Revolution and helicopter rides

The word “revolution” used to mean a political change that restored some previous state of affairs. Since everyone wanted to claim legitimacy from the ancient past, they would call their political changes “revolution”, meaning what we would now call a “restoration”. Then leftists claiming legitimacy from the supposed will of the people, also dubiously claimed ownership of some recent “revolutions” to make it plausible that they could succeed in seizing power –

Standard color revolution tactic: when the State Department decides to overthrow someone, the lame stream media announce he is weak, he is weaker, he cannot possibly continue in power, he is out of power, and someone with a connection to the US and Harvard is in power. When this works, the Cathedral seizes power fairly bloodlessly. When it fails, as in Rwanda and Syria, the Cathedral is apt to go genocidal. Trump was not able to halt CIA efforts to exterminate Syrian Christians until last month, and the Wikipedia account of the attempt to genocide the Tutsis is that they had it coming and need to apologize to the Hutus.

As a result of this tactic, the word “Revolution” took the meaning of the people overthrowing the state, or the oppressed masses overthrowing the privileged elite. Which in fact never happens. It is just propaganda. The Iron Law of Rebellious Tools tells us that all such revolutions are always fake. The people never matter and the oppressed masses never matter. What we always have is some quite small powerful conspiratorial group, which has a great deal of power but lacks legitimacy, moving against legitimate and traditional power, and invoking the masses as mascots.

Kings got tired of aristocrats, tired of able powerful fertile rivals spawning numerous additional able powerful rivals, so instituted what we now know as supposedly professional bureaucracy, a bureaucracy composed of low fertility nonentities without powerful family connections – and found they had sawn off the branch on which they sat, for the King’s state apparatus composed of commoners proceeded to overthrow him, whereas when the Kings apparatus had been composed of aristocrats, when members of the elite were selected largely on the performance of their ancestors, it merely checked his power in irritating and inconvenient ways. And when the King’s ruling apparatus composed of commoners proceeded to dispense with the King, it would piously announce it was surrendering to the wrath of the justly enraged masses. And thus “revolution” came to have its modern meaning, even though there are no actual events that fit the definition. The word “revolution”, like “psychopath” and “racist” refers not to a concept, but to an anticoncept, exists to obscure, rather than discuss reality.

The use of eunuchs by the Chinese emperors was an extreme form of this fear of powerful and fertile people in the state apparatus. Notice that when Trump appoints his kin to power, the permanent government are not worried that nepotism results in him appointing incompetent people to power, but rather worried that he is appointing dangerously competent people to power who are likely to be loyal to him, rather than them.

And now, we are back to eunuchs, as the Cathedral deploys cat ladies and castrated males after the style of the Chinese Emperors.

Which brings me to right wing death squads and helicopter rides:

Leftism is priestly rule, categorizing professors, judges, and mainstream media with other priests. We are in practice always ruled by warriors or priests, and right now, priests are out of hand.

Judges are unpopular in the Philippines, because they administer justice in accordance with Harvard values, rather than Philippine values, or even Philippine government values. Hence the immense popularity of Rodrigo Duterte and his death squads.

Helicopter rides in South America occurred in the context of a communist “uprising” that was in fact backed by the Judicary, that was in fact an instrument of a part of the government that controlled the judiciary. One side in the struggle declined to use the courts, because courts were controlled by the enemy.

And it is plain that in America today the courts are acting in an utterly brutal, ruthless and lawless way in pursuit of a hostile political agenda.

Death squads are fine provided that discipline is tight. You can tell if a death squad is OK by the snappyness of their uniforms. And courts are bad because discipline is not tight. “Independence of the Judiciary” is a terrible principle. An independent judiciary is a corrupt judiciary. When you hear stories of the enemies of the Cathedral improperly influencing trials, it is always a lie. Harvard improperly influences trials. Hence the immense popularity of Duterte.

63 Responses to “Revolution and helicopter rides”

  1. Cavalier says:

    If the Cathedral is analogous to the Chinese Emperors and the bureaucracy of cat-ladies and childless, low-testosterone males is analogous to the bureaucracy of Chinese eunuchs, then the question of who the Chinese Emperors are, is the question of interest.

    No, it isn’t headless.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      That is only relevant under a strong Emperor. Under weak Emperors, the eunuchs and mandarins form factions and compete for power and bypass the emperor. The latter more closely matches present day.

      • Cavalier says:

        Q1: Why can the entire apparatus turn on a dime?

        Q2: How does the party line change in a matter of minutes, as per Colbert?

        Q3: Where’s the Cathedral faction breakaway for Trump?

        Q4: Does any group ever bypass the money spigot, without which they cannot conjure so much as a riot?

        Q5: Who controls the promotion process in every case of significant government power, with one singular exception, that exception being one Presidential election? To Jim: who put Michael Mann in power?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “Q1: Why can the entire apparatus turn on a dime?”

          Because they all have the same beliefs? Because schooling and selection pick for leadership that work together and the liberals on the ground simply parrot anything high status liberals say?

          “Q3: Where’s the Cathedral faction breakaway for Trump?”

          Cathedral is essentially defined as ‘insane holiness spiral’; since Trump isn’t on board, no faction of the Cathedral could possibly support him. This doesn’t prevent portions of the government from supporting him.

          “Q5: Who controls the promotion process in every case of significant government power, with one singular exception, that exception being one Presidential election? To Jim: who put Michael Mann in power?”

          The media. This is the closest to a direct conspiracy because you do have people explicitly deciding whether or not to run stories based on if they help the narrative.

          • jim says:

            “Q1: Why can the entire apparatus turn on a dime?”

            Because they all have the same beliefs

            But they don’t have the same beliefs all the time. The line changes overnight, and they all change their beliefs.

            They all have the same belief at time A, and then a short time later, they all have a different belief.

            You explain why they initially have the same beliefs, but fail to explain why their beliefs change abruptly and unison.

            Ask a leftist a question on which he is unsure of the official line, and watch the fear on his face as he fails to answer

    • Dave says:

      I don’t call it the “Cathedral” because it lacks a tight, formal hierarchy, and I don’t call it the “International Jew Conspiracy” because it celebrates everything that the Torah forbids. I suggest calling it the “Harvard Consensus”; it is what everyone at Harvard agrees to be good and true, consensus being the opposite of science and reason.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        For starters, the Torah has thousands of phrases, hundreds of which could be invoked as supportive of the Jew-Harvard consensus.

        But even if that were not the case, the Torah, for all its complexity, and all the apparent reverence you hold it in, and all the reverence you expect us to concede it, is nothing but an approximation of the deep psychology of a given people at a point in time. Like all religion.

        What matters, what is long-lasting, are the unique genetic features of the people expressing that mass psychology, because the genes ARE the psychology. And the psychology of modern Ashkenazi Jews is a parasitic dovetail with the universalistic psychology of ‘Core White’ elites, constituting something extremely close to an International Jewish Conspiracy. One might call it the Jew-Harvard Consensus, as above, or the International Jew-Puritan Conspiracy. Either way, it is killing the West.

        One last point: history and behavioral phenotype suggests Jews are the senior partner, as the consensus allows them to have a reproductively isolated, self-perpetuating breeding unit to draw from, in the form of the ultra-Orthodox, whereas the Puritans, eg Macron, ultimately leave no descendants.

        • Cavalier says:

          Ultra-Orthodox Jews might as well be a different race as Ashkenazi Jews. “Outsourced” reproduction is a concept without a future.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Technically, diaspora ultra-Orthodox like the Hasidim are almost all Ashkenazim by definition, but you may well have a point: they may be in the process of selecting for a defining quality that will set them apart from other Ashkenazim.

            It seems to be the case that relatively simple differences between populations can be critical. Why, according to HBDChickism, the most important genetic difference of them all, the one that makes the West unique, is not even due a particular ‘allelic’ trait, but simply due to the fact that Westerners are more outbred than, say, their otherwise close Slavic kin. And before he died, Henry Harpending was very interested in whether the Amish were selecting themselves for a differentiating package of traits he called ‘plain-ness.’ (I would argue that the Anabaptist doctrine of non-resistance is so bizarre from a Darwinian perspective that it alone is good evidence they have been strongly differentiating for 300+ years.)

            Similarly, the Hasidim may be selecting for something (as with the Amish, the very willingness and structure for having large numbers of children would almost certainly be a key part of the package) that will ultimately prevent them from replenishing the ranks of coercive, parasitic, globalist Ashkenazim. But I doubt it, at least not for a long time. Hell, even some Amish join the outside world as a result of their adolescent rumspringa: the equivalent phenomenon among Hasidim should easily replenish the ranks of their globalist brethren. Could the Kushners be a prime example?

  2. vxxc2014 says:

    Agree except for last paragraph.

    Your fashion advice is dated.
    Stay in your lane.

    “Death squads are fine provided that discipline is tight. You can tell if a death squad is OK by the snappyness of their uniforms.”

    Jim.
    Stay in your lane.
    And Duterte’s squads don’t have uniforms, or anything that would ID them.
    Nor would anyone sensible in today’s digital world. I’ve never been in a death squad. We still took our tags off. Why do you think we have Velcro instead of sew on these days?

    Snappy uniforms are for parades and bands these days.
    You can tell someone’s really good at their job if no one saw them or remembers anything about them, certainly not a uniform.

    • jim says:

      Martial law needs uniforms and insignia of rank. Secret police are for regimes that operate by lies. While the Duterte Death Squad was out of uniform and had no numberplates on their motorcycles, that was back when it was operating deniably. Recent operations, for example killing the corrupt Mayor of Ozamiz and his cops, were done by uniformed cops in paramilitary uniforms wearing numbered badges.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      You hide your insignia if you fear reprisals. You fear reprisals from the left-state, not your victims. Snsppy uniforms show the state is behind you and you believe the state will remain behind you.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        Stay.In.Your.Lane

        “You hide your insignia if you fear reprisals.’ WE FEAR BETRAYAL FROM OUR OWN SIDE, INCLUDING TRUMP, INCLUDING ALL OF YOU WHEN THE DIRTY WORKS DONE. THE FUCK YOU WOULDN’T. EVERYONE HAS BETRAYED US.
        IT’S ALREADY BEEN HAPPENING THE LAST 15 YEARS AND SINCE VIETNAM.

        We hide our insignia and name tags for years because we don’t need the bullshit.

        ‘You fear reprisals from the left-state, not your victims.’ WE DON’T TRUST ANYONE BUT OURSELVES.

        ‘Snsppy uniforms show the state is behind you’ WITH THE KNIFE READY

        Snappy uniforms show you need to stop watching Evita, or game of thrones or wherever you get this nonsense from.

        ‘and you believe the state will remain behind you.’ PLUNGING THE KNIFE INTO THE HILT.

        [Not shouting by the way, Jim doesn’t allow HTML so can’t italicize]

        We’d be murdered as soon as we demobilized. By the way that’s not “death squad” you know. That’s any American soldier who survives to victory.
        And you cunts would rationalize it and cheer.

        Oh yes you would. In truth once we stand up we’ll probably never be able to stand down. Certainly we can only surrender to ourselves. So don’t worry, you’ll get your rule by soldiers. We’ll be sensibly unable to cede back rule.

        Stay.In.Your.Lane

        • peppermint says:

          Yup. Death squads can’t possibly cede authority to ((democracy)), and won’t trust a hypothetical real democracy that could be formed after the dissolution of the universities and legacy media. They will choose a God-Emperor and ensure that His Majesty’s first duty is to them. And unless granted titles of nobility for their services, they will try to ensure that no one knows who exactly killed which professors, as the old executioners in the black hoods did.

  3. Alrenous says:

    Revolution used to refer to devolution’s antidote. Now it refers to a turning, an overturning of top and bottom. Either revolution is a lie – the ‘one’ percent are replaced by the ‘two’ percent – or it’s true, and bottom-feeders are given real power.

    Priests are specifically those who compete in the intellectual dominance hierarchy, as opposed to the physical or social dominance hierarchies. The American warrior caste allowed itself to get controlled by the American priest caste, and therefore globally all priests recognize American priests as dominant. I get the sense that even Russian Orthodox literal priests have to fight their own status instincts to remain Orthodox.

    • Turtle says:

      What? All Orthodox priests have their own hierarchy; the bishops are called hierarchs.

      Russia has its own churches in America, the Patriarchal ones and ROCOR. Neither submits to America religiously, only civilly, like praying for the president and authorities. Status instincts are good when correct, bad when mistaken. The usual mistake is selfish misvaluation, claiming to be awesome or denigrating others. Rarer is self-deprication and idolizing others. Russian priests are calledBatyushka,which is the affectionate term for father. They don’t need to be so societal, because they mostly interact with their own parishioners, not strangers. They also have their government’s support, and even corporations sponsor churches and luxury cars for bishops.

      My disagreement is that the world is so globalized-it doesn’t feel that way. Rather, every place has its own anarchy and tyranny, and in fact Russia oppresses America too (over-staying visas, organized crime, hacking, meddling with our fossil fuels industry, and annoying bomber flights near Alaska).

      Russia’s priests lack mentors and experience (which both require patriarchy, in strict monasteries), but otherwise are better than you think.

  4. Nationalist Perspective says:

    Thought you’d appreciate this, Jim: “What will Democrats do next time they win the presidency?”

    https://nationalistperspective.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/what-will-democrats-do-next-time-they-win-the-presidency/

    • jim says:

      Seriously out of contact with reality. I subscribe to left wing mailing lists under another identity, and the meme circulating in the left is kill all nazis – and that anyone who voted for Trump is a nazi – and that all male whites except (((goodwhites))) voted for Trump.

      What your link predicts is business as usual. What left wing mailing lists have in mind is revolutionary and radical change, to be implemented when they regain the presidency.

      You may hope that they are the lunatic fringe, but yesterday’s lunatic fringe turns into today’s Orthodoxy that not even Trump dare openly doubt. The left as seriously intends white genocide today, as it seriously intended the Liquidation of the Kulaks in 1924.

      • Nationalist Perspective says:

        I don’t think the perspective you describe has the numbers or momentum behind it at this time. Still far too many white people as a percentage of the overall population. The left needs to import millions more non-integrating Muslims and start jailing prominent conservatives first, which will be sped up faster and faster before jailing or killing regular middle class whites starts. Even with total Democrat victory I think we are years away from leftwing led genocide (at least 10).

        • Issac says:

          You underestimate the incoherent white liberal mind. They’re already telegraphing a celebration of brown majority america. It would be no stretch of their current thought process to join a revolutionary purge of most other whites whom they consider subhuman immorals.

        • jim says:

          > I don’t think the perspective you describe has the numbers or momentum behind it at this time

          True, but they are confident that they will have the numbers and momentum very soon, and I find their confidence plausible.

          They had a damned good try at murdering all Christians in Syria. Not a big step from that to a damned good try at murdering all whites in the USA.

          • Garr says:

            By “all whites” you mean “all sub-SWPL whites”, and by “murdering” you mean “discouraging the reproduction of”?

            You have always (if I’ve understood you correctly) explained Progressive actions and decisions as motivated by a quasi-religious logic. That logic appears to me to exclude literal mass-murder.

            Re-education camps, maybe. “Colleges” that recruit lower-class people are already like re-education camps. But the logic of Progressivism requires that the internees be well-fed and entertained.

            • jim says:

              I don’t see that the religious logic excludes literal and unmetaphorical mass murder.

              That is like arguing that their commitment to liberty and freedom of speech precludes them from silencing their opponents, and their commitment to democratic legitimacy and the will of the people precludes them mounting a coup against Trump.

              Of course they would not actually call it and think about it as literal mass murder – but they were up for mass murdering the Christians in Syria and the Tutsis in the Congo, and they are still angry at the Tutsi for being so disgustingly racist as to not die when they were supposed to.

              • Turtle says:

                Jim… you haven’t read the (rare, but easily available online) books about bad priests in the Congo telling their congregations’ men to go kill the other priests’ congregations in that infamous war. It wasn’t just 1st-world, college-over-educated, bored, trouble-making NGO-rganisms meddling, it was actual clergy of mainstream churches. They were tempted by the example of Joseph Kony’s LRA, to play at “war-lord who baptizes with blood.”

                This is an untold story, because it is far worse of a scandal than priests fondling fatherless boys, and anyway, audiences are *presumed* to want to hear about sexy stuff, even when it’s evil, not the dark side of unjust war. Americans really should get with the Church Who treats weaker peoples well. Africa is the most difficult place for the Greeks to start missions, but they do try (problem is, they don’t rely on the African saints, mostly of the Egyptian desert, not Augustine). If I were more melanized, to not need sunscreen multiple times every day there, maybe I would want to help, because it’s so easy compared to teaching smart-ass white atheists about God. But, not my climate…not my job.

                We don’t need to over-distinguish different sectors of society. Real saints bless everyone, with recognition and praise. At least the Congo has less over-population!

            • peppermint says:

              The grandmothers of mulattoes whose husbands were freedumb riders don’t need to support literal mass murder. The mothers who tried to raise trannies don’t, the swipple hipsters who sometimes say nigga ironically don’t, but the logic of war is as solid as the logic of the market, and both are actively obscured in swipple school.

              These people want a coup followed by status quo ante. We want a coup followed by His Majesty making America great again. If a coup isn’t succesful, both sides blame the other for blocking it, and, fearing the other side, plot to kill them as individuals to achieve the political objective.

              • peppermint says:

                By the way, while our team has the soldiers and cops, their team has a ton more soft targets, because they want to destroy economic production in this country in order to call Trump a failure and further harm White men, while we need to preserve it for the same reason.

                Call them saboteurs and they’ll tell themselves they’re literal communists.

                The fact that they will, as in Haiti, be slaughtered by the logic of their revolution, is cold comfort to us.

                • Cockasian says:

                  >while our team has the soldiers and cops

                  He who has the soldiers and cops rules. “We” do not rule; therefore, we do not have the soldiers and cops.

                • jim says:

                  Priests or warriors always rule. Before 1800 or so, warriors ruled. After 1860 or so, priests rule.

                  If Warriors ruled, Harvard would not be Harvard.

                • Turtle says:

                  Very simply, the Ivy League barely has any ROTC programs. They resumed teaching “military sciences” or history recently, and it was a grand gesture of condescension to retired generals who want to be around young people.

                  One minorly famous Army PR officer from Stanford (who did ROTC at another school) is considered impossible, meaning that shitlibs refuse to admit his career is real (military | elite higher ed is the WALL they already built). Really, the shitlibs I know call soldiers shmucks, and have no idea how inhuman paccifism is. They’re lost and confused.

                • jim says:

                  The Ivy league is a priestly organization, and any soldiers that come out of it will be priests, not warriors.

                • Cockasian says:

                  Jim:

                  Before 1800 or so, war… by aristocrat agriculturalist manor lords, for aristocrat agriculturalist manor lords, with musket, cannon, and horse.

                  After 1860 or so, war… by industrialistic nation-state-like power, for industrialistic nation-state-like power, the military ever-more its supply chain than its actual fighting men.

                  There’s a reason that America uses the Prussian method of education.

                  Turtle:

                  ROTC and related is a joke. It contains no one with aspirations and the potential to achieve them because it offers precisely zero opportunity to such people. If you have no power and no hope of power and no money and no hope of money and no status and no hope of status, you cannot attract capable people because those people, by definition, can see through your farcical bullshit.

                  Soldiers are schmucks, like it or not. It takes a special kind of person to sign over four years of their life for terrible pay, terrible food, terrible company, no freedom, no women, no drugs, to be the willing cock-gargling bitch of your fuckwit command, surrounded by a bunch of hillbillies, and perfectly at the mercy of the Pentagon dropping you in some godforsaken sandy hellhole and forgetting about you…

                  Sign me up! Hoorah, or whatever.

                • jim says:

                  The chinese said that you do not use good iron to make nails, or good men to make soldiers.

                  And were, of course, conquered.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Allow me to directly quote Moldbug:

                  “…We, the undersigned Democrats, accept with a heavy conscience the burden of world domination. We agree to admit that we are the ruling party in a one-party state which controls the entire freakin’ planet…”

                  Who are our Mongols? What force threatens state power? It isn’t Mexicans, or USG would react as violently towards illegal immigration as it did towards Bundy and his little “occupation” of an uninhabited government building in the middle of Bumfuck, Nowhere. It isn’t Somalians, or Obama & Friends would not have literally, literally flown in planeloads.

                  It’s Israel, sort of, because they have some nukes. It’s Russia, kind of, because they have some nukes. It’s China, somewhat, but which at GDP parity with Amerikkka haven’t even managed to gain control of their nearest sea.

                  Donald Trump is the only existential threat to the American establishment in the history of the country (b. 1865, and that only because he has a power base including most of the world’s underworld.

          • Turtle says:

            >They had a damned good try at murdering all Christians in Syria.

            The excuse on my part,for not interceding well, is that they’re “not canonical,” but then Protestants are heretics too. And I live too far away to feel like it affects me,which is mostly wrong. ONly the Roman Catholic bishop there pleaded for help.Everyone else seems too proud to rely on Westerners. They accepted anti-Occident memes, and strangely lost their dominion. Really, it looks like Russia is getting a new colony, one I might visit once it’s safe for pilgrimages (no, not “tourism”).

            If Syrian Christians don’t get along with Muslims, they are not being People of the Book (only monastics and clergy are forbidden from praying with non-Christians). If they do not sacrifice themselves for God, they cannot receive God’s sacrifice for them.

            I fear that most Syrian “Christians” know nothing of Syria’s many saints, and their illustrious past when it was almost fully Christian.

            The Syriac heritage in Orthodoxy is pleasantly mystical, but this intimidates Americans who feel “too prole to understand.” It’s mostly written by monks, so really, it’s the same issue we have here- disagreement over sexual morality. The monks say moderation is good, feast and fast, enjoy the rules, be free in obedience, etc. But Americans are politically descended from British rebels, and have trouble understanding Orthodoxy’s strict discipline.

        • Alf says:

          Consider how Trump has been turned into Emmanuel Goldstein. There is no going back from this level of hate.

          The media reports daily on the newest Trump crisis and some of these crises are plausible enough (see the leaking of Trump’s phone calls with Mexico/Australia) for the democrats’ hands to start itching. They want to see blood, want to save America from repeating Germany’s 1933.

          Having said that, I find 10 years til leftwing genocide (or, say, the ‘temporary’ dissolution of democracy) a valid prediction. Intuitively sounds too positive. But dunno. Predictions are hard.

  5. Doug says:

    The problem today with the brewing war to preserve the virtues of Western Civilization from the ravages of genocide is we don’t give helicopter rides for the corrupt political elite, cultural marxists, or globalist cabal.

  6. ryan says:

    If there is perhaps an exception which proves the rule I’d point to Haiti. Their revolution was not a concoction of the second most powerful faction of elites to replace the rulers, it was plain straight mass murder of every elite by the peasantry. As such no new system of power and order resulted, and the country has been squalid chaos ever since.

  7. person says:

    Jim, apologies for the unrelated question, but in your ideal world, what would the restrictions, if you would have any, be on what women could wear? What do you think of the burka vs the highly sexual clothing some western women wear? Also, what jobs should women be allowed to do?

    Thanks.

    • peppermint says:

      * Ideally, the father or husband tells the woman what she can wear
      * Women want to wear the sexiest things they can, and the father or husband, like Trump, wants to show off his property, without letting voyeurs see the specifics they’re not supposed to
      * Note that bras were not invented in the last century as some puritan feminists have claimed, but have always been empowering towards women as other puritan feminists have claimed
      * It is true that women often wear less than they should and look uglier for it to advertise immediate sexual services, and this should be strongly discouraged. However, the way to discourage this is to instead demand that women wear the hottest, classiest stuff possible while dismissing the ones that don’t and insulting their fathers
      * Seriously, everyone wants to see beautiful women everywhere. The problems people think follow from seeing beautiful women everywhere actually are caused by unclear property rights in women and those property rights not being clearly and directly explained to the women. Women don’t do abstractions very well and need to feel their owner’s hand.

      • Turtle says:

        > It is true that women often wear less than they should and look uglier for it to advertise immediate sexual services…

        Not in my experience. I see the ones actively advertising their “services” wearing way too tight clothing, but showing no skin, because their skin is diseased and they don’t want to get in trouble or sicken innocent bystanders, not to mention their visual/ anatomical marketing issues.

        Just an FYI on what to watch out for (STDs are air-transmittable, energetically and molecularly, so stay faaar away).

    • jim says:

      Restrictions on female clothing flow out of a worldview that women are seducing men, that females are aggressively resisting the imposition of restrictions on their sexual choice by seducing men other than their husbands and suitors not approved by their fathers – that women, given half a chance, will behave badly and need to be restrained, that women are by nature hypergamous, and this hypergamy leads to the cock carousel.

      What we need is the worldview, not the symptoms of the worldview. When we have that worldview, a women’s owner, be it her husband or father, will place appropriate restrictions on her clothing. It is a mere detail that, if patriarchy is in place, can safely be left to husbands and fathers. It will evolve naturally.

      No woman should ever have authority over a man, except for her own children, nor should any women have a job that gives her the opportunity to fuck around or to fuck her boss. Females should not teach males who are starting or have completed puberty, and should only have administrative authority over other females, as for example the Matron is in charge of the Nurses.

      The need to prevent women from screwing around requires the creation of all female jobs classifications, run by all female hierarchies. Nursing used to be one of these jobs and one of these hierarchies.

      • person says:

        Jim and peppermint, thank you for your answers. I will address them below.

        Dave, thank you for your answer. I am curious: is that a purely intellectual point, or is there a reason why you think it matters that female competition for mates is “fair”?

        Back to jim and peppermint, I envisage this:

        All males understand that females are sexually adventurous and cannot be trusted to always behave in a socially harmonious way. Therefore, females from birth until marriage are owned and controlled by their fathers, who prevent them from misbehaving. After marriage, their husbands take on the role.

        Then, consider two cases:

        1. The father/husband disciplines a woman too little, for example failing to prevent her from sex before marriage, unruly behaviour, etc.
        2. The father/husband controls a woman too much, for example killing her for a minor misbehaviour.

        Do you let these cases slide, attempt to control them through taboos, have an authority that deals with them, or something else?

        • peppermint says:

          In the second case, it is difficult for the government to see into the private lives of individuals and know what going too far means, but there is already a mechanism to deal with people abusing pets.

          Adultery is like if a guy takes his dog into a building and it pees on the floor. Whose fault is it? No one actually takes blaming the dog seriously, or the building. The owner must be shamed, not treated as aggrieved and applauded for being so lenient towards his strong bitch that dont need no owner.

          If a man can’t keep his dog from being a nuisance, it ends up in the pound. Maybe a convent, maybe a female profession, maybe he can give his daughter to a bar owner who promises to keep her as a slave barmaid and pay her dowry if she can get a husband.

        • jim says:

          In the event of insufficient control, she needs to get married. If necessary, authorities place her in home for waywrd girls, then shotgun marry her to someone who will exercise control.

          In the event of excessive and unreasonable violence, authorities intervene, but need to be mindful of the fact that women love drama and love pitting one alpha male against another. It is better to fail to intervene when they should, than to become players in some woman’s dramatic scenes.

          The possibility of intervention motivates women to create situations that require intervention. They just love drama and act to create it. Thus necessary to stigmatize women involved in drama.

    • Dave says:

      Seeing 100 girls dressed in modest, identical uniforms, any man can tell at a glance which have the best genes for potential offspring. If some of them trim their uniforms to show more skin, they gain an unfair advantage in mate competition. Unfair because if allowed, it ends with all the girls prancing around in micro-bikinis. Traditionally it’s been the job of older women to enforce dress codes on young tarts.

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

      • peppermint says:

        No, faggot, there is an optimal level of clothing to show off a woman’s body, which varies from woman to woman. Put burkas on everyone and you can’t tell which one is fat. Modern “imteresting man” swipple shitlibs wear neckbeards to hide the double chin.

        • peppermint says:

          Also because a poor country lacks makeup is a poor argument for platonism. Plato was a faggot and platonism held biology back. Women want makeup and men want women to have makeup. Go follow your leader Ted Kaczynski into the woods.

    • Anonymous says:

      Like this:

      https://s7.postimg.org/di0c0xz8b/-2-28-29-cnh.jpg

      No unicolor, no gray, at least one color that isn’t black or white. Nothing businesslike or masculine. More than one layer of clothing: 2 at the very least, 3 is ideal. Body wholly concealed from the neck down. No makeup whatsoever, hair is either long or *very* long, kerchief is optional. Always a dress, never pants.

      This photograph of young Belorussian blondes in traditional garb is worth a thousand words.

      • peppermint says:

        Older women naturally cover up more and women living in chilly countries wear more layers.

        The point of a skirt is to exaggerate the hips. Above the skirt, if the dress isn’t form fitting, a belt is worn to prove waist size. The boobs are held aloft and padded out by modern bra technology. Younger women show their delicious skin and toned torso with a shirt and a skirt instead of a dress.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=traditional+german+women&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch

        Look at these dresses, they show you everything you need to know about them. So do yoga pants and a t-shirt, though women need to consider whether they should wear yoga pants to show off their butt or a skirt to show off their hips.

        Obviously walking around naked is only good for a tiny mimority, and the erogenous zones should only be seen by the husband.

  8. peppermint says:

    On the topic of war,

    * Google is propped up by Search being genuinely useful and AdSense revenue. The White men keeping those running should be made aware that literally everyone hates them, if the left wins they will be killed for being White and if the right wins they will be killed for providing essential services to the enemy

    * Microsoft exists because it is questionably legal to reimplement Windows. Government declarations against e.g. the exFAT patent, and antitrust investigations into why more apps don’t bundle WineLib to run on other platforms, would easily kill them

    * Facebook and Twitter could be taken out of the game immediately by applying the usual laws that apply to natural monopolies

  9. Turtle says:

    LULZ:

    Air Force will seek to significantly reduce unnecessary Air Force instructions over the next 24 months in order to allow greater flexibility and mission focus.

    “Let’s not tell Airmen how to do everything. Let’s tell them what to do and let them surprise us with
    their ingenuity.” – Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson

    http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1267709/air-force-to-radically-reduce-instructions/

    Their twitter account also posts about “Zeus the dog and his foster family.” These guys aren’t even SJWS; more into “human=animal because Darwin said so” bestiality. The only Air Force guy I know is famous online for his high-status but ugly dog. That’s what highlights his wife’s life.

    “Secretary Heather” is far worse than Mueller; we are at war with North Korea, and a dame named after a plant is in charge. I consider foreign enemies worse than domestic ones, so Mueller is mostly moot anyway. He can’t do anything to Trump without an international consensus. By the way, I bet he’s “in hiding” in Mexico. That this is possible clarifies that we have a more conventional war now, not a memetic soap opera.

    I expect invasion of North Korea by 9/11’s anniversary. They’re terribly harming us already, starting fires on the West Coast, and being petulant bullies. They believe their own propaganda enough to feel confident, but that’s like a chode at a PUA seminar, not even fake. So they’ll fall, though our military is busy with zeus the Dog. At worst, we get Japan to drop a small nuke and do the subsequent occupation.

  10. TheAngryPhilosopher says:

    Your bit on kings and aristocrats is wrong. Aristocrats routinely overthrew kings, started civil wars to seize hereditary power, forced kings to grant them more power, and so forth. It goes well beyond “check[ing] his power in irritating and inconvenient ways”. Ignoring this is ill-advised, especially for a king.

    Considering just England, we have many, many such events: the War of the Roses; the aristocratic revolt that led to the Magna Carta; the Glorious Revolution; that whole business with Bloody Mary and Elizabeth I; etc.

    You are conflating overthrowing the King with overthrowing the Monarchy.

    • jim says:

      True, Kings had trouble with aristocrats. But they also had trouble with commoner bureaucrats.

      On the whole, seems to me that rivals spawning rivals was the lesser problem.

      Lacking family, low fertility commoners pursuing power used other means, undermining the legitimacy of kingship itself.

      • Fair enough, though if I were a king I might not really care much about the distinction between (a) losing my crown and (b) the Crown itself falling.

        In the long run, I don’t think that kings could really stop their descent out of power. The English monarchy probably managed as well as could reasonably be expected. The transition from aristocratic warfare to popular warfare (prompted by technological changes) meant “go democratic or die” for nations. I don’t regard it as coincidence that post-revolutionary France managed to basically conquer all of Europe, beating the stuffing out of e.g. Austria and Prussia.

        The interesting thing is going to be the next transition, where the proliferation of AI-controlled military drones concentrates military power into the hands of the few once again. Perhaps China and other autocratic states actually have an advantage in negotiating this transition, similar to how England had an advantage over e.g. France during the aristocratic-to-democratic transition period because England started off semi-democratic already.

Leave a Reply