to become fathers.

              • Corvinus says:

                “Ninety percent of men are getting very little young fresh poon, and most men are unable to become fathers.”

                [Ding, ding, ding] Congratulations, Jim, you now have achieved Platinum Level status for bullshit statistics.

      • peppermint says:

        Heather Heiffer was a very low value person. Theoretically a 32 year old fat woman could clean herself up and have enough kids to replace herself and her husband. If the alt-right won tomorrow she would do that. In a normal country, however, she would have gotten there by not getting married and be highly unlikely to.

        The driver was a fairly high value person as evidenced by his car. He panicked, which is a low status action, but the left doesn’t even know that.

        According to what the left knows, they should conclude that the driver was high status and the heifer was low status. However, the left gives a huge buff to members of leftist terrorist groups, both because they are at war and because leftist terrorists have always been taken care of and treated as heroes, and a huge nerf to right-wingers, because thy are at war and because right-wingers per the civil rights act are ostracized by everyone else.

        Meanwhile, the kids, left and right, virtue signal by claiming to have monogamous feelings for their girlfriends, who virtue signal by claiming to honor and obey them. They, left and right, virtue signal by claiming to have serious work that accomplishes something and can provide for them.

        And what is this blog comment section other than virtue signaling by claiming more knowledge of the world and to care more about the future of our people?

        She should have gotten splattered isn’t something youcan get away with telling leftists. It’s sad that she was so low value, however, is, provided your leftists are under 30.

        If Trump can freeze the culture and demographic war for the next eight years, the country will be far to the right of where it was in 2012.

        • peppermint says:

          First they claim that all people are of equal value, an assertion which has only ever been backed by soul theory.

          Then they apply buffs to Elect and nerfs to any potential threat to Elect preaching, and conclude that the heifer is higher status than the driver.

          Meanwhile, White people once had these “laws” according to which a person is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense if he can’t flee, which is obviously true every time parastatals attack a car.

        • Turtle says:

          > Meanwhile, the kids, left and right, virtue signal by claiming to have monogamous feelings for their girlfriends, who virtue signal by claiming to honor and obey them. They, left and right, virtue signal by claiming to have serious work that accomplishes something and can provide for them.

          > And what is this blog comment section other than virtue signaling by claiming more knowledge of the world and to care more about the future of our people?

          Good point, I did do that. But, Koanic, who comments here but had a huge blog for years, taught me about polygamy, and how much better women can be than the satanist vixens I grew up with. As for serious work, I publicly only claim credit for prayer and patience. Providing for myself or others, no, that comes from God, even if he gives me the talent to obtain, ‘create’ (accept), and wield wealth for my sustenance.

          Maybe I should admit men’s monogamy is super-erogation, but I don’t know yet. I need to read St. John Chrysostom’s teachings on marriage.

  6. Dave says:

    The Daily Stormer has been down for almost a day now. I guess Anglin naively expected the First Amendment to protect him, while you instead chose anonymity and hosting your website in a country not controlled by Jews.

    In the not-too-distant future, sharing right-wing opinions will be as illegal as sharing child porn, which raises the question, how do people share child porn without getting arrested?

    • peppermint says:

      His servers are already in a free country, but DNS was always a centralized thing. If no one who registers .com names will touch his registration, ultimarely he has to take that up with the US government while moving to a free country’s cctld.

      • Alrenous says:

        DNS is a luxury. Pass around the actual IP address.

        • peppermint says:

          It’s not that simple, dailystormer’s .com and short lived .wang used to point to cloudflare, which protected ds from ddos attacks because a security company that decides to let a paying customer get attacked will never get another customer. Cloudflare has no reason to modify their services to allow requests to their ip addresses with a domain name set only in the http headers thereby doing an end run around the dns system, or become a ddos-proof registrar just because ds needs one.

          ds’s next domain name needs to come from some country that wants to insult Americans.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Child porn unlike politics has the advantage that
      1) Followers are really into it
      2) They are no alternative sources
      3) Being involved at all is illegal

    • Turtle says:

      The devil hides molesters from law enforcement, while we shouldn’t be persecuted for our reasonable beliefs.

      We need print publications, in my opinion. That sounds dangerous or impossible, but it’s easy to spread samizdat within a social network. Meeting in person is safer than only having websites.

  7. I don’t think any of us seriously doubt some variation of the degenerative ratchet model. Will this particular lurch leftward result in war? I think it depends on economics. The USG is held afloat on a mountain of debt. This debt has been rolled over at ever lower rates since 1982, and this has fed economic expansion. (and inflated asset prices for the 1%)

    At some point ZIRP will change to NIRP, and then fail. Economic musical chairs does not go on forever…

  8. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Rightists should not participate in protests.

    Protests are political theatre for the benefit of those who already control the state. Here is what a leftist protest looks like when leftists don’t control the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo

    Charlottesville was a Peterloo. It doesn’t matter that you scuffed the yeomanry’s uniforms a bit. You made yourselves look weak, frightened the waverers out of the movement, and lost valuable people who could have been used for something useful.

    When leftists do not control the state (or think they can appeal to an amenable foreign state) they don’t organise protests, they organise clandestine conspiracies. Bolsheviks not Freedom Riders.

    • peppermint says:

      What Charlottesville accomplished:

      * police are on camera cooperating with parastatals
      * the left can’t get enough parastatals to beat up the nazis
      * Tim Kaine did an end run around a court order
      * with a declaration of emergency made prior to any violence, implying that he was in on the collusion between police and parastatals
      * for the first time, the network news is forced to recognize the existence of the parastatals, not as parastatals but by name as antifa

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Is the goal recruitment? You recruited a lot more enemies.

        What the right needs is not a load of yobbos to scream at their yobbos but an organised hit squad for when the leftism spiral openly destroys the constitution.

        • peppermint says:

          Recruited enemies? The left has been screaming for blood since Trump announced His candidacy.

          Several open violations of tradition have occurred. At which one should the hit squad strike? The right wing lawyer squad is on the case, while the hit squad can’t really say what justifies it acting now instead of last time or next time. His Majesty doesn’t want violence, neither do thought leaders Anglin, Enoch, or Cantwell.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            If you are going to go to prison for life don’t do it to kill some cat lady nobody.

            Going to prison for life however is never good strategy. The right wins by sudden and overwhelming seizure of power – Pinochet, not the tea party. Pinochets happen because going to prison for life becomes disconnected from actually committing any crime, there being no meaningful law and order at all, and once launched the outcome is either victory or death.

            Yes, I know it wasn’t intentional anyway, that the man was just trying to flee a dangerous situation in a way that was safe for him. So don’t go in to dangerous situations you might lose your freedom trying to flee when there is no payoff. Standing in a field holding a torch isn’t a payoff.

        • Turtle says:

          > organised hit squad

          Yeah, angels do that for Christians, so few of us are warriors. I’s not “come to the dark side, we have cookies and memes,” as the alt-left says, but rather “accept God’s mercy, for He is Who He is, the King Who is Love and sends His enemies to hell.”

    • Alf says:

      Yea seems to me the 1-2 set-up with protestors out and Trump condemning violence by alt-right as well as alt-left works pretty well. Alt-left+police pincer the alt-right, but alt-right+trump pincer the media.

  9. They are smarter than that, Jim. They’ll arrest his son, knowing that restraint is not his strong side and will probably do something illegal to prevent that or at least say something the media can spin into that. Then his voters, who are probably strong believers in democracy – since they hate the elites and all they seem to have against the elites is democracy – will be vulnerable to a spin like “You didn’t vote for Jr., only Sr., Jr. does not represent you. And you want the presidency to be turned into a family business? It is wrong to use democratic powers to protect unelected people yadda yadda yadda”.

    Oh and if Trump heroically goes “law is law, see ya in prison son” then they will of course spin it into something heartless, disloyal and unfatherly, which is yet another way to alienate his voters from him. “He’d even sacrifice his own family for power.” type of spin,

    They know the rule “divide and conquer”. Smart moves divide the enemy and arresting his son sounds like something that can lead to a lot of division.

    Indeed it sounds like a devilishly clever and almost foolproof plan. Having a bunch of voters who value both family values and democracy and strongly limiting the government with constitutional bounds… they just created a situation where Trump will violate at least one of these sentinements.

    They probably know that trying to make the leader of a movement into a martyr unites, does not divide.

    • jim says:

      Any charges against his son are going to be frivolous and incomprehensible to the average voter, so Trump will be able to pardon his people at zero political cost. And then they are going to arrest Trump – or attempt to arrest him.

    • peppermint says:

      The investigation is about His campaign, any lawfare against His children would be exactly what He needs to fire the investigators.

      Assassinating Him would reopen the divisions on the right that He is currently keeping united. But, He has secret service protection, so the would-be assassin targeted His best congressional royalists instead.

      • Turtle says:

        The investigation, I expect, will conclude he is innocent, with no accusations (ask St. Jegudiel, who protects rulers, if that’s ridiculously hopeful)

        http://pravicon.com/images/icons/12/12417.jpg

        , and Democrats will suicide or forgive him for being better than them.

        > best congressional royalists instead

        No, you’ve never heard of the best ones, I think. They co-sponsored the VA reform (firing the corrupt, lazy, and incompetent) legislation, but don’t play baseball during wartime. Those are the best Congressmen, and a few lady-legislators too.

        As for Senators, well, Sessions was the best. We do need better Senators.

        • Corvinus says:

          “The investigation, I expect, will conclude he is innocent, with no accusations (ask St. Jegudiel, who protects rulers, if that’s ridiculously hopeful).”

          Clearly you haven’t been paying attention. Go crawl back into your shell.

  10. […] When they arrest him using a warrant from some judge no one has heard of, then likely it will be time for war. – – Jim’s Blog […]

  11. Rick Sean says:

    Trump’s new Alt-Left meme is the end for the Alt-Right as a brand. Trump finally acknowledged that the Alt-Right is the undesirable and degenerate part of the Right, and uses the Alt- connotation to take down the extreme part of the left.

    The Alt-Right started successfully as ‘The Uncucked Right’ as a broad alternative to conservatives and libertarians, but thanks to the idiotic ‘no punching to the right’, it has been coopted by the Neo-Nazis, Pagans, Cosplayers, the KKK, and other undesirable degenerates.

    So Jim, are you still Alt-Right ?

    • peppermint says:

      I’m not sure if Jim is more sympathetic to civic nationalism or ultranationalism, certainly Jim likes the God-Emperor Who is obviously a civic nationalist. His Majesty didn’t throw ultranationalists under the bus, He asserted that the alt-left was violent, making it ok for others in His Majesty’s Royalist Party to say that the alt-left was violent, ending the point deer make horse moment the ((legacy media)) wanted to have.

      You’re a faggot.

      • Rick Sean says:

        Calling communists ‘Alt-Left’ is what throwing the ‘Alt-Right’ under the bus looks like.

        It’s even more than that, it’s acknowledging that the ‘Alt-Right’ brand has become so stinky that it can now be used as a bio-weapon against the left. In other words, useful idiocy.

  12. […] When they arrest him using a warrant from some judge no one has heard of, then likely it will be time for war. -from http://blog.jim.com/war/not-time-for-war-yet/ […]

  13. Alrenous says:

    This is one of those hints that the Cathedral isn’t as headless as it likes to portray itself.
    The Hillary inauguration protests and Battle of Berkeley didn’t work out for the Cathedral, so they called it off until they had a better plan. They rationally evaluated the situation, formulated a new plan, and executed it, with sufficient success. This was not evolution or some competing conspiracy selection process. Those are too slow to produce rapid responses.
    Indeed not only did they formulate and execute a new plan, it was a plan that called for patience and timing.

    This is not to suggest they are all-knowing. Mueller may well do something moronic and batshit.

  14. cavmedic says:

    That’s what you poser bums, craven cucks,
    and beta fetchers of respectability always babble.
    As always, you’re more worried about making
    yourself into an acceptable image, an image
    that is dictated by your enemy.
    When the focus should be maintaing the God given
    rights of individual freedom and natural, granted
    at birth and previously defended and protected
    by our Constitutional rule of law.

  15. […] Jim’s Blog: Not time for war yet […]

Leave a Reply