The Faith

Holy war is coming, as the poz gets ever more extreme, ever faster, and our ruling elite increasingly uses state coercion and the FBI to accomplish political outcomes, coercing fellow members of the political elite for political reasons.

Have to bring a gun to a gunfight, and a faith to a holy war.

Deus Vult.

Whites are detribalized, and contrary to the white nationalists, “white” is not a tribal identifier. Whites are wolf to whites. A religion, defining religion broadly to include things like communism and poz, is a synthetic tribe. To win, we need a faith.

With our enemies going further and further into delusion, we have to form a faith on the Truth of Gnon, the Will of God as manifested in the natural order, the Logos manifested in the order of the world, natural law as the will of God. We will, in accordance with the Christianity of about a thousand years ago, interpret Christ as, among other things, the incarnation of the Logos, and thus interpret his words as in accordance with game theory and evolutionary psychology, and divine prophecies as the predictable outcome of cause and effect.

One can deduce ought from is, which is exactly what the Book of Solomon and the copybook headings do, what every reasonable person does in practice.  If one is a strict atheist materialist, then “good” is what game theory and evolutionary psychology tells us that we should desire in our  kin, our friends, and the character of those that we should ally with.  If God created the world then “is” was created by God, and cause and effect a manifestation of the Logos.  And if a Christian, then cause and effect manifested as  wholly man, and that man ended Talmudic legalism, ended the practice of deducing “ought” from some other “ought” taken as given and absolute and then deducing ever sillier and ever more repugnant conclusions from the first “ought”, whether one takes that given “ought” as the “greatest good for the greatest number”, or takes as that given “ought” that one should not boil a goat in its mother’s milk.

The expulsion of the Jews by the Romans illustrates the Divine Logos telling us “The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life” The divine will manifested through entirely natural causes, because the natural order of the universe reflects the will of God. And the spirit of the law, being manifest in cause and effect and manifest in the natural order, needs to be understood with reference to natural law, game theory, and evolutionary psychology. When the Jews obeyed the letter of the law while massively violating the spirit of the law, they were, in accordance with prophecy, expelled from Israel – which reflects the will of God and divine prophecy, but also reflects the fact that if you violate the spirit of the law, you will get into stupid wars with your neighbors, and eventually war with one of your neighbors that happens to be a six hundred pound gorilla. The Jews got into war with Rome not because of corrupt Roman tax collectors, oppressive taxation, harsh Roman law enforcement, and all that, but because they were so scrupulous about avoiding contamination by blood that they wound up getting covered in the wrongfully spilled blood of a Roman cop whom they murdered in the performance of his duty while he was attempting to impartially enforce a just, reasonable, and necessary law that applied to everyone. Which would not have led to war had they not felt so very righteous about it because they were being so faithful to rule about avoiding blood – so faithful to it that they spectacularly disregarded the commandments on coveting, theft, and murder. Attending synagogue while avoiding walking on ground contaminated by chicken blood was so terribly important that they could do anything they liked to accomplish these holy goals, including theft and murder, and their great determination to accomplish these holy goals demonstrated their superior holiness.  And their stubborn self righteousness over this incident eventually and predictably led to the Romans going Roman on them.

In Christianity, the rot set in on women about a thousand years ago, with romance and contractual marriage, with natural law increasingly being tortured to fit church doctrines that were increasingly arbitrary, unreasonable, and out of contact with reality, and with contractual marriage quietly and subtly replacing sacramental marriage, though Christianity only went really progressive on women during the twentieth century. We endorse old style contractual and old style sacramental marriage right now, at least as a moral standard and ritual solemnization, even though we are in no position to enforce it collectively, and after we gain power, start by rolling contractual marriage back to the late eighteenth century, while celebrating sacramental marriage at least symbolically, and eventually go all the way back to sacramental marriage.  We approve of and support husbands and fathers unilaterally enforcing it, even though such enforcement is highly illegal and subject to social disapproval, and we will have our marriage ceremonies proclaim it.

Evolutionary psychology and game theory implies that the family law of the Old Temple Hebrews and the first Millenium Christian Church was entirely correct, and the eighteenth century Christian position on family, war, identity, and the establishment of religion was quite good.

Pozzed Christianity, which dumps on fathers on father’s day and tells us we are Homer Simpson, and which thinks that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is far more important that a bunch of priests having gay sex in a great big pile, because the priests were all consenting adults, is not Christian.

Chaos is coming.  Chaos is already here, and will get a lot worse.  Eventually order will be restored through Caesarism, that being the cycle of history.  I hope this happens soon, with Holy American Emperor Trump, but if it does not happen soon, it will happen eventually, possibly after a century of blood and ruin.

When it starts happening, and I hope it is beginning now, we should catch that tide and sail it to victory.

Revolutionary movements never get anywhere without backing from a substantial faction of the elite. So what section of the elite is going to back us?

Warriors need priests, and priests need warriors. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, so they tend to struggle for power, priests destroying the military, instead of sustaining it and giving it cohesion. The recent stupid wars where the military fought for no sane, useful, or achievable purpose, with one hand tied behind its back, were attacks by the priesthood on the military, as was insourcing logistics, putting camp followers in military uniforms.

To explain these stupid wars, people say they were fought for Israel, but if fought for Israel, would have been fought to win, rather than lose. If fought for Israel, we would not have women in the military, Israel would not have women in the military, we would not have kicked Israel out of Gaza, and logistic workers would not be wearing warrior uniforms.

We are priests who believe warriors should rule (using the term “priesthood” to mean any knowledge faction that internally coordinates its story in order to give the story more effect and in order to gain power, analogously to using the term “religion” to include communism and poz.)  We are therefore in a good position to catch the coming tide.

The time of Ceasarism approaches. Caesar, Napoleon, or Augustus will need priests who say and believe his rule under God is right, because God said so, because one stationary bandit is better than mobile banditry, and because one King three thousand miles away is better than a thousand kings three miles away.

1,436 Responses to “The Faith”

  1. Icon says:

    This is an excellent topic to revisit in light of current events and Antifa demographic. I briefly scanned this but will be reading through this later.

  2. Friendly Fred says:

    Here’s a proposal intended to result in the distribution of girls within a few months after their 14th birthdays that might be more widely accepted than the they’re-up-for-grabs proposal: As soon as an unmarried girl hits 14, any unmarried man may file a complaint regarding her unmarried status to the local family-court judge. This judge then announces that a window of 3 months for the filing of associated complaints by unmarried men is now open. If the girl is still unmarried after the expiration of that period, the judge requires that she choose a husband from among those men who filed complaints regarding her unmarried status.

  3. @jim (fuck deeply embedded comment trees, so going to top level with this)

    “That is the blue pill reason.

    The red pill reason is that if a daughter is abducted by X, and you “rescue” her, there is a remarkably high likelihood that she will subsequently be abducted by Y.”

    Yes. But also notice how traditional cultures tended to justify their red-pilled actions by such blue-pilled logic. We can generally learn a lot from what they did but not what they said. They did whatever worked and said whatever was socially the best thing to say.

    So when you are a Pashtu father and your daughter is abducted then socially you save a lot of face by saying “Those outgroup bastards ruined my ingroup precious princess, and disgraced me and you guys, the ingroup tribe. Time for revenge!”. Saying “my precious princess is a whore and I failed to control her” is not very good for him socially.

    Liberals didn’t invent deception and self-deception. It was in human nature all along…

    When some trad tribe uses willow bark soup for headache and fever for centuries, we can assume it works. When they say it works because it exorcises demons, we should not believe that. That is simply the socially acceptable explanation in their tribe.

    I don’t like that Shaman keeps calling Doug an Entryist. His Thermidor record is actually very good. Doug is simply making a honest mistake: believing what traditional people said. This is not a good idea for the above reason. Only trust their actions.

    The carloads of sons attacking the abducters are real. Stuff like this really did happen. But that happens not because that is effective for the purpose of keeping traditional sexual morality. It is useful for the father for socially saving face. It is useful for keeping warm ingroup feelings for girls and blaming the outgroup. And so on.

    After all if the outgroup gets away with abducting your daughter, they think you are weak and will come back for your cattle and your gold. This is also an important angle. Game theory says you gotta punish them even when you know the girl, too, is at fault. So you will come up with a blue-pilled justification…

    • jim says:

      Your analysis is spot on – acknowledging your daughter is a whore is weak, and attracts bad guys. But this assumes that bad guys are a bigger problem than bad daughters, which is often the case, but far from always the case.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Bad daughters are a problem, but you can survive a bad daughter. Bad guys showing up and killing you, your family, and taking all of your shit because you did not control your daughter is a worse problem. Uncontrolled women signal weakness. Perhaps that is the reason for stoning them in the Middle East.

        Yes, the daughter might have gotten away, and fucked you. I am such a hard bastard that I will let my daughter be killed. Do not test me. Passing a shit test by executing a woman let’s the rest know you are serious, and let’s the other tribes know that you still have what it takes. Cannot kill the man because that does not work and risks conflict regardless.

    • Javier says:

      Yeah I mean, it reminds me of those stories where a woman is “abducted” for twenty years. You’re like, wow, was she kept in a cage that whole time? Oh, no, she was free to roam the house. Why didn’t she make a run for it? Call the cops? Just dial 911 and leave it off the hook, police will show up.

      Well they say she was dominated by male power and threats of violence. Yet I have been reliably informed that it is impossible to control women and that any attempt to do so will provoke them to rebel. Hmm.

      If my daughter is going to run off with losers whether I try to control her or not, I may as well try. The worst that will happen is I’ll still fail. I think people say women can’t be controlled so you won’t try. They know full well women can be controlled, but it requires a strong pimp hand.

      When I was 16 I got my first girlfriend, who was 14. The image I had from Hollywood was that boys try to pressure girls into sex and this was bad, so I was determined not to pressure her. But hormones won out, and when I did proposition her I found very little actual pressure was required. In fact she was quite enthusiastic about the whole idea, and to this day I’ve never slept with a girl who left bigger wet spots on the bed. Of course, when her dad found out I was branded an evil abuser who tried to manipulate and control her. Whatever. The mom knew better. Years later that girl ended up marrying a Nice Guy, cucked him with someone else’s kids (not mine, thank god), divorced the nice guy, and moved the real dad into the house while the cuck still pays for it. Whew, bullet dodged there. Sorry bro.

      I knew another girl who lost her virginity at 14 to a much older man. She was an early bloomer, pretty much looked like a 20 year old, narrow waist, nice curves, huge rack. Her parents took her on vacation and left her alone, so she wandered out on the beach looking for dick. A guy approached her, invited her back to his room, and had sex with her. She never mentioned her age and he didn’t ask. When I asked if she felt “taken advantage of” she laughed, like the whole idea was absurd. She said he was hot and made her wet, and that “all the coolest girls have tons of sex.” That was her impression, whores were cool, she couldn’t wait to take part in the dick buffet.

      That girl is a pole dancer now. Literally. Not yet a full on stripper/hooker, but give her time. She doesn’t come from a broken home either, her parents are upper middle class and very well educated, and also very liberal. She posts pictures of herself in whore makeup and clothing, undulating on a greasy pole in front of freaks and degenerates and her dad posts comments like “so proud of u honey!” Wtf. It is not male pressure which makes her act this way, it is a total lack of male pressure which has allowed her to go feral.

      • jim says:

        Lets take a look at fiction directed at females. Download webnovel onto your phone, tell them you want romance, select comics.

        In these comics you will get no actual sex, therefore no rape. No nudity, therefore no instances of the exploding clothes trope where the male love interest is overcome by lust and causes the female protagonists clothes to explode away from her in shreds. But what you will get in every single case is that the female protagonist is alone with a powerful and dangerous alpha male, or alone except for his minions, who are implied but seldom shown. What you will get in a large majority of cases the female protagonist heads off into a situation where she is alone with a powerful and dangerous alpha male whom she does not know or only just met, and falls completely and totally into his power. She never actually gets raped, but she goes right into a situation where she could be, and what you get in a large minority of cases is that the female protagonist heads off to be alone with a powerful alpha male whom she knows to be dangerous, whom she usually does not know or only just met, and who beats her, threatens her life, etc, and she makes absolutely no attempt to escape, even though he makes no attempt to prevent her from leaving.

        In short, the protagonists behave like the Rotherham girls. All Women Are Like That.

        • The Cominator says:

          Random question Jim…

          When Mueller pulled agents off of the 9/11 hijackers and then decided to muddy the waters with the “dancing Israeli” story who exactly was giving him the orders?

          I ask because watching parts of the Mueller hearing today I get the impression that Mueller was just a perfectly grey banal bureaucrat (who is now also senile) functionary not someone who ever really made big decisions himself.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Consider that that was almost 20 years ago. Mueller could have been perfectly capable then. He could be perfectly capable today and be just playing at the senile old man routine.

            • The Cominator says:

              Well if he is playing at being a senile old fool its because he thinks Trump is or soon will be in total power and nothing could stop it and nothing other then acting pitifully soulless and senile could possibly save his skin.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Mueller is as opportunistic and self-interested a political operative as exists. Barr’s appointment signalled that the God-Emperor was not going to give up and roll over, and Mueller took that as a sign he was on the losing side. Now he is covering his as as hard as he can. A sign that our esteemed host is accurate in his assessment of the state of the coup/counter-coup.

              • Eli says:

                Meh. I don’t see that they seriously think that he’ll be in total power. What he and his bureaucrat cronies are doing is standard “cover your ass” performance, because they know that their faction is on the losing end for the next few years and he wants to limit repercussions, because 5 years is a long time to get his ass kicked.

                That Trump is on the way to acquiring total, kingly power is doubtful to me. He’s been referring to such insinuations as “joke.” And since he’s the best troll ever, hard to judge.

                Likely: he’s going to finish his term, then get re-elected in 2020, and then there will be the 2024 elections, in which loony Democrats are likely to win, permanently.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I think peak Clown World would be some string of devastating natural and/or social cataclysms catalyze the invocation of martial law, with the very leftward populace shrilly screaming for his impeachment will suddenly be shrieking for him to save them.

                  “And as the masses poured out their lamentation, crying and groaning at the woe that had befallen them, the clamor and tumult rose upon the lofted winds, carrying this message to Him.

                  “And the God Emperor looked upon his people with pity, his countenance ashen but firm. And, in a loud voice, he called out to them and spake the words that all true believers awake with on their lips, work with in their hearts, and gather about themselves when they rest:

                  …let’s make a deal.”

                • jim says:

                  Your error is to envisage a stable left wing end state, the end of history, a steel boot stamping on the human face forever. Pretty soon they are going to be stamping on each other’s faces. Trump is the only thing keeping the slightly less evil, slightly less depraved and slightly less insane left alive. If it was not for Trump, then Scott Alexander, David Packman, and Tim Pool would all be executed for being White male cishet Nazi Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler.

                  We are bound to get a patriarchal warrior led state in the very near future. The only uncertainty is whether there will be any white people left alive and any technology or industry still working.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  “Maybe I will never leave office hahaha. Only joking!”

                  Is not a joke. That is planting a seed in the minds of everyone who hears it. When the alternative to Trump is whoever/whatever four more years of leftward holiness spiral from now produces, all of the sudden people will start talking about how Trump 2024 is the bold step the country needs. Either that, or the increasingly blatant coup attempts will require Trump to suspend elections indefinitely until the plotters can be ousted, which is liable to take the rest of his life, and his son’s life, and then we get Emperor Donald III, long may he reign.

          • jim says:

            Grey banal bureaucrats make decisions collectively by consensus. No one specific bureaucrat is wholly to blame. Mueller was the leading member of a collection of grey banal bureaucrats who do not individually make decisions. No one grey banal bureaucrat made the decision to pull the FBI off the 9/11 hijackers, but he was the guy in charge at the time.

            I say this not because I am privy to the inner workings of the FBI, but because I am privy to the inner workings of grey banal bureaucracies that commit monstrous, egregious, and extraordinary evils greyly and banally.

    • Niiiidriveevof says:

      https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/rape-and-sexual-regulation/

      Your comment suggests an explanation for what this post observes, historical divergence between legal and “sacral” rules for rape and sex.

  4. neurotoxin says:

    [Unresponsive]

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Stop. Get help.

      Memeing aside, it is my perspective that, instead of opening a new front, you need to sue for a ceasefire, marshal your forces, and either redouble your efforts on better ground or come to grips with the fact that your bolt action rifles (single points of contention) are no match for Maxim guns (countless examples of female bad behavior). You (or someone) made a very salient point in the previous subthread(s): if there were white, christian boys in the business of handing out warranted rapes, these sluts would not have gone fishing in the Paki district. But there aren’t.

      From my perspective, you and your opponents have been arguing at cross purposes. Jim et al. are arguing about outcome based on intention. You are arguing on input based on circumstances. You aren’t wrong, not completely. In a better world, unrestrained sluts would go dick fishing and end up with venereal disease from the town drunk or their stepdad. Due to terrible immigration policies, their pool of ne’er-do-wells has expanded to demonic Pajeets. it is a damn shame. But your stubborn reliance on input criteria (unstoppable force) has come to loggerheads with output results (immovable object) and you are only hastening a bullycide which you probably don’t deserve but are definitely going to get.

      Objectively assess your disposition; you are trying to defend sluts that have pissed away all familial compassion as well as state sponsorship. At what cost?

      Just my 0.02$.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        Frederick Algernon: “you need to sue for a ceasefire”

        From your lips to God’s ears, dude. I’m trying to extract myself from this thread. But, like Al Pacino in Godfather 3, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”

        “you are only hastening a bullycide which you probably don’t deserve but are definitely going to get.”
        I’m not sure what this means, so may not be feeling the expected amount of fear.

    • alf says:

      Not what I’m saying. What I’m saying that girls are not willing to mooch of these guys, that even though they are friendly and share alcohol and cigarettes, there are no girls to be found around them within a one mile radius. Which is very strange, because the girl you defend claims that she was lured in because of a friendly Paki sharing alcohol and cigarettes. It is almost as if what she says should not be taken at face value…

    • jim says:

      Alf made a point. Your reply, Neurotoxin, attributed to him the opposite of his point. He said that your story is implausible because girls don’t mooch off the guys they want to fuck, and don’t fuck guys that allow them to mooch. You attributed to him some stupid and insane position that makes no sense. You attributed to him some blue pill blather about girls being gold diggers, or the pakis luring the girls with chocolates and roses, or something equally stupid.

      You know I don’t allow that method of argument on my blog.

      Please reply to the point Alf made, rather than the point he would have made had he been making some stupid argument that supports your position, not his, some argument he would have made had he presupposed the blue pill account of the chastity and virtue of strong proud independent women.

      Girls want to serve the men they want to fuck. They don’t want those men serving them. Alf knows this, and was reminding you of it.

      After a man bangs a chick, he wants her to make him a sandwich and get him a beer, and after she has been banged, a girl wants to make him a sandwich and get him a beer. It is part of Darwin’s or God’s plan for the propagation of the human race. Eve was created to be a companion and helpmeet for Adam. Which is why your story of pure English girls being lured by chocolates and roses makes no sense. Alf was explaining why it made no sense, and you had no reply but to attribute to him a position that presupposed that your position does make sense.

      Women are wicked, far more wicked than men, in endlessly searching for alpha, sometimes in very bad places, and women are virtuous, far more virtuous than men, in being eager to serve alpha, eager to be a helpmeet and companion.

      You are denying both their alarmingly aggressive search for alpha in all the wrong places, and also denying their eagerness to serve and sacrifice for alpha, as Sarah served and obeyed Abraham, even when Abraham was very wrong. And you are unresponsive when other people point out female behavior. You will not disagree, you will not even acknowledge the position of those pointing out female behavior.

      Please respond to my position and my arguments, and Alf’s position and Alf’s arguments. I explained my reasoning, Alf explained his reasoning. You neither criticize our reasoning, nor explain your own reasoning.

      Alf is writing as if he understands your reasoning, but I am totally at sea. If there is any sense there, it is so alien to me, so far outside my model of the universe, as to be difficult to guess. I am doing my best to put myself in your shoes, I am trying to understand the points you seem to imagine you are making. I just cannot do it, and you are not being helpful.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        Oh my God, I can’t believe you blanked my post.

        I was going to exit this thread, but I’ll reply because you seem sincere here:

        I am totally at sea. If there is any sense there, it is so alien to me, so far outside my model of the universe, as to be difficult to guess. I am doing my best to put myself in your shoes, I am trying to understand the points you seem to imagine you are making.

        OK, once again:

        Alf said, “I have plenty of friends who are friendly and share alcohol and cigarettes. But for some strange and mysterious reason, they never attract the attention of girls.”

        1. Of course this is normal chick behavior. I wouldn’t dream of arguing otherwise.

        But:

        2. It is ALSO normal chick behavior to mooch off guys like that without having sex with them. This is the whole reason that PUAs created the dictum that you should never spend money on a girl until after you’ve had sex with her.

        Fortuitously-timed survey from about a month ago in which a third of women admit to exactly that!
        https://nypost.com/2019/06/21/a-third-of-women-only-date-men-because-of-the-free-food-study/

        And that’s the fraction that admit it!

        3. Relevance to Alf’s comment: I believe that’s what the Rotherham girl (“poster girl”) was expecting when she first got involved with the guy. She was going to take him for some free stuff, then no sex was going to happen. Then he said, “Blow me or I’ll beat you senseless,” and the situation went way outside her control.

        (WHY I think this: Next comment.)

        • Neurotoxin says:

          Point 3 was my original point in the dearly-departed post. I thought I was explicit enough, but since both Alf and Jim understood me to say the opposite of what I said, maybe I wasn’t. Surely the foregoing is, though.

          • jim says:

            Nuts

            There is nothing in the report that suggests the story that you are attributing to the girls. It is not the girl’s story. It is your story, and you have not been telling us what it is until just now. You made up a story, and then mentioned facts mentioned in the report that could be fitted into your story, without, however, telling us the story that you force fitted the facts into.

            Observed behavior of females is that they are always diving head first into a situation where an alpha male could rape them. That is every Disney princess movie, and every romance comic that webcomic will download for free on your android phone, and I see it all the time in life, starting at a startlingly early age. When mooching, they never go into a situation where the guy they are mooching from could rape them.

            On her account of events, she dived head first into a situation where she could be raped, and chose not to leave that situation, and that is what all girls do all the time. All women are like that.

            All women, all the time, unless restrained by authority, head off into situations where they are alone with an alpha male, or are socially isolated with that male (only his minions present, no one connected to her, only to him) and with great regularity, head off into the custody of an alpha male that they do not know. Again, most Disney princess movies, and most romance comics downloaded onto your android phone, chick dives head first into a situation where she is with a powerful dangerous male stranger, and entirely alone and isolated with him, nothing stopping him from doing whatever he pleases with her. And in a significant minority of Disney princess movies and android webcomics, stays with him despite life threatening violence, even though he does absolutely nothing to prevent her from leaving.

            It is not so much that girls think about fucking. They don’t think about actual physical sex much at all: What, however, they do think about a lot, just about all the time, is being in a situation where the powerful and dangerous alpha male could do with her whatever he pleases. It is not exactly that they are attracted to rape, as attracted to situations where they could be raped. All women are like that, all the time, and it is absolutely obvious that this is what the Rotherham girls were doing.

            It is not that women fantasize about rape, though they do fantasize about rape. But mostly, what women fantasize about is being in a situation where she could be raped. All visually oriented chick lit is this trope, as near to all of it as makes no difference. We see a stream of striking images of chick alone in a strange place with the powerful strange male. She is on a mountain, in the jungle, at sea on a small boat, or in a fortress, either alone with him, or with him and his minions. Strange place, strange man, isolation. If visually oriented male material is mostly women wearing very little, visually oriented female material is girl alone with powerful male stranger, in that stranger’s lair, fortress, or alone in the wilderness. As all men are magnetically attracted to cute girls wearing very little, all women are magnetically attracted to situations where they could be raped. All women all the time. It is an instinctive tropism. All women are like that. Persuade a girl you are powerful, dangerous, and high status, then give her the opportunity to walk into your power, she will walk into your power as if hypnotized. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

            It is not that all women have rape fantasies, but that all women all the time have fantasies about being totally vulnerable to rape and totally available to be raped. If men are always thinking about naked women, women are always thinking about being completely in the power of a powerful and dangerous stranger who is burning with desire and prone to violence. It is not the raping that they are fantasizing about, but his power and their powerlessness.

            She is not fantasizing about you raping her. She is, however, fantasizing about you being able to rape her. You look at a hot chick, and imagine her without clothes. She looks at a powerful man, and imagines herself his prisoner.

            Your response to the absolutely overwhelming evidence of the stereotypical misconduct of the Rotherham girls is to invent some fantasy of pure innocent girls and not tell us what your fantasy is.

            Now, finally, you have just shared one such fantasy, and it is transparently silly, unsupported by the evidence. Up till now, you have just been telling us the facts, which facts all point to the Rotherham girls industriously searching for alpha dick, and failing to explain your fantasies. Hence my complaint that your arguments were incomprehensible and irrelevant, were not arguments.

            Absolutely none of the girls are telling the story that you attribute to them. You have woven this story in your own mind, and randomly attach to it any data in the report that can be fitted into this story, even though nothing in the report suggests this story, nor are the random decorations you lift from the report likely to suggest your story to the reader. Not one girl says “I went to the paki rapist place expecting a party with free beer and cigs, and was totally shocked to find it was free me.”

            So what our conversation consists of is that you tell the reader that the report says X, Y, and Z, and act as it told your story. But you don’t tell the reader what your story is, and X, Y, and Z does nothing to make your reader come up with your story independently. Hence my complaint that your points are total non sequiturs.

            Now you are telling us what your story is: Your story is that the chicks went to paki rape central for free beer and free cigarettes, not free paki rapists. And it just is not the girl’s story, and not the report’s story. And if it was the girl’s story, which it is not, it would be entirely unbelievable. Girls don’t do that, ever.

            • Dave says:

              I watched “Cape Fear” in 1991. At the scene where the teenage girl sneaks into the room where the muscular, sadistic, convicted rapist awaits her, and starts sucking his fingers, I blurted out, “Oh come on, this is ridiculous!” Guess I was wrong and Hollywood was right.

          • jim says:

            Here is what happened: Here is what the report and the girls are telling us happened:

            The chicks were at the station waiting for someone to hit on them, and persuade them that he was powerful, dangerous, and scary. We know that, because they gave the boys the opportunity to persuade them.

            Men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose. The chicks were at the station to give the boys auditions, and we know that is what they were doing at the station because they did give the boys auditions.

            Performance succeeded, because white Christians are emasculated, and paki Muslims not emasculated, whereupon the chicks followed the rapists to a suitable place for rape as women always do. All women always. All women are like that.

            That is what women always do, and that is what the report and the girls are telling us that they did. Your story is not what the report says, not what the girls say. Your story is inexplicable, arbitrary, and comes from nowhere.

            • Friendly Fred says:

              Girls indeed aren’t, merely as such (as girls), precious treasures to be saved from defilement, but WASP male personality is the best thing ever to have emerged in the history of humanity — even better (because more bizarrely, unpredictably creative while equally honest and trustworthy) than Roman personality — and the essence that contains that personality in potency is indeed defiled by these Muslim immigrant spiders.

              • Oak says:

                Yes, the majority of the value of anglo women resides in their ability to produce anglo men.

                As Jim has pointed female emancipation creates an inverse relationship between male status and SMV, as women want violence and cruelty of the most theatrical kind, but ostentatious violence can only be risked by those with little to lose.

                WASPS often have higher status and therefore are less prone to violence. But even when they are violent it is calculated, emotionless, goal-directed and highly efficient. A good example is English hooligans who were low status enough to risk engaging in violence, but did so in an anglo way, meeting at a particular place and time to fight with no onlookers and with a rigorous code which included never attacking normal fans (‘scarfers’). In other words, exactly the opposite of what women notice. They want theatrical unecessarily cruel violence, preferably with onlookers and not discluding violence directed at women or men obviously weaker than them.

        • alf says:

          She was going to take him for some free stuff, then no sex was going to happen. Then he said, “Blow me or I’ll beat you senseless,” and the situation went way outside her control.

          A Sudden, Mysterious, and Completely Unexpected Turn of Events. Who could have seen that coming!

          Me, I’m pretty sure the girl saw it coming. Preeeetty sure she saw it coming from a mile away.

          And if not, if she really had NO clue what was happening, if it really SHOCKED her to the core… She would’ve not stayed with him for years. She would’ve cried, would’ve called 911, would’ve done ran away. She would have done anything but suck all the cocks he pointed her towards, yet that is exactly what she did. Your story makes no sense.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            I don’t think there’s too much disconnect between the two sides here.

            Model – woman is running her “try to mooch off the guy” script – which we’ve all observed. This script is branching though – she gets the stuff and tries to blow the guy off sweetly (or not sweetly, depending on her personality / mood). There’s a catch though – the blow-off is a shit test albeit one that can only be passed through harsh action.

            Here’s where the difference comes in – Hajnal white *men* are different from Paki men – white men have an evolutionarily implanted fear of women. This mental module isn’t due to fear of women directly (which would be insane) but because women are naturally property and men have an (overrideable) disinclination to screw with another man’s property which manifests as ‘fear of women’ – see approach anxiety that PUAs discuss. Pakis otoh, lack that type of fear – if a woman isn’t being guarded by her clan, she’s fair game.

            Woman runs a script that would result in no sex with any but the most sociopathic (or men who have worked to overcome their natural inclinations) Western men on Paki men and finds that it results in sex. She’s not really bothered by this – sex is one of the end states of the script and none of the end states are really desired over any of the others.

            • jim says:

              If mooching script, she never goes to your place.

              When she goes to your place, she cooks, cleans, goes shopping – it is reverse mooching. You are mooching off her. You are never going to get a chick to go to spot suitable for having sex by offering her chocolates and pizza, let alone beer and cigs.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Offer beer and cigs, she accepts and follows to an isolated location, press for sex, she refuses (beta bux, alpha fux), Paki blows through it as if that was a shit test, she’s hooked because it was.

                After sex, she runs her other script.

                • jim says:

                  Does not work. Cannot give her beer and cigs until after she follows to an isolated location.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                A version of this same script that (I’m told) works in big / rich cities is the offer of coke.

                Offers woman coke, goes back to his place, consumes coke, tries to leave as a test, guy plows through and fux and she’s happy afterward or doesn’t and she’s happy that she scored free coke.

                • jim says:

                  If she goes to your place for coke, will go to your place for any plausible reason or no reason.

                  Coke is a good excuse, because has to be consumed under the same circumstances as makes sex possible. But pretty much anything that has to be at your place will do the same job.

                  That is one of the reasons the artist scam works – you supposedly have a pile of artwork at your place to show her. (She is never surprised or disappointed that you don’t.)

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The artist scam works differently – she’s not really motivated to score some art. She goes to a guy’s place to check out his art, she’s going for sex. If it’s coke, she’s going for coke and is open to the idea of sex but only if the guy is dark triad enough to make a strong enough move (having a supply of coke is also a demonstration that the guy is high status in the woman’s view because he deals with criminals and is self-destructive).

                  As you said, women will mooch off men they don’t want to have sex with but will give to men they do. An offer of coke is an setting up a passable but possibly harsh shit test to break out of the “guy who gives me stuff for my attention” box.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        Why I believe point 3 is the most natural given her statements:

        1. The only alternative that I can see is that her ENTIRE account of that part was a lie: That he never gave her anything and she just made up the whole thing.

        But:

        2. Several of the victims tell that same story – that they were offered free stuff at first, that the men acted like boyfriends, etc.
        Actually, IIRC, it wasn’t just “several,” but “many,” as in , this was standard operating procedure for the Pakis.

        3. A girl who is making up a lie to make herself look chaste, demure, etc., is not going to include the part about the booze.

        • The Cominator says:

          Stop spamming four fucking replies, you displace better comments on this boring stupid argument about Paki fucking whores.

          • Neurotoxin says:

            Cominator: “Stop spamming four fucking replies”

            When I’m too terse they don’t understand me. If you don’t want to read them, then don’t.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            Jim and Alf are just continuing to torture the corpse of William of Occam, while accusing me of doing that.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Assuming that women are lying about sex is one of the easiest and most realistic assumptions ever made. In fact I would argue that given what we know about how women lie about their sexual histories and how their brains are wired to deceive even themselves, it is not an assumption. It is a proven fact that women cannot be trusted to accurately relay the decision-making process prior to a situation where either sex occurred or could have occured.

            • The Cominator says:

              When I’m too terse they don’t understand me. If you don’t want to read them, then don’t.

              It shits ups the board with stupid boring bullshit the way CR shit up the board with stupid commie bullshit.

              The women went looking for bad men to fuck them and they found them. Now MAYBE some of them later regretted it but got into situations where they really feared trying to escape meant death but that does not seem to be the general rule.

              Muslims suck and Muslims should not be allowed to live in civilized societies (and ultimately the religion should not exists at all) but stop spamming about how the women dindu nuffin.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Only a cuck would think America’s problem today is ‘socialism’.

                A world that contains fixed odds betting terminals, falling-down-drunk nightclubs open 24/7 and The People Of Walmart requires not socialism, but capitalism.

                Socialism is agnostic about the borders. In fact you can’t very well have something like a welfare state without good borders.

                Capitalism is not agnostic about it at all: the labour-commodity must be able to move, like all other commodities, otherwise it’s not real capitalism.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Your argument is too transparently idiotic and detached from reality to warrant a reply, or even for a reply to be possible.

                  Capitalism would supply what the customer wants – and a heterogamous species does not want to see isogamic romances and heroes, nor does it want isogamous marriage ceremonies and marriage celebrations. That Soy Wars is gay, romances are gay, music dance videos are gay, heroes are gay, that all marriages today are gay, even if a man is marrying a woman, is not what customers demand.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive, and not a response to anything I have said, but a response to what Marxists imagine libertarians to have said.

                  Reply to me. If you are not explaining why gay crap is being shoved down the customer’s throat, not a reply to me.

                  No, that is not what libertarians say either. Let alone anything I have said.

                  At this point I could explain why if the state owns everything, you get capital consumption, and pretty soon the seed corn is all gone, and the socialist regime runs out of other people’s money, and is then apt to collapse or be conquered by outsiders.

                  But I will not bother, because if I was to explain why state ownership leads to capital consumption, you would ignore my explanation, and come back with another rebuttal of imaginary libertarians explaining why your imaginary libertarians are wrong about capitalism.

                  If you were willing to have a discussion about capital consumption, that would be great, but not if you are just going to rebut the same imaginary libertarians over and over and over again.

                  Rebut me. I have written on capital formation in “Throne, Altar, and Freehold” Rebut that, not what Marxists think that libertarians say about capital formation and capital consumption. Better, rebut what I said about gay crap being shoved down the customer’s throat.

            • jim says:

              William of Occam tells us that the girls did what they say they did, for they say they did what girls always do, but that their explanations for doing what they did are unlikely to be true, and unlikely to make sense.

              And, surprise surprise, their explanations for doing what they say they did do not make sense.

              What the girls say they did does not fit your story – or their explanation, not that there is any resemblance between your story, the girl’s story, or the girls explanation of their supposedly inexplicable behavior.

              You and they are concocting post hoc rationalizations for absolutely standard and universal female behavior that I see everywhere all the time. Girls turn towards rape the way men turn towards pretty girls.

              The facts are that the rapists did not go to these girls. The girls went to the rapists. That is what the report says, that is what the girls say. The question is, why? Threats of violence? Free beer and cigs?

              And the answer is: Girls, unless restrained, always go towards rapists. There is absolutely nothing here that needs explanation. It is just female nature taking its inevitable course. Water goes downhill, and when whites are emasculated, chicks find paki rapists.

            • jim says:

              > When I’m too terse they don’t understand me.

              You are not terse: You took umpteen screens to tell us that reason the girls went to the paki rapists was for free beer and cigs, and the reason you rambled all over the place, screen after screen after screen after screen, telling that story, is that told plainly, briefly, and bluntly, it is obvious nonsense. No girl is going to show up at your place for free beer and cigs, or even for chocolates and pizza.

              They show up at your place when you convince them you are powerful, scary, and dangerous.

              The reason we don’t understand your story is that you don’t tell your story. You talk around your story, you hint at your story, you talk about talking about your story, because if actually said out loud in plain words, fails to pass the giggle test.

              You were not terse. You told us random facts from the report without telling us that these facts were supposed to explain why the girls headed off towards the rapists, or how they were supposed to explain why the girls headed off towards the rapists. We were supposed to read your mind about what these random facts signified, as if their supposed significance was self evident, but the reason you would not tell us why these facts were supposedly significant is that their supposed significance was absurd.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                You: “I demand examples!”

                Me: “OK, here.”

                You: “That’s not an example of what I’m talking about. Provide examples!”

                Me: “Yes, it is. Also here’s another example.”

                You: “No it’s not! Also, where’s your argument? I demand that you make an argument.”

                Me: “The argument is (etc.)”

                You: “Hey, stop rambling for screen after screen.”

                Cute. This kind of behavior is characteristic of malignant narcissists. Caught.

                And… bye.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You argue the women dindu nuffin and that it is all the pakis fault.

                  Jim argues the women are attracted to the evil savage rapey behaviour of the Pakis.

                  You have failed to show examples of good girls being abducted, what you see is bad girls who willingly go to get whored out.

                  There are perhaps grey areas of girls who were threatened later on that they bad things would happen to them if they tried to leave. There are no cases of the Paki’s downright kidnapping the girls.

                  And please understand that my views when it comes to Sunni Muslims (Shias and Sufis aren’t as much of a problem) are as harsh as my views when it comes to leftists but the women as blameness victims narrative is not at all true.

                  Please consolidate your replies this subject is has been done to death and is boring at this point…

                • jim says:

                  > You: “I demand examples!”

                  > Me: “OK, here.”

                  You have provided no examples. Your examples make no sense as examples, unless you are reasoning, “X happened, therefore obviously Y must have happened, and Y is an example.” But though it may seem obvious to you that if X happened, Y must have happened, it is not all obvious to me, and you neglect to explain that “therefore Y must have happened, and Y is an example”

                  You have made no arguments, unless the completely unsupported claim that the chicks went to the rape place for beer and cigs constitutes an argument. You just post random crap that never seems to have any obvious relevance to anything that I can discern, and when I ask you to explain the relevance, you refuse to explain the relevance.

                  And you post a whole lot of random crap, no end of random crap, then confidently claim it proves something – but there is never the faintest indication of how it supposedly proves it.

                  > Me: “The argument is (etc.)”

                  > You: “Hey, stop rambling for screen after screen.”

                  You took umpteen screens to make the argument that the reason the girls went to the rape place was for beer and cigs, which argument could have been made in one line, instead of umpteen screens.

                  The trouble is that you post a whole lot on this topic, without actually saying very much. Please try to post complete arguments, but also try to express those arguments concisely.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Command HQ is grim. The sun is setting as, off in the distance, the report of cannonade echoes through hill and dale. Lt. Col. Algernon fiddles endlessly with the Jewish made spectacles his wife gifted him Christmas last. She says they make him look refined and well read. He thinks they make him seem a book keeper. Not far away, General Toxin stands on a copse, spyglass to eye, back ramrod straight. He sweeps back and forth, paying no mind the humidity and vermin which are part and parcel high summer in this clime.

                  Under fading light, the General abruptly snaps closed the farseer and strides back into the tent. Algernon squirrels the spectacles away and straightens his dress coat.

                  “General…”

                  Toxin does not respond, brushing politely past to survey the map spread languidly upon the rough hewn table. Algernon raises his chin and waits.

                  “The hussars?”

                  Algernon moves to stand beside him.

                  “Too little too late, sir. The entrenched infantry made short work of them. Though all reports indicate their sally was a sight to-”

                  “And the mercenary corps?”

                  “Broke and ran, I’m afraid. Mohammedans are a much storied force, but I fear they are ill suited to this type of battle…”

                  “Say your meaning, Algernon. I’ve not time for petticoat niceties.”

                  “…er, of course, General. The field is lost. Whatever path remains, it is only rearward. It is not that you fought, Sir, ’tis only where you fought. This ground is indefensible. No amount of horse or means or men can hold sand, not in any real way. I am of the opinion that y-”

                  “I know your opinion, Algernon. What is more, I’m aware of your cousins butchering my men. Pack my belongings and send them to Vienna at first light. What a waste.”

                  “A waste indeed, sir. But a noble waste. A waste worth, er, wasting, if you take my meaning.”

                  A casual and dismissive glance askance.

                  “I do not Algernon. I would be surprised if anyone did.”

                  “Sir.”

                  With a curt nod, the General spun on his heel, exeunt to a waiting charger, and rode off into an indifferent twilight, leaving behind a mess made for others to put to rights.

        • jim says:

          None of the girls, not a single one, tell the story “I went off to be alone with him and his friends expecting to party with free stuff”

          You are making up this story and attributing it to the girls. It is not what they said. It is what you wish they had said, because you are so horrified by what they are actually saying that you refuse to listen to them. If the pakis getting girls with free stuff, it would be chocolates and roses, not beer and cigarettes, and it would not work. The girls would never agree to wander off into a situation where they could be raped.

  5. alf says:

    Neurotoxin, have you considered the possibility that these women are playing you like a fiddle?

    I have plenty of friends who are friendly and share alcohol and cigarettes. But for some strange and mysterious reason, they never attract the attention of girls.

  6. Zach says:

    Society abused him, he says. Thoughts?

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

    • alf says:

      One hour very long.

      Not very familiar with Molyneux. He strikes me as an upper class Vox Day.

      • Zach says:

        Yeah it is a little on the long side. I don’t regularly listen to podcasts as I find them to be an epic waste of time. Ditto for long videos. But I listened to most of that one while working.

        He’s about as good as can be done on youtube or damn near close to it. Not a guy I’m going to shit on. Reconciling his position on child abuse is interesting to say the least.

        He’s not an explosion of insight by any means.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      My thoughts are “go fuck yourself if you think I’m going to listen to a guy talk to a camera for an hour and seven minutes”.

  7. cloudswrest says:

    > as the poz gets ever more extreme

    It’s interesting how bat shit crazy they are getting. Case in point, the recent title stripping from Miss Michigan of the Miss World America of Kathy Zhu, barely a day after she won it, after her social media was scoured and past MILK TOAST conservative tweets were found. This is echos of Razib Khan being fired from the NYT a day after he was hired after they discovered he said realtalk, except Kathy Zhu is incomparably prettier!

    Here we have an extremely pretty photogenic, accomplished, very young (20), and also non-white, being excommunicated by Leftists. She already had a large Twitter following before this. Leftists are crowing. They obviously have no self awareness. This is another bonanza being dropped into Trump’s lap!

  8. Frederick Algernon says:

    This is fairly interesting…

    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/219597463

    • shaman says:

      Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.

      And…?

      This is not different than:

      “Jim’s blog contributor Frederick Algernon relayed information from NRx founder Mencius Moldbug to Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel regarding the gay bathhouse meeting conducted by the secret Mannerbund cult, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Thiel.”

      4chan once again shows no reality testing whatsoever.

      • The Cominator says:

        https://www.scribd.com/document/417578836/Butowsky-Complaint

        It depends on what sort of evidence is in the lawsuit, I haven’t reviewed it.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        If that tiny snippet was the whole document, i’d think you have a point. The list of defendants is pretty expansive, so unless their are defections, i don’t see it going to far. To me, the question is whether any person on that list breaks from the pack OR incontrovertible evidence comes out that Seth Rich was in fact the source of the DNC emails leak.

        • The Cominator says:

          Assange basically confirmed Seth Rich was the DNC leaker.

          Scott Adams (Dilbert guy aka persuasion man) who is as close to always right as humans get said he put his level of certainty on that at 99%.

  9. Friendly Fred says:

    Three Old Testament examples of girls going away from home alone — Rachel goes to the well where Jacob meets her; Moses’s future wife Zipporah goes with six sisters to the well where Moses chases away rude shepherds (Exodus 2:16-17). Also, Jacob’s daughter Dinah fucks around with a Canaanite kid, Shechem, which leads to the kid’s whole village getting wiped out.

    Examples from classical literature are all over the place – that’s how girls get fucked by gods. But Odysseus doesn’t fuck the king’s daughter on the island where he gets washed up, when she’s out flower-picking with her friends; the expectation isn’t that girls who go out are up for grabs, but it’s acknowledged that they’re at some risk.

    (Yes, I know, they probably WANT to be grabbed by the right grabber, but the grabber still has to grab or there’s no grabbing. Potential grabber’s fear of Dad makes grabbing less likely.)

    In the Poetic Edda we have Odin boasting to Thor about his sexual conquests. So girls were getting out. Otherwise the story would make no sense and people wouldn’t enjoy listening to the bard sing it.

    Yes, all of this tends to support the proposition that girls are volcanic chickens (Dinah, girls fucked by Greek Gods, girls fucked by Norse gods — three different cultural realms, same idea) but also the proposition that the normal thing has always been for girls to be allowed out of the house. Note that Dinah doesn’t marry Shechem and that the girls fucked by Greek and Norse gods don’t marry those gods. Nor did lower-class English girls fucked by gentlemen marry those gentlemen.

    So, while Host-Teacher’s practical proposal MAY be the best way to deal with biopsychic reality (yes, girls are volcanic chickens, just as boys are contract-making pack-wolves), its putting-into-effect would NOT be a return to Good Old Ways; it would be a NEW thing and therefore should perhaps not be called “reactionary”.

    • Well, we’re not advocating returning to luddite feudal agrarianism either. We’re reactionaries because we’re recognizing that the social technologies of the past were far more in line with reality than those enforced at present and in fact can often be improved on compared to the past.

      I’d prefer renaissance marriage norms to today, would prefer 8th century Saxon marriage norms to that, but the best would be technological hyper-patriarchy in which your daughters are microchipped, and the first man to have sex with her would be DNA-matched to a database that produces an automated marriage contract and immediately notifies the authorities to come and enforce said marriage contract with a sacramental marriage that involves the transfer of the encrypted key to the microchip’s DNA data from the father to the new husband.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        I saw your comment on 16 century English marriages above, Mr. Mac — that was part of what I had in mind, thanks. Also Com’s reference to Moll Flanders.

        So, if it’s generally known that the first man to have sex with a girl automatically gets to have her, aren’t lower-quality men going to think, “I can just force myself on this girl and she’s mine, kool!”? I recognize that there are degrees and ambiguities involved in determining “force” but let’s say it’s the obese 49 year old janitor with a milky eye and weird stains on broken-zippered chinos and she was always daydreaming about Pewdie-Pie types instead — isn’t that evidence that something is amiss? But even setting that issue aside, isn’t it enough that Dad would prefer that she marry a Pewdie-Pie? Does his 14-year-have to belong to the fat old milky-eyed janitor who managed to catch her in the basement?

        I think that this is all being looked at in the 180-degree wrong way. Look at what was actually done by a given people (say, the English) throughout most of their history and then conclude, “That’s what they should be doing today; bring THAT back.” So if in 1550 girls were getting married at 25 knocked up after two previous miscarriages with other guys, so be it. At least most of them stayed married, once married, and lots of them had children.

        • 2019 is boring says:

          Women excel at avoiding sex with men they find unattractive; if she seduced and fucked the janitor, it’s because she had the hots for him, regardless of her irrelevant fantasy world.

        • jim says:

          So, if it’s generally known that the first man to have sex with a girl automatically gets to have her, aren’t lower-quality men going to think, “I can just force myself on this girl and she’s mine, kool!”?

          To prevent that, you don’t allow girls out.

          Girls are apt to ensure that they can be forced by a man they perceive as higher quality, and avoiding contact with men they perceive as lower quality. Ufortunately, their perceptions of quality are crap.

          • The Cominator says:

            My sister was a badly behaved teenage girl not allowing them out is apt to be a joke.

            What is wrong with allowing the father to say up to a certain age okay she fornicated and got popped fine I still don’t find that idiot a suitable husband and I will not shotgun marry and will not allow marriage to him, I’m marrying her off to someone she wouldn’t let near her if it were up to her but he is willing to take her makes more money and advising him to beat that smartass willful attitude out of her in a way I’ve never had the heart to.

            Having the girl marry her 1st lover is female choice by other means, I seek to eliminate female choice (except as an advisory factor) entirely unless the father fucks up and doesn’t get her married off by the right age.

            • BC says:

              What is wrong with allowing the father to say up to a certain age okay she fornicated and got popped fine I still don’t find that idiot a suitable husband and I will not shotgun marry and will not allow marriage to him, I’m marrying her off to someone she wouldn’t let near her if it were up to her but he is willing to take her makes more money and advising him to beat that smartass willful attitude out of her in a way I’ve never had the heart to.

              Because sluts are bad for civilization. Either kill the man she slept with and find her a man willing to take used goods or cast her out. The bible recommends death for such girls, but more likely the father’s just told their daughters to hit the road and never come back.

              • The Cominator says:

                Because sluts are bad for civilization. Either kill the man she slept with and find her a man willing to take used goods or cast her out.

                Killing the man she slept with is punishing men, male sexuality is not the problem and punishing men is stupid useless and gives women power.

                I’m saying that yes in this case she is young hot and the the father has someone willing to take her.

                I want to make sure responsible men get pussy and that women marry good men by having their sexual choices made for them, shotgunning to 1st lover without father’s consent is still de facto allowing women to pick their husbands. I’m not so interested in stone the thot moralfagging, I want the thot forced into sex with a responsible man or failing that to paying responsible customers in a whorehouse.

                • BC says:

                  Killing the man she slept with is punishing men, male sexuality is not the problem and punishing men is stupid useless and gives women power.

                  No, we’re talking about killing a man who took her and didn’t keep her. He either keeps her or he dies and the father picks a match for her.

                  I want to make sure responsible men get pussy and that women marry good men by having their sexual choices made for them, shotgunning to 1st lover without father’s consent is still de facto allowing women to pick their husbands.

                  Women have picked their husbands, but only when their own families where not properly policing them. The father failed by not getting her married before that happened. Sex is ownership and the first man who sleeps with her, owns her.

                  What your advocating a women fooling around until her father picks her official husband, sort of like marriage in upper class France in the 18 century. That didn’t work out well for the French.

                • jim says:

                  > What your [the Cominator] advocating is a women fooling around until her father picks her official husband, sort of like marriage in upper class France in the 18 century. That didn’t work out well for the French.

                  Upper class French marriage was a catastrophically failed social technology, which should, like communism, be treated as a horrifying moral lesson about how evil acts lead to catastrophic outcomes, manifesting divine wrath through cause and effect.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Can you elaborate on exactly what went wrong with French marriage if indeed what I’m advocating is much like the French system (I’m ignorant to this but I don’t think monarchical France was all that feminist)?

                  The French revolution was not exactly caused by women problems and the revolution and Colbertism (socialism) were the big problems with France to my knowledge.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Afraid I won’t get a reply but

                  1) How is my proposal like the French marriage system under the monarchy and what was that like?

                  2) How did it fail? Also I would ask did it only fail within the strange gilded cage of Versailles?

                • jim says:

                  French noblewomen had arranged marriages, at least in theory, but everyone winked at female sexual immorality, and French noblemen were emasculated, effeminate, unmanly, and perverse. I don’t know enough about how things worked to link cause and effect, but for whatever reason virgin marriage and wifely chastity did not seem to be happening.

                  Seems to me that to ensure virginity and chastity, you need power in the hands of the husband, and you need the husband to be the alpha male at his marriage ceremony, need him to be the alpha male when his father in law visits, and a fellow alpha when he visits his father in law.

                  To ensure reproduction, need to enforce good behavior. Husbands are far more likely to enforce good behavior on women than fathers. For whatever reason, and I don’t know what was going on, females in France were not behaving well.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I would suggest that living in the fake controlled world of Versailles made it hard for most of the upper class to be anything close to alpha (as it was intended to by Louis XIV it was intended to rob them both of their power in their own territories where traditionally they would rule as almost kings themselves, and their pride). The men would tend to feel emasculated the women would all be trying to fuck the king or failing that people very high up and close to the king.

                  Do you know what the family sizes were like both before and during the Versailles period in France?

                • jim says:

                  I don’t have information, but it seems likely that no matter what the rules were for sex, marriage, and women, emasculating the elite is going to result in very bad behavior among wives of the elite, so perhaps we cannot generalize from things going wrong in versailles.

            • jim says:

              > What is wrong with allowing the father to say up to a certain age okay she fornicated and got popped fine I still don’t find that idiot a suitable husband and I will not shotgun marry and will not allow marriage to him,

              You are assuming a strong father capable of controlling events, and weak suitor, when events have just demonstrated a weak father incapable of controlling events, whose daughter will soon be slowly moving down Jeremy Meeks booty call list, and a strong suitor.

              Under those circumstances “I will not allow that marriage” is apt to be code for “My precious little pumpkin still hopes for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks”.

              A reactionary society must go with the flow of human nature, rather than trying to oppose it. Bet on the strong, not the weak. When the strong has an arguably legitimate claim, back strength.

              The Trad Dad is in practice just a weakling making excuses for his twelve year old fucking Jeremy Meeks and his nine year old attempting to fuck Jeremy Meeks. If he was strong, would control his daughters rather than demanding that society control Jeremy Meeks. Boastful talk about controlling men is a cover for inability to control women. Weaklings need to lose their daughters to alpha males. Women want the strong to carry them off from the weak. Society and the State should oblige. If State and Society fails to oblige, women will find a way, such as perhaps importing an army of rapeugees.

      • Not Tom says:

        Authorities? Not nearly techno-futuristic enough. After the restoration, X and Y chromosomes will be blockchain tokens and addresses, respectively, and the literal act of copulation will automatically create a permanent indelible public transaction assigning X (the token) to Y. And this technology will be bioengineered, no microchipping required and no way to remove or disable it short of death.

        • Not Tom says:

          And yes, I’m aware that men still have a single X chromosome. Make whatever inferences you’d like from that, they all lead to exciting destinations.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      Notice that all your OT examples are from before the First Temple period, and indeed from before Moses laid down the law.

    • jim says:

      Nuts:

      Abraham gives his wife to Abimilech. Should we conclude that wife swapping is OK with God, or routinely practiced?

      When Tamar, the windowed daughter in law of Judah, becomes pregnant inexplicably Genesis 38, he proposes to burn her alive, this clearly being law and custom at the time, that a widow may not have sex unless authorized by who ever inherited her from her husband. Tamar then shows proof of how she legitimately became pregnant.

      Clear implication here is that extremely drastic measures were applied to restrain women from having sex, and that sex by female consent was absolutely prohibited, that it was absolutely forbidden, under the most draconian penalties, for a woman to have sex by her own choice.

  10. Zarnubius says:

    What’s happened to the rest of nrx? Social matter seems to be discontinued, and the site doesn’t work anymore. There isn’t any archive as far as I know, which is a shame since some of the older stuff was good. Also can’t find the earlier ascending the tower podcasts.

    Who is left beyond Jim and Spandrell?

    • NRx is a conspiracy theory bro. It never happened.

    • jim says:

      There is a blogroll of reactionary blogs on this web page.

      Socialist matter died of entryism. Swerved left, and disappeared, like a protestant church which puts women and gays in the pulpit, and their church property soon becomes lesbian feminist bookstore, which is soon abandoned and becomes a hangout for homeless people.

      They were attempting practice entryism against the left. Did it poorly (It is hard). And, instead of entering, were entered.

  11. On psychopathy. The deeper issue is that libs assume ethical behavior = empathy. Nope.

    Empathy is a tactical ability evolved to be able to predict the opponent’s moves by putting yourself into his shoes. Pretty much every successful military leader since prehistoric times had to have it. While it does lead to sympathetic pain, he could just order all captives to be killed and solve his sympathetic pain by walking away and not looking. Pretty sure mirror neurons did not lead to the evolution of moral sense. Pretty sure Hitl3r had a lot of empathy – how else could he have been such an effective public speaker, he had to have a good idea about what the audience wants to hear.

    Nor is empathy not sufficient for moral behavior, nor is it necessary. We normally obey a lot of ethical rules that even when violated would not cause noticeable suffering to any person. E.g. not stealing from corporate inventories. They are insured. The pain gets spread around and it is very very little pain per person. A real psychopath with no empathy is still perfectly capable of behaving ethically, the difference is that to him “don’t torture people to death” is not immediately obvious, but rather he sees the rule the same way as “don’t steal even insured corporate property” – obeys it for the same reasons we obey that one.

    Funny how libs don’t notice it is the worst form of ableism, they are not only stigmatizing people without empathy, they are actually denying their humanity, as the ability to make moral choices is pretty much a core part of being human.

    • Anonymous says:

      I think “empathy” may also be an anticoncept. It lumps together cognitive empathy, meaning to know what another person is feeling, and emotional empathy, meaning to actually feel as another person feels. What 2019 says in the previous top level comment about the etiology of “psychopathy”, I think is about a person having the former ability without having the latter.

      • I think it is a false distinction. The purpose of empathy is to predict what other people will do in a given situation. The reason we need this is that are not so smart, we are not able to simulate someone else’s brain the usual causal-modelling way. We just put ourselves into their shoes, and ask ourselves what we do in his shoes and let our own brain figure out the rest.

        So if we want to know if we can entice the opposing military commander into a reckless charge right into the pikes or machine guns, by some trick that makes him angry, by asking ourselves if it would work on us in his shoes, our brain’s decision-making engine needs the same inputs: not only the data, but it needs to feel the same emotions. We need to feel the same anger, in order to be able to judge if it would override our cool-headed tactical ability or not.

        Just knowing about other people’s emotions would not be a useful input to this. It would only be useful for an input to causal brain modelling, which does not work, because we are not smart enough, we don’t have so much more computing resources than the other guy. Like how a modern computer can emulate a Gameboy without any problems, but if it is asked to emulate a computer of similar levels of CPU and memory via VMWare or something, and in the meanwhile doing other stuff, that’s not going to work well.

        • Also, male and female empathy works differently. Male empathy is this tactical ability described above. Female empathy is that stuff that when your 6 months old baby cries, your wife somehow knows he is having ear pain. It is optimized for detecting suffering and its reason, for the purpose of keeping infants, who cannot communicate their problems well, alive. It is more about why someone is feeling something, while male empathy is more about given that someone is feeling something, what is he going to do.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            Men usually have more “female empathy” than women do — at any rate this has almost always been true with regard to the men and women that I’ve known. I’ve come to the conclusion that men are better than women at everything, including finding lost items, cleaning the house, caring for babies, and of course cooking — except for one thing: being cute. Women are better than men at being cute. That’s it.

            • The Cominator says:

              Women are more conscientious when it comes to stupid repetitive tasks (and also more able to tolerate stupid busywork, I’m convinced this is why the American school system gives out so much stupid busywork because men just don’t want to do it) women have a superior ability to read, analyze and manipulate people. A certain low cunning…

              Men are not better at baby care because its just the type of repetitive annoying task women are made for that we generally can’t stand.

      • pdimov says:

        IIRC empathy is simply copying another’s facial expression, which then causes the same emotions to be felt.

      • jim says:

        Someone who knows what another person is feeling but does not care is apt to be good at lying, the unreliability part of the qualities attributed to psychopaths. But there is not going to be any correlation with the other virtues and vices attributed to psychopaths, such as courage.

        And you cannot really know what another person is feeling and not care. You can feel it, and then switch the feeling off because inconvenient, or unreal, which has much the same consequences as knowing and not caring, but the truly cold blooded empathy attributed to psychopaths does not really exist. It is just demonization and projection.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      Emotional empathy alone, without regard to objective reality, leads to disastrous and catastrophic results. But that doesn’t mean that emotional empathy is altogether unnecessary – it means that a good judge of morality only employs emotional empathy in the context of (i.e. on the background of) empiricism and rationality, rather than disregarding empiricism and rationality for Sola Emphatica.

  12. 2019 is boring says:

    I used to disagree with Jim’s position about psychopathy being an anti-concept, but he actually makes a valid and interesting point, so here’s my own take on psychopathy:

    On the biological level, there are indeed people — around 3% of the population — with shrunken amygdalae and inactive mirror neurons, who are incapable of emotionally experiencing any fear, sadness, empathy, or affection, which fundamental emotional hollowness entails needlessly cruel and antisocial behavior, with varying degrees of functionality to temper it. Thus Ted Bundy killing lots of chicks and mutilating their corpses just for fun. Demonspawn are often like that; and surprise surprise, Ted Bundy was indeed a bastard born out of wedlock to a biological father who made himself scarce.

    (The Biblical term for such people is “wicked”)

    These people usually get both themselves and others in trouble, not merely due to sadism, but because — lacking a fear instinct — they are apt to not worry about dangers which they should be worried about, e.g. eventually getting caught by the police for murdering chicks and mutilating their corpses. A likely example of the high-functioning variety would be Angelo Mozilo.

    Since such a personality type is not unlikely to be ruthlessly fiercely masculine, the priestly academic soyboys use the concept of psychopathology to condemn all the masculine traits associated with it, hence “toxic masculinity.” Here’s the thing: While such a neuro-abnormality does predispose one to possessing a masculine character (no touchy-feely among these folks), lots of men are perfectly masculine without having psychopathy, and by categorizing masculine traits as hallmarks of psychopathy, the academics have found another way to lower the status of men in society.

    Even if serious clinical psychiatrists do not usually make this mistake, knowing that having some expressions characteristic of pathology X does not necessarily mean that these are the symptoms of X, indeed does not mean that those expressions in themselves are pathological, it is common for feminized leftist academics to conflate antisocial psychopathological traits and prosocial masculine traits, implying that possessing the latter should naturally make you suspect of possessing the former, or perhaps is the same thing as possessing the former.

    The etiology of “psychopathy” is real enough – the MRI scans do not lie. But the concept itself is regularly used to demonize men for being men, to demonize high-testosterone behavior and thought-patterns as psychopathological. “Psychopathy” may not have been originally intended as an anti-concept (just as “pedophilia” may not have been originally intended as an anti-concept), but modern leftist academic soyboys have succeeded in turning it into one, and are using it for their misandric purposes.

    • jim says:

      > Since such a personality type is not unlikely to be ruthlessly fiercely masculine

      Not seeing this, don’t believe it, and the academic studies purportedly supporting it are blatantly and flagrantly cooked to deliver the predetermined and desired result.

      Wicked men are seldom masculine, though women and soyboys may perceive them so. They are weak.

  13. eternal anglo says:

    There is a great controversy occurring at Spandrell’s twitter about the question of Epstein’s teenage “victims”. It’s not that interesting – mostly just Literally Shaking by people who are terribly terribly shocked by his outrageous disgusting creepy pedophilia – but one response made me do a double take. According to page 6 of this article, which is a study of the English parish of Colyton, the median age of marriage for women between 1647 and 1719 was 27.5, and between 1560 and 1837, the median age of marriage for women never fell below 24. These numbers just do not make sense to me, given what has been discussed on this blog. Why were pre-industrial British women marrying so late? Why – and, indeed, how – were they kept virginal until 27 years of age, or even older?

    • The Cominator says:

      Those stats are not believable and I would ask their methodology and 20+ year old women who aren’t real dykes or frigid ain’t gonna be virgins.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      In Smollett’s Humphrey Clinker (1760s?) it’s jokingly presented as routine for gentlemen to be paying out stipends to multiple lower-class women who have borne them children. So maybe this was in fact happening a lot. Then the same women got married later on? Also, in Fielding’s Tom Jones (1749?) cohabitation seems to be assumed as a normal occurrence — a Jar Jar Binks type sidekick-character was living with a likable slutty woman for an extended period of time. So maybe there was lots of living-together and bastardy (or whatever it’s called).

      • The Cominator says:

        Moll Flanders too. I don’t think the 18th century was quite as Jim thinks of it in terms of sexual relations either.

        Pride and prejudice society was probably only ever the upper class (I’m defining the upper class as rich enough to employ full time domestic servants).

        • jim says:

          > Pride and prejudice society was probably only ever the upper class (I’m defining the upper class as rich enough to employ full time domestic servants).

          The transportees to Australia were lower class, and the stereotype of a transported woman presupposes that she should have been kept under tight control, and nominally was under tight control, but the tight control was ineffectual or unsuccessful. Looks to me that the rot set in from the upper class downwards. Blackstone remarks on lower class wives being physically imprisoned against their will in their homes, implying that this was not done in the upper class.

          If King George the fourth had done that, we probably still would have Kings.

    • jim says:

      Pre industrial women were not allowed “out” Not allowed “out” until the nineteenth century. They were always under the control of family or master. They went from family to apprenticeship in female role jobs, and apprenticeship ended in marriage. Apprenticeship involved restraint on them being “out”. This sometimes resulted in hysteria, like a cat in heat, which makes big trouble when you try to keep it indoors.

      The stereotypical scenario for women transported to Australia – I don’t know how well it corresponded to real life, but it is what people at that time imagined as stereotypical – was that a girl under the authority of her master committed a stupid crime for “love” – when she was not supposed to have any opportunity for “”love”. The authorities in Australia were initially shocked, confused, and dismayed, by the astonishingly enthusiastic sexual conduct of the women transported (spring break in Cancun on the shores of Port Jackson) so it seems likely that this stereotype was true of some very substantial proportion of the transported women.

      Late virgin marriage happened because women were kept under very tight control. You will notice that just as Disney characters tend to be orphans so that they can have adventures, Jane Austin’s romantic protagonists have weak sick, or absent fathers, and dead or hopelessly weak and incompetent mothers.

    • Not Tom says:

      I’m going to guess that a lot of pre-marital sex was involved, but husbands and fathers were reluctant to cop to it, for the same reason men today don’t cop to fapping or prostitutes. It was considered shameful.

      But then there is the LoTLN, which suggests that somewhere, sometime, we should be able to find examples of communities where the median virginal age really is freakishly high, just as we can surely find examples where it is freakishly low. Does not mean that we would be able to reproduce (heh) their experiments, especially with modern communication and mobility tech. We have to look at the patterns, not the outliers.

    • Church records from the 1550s in England note that a full half of women were showing pregnancies at their own weddings, which suggests that shotgun marriage was the predominant institution, which suggests that fathers were keeping their daughters unmarried for far too long, supports the Jimian hypothesis that even under patriarchy, it’s hard to keep your daughters off the cock.

      If she’s pregnant with one man, probably fucked around during her fertile years with quite a few men. By advocating younger marriage than relatively late-marrying England we’re solving a problem specific to Anglos, which is why we advocate OT and 1st millennium marriage norms and not Renaissance ones.

      England’s eugenic breeding was all its upper class, who married earlier and married virgin, and thus had far more kids than the working classes. Every Anglo can trace their descent to the nobility whereas if you meet an Eastern Euro, what you hear is “my family were farmers for thousands of years”.

      • Davilan says:

        In Greg Clarke’s book “A Farewell to Alms”, I read that the warrior nobles were failing to replace themselves (largely due to war deaths), and that the wealthy people who were having lots of kids were wealthy commoners in the countryside who got rich through agricultural investment and trade. This would explain why the English ended up being economically successful, rather than hyper-warlike.

      • The Cominator says:

        If she’s pregnant with one man, probably fucked around during her fertile years with quite a few men. By advocating younger marriage than relatively late-marrying England we’re solving a problem specific to Anglos, which is why we advocate OT and 1st millennium marriage norms and not Renaissance ones.

        And I still think trying to import the bulk of semitic customs is a bad idea for Anglos though I DO endorse very young marriage and marriage without female consent.

        I do believe the pregnancy statistics (and I imagine in some cases pregnancy was a precondition to marriage as some husbands would want proof of fertility) I don’t believe the very late marriage statistics.

        England’s eugenic breeding was all its upper class, who married earlier and married virgin, and thus had far more kids than the working classes. Every Anglo can trace their descent to the nobility whereas if you meet an Eastern Euro, what you hear is “my family were farmers for thousands of years”.

        Probably true to some degree as bethrothals at birth were common and as such were very early marriages. Jim is correct that Lord Blackstone commented that

        https://www.thoughtco.com/blackstone-commentaries-profile-3525208

        Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in the case of any gross misbehaviour.

        I imagine how this was done in lower class dwellings though… I can’t imagine most had too many escape proof rooms.

  14. Anonymous says:

    (Offtopic) I’m wondering if this guy active in 2016–2017 had criticisms about NRx worth responding to, or if he was just some kind of entryist? I am not capable of summarising his criticisms, so I’ll just leave the link here.

    https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/

    • jim says:

      “I no longer consider the ideas developed here as reactionary, neoreactionary or otherwise in any shape”

      Not an entryist.

      If an entryist, would be telling us that he is a reactionary and a neoreactionary, that progressive ideas are reactionary, that reactionary ideas are Jewish, that Trump is an orange Jewish pedophile, and that it is time to organize to blow up a preschool and to alienate the police and the military.

      Entryists display an obvious allergic reaction to Trump, to their country’s flag, to the Bible, to God, to the Incarnation,(though they are hip with Jesus as Jewish community organizer and anti Roman Revolutionary) and most of all, to the red pill, which afflicts them like holy water on a vampire.

    • Doug Smythe says:

      He developed his own school of thought, and has a book about it coming out soon (I have no idea when).

    • 2019 is boring says:

      RF’s ideology — Neoabsolutism — is remarkably similar to CR’s: Everything should be top-down organized by the despot, and if you disagree then you’re a “liberal”; RF literally argues that Communism is “more right-wing” (i.e., more on the side of Order vs. Disorder) than Libertarianism, for that reason. However, if he now explicitly admits that he isn’t a reactionary or a neoreactionary, then as Jim says, not an entryist, or no longer an entryist.

      • Not Tom says:

        more on the side of Order vs. Disorder

        One of the reasons I believe NRx will outlive all of these other fad ideologies is that NRx – generally, and in my experience – avoids this type of rigid binary thinking.

        Too many autists out there are frankly obsessed with a left-right axis, and think they’ve achieved brilliance by redefining the extremes: authoritarian vs. libertarian, globalism vs. nationalism, philosemitism vs. anti-semitism, chaos vs. order, Satanism vs. Christianity, feminine vs. masculine, virgins vs. chads, freaks vs. normals, ideologues vs. populists, progress vs. tradition… tedious and boring.

        Of course you need a catechism to decide who is in and who is out; but if your catechism can be reduced to a single word, if it’s always some kind of “scale” with no limiting principle, then it’s always going to be vulnerable to both entryism and holiness spirals. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament defined themselves on such an axis; they didn’t give ways to be “more biblical” or “more Christian”, those were heretical innovations from much later on.

        Effective rule is admitting “this is the way we are” and finding ways to work with that. Humans crave order, but not infinite centralized order.

        • jim says:

          God is Gnon, and the new testament tells us to stop deducing “ought” from “ought”. The faith must acknowledge and teach the nature of man.

        • 2019 is boring says:

          In large part I agree, though a caveat is that Left-wing and Right-wing do map to real ideological camps; left-wingers are a natural type, and right-wingers are a natural type – I believe Moldbug takes a similar stance.

          You are right that obsessing over it, turning that into some sort of binding axis, using that as an ultimate guide to deduce political positions and general principles, is clearly wrong and liable to result in an excessively abstract worldview – hence the autism of RF.

          • Not Tom says:

            Most definitely: significant group differences in conscientiousness and agreeableness, disgust thresholds, time preference, novelty-seeking, and so on.

            The difference between natural left-wingers and natural right-wingers is like the difference between Negroes and White Americans, or Jews and Gentiles: real and important, and significantly biological in origin, but not something you can cleave a single straight line through without leaving a lot of people on the wrong side. Demanding a straight line is what entryists do and can lead to absurd outcomes like Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin being labeled “right” and Vox Day and Moldbug being labeled “left”.

            Cuckservatives, for example, are probably natural rightists, but still not welcome in NRx except as a passive audience.

            • >The difference between natural left-wingers and natural right-wingers is like the difference between Negroes and White Americans, or Jews and Gentiles: real and important, and significantly biological in origin,

              That would imply people don’t change their ideologies. They do. They tend to get more conservative as they age. E.g. 20 years ago I used to have my own version of liberalism that, while showing little empathy for losers and generally did not signal compassion, I absolutely did signal “smartassness” by thrashing everything like religion, nationalism, tribalism, any idea not super logical even if empirically true as utter retarded idiocy. To wake up from this was long and difficult. It started with getting a job after the university and realizing in the real life actually finishing a task in time and well even when you don’t really know why your method worked is better than having a perfectly logical and smart opinion about things but not producing…

              Besides a significantly large voting block of the Left are not Leftist-minded, they are simply racial-ethnic minorities who are “right-wing” in the sense of tribalism, group cohesion, social order, religion etc. only difference is that they are doing it in favor of their own group and largely against the majority group. If kicked back to their own country, or founding one (thinking Israel) these people transition to being entirely right-wing as a matter of course. I mean, when cuckservatives say Hispanics are natural conservatives they aren’t entirely wrong in the sense that they probably don’t like gays and feminism much, the issue is that their group interests are directly opposed to that of the whites so they gonna vote Dem. Well, I am not sure about this, being Euro, but over here 100% sure it is true about the Turkish minority here and likely other Muslim ones.

              • Not Tom says:

                That would imply people don’t change their ideologies.

                It would not imply that, because significantly biological is not exclusively biological. Individuals can change their ideas, as well as their physical bodies and personality traits, with significant effort – but most don’t, and those who do, typically only to a limited degree.

                This of course does not account for preference falsification, where NPCs claim to support things they don’t actually support, or even understand. There is a massive amount of this going on, which is why a coup could easily reset the overton window to pre-1950s and maybe pre-20C levels (preference cascade).

                They tend to get more conservative as they age.

                Aside from individual exceptions as noted above, boomers as a demographic have approximately the exact same ideas they had in the 1960s. They appear “more conservative” not because their ideas have changed, but because the overton window has shifted left.

                Some ideas change as incentives change – for example most older people want lower income taxes because they’re earning a wage – but they still expect the government to pay for everything it currently pays for, if not more (e.g. health care), and for the most part haven’t changed their social views at all.

                It would be more accurate to say that people become more nostalgic as they age, not more conservative. Significant ideological change requires very strong influences and/or a personal commitment.

                Besides a significantly large voting block of the Left are not Leftist-minded, they are simply racial-ethnic minorities who are “right-wing” in the sense of tribalism, group cohesion, social order, religion etc.

                Jews are a strange exception here, and I believe Israeli Jews are actually a substantially different demographic from American Jews, e.g. the American cohort includes a ton of literal Communists, Soviet “refugees”, etc. My sample size isn’t huge, but I’ve observed that the more conservative Jews are the ones who emigrated from Europe before or near the very beginning of WWII.

                The other leftist voting blocs are very much leftist-minded. Audacious has done impressive research on this. The browns, blacks and even East Asians are all far more socialistic and libertine – high time preference. It’s not just idpol, not just who they vote for, but the actual policies and ideas they support.

                • jim says:

                  clarifying my position:

                  Prisoner’s dilemma with a limited number of iterations leads to defect/defect equilibrium, leading to failure to form families and failure to reproduce. Coercion backed by family, society, Church and State is needed to ensure cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

                  Children need to be raised in one household, and one ship needs one captain, and that captain has to be the man, for the female reaction to househusbands is well known.

                  Female sexuality is antisocial and dangerous. If women had their way, one male would kill all the others and enslave all the women into his harem. Thus female sexuality needs to be under male control – needs to be under the control of husbands, and under the control of fathers until it is husband time. All women are like that. Female sexuality, not male sexuality, is the big problem. Women disrupt male cooperation.

                  Women need to be transferred from the authority of fathers to the authority of husbands in a timely manner, and the authority of the husband has to trump the authority of the father. Late transfer and retention of paternal authority is antisocial and a chronic failure mode of societies that have strong patriarchy.

                  To avoid a population of male virgins dwelling in their mothers basements, need a one pussy per customer rule. Chastity and monogamy are male impositions on women, that need to be imposed with a stick. Monogamy and chastity is men imposing their will on women. Chastity and monogamy are restraints on women, not men, and need to be enforced on women, against women, not against men, hence the double standard. Chastity and Monogamy are intended to give men what they want (virgin, faithful and obedient wives, and to deny women what they want (General Butt Naked, or failing him, Jeremy Meeks). Chastity is rule by husbands over women, and Monogamy is a chance for the regular guy to become a patriarch, giving him an incentive to work, to pay taxes, to fight for order, property, peace, society, tribe, King, and God. Give women half a chance, they will overthrow chastity in no time flat, but that does not lead to the regular male getting more pussy. It leads to Jeremy Meeks getting more pussy.

                  As history amply demonstrates, anyone who opposes the double standard, opposes chastity and monogamy. Whosoever is supposedly in favor of these rules being supposedly imposed on both women and men, is in practice not in favor of imposing them on women, and since one pin can prick a thousand balloons, attempting to impose them on men has no effect on what we care about, the supply of female virgins. It just means that Jeremy Meeks pops all the balloons, at least until General Butt Naked shows up in town.

                  And having put the preliminaries that everyone agrees upon, time to address the hard problem; Transfer from fathers to husbands.

                  To reproduce, husband has to have authority. He cannot be beta to her father. He has to be alpha, and his father in law must treat him as a fellow alpha when in his father in law’s house, and as the big alpha when the father in law is in his son in law’s house.

                  A chronic failure mode of patriarchal society is delayed marriage, and excessive authority for fathers at the expense of husbands. Therefore, at some point, state, Church, and society, has to start approving of women who blow off dads and submit to husbands – while disapproving fiercely of women who jump onto the cock carousel and engage in endless search for a better quality of cock, and punishing them fiercely

                  Thus at some point, marriage by elopement. And, to prevent marriage by elopement from turning into the cock carousel, shotgun marriage without the consent of the father or the wife. If you elope, then you marry her or else, and she marries you, or else.

                  Now on the one hand, we don’t want someone breaking into a father’s home to steal a wife. But we neither do we want a fourteen year old girls wandering Arlie Beach parties at midnight to stay single. So, marriage by abduction for women who engage in sexual misconduct. She is waiting for her next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, then you can steal her.

                  Well, stealing her sounds rather dangerous, disorderly, anarchic, and socially disruptive. Maybe we should put misbehaving girls in a home for wayward girls, and indeed we should, but the purpose of putting them into a home for wayward girls should be to get them out of a home for wayward girls into the hands of husbands. It does not sound like something the state is likely to do very successfully. Just try letting people do what comes naturally, and start erecting fences when chaos has bad consequences.

                  OK, if dad puts her into a home for wayward girls, fine, but do we want to make it too easy for dad to preserve her chastity for an unreasonable time?

                  In late eighteenth century Australia, they would hold a line up, often on the dock within hours of convict women arriving. A bunch of potential husbands approved by the state walked along the dock, and each would place a small gift at the feet of one of the girls. If she picked it up, they were married. And if she did not pick up anyone’s gift, she got assigned regardless. It was that she got assigned regardless that made it work.

                  Thing is, we have to do something about girls who are off the marriage market because they are waiting for their next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, and it is difficult to see how the state could handle that. Maybe arrest them for fucking Jeremy Meeks (no point in arresting Jeremy Meeks. There will always be another Jeremy Meeks) and then hold a line up outside the prison. But at some point we are going to have to assign or kidnap Jeremy Meeks’ surplus women against their will, or cooperation between men and women to form families and have children collapses.

                  Obviously we want the father, not the abductor, to do the assigning. But, if the father falls down in his duty, because he is sure his precious pumpkin would never do anything unchaste, and sure that her disinclination to get married till she is pushing forty is entirely due to her innocent distaste for sex, someone else is going to have to do the assigning.

                  To prevent wholesale defect/defect and general failure form families and to reproduce, you are going to have to do something about the girl who is “in love” with Jeremy Meeks. What do you propose to do?

                  It is not a small problem you can ignore. It is an enormous, society smashing, civilization destroying, problem that is hurting us very badly. What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do with her?

                  Obviously we want fathers to take care of the problem, rather than kidnappers or the state. But some fathers will not, or will not take care of it in a timely manner. And we would like the state to take care of it, rather than kidnappers. But a lot of stuff is apt to slip through the state’s fingers. We should follow a general principle that a woman gets stuck with one man one way or another way. Ideally they are introduced by dad, fall in love, dad agrees to give his daughter to the groom, they get married contractually and sacramentally. But when something more disorderly happens, as it inevitably will from time to time, we need to aim for an outcome in which the woman gets stuck with one man. We will then find disorderly things happening far less often. Women love drama, and are always causing drama. If they found that drama invariably resulted in marriage, and not necessarily marriage to the man they would prefer, there would be considerably less drama.

                  In order that men and women can form families and reproduce, have to prevent sexual misconduct, primarily female sexual misconduct. And preventing female misconduct means that at some point a woman is likely to find that she is compelled to have sex with one man, and forbidden to have sex with any other. And if she is holding out for the next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, has to be compelled to have sex with some guy she does not much like, and forbidden to have sex with Jeremy Meeks. And if Dad will not deal with it because his precious little pumpkin could not possibly be taking booty calls from Jeremy Meeks, someone else is going to have to take care of it, or else sexual chaos resumes. And if a private individual takes care of it effectively and successfully, the state should not get up his nose.

                  When trad dad attempts to hang on to daughter too long, we should allow the chaos that comes from allowing marriage by elopement. And when trad dad is too weak or negligent to prevent marriage by elopement, we should allow marriage by elopement.

                  And when marriage by elopement leads to the cock carousel, to women endlessly cruising for a trade up for a more alpha dicking, we should allow marriage by abduction. We need to resolve sexual chaos by sticking a woman with a man, and man with a woman. Any time we can say “You made your bed, you can lie in it”, we do so.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Thing is, we have to do something about girls who are off the marriage market because they are waiting for their next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, and it is difficult to see how the state could handle that. Maybe arrest them for fucking Jeremy Meeks, and then hold a line up outside the prison.

                  You are referring to older women (25+) here.

                  Easy if unmarried they are subject at any time to marriage by abduction (this is where I have no problem with it) also they all have to report to an auction periodically and are sold to the highest single bidder willing to marry them.

                • jim says:

                  > > Thing is, we have to do something about girls who are off the marriage market because they are waiting for their next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, and it is difficult to see how the state could handle that. Maybe arrest them for fucking Jeremy Meeks, and then hold a line up outside the prison.

                  > You are referring to older women (25+) here.

                  In a saner society, would be referring to women 25+. In this society I am talking about quite a few girls who are fourteen or so, and the only reason I am not talking about nine year olds is because Jeremy Meeks turns up his nose at them.

                  You will notice that in societies where late virgin marriage was normal and common, very early marriage was normal and legal. Late virgin marriage cannot exist unless you are able and willing to do something about girls who misbehave early, sometimes very early indeed.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Agree with all you’re saying here, Jim, but did you intend for it to be a reply to this particular tangent? It seems more relevant to the Fred/Doug threads. Or maybe you’re politely hinting that we’re veering off topic and I’m autistically ignoring said hint. I can’t tell.

                • shaman says:

                  I think that it’s a reply to Nikolai.

                • >A chronic failure mode of patriarchal society is delayed marriage, and excessive authority for fathers at the expense of husbands.

                  Bride price, Jim. This is about the fourth good argument for it. When something is a gift, people retain a certain authority over it, like how my wife feels obliged to wear the earrings my mother gifted to her every time we visit. But if you buy something, it is 100% yours.

                  Other three:

                  1) Incentives for fathers for raising girls right.

                  2) Less harsh on women: can play status games with each other.

                  3) Less harsh on women, incentive to educate in cases when in actually makes sense.

                  Can’t expect property transfer to work well without price signals.

                • shaman says:

                  Not an altogether vile idea, but Trad Dads will easily and inevitably find a way to horribly abuse it: They will set a bride price way too high, legit suitors will make themselves scarce, and then — surprise surprise — the bride will plunge deep into the cock carousel lifestyle. In fact, I can hardly imagine Trad Dads not acting precisely in such a manner, leading exactly to the expected result of rampant thottery.

                  Acquiring a woman needs to be cheap, and in many cases, without a price at all. Letting the girl go is the real problem.

                  A high bride price will result in lots of men staying virgins, and the more dad wants to hang on to his precious little pumpkin, the higher the bride price will rise, leading to ever more male virgins in mom’s basement, and ever greater female misbehavior.

                  Any bride price needs to be low enough, and in many cases, there should be none whatsoever; in fact, a Red-Pilled father would be willing to pay (rather than expecting payment) in order for someone to take his daughter in marriage and permanently keep her, though unfortunately, not too many Red-Pilled fathers these days.

                  Blue-Pilled fathers will always use any pretext and any method to hang on to their precious little chaste angelic sweet princes, and that’s why civilizations die of infertility. We need to make it unprofitable for trad dad to hang on to daughter, so unprofitable that if he can’t sell her quickly when the time is right, he will much rather pay someone to take her.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Bride price, Jim.

                  It’s interesting how some societies have bride prices (Arabs, gypsies come to mind) while others have the exact opposite (dowry).

                • Not Tom says:

                  Moldbug (among many others) advocated for property price, exchange, and taxation to all be tied together. That is, you can appraise your home at whatever price you want; however, you will be taxed on that appraisal, so you don’t want to set it excessively high; and you must also be willing to sell to anyone who can pay it, so you don’t want to set it excessively low.

                  I don’t know if this would work effectively for bridal prices given the different timescales involved, but I think it could work. Bridal price must be formally posted in advance, not after an abduction has occurred. Abductor has to pay previously-posted price or else the father has an option (not a requirement) to block marriage. But posting a bridal price means taxation, probably heavy taxation, say 10% per year, payable monthly, so if Trad Dad decides his little princess deserves a prince, and posts a $1M price, then he’ll have to fork over $100K per year at around $10K per month.

                  This would limit extreme pickiness to the wealthiest families who might actually have a real justification for being picky. Middle-class families can’t post obscene prices just because she’s pretty hot. And it doesn’t totally prioritize fathers over husbands, because fathers can’t deny the sale; posting a price means they have to sell to the first person who asks, no bidding wars or other shenanigans, so they’d better be damn sure it’s what they want. More alpha fathers who think they can control their daughters up to a certain age won’t post any price, thus don’t have to sell to anyone, but also don’t get a veto if they lose control, it’s standard MBA for them.

                  I can imagine some potential negative side effects, though, like lowering eugenic fertility and creating a lot of upper-class thots who know they can slum it up with criminals and naggers and not be forced to marry them because their dads will intervene. That’s an issue with bridal prices in general, though. I don’t know how to fix that. We can prevent fathers from abusing the system because men respond to economic incentives, but if their daughters know their dads will protect them from shotgun marriage, then the whole system is liable to break down into rampant thottery.

                  So I’m not endorsing this officially, just hypothesizing a system that could partially work by preventing paternal abuse. Maybe someone else knows how to modify it to prevent female abuse.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I believe Jim’s lengthy comment was supposed to be a reply to me. I largely agree with everything you said. I’m glad you made a distinction between marriage by elopement and marriage by abduction.

                  I was very close to eloping at one point. There’s a big difference between a couple who sleeps in the same bed every night for months being forced to marry each other and kidnapping a girl off the street and calling it a marriage. I completely support the former and take St. Basil’s position on the latter.

                  In light of this entirely reasonable and amicable comment, I’ll politely ignore you calling me a heretical gnostic satanist for taking St. Basil’s position.

                  I do have one issue though. In college it’s not uncommon for a couple to live together for months or years with no intention of marrying. Suppose the man takes the woman’s virginity and they’ve cohabitated for a few months. Suppose the guy doesn’t want to propose, the girl doesn’t want to marry and the girl’s father wouldn’t want the guy as a son-in-law. I’ve personally seen this scenario play a few times. Ideally, who, if anyone, forces them to marry? The state?

                • jim says:

                  > and take St. Basil’s position on the latter.

                  > calling me a heretical gnostic satanist for taking St. Basil’s position.

                  What is Saint Basil’s position? Where does he say this? I don’t trust stories that confidently project the blue pill, sodomy, Romance, twenty first century sex change technology, and gay marriage back to the first millenium Christianity.

                  I see no end of gnostics, satanists, and Marxists, claiming that Jesus said various things he most certainly did not say. What does Saint Basil say?

                  Saint Basil says: “Marriages entered into without the consent of those in authority are fornications.” But at the same time, he also unambiguously rejects the right of those in authority to keep women virgin indefinitely, having a bet each way.

                  According to Saint Basil, authority can forbid a particular marriage, but must marry the girl off in a reasonable time.

                  OK, then, suppose authority fails to do so? According to Saint Basil, that is not legitimate grounds for locking the girl up, in which case, what is going to happen? Seems to me that by rejecting lockup in such case, Basil is implicitly authorizing marriage by elopement when authority fails his proper duty.

                • The Cominator says:

                  In college it’s not uncommon for a couple to live together for months or years with no intention of marrying.

                  Women in college in reactionary society?

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Nikolai, when a chick doesn’t want to fuck someone, she’ll find a veritable infinity of creative and novel ways to prevent him from ever being remotely in a position to fuck her.

                  The difference between marriage by abduction and marriage by elopement is trivial, as female “consent” to sex is altogether fuzzy: When a woman gets fucked / “raped,” in 99% of cases it’s because she noticeably took action to be at the right place, and at the right time, that it may transpire.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I think we agree for the most part, so I’m not going to belabor the point much further.

                  To answer your question, St. Basil writes in letter 199

                  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm

                  “XXII … In the case of a girl who has been taken when not betrothed, she ought first to be removed, and restored to her own people, and handed over to the will of her own people whether parents, or brothers, or any one having authority over her. If they choose to give her up, the cohabitation may stand; but, if they refuse, no violence should be used. In the case of a man having a wife by seduction, be it secret or by violence, he must be held guilty of fornication.

                  The punishment of fornicators is fixed at four years. In the first year they must be expelled from prayer, and weep at the door of the church; in the second they may be received to sermon; in the third to penance; in the fourth to standing with the people, while they are withheld from the oblation. Finally, they may be admitted to the communion of the good gift.”

                  “XXV. The man who retains as his wife the woman whom he has violated, shall be liable to the penalty of rape, but it shall be lawful for him to have her to wife.

                  XXVI. Fornication is not wedlock, nor yet the beginning of wedlock. Wherefore it is best, if possible, to put asunder those who are united in fornication. If they are set on cohabitation, let them admit the penalty of fornication. Let them be allowed to live together, lest a worse thing happen.”

                  “XLII. Marriages contracted without the permission of those in authority, are fornication. If neither father nor master be living the contracting parties are free from blame; just as if the authorities assent to the cohabitation, it assumes the fixity of marriage.”

                • Javier says:

                  The question is how to manage this in a modern, pozzed, blue-pilled world.

                  As a soon-to-be father of a girl, my friend was teasing me, saying I was going to be in for it when she became a teenager and started dating. I pointed out that dating was an aberration and mostly a myth, as the concept of engaging in multiple “serious relationships” for several years before choosing “the one” only exists in movies.

                  Modern dating consists largely of two things: feral girls trawling for alpha dick, and girls pairing off with the closest convenient boys in their social circle. These pairings are treated as marriages in all but name, as the couple will be feted by the circle and subject to heightened status. Except without the force of law or greater society, these relationships are volatile as the boys are apt to attempt to poach each other’s girls, and the prettier girls are apt to “homey hop” from boy to boy to get as much dick as they can, and the whole thing is disruptive and chaotic. Better to bypass this by choosing a suitor for my daughter and then making it official with marriage.

                  My friend was pretty scandalized by this idea, and he is a rather conservative, red-pilled guy. Yet he still thinks the idea of trawling for alpha dick as a sacred right of all girls which fathers are forbidden to interfere with. He didn’t seem to think it was possible to choose a suitor for my daughter. I pointed out he had sons, our friends had sons, and any of them would make a fine enough husband for her. Teenage girls really aren’t that picky, and if we put them together things will happen, like hamsters in a cage. If all else fails, she’s just back to the standard option of sending her through the college cock gauntlet anyway.

      • jim says:

        The problem with absolutism, the problem with the despot organizing everything top down, is that no man rules alone.

        The King, instead of being undermined by dangerously powerful Lords far from the throne, is undermined by dangerously powerful bureaucrats who bow before him and say “Yes, your majesty”, but then do what they damn well please.

        And then when the Tsar is away at the front, they put a mob into the streets and forbid the cops to stop the mob from knocking over the liquor shops. Then they announce there has been a revolution and they are in power. Shortly afterwards, they find that someone lefter than themselves announces there has been a revolution, and they are no longer in power, soon followed by someone lefter still, till a Napoleon or a Stalin ends the madness.

    • Not an entryist. Entryists try to be popular and generally try to play social status games. RF is an extremely single-minded type who simply only wants to take a very narrow absolutist, de Jouvenelist / Filmerist, no imperium in imperio aspect of NRx and absolutely ignore everything else. These dogmatic-minded, usually somewhat autistic types have neither the desire nor the skill to perform any kind of subterfuge, they are 100% honest. He is simply a man who found a very good hammer and now thinks everything is nails.

  15. Friendly Fred says:

    Here are two “Traddad/Conservadad” arguments, both taking it for granted that (A) pubescent girls will make an effort to have sex with people with whom their fathers would prefer that they not have sex, and that (B) it’s very hard to determine what counts as involuntary sex, so that it’s a mistake to justify sex-related laws in terms of the voluntary vs. involuntary character of the sex in question.

    Argument I (for the conclusion that men who have sex with a girl without her father’s permission ought to be criminally prosecuted):
    (1) The fathers of girls usually have a clearer sense than the girls do of what’s best for the girls and for the family as a whole. (2) It will often be best for a girl and for the family as a whole that the girl not have sex with someone with whom she wants to have sex. It follows that (3) fathers will often see that this is the case. Now, (4) the law ought to promote that which is best for individuals and families. So, (5) the law ought to promote decision-making by fathers as to whom their daughters will have sex with. (6) The law can promote this through the criminal prosecution of men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission to these men to have sex with them. So, (7) men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission to these men to have sex with them ought to be criminally prosecuted.

    (Note: a separate argument is required for the conclusion that it ought to be legislated that a girl’s father may give permission to a man to have sex with her only by giving her to him in permanent marriage.)

    Argument II (for the conclusion that girls ought not to be married without their fathers’ permission, even when they have already have had sex):
    (1) The fathers of girls usually have a clearer sense than the girls do of what’s best for the girls and for the family as a whole. (2) It will often be best for a girl and for the family as a whole that the girl not marry someone with whom she has had sex and instead marry someone else later on. It follows that (3) fathers will often see that this is the case. Now, (4) the law ought to promote that which is best for individuals and families. So, (5) the law ought to ensure that fathers decide whom their daughters will marry (even when their daughters have already had sex with someone).

    (Note: this second argument assumes a state of affairs in which the law ensures that marriage is permanent.)

    (General note: I do not necessarily disapprove of anyone’s sexual practices under current society-wide sexually anarchic conditions; I recognize that as things stand, with everything up for grabs, if you don’t grab it then a worse man will. Of course, I would disapprove of the cruel grabbing of stuff, but I assume that everyone here grabs in a kindly manner.)

    • The Cominator says:

      (6) The law can promote this through the criminal prosecution of men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission to these men to have sex with them.

      It can but it really really really shouldn’t.

    • shaman says:

      >instead marry someone else later on

      Impractical.

      • The Cominator says:

        Plenty of men will be willing to take a hot non-virgin . I tend to agree with him on father being able to veto marriages up until a certain age though perhaps he should have financial or eugenic grounds on why the boy is unsuitable.

        What I cannot endorse is prosecution for men in such cases.

    • jim says:

      > (6) The law can promote this through the criminal prosecution of men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission to these men to have sex with them.

      No.

      Trying to control men is the wrong approach. It is a displacement activity that avoids the problem to be solved. Women will just wander off out of dad’s sight. It is like telling the farmer to make the world safe for his chickens to roam free. He cannot do that. No one can do it, and trying to do that is avoiding the problem that women have to be under male control.

      When someone puts that argument he is saying “I favor women being under male control, except that that is just too horrifying and wicked to be contemplated.”

      It is like the pastor saying the husband should lead the wife, but not saying the wife should honor and obey. Dalrock has endless rants on this topic.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        It should be expected that neighboring farmers will return errant chickens to one another rather than taking advantage of holes in fences through which their neighbors’ chickens have wandered. And the girl-shaped chickens in question are very clearly marked — every farmer at least knows which chickens DON’T belong to him. If these girl-shaped chickens aren’t fed by farmers onto whose land they have wandered through holes in fences, they will return through these holes onto the land of the farmer to whom they belong. A law prohibiting the feeding of girl-shaped chickens that aren’t your own will markedly decrease the frequency of such feedings by bad-neighbor farmers.

        My Traddad assumption is that men, unlike women, are capable of honoring contracts that they make with one another. It is because men are capable of honoring contracts that contract-violators are prosecuted.

        I want a USA 2035 in which one’s 14-year-old daughter can be allowed to go shopping or to an afternoon movie in the neighborhood with a couple of 14 year old friends without the assumption that she’s now up for grabs. Yes, you can’t depend on HER self-control, but you should be able to depend on the self-control of the other men in the neighborhood.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          Tradcons are entryists.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            What do you think I’m attempting to “enter”? I’m a 53-year-old twice-divorced, barely-paying-my-bills adjunct; what would I possibly want to “enter” and what would possibly motivate me to “enter”? I don’t imagine myself as joining or deviously undermining or diverting-from-its-true-goals any sort of glorious supervillain-conspiracy; I just like talking to thoughtful people.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              One would think a twice divorced man who barely pays his bills (i assume the bills come from feminist courts, not financial incompetence) would know the folly of pedestalizing women.

        • jim says:

          > It should be expected that neighboring farmers will return errant chickens to one another rather than taking advantage of holes in fences through which their neighbors’ chickens have wandered.

          The chickens will just travel further afield. I observe them travelling four hundred miles to Arlie beach.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            I observe chickens goofing around with each other at bus stops or in front of delis or alongside playground-fences in parks; I don’t go to beaches or hotels or clubs or even restaurants.

            A difference between girls and chickens is that girls often make amusing remarks about various things and have facial expressions; fathers therefore love their daughters and are therefore unwilling to allow a girl-collector’s sack to be closed over a daughter’s head even when she volcanically/chickenishly wandered into that sack.

            I agree that we should all recognize the volcanically chickenish nature of girls, despite their amusing remarks and facial expressions. It seems to me, though, that we might also recognize the protectively fatherish nature of men.

            • The Cominator says:

              It seems to me, though, that we might also recognize the protectively fatherish nature of men.

              Fathers should be told if they want to protect their daughters they should arrange a suitable match as soon as possible after puberty.

        • jim says:

          > It should be expected that neighboring farmers will return errant chickens to one another rather than taking advantage of holes in fences through which their neighbors’ chickens have wandered.

          The chickens will just travel further afield. I observe them travelling four hundred miles to Arlie beach.

        • Ron says:

          What you want is strange.

          If the 14 yo girls are safe at the mall then going to each other’s homes and having sex with each other, would that be OK?

          If they are all “in love “ with the same local violent meth dealer, but they are “safe at the mall” would that be OK?

          What you want is for human sexuality to simply remake itself into something that has never existed, nor can exist. Someone, I think shaman, put it beautifully “young women have volcanic sex drives”. We cannot simply wish human sexuality to become something else just for our convenience.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            For thousands of years European girls have been allowed to take walks together — note the Phaecians or whatever they’re called in the Odyssey. I want life to be normal, like it was in the 1890s or 1930s or whenever. The whole point is to kill any “violent meth dealer” who violates we-don’t-touch-each-other’s-chickens contracts.

            I granted at the outset that girls are volcanic chickens — please reread what I wrote and don’t be pointlessly nasty. If YOU are going to nasty to me, then I’ll just change my screen-name right back to “Aging Loser”. That’ll show you.

            You don’t really think that I want a remaking of human sexuality, any more than I really think that you want to shit all over thousands of years of European history in which village girls chatted together at wells and wove garlands out of flowers.

            • The Cominator says:

              For thousands of years European girls have been allowed to take walks together — note the Phaecians or whatever they’re called in the Odyssey. I want life to be normal, like it was in the 1890s or 1930s or whenever. The whole point is to kill any “violent meth dealer” who violates we-don’t-touch-each-other’s-chickens contracts.

              Drug dealing will not a viable profession in reactionary society because I imagine we will legalize everything short of fentanyl and the few prohibited substances (like fenanyl which can poison people who don’t even touch it) will have death penalties for all around the way China does.

              Jeremy Meeks if not hanged or exiled won’t live near you unless you are either really really poor or really really trying to save money.

              So while its quite possible Joey the working class Italian knocks up your daughter in reactionary society, its going to be very unlikely that Jeremy Meeks (including a white equivalent of Jeremy Meeks) or Tyrone does.

              • Friendly Fred says:

                There will always be charming and even brilliant and essentially kind-hearted losers (lazy, socially disfunctional, whatever), and Dad might recognize that Archie is such a person while Seymour is socially competent and a much more likely long-term provider, and so Dad might very much prefer that 14-year old Cindy marry Seymour even if Cindy has already had sex with Archie.

                And of course there will always be impressively aggressive large-jawed stupid impulsive cruel deceitful men of impeccably Northwest-European descent whom Dad would very much prefer that Cindy not marry.

                Yes, Cindy is a volcanic chicken — Dad’s own (for now) dear little volcanic chicken. Are Dads to stop being Dads? Are we to violate and deform Daddish nature? Wouldn’t that be a DEMONIC project?

                • The Cominator says:

                  There will always be charming and even brilliant and essentially kind-hearted losers (lazy, socially disfunctional, whatever), and Dad might recognize that Archie is such a person while Seymour is socially competent and a much more likely long-term provider, and so Dad might very much prefer that 14-year old Cindy marry Seymour even if Cindy has already had sex with Archie.

                  Yes which is why I think the father ought to have marriage veto up until a certain age whether sex occurred or not, whites aren’t Arabs there will be plenty of men willing to take the non virgins*. Where I differ from you is if father vetoes the marriage it still shouldn’t make Archie a criminal.

                  But if you don’t arrange it by a certain age she is subject to marriage by abduction and single women past a certain age will be subject to all sort of demeaning sumptuary and lifestyle restrictions and harassment designed to be not too onerous in the objective sense but designed to be particulary vexing to women (I would restrict them to very drab grey clothes and not allow them jewelry).

                  Dad’s own (for now) dear little volcanic chicken.

                  Sympathizing with bluepilled traddad delusions about their daughter being some perpetually virginal sweet pre pubescent girl would and has mad for very bad law.

                  I think you ought to be able to veto an unsuitable marriage, but you ought to see they get married as shortly after puberty as possible. What I say is not ahistorical so I don’t see how it is unnatural.

                  * Plenty of men downright like real turbosluts, judging from Augustus prohibition of marriages between Senators/Equites and infames women so I don’t think its strictly a modern thing.

            • Doug Smythe says:

              If abortion and industrial birth-control products were outlawed, without other reforms we’ll see the spontaneous return of immediate extreme pressure on everyone involved (at least in the younger age brackets) in cases of sexual delinquency to arrive at a suitable disposition (early marriage, or the girl being made “to study abroad in Europe” for nine or so months, etc.), the way it was done pre-1960s.

              • The Cominator says:

                Impossible to prevent birth control this is a papist-beta tradcon crossover meme that won’t work.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  can’t make the pill in your bathtub

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  What’s wrong with abolishing birth control?
                  The whole point of NRx is to restore patriarchial control and ensure that men can have families. Outlawing birth control reduces female autonomy and enables men to have families.

                • The Cominator says:

                  What is wrong with it is men should decide if women are on birth control.

                • shaman says:

                  Outlawing contraception won’t completely prevent “birth control,” as there are various other tactics to achieve that, but nonetheless it will significantly minimize it – that’s not a bad idea. Comdoms and pills greatly facilitate female misbehavior.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Abortion/birth control should be dangerous, highly illegal, and rare. Like hard drugs, illegal handguns, etc. things that will always exist in illicit markets that are nonetheless inaccessible to the average middle-class normie.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Abortion and contraception are not the same thing, and should not be regarded as the same thing. Life does not begin before conception, hence masturbation is not a super holocaust against hundreds of millions of sperm cells.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Doug Smythe continues his entryism…

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  lol gay

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >Abortion and contraception are not the same thing, and should not be regarded as the same thing.

                  They are not the same thing, but both were very expressly devised and pushed to accomplish the same thing, namely facilitate female sexual misbehaviour and de-populate our States.

                • Not Tom says:

                  [Abortion and contraception] are not the same thing, but both were very expressly devised and pushed to accomplish the same thing

                  And? Here are some other things that were designed for the same purpose:
                  – Abacuses and computers
                  – Nails and screws
                  – Email and Facebook
                  – Swords and atomic bombs
                  – The electric chair and the boats

                  Should we therefore treat everything on the left side the same as on the right side?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim has already stated that birth control and abortion should be husbands and fathers right to choose and I agree except that 3rd trimester abortions should be banned.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  I suppose in light of this and discussion of last week I can say, after having familiarized myself w/developments that took place after I stopped paying attention for several months, definitely not-Reactionary anymore. Much more interested in doing whatever I can towards the immediate goals of the coup and the complete destruction of the Cathedral and its pillars then in pointless Scholastic hair-splitting and the elaboration of frankly hare-brained armchair reform schemes that, to the extent that they can or ever will be implemented, won’t be any time soon regardless of who wins the ongoing civil war between the American people and the anti-nationals. Unfortunately unless something changes real fast it looks like the anti-nationals will win, and civilization painfully slouch into darkness as the Americans are enslaved or killed off- and in that case we’ll have bigger fish to fry than daydreaming about this and that. If the Americans win, then we will lay waste the Cathedral (figuratively or literally as applicable), outlaw its doctrines, and drive its functionaries into the sea (figuratively or literally as applicable). The socially deformative, distorting, and pathogenic influence of Cathedral propaganda having been abolished, everybody will rapidly become normal again, and society free to establish laws, customs and practices suitable to the needs of a modern, well-ordered commercial State as opposed to to a loose confederation of desert tribesmen (as imagined by modern people who aren’t desert tribesmen themselves).

                • shaman says:

                  definitely not-Reactionary anymore.

                  Nobody ever confused you for one, tradcon.

                  pointless Scholastic hair-splitting

                  Liar. These discussions elucidate vital principles of the reactionary worldview, without which no Restoration can succeed. You call that “air-splitting” because you don’t like our conclusions, which differ from your Blue Pilled white knight lies.

                  and the elaboration of frankly hare-brained armchair reform schemes

                  See, again you are lying. The only harebrained schemes are those of tradcons, whose pathetic loserdom is truly endemic. Your worldview has been wholesale rejected, so now you’re in the business of ankle-biting and concern trolling. Whenever an entryist tells us “stop doing X,” it’s rather conclusive evidence that we must forcefully continue doing X, that we are on the right path. Thus we will continue elucidating the principles of reaction.

                  a loose confederation of desert tribesmen

                  You’re talking out of your ass. First Temple law and First Millennium Christian law are not from “desert tribesmen.” Again, whenever an entryist says “stop doing X, it won’t succeed, blah-blah-blah,” it tells us that we are doing something right and should continue doing so – in this case, it’s explaining our precise positions about the Woman Problem, which as a tradcon you have nothing to contribute to.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Yeah don’t worry about it @shaman I have *no* intention of interfering in your LARPing and talking stupid, it’s one of the few rights a guy really has nowadays.

                  >First Temple law and First Millennium Christian law are not from “desert tribesmen.”

                  Maybe they had a hidden industrialized commercial republic down there in ancient Israel, I haven’t checked the archaeological record lately mind you, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t. It could also be possible that Christ revealed a complete civil law system valid for all times and places to His disciples, but my Bible doesn’t record it, only a requirement that Christians obey the will of the temporal Sovereign in civil matters as though the will of God wherever they happen to be.

                  Are you ever the idiot. I have never read or met anything as stupid in my entire life. You’re a fool Shaman, and also a chump for not monetizing the acumen you have for talking half-baked revisionist nonsense when if you just got with the mainstream Left you’d have an endowed chair at an Ivy by now, instead of doing it for free in the thoughtcrime blogs where a guy *used* to be able to go to get away from all the bullshit that goes in at the University and get a straight answer about things. To each his own I guess; don’t give a fuck actually.

                • jim says:

                  > > First Temple law and First Millennium Christian law are not from “desert tribesmen.”

                  > Maybe they had a hidden industrialized commercial republic down there in ancient Israel,

                  The nature of women has not changed in a million years. First Temple Israel and First Millenium Christianity faced and solved the very difficult problem of handing female sexuality in cities, which problem we are spectacularly, horrifyingly, and catastrophically failing to solve.

                  We should not sneer at the social technology of people who survived, when we are heading for extinction.

                • shaman says:

                  I have *no* intention of interfering

                  And yet, you never stop posting here, never stop concern trolling, and never stop ankle biting, like the little bitch you are.

                  your LARPing and talking stupid

                  What have Tard-Cucks (tradcons) ever achieved, again? Oh, right: Nothing. This movement has no need of Blue Pilled losers. We are moving the Overton Window. You’re just a whiner.

                  Maybe they had a hidden industrialized commercial republic down there in ancient Israel, I haven’t checked the archaeological record lately mind you, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t.

                  Yes, capitalism is ancient, and existed in Solomon’s time. First Temple Jewry were not “desert tribesmen.” You can join your friend CR in denying that, though. Entryists of a feather flock together!

                  It could also be possible that Christ revealed a complete civil law system valid for all times and places to His disciples

                  Strawman. Nobody here ever suggested anything remotely similar. But it’s interesting that you’re allergic to the Logos and allergic to Nature or Nature’s God (Gnon), as you seek to interfere in our elucidation of reactionary principles.

                  Christians obey the will of the temporal Sovereign in civil matters as though the will of God wherever they happen to be.

                  You’re quoting scripture like the Devil. That you passionately and enthusiastically support the banning of all guns is one thing, but that you justify it with “This is the will of God” is a whole ‘nother level of nuts.

                  half-baked revisionist nonsense

                  [Citation Needed]

                  a straight answer about things.

                  Jim, myself, and others here have given you abundant straight answers, as straight as you’ll ever get. You’re just butt-mad and triggered that we vehemently disagree with and reject your white knight Blue Pilled frame. Well, I’m glad that I triggered you, and will gladly do so again.

                  don’t give a fuck actually.

                  Then GTFO.

                • shaman says:

                  Christians obey the will of the temporal Sovereign in civil matters as though the will of God wherever they happen to be.

                  You are telling us that we must obey the Cathedral in all matters. Not so, and definitely not the will of God. Jesus instructed the Jews not to rebel against the Romans, and Paul instructed his audience to keep the law of the land – which absolutely doesn’t mean that evil laws must never be opposed, or that the earthly Kingdom is always right about all matters. Evil laws issued by an evil authority, such as mandatory trannyism issued by the Cathedral, must be opposed by all means available.

                • jim says:

                  > Evil laws issued by an evil authority, such as mandatory trannyism issued by the Cathedral, must be opposed by all means available.

                  “all means” is a little too sweeping. Warlike means against evil authority are limited by the natural and divine law of war – which requires, among other things, right authority – someone capable of deciding war for everyone or peace for everyone.

                  If the Trump counter coup and counter counter coup continue to get hotter, then it will indeed be “all means”, including napalm bombardment with heavy artillery. Yes, then we shall force the trannies to get out of the faces of decent people by physical violence, and more importantly, redevelop Harvard and sell it in small lots for housing, offices, and apartment buildings. Until then, all non violent means.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >Evil laws issued by an evil authority […] must be opposed by all means available.

                  LOL your behaviour on this forum all makes perfect sense now. Sorry Shaman or OFFICER or whatever the fuck they call you: I am a strictly law abiding citizen myself, and I very much doubt that you’ll be able to goad anyone here into committing crimes more serious than tearing off the tag on the mattress that says “do not remove this tag”. But nice try there Fed.

                • shaman says:

                  Lame. (Who said anything about crimes?)

                  There’s an interesting phenomenon here, in that I literally make the exact same arguments as Jim — or, indeed, more moderate arguments than Jim — but then a bunch of cowardly entryists who really don’t want Jim to put them on Moderation and to delete their waste of reader bandwidth try to single me out, and direct all their tearful venom against me, instead of criticizing Jim directly for his positions. Hey, I’m not complaining: I want you to do this, that’s partly why I’m here.

                  You will not single me out for advocating precisely what Jim advocates, or milder versions thereof.

                  I will single you out.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  The really interesting phenomenon is how I’ve been commenting here for >3years and never had any serious trouble with anyone until three weeks ago when I said that NRx should take tactical stances in order to keep the violent extremists away- and lo and behold you show up out of nowhere with all your pissant ad-homs, transparently manipulative attempts to style yourself the holiest Brahmin in all NRx and the one true disciple of Jim, etc.

                  I’m sure you will continue to single me out, after all it *is* your job as an undercover LEO to try to chase away anybody who might cramp your style in your attempt to meme people here into doing/saying something illegal. Good luck with that though.

                • shaman says:

                  You see fed, there are a whole lot of creative and non-illegal ways to oppose evil laws and evil policies (such as the Cathedral’s child tranny stuff and so forth); therefore, by telling us, “The only way to oppose evil laws is by outright committing crimes,” you are the one goading the readers into dark alleys.

                  I stand by the statement that evil laws issued by an evil authority must be opposed (“opposed” =/= “transgressed”) by all means available.

                  Inferring from this “Go out and commit crimes!” makes you a fed, not me. There are different methods to avoid compliance with state-mandated Moloch worship short of behavior that lands one in prison. For instance, moving to a different, saner state, as Jim himself has done. Or even just publicly calling to change the law, as we’re doing right here. I’m sure you can think of other opposition methods that don’t involve criminal behavior, but you won’t tell us, because as a fed it’s your job to equate opposition to evil laws with criminality.

                  I’ve been commenting here for >3years

                  I’ve been for at least 5, as Friendly Fred can testify.

                  never had any serious trouble with anyone

                  You literally devote your blog to telling Jim that he is a horrible, horrible person, and that NRx is egregiously extreme. I’ve already linked to your blog. Need I do so again?

                  three weeks ago when I said that NRx should take tactical stances in order to keep the violent extremists away

                  Sure, I never disagreed with that. Who ever promoted violence? Ah, right: You are promoting it, by telling us that the only way to oppose evil laws issued by an evil authority is to commit crimes and go to prison. I certainly never said or implied anything like that.

                  you show up out of nowhere

                  Again: Been here long before you, will be here long after you.

                  with all your pissant ad-homs

                  You never stop lying and never stop being a hypocrite, do you? Your entire thing right now is ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with the Blue Pill account of female sexuality.

                  transparently manipulative attempts to style yourself the holiest Brahmin in all NRx

                  Nuts. All I ever do is state my positions, which are — for the millionth time (!) — less extreme than Jim’s. Yes, apparently I do so quite compellingly, so tradcons like you resent me for it. Well, sucks for you.

                  the one true disciple of Jim, etc.

                  Never said or implied that. Look at Jim’s blogroll and look at 90% of this comment section: Lots of true disciples of Jim. I’m nothing special, really, except that I possess the unique capacity to accurately sniff out entryists and kick them out one after the other – which is why they are so butthurt specifically over me.

                  after all it *is* your job as an undercover LEO to try to chase away anybody who might cramp your style in your attempt to meme people here into doing/saying something illegal.

                  Okay, you got me: The Mossad sent me here so I can agree with Jim about his positions and point out that Tard-Cucks are entryists who should GTFO, and that given your equation of opposition to the Cathedral with criminality, that you are possibly a federal agent.

                • shaman says:

                  Jim, I agree. No need to resort to violent means when there are plenty of non-violent means, such as simply moving somewhere else.

                  (The comment above was directed solely at federal agent Doug)

                • Not Tom says:

                  The really interesting phenomenon is how I’ve been commenting here for >3years and never had any serious trouble with anyone until three weeks ago when I said that NRx should take tactical stances in order to keep the violent extremists away

                  What are you on about now? People are piling on you here because you keep pooping out smelly blue pills and autistically (or perhaps on purpose) ignoring or reframing everyone’s good-faith attempts to correct them.

                  I, for one, didn’t even know who you were until about a week ago or whenever precisely you entered this discussion. I certainly haven’t seen anything from you relating to violent extremists. I think you’re vastly overestimating your own notoriety.

                  I’d estimate a solid third of the conversations here are about weeding out the low-IQ violent idiots, most of whom are actually feds larping as low-IQ violent idiots. In fact I don’t think any other blogger/community does half as good a job at making sure they’re either banned or ridiculed.

                • shaman says:

                  I think that we all agree that, to the extent possible, the law should be obeyed. I’ve never suggested or implied criminal action to oppose mandatory child trannyism – not because the law is sacrosanct and “the will of God” (as Doug satanically claims), but because criminal action, and most certainly any sort of violent criminal action, is not nearly the most effective way to do so. You can’t actually oppose the Cathedral from within a dank prison cell, can you?

                  Doug is just desperately rolling out all the ad hominems at his disposal — no matter how far fetched they are — to divert attention from the fact that this is an ideological issue, and that his ideology has been completely annihilated here. Thus, latching on to a cherry picked half-sentence I made in order to denounce me as a fed, which disingenuous cherry picking actually raises the likelihood that he is one, given his equation of opposition to the Cathedral with violent criminality.

                  We will continue supporting Jim and opposing tardcon / fed entryists.

                • jim says:

                  > I think that we all agree that, to the extent possible, the law should be obeyed.

                  Not exactly. Rather, one should refrain from open violent disobedience or collective armed disobedience until the time for war arrives. Don’t engage in warlike acts, don’t openly organize for war, at least not without an adequate cover story. If on the other hand inconvenient people causing problems are prone to mysterious disappearance, well, these things happen, no idea why.

                  The feds always want you to blow up a preschool. Don’t do that. Similarly, don’t cause trannies to disappear. Unless they are bothering your sons. The reason I got on OK with that female pretending to be a male is that her pretense at being male collapsed in the presence of my pretense at being alpha. To the extent she held male identify, she was disgusting.

                • shaman says:

                  Doug wrote:

                  Those who talk about using violence personally also have to be purged, since by doing this you not only automatically pollute yourself into social exclusion by Brahmins (Brahmins by definition don’t bear arms and are typically forbidden by custom from even showing anger or seeing violence w/out feeling polluted) but mark yourself out as somebody born to take orders and not give them i.e. a common soldier or cop.

                  This goes above all for various keyboard warriors who believe that their crappy little 9 or .45, or AR-15 lookalike, gives them magical powers to individually opt out of Leftist rule. We might even want to consider *tactical* (not sincere or principled) support for assault weapon and handgun bans just to keep this element away and solidify our Brahmin cred.

                  We have already explained to him that this is not the NRx position, and that he is a total retard. He did not address the refutation. No, instead of addressing the refutation as an intellectually honest person would do, he wrote in this very thread right here:

                  Abortion/birth control should be dangerous, highly illegal, and rare. Like hard drugs, illegal handguns, etc.

                  This is a glaring obvious motte and bailey argument, in which he is telling us, on the one hand, that as priests we must disavow all guns completely, and then switches to “Oh, this is just to solidify our Brahmin cred, not sincerely.” But, as per usual, he then goes back to telling us that guns should be “dangerous, highly illegal, and rare.”

                  So this guy, who devotes his blog to calling Jim and NRx nasty names, who is pushing the Blue Pill every chance he has, and who is telling us to support bans against “assault weapons and handguns,” has the audacity to accuse members of this community of being feds merely for stating that Jim is right about the Woman Question.

                  He is an entryist on all levels. He knows it, we know it. One has to wonder who is paying him to keep posting here, despite our vehement rejection of all his positions.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Doug Smythe

                  You don’t need a republics to have an industrial technological society, tradcon entryist.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Doug Smythe

                  Since you failed the Redpill on women test, here’s a RedPill on race test…

                  Which option is better:
                  A) Let white patriarchs have whatever rifle and handgun they like.
                  B) Ban guns. Guns are the problem, not Tyrone Shitavious

                • shaman says:

                  It really is amazing, isn’t it? Someone who literally says:

                  We might even want to consider […] support for assault weapon and handgun bans.

                  Implying that he is one of us: “Hail fellow reactionaries.” And then, without responding to our objections to his glaringly obvious leftist ideological entryism, goes on to say that possession of handguns should be:

                  [D]angerous, highly illegal, and rare.

                  Has the unparalleled chutzpah to tell an entire community that the only way to oppose the Cathedral is violent criminality.

                  This is Jim’s blog, and Jim should moderate it as he sees fit. That said, if someone showed up on one of the many forums and communities that I used to moderate — no links available, sorry guys — and promoted one fed position after the other, his comments would appear as:

                  [Deleted for fedposting]

                  And then he would be IP banned.

                  Because someone who on the one hand consistently promoted the banning of guns (and told us that he was a “fellow reactionary” while at it), and who on the other hand equated all opposition to the Cathedral with violent criminality, is — more likely than not — being handled. That such a person is also a fanatical Blue Piller kinda leaves few doubts about the matter.

                  Busted, fed-boy Doug.

                  NRx does not currently advocate any sort of illegal action against the Cathedral’s pozzed Moloch worshiping tranny minions – later on, it possibly will, but it’s not yet the time, and when it is the time, NRx will probably be completely off-line anyway.

                  And ideally, it won’t ever be necessary to advocate anything illegally violent, one reason being that after the Restoration, it simply won’t be an illegal deed to physically remove whatever Satanic boy-diddling drag queens and other such infernal demons that remain, to cleanse the grotesque filth out of society.

                  This, so I believe, is Jim’s position, as stated in a comment above. But currently, prior to the upcoming bloody civil war, and prior to the Restoration, I think we all agree that the law should be obeyed to the extent possible.

                  And NRx does not support bans against assault weapons and handguns, for any reason. Anyone pulling off a “Greetings fellow dissidents – let’s support bans against handguns” is an obvious leftist entryist, and likely a hostile, malicious, and bloodthirsty federal agent who wants us all dead.

                  When the chronic Blue Piller Doug tells us that handguns must be exclusively confined to “illicit markets” (his actual words), and that they must be:

                  inaccessible to the average middle-class normie.

                  He is promoting a federal agent position, unsuccessfully disguised as a reactionary position.

                  That’s why he is constantly ankle biting and concern trolling, and why he refuses to GTFO. That’s what feds do – they stay until someone kicks them out and slams the door shut.

                • Not Tom says:

                  This is a glaring obvious motte and bailey argument, in which he is telling us, on the one hand, that as priests we must disavow all guns completely, and then switches to “Oh, this is just to solidify our Brahmin cred, not sincerely.” But, as per usual, he then goes back to telling us that guns should be “dangerous, highly illegal, and rare.”

                  As someone who spends a lot of time around Brahmins, I can confirm that Doug’s account of Brahmins is completely, totally, and beyond any shadow of a doubt, absolutely f***ing asscrackers.

                  There are a lot of Brahmins who own firearms. Not all, perhaps not even most, but more than enough to completely obliterate the characterization as an anti-gun monolith.

                  Brahmins aren’t anti-gun. They just don’t want anyone else to own guns, unless it’s someone they control. Just look at their attitude to Redneck Revolt, and their curious silence on gun control after the ICE terrorist made headlines.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >I’ve already linked to your blog. Need I do so again?

                  I’d be delighted. The one article you tout is more timely than ever in fact- the main point in writing it was to urge people to consider just how the things they write might sound when read aloud- by YOU that is- to a jury that might not find the epistemological critique of anti-concepts and the like to be a convincing defense, especially after you get through wildly quoting them out of context. You’ve already shown considerable acumen at doing the latter, no doubt through having done it to who knows how many militants and dissidents in your LE career, and thus have unintentionally done the valuable service of letting the public know just what to expect. Cops are really stupid, and also unbelievably easy and fun to troll (since as a cop you have Kshatriya values and take online insults much more seriously than most people would, responding with a wall of spazzpoasts instead of just telling me to fuck off the way an ordinary civilian of whatever caste would). I look forward to many more years of doing it to you while blowing the whistle on you officer Thoughtcrime Dog McGruff!

                • shaman says:

                  You should back up your false claims with some kind of evidence. You say that I quoted you out of context: Prove it. The audience enjoys entertaining ad hominems, but if they aren’t in line with anything real, if they’re repetitious, likely to eventually be censored.

                  By the way, you write:

                  sound when read aloud- by YOU that is- to a jury that might not find the epistemological critique of anti-concepts and the like to be a convincing defense

                  Jim has already addressed that here:

                  https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-optics-of-noticing/

                  You keep telling us that our optics are bad. Funny; seems to me that the optics of being a loser white knight blue piller, who deserves to be beaten through the streets (Jim’s and Cominator’s recommendation, which I merely endorse), and whose slut daughter may have been penetrated by the whole town, is much worse optics.

                  Why are you telling us to support banning weaponry if you’re not a fed, again? Perhaps you should elaborate on why real reactionaries should support banning rifles and firearms.

                • shaman says:

                  By the way, when you write:

                  I look forward to many more years

                  Well, now I’m concerned! See, I have no intention wasting years trolling you. If you want to drag this on, despite the inevitable emotional draining that will be inflicted on you, then you’re either a true fed, or insane.

                  Being constantly told, e.g., that your daughter — assuming you have one, which is a fair assumption, though not a certainty — swallows big swinging dicks from sketchy tattooed strangers at the bar, that your wife has probably participated in “avid” anal orgies with Tyrone before settling down with a low-T beta cuck like you (she’ll never tell you), that generally you talk like a gay and your shit is all retarded, and so on and so forth, is emotionally vexing. Normal people don’t like being ruthlessly insulted by everyone, as you’re going to be.

                  Go on explaining why all opposition to evil laws is criminal, and why “we” must support banning guns.

                  Also, Jim writes:

                  If on the other hand inconvenient people causing problems are prone to mysterious disappearance, well, these things happen, no idea why.

                  And this applies to cyberspace as well. Lots of people mysteriously disappear from internet communities where they aren’t particularly well appreciated. These things do happen, for some reason.

                • Anonymix says:

                  I don’t approve of all your previous bullicides, shaman, but this one rightfully deserves a thorough whacking. Godspeed.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >We should not sneer at the social technology of people who survived, when we are heading for extinction.

                  I don’t mean to sneer at their or any other society’s social technology, just that their social technology was developed by their wise men for them and might not be readily exportable to the present. I personally am interested in looking into the immediate past of our own societies for solutions (ex. coverture) that were abandoned only because the Cathedral deemed them immoral, and often only as recently as the 1960s.

                • shaman says:

                  Oh look, the tradcon ankle-biter who got the WRP questions wrong keeps posting – MASOCHIST?

                  I don’t mean to sneer

                  Jim is telling you that calling the Old Testament Hebrews “desert tribesmen” in the context of discussing their successful social technology is indeed sneering. What you “mean” to do is wholly irrelevant.

                  might not be readily exportable to the present.

                  That is not even the actual position which you’ve been repeatedly posting here. What you are saying is that marriage-by-abduction has never worked, and principally cannot work, because loserdads won’t allow it. And we are telling you that it did work just fine, and that it will once again.

                  I personally am interested in looking into the immediate past of our own societies… as recently as the 1960s.

                  Yes, and that is why everyone here calls you a bluepiller and an entryist, and tells you to piss the fuck out of here.

                  Heck, even when you say that you are:

                  definitely not-Reactionary anymore.

                  You are lying, because you have never been a reactionary or a neoreactionary or a right-winger of any kind.

                  Now explain why you consistently support banning our guns, faggot.

                  Is it because you’re a federal agent who wants Americans to be physically unable to resist the coming war against them?

                  Or is it because you think that it makes you sound “intelligent” and “sophisticated” that you counter-signal sane positions and embrace totally insane ones?

                  Or is it because you’re just naturally low-testosterone and weak, hence red-blooded real men scare you shitless, so you urgently seek to emasculate them?

                  Which one is it?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Doug Smythe

                  Aren’t you going to answer my question on the race RedPill? It’s a simple fork in the road question, I wonder why you refuse to answer, entryist.

                • shaman says:

                  Agent Smythe, an advocate for gun-grabbing and passionate supporter of the AoC as “better than nothing,” doesn’t answer questions that might veer off his handlers’ script.

                  Reminder that Jim says:

                  After the restoration, those who preach the blue pill should be beaten through the streets.

                  Soyboy Smythe should’ve got the hint, should’ve realized, “Yeah, I guess I don’t really fit in here despite my best efforts at entryism – bye, fellas.” But no, being a fed, he keeps going on and on, even though we’ve made our intention clear to treat Agent Soyboy the way “child molesters” are treated in prison.

                  He keeps preaching the Blue Pill, and will continue doing so until his lying tongue is cut off – literally or metaphorically.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Constable Shaman wrote:

                  [torrent of impotent cop-rage that was even lulzier than I thought it would be]

                • shaman says:

                  Like all entryists: You are unresponsive, and hardly even amusing. You need to broaden your repertoire, the way Tyrone broadened your wife’s asshole; if you’re just going to call me a cop in every post, not gonna fly.

                  Answer the questions we are asking you, faggot.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  OMFG I can’t believe this, you even *sound* like a cop. “Answer the questions”. LOL, make me! Oh wait, you can’t. And even if we were in the interrogation room I’d still say that and dare you to kick my ass, knowing that you wouldn’t (even though you could probably do it easily; physically I’m not very strong, kind of living stereotype of pipe-smoking bow-tie-wearing conservative research-institute kind of guy) . See this is why people don’t respect cops or take them seriously anymore, and why I laugh myself silly at, instead of being offended by, your insults, because they’re ballsless. It would be like taking offense at a circus clown b/c he sprayed with water from his trick lapel. Hey constable, I think I see Antifa laughing at you and directing traffic in your precinct again…

                • shaman says:

                  Well, I was going to drop another cool parody diss track, but honestly I don’t even feel like bothering this time around; your situation is not even funny. Sad? Sad.

                  I humbly hypothesized, regarding your support for gun-grabbing:

                  Or is it because you think that it makes you sound “intelligent” and “sophisticated” that you counter-signal sane positions and embrace totally insane ones?

                  Or is it because you’re just naturally low-testosterone and weak, hence red-blooded real men scare you shitless, so you urgently seek to emasculate them?

                  And now, instead of at least LARPing as an ass-whooping Trad Dad and asking me if I “feel lucky, punk?”, which is what keyboard white knights always do under similar circumstances, you literally come out with:

                  I’d still say that and dare you to kick my ass, knowing that you wouldn’t (even though you could probably do it easily; physically I’m not very strong, kind of living stereotype of pipe-smoking bow-tie-wearing conservative research-institute kind of guy)

                  Basically, you confirm my suspicion: You are a natural weakling, physically frail, and what drives you to espouse your Blue-Pilled and leftist positions is actual biological effeminacy. You’re emphatically not a conservative stereotype – you are a leftist academic stereotype, and actually describing yourself as a “Sociologist” should’ve made it obvious in the first place.

                  You legitimately need to seek psychological and physical help. Hit the gym or something. A healthy mind is often preconditioned on a healthy body – you are mentally ill, because your body is not as it should be.

                  Curiously, you seem to be really fixated with cops; recall that you said that calling the cops to arrest random men when your slut daughter sexually misbehaves makes instinctive sense to you. So basically, you’re a noodle-armed man, likely manlet, who can be broken as easily as a twig, and therefore expect the Big Scary Goons to protect you and your family from the rest of the world, and your entire ideology, for all its idiosyncrasies, is simply a manifestation of that.

                  What is this shit? Holy fuck.

                  Faggot, I’m not a cop, and I’ve spent the last two years advocating for the closure of entire departments of the police. NRx wants to drastically minimize the police’s power and reduce civilian interactions with policemen, although it is opposed to needlessly alienating all policemen, not least because some of them are surely needed for the coup and/or the Restoration.

                  Civilization needs to be saved from the perniciousness of weak men like you and like your fellow leftist academics. Even if you consider your intentions to be essentially good, they truly aren’t – you are part of the problem, and mentally aberrant, apparently due to some kind of hormonal dysfunction. (I really mean it, and am on record right here saying the exact same thing to others who’ve exhibited the same mental aberration as you do) You confuse your soyboy instincts for fatherly instincts, which is a prevalent phenomenon. Your weltanschauung is cancer, and I’m viscerally averse to it, just as — evidently — you are allergic to mine, perhaps in addition to literal allergies.

                  I’m actually a bit triggered by your admission of physical weakness, obviously not for the reason you’d expect.

                  It’s all so tiresome.

                  You’ve just discredited yourself more than I ever could.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  @shaman You haven’t made fun of my writing style yet.

                • shaman says:

                  It’s pretentious, as can be expected from leftist academics, but not so offensive as to merit bullying for it. What is offensive is your weakness and effeminacy; we value the opposite qualities of strength and masculinity (unless you’re a woman), which — contrary to the malicious caricatures depicted by soyboy professors — do not manifest as ostentatious machismo; rather, reflect on the mentality fostered by Bushido, if you will.

                  You are a living proof of why we need to be ruled by warriors rather than by priests. The priests are white knight blue-pillers who want to grab our guns because they hate red-blooded masculinity and strength, and hate normal male sexuality, hence their incessant attempts to emasculate society and make testosterone illegal. We need a civilization-wide program of wedgies and swirlies – the nerds should obey the jocks, or else.

                • Not Tom says:

                  OMFG I can’t believe this, you even *sound* like a cop.

                  You’ve got a really weird obsession with cops. Phobia, even.

                  Hmm, now what other groups do we know of that exhibit this trait?

                • jim says:

                  People who think crimethoughts don’t worry about cops. They worry about feds.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Shaman wrote:

                  >Bushido

                  I think the term you’re looking for is “smacktard”; somebody who insults somebody else from a distance far enough to avoid getting a swirly from the jocks as punishment for doing it.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Can break you like a twig.

                • YOU'RE GAY says:

                  sjws always project; the one (doug) who confessed to being a pussy accuses others of false bravery

                  nobody likes you here, midwit

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  The typical blue-piller:

                  physically I’m not very strong

                  Every. Single. Time.

                  These are the kind of effete “men” who regularly get cucked, and who don’t even attempt to control their whorish daughters, so they want to arrest all men, and to grab our guns. I bet his wife is an obese “former” slut who’s several years his senior, and is rarely in the mood (for him, that is).

                  Is it any wonder that:

                  We might even want to consider *tactical* (not sincere or principled) support for assault weapon and handgun bans

                  is followed by:

                  physically I’m not very strong

                  ?

                  There’s certainly a lesson to be learned here.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  What is the common denominator in all the following:

                  But they’re [AoC laws] better than nothing

                  and

                  Can’t go back to non-modern warrior rule or Biblical patriarchy, and most here wouldn’t want to.

                  and

                  We might even want to consider […] support for assault weapon and handgun bans

                  and

                  physically I’m not very strong

                  ?

                  A) That’s low-T speaking.
                  B) That’s a cuck-voice speaking.
                  C) That’s a leftist infiltrator speaking.
                  D) All answers are correct.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  D

                  Here’s a question: can lost souls like Doug be rescued by rectifying only one of these problems (head though and ass follows) or are he and the many like him lost causes?

                  Also, we may have to expand the categorization of entryist models.

                  Current
                  – Fed
                  – Leftists Entryist
                  – Insane Entryist

                  Expansion
                  – Experimental Entryist

                  This may overlap both Leftist and Insane, but imagine (taking his self description at face value) some pipe smoking, tweedabound cuckservative professor looking for untapped research fodder trying to mine the reactosphere then getting sucked in.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  @shaman You’re late for work. Get your ass into gear, your jabronis are getting restless.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  FA:

                  Here’s a question: can lost souls like Doug be rescued by rectifying only one of these problems (head though and ass follows) or are he and the many like him lost causes?

                  I’m pessimistic; neuroplasticity applies more to forebrain functions than to hindbrain ones, and someone whose faggotry is as multifaceted as Doug’s most likely has fundamental issues in the very core of his lizard brain – not prone to correction. The only solution is genetic (and, for whatever it’s worth, epigenetic) filtering.

                  Expansion
                  – Experimental Entryist

                  I can see that; pompous academic cuckservatives writing their theses and doctorates on fringe political movements may actually role-play and get sucked in for a while. What they can’t is blend in, because a lot of politics is pre-verbal, and as mentioned here, they are pre-verbally screwed. I’ll keep that proposed 4th category in mind next time I encounter another white knight in this sphere.

                  Doug:

                  You’re late for work. Get your ass into gear, your jabronis are getting restless.

                  Like the AIDS-positive chastity-belted cuck you are, you’re just stuck with variations of the same shit. SJWs always say “Trump is orange” and “Trump is cheeto” and so on, and apparently your ANTIFA-tier obsession with cops just won’t give you a rest, so all your insults are pretty much identical.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Whelp- it looks like my bully isn’t going to show. Perhaps he’s off abducting the daughters of the pres of his local 1% MC for brides while his jabronis break every member of the chapter like twigs. Or not- but what would I know about the world of the super-Kshatriya.

                  Anyways, I’m starting to understand how the “bullycide” model works.

                  How Shaman and co. think it works:

                  “Oh no those super-Kshatriya bullies are scaring me so much the t-blockers in my pocket rattle- I’d better get of here”

                  How it actually works:

                  “What exactly am I doing arguing with undercover cops/LARPing mongoloids?”

                  Anybody actually interested in serious Rightist discussion knows where to find me.

                • jim says:

                  Repetitious and unresponsive. Waste of reader bandwidth. Not entertaining.

                  Moderating you.

                  The response to “Jim adbucts little girls” has already been given

                  Respond to that. Continued failure to respond will be censored as unresponsive.

                  You guys said that already. We replied. Respond to our reply. Continued repetition of the blue pill is unresponsive.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Perhaps he’s off abducting the daughters of the pres of his local 1% MC for brides

                  Yes, heard it all before, everyone who disagrees with the Blue Pill is a child-molesting predator who randomly abducts 8-year-olds off the street because he is just so evil. Just how many cocks have you slurped today? (Rhetorical; the day isn’t over yet)

                  his jabronis break every member of the chapter like twigs.

                  Repetitive and unoriginal.

                  undercover cops/LARPing mongoloids

                  Again: You just can’t break the habit of using the same insult over and over and over again, which is a characteristic of both medium-IQ dipshits who write pretentiously (and you are an incorrigible sophist, so the shoe fits exactly) and academic leftists who sincerely think that “GUYS, TRUMP IS ORANGE – HAHAHA” is absolutely genius comedy.

                  Anybody actually interested in serious Rightist discussion knows where to find me.

                  At the YMCA, getting “yucky” with the boys, presumably.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Taking bets on whether Ladyboy Doug pulls a CR and enters/exits multiple times ITT.

                • Anonymix says:

                  He’ll probably come back for more because hardly anyone reads or comments on his blog.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  World’s Greatest (Gayest) Daddy claims to seek serious discussion, yet he won’t respond to Jim e.g. here:

                  https://blog.jim.com/war/the-faith/#comment-2112870

                  The irony is that we are trying to maintain a genuine debate with him about his CR-like positions, but every time he gets intellectually trounced (i.e., every time he says something at all), he immediately switches to concern trolling a la “Oh no, your optics are so bad, you have to fix your optics,” to be shortly followed by the ever hilarious and ever ingenious “You are police officers!”

                  I’m not particularly fond of VD’s overused “gamma midwit” characterization, but God damn, it hits the nail right on the head with this pathetic, snivelling, dickless sad sack.

                • shaman says:

                  “What exactly am I doing arguing with undercover cops/LARPing mongoloids?”

                  The only one here who thinks that is you, pansy-faced Tard-Cuck. I understand that your torn-apart rectum bleeds from all the pegging that your wife’s Big Black Bisexual Boyfriend has tragicomically inflicted on you, that on a daily basis you are forced to wear an oversized diaper on top the permanently attached BDSM devices, and that your balls are Literally Shaking in the presence of non-geldings, but your miserable condition is not shared by the rest of us.

                  Out, cuckboi.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Moderation notwithstanding, I’m kind of impressed at how in a single thread we were able to break Doug’s huffy and pretentious little “former reactionary, now so totally over you losers” facade and watch him degenerate into prosaic, unfunny and vaguely needy insults revealing a severely damaged ego with weak and pathetic inner monologue.

                  Bullying works. Those who cannot hold their composure are apt to bring many other problems to the table.

                • jim says:

                  He went silent when I put him on moderation. I have not actually moderated anything from him yet.

                  Not going to stand for that child molester line. We have answered it already, and repetition is tedious. Further, it is projection. The blue pillers talk tough, but if they are frightened to restrain little girls from going to an Ariana Grande concert, how are they going to handle drag queen story hour? Tell us that little girls would never do anything bad at an Ariana Grande concert, therefore would never do anything bad unless physically coerced.

                  The blue pill is fear and weakness visible. The blue pill is failing a shit test. The strong horse has better optics than the weak horse.

            • Ron says:

              I will redouble my non-nasty efforts

        • BC says:

          I want a USA 2035 in which one’s 14-year-old daughter can be allowed to go shopping or to an afternoon movie in the neighborhood with a couple of 14 year old friends without the assumption that she’s now up for grabs. Yes, you can’t depend on HER self-control, but you should be able to depend on the self-control of the other men in the neighborhood.

          When my sister hit 11 years I had to start escorting here around if she need to go somewhere without our parents. I didn’t understand why at the time, but I do now. When the restoration happens, that will be the norm. Male family members will escort virgin women around to keep them from running off.

          • Bob says:

            I’m curious, not concern-trolling or whatever. Did your sister display instinctual behavior to put herself in compromising environments? Mine did.

            • jim says:

              My nieces (high IQ, upper class, elite education, but, like the Rotherham girls, deprived of a father) showed instinctive behavior to head towards dangerous situations at a ridiculously early age. Their grandmother, my mother, seemed far more aware of this than their mother, who was, like the Rotherham mothers, strangely oblivious. When they, considerably later, much later, developed boobs, their mother (upper class, very high IQ, elite education) was also strangely oblivious her latest lover putting the moves on them.

          • This sounds too much like Saudi Arabia to me and a waste of useful male productivity. The West was able to make do with female chaperones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaperone_(social) on the basis that older women are envious enough of younger women that they won’t let them do anything funny.

    • Not Tom says:

      (5) the law ought to promote decision-making by fathers as to whom their daughters will have sex with. (6) The law can promote this through the criminal prosecution of men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission to these men to have sex with them

      You’ve smuggled in (unintentionally, I’m sure) a hidden premise: that the men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission are the ones responsible for the sex. Since we reject that premise, we reject your argument.

      The law can far better promote decision-making by fathers by (a) enthusiastically supporting arranged marriage, which we agree on, and (b) penalizing fathers who fail to uphold their responsibilities, e.g. shotgun marriage.

      It’s carrot and stick. You want the carrot, but no stick. You want fathers to be able to waffle indefinitely waiting for the “perfect” husband; to ignore or suppress the daughter’s sexuality, which will lead to domestic strife and public anti-social behavior including fornication. You want there to be no consequences at all for fathers who mistreat their daughters this way, while heaping consequences on men who might have no idea who her father is and aren’t thinking with their brains anyway.

      And as Jim has said, a single pin can pop a thousand balloons. Even if your proposal was morally superior (which it’s not, because it makes incorrect assumptions about human nature), the plain truth is that it doesn’t work. In fact it’s even worse than that; it gives an unfair advantage to cads who conceal their real identities in order to pump and dump. Even in small-town rural America, it creates a market for traveling cads. They have the advantage because you’ll end up with a surplus of unescorted women, with law-abiding men who are too afraid to make a move.

      What is the point of having a law that doesn’t change social outcomes at all, but does brand a lot of normal men as criminals and makes it easier for actual criminals to profit?

  16. The Cominator says:

    In the latest edition of social engineering cathedral poz against all capitalist logic…

    James Bond a character I loved is now a black woman.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244671/Thought-007-never-woman-black-shes-James-Bond-hand-number-over.html

    This is even worse then what they did to Star Wars or Game of Thrones (at the end of the series).

    I reiterate my call that after the war we need a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem.

  17. Dave says:

    You want to see a crisis of faith looks like, read this:

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5w374/climate-despair-is-making-people-give-up-on-life

    So dies a religion with collective salvation, no forgiveness, no God, and no Heaven. People hear what is demanded of them (no meat, no fossil fuels, no vacations, no children), they see what little effect their sacrifices are having, and they fall into profound despair. Oh, how I wish to live on the West Coast before it disappears underwater, says one liberal, unaware that it has already disappeared under a layer of hobo feces.

    • shaman says:

      Hail Karkinos, Avatar of GNON!

      (Explanation for newbs: Carcinisation serves as a metaphor for the gradual accumulation and refinement of similar resilient and adaptive social technologies among a diversity of non-dependent civilizations, e.g. patriarchy)

    • shaman says:

      *FBI agents monitoring this blog*

      Smith: These people are talking in some strange codes. Child sex trafficking?

      Jones: No, that’s not it. They have their own memes, or “shibboleths,” and to fit in, we have to learn at least some of them.

      Smith. Sure… so what’s up with these dancing crabs?

      Jones: “Noisestorm – Crab Rave” is taken as a triumphant Neo-Reactionary track, as crabs represent some sort of convergent evolution that signals… resilience.

      Smith: Yeah, they’re not paying me enough for this shit – I’m out.

    • shaman says:

      Okay, an explanation that even lurkers who have only just discovered this blog should be able to understand.

      Carcinisation describes the process whereby various types of crustaceans have independently evolved crab-like forms. It is a fun example of convergent evolution, i.e., “The independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages.” It looks like the crab-form is particularly evolutionarily adaptive.

      This is used by us oppressive shitlords to symbolize cultural institutions — or, as we like to call it, “social technologies” — that likewise tend to evolve and proliferate among different civilizations that are independent of each other. For instance, the institution of marriage evolved both in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient China, without cultural transmission between them. Put another way, we see that different successful civilizations — indeed, as long as they are successful — tend to develop remarkably similar Chesterton’s Fences.

      We consider this process of “cultural carcinisation” to be indicative of GNON’s will: Since groups that independently develop and practice, e.g., capitalism, tend to outlast groups that don’t, thus capitalism is spontaneously selected for among different peoples (and, in turn, provides those peoples with greater survivability), we consider that a clear indication that capitalism is favored by Nature or Nature’s God.

      The crab has come to represent GNON’s will.

  18. anon77 says:

    Blood Passover (Ritual human sacrifice)

    by Ariel Toaff

    Ariel Toaff (born 1942) is a professor of Medieval and Renaissance History at Bar Ilan University in Israel, whose work has focused on Jews and their history in Italy.

    He came to international prominence with the 2007 publication of the first edition of his controversial book Pasque Di Sangue (Passovers of Blood), in which he claimed historical basis for ritual use of human blood, obtained by murder.

    This book courageously faces one of the most controversial topics in the history of the J**s of Europe, one which has always served as a war-horse of anti-Semitism:

    the accusation, leveled against the J**s for centuries, of abducting and killing Christian children to use their blood in Jooish Passover rites.

    Where Italy is concerned, nearly all the ritual murder trials were held in the north-eastern regions, characterized by large settlements of German-origin J**s (Ashkenazim).

    The most famous case of this kind occurred in Trent, Italy, in 1475, as a result of which many local J**s were indicted and sentenced to death for the murder of the boy who was to become known as “Simon of Trent”, and was venerated as a Saint for several centuries, until only a few decades ago.

    An unprejudiced rereading of the original trial records, however, together with the records of several other trials, viewed within the overall European context and supplemented by an exact knowledge of the relevant Hebrew texts, throws new light on the ritual and therapeutic significance of blood in Jewish culture, leading the author of the present study to the reluctant conclusion that, particularly where Ashkenazi Jewry was concerned, the “Blood Libel” accusation was often not an invention. …

    • alf says:

      <a href="http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/"Unz wrote something similar. I cannot attest to its veracity, interested in what others think of this.

    • xlibris says:

      from James Rusbridger’s twitter

      JR @JamesRusbridger
      8h8 hours ago

      “Jeffrey Epstein’s lair:

      On the roof sits #Moloch the owl, the Canaanite god of child sacrifice.

      Island workers say the walls were built #soundproof.

      An engineer says an external #locking #bar “appears intended to lock people in”

      I”ve no idea if Jeffrey Epstein had children tortured & murdered here

      But make no mistake, Epstein KNEW he was alluding to child sacrifice when he commissioned this monstrosity.

      So he’s either a serial killer, or ‘merely’ a twisted pedosadist and international child trafficker”

      • quarty says:

        The only thing that’s actually been alleged is that he got evil sirens to tempt politicians, by accusing him of all that other stuff you’re smearing his victims, they may be politicians but they’re victims. But try posting that on Twitter and see how fast you get banned.

      • shaman says:

        ‘merely’ a twisted pedosadist and international child trafficker”

        Thanks for the memo, FBI; now fuck off.

      • Not Tom says:

        There were no children; the youngest was 14, and this is according to the people who want him put away for life. It would be far more effective to say that they were 4, not 14, but they can’t say that, because they have no evidence.

        I’ve noticed that the official press does not generally refer to them as children; merely “underage”, which is exactly correct – technically illegal but not very interesting otherwise. “Under the age limit” is like “over the speed limit”, a bland legalistic statement.

        It’s the conservatives who are apopletic over the story, branding it as child exploitation or child abuse, huffing and puffing that the official press is not doing enough to demonize the monsters who visited the island and raped these poor innocent little girls.

        It must be hard having to choose between evil and stupid. I can’t help sympathizing with the evil.

        • shaman says:

          See, that’s why Neo-Reaction is not “part of the alt-right,” but an alternative to it. The alt-right is just a re-branded version of various previous ideologies, notably White Nationalism and Traditional Conservatism. And, as you’ve pointed out, the media is showering the alt-right with attention — it just can’t get enough of these edgy shocking internet celebrities — whereas very few words are ever spoken about Neo-Reaction, lest some members of the cognitive elite might notice that our thought-crimes have high truth-value and that our counter-narrative is rather compelling.

          The alt-retard who screams his lungs out about how Jew Epstein abused all those innocent teenage prostitutes is an enthusiastic follower and promoter of the Cathedral Party Line, essentially criticizing the system for supposedly not being stringent enough in its enforcement of its own rules. As Chesterton (who was Blue Pilled, but still had insightful things to say) famously remarked,

          The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types – the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.

          Seems that Reactionaries — and only Reactionaries — grasp that point.

          • Not Tom says:

            Offline, I only know a handful of alt-rightists, but many more tradcons, and they’re marching more or less in lockstep on this one. The only difference is, for tradcons it’s “evil pedophile Satan-worshiping liberals” and for alt-rightists it’s “evil pedophile Moloch-worshiping Jews”. Many of them actually think pre-teens were involved; they didn’t read that anywhere, there’s no evidence for it anywhere, nobody has even tried to make that claim, but they’re sure it must have happened – as the most devout shitlib would be keen to say, it “feels true”.

            It’s nearly impossible to discuss the situation rationally with squish-righters without being accused of defending Epstein. Oh, he’s guilty, but not of being a dangerous sexual predator abusing little girls for the sick pleasure of perverted 80-year-old men, but rather for being a secret policeman, one of Cthulhu’s top enforcers using dirty tricks and evil laws to ruin the lives of ordinary folks and quash any dissent in the political and corporate ranks.

            As for the girls, unless someone can prove to me that Epstein’s goons literally jammed guns in their fathers’ faces while pulling their daughters out of bed at 3 AM, I’m not going to express any sympathy whatsoever, either for them or for their neglectful parents.

        • The Cominator says:

          Its just that we smell blood and I’m fine with hoisting the other side from its own bluepill petard.

          The SDNY Dems initiated this Epstein thing with the idea of framing Trump, but Barr refused to roll over on the legal technicalities only recusing himself from the investigation into Accosta’s sweetheart deal (which involved the intel agencies running the honeytrap) which he referred not to justice but to the whitehouse itself… which means all the blackmail information Epstein got is likely to end up in the hands of Stephen Miller.

          • Not Tom says:

            Of course, Epstein worked for the Cathedral and I’m not sad about him being rolled up. But the politically savvy move here is to shake him down for that sweet kompromat, and use it as leverage in the ongoing coup. Is frothing-at-the-mouth blue-pilling really a necessary ingredient?

            Many of the politicians and VIPs Epstein honeytrapped could be more useful alive than dead, with Team Trump pulling the strings. The Clintons, of course, should all be hanged.

            • The Cominator says:

              Trump Barr and Stephen Miller will decide what strategy is best, I think they will make a good decision on this as to who to burn and who to blackmail.

  19. shaman says:

    Two more short, simple, lighthearted WRP questions to cheer us up.

    1. Horny females are apt to be sexually involved with brutal rapists. Why?

    A) Are they? Seems to me that women stay away from brutal rapists and invariably go after successful, socially savvy, popular, respectable men who abide the law and can sustain big families. I can guarantee and assure you that the nice ladies at my Church don’t even know what “spanking” is.

    B) By perfectly Darwinian processes, women have been evolutionarily programmed to always seek out the fiercest most badass alpha male (hypergamy), according to their own mate-selection standards, which have not changed since we were all naked apes in the jungle. Brutal rapists are the closest approximation to the ideal alpha male as perceived by female apes in the jungle.

    C) Women want nothing to do with brutal rapists, but the latter keep predating on the former and forcing them — entirely against their will — to have sex. That’s why they are called “brutal rapists,” right? The Feminists are correct: We are living in a rape culture, and despite our best efforts to stamp out this phenomenon, it’s still a veritable danger for women. Women refrain from going out at night and refrain from dressing provocatively for that very reason! Women would rather die than be sexually dominated by brutes.

    D) White women have been brainwashed by the Jew’s Talmudvision and Hymiewood to like brutal rapists. By nature, white women prefer good and honorable men (such as myself, by the way), but because our culture has been contaminated by der ewige Khazar Hazard, they now pursue men who are likely to beat and sexually abuse them. Were it not for these pesky Jews, I’d finally manage to get lai… err, I mean, women would get ‘gina tingles for nice guys.

    E) This question triggered my fibromyalgia-induced PTSD so hard that my problem glasses fell off my pouty face and into Mr. Whiskers’ wet food bowl; now my face, similarly to my yeasty vagina, smells like fish. How do I even start unpacking this unsolicited dumpster-fire shit-show of a micro-atrocity? First of all, for your information, “women” are a social construct, not a biological classification. Hey, uhh, douche-canoe, have you even read Judith Butler? Pffft. Second of all, I…

    2. Reaction spends a lot of time coordinating its memes about the Woman Question. Why?

    A) Because the WQ is the most urgent, and we must get it right if we want to restore young families, want the civilized races to fruitfully reproduce, and want our descendants to conquer the stars.

    B) Because we are so full of hubris. How dare we be so conceited and arrogant as to assume that the Sovereign will heed to our counsel? No, the Sovereign will obviously be a High Priest himself, and won’t take any advice whatsoever from us useless intellectuals.

    C) Because Jim’s blog is a sophisticated (albeit transparent) Mossad psychological operation intended to distract everyone from the truly important issue: The USS Liberty incident.

    D) Because we are midwits with merely VHIQ. If we were 3SD+ geniuses with UHIQ, we would be discussing Qanon, Bigfoot, and how anatomically modern humans are boar-bonobo hybrids.

    E) Because, being autistic involuntarily celibate Omega Male virgins trapped in a Grand Masturbatorium, we naturally think about sex all the time. Ultimately, we draw our inspiration from the most sexless person who ever walketh this Earth: Roissy, who has never seen an IRL vagina at all.

    (Correct Answers: 1, B; 2, A)

    • To the first question I would pull an F) NAWALT. Feel free to roll your eyes. But when literally all women in my life prefer the successful, confident, popular man (good alpha, good leader) partially because there is nobody in my circles is anything like a brutal rapist, just how could I honestly agree? My sample may be unrepresentative, but should I just discard my whole life experience? I often claim I am able to tell which woman prefers the brutal rapist just by looking at them. There is just a different glint in the eyes or something like that.

      Feel free to test me throwing photos my way, I can tell those girls from “good” girls, good in quotation marks because they still prefer alphas of course, just decent alphas, and they will still cheat with them. What makes them “good” is that they will cheat with the kind of alpha you would more or less respect. The kind of boss you would like to work for. Not the brutal rapist criminal type. Which is not good enough by any normal measure, but we are testing the “does not lust for brutal criminals NAWALT”, not the “pure virginial NAWALT” which would be stupid or the “fucks betas NAWALT” which would be even stupider.

      Or running the test from the other way around, I will not do it in public but will send Jim in e-mail a photo of a couple and the man is someone I respect, and just by the photo (eyes and smile) I can see that the woman would only cheat him with a man I would probably respect even more.

      • Sent to the e-mail address published on jim.com

      • 2019 is boring says:

        Okay, how about this: For long-term relationships later in life, most women do prefer “successful, confident, popular” men rather than brutal rapists.

        But observe the revealed behavior of women down the street. First, they postpone marriage or “settling down” till their 30s or 40s, i.e. they spend their teens, twenties, even early thirties having promiscuous sex with… someone. (And then The Wall hits and they either find themselves a boring beta hubby, or turn into the caretakers of cats) Who, in their most fertile and attractive years, are women having sex with?

        Secondly, we are being told that women live in mortal fear of rape, dreadfully terrified of the very prospect.

        Well, I see tons of women — from young jailbaits to older MILFs — going out in the middle of the night, dressed in a manner that discloses much more than it conceals, and hanging out at places where drunk horny men apt to grab ’em by the pussy are a fixture. (Needless to say, the women themselves are usually even drunker, and often quite hornier, than those men) Really, this is one of the easier Red Pills, since everyone can see that pretty much everywhere: Women don’t seem to be worried at all about the presence of rapists, and keep coming back to the same ol’ nightclubs where “things just happen,” where they “lose control.”

        Sure, the ideal fantasy is not a semi-literate stone-broke Pakistani, but –as female literary pornography graphically depicts — an athletic six foot tall super-alpha billionaire vampire pirate demon king. Yet, strangely enough, women spend their 13-35 period partying with men who resemble Jeremy Meeks more-so than they resemble any CEO.

        When a scantily clad woman (with or without a butterfly tattoo), drunk like a sailor, hangs out at 3AM at the bar, what kind of man is she looking for there? In whose apartment will she wake up in the morning after, or who will join her in the bar’s bathroom stall for a quickie? More crucially: What measures does she take to avoid an encounter with a brutal hardcore drug-trafficking convicted felon gangster rapist? None? So if a woman does nothing to avoid brutal rape, and repeatedly puts herself in situations where effectively defending against brutal rape is rather far-fetched, then is she not — as they say — “asking for it”?

        Lots of women are like that, the average woman is like that. It’s not that women would like to settle down with a gangster felon. Rather, they would like to never grow old, never settle down, and keep partying forever with more or less sketchy people – the only thing currently stopping women from pulling that off is The Wall, and future anti-aging technologies (whose development, to be sure, I fully and enthusiastically support) may be misused to allow women to party with Jeremy Meeks in their 80s and 90s. Why not?

        Another important reason we need a Neo-Reaction.

        • Div says:

          I’ll have proper, not phone internet access on Monday. Will make my case if don’t forget.

        • The Cominator says:

          Lots of women are like that, the average woman is like that. It’s not that women would like to settle down with a gangster felon. Rather, they would like to never grow old, never settle down, and keep partying forever with more or less sketchy people

          I think what most women REALLY want to be the favorite wife in a harem of a chad looking successful warlord.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            What usually ends up happening is that, unable to secure Jeremy Meeks’ commitment, they get some sort of boyfriend, and then after 3 or 4 years together, shit test him to Hell and back, break up, and go back to taking booty calls from Chad the Cad. Women say that they don’t like it, and perhaps on a deeper level that’s true, but they can’t help themselves: Dissolving relationships (i.e. engaging in serial monogamy) and chasing after demon lovers is ingrained in their sexo-mentality; that is their revealed preference, at least under current anarcho-tyrannical conditions.

            We need to make husbands high-status in the eyes of women, indeed higher status than fathers, higher status than cads with big swinging dicks, and higher status than the government, and dis-incentivize the dissolution of marriage. A woman should know that the man who is fucking her is at the zenith of the attractiveness pyramid, at the top of the socio-sexual hierarchy, and that losing him inevitably spells downgrading, not upgrading, and misery, not joy. We either do that, or women will continue featuring in the plate-spinning constellations of disreputable nightclub dwellers.

            • The Cominator says:

              The 1st step is to make men higher status then women generally, especially single men should be higher status then single women.

              Doing that alone would solve a lot of the extreme dysfunction where women won’t give single beta males the time of day and end up larping as lesbians.

              Jims proposal where unescorted women wouldn’t be allowed in nighstspots (or at least most nightspots there should be some real ugly dives in any city where the unescorted ones go, where men could go to pick them up) anymore would be a good step towards this. Getting them as much as possible out of the workforce would be good too.

              • 2019 is boring says:

                Agreed, and the point about unescorted women is particularly relevant:

                To prevent Jeremy Meeks from monopolizing all the pussy, we need to formalize ownership by ensuring that the vast majority of women are owned, that owned women will have a dramatically higher status (or “privileges”) than unowned women, that owned women will possess much superior access to the fruits of civilization compared with unowned women, and that, as Jim says, the King and the High Priest will announce:

                Only one pussy per customer.

                Formalized ownership will allow us to regulate the sexual marketplace, to enshrine monogamy and prevent polygyny.

                • The Cominator says:

                  In our system as I see it most of the Jeremy Meeks will be hanged or exiled. And we can artifically depress the status of petty criminals and thugs in the eyes of women anyway. We will bring back punishments in public square and we will bring back the mobs throwing things at criminals for entertainment. We’ll have concerts (and dances afterwards sometimes) to celebrate the community pushing down on these low status criminals.

                  Every responsible man gets his one pussy but only one pussy per customer is unrealistic. We’ll have a slight excess of women, we will have brothels and a very few rich men will have mistresses (though extramarital relations outside of the whorehouse for people of lesser status will be discouraged to say the least).

                  Among Isaac Newton style geniuses as I’ve said I want a state sponsored harems for such men (made up of unusually high IQ women… and maybe if such high iq outlier women don’t want to be housewives their whole lives they get a special exemption that they can bear 5 children for the genius each and they are out), I want such men to each have at least 100 children.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  “One pussy per customer” refers to formal ownership; the women at the brothel are unowned, thus it does not apply to them.

                  However, we don’t want too many women to opt for the unowned lifestyle, thus we need to place severe restrictions on the liberties of unowned women; disallowing them at various venues is a good start. As Jim said:

                  When I was a young man, there were a whole lot of places where unaccompanied women were not permitted to go, and where the males accompanying women would be asked about their connection to those women.

                  This and other means will ensure that most women would much rather be formally under a man’s authority, or coverture.

              • 2019 is boring says:

                And if the sex ratio will one day be 1:10, then a husband will be allowed to possess ten pussies under his ownership.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I cannot imagine it will be 1:10 or nearly such, even after WWII in Russia in the areas with the most men who got killed I only thing it ever got as bad as 1:4.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  It’s not about killing, though. Once we do away with all notions of democracy and egalitarianism (realistically, only around 2080 or so), we may want to use technology to select the sex of new children, so as to usher in a pussy paradise. Now, we will still need a whole lot of men at that point, so I agree that we should not start with 1:10, but indeed with something like 1:4. But this is really more in the realm of political science fiction – in the meanwhile, we organize society according to 1:1.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  In brief, my ideal scenario in 2165 is a sex ratio of anything between 1:4 to 1:10, with a genetically engineered and techno-biologically hyper-augmented ruling elite of men, possessed of an ironclad asabiyyah, with an average IQ ranging anywhere from 130 to 180, presiding over an intergalactic space-faring cosmo-empire and lots of nubile, compliant, lustful chicks to pass the time with, in addition of course to other leisures scarcely imaginable today.

                  Will anything like that actually transpire? Who knows, but in this dark age of ours, the least we can do is dream – and building the requisite memeplex is surely a step in the right direction.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  In hindsight it will be obvious that total victory in the war of the sexes was merely a continuation of the victories of man’s ingenuity over the other apex predators 10k years ago, and over Malthusian limits ~200 years ago. If I am not mistaken, it will be the first time ever in natural history, after two billion years or so, that such a victory has been won.

                  ThusSpakeZarathustraFanfare.mp3

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Will they call us leftists for the revolutionary (i.e. post-agricultural) program of — at long last — fully subduing the big gametes to the small ones? Ah, but in retrospect it will be obvious that we’ve been selected precisely for that. There’s no stopping this 2.5-billion-years-old Golem!

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  (I haven’t really examined how and when isogamy evolved into anisogamy; perhaps Jim — who studies everything — is familiar with the topic)

                • jim says:

                  You need a load of resources to start a new diploid, and you need to travel around to find a gamete that is not closely related, and to travel around, should travel light, without a load of resources. So one gamete has a load of resources, and the other gamete travels around looking for her.

                  The ancestor of all the animals was a single celled creature that looked like a sperm with a net – it could swim, could catch other single celled creatures, and on catching them, sprayed them with hydrogen peroxide and toxins, then engulfed them after the style of a white blood cell. It had the weapons of a white blood cell, the mobility of a sperm, and a thing that our cells no longer possess for grabbing and catching.

                  They ganged up for attack and defense, each gang being a single clone line, thus beginning multicellularity in the line from which we are descended. Creatures like that still exist, and still easily switch between operating in gangs, and operating individually. If we view each gang as a single creature (and it acts like a single creature) that creature is isogamous.

              • 2019 is boring says:

                Unowned women will course be fair game and up for grabs for anyone and everyone (a woman’s “consent” is wholly irrelevant: Consent does not make sex good, nor lack of consent make it bad), and we will make their life unappealing enough — through both legal and cultural means — that most women will much prefer to be owned.

          • Not Tom says:

            I think what most women REALLY want to be the favorite wife in a harem of a chad looking successful warlord.

            Precisely. Better to be #1 on Jeremy Meek’s booty call list than #15. And far better to gain complete exclusivity over Jeremy Meeks, while still being absolutely certain that he could call up any of those other women for booty – not really physically possible, hence shit tests, yet still the ideal in a woman’s mind.

            But also better to be #15 on the list than be exclusive to a boring beta who won’t either crush skulls or have his goons crush skulls.

        • I’m back. So. I concede that if and women grow up in a feral state of nature, no father, no upbringing, driven entirely by hardware-level instincts, they will be lusting for the most brutal criminals. Fortunately, software level interventions like fatherhood, upbringing, culture, shaming and all that happen. Usually. The most important is probably that if the father is present in their lives which usually implies he is a decent fella, they will think alpha men are like their father and will fuck men who are like their father.

          Tattooed girls probably had a very bad upbringing and will likely fuck brutal criminals. Are tattoed girls considered average in your circles? In mine no girl ever had tattooes and even men had them rarely. It’s trashy. I am 41 and just from Central Europe, not even very far “east”, certainly closer to Berlin than to Moscow. When 10-12 year ago I lived in England I was seriously put off by the fat yet slutty dressed, drunk, loud, cussing girls in the pub circuit, no desire to fuck them. But even they were not much tattooed. So what is the average? Where? When?

          I finally googled Jeremy Meeks. Why is he constantly being used as an example here? @Jim? While he is a criminal, he is also a super handsome fashion model. That is a hell of a confounding variable for determining whether women like criminals! We should be talking about women fucking ugly as hell orcish looking criminals. Single variable analysis. Not confounding the model with traits like unusual levels of good looks. So why Meeks, why not some fat ugly Hispanic criminal from last weeks TV news?

          • The Cominator says:

            Fortunately, software level interventions like fatherhood

            Not my experience… Take it from a sperg who is not good at lying or being an asshole (I’m no natural alpha)… Fatherless girls and girls who lost their father early tend to like or at least not be as repulsed by nice responsible guys.

            Jim also said at some point that fatherless girls tend to have somewhat less sexual attraction to evil and less repulsion to nice (btw this is another argument against bastardcide for female children anyway).

            Tattooed girls probably had a very bad upbringing and will likely fuck brutal criminals.

            In American this is literally around 85-90% of women under 35 now. I expected to see less of it in the South but not the case.

            I am 41 and just from Central Europe, not even very far “east”, certainly closer to Berlin than to Moscow.

            Former communists countries have lesser penetration of evil feminist Cathedral memes.

          • jim says:

            > I concede that if and women grow up in a feral state of nature, no father, no upbringing, driven entirely by hardware-level instincts, they will be lusting for the most brutal criminals.

            All women are like that. Some more than others. I don’t think any social intervention is likely to make a huge difference, except for punishing brutal criminals in a public and humiliating manner, and if anything low class women are less bad than high class women. They are certainly way better than lawyerettes, whose attraction for the most brutal criminals is notorious.

            They are not attracted to one hundred percent brutal all the way through, but they want the nice guy inside to be difficult to access and well hidden. Standard female fantasy is that romantic interest might well kill her, and often enough the fantasy is that he initially intended to kill her, and killed her father, her brother, etc, but due to events the killing keeps being postponed, and he eventually decides he would never kill her. His soft nice guy inner core is eventually revealed after brutally murdering numerous people. But he never apologizes for treating her with great cruelty and murdering everyone she loved, and if she makes a fuss about that, it is only a shit test. He scolds her and the shit test collapses.

            If General Butt Naked gets beaten through the streets and then put in a pillory for people to throw rotten fruit at, that would reduce the problem considerably. Until then, imply you are an adventurer who possibly may have killed people.

  20. anon77 says:

    The police in Oslo are looking for an African migrant who killed a Chihuahua in connection with a robbery, Nettavisen reports.

    In the Facebook group Dyrehjelperne (The Animal Helpers), the owner of the dog describes how a “Somali man in his 35-40s” violently attacked the little Chihuahua in the park at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo.

    She tells Nettavisen that her boyfriend was out walking the dog, named Leah, on Tuesday afternoon when he was robbed by the man.

    “Leah yapped and he kicked her in the head so hard that she flew into the air. Then he went after her and kicked her again”, says the heart broken dog owner Rubi.

    The dog later died of its injuries – a broken neck and a skull fracture, in an animal clinic. A taxi driver had then refused to let the dying animal into his car.

    https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/07/migrant-robber-kicked-chihuahua-to-death-in-norway/

  21. UnrequitedLARP says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Unresponsive.

      It is a test. And you refuse to take the test.

      The reason we are asking you about the red pill is because entryists cannot express those thought crimes, or even acknowledge other people committing those thought crimes, for fear that their supervisor might suspect them of entertaining crimethought.

      We are asking you to do something that a paid and supervised shill would have great difficulty doing. He would probably have to apply to his boss, and his boss would have to apply to his boss, but someone who is independently commenting would have no trouble doing it.

      Take it. Not letting anything you say through that is a pile of excuses for refusing to take tests that separate paid and supervised shills from genuinely independent anonymous commenters.

      Since you are commenting under a pseudonym you have no reason to fear, unless you are under supervision, no reason to fear unless your supervisor is likely to check your work.

      If not under supervision, then you might not agree with our opinions, but you could respond in a way that accurately acknowledges those opinions.

      Even if you thought they were evil lies, if you were an independent commenter rather than a paid and supervised shill, you could, and would, accurately state and describe those evil lies for the purpose of rebutting them.

      • Alternate Cominatr says:

        It seems that the autospam filter hates me again… don’t even put my comments through because there is too bullshit where I was just trying to inform you of the problem but please fix.

  22. BC says:

    Jim, Nazism = Socialism is spreading:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2OFpO8fyo

    Really interesting video.

  23. shaman says:

    Today’s question is all about malicious caricatures and misidentification.

    We are going to abolish the AoC. Why?

    [—] NRx hates women, and wants them to suffer from rape. We know that young women and young girls are not really interested in sex, and don’t really enjoy sex, especially not brutal sex, so NRx wants to maximize their pain by inflicting totally unwanted rape and child abuse on them. We are sadistic psychopaths, and our entire ideology is a novel and innovative rationalization of our sadistic psychopathy. There is nothing we enjoy more than fantasizing about little girls, tearful rivers streaming down their cheeks, sitting psychologically broken in a dark corner and suffering from all the rape and abuse which we’re going to foist on them against their will, mwahahaha.

    [—] NRx is a movement of heterosexual pedophiles, who are sexually attracted to prepubescent girls. Since girls with no boobs, no ass, no waist-to-hip ratio that indicates fertility, and no other secondary sexual characteristics give us raging boners, we want to legalize sex with them, so that we can have sex with them. Since all we ever thing about is sex with girls aged 8-9, we have formulated and articulated an ad hoc worldview to justify and normalize sexual relations of adult men (i.e. ourselves) and little girls with no grass on the field and no bleeding down there.

    [—] NRx is a liberal, libertarian, and libertine ideology that generally wants to give everyone sexual freedom to do whatever the heck they want. Thus we are part of an LGBTP coalition that includes homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, pedophiles, and also other fetish communities such as bestiality, necrophilia, BDSM, scat, and so on. Absolute sexual liberalism is part and parcel of NRx; we provide a political home for all perverts everywhere, and we welcome solidarity withing the deviance rainbow.

    [xxx] NRx realizes that the AoC punishes men for normal male sexuality, and allows girls to sexually misbehave. Every man with normal T-levels would bang every fertile female if he could (minus immediate family), and pathologizing and penalizing that is contrary to human nature and inimical to healthy heterosexuality. As for prepubescent girls, men are not attracted to them, but they are attracted to alpha males with adult female preselection, and the AoC, based on Puritan-Feminist lies, grants them destructive liberty to cowgirl-ride drunk and asleep men to “a happy awakening, followed by a big surprise,” while placing the blame for their misbehavior on men.

    [—] NRx, my dearest fellows, is simply a run-of-the-mill movement of Southern NRA-affiliated eschatological religious nutjobs and whackjobs such as myself (hallelujah), and all of us here unanimously strictly adhere to Young Earth Creationism and other forms of evolution-denying televangelism, and yes friends, we do occasionally lynch atheists and bomb abortion clinics for the Everlasting Glory of Jesus Christ – deal with it, liberals. Due to our blind fanatical stupid evil religious zealotry and bigotry, we want the entire world to go Biblical, and the Bible says nothing about either “age” or “consent.” Being a hillbilly hick, I even married my own barely-legal cousin when she was several months pregnant with our son, Hank. How do you do, fellow Rethuglicans?

    • kawaii_kike says:

      The part about bombing abortion clinics for the Everlasting Glory of Jesus Christ is tempting.

      • shaman says:

        I know, that’s why I put it there. Emotionally, I can strongly relate to devout pious Christians who’d explode these fetus-slaughterhouses in a neo-crusade to stop infanticide. But this is not what NRx advocates, and moreover, the issue of Christian terrorists is routinely exaggerated by the Shit-Stream Media and the FBI, and so a clueless leftist entryist might genuinely think that, being “right-wing extremists,” that’s what we stand for.

      • The Cominator says:

        I don’t see how society can survive without at least de facto tolerance of early term abortion. Very late term abortions are indeed murder and bastarcide is murder (and I was the leading opponent of this with Jim) but Jim is right that we cannot allow too many fatherless children around. We should also not allow severely disable children either… so early term abortions is the best way for this.

        Nobody was all that opposed to early term abortions until JP II decided he wanted Mexicans to outbreed Anglos and opposition to abortion by the Catholic Church must be considered hypocritical, they used to run places that were almost close to death camps for bastard children (as recently as the 1950s) and the Catholic Church acts as an arm of the Democratic party.

        I will not derive my moral code from such an institution.

        • kawaii_kike says:

          John Paul II just wanted to stop the slaughter of the innocent, not overrun Anglos with hordes of Mexicans. The Church has always condemned abortion, but the church’s stance on early term abortion developed over time because theologians were unsure when the fetus was imbued with a soul.
          Abortion, even early term abortion is already murder, so it seems arbitrary to draw the line at bastardcide.

          Can you elaborate on Catholic run “death camps for bastard children”?

          • The Cominator says:

            Lookup “Angel hospitals” “Duplessis orphans”.

            Also Jim I’m getting filtered again, please let this go through…

            1st trimester abortions should remain legal should be able to pickup defects… And they cannot survive outside the body. This compromise satisfies me more then anything else.

          • The Cominator says:

            Lets see if my comments go through now.

            Lookup “Angel hospitals” and the Duplessis orphans for examples of what the rec did.

            Early abortion obviously is better then late term abortion and far far better then killing actual kids which should be done only to sadistic psychopaths who like to torture animals and the like. Maybe it’s not completely morally satisfying to some but it is the best of bad choices in this fallen world. Certainly higher level of brain activity in 14 months.

        • jim says:

          There is no large moral difference, and no large difference in instinctive gut reaction, to abortion at four months and infanticide at fourteen months. You think there is because you are told there is. “just a group of parasitic cells”. Trouble is that modern ultrasound shows that remarkably soon he is a lot more than a group of parasitic cells.

          We either ban abortion, or allow infanticide. There is no coherent moral position between these two. There is no morally appealing solution that allows abortion and does not allow infanticide. If we restricted abortion to very early abortion, that would be morally appealing, but the trouble is that very early abortion does not cover the cases we care about – bastards and defectives. It tends to be primarily used by a woman trying to keep her options open for a booty call for Jeremy Meeks. By the time we know we have a good reason to abort, it is sixteen weeks already.

          I favor allowing infanticide and abortion of defectives and of non kin of the man supporting, caring for, and supervising the woman, and the execution of older children in accordance with biblical rules – both parents agree, and the judge agrees the child is guilty of stubborn disobedience and disrespect.

          Saying that abortion is morally easy, and infanticide horrifying, is just accepting the progressive morality of moloch. It is a demonic lie, which leads to the sale of living babies wanted by their fathers as baby meat.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Homicide = homicide at any stage of the biological life course from the moment cell division starts until the moment it stops. Generally an injustice for either the Sovereign or the subject to kill until the person being killed has done something to deserve it. Then have at them with whatever force and means you deem necessary.

            • shaman says:

              Generally an injustice for either the Sovereign or the subject to kill until the person being killed has done something to deserve it. Then have at them with whatever force and means you deem necessary.

              Interesting; up-thread you falsely accused me (and by extension others here who espouse similar positions) of the following:

              seems to know exactly what the Sovereign must do, presumes to dictate exacting minutiae of law and policy to his Prince.

              Quite hypocritical, isn’t it? You are telling us that the Sovereign will ban all abortions and infanticide 100%, and then in the same breath tell us that holding the common-sense and historically precedented view that stopping girls from endlessly upgrading up the cock carousel by forcing them to marry — by shotgun or by abduction — amounts to “dictation of law and policy.”

              Always a sophist, always a hypocrite.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                To be clear, I maintain that it is ultimately the business of the Sovereign or whoever has the power of the sword and his/theirs alone to determine punishments. Priesthood can legitimately draw attention to acts that are inherently wrong and ought to be punished, intellectuals can (if asked to) weigh in on questions of what should be forbidden or required as a matter of State policy; but it’s presumptuous and meddlesome for them to try to come up with schedules of punishments.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  ^^these remarks apply to Restoration not “democracy” where anybody has the right to say anything unless they don’t.

              • Mike says:

                As much as I have enjoyed reading your blog in the past Doug, I will admit you sound overly technical describing how the sovereign and/or natural law should line up with x, when we are simply trying to reason with the very concept of x existing in this world in the first place.

                Ie, this isn’t really a time for minutiae when 99% of humanity isn’t even considering the possibility of these things existing, and even people who are considering it (us) are still trying to grapple with what these concepts would look like in the real world. Now is not (yet) the time to describe how the fully developed system would work, because it simply isn’t there.

          • shaman says:

            I favor allowing infanticide and abortion of defectives and of non kin of the man supporting, caring for, and supervising the woman,

            Jim, on this issue I take a slightly milder position than yours. If the child was born out of wedlock to a father who made himself scarce, then sure, it’s a demonspawn, and should be drowned in a sack.

            However, today it is common for women to divorce their beta husbands (perfectly productive citizens) and take their children with them, and then marry someone else; under such circumstances, I’m not sure that it’s a good idea to allow the new guy to arrange an “unfortunate accident” to the beta husband’s children. These are kids who may be wanted by their biological father, and moreover, they are not demonic.

            That can also apply to widows with children who re-marry. Should the state turn a blind eye when the new guy decides to pull off a Houdini and make the dead man’s children — poof — disappear forever? Not sure.

            These objections aside, I guess I can go along with legal infanticide of non-kin children till perhaps age 6 or so. But allowing some “new guy” to kill a non-demonic older child fathered by a beta male is too much even for my cold and callous heart.

            • jim says:

              > However, today it is common for women to divorce their beta husbands (perfectly productive citizens) and take their children with them

              Children taken from their father by a fertile age mother have a high chance of suffering an unfortunate accident. We absolutely should forbid this behavior, and fathers that allow it should be disgraced and punished.

              When a fertile age woman ditches her husband, she believes in her heart that his sperm is no good, and if she gets impregnated by someone she feels is much more alpha than her former husband, very bad things are apt to happen to his children. Female authority over children of her former husband is blue pillers conniving at infanticide.

              When a woman is widowed, she does not normally regard her former husband as beta, and there is no problem.

              This is one of the greatest crimes of blue pillers. After the restoration, those who preach the blue pill should be beaten through the streets. Anyone who uses the word “pedophile” unironically is normalizing drag queen story hour, and anyone who supports female authority over the children her former husband is normalizing infanticide. The blue pill is Moloch worship.

              • shaman says:

                Agreed 100%. The people spreading hysteria about “pedophilia” should be left with broken spines and hemorrhaging brains.

                A woman who ditched her husband should have no authority over his children, and no access to his pockets. Such women should wander the streets barefoot in the cold rain, spitted on by onlookers.

                Also, when we revive long-lost social technologies that back up husbands, re-institute coverture, and re-legalize domestic discipline and “marital rape,” a whole lot of women will suddenly find their beta husbands quite attractive.

            • alf says:

              I was looking at Dutch abortion statistics and was pretty shocked to find out that fifteen percent of all babies are aborted. So very conservatively, at least one out of ten women has committed infanticide. How red pilled is that. God damn women.

          • shaman says:

            While we’re at it, even actual bastards born out of wedlock to fathers who made themselves scarce should probably be spared once they reach their early twenties – by that age they should have their own house, a job, and not be in too close a proximity to slut-mom’s new dude, so there is no justification killing them merely for existing.

            But, to be clear, I agree that demonspawn younger than 22 or so, and particularly those aged 6 and younger, should not receive much legal protection – they are a needless burden on everyone around them, and nobody would be inclined to ask too many uncomfortable questions when they suddenly stop showing up.

        • Nikolai says:

          “Nobody was all that opposed to early term abortions until JP II ”

          I have no idea where you got this from, the Church has been against abortion since the first century. See the Didache and the Apocalypse according to Peter.

          “I will not derive my moral code from such an institution.”

          t. literal freemason

          • The Cominator says:

            Christianity was against infanticide (INCLUDING bastardcide) which the Romans widely practiced from the beginning and I am against infanticide including bastardcide, you don’t hear much about abortion for or against in history until the 19th century when it was generally outlawed in most of the US as part of the social purity movement.

            But it took a lot of activism to get people to equate late and early term abortions and JP II the pope who made open borders and socialist economics part of church doctrine was definitely the driving force. Obviously it was because he wanted to flood America with low IQ Catholic Mexicans and Central Americans. The Vatican is ENTIRELY a political entity and essentially always has been since nothing in scripture or history justifies the Ultramonatist post Gregorian Papacy. When they claim to care about the poor and downtrodden of the world they lie, just as Marxists do.

            • shaman says:

              I don’t actually endorse the Catholic position — duh, I support bastardicide, and support abortion in cases of 1. vile mutants, 2. adultery (i.e. when a married or betrothed woman with a wet pussy gets “seduced” or “raped” by her demon lover), and 3. legit danger to mom’s life — but “life begins at conception” is an intellectually consistent and defensible stance, whereas “life begins with brain waves” is a stance as perforated as Swiss cheese.

              Obviously, the problem with modern fetus slaughterhouses is that it’s not the woman’s owner who orders the abortion, but the woman who orders it, usually against the child’s biological father’s will; she wants to be available for Jeremy Meeks. Thus, it’s altogether anti-social and dysgenic, yet Tard-Cucks scarcely recognize this reality. The Blue Pill is Moloch worship.

              • The Cominator says:

                I cannot support bastardcide unless the kid is the type who tortures small animals or starts fires (in which case you have a true and obvious bad/evil seed) its monstorous, early term abortion is the least bad option we have in the fallen world… bastardcide was a barbaric practice early Christendom banned.

                Under our system we will not have many bastards anyway and most bastards that there are will be upper class men seeding lower class women, and such will not generally be demonseeds at all.

            • shaman says:

              Like Jim, I’m principally opposed to “utilitarianism,” the worldview of suicide.

              A so-called utilitarian says, “If I’m supposedly brain dead, but there is a chance of 0.001% to bring my mind back to life, you should disregard that chance, and donate my organs to some other people. Likewise, if one of my loved ones is in such a situation, you should disregard the 0.001% chance to save him or her, and donate his or her organs to some other people.”

              Nuts.

              Your life should be more valuable to you than 7 billion other people, and the lives of people you love should likewise be more valuable to you than 7 billion other people.

              “Organ donation” is being used to justify murder in the hospitals, and furthermore, it rests on scientific lies about the real odds of restoring someone who is ostensibly “brain dead.” That is the legacy and true apotheosis of Utilitarianism: Letting a living person die in order to use his body parts to help someone else, in order to maximize the statistical odds of “saving a life.” Murder justified in the name of statistics, justified by adherence to an abstract principle.

              And then, of course, you end up unplugging your own mother to save a random thug wounded during an armed robbery.

              Utilitarianism is Thanatos worship or Tezcatlipoca worship, and every value-system telling you that 7 billion people should be more important and emotionally significant to you than yourself and your loved ones is Thanatos worship or Tezcatlipoca worship. If you don’t value yourself and your loved one above 7 billion other people, you have embraced a suicidal meme that even the Judeo-Christiano-Islamic Satan would not tell you to embrace, because good ol’ Satan is at least reasonable.

              Sorry for going off topic, but that had to be said.

            • Nikolai says:

              “you don’t hear much about abortion for or against in history until the 19th century”

              For the same reason you don’t hear much about gay marriage or drag queens. It was simply unthinkable at the time and wasn’t even conceivable to be up for discussion.

              “But it took a lot of activism to get people to equate late and early term abortions”

              Precisely the opposite. It took a lot of activism to get people to distinguish between early term and late term. In old documents you never read people talking about the difference between an abortion the day after conception and abortion the day before birth. It was all considered abortion. Abortionists knew they couldn’t completely legalize baby killing, so they told people in the first few months it’s just a clump of cells, unfortunately it worked.

              If you want to blame a pope for trying to turn the Church into another NGO, it’s obviously St. Paul VI not St. JP II. Socialists notoriously hated St. JP II, the KGB was likely behind his assassination attempt. Blame open borders on the 1965 immigration act, not the Vatican. And whatever you’re smoking please send me two of them.

              • The Cominator says:

                http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/migration/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants.html

                JP II long endorsement of open borders on the Vatican website he also denounces racism and xenophobia and this wasn’t the 1st time he endorsed open borders either, and this was back when at least some Democrats favored a wall and mass deportations… so I would say they are at least partially to blame and JP II is why.

                Blaming the Vatican II guy would be if I cared about the Catholic Church’s liturgy or any of that shit which I don’t at all, I only care about the church as a political actor.

                And for that reason I want Francis to be Pope forever, he has destroyed the Church’s political soft power. JP II would have been able to sabotage Trump’s election, Francis could not because even cuck centrist Catholic voters consider him a radical leftist who they won’t listen to.

                JP II was just as big a shitlib as Francis but he hid it better, his problem with the Soviet bloc was that they followed the relative sane Stalinist form of communism, and JP II was a Cathedral Trotskyist.

  24. R7 Rocket says:

    The term “pedophilia” was invented in the 1920’s 1930’s and took off after WWII.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pedophilia&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpedophilia%3B%2Cc0

    The Cathedral, after its victory, proceeded to normalize gay assaults on six year old boys by conflating such weird anal boy sex with normal sex between fertile men and fertile women.

    In the Epstein case, advantage goes to the RedPill team, the bluepill team is at a disadvantage.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      Now contrast the anti-concept “pedophilia” with a real concept, “pederast.”

      Pederasts are homosexual men who anally fuck six year old boys.

      https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pederast&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CPederast%3B%2Cc0

      • The Cominator says:

        There probably are very very rare men attracted to prepubescent girls but they are outnumbered by gays attracted to prepubescent boys 1000 to 1.

        • info says:

          (Mark 9:42) for all men/women who abuse prepubescent children especially.

          • shaman says:

            No, it says nothing like that. What a retarded, non-Christian exegesis have you.

            Mark 9:42 clearly refers both to new converts to Christianity and to young members of the Church, who — due to the weakness or infancy of their faith — are prone to fall back unto their former erroneous ways, or to lose their still-underdeveloped faith and turn to apostasy. So Mark’s Jesus tells us to take special precautions not to cause newcomers and initiates to turn away from God’s path, which is likened to making them stumble.

            42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

            Only a faggot would think that this is about sex with prepubescents – that’s where a faggot’s mind is, naturally. No, this is about protecting those whose belief does not yet rest on solid foundations from error, whether it’s because they are recent converts or because they are literally young and have not yet acquired sufficient religious training.

            I am sickened when people read into the Bible things that are plainly not there. Whatever your intentions are, it is Satanic and disgusting.

            • info says:

              “42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”

              Why not a multiple meaning including condemnation of actual child abuse?

              Isaiah 7:14 is an example of a double meaning. Fulfilled both at his lifetime and predicting the messiah.

          • jim says:

            Nuts.

            You are reading the bible as transliterated by progressives into twenty first century progressivism.

  25. Zarnubius says:

    “Arvo can now construct ring signatures on Azimuth points, thanks to ~littel-ponnys. Anonymous but verified chat, polls and discussion are all possible.

    What does this mean? One way to think about it: everyone at a party gets a USB drive with a key on it. The key gets them into a chat where you know everyone else was at the party, but you don’t know who’s who.

    There’s lots of interesting unexplored territory here. Verified anonymity doesn’t really exist anywhere else”

    Correct me if I am wrong, but Moldbug wrote about this same idea. See: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/01/how-to-actually-defeat-us-government/

    “For example, suppose someone managed to set up an external site which could verify the identity and rank of military personnel, but keep it anonymous. The result would be an uncensored forum in which soldiers and sailors could speak honestly about their feelings and concerns.

    If this platform was scalable enough to hold an actual democratic election in which only military personnel could vote, it’s quite possible that the outcome of this ballot would have a rather definitive effect on the course of Washcorp. For producing truth, justice and competent government, elections are not much. For organizing large numbers of otherwise independent actors for concerted collective action, let’s face it—they’re the shizzle.

    However, this strategy is impractical at present and may never be practical. It is best reserved for the back, back burner. I mention it only because I can imagine very hypothetical situations under which it might work.”

  26. Chizkiyahu says:

    “pedophilia” is an anti-concept – Jim

    Yes, and this conforms 100 percent with the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud which covers almost all of the orders of Moed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kodashim. Zeraim and Taharos are represented by only one tractate each, Berachos and Niddah respectively.

    Talmud law permits sexual intercourse between adults and children. This doctrine is contained in a number of Mishnahs. Before we examine them, however, it is necessary that the reader be familiar with the word kethubah.

    According to the Soncino Talmud Glossary:

    KETHUBAH (Lit., ‘a written [document]’); (a) The minimum settlement for a virgin child (three years or younger) is two hundred zuz

    When a grown-up man has had intercourse with a little girl (3 years or younger) it is nothing, as if one puts the finger into the eye OR when a girl is accidentally injured by a piece of wood (which breaks the hymen) then their kethubah is also 200 zuz (in other words, the toddler will receive a payment of 200 zuz)

    Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11b

    Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57-58

    • The Cominator says:

      Nobody here wants to have sex with prepubescents and especially not ones that young you fed shill.

      What we want is women married off shortly after puberty.

      • info says:

        @The Cominator

        A solid basis in Scripture and natural law prevents any justification that is evident in:

        “Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11b”

        The successors of the Pharisees have corrupted their ways thoroughly.

  27. I’m curious, what’s Jim’s opinion on the Epstein arrest? Barr and co. squeezing a lower level Democrat, bog-standard Cathedral moralism about those poor little whores bamboozled into having sex with powerful men or something else entirely?

    • The Cominator says:

      The Epstein arrest was by the SDNY, it WAS an attempt to frame Trump because it was combined with a similar attempt to get Barr to recuse himself (at which point Epstein would have been offered a sweetheart deal to compose on Trump).

      Barr has however refused to recuse himself except from the review of what the labor secretary did years ago.

      • BC says:

        The Epstein arrest was by the SDNY, it WAS an attempt to frame Trump because it was combined with a similar attempt to get Barr to recuse himself (at which point Epstein would have been offered a sweetheart deal to compose on Trump).

        It’s certainly not a well coordinated attempt. The DNCs social messaging agents didn’t have scripts prepped, google is having to play catch up scrubbing Epstein connections to Bill Clinton, etc. It may well be an act of desperation.

        • The Cominator says:

          The coordination problems are due to the increasing incompetence of the Cathedral, if the people in charge of getting Nixon in the 70s were in charge of getting Trump… they probably would have gotten Trump.

          But it really failed when Barr said I’m not recusing myself. Now not only can they not frame Trump they now have to deal with a real investigation into the links between prominent Democrats and Epstein.

          Epstein btw was a glownagger… a honeypot asset during the time likely of all people… Robert Mueller. I don’t normally like Anne Coulter because she is a blackpilling cat lady attention whore most of the time but she broke down Epstein’s glownaggery pretty well.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=eNbK-hkZMLY

          • R7 Rocket says:

            And the Cathedral’s devotion to the bluepill is hampering their coordination against Trump in the Epstein case,

            • The Cominator says:

              What has really fucked them was they thought Barr was going to recuse himself and maybe he let them think this so they would reopen the case…

              But Barr fucked them over, he only recused themself from the review of why Accosta gave Epstein a sweetheart deal (Mueller/Bush Sr./Brennan) and that he has decided should be personally overseen by Trump himself.

      • info says:

        @Cominator

        He is just a tip of the iceberg. He is a lead to other actual real monsters.

    • jim says:

      Epstein was in the business of gathering blackmail material on the rich and powerful. The Democrats think he must have blackmail material on Trump, but for some reason is not sharing it, and they are going to cut his toes off if he does not give them what he does not have.

      • The Cominator says:

        That was sort of what the original plan was but it depended on Barr recusing himself. Barr has not recused himself except into the narrow question of why Epstein was let off so easily (it was because he was a CIA agent or FBI informant following orders) and that investigation is going to be conducted by Trump himself according to Barr (which really means Stephen Miller will be doing it but that is just as good).

      • The Cominator says:

        The great thing about this is with Barr NOT recusing himself from the criminal investigation (thus thwarting any plans to frame Trump) and Barr’s narrow recusal from the Accosta matter being directed to the White House itself to investigate means Stephen Miller is going to personally be getting all that blackmail material.

  28. Vxxc says:

    You have my actual email Jim here if you wish to communicate directly.

    • jim says:

      I don’t wish to communicate with anyone who keeps trying to push his frame on me. I will not accept your frame, which normalizes gay sex with nine year old boys.

      Address the man who wrote “pedophilia is an anticoncept”. Not some other man.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @Vxxc

      You picked the white knight answer instead of the correct RedPill answer in the easiest of test questions, multiple choice.

      White knights are vermin, and come the restoration, they will not dare interfere with the husband’s ownership of his woman.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      >spends a few years spamming Jim’s blog
      >isn’t familiar with Jim’s stance on AOC and “pedophilia”

      Is actually quite similar to:

      >spends a few years spamming Jim’s blog
      >still doesn’t understand what NRx is even about

      What a joke you are.

  29. Vxxc says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      We have already discussed each of the matters you raise. Repeatedly. My position, our position, is entirely clear.

      Pedophilia is an anticoncept because sex between a fertile age woman and a fertile age man is different from gay sex with nine year old boys, and because the supply and demand situation for sex between forty year old men and nine year old girls is the reverse of the supply and demand situation for sex between forty year old men and nine year old boys.

      Every nine year old girl, all of them, fantasizes about being alone with a forty year old alpha male and totally in his power – Half the Disney princess movies are this trope, and the other half have a teenage girl protagonist who is an insert character for nine year old girls, hanging out in private with with an older male who is drawn as only moderately older than the teenage protagonist but is performing the social role of a forty year old male. “Cinderella” is a preselection fantasy. Ask any woman who was nine years old when “the Labrynth” came out whether she had the hots for David Bowie.

      In contrast, precisely zero nine year old males have analogous fantasies. Batman and Robin are all about Robin using Batman’s cool toys to whack bad guys, not about Robin being alone with Batman while Batman shows how alpha he is. When an adult male hero has a nine year old male sidekick, it is all about the sidekick having adult adventures. He is never socializing with the hero in private.

      While the standard nine year old female fantasy does not involve actual sex, just the alpha male being totally able to jump her bones, it is nonetheless vastly more common for a nine year old girl to creep into bed with a drunk and sleeping alpha male with adult female preselection, than for an adult male to creep into bed with a sleeping nine year old girl.

      And this is what makes “pedophilia” an anti concept, that it makes things that are different alike, that it defines gay sex with nine year old boys as normal, and the normal male attraction to fertile age women as abnormal. Ninety nine percent of the material being suppressed as pedophilic is cartoons of young women with gigantic breasts, while huge amounts of romance literature targeted at nine year old girls freely circulates, and the state sponsors transexual events where children are encouraged to sit on the laps of trannies and pushes sex change to nine year old boys.

  30. Vxxc says:

    Deleted for stubbornly re-asking a question that has already been answered times without number.

    • jim says:

      You have refused to accept any of my previous answers as meaning what they plain as day say, so if I answer again, I expect you to refuse to understand my reply again. Waste of reader bandwidth.

      Pedophilia is an anticoncept, and I will not answer a question that frames me as accepting this anticoncept, that frames this anticoncept as accepted my me and everyone else.

      You are going to have to ask questions that address the position I have explained over and over and over again. If you want to discuss my position with me, you don’t have to accept my frame, but you are going to have to accept that I have that frame, not your frame.

      Every time you ask, you ask in a frame that normalizes gays having sex with small boys and insist that we accept, that I accept that frame, that everyone accepts that frame. We do not accept your frame.

    • shaman says:

      You’re an imbecile, a blue-piller, and your reading comprehension and idea comprehension are both demonstrably low (verging on non-existence), because your IQ is abysmally low compared to the average in NRx communities. It appears that you are legitimately brain damaged, as people with a brain damage often communicate in short, disjointed, non-complicated sentences, exactly as you do.

      Fuck off.

  31. Friendly Fred says:

    In Reactionary USA 2035 —

    There’s going to be a period of at least several months and very likely a couple of years between the onset of Cindy’s adolescence and Dad’s finding of a satisfactory husband for her. No real Dad is going chain his Cindy to the basement wall during those months or even couple of years. Even if Cindy is always accompanied by Dad or older brother when she goes out to the store or for a morning walk or whatever, there will be plenty of occasions on which she is able to exchange pleasantries with men whom she finds attractive and who find her attractive.

    I grant that Dad’s goal of preventing Cindy (WHO IS A VIRGIN, WHOSE SATISFACTORY MATE IS BEING DILIGENTLY SOUGHT BY DAD BUT HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND) from have sex with these men will be primarily and most effectively served through Dad’s chastening of Cindy rather than through his rebuking of these men. But is Dad not permitted to rebuke men who flirt with Cindy (even when, as may frequently be the case, she clearly invites their flirtation), when these men through their flirtation with her evidently express disrespect for the authority over her that he has not yet transferred to the husband whom he has not yet found for her but is diligently seeking?

    Suppose he says, “Stop talking to my daughter” (no threatens, no insults) and they persist in doing so — aren’t they now guilty of harassing him? Aren’t they behaving like people who not only continue leaning against your parked car, but also rest their drinks atop it, even after you’ve asked them not to do so?

    • jim says:

      > But is Dad not permitted to rebuke men who flirt with Cindy

      No white male ever flirts with a woman under the authority of a plausibly alpha male who is present. Never happens. Ever.

      This is like feminists worrying about a virtuous traditional wife being violently abused by a patriarchal husband. They have been looking or a poster girl for two centuries. Have not found one.

      The problem is always that Cindy wanders off on some plausible excuse, but somehow persistently wanders into sketchy places full of sketchy people which her plausible excuse, which she perhaps believes, gives her no reason to wander into. Or the host, who might be expected to prevent misconduct, gets drunk and falls asleep, and kinfolk, who might be expected to prevent misconduct, go home, and she for some inexplicable reason does not go home with them. Or she wants to wander off and see the sights, and has been specifically forbidden to visit certain places, which have no sights to see, and has definitely said that she has no intention of visiting those places, but somehow goes there anyway.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        I’m inclined to agree that if Cindy is always accompanied by Dad or by Dad’s trustworthy adult male representative when she goes outside then it’s highly unlikely that any serious trouble will arise, but my impression now is that being the father of an unmarried adolescent daughter in Reactionary USA 2035 would be extremely demanding, stressful work because (if I understand you correctly) if she succeeds in wandering off then any man to whom she presents herself is allowed to take possession of her.

        For how long, in Reactionary USA 2035, is Dad allowed to prevent unmarried Cindy from “wandering off” (in which case, if I understand you correctly, his ownership of her would be automatically transferred to the first man she has sex with)? Is he permitted to retain physical control over her (preventing her from wandering off) only until she’s 14? 16? 21? 49?

        • jim says:

          In reactionary America, he will be entitled to retain physical control over her until early twenties, in accordance with the Old Testament position that you are supposed to find a husband for fertile age women under your authority in reasonable time, and if you don’t, you are being neglectful and abusive.

          However, in reactionary America, her wandering off at any fertile or near fertile age is likely to result in shotgun marriage, not only without the consent of her father, but not necessarily with her consent either.

        • shaman says:

          extremely demanding, stressful work because (if I understand you correctly) if she succeeds in wandering off then any man to whom she presents herself is allowed to take possession of her.

          That the man who deflowers her would take possession of her is not a problem. The problem is exactly when the man who deflowers her does not take possession of her. The crime is not abduction of unbetrothed virgins, but letting them go. It is not “extremely demanding, stressful work” when the father wants to transfer ownership over her to someone else.

          Sure, ideally, the father should arrange the marriage before she is apt to wander off, should introduce her to her future husband. But failure to do so should naturally result in her being taken possession of by a man who can provide her with reproductive sex, and and that is a good thing. You’re still stuck in the “How do I prevent her from having sex” frame. That is not not the NRx frame. The NRx frame is making sure that the man who deflowers her, will own her, or if she has been a dirty slutty thot, then that she will cease being a dirty slutty thot by having someone finally take permanent possession of her. Cindy is apt to wander off and sexually misbehave from a young age, drastic coercion is needed to prevent that, and it is better to either marry her off, or allow her to be owned by Joey, which is not “extremely demanding, stressful work.”

          Is he permitted to retain physical control over her

          He is permitted to use drastic coercion to prevent her from sexually misbehaving, he is permitted to beat her with a stick, but it is wrongful and outright Satanic — as per e.g. Paul’s understanding of Satan — conduct to prevent a horny girl from getting some action for an unreasonably long time, thus he should marry her off, or let Joey take her. I’m really not sure why this is such a complex idea. It is the father’s role to transfer ownership, and he should want to transfer ownership, thus he should want to marry her off, or failing that, should be very glad someone wants to own her.

          Judges 19:1-4 may be relevant:

          1 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

          2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father’s house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

          3 And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father’s house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

          4 And his father in law, the damsel’s father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there.

          Do you understand? The fathers of sexually misbehaving women want — WANT — them to be owned by someone who can provide them with reproductive sex. Transfer of ownership is in the father’s interest. Joey should own Cindy, and Cindy’s father should rejoice in that. This situation is not “stressful” at all. Is is the absolute complete opposite of stressful.

          Trying to keep Cindy a virgin forever or for too long is doing Satan’s work. That is indeed “extremely demanding, stressful work,” which the father has no reason to do, and should be condemned by Church and society if he does so. After we restore marriage, fathers will gladly want to transfer ownership. They will often do so by arranging marriage, but often enough, there will be shotgun marriage, or marriage by abduction.

        • shaman says:

          Just so you understand how much Dad should be glad that Cindy, who — contrary to your assertions — is clearly not a virgin, has someone willing to own her, here is the rest of the description in Judges 19:

          5 And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel’s father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

          6 And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel’s father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry.

          7 And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

          8 And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart; and the damsel’s father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them.

          9 And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel’s father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.

          Thus, to re-state for the millionth time this position, also in line with what Jim wrote above: a daughter whose sexual misbehavior is not extreme will be owned by her father until her early twenties, at which point his ownership of her will officially, formally be nullified.

          But girls are often totally sexually uncontrollable, liable to crawl nine hundred miles over broken glass to get banged like drums by a long succession of demon lovers, thus it’s in the father’s interest to get Cindy married off to, taken permanent possession of by, Joey, with whom presumably she has already had sex in various positions several times, although dad is probably not aware of such an activity taking place.

          If Cindy were not interested in sex, if Cindy were as chaste as a (legit) nun, then Joey — who is not a feral nigger coon — would not be hitting on her right next to her father, and would not actually non-kidding rape her. It just never happens in real life as it happens in these Blue Pilled imaginary scenarios. Joey does not pose a risk to her virginity, and claiming that her virginity is endangered by Joey betrays a lack of understanding of male-female dynamics.

          Cindy evidently is very much interested in sex, has either already had sex a number of times with several men or will shortly get in on the action, and thus should be owned by someone who can provide her with reproductive sex. If she got herself deflowered only by Joey, then it should be Joey. And if she behaved like it’s spring break in Cancun, then it should be any man willing and able to own her – if Joey is interested, then all the better; her father should wholeheartedly rejoice.

          We are not discussing a daughter who does not misbehave, for if she did not misbehave, there would simply be nothing to discuss here: She would not be wandering off to hang out with sketchy people.

          We are discussing a daughter who is prone to sexual misbehavior, who is prone to wander off to hang out with sketchy people, and who therefore should be owned by someone who can provide her with reproductive sex; and if Joey is willing to keep her as his wife, then her father should welcome and invite Joey to his house for a great feast with various sorts of delicious foods, and make his heart merry, as Judges 19 depicts.

        • shaman says:

          Tl;dr:

          14-year-old Cindy’s Blue Pilled father failed to marry her off, so consequently she wanders off to hang out at places where she should not hang out. That she is flirting with Joey right in front of her father is the result of her being a huge slut, who has already fucked an impressive bunch of dudes, most likely Joey being the latest upgrade in her wild adventure of branch swinging from one alpha male’s dick to another’s.

          If still a virgin, her father should beat her up (and has no issue at all with Joey), and should promptly set her up with a groom selected by himself for a marriage arranged by himself. Lots of men — alpha and beta alike — would take a 14-year-old chick as a wife, especially if her boobs are nice, which they often are. But her abusive father wants to “protect” his little princess’ virginity for an unreasonably long time, which is why she is prone to wander off when he isn’t around, and will resist kicking and screaming being chained to a wall in the basement – she craves sex. Since her father needs to beat her with a stick every so often, why not get her married and be done with it already?

          This conversation now sounds repetitious, not because the matter is complicated, but exactly because it is simple, if only one is honestly willing to address the reactionary frame, rather than fantasizing instead about some alternative Blue Pill frames. Address the reactionary frame.

        • shaman says:

          An even shorter tl;dr:

          In Reactionary America, if you fail to promptly marry off your horny daughter in a relatively orderly fashion, she will be married anyway without your or even her consent. So, if you seek to avoid that, don’t fail to marry off your horny daughter soon after she shows signs of being horny. And since (unfortunately) fathers are often quite Blue Pilled and deluded about those signs, we’re gonna have many shotgun marriages and marriages by abduction, backing up husband against wife, and if need be, backing up husband against father, for it is husbands who should always be the ultimate alphas in the eyes of women.

        • Not Tom says:

          my impression now is that being the father of an unmarried adolescent daughter in Reactionary USA 2035 would be extremely demanding, stressful work

          Nobody said that parenting is easy. But as a father, which outcome would you prefer for your daughter: (a) marriage at a young age to the first guy she seduces – with or without her consent, or (b) a long string of one-night stands or serial LTRs from age 13 to 35, fading into cat-lady spinsterhood or maybe a passionless childless marriage to beta hubby?

          Those are your options for a girl who is prone to sexual misbehavior and immune to discipline. You make it sound like ordinary fathers would be horrified by option (a), but in fact most fathers are extremely happy about option (a) as long as the marriage is intra-tribal.

          The “none of the above” option only applies to daughters who either never sexually misbehave (rare) or respond positively to paternal discipline at the first signs of misbehavior, long before any LYHF scenarios can take shape.

  32. vxxc says:

    Srsly we already have Priests that rape kids.

    We don’t need more.

    We also have plenty of delusional psychotics, don’t need more.

    Even tards can figure that out.

    We also don’t need holiness spirals – again saturated market, the Left owns it.

    We don’t need the gay agenda state law #7: repeal all age of consent laws.
    Society can get pedophilia from the Left.
    Doesn’t need it from The Right.

    *now in my view that was never what Jim was saying, or I wouldn’t be here.
    In my humble practical view he’s saying that feral daughters and women are the Fathers and Families problem. The state should not be involved except to support Fathers. This was practice at least into 80s you know. Could quickly become practice again.

    • kawaii_kike says:

      AoC laws criminalize male sexuality and puts innocent men in prison. The state will support fathers and husbands, but the rights of the husband supersede that of the father. Women start craving cock at a young age, so either the father chains his 12 year old in the basement or she’ll sneak out and get fucked. The solution to this is to marry women off early.

      I think you’re a bit delusional, multiple people have explained the reactionary position and explained the purpose of lowering the AoC. The red pill can be hard to swallow. By calling shaman a pedo for informing you of the proper Nrx canon, you are essentially calling everyone else here a pedophile as well.

      Also, women in biblical times got married way before 18, and it was completely normal before progressives fucked society.

    • jim says:

      The concept of pedophilia is an anti concept – intended to make gay sexual attraction to prepubescent boys equivalent to the normal male attraction to fertile age females, constructed to normalize gay sex and gays recruiting small boys for sex change operations.

      Age of consent laws are a displacement activity – having made consent central, the results were so horrifying that we made ever escalating categories of people incapable of consent. The actual solution is to abolish consent as legally significant. If someone contracts to exchange a load of wheat for a load of iron, the state decides that there are no end of externalities that supposedly justify intervening in that contract, but obvious and terrible externalities to sexual decisions, sexual decisions often made while in the grip of irresistible irrational internal forces, are never deemed grounds for intervening in sexual decisions.

      Consent should not matter, and female consent particularly should not matter, because female consent is opaque, and most opaque to the woman herself. In the vast majority of cases where a woman was no kidding raped for real, she was not trying very hard to avoid being raped for real, and in the vast majority of cases where a woman is raped for real, she fails to complain about it. In the great majority of cases where a woman complains about real rape, it is because the would be rapist chickened out at the last minute, indicating not alpha, or was interrupted, indicating less alpha than whoever interrupted him.

    • Not Tom says:

      How is it possible that there have been literally dozens of posts and replies on this topic from Jim over the past month or two, including conversations that you yourself participated in, and you’ve apparently absorbed nothing at all from any of them?

      How can you read what Jim is saying, not obliquely but clearly spelled out in multiple posts and replies about pedophilia being an anti-concept and women becoming sexually active at very young ages and husbands’ rights taking precedence over fathers’ rights, and infer that “was never what Jim was saying”?

      How are you able to read his plain words over and over again and hallucinate a completely different position that is very nearly the exact opposite of the stated position?

      I try to avoid getting overly personal in these debates, but in this case I’m just blown away. Apparently you’re managing to do completely by accident what academy progressives train themselves for years to do on purpose. It’s like some freakish Chinese Room experiment.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        @Not Tom

        In the most important FBI entryist attempt – the Pee Pee Dossier – the FBI’s devotion to the bluepill caused them to fail to blackmail the RedPilled President Trump.

        • The Cominator says:

          The pee pee dossier was so bad everyone on the Chans was convinced briefly (based on some tweets) that a channer had sold the bullshit to Rick Wilson who finally managed to get buzzfeed to publish it. That anyone besides Rick Wilson (and ESPECIALLY deranged anti Trumper cuck republican) ever took seriously that Trump hired hookers to piss in the hotel bed Obama stayed in… we just couldn’t fathom it.

    • You’ve been memed into believing that “pedophile” is a sexual orientation, that there are a lot of adult men out there who want to exclusively bang prepubescent girls and try very hard to make it happen.

      Sometimes men fuck 8yo girls, for the same reason that cowboys with no women around fuck livestock and men in prison fuck other men. If your cowboys have wives, they’re not fucking their mares.

      If you stop men from wifing up girls shortly after said girls get absurdly horny (think about how badly you wanted to fuck when you were 14, and then realize a girl that age is -even hornier-) then by the time AoC hits, the girl is already unmarriageable, having gone through ten criminals and the family dog before a law-abiding man’s legally allowed to fuck her.

  33. pedofied says:

    @ shaman

    Typo, apologies, that should read:

    the NRx Pedo Pride Parade

    San Francisco, Sunday morning, June 28, 2019 at 10:30am

    Featuring an NRx pedo Youth Space!

    You don’t want to miss it!

    • 2019 is boring says:

      Featuring an NRx pedo Youth Space!

      The reason you write “an NRx” rather than “a NRx” is that, in your mind, it is pronounced as an acronym (En-Ar-Ex), instead of Neoreaction or Neoreactionary. This is a clue as to you being from outside our secret pedo-rapist club. Are you the guy who wrote the homosexual fan fiction about me, which I didn’t bother reading?

  34. pedofied says:

    @ shaman

    You don’t want to miss the Nrx Pedo Pride Parade, which will take place in San Francisco, on Sunday morning, June 28, 2019 at 10:30am.

    Be sure to arrive on time, and bring plenty of pedo spirit. The parade will kick off from the Embarcadero, then travel down Market Street before finishing up at the Civic Center.

    Nrx Pedo Pride will feature over 20 community-run spaces, including music stages, community events, a pedo garden and a pedo Youth space

    A picture says a thousand prides.

    Share your best moment of pedo pride on Instagram and go into the running to win a $500 misterb&b travel to Thailand voucher!

  35. Friendly Fred says:

    Suppose Dad and 14 year old virgin Cindy are walking home from Key Food with groceries, and 16-year old Billy Joe, leaning against the wall of the JUUL/bong store next to Jimmy Bob, says, “Hey, cutie, can I get to know you?”

    Now, of course Cindy and Billy Joe don’t go to the same school, because this is Reactionary USA 2035 and girls go to girls-only schools and only through their 15th year. But Cindy has seen Billy Joe lounging there before and knows that he’s a neighborhood kid. She smiles over at him and says, “You wish!”

    Jimmy Bob calls over, “I got some for you better than what he has, doll-face!”

    Cindy calls back — over her shoulder now — “Keep dreaming, loser!”

    Okay, so I agree that Dad shouldn’t let Cindy out of the house unaccompanied by either him or her huge older brother again until she’s married. And let’s assume that he’s going to marry her off very quickly.

    But should Dad just ignore Billy Joe and Jimmy Bob? Even though they’re blatantly disrespecting his not-yet-transferred ownership of Cindy?

    If he doesn’t let her out of the house at all until she’s married, in order to avoid this kind of humiliating situation, isn’t he letting Billy Joe and Jimmy Bob dictate what he allows or doesn’t allow his own daughter to do?

    • The Cominator says:

      Why would the average woman go to school at all beyond basic literacy and arithmetic?

      • Dave says:

        Cooking, sewing, and at least one musical instrument, so she can demonstrate to potential husbands that she’s not clumsy, lazy, or stupid.

        • The Cominator says:

          The state should not be involved with such.

          • vxxc says:

            There should be a complete separation of Church and State.
            No state involved at all.

            Can already be done under Establishment clause of the 1st.
            Its always been religion.
            Can be bludgeoned in with all the abuse.
            Can be incentivized by the end of property taxes- all politics is local.
            Christie was NJ governor on property (school) taxes.
            Can raise the youth with debt wipeout- legal default / bankruptcy.
            Can then raze the schools – burn their tormentors.
            Burn the schools. They have defiled our churches/ we burn theirs.
            Nothing says new power rises like the local seat of power in flames.

            *as for education that can be private, and the Internet makes it possible for all to be home schooled for a decade.
            Mass education 19th century solution. Its 2019.
            Its 2019. Burn Baby Burn.

            • The Cominator says:

              Reaction 101 there is always a state religion.

            • jim says:

              > There should be a complete separation of Church and State.
              > No state involved at all.

              Nuts.

              There never has been separation of Church and State, and there never will be separation of Church and State. It is always a lie to cover the Church takeover of State.

              Separation has always failed, and will always fail. Easier to abolish the state, than to separate Church from State. The Godar did a good job of nearly abolishing the state, in favor of the Temple, but no one has ever abolished the state religion, and no one ever will.

  36. Vxxc says:

    The woman question is descending into too much depth.
    One wonders if the intent is traps for our host or others…

    Is she blood or marriage?

    NO. = not your problem
    YES= your problem. We see nothing.
    No one talks to the authorities.

    NJ state motto applies; nobody saw nothing.

    • shaman says:

      You’re not going to tell us which issues to discuss and which not.

      When you say:

      The woman question is descending into too much depth.

      What you really mean is: “I am constantly out of my depth. I have nothing relevant to say about this issue, being the childless old white knight loser that I am. So guys, why don’t you stop talking about the WP, swallow my blue pilled ideology already, and start talking instead about such wise and profound ideas as ORGANIZE! ATTACK! ACTION! ATTACK! GO! ORGANIZE! ATTACK! DO SOMETHING! AHHHHHH!”

      You’ve spammed your irrelevant walls of text all over Nick Land’s blog. You were tolerated to do so here, but now you apparently decided to reveal your true colors: An ideological enemy who is neither intelligent enough to be here, nor red-pilled enough to support us from the outside. Literally, 100% useless.

      You fucked up.

      Reminder that you think that this kind of thinking represents a sound, healthy worldview:

      Horrible, horrible child abuse. I’m personally going to beat the shit out of all the Jewish pedophiles who dare to lay their filthy hands on my innocent, blameless princess.

      This is actually the option that you chose, blue-piller. Then you said:

      I should mention I’m traditional.
      Also no children.
      Also my hypothetical son may be celibate on wedding night…

      Finally TFR can be solved via war old school.
      We can certainly kill faster than they breed.

      This is not the first time you spread the blue-pill here. Previously, I let it go. Not this time, celibate cuck. You are a childless white knight who wants to beat Jim (a father and grandfather) up because your hypothetical daughter is going misbehave, as you said very explicitly by choosing option 1 (C).

      Do you think that your childlessness and celibacy are related to your blue-pilled views, perhaps? Yeah, no need to guess too long: You are a childless incel, and while normally that would not be grounds for abuse, you will indeed receive abuse because you are a blue-pilled white knight faggot entryist. Newsflash: All women everywhere are deeply repulsed by men like you, and in your guts you know damn well that you don’t deserve the love of women, hence indeed you won’t receive it.

      You’ll die childless and celibate, as all white knights deserve. Now take your effluvia elsewhere, Tard-Con, or things will escalate – BEAUTIFULLY.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        The idea of a holiness spiral is to get money, status, and power by angling for the strictest possible interpretation of a socially *dominant* ideology. Holiness-spiraling behaviour within a socially proscribed ideology not only doesn’t work, but accomplishes the opposite. You might call it a “degradation spiral”. Example: “Everybody is blue pilled except for me”. What’s the definition of red pill? “The red pill means talking about underage girls as much possible”. And so the logic of the degradation spiral, instead of leading to the heights of status, leads instead to the subterranean depths of revocation of civil status and imprisonment, but for good measure total loss of status in the social world of status-less people behind bars as well once they check your paperwork and find out what you’re there for.

        • shaman says:

          Your ideology has been rejected, so now it’s back to Sophist Analogies.

          No, it is not a “holiness spiral” to clarify what Neoreaction is, and what it is not. I don’t give a damn what anonymous people on the internet think of me, otherwise I wouldn’t change a handle every few months or so; this is a purely ideological battle here, in which there is a right side (NRx) and a wrong side (various entryist ideologies), and I want to make sure that the good guys win. From time to time, that requires me, and some others here, to bullycide the bad guys. It has to happen, or the blog will descend to 100% entryism 100% of the time.

          As for:

          “Everybody is blue pilled except for me”.

          I never said or implied that. There are plenty of absolutely red-pilled commenters here. Indeed, most of the good ones are. In fact, Jim is probably more red-pilled than me: His positions often enough go further than mine. So if this is your “take down,” nope, not applicable. Try something else.

          “The red pill means talking about underage girls as much possible”.

          Jim can talk about whatever the heck he wants on his blog. You’re not going to tell Jim what to talk about on his own blog. No, he will tell you what comments are allowed, and what comments are not allowed, and “muh poor innocent chaste angelic girls” is… Yeah, you get it: It doesn’t belong here.

          The realization that you are Blue Pilled hits hard, but understand this: Nobody cares about your emotions. In a few months, after the inevitable happens, people are going to marvel at the high (and ever rising) quality of the discussions here, marvel at this community’s ability to attract ever more intelligent and based people, and marvel at the clarity which the NRx worldview is going to achieve; the current whining of blue-pillers will surely be a thing of the past.

          leads instead to the subterranean depths of revocation of civil status and imprisonment, but for good measure total loss of status in the social world of status-less people behind bars as well once they check your paperwork and find out what you’re there for.

          Yeah yeah, I’ll “lose status” be “behind bars.” In reality, you have no idea how highly regarded my reputation is among my peers and how successful my dissemination of NRx views has been, though I have no intention of disclosing anything about it right now (maybe later) – some things really do speak for themselves, and ’nuff said.

          You basically just called me a criminal child molester who belongs in prison simply for speaking views that are the consensus in NRx, just as your predecessors called Jim that precisely for that reason precisely. Yet, Jim is here and has been for years, and I am here and have been for years, and if you continue calling people criminal child molesters, you won’t be here.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            >So if this is your “take down,” nope, not applicable. Try something else.

            Okay then- your recent spazzpoasts confirm what I though pretty much the second I read you for the time: You are a typical Puritan, but not the successful kind:

            -appoints himself supreme arbiter of a doctrine, w/no mandate from any hierarchy anybody can discern.

            -thinks the correct interpretation of doctrine is grotesque hyper-extension of precept with autistic indifference to social consequences.

            -thinks said interpretation over-rules human nature.

            -seems to know exactly what the Sovereign must do, presumes to dictate exacting minutiae of law and policy to his Prince.

            -thinks he’s arrived at some specific rule or set of rules applicable in all times and places, regardless of local customs, needs or other particularities.

            -thinks he’s a priest, but doesn’t understand difference between priest and intellectual.

            -no respect for anything or anybody, total lack of class (insulting a combat veteran)

            -hopes to turn juniors against seniors, subvert the rights of the head of family.

            -dreams of restoring Biblical law and society outside of Biblical times, and thus agrees that the people have to right to live Kinglessly if they feel like it, and vote in democratic elections. (Deuteronomy 17: 14-20

            • alf says:

              There is very little, if any difference at all between priests and intellectuals.

              • shaman says:

                The interesting thing about Sir Tard-Cuck is that, in very plain language, he has already distanced and disassociated himself from NRx here. Thus, he is a Tard-Cuck entryist into NRx according to his own blog, yet he keeps desperately trying to peddle the Blue Pill here, and to disingenuously pretend that everyone agrees with the Blue Pill.

                He had some nasty things to say about Jim and NRx at that link.

                • alf says:

                  What blog and what link and how do you know all this stuff

                • shaman says:

                  The link is in the word “here” in my comment, which should appear in blue. Here’s an archived version, in case he wants to delete the evidence:

                  http://archive.fo/BZaB7

                  You have commented on his blog yourself, actually, and argued with him about his Blue Pilled position. Doug has been insulting Jim and NRx for some time, yet he accuses me of disrespect, lol.

                  Truth is, I respect those who deserve it. Tard-Cucks don’t deserve it.

                • shaman says:

                  The link is in the word “here” in my comment, which should appear in blue.

                  You have commented on his blog yourself, actually, and argued with him about his Blue Pilled position. Doug has been insulting Jim and NRx for some time, yet he accuses me of disrespect. *face-palm*

                  Truth is, I respect those who deserve it. The Blue Pilled don’t deserve it.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Very interesting; I notice that even on his own blog he’s fond of the Appeal to [Legal] Consequences argument. “Maybe all of these things are true, but they aren’t popular and saying them to the wrong people could get you locked up, so stop saying them!”

                  I’m not sure if it’s deliberate sophistry, or an actual inability to firewall the snowballing progressive legalism from anthropology and morality. Dissidents of all stripes need to maintain a kind of cognitive barrier between the actual truth and the official truth, and his seems… leaky.

                  Anyway, Muslims and many Indians morally approve of young brides and arranged marriages, yet you don’t see them being locked up. At least in the USA, it is not illegal to simply advocate for laws or revocation of laws. We are law-abiding; we don’t pass around sinister pixels or abduct 12-year-old girls to marry, we merely assert, with evidence, that those laws are unjust and inhumane.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                As I see it, the diff is that:

                -priest has care over the community at large (performs rituals, administers sacraments, settles disputes, sundry other tasks according to the religion in question). Intellectual has care only over his students if he teaches, or nobody except his family.

                -Priest is appointed by a superior, intellectual need not be.

                -Priest generally not in the business of interpreting doctrine, intellectual always is no matter how tight the restraints on his interpretive fiat (even if he’s a propagandist working from a script he’ll still present it as original work).

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  @alf

                • alf says:

                  Then, what was Martin Luther?

                  Seems to me ‘intellectual’ is just the 20th century version of what used to be called a ‘priest’, just as ‘ideology’ has replaced ‘religion’. Same thing, different branding.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  But ideology in the modern sense entirely centred around the State, in traditional religion the political is either a matter of detail, or indifference.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  In traditional religion, and the traditional state, the King rules under God, the Holy Roman Emperor appoints the Pope, and the King appoints the Archbishop. Missionaries are an instrument of state influence, and armies are an instrument of missionary influence.

                • jim says:

                  > priest has care over the community at large (performs rituals, administers sacraments, settles disputes, sundry other tasks according to the religion in question). Intellectual has care only over his students if he teaches, or nobody except his family.

                  This surely describes professors, Judges, and mainstream media personalities better than it discribes priests of the Catholic Church, making professors far more priests than some guy with a backwards collar.

                  > Priest is appointed by a superior, intellectual need not be.

                  Again, professors, judges, and members of the mainstream media always appointed by their superiors.

                  > Priest generally not in the business of interpreting doctrine, intellectual always is no matter how tight the restraints on his interpretive fiat (even if he’s a propagandist working from a script he’ll still present it as original work)

                  The central shtick of a priesthood is that you hear the same story from multiple seemingly independent sources, though really you are only hearing it from one source.

                  When a propagandist is working from a script and presents it as his own original and independent work, he is just escalating what priests do by lying about what he is doing. He is priesting, not intellectualizing, and he is lying about it.

                  A priesthood composed of good people doing good work will tell the truth about what they are doing. The rightful priesthood will tell the truth about what they are doing and how they are organized

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Yes, but I mean that in traditional religion Church jurisidiction is over the soul; King or other political authority is jurisdiction over worldly goods. Church technically isn’t supposed to directly meddle in politics (although it sometimes does so anyways), but formally insists only that the Sovereign power not exceed the bounds of Divine and natural law. Contrast w/Cathedral which doesn’t do anything else than prescribe the exact formal specifications to which State organization must conform (“constitutional government”) and dictate every detail of the State’s actions in every matter from top to bottom.

            • shaman says:

              You are now lying through your teeth, having been debunked completely.

              You are a typical Puritan

              Nuts.

              appoints himself supreme arbiter of a doctrine, w/no mandate from any hierarchy anybody can discern.

              I never appointed anyone to anything. I present my views, and the views that NRx in general holds. Jim has made his position amply clear, and everyone else made their position amply clear. Provide an instance of me appointing anyone to anything, or shut up.

              thinks the correct interpretation of doctrine is grotesque hyper-extension of precept with autistic indifference to social consequences.

              The position of everyone here who is not a Tard-Cuck or other kind of entryist has been made abundantly clear to you, repeatedly, and vehemently. It is not a fringe position here. It is the consensus, as affirmed by Jim and by everyone else who is not some kind of entryist. Read Reaction 101 on Women, and explain in what way I deviate from it. In fact, my position is somewhat milder, but not a whole lot milder, than some things that Jim says.

              thinks said interpretation over-rules human nature.

              Typical projection. The Tard-Cuck Blue Piller position that women are always chaste, men always sinful, is not in line human nature. The Blue Pilled lie that women can be easily controlled is absolutely in contradiction of human nature. Thus you are lying about NRx, accusing it of your own flaw. Our position, that women are prone to sexual misbehavior from an early age, is an accurate assessment of human nature; and our position that girls past a certain age cannot be effectively, practically owned by their fathers, is likewise an acurate reflection of human nature.

              seems to know exactly what the Sovereign must do, presumes to dictate exacting minutiae of law and policy to his Prince.

              No idea what you’re on about. Express yourself in a non-sophist way, so people can understand better what lies you’re trying to spin and what projection you’re trying to pull off.

              thinks he’s arrived at some specific rule or set of rules applicable in all times and places, regardless of local customs, needs or other particularities.

              AWALT.

              thinks he’s a priest, but doesn’t understand difference between priest and intellectual.

              We seek to be the priesthood come the restoration, and that requires a whole lot of intellectual heavy lifting. That’s what we are doing here.

              no respect for anything or anybody, total lack of class (insulting a combat veteran)

              Insulting idiotic people back is definitely allowed, and creative insults that have substance are always allowed. Hey, everyone disagrees with you: So do you keep class by going on and on and on about the innate chastity of women?

              hopes to turn juniors against seniors, subvert the rights of the head of family.

              Normally, when husband and father clash over daughter, husband is backed up. This is the Reactionary position, which Jim has explained repetitiously, and others (including myself) have also explained repetitiously. Your obstinacy is not a good trait.

              dreams of restoring Biblical law and society outside of Biblical times

              Proving, once again, that you are ignorant of NRx on a fundamental level.

              You’ve been thoroughly PWNED, ideologically speaking. Pack it up, and accept that you lost. By keeping up the Blue Bill spamfests, you make yourself less and less wanted here. Take note.

              • Nikolai says:

                The points Doug dissents from Jim on are bastardicide and marriage by abduction.

                “I present my views, and the views that NRx in general holds.”

                Surely NRx is more than just Jim’s blog. If ‘NRx’ refers to the loosely organized network of blogs and publications that call themselves reactionary and link to one another, I don’t think you’re accurately presenting the consensus of NRx.

                I’m fairly certain that if you were to ask the opinion of reactionary blogs and their commenters (Ryan Landry, Mark Citadel, Free Northener, Yuray, Nick Land, Nick B Steves, Bonald, PT Carlo, Perilloux, Zero HP Lovecraft, Spandrell etc. etc.) they’d overwhelmingly side with Doug on those points of contention.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Wrong, I DISSENT from him on bastardcide and I was by far the most energetic and fanatical dissenter on that issue. I said it was monstrous AND unnecessary and argued a lot on this point.

                  I also mostly dissent on marriage by abduction. Saying that some details need to be worked out…

                  But I did not bring bluepill bullshit into my dissents. In fact one of my objections to marriage by abduction was that in many ways it would be female choice by other means rather then pro eugenics and pro social.

                  Doug has been bringing in tradcuck memes that is the problem not his dissents.

                • jim says:

                  > In fact one of my objections to marriage by abduction was that in many ways it would be female choice by other means.

                  Yes, indeed it would. We need to allow females to choose an owner who will provide them with reproductive sex, if a suitable owner does not get organized for them in a more orderly and prosocial manner. What we need to prevent is females choosing to endlessly cruise for higher grade semen than the semen they are currently getting.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m fairly certain that if you were to ask the opinion of reactionary blogs and their commenters (Ryan Landry, Mark Citadel, Free Northener, Yuray, Nick Land, Nick B Steves, Bonald, PT Carlo, Perilloux, Zero HP Lovecraft, Spandrell etc. etc.) they’d overwhelmingly side with Doug on those points of contention.

                  Argument by fake consensus.

                  The only guy I see there likely to disagree is Nick B Steves of Socialist Matter, who seems to have left the movement and gone silent partly over sex, but mostly over Capitalism, Trump, Human Biological Diversity, Monarchism, Family, putting gays back in the closet, and all that. He decided that everyone else was far too egregiously extreme about just about everything. The Socialist Matter website, like so many websites and software projects that allow Social Justice Warriors in, broke and never got fixed. Social Justice Warriors like to get control of technology, but they cannot modify it, maintain it, or fix it when it breaks. Social Justice Warriors breaking other people’s technology is analogous to socialists running out of other people’s money. As breadlines are to socialism, bitrot is to Social Justice. Not that that is necessarily how the Socialist Matter Website broke, I am just guessing, but that is the pattern.

                  Nick B Steves is not talking to reactionaries any more. Some of the others, notably Spandrell, still are talking. Ask Spandrell about Jim’s views on women (As expressed by me in one of my many posts on the topic, not your version of them.) Ask him what he thinks of one of my more egregious posts.

                • alf says:

                  I used to get some hestia traffic, now I get no traffic from them, from which I gather the whole Social Matter as ‘official NRx’ is officially dead. We should learn from their mistakes, not repeat them.

                • jim says:

                  Socialist Matter died because they let entryists in. I don’t think the entryists deliberately killed it. They wanted to converge reaction, and killing Socialist Matter was contrary to that goal, but they were neither highly motivated to keep it alive, nor competent to keep it alive.

                  The women question is a good acid test for entryism. Entryists cannot even acknowledge that the red pill says what it says. Not only can they not commit thoughtcrime, they cannot even acknowledge that you are committing thoughtcrime.

                • The Cominator says:

                  they cannot even acknowledge that you are committing thoughtcrime.

                  You are a great simplifier of leftist though.

                  They cannot even acknowledge that the WRP is possible for anyone to concieve of… For the religion of progressive equality it is like some evil fantasy God whos name cannot be spoken.

                • shaman says:

                  By the way Cominator, Jim has already stated regarding the monopolization of pussy by Jeremy Meeks:

                  Harem formation, whether the result of female control of sex, or a few powerful men controlling sex, has a detrimental effect on the rapidly diminishing number of men in the society. Without access to pussy, they are disinclined to work or fight in defense of order, peace, and their society. Instead they hang out in mom’s basement.

                  Monogamy and chastity can be understood as socialism in pussy, the seizure of the means of reproduction by beta males.

                  The King is worried that men do not seem keen on working, paying taxes, or soldiering. So he price controls pussy down to something ordinary men can pay. Bride price shall be low or zero, women shall obey their husbands, not their fathers or their own whims. Price control causes a shortage, as always, so the King and the high priest introduce rationing. Only one pussy per customer.

                  As long as the sex ratio is 1:1, that is exactly the right prescription: the Virginariat seizing the means of reproduction from the Chadeoisie and redistributing them more or less equally to create a Heaven on Earth of Pussocialism.

                • Dave says:

                  “The King is worried that men do not seem keen on working, paying taxes, or soldiering.”

                  Not a problem as long as food can be harvested with combines, money can be printed to buy goods made in China, and wars can be fought by black female drone pilots in Des Moines dropping bombs on tribesmen in Afghanistan.

                • jim says:

                  Socialism always runs out of other people’s money. If you are very lucky it then collapses, but what usually happens is that it starts murdering millions. And then conscripts the survivors and hurls them in human wave attacks against the machine gun emplacements of governments who have allowed their taxpayers to retain some property that the socialists want, having destroyed all the property within their power.

                  US technological superiority is collapsing as a result of social justice warrior induced bitrot. There are no black female drone pilots, because they crash their drones. The US navy is increasingly unable to sail out of port without running into things because of captainesses.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m pretty sure Dave was joking. Pretty sure. It’s hard to tell these days.

                  Regarding this:

                  I’m fairly certain that if you were to ask the opinion of reactionary blogs and their commenters (Ryan Landry, Mark Citadel, Free Northener, Yuray, Nick Land, Nick B Steves, Bonald, PT Carlo, Perilloux, Zero HP Lovecraft, Spandrell etc. etc.) they’d overwhelmingly side with Doug on those points of contention.

                  I don’t follow all of those guys, but am amused by the suggestion that Mark Yuray, Spandrell, or Zero HP Lovecraft would dispense blue pills. Some of them do tend to talk less about the WRP in particular, preferring to opine on matters of government, economics, male sociology or just random cryptic memes, but instead of telling us that you’re “fairly certain” they disagree with Jim, how about actually finding a single instance of that happening?

                  You’ve also conspicuously omitted Aidan MacLear, Alf, and anyone else who demonstrably agrees with Jim on most of these issues. I wonder why that is.

                  NRx is clearly not a perfectly homogeneous community (yet), but where there is disagreement, it tends to be regarding priorities, specific policy prescriptions, and occasionally strategy; bikeshed issues, not dramatic rifts over the core tenets, of which WRP is one.

                • pdimov says:

                  >I used to get some hestia traffic, now I get no traffic from them, from which I gather the whole Social Matter as ‘official NRx’ is officially dead.

                  It’s dead.

                  https://theamericansun.com/2019/06/21/things-disappear-five-friday-reads-6-21-19/

                • Nikolai says:

                  “I gather the whole Social Matter as ‘official NRx’ is officially dead”

                  It is my understanding that the guys at Hestia decided to focus more on irl stuff and less on writing essays and making podcasts. Much like how since Moldbug stopped writing at UR he managed to get Peter Thiel on our side. Or maybe that’s just a massive cope for them not being able to keep their website running.

                  On Nick B Steves, I really don’t see any of the things you complain about Jim. He was one of the first writers I was following when I initially got into NRx. I’ve listened to countless podcasts of his, read many of his articles and regularly browsed his twitter. Out of all the Catholic reactionaries I read, he was the most influential in my conversion. Never saw anything blue pilled.

                  A guy who appears regularly on TRS podcasts isn’t blue pilled on race, a Catholic patriarch who homeschools 8 kids isn’t blue pilled on women or family and I’ve never seen him say anything bad about Trump. Do you have any examples of him saying anything blue pilled?

                  “but instead of telling us that you’re “fairly certain” they disagree with Jim, how about actually finding a single instance of that happening?”

                  Sure, here’s a short thread of Mark Yuray disagreeing with Jim on whether or not white girls are attracted to muslims.
                  https://blog.jim.com/culture/hitting-your-woman-with-a-stick/#comment-1408695

                  If they disagree on this, I can imagine them disagreeing on marriage by abduction. Not that they disagree on women in general of course. As for the rest, most of the bloggers I named are devout Christians who I don’t think would support the tacit acceptance of inconvenient children ‘mysteriously disappearing’.

                • jim says:

                  > It is my understanding that the guys at Hestia decided to focus more on irl stuff and less on writing essays and making podcasts.

                  This fails to explain the fact that the Socialist Matter website broke and stayed broken.

                  We know what Moldbug is doing now. If the Hestia guys are focusing on irl matters, what are they doing?

                  Looks to me that anyone who has trouble swallowing the red pill, has trouble swallowing reaction. If you don’t want to change the fact that the superior races are failing to reproduce and will disappear, if you don’t want to change the fact that marriage and family is broken, what changes do you have in mind?

                  If you are only planning “realistic” changes to marriage and the family, you only planning “realistic” political change. And “realistic” conservatism got us on flight 93 heading straight to the ground.

                  > Sure, here’s a short thread of Mark Yuray disagreeing with Jim

                  And what is Mark Yuray doing now? What did he ever do?

                  In order to have families and children, men and woman have to cooperated. In a game of prisoner’s dilemma with few iterations, the outcome is defect/defect. And your people and your civilization vanish.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  There are a lot of shills in the reactionary movement, working from scripts under the supervision of our enemies and in the pay of our enemies.

                  Looks mighty like you are one of them. If you want your comments to appear, take the test I asked you to take, answer some of the questions I asked.

                  The catechism is not going to weed out all enemy infiltrators, but it is a good start. Can you accurately state and respond to our beliefs, even if only enough to say you don’t share them and explain why you disagree?

                  So far, all enemy infiltrators act as if saying the catechism, even if only to explain their disagreement with it, will have an effect similar to holy water on a vampire. You will burst into flame and turn into dust.

                  It is like Angela Dorothea Merkel shrinking fearfully away from the German flag, like a vampire fearing sunlight, as though the flag was emitting a powerful radiation to destroy German evildoers.

                • pdimov says:

                  >We know what Moldbug is doing now.

                  Moldbug left Tlon. I hope he starts writing again.

                • Dave says:

                  Or doing a shimmy dance every time the national anthem is played. How is it possible for a person with such nerves to remain standing?

                • Nikolai says:

                  “If you don’t want to change the fact that the superior races are failing to reproduce and will disappear, if you don’t want to change the fact that marriage and family is broken, what changes do you have in mind?”

                  I’m absolutely certain that the people at Hestia want to change those facts. Nick B Steves in particular is changing those facts by having 8 white children and iirc Landry said he had 3+. Patriarchs with large families are obviously committed to restoring marriage and family.

                  “And what is Mark Yuray doing now?”

                  Don’t know. Perhaps writing under a different pseudonym, perhaps working on irl stuff, perhaps sitting at home drinking beer and watching anime.

                  “What did he ever do?”

                  He wrote excellent reactionary essays, same as you.

                  “In order to have families and children, men and woman have to cooperated. In a game of prisoner’s dilemma with few iterations, the outcome is defect/defect. And your people and your civilization vanish.”

                  Completely agree. I just think said cooperation can be accomplished without kidnapping.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m absolutely certain that the people at Hestia want to change those facts

                  There are no people at Hestia any more. It died under the control of entryists. And if they wanted to change those facts, would have stated the red pill facts and asserted the moral truths implied by those facts.

                  > Nick B Steves in particular is changing those facts by having 8 white children

                  Nick B Steves uses the word “pedophilia” unironically, which implies he will permit those white children to be seated on the laps of drag queens at Drag Queen Story our. He is unlikely to have white grandchildren.

                  > > “What did Mark Yuray ever do?”

                  > He wrote excellent reactionary essays, same as you.

                  Did he. As I recall it, he always dodged anything disturbing or dangerous, same as Slate Star Codex and Jordan Peterson. Link me to one of his “excellent essays”

                • jim says:

                  > > “In order to have families and children, men and woman have to cooperate. In a game of prisoner’s dilemma with few iterations, the outcome is defect/defect. And your people and your civilization vanish.”

                  > Completely agree. I just think said cooperation can be accomplished without kidnapping.

                  Can it now? Maybe. Perhaps. Explain how you are going to accomplish it.

                  You are like the man who says he does not want killing fields and slave labor camps and does not want to murder everyone with glasses, but he does want free medical care for all.

                  And then he gets British National health, which does not have killing fields and slave labor camps, but there is something horribly wrong with the free medical care for all. If you have a toothache and want it fixed without waiting in agony for the tooth to fall out, you had better fly out to some place that does not have free dentistry, and if you are an old man with a chest infection that is giving you some difficulty breathing, you are likely to find that your local hospital is behind on its quota for murdering old people, and instead of getting the seven day course of antibiotics that would have cured your chest infection, you get massive doses of tranquilizers, a bed, and no food and no water.

                  So he then says “Oops. That is not quite what I wanted. But all we need to do to fix this is to punish dentists more severely for wrecking the plan, and no I am not walking the path that leads to murdering everyone with glasses, and the old folk were costing too much anyway.”

                  So tell us, how is your society going to handle a fertile age woman who finds that no man who meets her lengthy list of requirements and passes her shit tests gives her more than a two am booty call followed by being kicked out of bed first thing in the morning, and who when she does encounter a man meets her lengthy list of requirements, and does not kick her out before he brews his morning coffee, promptly gives him a shit test that he is bound to fail?

                  What is your end plan to fixing that problem?

                  We are punishing and compelling men in an ever more draconian fashion, and it is failing, and every day fails worse. Any solution is going to involve some punishment and compulsion of women.

                  So, you are totally in favor of fixing the problem provided women always get off scott free and never suffer any adverse consequences for foolish and wicked condcuct?

                  So, under your plan, when do we compel women, and who compels them?

                • shaman says:

                  I just think said cooperation can be accomplished without kidnapping.

                  Drastic coercive measures are required to stop girls from crawling nine hundred miles over broken glass to get banked like drums by alpha male Chads. A father who fails to take such drastic measures, and fails to marry off his daughter in time, should absolutely expect her to get married by abduction. A Blue Pilled father who seeks to (and believes that he can) keep his daughter a virgin forever or for an unreasonably long time is an abusive and Satanic father, at war with human nature and female nature.

                  Due to the disturbing prevalence of Blue Pilled thinking in society, of fathers considering their “little princess” to be innately chaste and angelic, the inevitable result is that MBA will be a commonplace and unexceptional phenomenon; fathers will be made to understand that it’s in their interest that their horny daughters be under the ownership and authority of men who can provide them with reproductive sex, and Blue Pillers will be severely beaten in public and have their lying tongues cut off, and will be rendered extremely low status.

                  MBA, like shotgun marriage, is without the father’s consent and quite likely without the girl’s consent. As always, the best way to avoid MBA and shotgun marriage is to arrange marriage in advance; and it’s feasible enough to look for signs of sexual misbehavior in one’s daughter and to immediately respond to such signs by introducing her to her future husband, i.e. betrothal.

                • shaman says:

                  Pdimov:

                  Moldbug left Tlon. I hope he starts writing again.

                  Agreed; I want Moldbug, Land, Boetel, and Dampier to fully reemerge.

                  Nikolai:

                  He wrote excellent reactionary essays, same as you.

                  Nope. His writings were entertaining, but he didn’t do any heavy intellectual lifting.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >the inevitable result is that MBA will be a commonplace and unexceptional phenomenon; fathers will be made to understand that it’s in their interest that their horny daughters be under the ownership and authority of men who can provide them with reproductive sex, and Blue Pillers will be severely beaten in public and have their lying tongues cut off, and will be rendered extremely low status.

                  You sure seem to know exactly what the new regime will do. Are you going to be the Sovereign?

                • shaman says:

                  You sure seem to know exactly what the new regime will do. Are you going to be the Sovereign?

                  I understand that it hurts that the last 10,000 years confirm our account of marriage, not yours. You’ll get over it, though. In the meanwhile, you really shouldn’t try to stir disruption here; we’re trying to coordinate our memeplex (as a priesthood ought to do), and your attempts to subjugate our memetic sovereignty to Trad-Conism are a bit annoying.

                  You came here to concern troll. That failed – now move on. Perhaps you can resurrect Hestia Society and be their leader? I’m sure they’ll agree that reactionary ideas are totally impractical, unless those ideas involve liquidating the bourgeoisie.

                • alf says:

                  You sure seem to know exactly what the new regime will do. Are you going to be the Sovereign?

                  This is such an entryist giveaway. Concern troll, exactly.

                • pdimov says:

                  >As I recall it, he always dodged anything disturbing or dangerous

                  Wasn’t this the whole point of Social Matter? To carefully spread reactionary memes without triggering an immune response. Essays you could share on Facebook under your real name.

                • jim says:

                  Unfortunately, this in practice amounted to not spreading reactionary memes, particularly towards the end, recapitulating the failure of conservatism, ending in assimilation to progressivism.

                  The “careful spreading” tactic is the tactic of entryism, and it works, but you have to keep iron discipline, exercised by fanatical burning true believers, over your entryists, or else they assimilate to the group targeted for entry, and you get reverse entryism, which is what happened to Social Matter. Instead of successfully practicing entryism, which is perfectly sound and highly effective strategy, they were entered.

                  It is hard to enforce iron discipline unless you are funded, and your entryists well rewarded, thus entryism is a tactic more likely to be effective for our enemies than for us.

                  It was not a stupid idea, but hard to pull off without strict discipline and a strong cadre burning with the faith.

                  If Socialist Matter was practicing entryism, they should have been talking to the enemy, saying “Hail fellow progressive”, and giving them reactionary ideas, disguised as progressive ideas. Unfortunately, Socialist Matter were talking to us, saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, and giving us progressive ideas, disguised as reactionary ideas. Entryism resulted in reverse entryism. It is a well known risk and failure mode of entryism, and the only solution is true believers with strong authority and tight supervision over the entryists. You really have to pay them, and pay them well.

                  In the beginning, Social Matter was genuinely attempting to pursue an entryist strategy against the left. In the end, not.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Nick B Steves uses the word “pedophilia” unironically, which implies he will permit those white children to be seated on the laps of drag queens at Drag Queen Story our. He is unlikely to have white grandchildren.”

                  Absolutely nuts. Nick B Steves homeschools all his kids. He doesn’t even let them in a public school and you think he’d let them attend drag queen story hour? He’ll likely have more white grandchildren than this entire comment section combined.

                  “As I recall it, he always dodged anything disturbing or dangerous, same as Slate Star Codex and Jordan Peterson. Link me to one of his “excellent essays””

                  Social Matter is down, so all his best work is lost to the ether. In particular he wrote some great stuff on right wing activism vs passivism, on ethno-nationalism’s leftist tendencies, on geo-politics and American-Russian relations and even a couple good articles on women. I distinctly recall in one article Yuray wrote about women and prostitution there was a bluepiller in the comments and Yuray completely bullycided him. He went as far as saying that, come the restoration, he’d have women’s schools bombed to rubble. Would Jordan Peterson say anything like that?

                  “So tell us, how is your society going to handle a fertile age woman who finds that no man who meets her lengthy list of requirements and passes her shit tests gives her more than a two am booty call followed by being kicked out of bed first thing in the morning, and who when she does encounter a man meets her lengthy list of requirements, and does not kick her out before he brews his morning coffee, promptly gives him a shit test that he is bound to fail?”

                  First do everything possible to prevent a woman from getting herself in that situation. Restore Patriarchal property rights, make women are property of their fathers in much the same way that children are property of their parents. Keep them under control as much as you can, marry them off around 15 or 16 (yes yes shaman, if she starts younger than marry her off at that age). Forbid unaccompanied women from going to places where seduction is likely to occur (bars, hotels, beach parties etc). If she fornicates with some guy, father should be strongly encouraged, but not required, to shotgun marry the two, as Exodus prescribes.

                  If all that fails and she ends up in the situation you describe, her dad should put her in a home for wayward girls to instill some discipline and hope some guy is willing to settle for used goods. If no such man comes forward after a while, there’s always sisterhood. If she’s improperly disposed to religious life, then unfortunately, she’ll probably end up in a brothel.

                  “So, you are totally in favor of fixing the problem provided women always get off scott free and never suffer any adverse consequences for foolish and wicked condcuct?”

                  You attribute to me a position 500 miles to my left or imply that my position will lead inexorably to something 500 miles to my left. This is not the first time you have done so. And you do the same thing to Nick B Steves, Mark Yuray and kawaii kike. You will likely do the same thing to Neurotoxin for claiming that Rotherham rape gangs threatening to kill the girl’s parents and siblings prevented said girls from leaving.

                  I will reiterate my actual position: Patriarchy literally means rule by fathers. State, society and Church should back up the father’s rights over his household in general and women in particular. Kidnapping a woman is a violation of the father’s rights. Maybe I’d make an exception for a woman who’s living far from home sleeping in the same guys bed every night, in which case she’s essentially already married to him and they should make it official instead of living in sin, even if the girl stubbornly refuses.

                  But marriages should generally be done after the fashion of Isaac and Rebekah. Abraham’s servant does not abduct Rebekah after meeting her at the well. He gives her gifts, meets her family, negotiates her marriage with her father and brother, they come to an acceptable arrangement, he gives her family gifts and takes her off to Isaac. Orderly and amicable transfer of property. That’s how it should be done.

                • jim says:

                  > Social Matter is down, so all his best work is lost to the ether.

                  That no one, least of all Nick B Steves himself, bothered to keep his “best work” around, suggests it lacked anything of interest or substance. His work has vanished like an idle wind.

                  > > “So tell us, how is your society going to handle a fertile age woman who finds that no man who meets her lengthy list of requirements and passes her shit tests gives her more than a two am booty call followed by being kicked out of bed first thing in the morning, and who when she does encounter a man meets her lengthy list of requirements, and he does not kick her out before he brews his morning coffee, promptly gives him a shit test that he is bound to fail?”

                  > First do everything possible to prevent a woman from getting herself in that situation.

                  Conspicuously lacking from your response was: “Force her to accept a suitable husband under threat of being forced to marry to some suitable man whether she accepted him or not him or not”: Conspicuously lacking from your response was the line up on the docks of late eighteenth century Australia, where a woman had to consent to one of the potential husbands available, or get assigned as servant and concubine. Conspicuously lacking from your response was the solution of Genesis 38:24: Burn her alive.

                  Now burning her alive does strike me as a bit excessive, but it is clear that the entire bible from beginning to end does not accept a woman screwing around and prompt and drastic coercion to assign her to one man, is the normal solution.

                  You propose that when a woman insists on getting her way sexually, she always gets her way. But it is a shit test. The woman does not actually want to get her way, and wants a man strong enough to subdue her. If she can get her way, she will insist upon getting her way, but will not be happy.

                • Not Tom says:

                  First do everything possible to prevent a woman from getting herself in that situation. Restore Patriarchal property rights, make women are property of their fathers in much the same way that children are property of their parents. Keep them under control as much as you can, marry them off around 15 or 16 (yes yes shaman, if she starts younger than marry her off at that age). Forbid unaccompanied women from going to places where seduction is likely to occur (bars, hotels, beach parties etc).

                  […]

                  But marriages should generally be done after the fashion of Isaac and Rebekah. Abraham’s servant does not abduct Rebekah after meeting her at the well. He gives her gifts, meets her family, negotiates her marriage with her father and brother, they come to an acceptable arrangement, he gives her family gifts and takes her off to Isaac. Orderly and amicable transfer of property. That’s how it should be done.

                  Your position on sex relations resembles the Marxist position on trade relations: just assume everybody will cooperate, everybody will work hard, and then, utopia.

                  Obviously, if daughter is reasonably well-behaved and father marries her off early enough, then the transfer can be orderly and no abduction need take place (nor will take place).

                  But we are asking you about failsafes, and you are stubbornly ignoring the question. What happens when father is blue-pilled, or worse, prone to white-knighting? What happens when daughter is simply out-of-control, and violently resists attempts to keep her away from bars and beach parties, and starts doing this at age 12, when according to your system most fathers would not have made preparations to marry them off? What happens when she’s very plain, and father doesn’t have suitors knocking at his door with marriage proposals, and is simply unable to marry her off as soon as he’d like?

                  Where do these situations lead, in your ideal system? She’ll end up in a nunnery, apparently – a nunnery with electrified fences. Or a brothel. But this is extremely suboptimal, because many of them could have ended up with husbands. Also similar to the Marxist frame in that individuals who don’t behave 100% ideally are wreckers who need to disappear, and when private enforcement inevitably breaks down (because of blue-pilled fathers) then you need active enforcement by the state. Essentially the state will have to… er… abduct the misbehaving girls, and put them in nunneries or brothels.

                  In any case, this is not in accordance with nature, either, because forcing prospective husbands to supplicate in this way inevitably casts them as betas in the female eye, inferior to the father, implying that there might be better men out there (because after all, her father is already one). It can’t be enforced, and what can’t continue, won’t continue.

                • shaman says:

                  Absolutely nuts. Nick B Steves homeschools all his kids. He doesn’t even let them in a public school and you think he’d let them attend drag queen story hour? He’ll likely have more white grandchildren than this entire comment section combined.

                  You weren’t involved in 2014-2015, or you would’ve known about the Justine (Justin) Tunney affair, in which Michael Anissimov — himself an utter degenerate, but whatever — said that trannies need to be formally excluded from NRx, while Nick B. Steves most vehemently disagreed with that; apparently Justine Tunney is our ally and we need to embrace “her.”

                  Why did NBS call for an inclusion of a literal transsexual into NRx, Nikolai? Today, that sounds unbelievable to you (because someone, ahem, bullycided all the gay weirdos out of NRx 0.2, which there were many, believe me), yet that was the deal. Sure, Mike went into a typical disproportionate melt-down over it, but NBS was absolutely wrong, and not coincidentally, he had supporters among the same people who would later establish Socialist Matter and similar cul-de-sac projects.

                  Do we agree, Nikolai, that fuck-ups like Justin Tunney don’t belong in this movement? Yes, if you are honest, you will admit that you 100% agree. Then perhaps you should ask NBS why he wanted to embrace Tranny Tunney.

                  I distinctly recall in one article Yuray wrote about women and prostitution there was a bluepiller in the comments and Yuray completely bullycided him.

                  The only things I “distinctly” remember from Yuray’s writings are an article in which he explained that alcohol-drinking is absolutely essential to human civilization (that may be right, though it’s pretty funny given his Slavic background), and him going on an 8chan thread and explaining that listening to music on one’s headphones while outside is the worst, most degenerate and anti-social way to experience music, totally unbefitting of true reactionaries. Yeah, Yuray acted like a lolcow, though perhaps not extremely so. Anyway, you really shouldn’t pretend that someone like Yuray is in the same league as Jim.

                  Social Matter is down

                  These guys claim that they’ve “taken NRx off-line,” yet one is left wondering whether or not their actions are rather premature and ill-conceived.

                • shaman says:

                  Hey Nikolai, would you believe me if I told you that NBS actually went on Jim’s blog — as well as everywhere — to advocate for the inclusion of transsexuals?

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/official-reactionary-position/

                  Who wrote the first comment in that thread, and what was the content of that, hmm? Read the rest of NBS’ pro-trans comments on that post – and then tell me again if you find it unbelievable that NBS would allow his kids on Tranny Story Hour.

                  Social Matter? Transsexual Matter!

                • shaman says:

                  NBS on the inclusion of Tranny Tunney and trannies in general into NRx:

                  I know I know about the he she thing. But I’ll tell ya, when a tranny is passing, it is really hard to say “he”. It’s in the brain: the brain says lady (not very attractive lady but lady). Plus it hurts their feelings when ya do, and in certain social situations there’s just no reason to do that.

                  I’m not gonna be dogmatic on that one, so long as we all agree this is really a dude.

                  Very important not to hurt a transsexual’s feelings. NBS’ brain says that these are ladies. Sure, reality itself has Austin Powers’ take: “That’s a man, baby,” but NBS is telling us that hurting the feelings of fake-fanny tranny entryists is wrong, because, you know… it’s hurtful lol.

                  Tunney is, I agree, a he, but it does hurt his feelings when you say so.

                  And that is wrong, because we need to appeal to such people. To paraphrase someone who said something:

                  “I think there is a resurgence of cis-bigotry in NRx because at this point in time NRx has not yet learned how to be trans-inclusive. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. NRx is not going to be the monolithic movement it once was in the last decade. Catholic shitposters are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for NRx to make. It is now going into a trans-inclusive mode and Catholic shitposters will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, NRx will not survive.”

                  Tunney actually does have social relations with a smattering of (otherwise actual) neoreactionaries. Met him meself at a social gathering last Friday (in case that wasn’t known), bummed a smoke.

                  Since NBS literally met with a tranny for a bit of smoking and chatting, again I ask: Would he make the effort to prevent his children from attending Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library? Maybe they’ve already attended – who even knows.

                  NRx has not yet learned how to be trans-inclusive…

                • Anonymous says:

                  >(because someone, ahem, bullycided all the gay weirdos out of NRx 0.2, which there were many, believe me)

                  Is that where Nydwracu went?

                • shaman says:

                  He quit because of trolling perpetrated by some other people. In retrospect, many of the original NRx thinkers left very little useful material to work with or at least to enjoy, so scarcely anyone even remembers them today. Other than his introduction of Fnord into official NRx lexicon, what are his contributions?

                • jim says:

                  There is an official NRx lexicon?

                  There should be. But I have not seen it.

                • shaman says:

                  Perhaps I should not have referenced an “official lexicon,” but rather the “familiar set of NRx shibboleths,” though in practice that’s the same thing. “Fnord” is a Discordian meme that Nydwracu, Nick Land, and Scott Alexander popularized within NRx, and for a time everyone was familiar with the concept, similarly to e.g. Gnon, DROM, Cathedral.

                  If we define fnords as words (or phrases) intended as cognito-emotional blockers, designed to prevent rational evaluation of the text in which they appear by subconsciously generating feelings of uneasiness, then arguably mainstream articles about the Online Incel Community are the most striking examples of fnord-riddled verbiage, with a whopping average of approximately 30% of the content in these articles being fnords.

                  You’re not supposed to gain new information; you’re supposed to get a feeling that something is terribly wrong, with a “takeaway” that can be distilled simply as “INCEL COMMUNITY BAD.”

                  The concept of Non-Player Characters is pertinent here, in that these individuals’ speech — or, indeed, script — over-relies on the usage of fnords, and one’s ability to “see the fnords” allows one to realize that the NPC’s speech consists of little more than repetition of political mantras, with next to no informational processing working in the background, i.e., Orwell’s thoughtless DUCKSPEAK.

                  The phenomenon is not, however, confined to shitlib reporting on internet bogeymen; much of what circulates on the alt-right, including the notorious Qanon, is duck-spoken fnords – see for example the generic spam-like non sequitur comment down thread by xlibris, which comment amounts to some 85% fnord-text intended to scare-monger the audience into hating Jeffrey Epstein and Jewish “pedophiles”; the alt-right equivalent of ORANGE MAN BAD seems to be SEMITIC MAN BAD, or a common variant, SEMITIC MAN PEDO.

                  Here’s xlibris’ comment stripped of non-fnord text, a wall-of-text of his fnords:

                  Jeffrey Epstein’s lair On the roof sits #Moloch the owl Canaanite god of child sacrifice Island the walls were built #soundproof an external #locking #bar “appears intended to lock people in” Jeffrey Epstein had children tortured & murdered Epstein KNEW he was alluding to child sacrifice monstrosity a serial killer twisted pedosadist international child trafficker

                  When approximately 85% of a text is fnords, you’re dealing with a propaganda-posting NPC. Pure duckspeak. Kudos to Nydwracu for introducing this notion into NRx.

                  Anyway, you are right: There should be an official NRx lexicon (or list of useful concepts; and then there should be another list of anti-concepts); compiling one may be an interesting project indeed. I’ll see what I can do, when I have the time.

                • Not Tom says:

                  There is an official NRx lexicon?

                  Well, Social[ist] Matter had one…

                  Maybe it’s time to recreate and improve upon it. On the other hand, doesn’t that make it easier for entryists to fake their way in?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Here’s xlibris’ comment stripped of non-fnord text, a wall-of-text of his fnords:

                  There’s also an interesting pattern in what you classify as non-fnord text: “workers say”, “an engineer says”, “I’ve no idea if”, “but make no mistake”, “so he’s either”, “or merely a”.

                  Anonymous attributions and pseudo-deductions, both intended to give weight to the fnords by suggesting they’re either logic- or evidence-based, rather than wild speculation. Between the fnords and what I’ll call fnord-amplifiers, there’s no actual content.

                  Not sure if I totally agree with your classification, though. For example, “had children tortured & murdered” is a pretty explicit allegation, not a vague trigger-word. I understand fnords as being devoid of meaning on their own; “bigot”, “racism”, “harm”, “authoritarian”, etc.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Maybe it’s time to recreate and improve upon it. On the other hand, doesn’t that make it easier for entryists to fake their way in?

                  That’s true, but the same critique can all the more so be made against the WRP questions: An entryist who finds them can just copy and paste the correct answers with a few minor word alterations, and thereby sneak in. (But this refers to independent entryists; paid and supervised shills probably won’t pull that off, since it’s a forbidden deviation from their scripts) Generally I wouldn’t worry about it: We need to clearly state what we believe, and not being a secret cult, it follows that our enemies will be exposed to the finer points of our worldview – no avoiding that.

                  I tend to believe that the objective truth is strongly and demonstrably on our side, so someone intelligent enough to actually grasp our thoughtcrimes is not unlikely to embrace them, if only secretly. Idiots probably can’t really understand what our thoughtcrimes even are, thus no need to worry about entryism from them — they just need to be bullycided — whereas a truly intelligent person, even if he sets out to study our worldview in order to harm us, is likely to eventually see the light.

                • jim says:

                  > > Maybe it’s time to recreate and improve upon it. On the other hand, doesn’t that make it easier for entryists to fake their way in?

                  > That’s true, but the same critique can all the more so be made against the WRP questions: An entryist who finds them can just copy and paste the correct answers with a few minor word alterations, and thereby sneak in

                  Nah, they cannot.

                  They can cheerfully lie without hesitation, but saying our words triggers their crimestop module and shuts them down.

                  It is like holy water on a vampire or a demon being burned by touching the bible. Remember Angela Merkel shrinking from the German flag.

                  The devil can quote scripture to his purpose, and they will be able to quote fragments, but only by surrounding them with an obviously false context and attributing to the fragment an obviously false meaning, surrounding the very short fragment by a massive wall of text giving it a false meaning and context. The wall of text is not so much to deceive and persuade us, as to deceive and persuade their crimestop module.

                  Crimestop is crippling, and no end of things can trigger it.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Not Tom: you conspicuously ignore the part where I mention homes for wayward girls, a solution Jim has often explicitly endorsed. I’ll make it abundantly clear, if a girl misbehaves at an early age, try to marry her off to the guy she misbehaved with, if he’s an unacceptable husband, the father should try to marry her off at a discount to a suitable man.

                  If a girl is found somewhere she shouldn’t be and doing something she shouldn’t be doing, cops bring her back to her father. If her dad is bluepilled or simply can’t control her then the 3rd or 4th time she’s found misbehaving, the cops should just take her straight to the home for wayward girls. Any guy willing to kidnap her would be willing to take possession of her at the home and marry her there legitimately.

                  If she’s plain looking, then obviously will have to settle for a lesser husband, supply and demand (was this supposed to be a gotcha?). Pretty sure Rebekah saw Isaac as alpha even though he didn’t kidnap her. As was the case with most arranged marriages. My solution is more or less what was done in Christendom for centuries and centuries, seems to have worked pretty well until the 1800s or so. I suppose you could tell me that Medieval Christians were secretly marxists, but it’d be a rather laughable position.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Shaman: If you wanted to discredit NBS, you probably shouldn’t have linked to a post where Jim, the most right wing man on the internet, explicitly endorses, quotes and links to NBS’ position.

                  A key qualifier in Nick’s statement is “in certain situations” meaning that it’s unnecessary to offend a tranny in cases where the tranny is apt to cause a scene or get you fired. In the current year and in 2014, dealing with degenerates is unavoidable. Especially if you’re in a blue state. Even Jim has admitted to having gay friends and had that whole episode where a tranny cooked him dinner and offered Jim her(?) virginity. I was good friends in high school with a gay jew, we shared a lot of banter, I frequently make jokes about killing all the fags and stuff like that. Would not let that guy babysit my children. I think Nick shares a similar position to the tranny. That he’d share a cigarette with him doesn’t mean he’d take his kids to drag queen story time.

                  Trannies obviously don’t belong in the inner party. Nick’s strategy has always been a thousand ticks on the beast. The beast is the Cathedral and a tick is any sort of dissident thinker that drives people away from full blown leftism. His position is that even if other ticks are degenerate doxxers (Forney) or wrong about certain issues (the entire alt-right on women) we should still let them do their thing as the goal is to overcome the Cathedral rather than help it by swatting away rival ticks.

                  I don’t have the time to look into the whole Justin/Justine fiasco, since Jim sided with Nick I trust that his position was fine. The comments on that post look like minor and amicable squabbling over politeness while they agreeing on the main points. Social matter has, of course, repeatedly condemned drag queen story hour. Ryan Landry did a whole episode of Weimerica weekly about it.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Not Tom: you conspicuously ignore the part where I mention homes for wayward girls

                  No, I conspicuously reiterated and addressed that part as a nunnery and eventually brothel. What is the point of lying to me about what I literally just said?

                  a solution Jim has often explicitly endorsed

                  …as an option for actual wayward girls. Strays, or girls put there by their fathers.

                  I’ll make it abundantly clear, if a girl misbehaves at an early age, try to marry her off to the guy she misbehaved with

                  That’s MBA and/or shotgun marriage, but it’s not try, it’s require.

                  if he’s an unacceptable husband, the father should try to marry her off at a discount to a suitable man.

                  We reject your definitions of “unacceptable” and “suitable” as being exclusively determined by the father. Stop smuggling those in.

                  If her dad is bluepilled or simply can’t control her then the 3rd or 4th time she’s found misbehaving, the cops should just take her straight to the home for wayward girls.

                  And there it is, exactly where I said you’d end up. Instead of private abduction by future husband, which most girls are happy with, we’ll have state abduction by the police, which emasculates both men and embarrasses the whole family. Socialism. No thanks.

                • shaman says:

                  Nikolai,

                  Nick B. Steves, who sees no enemies to his left, and no friends to his right, had brought in legions of SJWs and outright retards into NRx, and subsequently failed to disassociate from them. Thus all his projects have gone down the drain. We should learn from this experience and not repeat his mistakes.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Obvious difference between a home for wayward girls and a nunnery. The point of the former is to salvage used goods, the point of the latter is to house religious sisters. A man can waltz into the former and claim a wife, whereas a man cannot violate a sister’s vow of celibacy.

                  Obvious difference between a shotgun marriage and MBA. Shotgun marriage is the father making the fornicator marry his daughter (who do you think is pointing the shotgun at whom?) In an MBA the fornicator steals the daughter from the father.

                  This post is entitled The Faith, let’s see what The Faith says on the matter. Exodus 22:17 states that it’s up to the father to decide whether or not his daughter marries the guy she fornicated with. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 implies that it’s solely up to the father whether or not his daughter gets married and Paul encourages the father to keep his daughter unmarried unless she strongly desires to be wed.

                  St. Basil the Great, Church Father, Holy Hierarch, Doctor of the Church, writes in letter 199 XXII “Men who keep women carried off by violence, if they carried them off when betrothed to other men, must not be received before removal of the women and their restoration to those to whom they were first contracted, whether they wish to receive them, or to separate from them. In the case of a girl who has been taken when not betrothed, she ought first to be removed, and restored to her own people, and handed over to the will of her own people whether parents, or brothers, or any one having authority over her. If they choose to give her up, the cohabitation may stand; but, if they refuse, no violence should be used.

                  In the case of a man having a wife by seduction, be it secret or by violence, he must be held guilty of fornication. The punishment of fornicators is fixed at four years. In the first year they must be expelled from prayer, and weep at the door of the church; in the second they may be received to sermon; in the third to penance; in the fourth to standing with the people, while they are withheld from the oblation. Finally, they may be admitted to the communion of the good gift.”

                  There’s a reason it’s called a patriarchy and not a fornicatorarchy. I suppose you could tell me that Scripture, Tradition and the Communion of Saints are Marxist and that Sts. Moses, Paul and Basil were all bluepilled cucks. At which point I’d tell you to repent and believe in the Gospel.

                  Btw you might wanna check out Nick Land’s twitter if you want more examples of established neoreactionaries dissenting from the Jimian position.

                • jim says:

                  > Shotgun marriage is the father making the fornicator marry his daughter

                  In context, it should be clear that it is marriage against the will of either party – the girl wants to continue partying, and if children ensue her family will somehow take care of things, and the guy might well want to continue partying, while the family wants him stuck with responsibility for their daughter and grandchildren, and their daughter stuck with him. If she does not want to get married and very likely she does not want to get married, this indicates she will likely continue partying and eventually stick her family with an absolutely fatherless child.

                  Meanwhile, regardless of the will of the daughter, the family of the daughter, or the will of he man who banged her, the state wants to enforce its “one pussy per customer” rule. He will pop fewer balloons if he has the full time job of taking care of one chick. Having to look after her, and her looking after him, is going to cramp his style a bit. So the state wants them to damn well marry even if the whole damn lot disagree.

                  Maybe everyone involved is in favor of partying forever, but the state knows that when it comes to partying, the men it relies on to pay taxes and fight wars are apt to be the losers.

                • jim says:

                  > Exodus 22:17 states that it’s up to the father to decide whether or not his daughter marries the guy she fornicated with.

                  If his daughter is abducted, and he refuses marriage, well, OK, he gets his way, but, according to Exodus 22:17 he is being wrong, extreme, and unreasonable.

                  Presumably there are some cases where it is going to be a lot more wrong to refuse than other cases. Sex is messy, and it is hard to lay down hard and fast rules – but the rule of 22:17 is that it is not the father’s choice, except when it is.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Obvious difference between a home for wayward girls and a nunnery.

                  Tedious and irrelevant to this conversation.

                  Obvious difference between a shotgun marriage and MBA. Shotgun marriage is the father making the fornicator marry his daughter (who do you think is pointing the shotgun at whom?)

                  Tedious and wrong. You pulled that definition out of thin air. It certainly didn’t come from Jim, who specifically said upthread:

                  [Jim:] And, to prevent marriage by elopement from turning into the cock carousel, shotgun marriage without the consent of the father or the wife

                  If it can happen without the consent of the father, it’s not ipso facto performed by the father.

                  Exodus 22:17

                  The devil can cite scripture for his purpose. We’ve already seen dozens of Old Testament endorsements of MBA upthread.

                  There’s a reason it’s called a patriarchy and not a fornicatorarchy.

                  Marriage isn’t fornication, and patriarchy doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s rule by men, not rule by fathers.

                  I suppose you could tell me that Scripture, Tradition and the Communion of Saints are Marxist and that Sts. Moses, Paul and Basil were all bluepilled cucks.

                  No, but I’ll tell you that you are one.

                  At which point I’d tell you to repent and believe in the Gospel.

                  Jim is the Gospel.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Tedious and wrong. You pulled that definition out of thin air.”

                  This is the standard definition of a shotgun marriage, moron. Google image search “shotgun marriage”. Every photo is a bride and groom with the bride’s father pointing a shotgun at the groom. Exactly what I described.

                  “Marriage isn’t fornication, and patriarchy doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s rule by men, not rule by fathers.”

                  Fornication is sex outside of marriage. Kidnapping is not a wedding. See St. Basil on the subject and see how Shechem tries to arrange a marriage for him and Dinah after defiling her. Implying that, even in Old Testament times, kidnapping and fornication does not constitute a marriage.

                  Also ‘Patri’ literally means ‘father’ and ‘archy’ means ‘rule by’. Where do you think the word patriarchy comes from? “Patriarchy from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhēs ‘ruling father’” You’re trying to tell me that ‘rule by fathers’ doesn’t really mean rule by fathers?

                  “Jim is the Gospel.”

                  Did this sound clever in your head? This is just the right wing equivalent of cringe fedora tipping. Sorry bro, I’m gonna have to go with Jesus Christ over Foghorn Leghorn.

                • jim says:

                  > Every photo is a bride and groom with the bride’s father pointing a shotgun at the groom. Exactly what I described.

                  Blue pill propaganda. It fails to reflect the reality that it is women, not men, who are resisting and delaying marriage. The problem is that when a man settles down with a woman, he is fine with keeping her, though he may want to fuck other women as well, but women are apt to be permanently on the prowl.

                  The problem is never or rarely getting men to get married. The problem is forcing women to accept marriage, forcing them to make their choice once and forever. They don’t wanna. They want drama, conquest, then more drama and reconquest by a new conqueror. Observe romance sequels.

                  As I am always saying, Chastity and Monogamy were invented when a band of ape men killed the males of another band of ape men, killed their mothers, killed their children, and took their fertile age females for themselves. Women have never been on board with chastity and monogamy. They want the alpha male to kill all the other males and rape all the other males’ women. Female sexuality is disruptive to male cohesion, as you can see in any workplace.

                • jim says:

                  You favor a satanic inversion of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ as interpreted by gnostics and progressives, not the Jesus Christ of the Christian tradition.

                  First Millenium Christianity supported Old Testament marriage, where the wife was given completely from the power of her birth family to her husband family, as Tamar, Genesis 38 was.

                  You say that patriarchy is authority of fathers, but in the Old and New Testaments, power over the wife corresponds to Roman cum Manu marriage, where power over the wife goes completely, absolutely, and irrevocably to the husband. And thus the husband is in his wife’s eyes, alpha.

                  Further, you have one case of the Jews objecting to marriage by abduction – and no end of cases of them practicing marriage by abduction. One case of them objecting does not make marriage by abduction wrong, any more than Abraham engaging in wife sharing makes wife sharing right. You should not invoke Genesis for moral examples, nor Exodus until the ten commandments.

                  The idea of religion as a detailed and coherent divinely imposed morality does not really show up in Bible until the Axial age when we get divinely backed lawgivers, does not really show up until Moses gets the ten commandments. The bible does not take any very specific position on moral questions until Moses gets the ten commandments.

                  What seems to have happened is that towards the end of the Bronze Age, civilization was falling apart, and people started thinking about how to hold it together, much as we are today as our civilization falls apart. Then after things fell apart, those putting things together again called upon God, and you got the Axial age.

                  Calling upon God, however, led to the error of deducing ought from ought – phariseeism, the trolly problem, and the Jewish obsession with cheese crumbs. So, in the Christian age, we were told to ditch the letter of the law.

                  And this time around, we call on Gnon, uniting the old and new Testaments.

                • Not Tom says:

                  This is the standard definition of a shotgun marriage, moron.

                  […]

                  Also ‘Patri’ literally means ‘father’ and ‘archy’ means ‘rule by’.

                  First you argue that we need to use the “standard” (actually progressive) definition, and then literally two paragraphs down you argue that we need to not use the standard definition. Top marks.

                  Kidnapping is not a wedding.

                  And abduction is not kidnapping, because no kids are involved.

                  Sorry bro, I’m gonna have to go with Jesus Christ over Foghorn Leghorn.

                  Indeed. The great thing – for you – about Jesus Christ is that he isn’t around to tell any of us what he really meant, so you can freely employ all sorts of heretical interpretations in your Argumentum ad Jesusum..

                  At least until you get called out on it, which has happened several times already.

                  And don’t call me “bro” unless you’ve got the guns to prove it.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                >unless those ideas involve liquidating the bourgeoisie.

                Nah that would be *your* department. Communists wanted to take the assets of the bourgeois by force; you want to take their women by force. The common denominator is that you want to take what doesn’t belong to you, and want to bring down all law and order to accomplish it. You would likewise Kulak the middle class people if they resisted, only you’d call them blue-pilled instead of reactionaries. Carry on w/the memeplexing though, Lenin and Mao got results maybe you will be able to too.

                • shaman says:

                  Your horny 13-year-old daughter who runs off at night wearing underwear is no longer owned by you.

                • shaman says:

                  Okay, since you’re so fond of analogies, think about it this way: You technically own a slave, but in practice that slave does whatever the heck he wants, running all over town and spreading mischief and mayhem, and you can’t seem to gain control over him; is it not 100% natural that someone will take matters into his own hands and do whatever is necessary to stop your slave’s misbehavior?

                  Same applies to the aforementioned horny 13-year-old daughter who runs off at night wearing a bikini and nothing else: Technically you own her, practically she needs someone to fuck her brains out and is going to cause chaos until she gets her sexual needs satisfied, and since (being Blue Pilled) you have failed to marry her off, someone is going to take matters into his own hands and get her MbA.

                  No use crying “abloo-abloo” about it: If your property uncontrollably destructively misbehaves when technically under your ownership, that misbehaving destructive property will be transferred to someone who is capable of managing it rightfully.

                  It’s not even remotely reminiscent of Communism, because we’re not toppling an apple cart and redistributing the apples; we’re putting a stop an outbreak of eruptive volcanic forces threatening to consume our town, in light of the (former) volcano owner’s rank incompetence in managing the situation. Yes, conservadaddy, you used to own a volcano, but since you couldn’t and wouldn’t get it under control, we did – after having taken over it and by managing it properly. Deal with it.

                • shaman says:

                  The Blue Pill equals female sexual misbehavior, infanticide of children wanted by their father at the hands of slut-mom’s new drug-dealing boyfriend, cannibalization of baby meat and intact fetal cadavers, 9-year-old boys diddled at Crossdresser Story Hour, and killjoyhood.

            • jim says:

              > thinks he’s arrived at some specific rule or set of rules applicable in all times and places, regardless of local customs, needs or other particularities.

              All women are like that. Human nature is unchanging. State law, Christian doctrine, and social enforcement needs to reflect that unchanging and universal nature, the nature of woman as accurately depicted by the red pill.

              > dreams of restoring Biblical law and society outside of Biblical times

              The family law and sex law of First Temple Israel and First Millenium Christianity reflected the universal and unchanging nature of women. Blue pill Christianity, as a result of holiness spiraling, instituted new, stupid, and ever more destructive laws, and to justify these spiteful, evil, hateful, and increasingly demonic laws had to indoctrinated everyone with an entirely deluded account of female nature.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                >All women are like that. Human nature is unchanging. State law, Christian doctrine, and social enforcement needs to reflect that unchanging and universal nature, the nature of woman as accurately depicted by the red pill.

                There’s varying methods throughout history of doing that though, and the methods have to be compatible with other core customs and practices. In our case private enforcement will have to be adjusted according to the Sovereign power’s insistence on a public monopoly on justice and law enforcement, since in the West this has been regarded as the very essence of State sovereignty and will likely continue to be.

                • The Cominator says:

                  As Jim has pointed out up until the progressive era in the early 1900s the west had a very cheerful attitude toward pro social private violence.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Depends what kind of violence. Well into the 20th c. they’d still let guys have a fight if nobody pulled out a gun. Immediate community would supervise fight to make sure. No they wouldn’t let you kidnap anybody though, and won’t in any foreseeable future, barring some kind of Mad Max scenario in which the goodmen of the town would simply re-found the State and that would be the end of that.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Depends what kind of violence. Well into the 20th c. they’d still let guys have a fight if nobody pulled out a gun. Immediate community would supervise fight to make sure. No they wouldn’t let you kidnap anybody though, and won’t in any foreseeable future, barring some kind of Mad Max scenario in which the goodmen of the town would simply re-found the State and that would be the end of that.

                  I agree but you are moving the goalposts from what you said above (which i did not agree with).

                  The Western tradition was that the state had a monopoly (or at least had to sanction) ORGANIZED violence but was quite willing to allow pro-social private violence and that most “law enforcement” was merely the state blessing people protecting their own lives and property. Saying otherwise is progressive history. And bringing in bluepill anticoncepts and history is what gets you in trouble here not merely disagreeing.

                  I dissent from Jim on a lot of particulars in terms of marriage laws… we want to go into the same direction but differ on a lot of details. I don’t bring in bluepill history and anticoncepts when I disagree.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Things I have disagreed with Jim on.

                  1. I’m against chattel slavery on a permanent basis (rather then a temporary solution to what to do with all the shitlibs after a civil war)… I think bringing that one back is a horrible idea. Slavery in the long term is not good the economy… not only does it act as a huge subsidy for existing slaveholders but as a huge tax on free laborers. Its historically not been good for economies that practiced it, the North economically massively outperformed the South and Prussia/Germany outperformed Russia in the 19th century.

                  Rome mostly stopped advancing in non-military technology after the Punic wars when they acquired masses of slaves… it also created the whole Populares-Optimate conflict.

                  Conclusion is that it is best if the king bans chattel slavery. Left wing women after the civil war can be sold as non-hereditary bound concubines… but they cannot be allowed to work outside their masters home.

                  2. I’m all for general incorporation (Jim seems to be against it or undecided with severe reservations). The greatest economic growth in history was in the 19th century, after general incorporation but before the progressive regulatory state.

                  Yes it was a mistake to get rid of enforcable apprenticeship and I agree 100% with Jim on bringing it back but I think general incorporation is absolutely fantastic.

                  3. Punishment for adultery/how severely you can discipline women and children under normal circumstances… I think if you send your wife and kids to the emergency room without very clear severe provacation something should be done. I think you should be able to have adulteress and such publically humilated and whipped more severely then normally would be allowed… but I’m against quite allowing death for it.

                  4. I have resevations about marriage by abduction at younger ages without the father’s consent. Particulary if the father is intelligent and respectable or wealthy and the boy is stupid and not really suitable. I’m not sure about how the details of this should be handled.

                  5. Strong strongly opposed to bastardcide, if the kid likes to torture small animals or start fires that is a different matter.

                  6. On most issues I tend to be more moderate and humane then Jim… but not this one.

                  I think that all male leftists should be helicopter rided should it come to civil war and we win, EVERY LAST ONE. Male leftists are vermin and the best way to eradicate the leftist memeplex is to eradicate leftists. Jim has suggested we won’t need to do many helicopter rides. This is the mistake the right always makes… wipe them out I say.

                  Male leftists unlike bastards are not innocent, why should we spare a single one of them.

                • jim says:

                  > 4. I have reservations about marriage by abduction at younger ages without the father’s consent. Particulary if the father is intelligent and respectable or wealthy and the boy is stupid and not really suitable. I’m not sure about how the details of this should be handled.

                  Here is one way we could give effect to it: For husband rights to trump and supercede father rights, you have to hold an actual marriage ceremony before God, man, and family.

                  For the state to back husband rights against father rights, the state has to register and record your marriage: It has to be held before, God, man, family and the state.

                  We have contractual and sacramental marriage, still have it in form though contractual marriage died in the seventies, and sacramental marriage has been played down for a thousand years. Ideally a marriage shold be both contractual and sacramental: The bride says “I do”, and the groom says “with this ring I the wed” Contractual marriage is subject to the natural law of contract. Sacramental marriage subject to the Revelatory law of God.

                  The state might forbid sacramental only marriages, unilateral marriage, and refuse to recognize and enforce husband rights in that case, unless the bride is plausibly badly behaved, (As, for example, she was detained while partying unescorted or improperly escorted, or went behind closed doors with a man) the father ineffectual at controlling her, and the husband has demonstrable capability to take care of a wife. (As, for example, two years of tax returns, or successful completion of an apprenticeship.)

                  There was an interesting blackmail case in the eighteenth century where a man was blackmailed for a very large sum of money and state secrets because he allowed another man’s wife to enter his hotel room and close the door behind her, and no end of shotgun marriages for similar reasons.

                  Everyone knows that if a girl goes to your place “for a cup of coffee”, or to see your etchings, she is down to fuck. In reactionary America, the state will know what everyone knows, and sacramental marriage, not necessarily accompanied by contractual marriage, should ensue.

                • shaman says:

                  Doug is not merely disagreeing with Jim; he is actively concern trolling, in similar fashion to CR: “You cannot do X, because people won’t let you.”

                  Yes, we can do X, and we will, and the people will be meme’d into supporting our program.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There is some difference between coup-complete and jihad complete problems.

                  Some of what Jim wants to do I would grudgingly agree are more “jihad complete” then “coup-complete”.

                  Allowing arranged marriages for 16 year old girls is coup complete, allowing marriage by abduction for badly behaving 12 year old girls… jihad complete. I’m not saying you couldn’t eventually bring society around but don’t try to do it anytime soon even if you win the war. Wait for a generation after at least.

                • jim says:

                  > allowing marriage by abduction for badly behaving 12 year old girls… jihad complete.

                  Nuts

                  It is vastly easier to allow marriage by abduction for badly behaved twelve year old girls than to get parents to put their terrified children on the laps of drag queens, for one is in accordance with human nature, and the nature of the people doing it, and the other contrary to human nature.

                  If authority stops forbidding marriage by abduction of badly behaved girls (the crime being letting them go afterwards) it will happen. And who will care?

                  Compared to the radical overnight social changes that keep being forced down our throats every couple of years, marriage by abduction is nothing at all.

                  We allow the murder of babies against the will of the father immediately after they are born, and no one blinks. You think they are going to blink at marriage by abduction?

                • alf says:

                  I think that all male leftists should be helicopter rided should it come to civil war and we win, EVERY LAST ONE. Male leftists are vermin and the best way to eradicate the leftist memeplex is to eradicate leftists. Jim has suggested we won’t need to do many helicopter rides. This is the mistake the right always makes… wipe them out I say.

                  That is radical… I wouldn’t have the heart. I have a few leftist friends, and although I occasionally mock them, I wouldn’t want to see them dead.

                  Reserve the helicopter rides for the worst, I say.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I have ONE who I would very much like to spare (I think if I can get him to move out of Boston he’ll eventually listen) but we need to be realistic about what it will take to really eradicate their memeplex… the bioleninist/free shit memeplex has a formidable appeal. Eradicating it in such a way that it never recovers will require ruthless measures.

                • shaman says:

                  In 2008, Obama was against Gay Marriage.

                  In 2019, 8-year-old children are are brought to Drag Queen Story Hour, and are themselves genitally and hormonally disfigured into trannies.

                  It’s pretty obvious that “the people” derive their sense of morality from the priesthood. If the priesthood decided that incestuous necrophilia, bestial necrophilia, bestial coprophagia, and so on, was in vogue, then it would be in vogue.

                  Sure, independent minded intelligent people may notice that something is amiss when the fancy restaurant’s menu starts containing a meal called “Human Baby Meat” (it tastes just like chicken). But the NPCs will not notice anything, and the NPCs set the tone in accordance with the latest psyop and the latest official or unofficial script issued from the Cathedral.

                  “Come on shaman, you don’t really believe your own nonsense” – and yet, the fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood sells baby meat and toddlers are undergoing “sex change” surgeries and put on hormone blockers. Contrary to CR and Doug, the individualistic, atomized citizenry is not going to do shit without prompting from above, by an elite faction.

                  If abortion is not murder, if Abortion is BEAUTIFUL, then why not eat a fetus? And why not have sex with an intact fetal cadaver? If your father or your dog died, would you not pay him your last respects by shoving some of his bones into your anus, after consuming some of the surrounding flesh? Why are you recoiling in horror and revulsion, bigot? Isn’t morbidity erotic? Did not Ted Bundy have a point?

                  “ABORTION IS BEAUTIFUL!” – Planned Parenthood

                  Yes indeed friends, abortion is beautiful, says a woman who underwent it:

                  My abortion was a beautiful physical, emotional, and spiritual experience. The world throws so much hate my way, judging my decision, but I know in my deepest heart of hearts that what I did was right and natural. My abortion has made me a better, happier person, and I know that when I decide to have a family someday, the experience will be even more joyous because of my abortion.

                  But wait, there’s more; a different website quotes a would-be abortionist as saying:

                  I am a young woman in my final year of medical school, training to be a kick-ass feminist doctor. I am fiercely committed to reproductive rights. Since my first year of school, I have been assisting with abortions as well as providing opportunities for other future doctors to learn this important skill. I believe abortion is a beautiful and powerful thing. I find anti-choice rhetoric to be predictable, hollow, and fraudulent. I am always willing to engage in respectful, evidence-based debate which does not need to evoke god or morality or misogyny or pseudo-science to prove a point.

                  If Jim and We his Sycophants were not such pseudo-scientific misogynistic moralistic Bible-thumpers, we too would realize that abortion is beautiful. It is an aesthetically pleasing, appealing thing for sure. Watching a fetus sliced to shreds is as psychologically comforting and elating as looking at the Sistine Chapel. It’s just beautiful.

                  Truth is, “the people” can be convinced of absolutely anything. Moreover, they are so emotionally numb that they don’t really need much convincing to keep quiet – prolefeed is incredibly effective. Honestly, Cominator – compared with the grotesques of the current year, would not even you accept literally everything on Jim’s list — bastardicide, marriage by abduction, en masse enslavement of feral niggers, spics, and towelheads, the whole bit — just to have something different than Globohomo Morality up in the air?

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >progressive history. […] bluepill history and anticoncepts.

                  ????

                • jim says:

                  Blue pill history: Fake history taught in schools. Gets rewritten at alarmingly frequent intervals. Projects the latest weirdness back in time, creating a Fred Flintstone version of the past. Except when there is something about the present that they now intend to destroy, in which case it only happened yesterday. Examples: They still cannot acknowledge that Regency England had a regent that was not appointed by Parliament, but by God, so they either deny he was ever Regent, imply that parliament appointed him, or both simultaneously. The Great Zimabwe.

                  Anticoncept: Orwellian newspeak. Words coined to shut down crimethought, prevent noticing, and just plain lie. An anticoncept makes things that alike different, and things that are different alike. Examples “Pedophilia”, “racism”, “psychopath”, “sweatshop”, “self harm”.

                • pdimov says:

                  “I think that all male leftists should be helicopter rided should it come to civil war and we win, EVERY LAST ONE.”

                  Have you thought about the inefficiency of helicopter rides? If you wanted to kill ALL, why would you use helicopter rides?

                  Killing ALL is leftist (fun and games until ALL expands to include you); right-wing coups kill only the minimum necessary. Hence helicopter rides. Eliminate only the worst, the rest fall in line.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Have you thought about the inefficiency of helicopter rides? If you wanted to kill ALL, why would you use helicopter rides?

                  Useful euphemistic phrase is euphemistic…

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >Projects the latest weirdness back in time, creating a Fred Flintstone version of the past. Except when there is something about the present that they now intend to destroy, in which case it only happened yesterday.

                  “History is the struggle of women and minorities for a seat at the table of [field] from which they were unjustly excluded”

                  And *at the same time*:

                  “Women and minorities have always exercised prominent roles in [field]”

                  And finally:

                  “The struggle for inclusion and social justice isn’t even close to being won”.

                • quarty says:

                  > No they wouldn’t let you kidnap anybody though,
                  there’s a miserable slut with a kid she regularly endangers and a man who wants nothing more than to be a family. This is what I don’t get about the whole sluts and kids without fathers are great thing, it just doesn’t work out. What if Dinah had come back pregnant, what would have happened to Shechem’s baby?

                • Not Tom says:

                  “History is the struggle of women and minorities for a seat at the table of [field] from which they were unjustly excluded”

                  And *at the same time*:

                  “Women and minorities have always exercised prominent roles in [field]”

                  And finally:

                  “The struggle for inclusion and social justice isn’t even close to being won”.

                  Very good. But can you take a step farther than criticizing only the latest bleeding-edge SJW insanity?

                  Circa 1925:

                  “Prostitution is a form of slavery. Women are promiscuous and immoral because men force them.”

                  At the same time:

                  “Women have always been strong and independent. Flappers and petting parties today are just like the Gibson Girls 30 years ago.”

                  And finally:

                  “Property requirements for voting are a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise women, and we still have a long way to go toward true equality.”

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >Very good. But can you take a step farther than criticizing only the latest bleeding-edge SJW insanity?

                  Sure can. The following was the prototype for all such revisionism:

                  Late 18th c. British North America

                  “History is the process whereby Reason enlightens men about the injustice of submitting to despots who tax and legislate without their consent, and the struggle for Liberty and the Rights of Man against taxation without representation, etc.”

                  “Amongst the Anglo-Saxons the power of legislation and taxation have always been vested in the subject.”

                  “Now we’ve abolished monarchy, and yet the struggle for democracy is far from complete”.

        • shaman says:

          Another thing:

          The idea of a holiness spiral is to get money, status, and power by angling for the strictest possible interpretation of a socially *dominant* ideology. Holiness-spiraling behaviour within a socially proscribed ideology not only doesn’t work, but accomplishes the opposite.

          Tard-Cuckism has been wholesale rejected, you utter ideological loser; it is Neo-Reaction that is on the rise, and your bitter whining about it only makes our triumphs all the more delicious. Deal with it: Tard-Cuckism is a pile of blue pilled demonic lies, and unsurprisingly, Tard-Cuckism is as dead as an ideology can be. NRx, however, is only growing stronger.

        • Not Tom says:

          What’s the definition of red pill? “The red pill means talking about underage girls as much possible”.

          What most people are saying when they talk about “underage” girls is that there’s no real difference between age 12 and 18, and some girls mature even earlier. It’s not an obsession with age, but rather what Moldbug would call “anti-spin”, an attempt to coax other people out of their obsession with age.

          A ten-year-old boy does not go cruising for anal penetration, and we can test this empirically by studying the unrestricted behavior of ten-year-old boys around other boys of his own age and older heterosexual men. On the other hand, most 12-year-old girls do go cruising for vaginal penetration, and we can test this empirically by studying the unrestricted behavior of 12-year-old girls around 12-year-old boys, 18-year-old boys, 50-year-old men, horses, large dogs, cars with stick shifts, and certain kinds of vegetable produce. And this is no different from the behavior of 18-year-old girls, except that 18-year-old girls have a much easier time attracting men of any age because their secondary sex characteristics are more fully developed.

          The only reason why “underage” girls are important is because AoC laws and Puritan sexual mores declare that girls of a young age cannot have sex drives, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that men manipulate and force them, and if 12-year-old girls are completely innocent, then why not 18? Why not 45? Why not all women are completely innocent, and all men are disgusting creeps whose sexuality needs to be criminalized? That is the real holiness spiral, and there is no point in pretending that it is theoretical or hypothetical because that is exactly the trajectory that feminism has followed, right up to the #MeToo movement in which 70-year-old slags claim that rich men preyed on them 30 years ago in order to get cash settlements or just petty revenge.

          What reactionaries want is for men to recognize that girls have a sex drive whenever they show signs of having a sex drive, which can be earlier than a lot of men – including their fathers – expect. We want men to be legally able to treat girls as girls and women as women. And unfortunately it seems that this needs repeating fairly often, because tradcons/boomercons/alt-lite keep stumbling in here and whining about “muh underage girls”.

          AoC laws, and the long-term effect they’ve had on public morality, are rocket fuel for feminism. They plant the idea that some girls who commit indecent acts only did so because of evil men, and it is a very slippery slope indeed from “some” to “all”. Curing the patient requires killing the disease, not merely managing the symptoms.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            AoC laws enjoy runaway popularity w/ the common man, and with very good reason: the common man, having been strictly forbidden by the State from using violence or the threat of it to keep the chastity of his women intact (it does not matter who is cruising for what; everyone including the old man already knew that teenagers have sexual desires, which isn’t some kind of enormous recent scientific discovery), has an absolutely and incontrovertibly rightful expectation that the State will use violence or the threat of it on his behalf in this area- and even the Liberal State is not yet disordered enough to totally disdain to do so, which would be a fundamental injustice even by Liberal standards. So the stopgap solution was AoC- which *of course* is premised on blue-pilled assumptions, because as of right now *any* legislative solution to any social problem must be premised on blue-pilled assumptions or at least compatible with them in order to avoid being vetoed by the Cathedral. It would be a grave injustice to take this last crumb away from the middle class without restoring patriarchal rights first; to talk about doing the former in advance of doing the latter is to put the cart before the horse, and moreover in a way guaranteed to give people the wrong idea.

            • The Cominator says:

              AoC laws do not give suitable men 1st crack, quite the opposite.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                But they’re better than nothing, not least of all for a reason I forgot to mention: they comprise some the very last vestiges of formal acknowledgment that teenage girls aren’t strong independent warriors who alone know what’s good for them, since it’s their body their choice. These judicial proceedings in fact represent law working the way Nature intended it to in that they are a contest between men in which what the female at the centre of the controversy wants and thinks is explicitly deemed completely irrelevant at the outset, on the grounds that said female lacks the faculty of judgment and that therefore *it does not matter what she thinks*. If anything, I for one want to see *more* laws like this not less, laws that would cover every stage of the life course from cradle to grave.

                • jim says:

                  > But they’re better than nothing

                  Nuts

                  These “pedophilia” proceedings presuppose that men are responsible for the bad conduct of women. They consist of men doing counterproductive, cruel, evil, stupid, and destructive things because there is a real problem that they cannot address, or even acknowledge.

                  These proceedings are evil, destructive, and conducted by evil men for evil motives, that motive being to perpetuate, not solve, the problem. They are not better than nothing, because they not merely distract from the problem of misbehaving girls, they punish random males who are vaguely in the general vicinity of misbehaving girls, giving misbehaving girls superweapons to facilitate their continuing misbehavior.

                  Further, being in possession of superweapons makes it harder for the girl to accomplish what she is unconsciously trying to accomplish, harder for her to find an owner, because she will use those superweapons to shit test any male who might take possession of her.

                  Look at Mastodon: Mastodon exists because of censorship of cartoon depictions of females deemed under age – though most of the females depicted have boobs large enough to make excellent pillows, and highly effective flotation devices if lost at sea.

                  Then the progressives took over Mastodon, and used it to push cartoon depictions of small boys being transexualized. After all, if one cartoon depiction of an “underage” girl with boobs large enough to rescue someone lost at sea, same thing as a cartoon depiction of a small boy being sex changed, right? Thus we see “pedophilia” being used to push gay sex and sex changes for small boys to straights.

                  The Mastodon that is pushing transexualization of nine year old boys to straights using the concept of “pedophiia” the same Mastodon as is attempting to deplatform Gab for allowing racism.

                • Not Tom says:

                  teenage girls aren’t strong independent warriors who alone know what’s good for them, since it’s their body their choice

                  Okay, now this is just straight-up entryism, trying to present a false dilemma between progressivism and blue-pilled trad-conservatism. It’s bullshit. Stop it.

              • The Cominator says:

                Further, being in possession of superweapons makes it harder for the girl to accomplish what she is unconsciously trying to accomplish, harder for her to find an owner, because she will use those superweapons to shit test any male who might take possession of her.

                And this is the real problem with sex crime laws, that a woman is subconsciously tempted to use legal superweapons to test which male is strong enough to overcome them (after all the chief or king of the tribe could), being the slaves of ancient instincts. Or consciously tempted to use them for her own destructive or self destructive purposes.

                Age of consent laws set below 14 aren’t so bad in this respect because its rare women are so uncontrollable or troublesome before this age (it happens but very rare) but they REALLY REALLY shouldn’t be higher then 14.

            • Not Tom says:

              AoC laws preceded “domestic violence” hysteria and no-fault divorce, not the other way around. Your conclusion is incorrect because your chronology is impossible.

              The AoC was as low as 7 years old in some regions of the USA at certain times. The assertion that raising the AoC was a popular move at the time it was raised requires evidence, because in more recent history, raising the AoC has been an extremely unpopular move, such as about 10 years ago when they did it in Canada. Even with horribly blue-pilled assumptions, 14 years old was a common AoC until the early 21st century, and 12 years old was common not long before that – and it is not in evidence that common people demanded even that lower AoC, rather than having it imposed on them like the Mann Act and Civil Rights Act.

              The “common man” tends to accept and internalize whatever the laws happen to be at the time, and yet raising the AoC is consistently unpopular. The facts, to the extent that we have any facts, indicate the opposite of what you claim.

              It’s far more likely that raising AoC was popular with the same sorts of women who also advocated prohibition of alcohol and other stupid “vice” laws.

            • jim says:

              > AoC laws enjoy runaway popularity w/ the common man

              Observed behavior is that the common man, seeing conspicuous age differences in real life, does not react in practice as he piously proclaim he would. It is doublethink and crimestop. Once in a while you get negative reactions from the common woman, but that is very obviously just sour grapes – the chronic female belief that men can be and should be shamed into desiring women past fertile age.

              In my sixties I was living with a chick who regularly got carded in the pub and was frequently mistaken for being school age. No negative reaction from males. One negative reaction from a woman who asked how old she was, and suggested that she appeared to be fourteen. I replied sternly: “She is old enough to get pregnant, and I am young enough to father children”, and the topic was instantly dropped.

              When I was a young man, a very]long time ago, I had one negative interaction over this issue with police, who were entirely polite and apologetic, and explained they had to investigate because “an old woman complained”. No one actually wants to enforce these laws in real life against men escorting fertile age women.

              The reactionary doctrine that fertile age is what matters is simply unchallengeable. It is so obviously true that no one questions it in real life, if it is stated.

              People theoretically support age of consent laws in the same doublethink crimestop way they support the rest of the progressive agenda. No one wants to enforce these laws against real life people unless they have some other reason for wanting to get the target male. They are only going after Epstein because they hope to get him to compose on Trump.

              • Not Tom says:

                Observed behavior is that the common man, seeing conspicuous age differences in real life, does not react in practice as he piously proclaim he would.

                I am reminded of a former acquaintance, a white man’s white man with a typical white guy name and typical white guy hobbies like TV and football, not a ladykiller by any means but generally getting a decent amount of play. I never actually saw him with any girl more than a few years his junior, but one of his slogans was: if there’s grass on the field, play ball. Always stated in that half-joking tone suggesting “officially it’s a joke, but…”.

                In my college days, the unwritten rule/taboo for dating age gaps was “half your age plus five years”, implying it is perfectly normal for 18-year-olds to bone 14-year-olds, and 25-year-olds to bone 17-year-olds. Definitely prudish by biblical standards, but still far looser than the norms that guys pretend to have when they think that older women or FBI agents are listening in, and technically in violation of current AoC laws. Also, there were variations; in some circles it was half plus three, so 18/12 or 25/15 would be fine.

                I can think of many more stories like this, some quite a bit juicier, but will have to withhold them to avoid leaving too many breadcrumbs for griefers to follow. The salient point is that it’s all terribly ordinary and most guys know it. In practice, AoC violations are pretty much only ever an issue when either (a) the mother finds out and goes mental, or (b) it’s dirt that can be used against a political enemy like Roy Moore.

                To be honest, I have to wonder if some of these screechers are not only incel, but have never even been part of a normal male social group. Guys who had male friends in high school or early college must surely know all of this already.

      • Vxxc says:

        Wrong on all points.

        Uh – lay off the drugs before posting.

        • shaman says:

          Translation from your native tongue (Drooled Retardese): “I have no response, I am indeed by my own admission a childless white knight faggot, so I’ll come up with a non-entertaining insult and call it a day.”

          Isn’t it peculiar how blue-pillers are always, invariably, total failures at everything? Like, don’t people just realize eventually that blue-pilled thoughts flow from cognitively impaired brains, and conclude that such people should just be ignored? Maybe they do realize that and do conclude that. 🙂

    • shaman says:

      By the way, why do you press Enter after every sentence, Tard-Cuck? Half of the people here don’t read your comments for that very reason. Seems that you are not intelligent enough to use either readable sentence structure, or proper paragraph structure. It all sounds like:

      Blah.
      Blah.
      Blah.

      Blah.

      Blah.

      That’s how your posts read, and everyone who’s honest will confirm this accurate impression. The funniest of all is when you respond to yourself, thus creating entire threads of Verbal Vomit. It reads like:

      Blah
      Blah
      Blah

      Blah
      Blah
      Blah

      Blah
      Blah
      Blah

      This, and nothing else, is your “contribution” to all the NRx communities that ever accepted you. People don’t read your posts. I have a feeling that Jim only reads, like, 50% of your posts from beginning to end – and responds to perhaps 5%.

      If you’re going to post endless walls of text, at least say something smart or entertaining. But nah, you’re here to tell us about your blue-pilled worldview, and about how Jim is dangerous sexual predator because your hypothetical daughter is a big whore, and how people here should opt for celibacy and childlessness like “traditional” (lol, no) white knights like you.

      You are not “traditional.” No old loser with 0 children is “traditional.” You are a demonic blue-piller who is constantly out of his depth. You are a serial spammer of Nutty Nonsense. You’re boring, and lame, and your condition IRL reflects your character precisely: Achieved nothing, loveless, childless, and mentally handicapped.

      Does it feel good, or bad, knowing that you’ll die leaving absolutely no legacy behind you? Does it feel good, or bad, being a childless old loser? Does it feel good, or bad, being unable to even think like a real human?

      You scare no one here with your “HURR DURR, I’M GONNA BEAT UP MEN WHO TALK TO MY NON-EXISTENT DAUGHTER.” You’re not going to beat anyone up, and you’ll never have children at all. Stop wasting everyone’s time with your Tard-Cuck LARPing.

      • Vxxc says:

        Lol.

        Brah.

        You’re headed for the looney bin, rehab or jail.
        Be sure to share your views on no age of consent.

        Its true I don’t want to talk much about women, I want to talk about war- Holy war. As part of the bargain we get stable marriage.
        We can safely form families.

        How many kids have you had again? BTW?
        Since this seems to be important.
        That’s a woman’s not man’s Victory you know.
        Men don’t win by children.
        Women do.

        Its also true I like to break up my thoughts into separate sentences.

        Finally; you don’t let anything go here.
        Jim does.

        Shan’t engage further.
        Out.

        Shan’t be engaging further.

        • shaman says:

          You’re headed for the looney bin, rehab or jail.
          Be sure to share your views on no age of consent.

          Believe me, I’ve been here before you, and will be here long after you.

          Abolition of the AoC is the NRx consensus. You are not familiar with NRx ideology, you don’t even have enough oxygenated brain cells to grasp it anyway, and you all you ever do is spam the blog with the same old boring “ATTACK! ACTION! ORGANIZE! START DOING! GO GO GO!” and so on and so forth.

          Have you ever had an original idea in your entire pointless life?

          Men don’t win by children.

          Cringe and blue-pilled. The future belongs to those who show up. By your own admission, you have left no descendants to show up – LOSER.

          Finally; you don’t let anything go here.
          Jim does.

          Of course. Now stop spamming his blog with blue pilled lies, and stop telling us how you’re going to beat evil men up for talking to your non-existent daughter. If you continue spamming the blue-pill, there is a fair chance that you’ll have your sweaty butt kicked out of here by the entire community and, of course, by the host.

          Shan’t be engaging further.

          This is the priesthood. You will submit to your intellectuals and ideological superiors, or they will bullycide you. These are the rules, Tard-Cuck.

          • >Abolition of the AoC is the NRx consensus.

            Yes. But I would also say, low AOC is far less harmful than high AOC.

            14 like in half of Europe is OK because most parents are able to keep 14 year old daughters out of night clubs and parties. Curfew at 21:00 and so on. Most parents are able to treat a 14 as still very much like a child with those kinds of rules. At 16 it is harder, at 17 it is very hard. (In the current system!) They demand to go out, to dance, and party. Loudly. And they want sex. Especially after drinking, which is solvable if older girls are buying or simply a busy bar has no time for carding them. They seduce guys in night clubs. Do those guys deserve prison? Don’t think so. Should they card the girls? Nothing would destroy a romantic mood faster than going “Your papers, please!”.

            There is also the thing called Fast/Slow Life History Strategy. It is fascinating causal link between a lot of apparently different but correlated things. Basically folks who had a stressful childhood do stuff faster. Not only they are likely to have high time preferences, be impulsive, but also in the physical sense, get to puberty faster, and look older than their age. In our school puberty tended to be 12-13. But it can be as early as 9 and as late as 15. And I think the theory checks out, it is always those kids from the super highly functional rich and well educated families who look like children at 15. Both girls and guys. Meanwhile, you go to some thrashy area, and you see 13 years old boys pretty much looking like mini-men and the girls mini-women.

            I should add: the speed of Life History Strategy is *correlated* with childhood stress, and the usual nurture-only social scientists tend to assume it is caused by it. However it is entirely possible it is genetic, have impulsive genes, age faster, while your parents’ impulsive genetics make your childhood stressful. Kinda like that study that showed that it is not getting spanked as a child that leads to bad life outcomes, rather it is having the kind of genetics you get from parents who are most likely to often spank their children does. Kids with impulsive genetics kids misbehave, parents with impulsive genetics spank them.

            Anyway, the point is, with a nice not stressful childhood and/or nice genetics, girls don’t have puberty and look fuckworthy much earlier than 14. And men who fuck pre-puberty children do deserve prison. Hence while AoC is generally the bad approach, 14 is in practice not too harmful.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              I don’t get it. If you accept that:

              1. There is great variety among girls, some getting horny at 15, others at 9;
              2. You accept that horny girls, whatever their age, are going to seek out to get laid, and will often enough succeed;

              Then what sense is there is in having any AoC higher than, say, 8? An AoC of 14 would make some sense if we lived in a world where no girls sexually misbehave prior to 14, no girls are fuckable prior to 14, or if it were totally feasible to firmly and tightly control all girls younger than 14.

              Since, so it seems, you accept that this is not at all the case, what logic is there in punishing men for the sexual proclivities of girls younger than 14? The girls are still going to get banged, but now your prison is filled with members of your in-group, overwhelmingly warriors, workers, and taxpayers who aren’t priestly and nerdy enough to reason themselves into celibacy.

              I can accept an AoC of 8, but anything higher simply allows girls to sexually misbehave while placing the blame on men. There is also a slippery slope issue, in that, first they introduced relatively sensible AoC laws, but as always happens with Progressive legislation (and make no mistake, AoC has always been fundamentally Progressive), it rapidly degenerated to the unspeakable Lovecraftian abomination of unreasonably high AoC such as 18 in some American states.

              Thus, sure, lower is better than higher, but abolishing it altogether in favor of other methods to deal with the problem — such as those discussed at very great and tedious length in this thread — is far better.

              • >An AoC of 14 would make some sense if we lived in a world where no girls sexually misbehave prior to 14

                My point is that their parents usually succeed to control them prior 14.

                >what logic is there in punishing men for the sexual proclivities of girls younger than 14?

                None at all, this is why I accept the abolition consensus. My point was that it is less bad, does not do much harm, because it rarely happens. When it does happen, it is still bad to punish the man for it.

                >The girls are still going to get banged, but now your prison is filled with members of your in-group, overwhelmingly warriors, workers, and taxpayers

                Not really. My reasoning is that puberty at 9 happens in trashy circles. My in-group is middle-class who don’t mingle much with trashy people (not that much white trash is left in Europe, except the UK, anyway) and I don’t really care much for trashy men. More importantly, in trashy circles a lot of law-breaking goes unreported and unpunished. It is in middle-class circles where charges are typically pressed and their daughters do not reach puberty much earlier than 14.

                >Thus, sure, lower is better than higher, but abolishing it altogether in favor of other methods to deal with the problem — such as those discussed at very great and tedious length in this thread — is far better.

                Yes, that is why I accept the abolition consensus.

                • >Not really. My reasoning is that puberty at 9 happens in trashy circles. My in-group is middle-class who don’t mingle much with trashy people (not that much white trash is left in Europe, except the UK, anyway) and I don’t really care much for trashy men. More importantly, in trashy circles a lot of law-breaking goes unreported and unpunished. It is in middle-class circles where charges are typically pressed and their daughters do not reach puberty much earlier than 14.

                  I should probably expand on this. In 14 AoC countries gypsy girls regularly live with a man at 12. But who cares? Certainly not the police. They have more important shit to do. The girls parents don’t push them. Their culture is that they are happy to get grandchildren from 12 years old daughters. Likely something similar with the ahola snackbar types. Who cares? Hardly any white trash left over here. How much white trash is left in the US anyway? Not much I think. Parents of the kind who would care and would push charges are also parents of the kind whose daughters have their puberty not much before 14.

                • info says:

                  @TheDividualist

                  Early puberty is caused by Fatherlessness in most cases.

                • jim says:

                  Not talking about early puberty.

                  I am talking about all nine year old girls.

                  Trashy behavior of children is today a worse problem for the upper class and the elite than it is for the working class, because the center of the disease is Harvard.

              • >There is also a slippery slope issue, in that, first they introduced relatively sensible AoC laws, but as always happens with Progressive legislation (and make no mistake, AoC has always been fundamentally Progressive), it rapidly degenerated to the unspeakable Lovecraftian abomination of unreasonably high AoC such as 18 in some American states.

                Now this is an actually good argument. My point was that me living in typically 14 AoC countries and this was fairly stable for a long time, for me it is not really a high priority to fix this. If you live in a 18 place, better to go full reactionary on it and abolish the whole thing. And the argument that it is something prone to attract holiness spirals and the AoC increases rapidly whenever it does is very good. It is entirely possible that while it was stable here at 14 for a long time, the Epstein news or some other news will launch a spiral and we too get 16 or 18.

                So I understand and accept your point: do not ignore the danger of Prog rules that seem on the whole fairly harmless because you got a fairly moderate version of them, because they can at any time launch a spiral and implement a far more extreme version of them. Point well taken.

        • shaman says:

          Its also true I like to break up my thoughts into separate sentences.

          No, Tard-Cuck, that is absolutely NOT what you are doing.

          In a now deleted, but very excellent comment, Jim explained what complex sentence structure and complex paragraph structure are, and how to tell if a comment is merely a wall-of-text written by a retard, or something more sophisticated. Jim explained that when people make up paragraphs at random, one has to read the text in order to tell that the writer is an idiot. But when there is simply a wall of text, or in your case, all lines are separated from each other completely, it is possible to tell that the writer is an idiot without reading a single word of his.

          Thus when you post, and then respond to yourself, and then again respond to yourself:

          Blah
          Blah
          Blah

          Blah
          Blah
          Blah

          Blah
          Blah
          Blah

          It is possible to tell that the writer (you) is an utter absolute idiot, without reading anything at all, as indeed I suspect many people don’t pay much attention to your disjointed irrelevant walls of text. And, voila, you really are an idiot who has never had an interesting or original thought in his entire life, who is a Serial Spammer of Nutty Nonsense, who is not even familiar with NRx on the most basic level, and who is a Blue Piller dumbass.

    • Not God says:

      I am noting that shaman answered all parts of vxxc’s post except for this one:

      One wonders if the intent is traps for our host or others…

      I refer specifically to Jim’s comment here, which I will quote in full:

      Don’t expound unless you have more than one passport, with good separation between the identities on the passports, and good separation between your posting identity and any of the passport identities, because the details might connect to your true identity.

      How do you think they kept the truth about women secret for two hundred years when the truth was well known before then, and in front of everyone’s noses the whole time?

      Notice that Roosh is the only Middle Easterner banned from Britain. They fear the truth more than they fear terrorists who drive trucks into nativity scenes.

      Heartiste, who was always more politically aware than Roosh, kept his true identity somewhat undercover.

      (Emphasis mine)

  37. Mathias says:

    “Deus Vult” was a battle cry called out by crusaders at the declaration of the First Crusade in 1095.

    Lots of commenters talking online about “Deus Vult” and Holy War, but how many have seen actual combat?

    I remember the day Andrija the invincible collapsed for the first time, the warrior of warriors whom we’d never seen without his shell: around Vitez, one morning like all the others in a village like all the others, when tensions were at their height with the Muslims

    a warm morning, a little misty, a munitions transport going north, a few kilometres from Travnik the deadly beauty one fine morning with a smell of spring, with Sergeant Mile and Vlaho the crazy driver at the steering wheel

    I don’t remember why we stopped near that building, probably because there was a corpse on the threshold, an old man, an entire cartridge clip in his head and chest, machine-gunned from quite close up and his dog too, a Croatian house, the door was open, a smell of incense wafted out as from a church, a dark interior and wood furniture, shutters closed they must have been shot at night, the guy and his mutt, why had he opened his door

    why had he gone out, Mile signed to us, a trembling orangey light was coming from a room in the back, a tiny fire, something’s burning, all three of us move towards it, Vlaho remains behind to watch the entrance, a big bedroom with candles everywhere, dozens of candles still lit and on the double bed an old lady stretched out her hands on her chest a black or dark-grey dress her eyes closed and I don’t understand

    Andrija takes off his helmet as a sign of respect, he takes off his helmet sighs and mumbles something, Mile and I imitate him without understanding, all three of us are in the process of watching over an old woman who doesn’t know she’s a widow, that her husband who lit all these candles for her was shot with his dog on his doorstep by unknown men or neighbours, she has heard nothing, on her deathbed, not the machine-gun volleys outside, not the footsteps in her house, not the laughter of those who jammed that large crucifix straight upright into the middle of her stomach, its absurd shadow is dancing on the wall next to the lowered faces of Andrija and Mile, bare-headed

    and it’s Vlaho’s voice that wakes us up, u kurac, he has just entered the room, fuck, what the hell are you doing here, are we going yes or no, he glances crazily at the grandmother at her desecrated body, I put my helmet back on, Mile puts his helmet on, and we leave like robots not saying a word we climb into the Jeep Andrija sits down next to me he remains silent his eyes gazing into space the tears are beginning to flow onto his cheeks he gently wipes them away with his sleeve, he doesn’t sob he looks at the countryside the houses the trees I watch him he cries like a silent fountain without hiding it, why, he’s seen lots of corpses, young, old, male, female, burnt black, cut into pieces, machine-gunned, naked, dressed or even undressed by an explosion, why this one

    Andrija will die a few weeks later, he’ll have time to avenge his own tears, to cauterise his tears in the flames, to ravage enemy bodies in turn, houses, families, exulting with Ajax son of Telamon, with Ulysses in the ruins of Troy, Andrija the furious was avenging that unknown grandmother he never mentioned again, I still have in my mind’s eye the shadow of Christ on the flowered wallpaper, in the gleam of the candles, nothing had been disturbed, no vengeful inscription on the walls, nothing, it was a strange miracle this crucifix stuck God knows how into the flesh of this old woman

    Andrija upset without showing it by this sign, Sergeant Mile didn’t say anything either, Eduardo Rózsa cracked too one day, and Millán-Astray, and Achilles son of Peleus, one day one fine day when nothing prepared you for it, and I too, I cracked, fissured like a clay wall slowly drying, in Venice it was a collapse followed by ghostly wandering through the hallways of the Zone, you die many times and today in this train all the names in this secret suitcase draw me to the bottom like the cinderblock attached to the legs of a prisoner thrown into the Tiber or the Danube, in the middle of middle-class Emilia, a train where the travellers are all sitting nicely, a car of passengers ignoring each other, pretending not to see the fate they share, these shared kilometres entrusted to the Great Conductor friend of model railways of halberds and of the end of the world, some facing forward and others with their back to their destination, like me, their gaze turned to the rear, to black night, to Milan the departure station:

    Millán-Astray Franco’s friend, the thin one-eyed one-armed general the Legionary responsible for splendid massacres in Morocco had a guilty passion for decapitation, he liked to slit the darkie’s throat with a bayonet, that was his weakness, not to say his hobby, in 1920 he founded the Spanish Foreign Legion, after a stay in Sidi Bel Abbès with the French who are always proud of their military cunning, a natural colonial mutual aid, the French Legionnaires made a great impression on Millán who was neither one-eyed nor one-armed at the time, just obsessed, fascinated with death, Millán formed his Legion in Morocco for Spain to which the poor, the hoodlums, the banished from all over Europe rushed, and he welcomed them singing them hymns—

    the Spanish Legionaries whom I came across in Iraq looked like young newlyweds dressed for their weddings, they sang while they marched quickly, soy el novio de la muerte, to their nuptials like those of their ancestors in Africa, to whom Millán said you are dead, full of lice, vulgar, you are dead and you owe this new life to death, you will live again by giving death, as good fiancés you will serve, pay court to the Reaper with passion, hand Lady Death the scythe, sharpen it buff it polish it brandish it in her place in Morocco first then after the beginning of Franco’s anti-Red crusade on the very soil of the homeland, in Andalusia, in Madrid then on the Ebro in the last great offensive, in Morocco against the bloody Berbers tamers of mares, in the military disasters of the Spanish protectorate that allowed the ephemeral creation of the first independent republic in Africa, the natives’ Republic of the Rif, the republic of Abd el-Krim el-Khattabi whose creased, yellowed bank bills you can still find at the second-hand stores in Tétouan

    Abd el-Krim the hero, the gravedigger of Spaniards was on the point of losing Melilla after the disaster of the Battle of Annual in July 1921 where 10,000 poorly armed, malnourished Spanish soldiers perished, without leaders and without discipline, one of the most resounding military blunders after the Somme and the Chemin des Dames, which would make the liberal monarchy of Alfonso XIII the Roman exile tremble: did he know, in his room in the Grand Hotel on the Piazza Esedra, with his collection of slippers and his princely visits, that his enemy of the time, the Berber cadi with the ponies, had found asylum in Cairo, at the court of King Farouk the anglophile:

    I picture him smoking a hookah by the Nile, for years, until, one day in 1956, the new king of independent Morocco suggested he return home—he refuses, maybe because he likes Nasser and Tahia Kezem too much, or maybe because he prefers to have his blood sucked by Cairo mosquitoes rather than by a Sharifian king, he dies without ever seeing his country again or holding a weapon, aside from a 9-millimetre Campo Giro picked up from the mutilated corpse of General Silvestre, commander of the Rif Army, the buffalo-horn-plated butt of which, smooth and scratchless, bears the arms of Alfonso XIII sent into exile by the defeat of his general and his brand-new pistol

    Silvestre the murdered with the undiscoverable scattered body, replaced by the brothers Franco Bahamonde and Juan Yagüe, eagles with poetic names, and their elder brother Millán-Astray with the absent eye, to whom his legionaries offered pretty wicker baskets garnished with decapitated Berber heads, to his great delight, just as before him, around 1840, Lucien de Montagnac, a colonel who was also one-armed, the pacifier of Algeria, staved off colonial boredom by decapitating Arabs like artichokes—

    I suddenly see Henryk Ross’s photo of the Łódź ghetto, a crate full of men’s heads next to another larger one where the headless bodies are piled up, that would have delighted Astray the one-eyed or Montagnac the ill-tempered, admirers of the samurais with the slender swords and of those saints who carried their own decapitated heads: long after his wars, Millán-Astray the bird of prey translated the Japanese Bushidō into Spanish, code of honour and of honourable death, of decapitation of the conquered soldier, law of the friend who slices your neck and thus saves you from suffering, just as the French revolutionaries adopted the guillotine for its democratic painless aspect, a king’s death for everyone, the leader’s rolling in a basket, whereas before the Revolution decapitation was reserved for nobles, with commoners dying in spectacular torments, drawn and quartered or burnt for the most part, if they survived questioning—

    in Damascus not long ago they hanged opponents from immense streetlights on the Square of the Abbasids, from the raised basket used in Paris to trim trees

    I remember one day a hanged man who had stayed up too long ended up being decapitated from his body and fell his head rolled between the cars provoking an accident which caused one more death, an innocent little girl, probably just as innocent as the guy whose shoulderless face had frightened the driver, also innocent, just as there are lots of innocent men among the killers in the suitcase, as many as there are among the victims, murderers rapists throat-slitters ritual decapitators who learned to handle their knives on lambs or sheep, then Zeus did the rest, in Algeria my Islamists were the world champions of decapitation, in Bosnia the mujahideen killed their prisoners in the same way, the way you bleed an animal, and my own entrance to the Boulevard Mortier bore the sign of seven monks’ heads abandoned in a ditch

    I can’t escape decapitation, these faces pursue me, up to Rome and Caravaggio with his head of Goliath David’s fist closed in the bloody hair or in the so-refined Palazzo Barberini Judith with her sword in Holofernes’s throat, the blood gushes so nicely, the beautiful widow looks both disgusted and resigned as she severs the carotid artery, the servant holds the bag that will surround the damp relic its eyes wide open, its hair sticky, a somber image among the religious scenes, the Saints Jerome, the portraits of bishops become popes, the innocent girls wild Judith neatly beheads the Babylonian general, to save her people in the same way Salome obtained the head of the Baptist, beheaded in his cell by a brutal guard, with a thick knife, as shown by Caravaggio, again, on the immense canvas in the cathedral of the Order of the Knights of St John in Malta, summer of 1608, when the order was incorporated, a year after arriving in the impregnable island, forty years after the Ottoman siege when Jean de Valette shot Turkish heads out of his cannons like cannonballs, to frighten the enemy

    Michelangelo Merisi di Caravaggio the Milanese would have liked to die beheaded, he died ill on a beach in Argentario, facing the grey sea that he had never painted, or that he had always painted, in the dark immensities where the bodies of beautiful boys and saints are born, of murderers prostitutes soldiers disguised as saints, Caravaggio great master of darkness and decapitation

    • Friendly Fred says:

      That ain’t actual combat. THIS is actual combat:

      “Lunging she kills a pair of massive Trojans, Butes and Orsilochus. Butes, his back turned, she stabs between the helmet and breastplate, just where the horseman’s neck shines bare and the shield on his left arm dangles down, off guard. And fleeing Orsilochus now as the Trojan drives her round in a huge ring, Camilla tricks him, wheeling inside him, quick, the pursuer now the pursued as she rears above him — praying, begging for mercy — her battle-axe smashes down, blow after blow through armor, bone, splitting his skull, warm brains from the wound go splashing down his face.” (Aeneid, trans. Fagles, Book 11.)

    • Vxxc says:

      You can’t explain combat.

      Let ‘em learn.

      Train them if they’ll listen.
      Keep the best of the litter from getting killed first combat.
      The good especially best do die young.

      I plan on knocking the wind out of two of them up front if shit happens.
      Cuz its best they make it longer.

      Make peace with the heads.
      Yes you can.
      Stare at em, tell them it was war and ignore them.

      I had to make peace with no head (50 cal).
      You can make peace to a face.
      Like always a coin toss.

      No I still don’t like reviewing the movie.
      Stop doing the rerun.
      That doesn’t work.

      Rest of you pay attention.
      You never had a choice.
      The enemy chose our extinction.
      We choose to live.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      The genre where the fragile mind of the effete intellectual or academic thrust into war is damaged beyond repair, has been rather popular. But men are normally pretty well constructed to do violence without our minds shattering.

      • Vxxc says:

        Yeah but its bothering him so I tried to tell him how to put down the bag of bricks.

        Also not to try and explain combat.
        Let em learn.

        =================
        I didn’t bring up effete intellectuals.
        Yes its a Trope.
        Give them a shovel and a rifle and yes they’ll adapt well enough.
        As you can gather eventually it takes a toll.
        In some ways the 90s Balkans wars (that he’s referring) were worse than what the Middle East has gone through.

  38. Vxxc says:

    Cameron Boyce; that last pic and the unspecified medical condition;

    The Poz.

    Agree?

  39. Friendly Fred says:

    Am I wrong in suspecting that a major issue of contention here arises from this situation?:

    Nice 22 year old programmer: “Yes, sir, I had sex with your obviously pubescent 14 year old daughter, who definitely wanted it, and now I’m going to marry her, so don’t kill me.”
    Dad: “Sorry, I’m gonna fucking kill you.”
    Nice 22 year old programmer: “Police! Help!”
    Policeman: “Sorry, Dad, you gotta let him marry her now instead of killing him; that’s the law.”
    Dad: “Shit. Okay.”

    • Friendly Fred says:

      I mean that the Dads of the world worry that Reactionary Law will put them in this situation, where their Dad-Authority is overruled by the Power of the State …

      and the Dads are likely to protest, “Hey, isn’t this a lot like the Progressive State forcing me to send my daughter to a high school where she’s trained to become a career-girl?”

      So do you respond, “Yes, but only in the sense that the State is imposing its will upon you with regard to your daughter; the difference is that the Progressive State is forcing something bad upon you with regard to your daughter, while the Reactionary State will be forcing something good upon you with regard to her”?

      • shaman says:

        Forbidding fathers from unlawfully killing their daughters’ husbands is quite far from Draconian State Oppression.

        What blue-pillers fear is that evil men will ruin their innately chaste angelic princesses. The red-pill is that girls are sexually uncontrollable, will crawl a hundred miles over broken glass to get banged like drums by alpha males, and therefore need to be under the authority of men who can provide them with reproductive sex.

        • Friendly Fred says:

          Okay, so does this scenario work?:

          Dad: “Get the fuck away from my daughter, you scumbag punk!”
          Joey: “Hey man, she’s like 14 and has boobs and everything — lighten up!”
          Cindy: “Yeah, dad, why you don’t lighten up? We’re just talking!”
          Dad: “We’ll discuss this later, Cindy. As for you, punk, fuck off or I put my fist through your face, and if I ever see you around my daughter again you’re gonna die.”
          [Later …]
          Dad: “Okay, Cindy, you’ve got three choices — Archibald the computer programmer, Seymour the electrical engineer, or staying chained to the basement wall until I come up with a couple of new names for your consideration.”
          Cindy: “But I love Joey!”
          Dad: “Sorry — no scumbag punk’s gonna marry my daughter. Archibald or Seymour or the wall — which is it?”

          • BC says:

            The fact that Joey had private access to Cindy sealed the deal. Proper response to get them hitched, because they’ve probably already fucked.

            The reason male chaperones were so common in the past is to prevent City from hooking up with Joey. Hell I used to have to chaperone my sister around when starting around 11 or so. I didn’t understand why and my parents probably couldn’t have explained it but they were continuing a very old practice deigned to safeguard my sister’s virginity.

            • shaman says:

              The fact that Joey had private access to Cindy sealed the deal. Proper response to get them hitched, because they’ve probably already fucked.

              Exactly so.

            • The Cominator says:

              The fact that Joey had private access to Cindy sealed the deal. Proper response to get them hitched, because they’ve probably already fucked.

              Here is where I disagree shaman, if Joey is unsuitable (lets say not a total criminal or something like that but hes a local band musician with a menial day job) and Cindy is hot you’ll probably be able to find some more suitable guy to have her even if they already fucked. Then if Cindy sneaks out at night on her new husband to bang Joey her new husband can beat the shit out of her and have Joey whipped in public square while a mob tosses rotten fruit at him and she’ll realize her new husband is more alpha because he can beat the shit out of her and have Joey whipped and mocked in public, and hell maybe Joey will learn to make something of himself so he can actually get a hot wife.

              There is no need to have any of them killed in this case or to have Cindy marry her unsuitable boyfriend, just some severe coercion and beatings and public humiliation. Pitiless severity should be reserved for real criminals and shitlibs…

              So while I don’t favor age of consent laws marriage by abduction should only be after a certain age. If the father can’t get Cindy married off by 20 despite hotness Joey can have her and the father shouldn’t be able to stop it.

              • BC says:

                >Here is where I disagree shaman, if Joey is unsuitable (lets say not a total criminal or something like that but hes a local band musician with a menial day job) and Cindy is hot you’ll probably be able to find some more suitable guy to have her even if they already fucked.

                Once they’ve fucked you have to kill Joey to make her somewhat suitable for marriage. Otherwise she will fuck him again. The very act of a man lowering himself to marry used goods makes him less alpha.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Joey may very well have to be shipped in public square and Cindy beaten with a stick. In 95% of cases anyway that should be enough.

          • Not Tom says:

            Dad: “We’ll discuss this later, Cindy. As for you, punk, fuck off or I put my fist through your face, and if I ever see you around my daughter again you’re gonna die.”

            This is exactly the demonic blue-pill white-knighting behavior everyone here is saying needs to disappear in order for civilization to be restored. So yes, any father who makes these threats and would actually follow up on them is a disgrace and a danger to his kin and tribe. He’s threatening to kill a member of his own tribe because of his own failure to marry her off when she was showing signs of sexual behavior.

            It is nothing like the state forcing her into public “education”. In that scenario, the state is intruding on kin relations and actively compelling behavior. In the bridal-abduction scenario, the state is simply saying that killing a man because you’re really angry he scored with your daughter is still murder, just like stealing from the grocery store because you’re really hungry is still theft. Civilized men control their emotions and act rationally. A judge might be lenient, for example if the man’s name was Tyrone, but murder is murder.

            From a property-law point of view, I’d argue that a girl who ceases to be a virgin also immediately ceases to be the property of her father. Regardless of whether or not he permitted or intended it, the fact is that he can no longer control her sexuality, and since being a “property owner” implies control over said property, he is de facto not her owner. She can then either be unowned (disastrous) or formally – de jure – transferred to her lover as a new wife.

            Note that the above does not imply that a girl automatically remains property of her father until losing her virginity. A 30-year-old unmarried female virgin, were such a thing to exist, is clearly the property of no one.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              It’s funny how the Conservadaddies always bring up Tyrone to argue against intra-ethnic marriage among civilized people. It should be known as a formal fallacy… Argumentum ad Tyronum.

              • The Cominator says:

                Tyrone (lets say Tyrone is an honest man, because Jeremy Meeks who wasn’t will just either be hanged or condemned to penal servitude in exile) isn’t going to be allowed in a good neighborhood in a reactionary society except maybe as a clearly low status servant.

                There may well be a few good upper class higher IQ blacks in good neighborhoods but that isn’t a huge problem.

              • Friendly Fred says:

                That’s why I called him “Joey”. He’s an Italian from Staten Island — his great-grandparents are from Calabria, not Sicily. There aren’t any working class WASPS in NYC, so I couldn’t call him “Billy Joe” — I did the best I could.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  The comment about Conservadaddies was not directed at you – you can still probably be redeemed. Once you grok our priorities, you’ll be on our side, as there’s no substantial emotional impediment in your case (presumably), unlike in the case of real, hopeless Conservadaddies whose psychological effeminacy vis-a-vis female family members knows no bounds.

              • Ron says:

                That’s bc ethnocentrism is a legitimate reason to drive a potential mate for your child off.

                I think I understand FF, he is not advocating the death penalty for our young Joseph. Instead he is asking if Dad has the right to throw Cindy in the basement and tell young Joseph to get off his lawn.

                I think that depends on the age of Cindy. If she is below majority yes. If above, no.

                Now the question becomes, is there such a state of free agency for women and if so under what circumstances?

          • Friendly Fred says:

            I guess I should have spelled it out explicitly or somehow made it obvious, without ruining the flow of the exchange, that Cindy has not had sex with Joey. In fact, she’s a virgin. A footnote to this effect would have fucked up the flow, but I thought that it was obvious.

            The whole point of the exchange is to set up a situation where Dad AGREES with you guys about marrying his daughter off young — I was making sure you were okay with Dad not letting bad boys near her before then.

            As soon as Dad realizes that she wants to have sex he marries her off. That’s the point. I thought that you’d approve of him.

            Now I’m kind of mystified. Dad can’t keep a scumbag away from his virgin daughter before marrying her off at age 14?

            You’re on Joey’s side, not Dad’s here? Remember, Cindy IS A VIRGIN — this is stipulated.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              I was making sure you were okay with Dad not letting bad boys near her before then… Dad can’t keep a scumbag away from his virgin daughter before marrying her off at age 14?

              Misdiagnosis of the problem. Joey is not seducing her. She is seducing him. Joey’s sexuality, Italian as it is, is still manageable. Her sexuality is completely unmanageable. Eggs precious, sperm cheap; women gatekeepers of sex, not men. Thus no point going on about Joey. Go on about the sexual misdeeds of the young temptress who has a propensity to disappear out of sight to the company of Chads, and who flirts with boys right next to her dad.

              • Friendly Fred says:

                What does it matter who’s seducing whom? Dad wants to keep her from having sex until she’s married; to do this, he might have to (politely, okay) ward off local boys — and I’m granting that he should now get her married as soon as possible, which is why he gives her the Archibald-Seymour-wall choice.

                • shaman says:

                  What does it matter who’s seducing whom?

                  It matters very much whom you depict as responsible for the situation and whom you depicted as not responsible for it. In your scenario, Cindy is a cute, shy, and innocent-presenting girl who didn’t do nothing, while Joey is solely responsible for the flirting that ensued from their encounter. This is not how things work in real life, not the actual observed behavior of the mating dance.

                  When girls run off to party behind dad’s back, or openly flirt with boys right in front of dad, it’s because they have already become — to put it, again, vehemently — dirty sluts who take hot cum loads up the ass, take facial cum shots into the mouth by an orgy circle in the club’s bathroom stall at 3 A.M., and gush their vaginal fluids like the Niagara Falls all over a long succession of alpha male Chads.

                  The scenario you described is movie-like, not realistic. It’s like it has been taken off a romantic comedy or something. In real life, girls run off and get banged by drums behind dad’s back, and to prevent that, need to arrest the girls, rather than trying to arrest all the men in the world.

                  he might have to (politely, okay) ward off local boys

                  No, he absolutely does not need to ward off local boys. He needs to beat his daughter with a stick for sneaking out of sight to engage in “unspecified” activities that happen to involve an exchange of fluids. Local men, or (as is too often the case) distant men, are not the problem. Her crawling nine miles over broken glass to fraternize with alpha male Chads at the night party is the problem.

                  The scenario you describe is not taken from reality, and it is not realistic because it misdiagnoses the source of sexual misconduct. Sexual activity does in fact occur, but your scenario, instead of acknowledging that, and instead of acknowledging the daughter’s prior misbehavior that has led to the sexual activity taking place, presents daddy as “warding off local boys” as if that is the issue. That is not the issue.

                • jim says:

                  > What does it matter who’s seducing whom?

                  We need to control women. You want to control men. That is a displacement activity from failing the shit test that women have hit us with.

                  You are failing the test. Cindy’s dad is failing the test.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  >> What does it matter who’s seducing whom?

                  > We need to control women. You want to control men. That is a displacement activity from failing the shit test that women have hit us with.

                  > You are failing the test. Cindy’s dad is failing the test.

                  See this timeless essay by Dalrock.

                  https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

              • Cloudswrest says:

                > > What does it matter who’s seducing whom?

                > We need to control women. You want to control men. That is a displacement activity from failing the shit test that women have hit us with.

                See this timeless essay by Dalrock

                https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

            • Not Tom says:

              I guess I should have spelled it out explicitly or somehow made it obvious, without ruining the flow of the exchange, that Cindy has not had sex with Joey.

              I had assumed otherwise, so my previous replies can be considered in that context.

              This scenario seems very unlikely if she is really still a virgin. For one thing, I don’t understand how Cindy arrived at the father’s front door, with Joey. If she sneaks off in the middle of the night, she’s going to come back alone; and if they were in a public place and making out in a corner, the father really has no right to tell Joey where he can and can’t go – it’s not his property.

              I’m going to assume the latter – that dad caught them flirting in a public place – because the other possibility doesn’t make sense. Also going to assume that she decided she was “in love” 10 minutes after meeting him, because otherwise the father would have to have ignored a long pattern of misbehavior. In that scenario, the appropriate response is to apologize to Joey for the misunderstanding, take Cindy home immediately, reintroduce her to Mr. Stick, and then have the marriage conversation.

          • Ron says:

            @Friendly Fred

            What if I told you a terrible truth? That if Archibald had the backing of the community and the will to impose it on Cindy, that she would eventually “fall out of Love” with Joey and fall “into love” with Archibald?

            Is it always true? Maybe not. But from reading and listening and observing I think it more likely true than not. I’d defer to the more experienced men here on that topic.

            Women are far colder and ruthless in certain ways then we men are. This is bc they are far weaker in nearly every way and they know it. A strong secure man won’t keep pounding his enemy into the ground, a weak insecure man will not stop until his enemy and all his enemies relatives die screaming. The weak man has no other option.

            It is as hard for a woman to love a man she perceives as weak in the same way that Any of us would have a hard time loving woman whose physical appearance is grotesque. It can be done but it is difficult.

            Similarly it is as easy for a woman to love a man who is ruthless and strong as it would be for any of us to love a woman who is physically beautiful and graceful.

            Joey was driven off, therefore Joey is weak

            Archibald has the backing of his community and fsther. This is an aspect of preselection which is like crack cocaine to women

            Archibald will be allowed to beat her with a stick if she proves recalcitrant, and as her husband there is no concept of rape, which means he can exert his force over her to physically compel her to his will. If he can manage to keep his insecurity in check and gets good advice he can have a pretty good chance in impressing her with his power and strength. Again, not everything to women, they like the physical far far more than they let on, but it is quite a lot. Maybe even enough for happiness.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        @Friendly Fred: It is *exactly* that. Indeed, as someone else pointed out several posts above legal bridal abduction is what we have already under Feminist rule where the father has no say whatsoever and if his daughter goes with Tyrone not only is there nothing he can even legitimately say let alone do about it, but Tyrone isn’t even obliged to marry her and then give the old man a few bucks in order to make it right.

        • Ron says:

          @Doug

          If I had read your comment before posting I wouldn’t have posted. Spot on.

        • shaman says:

          as someone else pointed out several posts above

          The person who made that claim is cuckermint, who never gets the WP right, and has been curb stomped for that reason.

          legal bridal abduction is what we have already

          Nuts.

          We don’t have legal bride abduction, and we don’t have legal marriage at all. Legal bride abduction means that the abducter is not allowed to let the unbetrothed virgin who jumped his bones go – he has to marry her. The crime is not abducting her, but setting her free. We don’t have anything remotely similar.

          Today marriage is illegal throughout the West, and certainly marriage by abduction; all women are now completely liberated to fuck as many Chads as they desire. That is the very opposite of legal bridal abduction, the very opposite of marrying unbetrothed virgins who sexually misbehave by independently taking ownership of them.

          if his daughter goes with Tyrone

          There won’t be Tyrone in a Reactionary society, and definitely not marriage to Tyrone. Anyone bringing Tyrone is being disingenuous, is projecting current issues on post-Restoration society.

          isn’t even obliged to marry her and then give the old man a few bucks in order to make it right.

          Exactly the problem.

          • kawaii_kike says:

            >”There won’t be Tyrone in a Reactionary society, and definitely not marriage to Tyrone. Anyone bringing Tyrone is being disingenuous, is projecting current issues on post-Restoration society.”

            What do you mean by this? Are you saying that in a proper Reactionary society, there won’t be any blacks or Italians and that only Anglo-Saxons will be allowed?

            • The Cominator says:

              A reactionary society will be in general an apartheid society. The vast majority of blacks or at least young black males won’t be allowed in good white neighborhoods, a few outstanding wealthy high iq blacks who are exempted. You can of course choose to live in mixed neighborhoods which will be allowed but I don’t imagine many whites would do so.

              I don’t know where this stuff about Italians is coming from.

              • kawaii_kike says:

                I guess I’m naive, but I didn’t realize the racial policies that would take place in a reactionary society. I feel like the racial policies of reaction should be discussed more or maybe these are just seen as a given by everyone else. As a black, I’m worried that I would be grouped in with other blacks and minorities.

                Also as a side note, I’m confused on the reactionary stance of morality, I am a true believer in God and believe that God has declared prostitution, pornography, and fornication as immoral and therefore, these acts should not be allowed. I guess that’s considered “moralfagging” to harp on these issues. But reaction seems to be concerned more with utility than morality, which is confusing because reaction also seems to be intertwined with biblical precedent.

                The stuff about Italians comes from the hypotheticals discussed by Friendly Fred and 2019 is boring, in which they use stereotypical Italian names to discuss the woman question.

                I don’t consider myself an entryist but I do disagree on some aspects of reaction that conflict with Catholic morality. I don’t think I’ve portrayed my dissent disingenuously.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I guess I’m naive, but I didn’t realize the racial policies that would take place in a reactionary society.

                  Forced integration is a failure and we plan to end it. We’ve never really felt the need to discuss the details as much as discussing race too much draws entryists and feds and most of us agree on general principles, the woman question is far more complicated and less discussed elsewhere in detail (and so complicated by lies) that it is discussed here far more.

                  I’m worried that I would be grouped in with other blacks and minorities.

                  I’m opposed to killing or confiscating property of any US citizens strictly on account of race and most of us are as well, so you don’t need to worry on that account. But we are going to let the pre civil rights de facto segregation reassert itself by following the Jared Taylor program basically.

                  Of course minorities who fight for the left wil be dealt with… But personally I hate white shitlibs far far far more then minority ones and if it were up to me they’d get far less mercy.

                  Also as a side note, I’m confused on the reactionary stance of morality, I am a true believer in God and believe that God has declared prostitution, pornography, and fornication as immoral and therefore, these acts should not be allowed. I guess that’s considered “moralfagging” to harp on these issues. But reaction seems to be concerned more with utility than morality

                  Structuring society on moralfagging in ways that oppose human nature doesn’t work. Its hard enough to keep people from organizing into warring tribes to smash and grab their neighbors stuff. We aim to ruthlessly optimize society for civilized efficiency.

                  Christendom permitted prostituion for centuries for similar reasons and so should we. I’m actually confused by Jim’s seeming reluctance to go with the pure reactionary position on prostitution that the state should do absolutely nothing to prevent it besides keeping it off the streets of good neighborhoods.

                  The monarchy cannot be a Catholic one because of the principle of national sovereignity and warrior/monarchial supremacy over priests. The Papacy (in addition to being generally corrupt and run by our enemies) is not compatible with this. Jim has agreed that in the long term a reactionary state should plan to fold all American Catholic Churches into the Orthodox Church (which works great as a reactionary church).

                  In addition if you are stubbornly Catholic St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both argued that prostitution needs to be legal.

                • jim says:

                  > Also as a side note, I’m confused on the reactionary stance of morality, I am a true believer in God and believe that God has declared prostitution, pornography, and fornication as immoral and therefore, these acts should not be allowed

                  I don’t believe you. I think you hate Christianity and hate Christ.

                  And the reason I think that is that in your list of sexual sins, you left out the sin of adultery, the sin of women sleeping with one man, and then sleeping with another man, which is the only sexual sin that God and Bible directly and unambiguously call out, which sin has today been elevated into a sacred human right, a right so sacred as to totally trump all other human rights.

                  You focused only on sins that men are apt to commit, but which are barely mentioned in the bible, and ignored sins that women commit massively, disruptively, and hurtfully, and which totally dominate and control our society.

                  It is absolutely obvious that biblical family law and sexual law is profoundly reactionary, unimaginably reactionary by modern standards, and that reactionaries unambiguously intend to institute something that is a whole lot closer to biblical law.

                  If you were not inclined to spit on Christ and Christianity, the problem of adultery, of women sleeping with one man after another and then very belatedly getting married, and then likely continuing to sleep with one man after another, would be at the top of your list.

                  My interpretation of the situation is that a massive crackdown on female sexuality is urgently needed, that the house is burning down around us, but that the crackdown on male sexuality has gone to insanely over the top extreme, and needs to be relaxed quite a bit. Now we could argue whether it needs to be relaxed or tightened up, but debating that while ignoring the house burning down around us is anti christian.

                  Whenever I hear someone telling me that Christianity, rightly understood, is progressivism, and if we disagree with progressivism, we are being unchristian, it is usually someone who thinks that “piss Christ” was great art and Global Warming is the great moral challenge of our time.

                  Now if you had said

                  “I am a Christian, and we have to crack down on women speaking in Church, women engaging in serial monogamy, women cutting their hair short, women wearing that which pertaineth to a man, expel sodomites, bumboys, and effeminates – and also we have to do something about prostitutes and pornstars”

                  then I would believe you might be a Christian.

                  But you don’t want to crack down on prostitutes and pornstars, you want to crack down on men looking at porn stars. Therefore, not a Christian. Anyone who gives a leftist account of Christian sexual morality should not be allowed to get away with putting on moral airs while he arranges for nine year old boys to be sodomized, castrated, and transexualized. If someone actually is Christian, and actually concerned with Christian sexual morality, will be primarily concerned about the discrepancy between Christian sexual morality, and the sexual morality of the recent one hundred and fifty years.

                • shaman says:

                  KK(K) wrote:

                  Why call it “genital mutilation” when genital improvement is more accurate. Circumcision is the complete opposite from mutilation and should be considered genital enhancement. Not only does it keep the genitals more hygienic but it also reduces sexual urges.

                  Lust is a vice that many people struggle with, so if removing the foreskin helps people resist temptation and saves them from the fires of Hell, then so be it.

                  Circumcision is a gift and a virtue. If you could look past your obsession with sexual gratification then you would be able to see circumcision for the gift that it truly is. I support male and female circumcision. It reduces sexual urges and thus makes the world a less sinful place.

                  This is not Christianity, but a recent demonic Puritan mockery thereof, which in light of the African “plot twist” probably stems from actual demonic voices screaming in KK’s ear.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  @kawaii_kike “Tyrone”= shorthand for lower-class Black guy w/criminal tendencies that White women increasingly get mixed up with. The reference I made was based on a true local story which happened when I was growing up, in which there was almost a race riot in this part of town where a lot of Italians and also a lot Blacks lived. An Italian high-school girl and a Black guy were discovered to have been having a secret tryst. Her male relatives were not impressed and relations between the two communities quickly soured in a dangerous way. My personal stance on the race question, based in part on this story, is that part of any future social settlement keeping the peace and overall good relations between the races will have to involve a ban on mixed marriages.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Jim, you are attributing malicious intent where there is none and you are slandering me. I love Christ and love Christianity.

                  The Bible very clearly denounces fornicators. The reason I left out adultery on my list of sexual sins is because it was already talked about in great detail by you and others. The list of sexual sins I brought up were sins that I thought were being ignored by reaction.

                  >“I am a Christian, and we have to crack down on women speaking in Church, women engaging in serial monogamy, women cutting their hair short, women wearing that which pertaineth to a man, expel sodomites, bumboys, and effeminates – and also we have to do something about prostitutes and pornstars”

                  I agree with the entirety of the above statement, I do want to crack down on pornstars, prostitutes, and adulteresses with extreme prejudice. If burning, beating, and public flogging is what it takes to control misbehaving women then I welcome it with open arms.

                  But I see your point that female sexuality is the predominant and far more pressing issue and me focusing on male sexuality is kind of nitpicking.

                  @shaman
                  Sex outside of marriage is a sin and I want to reduce sin as much as possible and if circumcision reduces sexual urges then this helps control the volcanic sex drives of women and is good, not Puritan mockery.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I feel like the racial policies of reaction should be discussed more or maybe these are just seen as a given by everyone else. As a black, I’m worried that I would be grouped in with other blacks and minorities.

                  If there is a consensus, it’s probably de facto voluntary segregation and not Jim Crow segregation, but this would probably vary by state/region depending on crime. Some would be Jim Crow, others would be Jared Taylor, none would be allowed to have a Civil Rights Act or Fair Housing Act.

                  “Tyrone” is shorthand for the thuggish underclass. I don’t know any middle-class blacks named Tyrone. Middle-class blacks adopt Anglo names. In the hypothetical reactionary state, if you chose to live in or near a predominantly-white community – let’s say it’s a Taylor state and the community has vetted you and decided that you’re one of the few who will fit in – then I would expect that you, and/or your kids, would still face a lot of suspicion and resistance to interracial relationships.

                  But that’s not Reaction, that’s reality. If you look at polls today, most people still don’t really approve of interracial dating, and that’s despite 50 years of non-stop bombardment of IR propaganda in media, entertainment and advertising. Tribalism isn’t going away.

                  If I were you, I’d take comfort in the fact that black people in America did way better back in the segregated 1920s-1950s than they did in the desegregated post-1960s period. They did way better in nearly every dimension: higher income, lower crime, more families. You imagine yourself being forced to live in a Chicago slum, but under reactionary rule it would be more like one of the historical Black Wall Streets, because we would actually put all of the unmanageable criminals in prison, or just execute them, and of the people remaining, most would be happily married.

            • shaman says:

              To filter out the wignats and other unsympathetic characters while still embracing ethno-nationalism, blogger Handle cleverly defined the NRx position as “Multi-Zionism,” i.e., every ethnicity should emulate the founders of Israel: establish ethno-states for everyone!

              Now, we here aren’t fond of the “One Drop Rule,” so someone who’s 1/8 black and 7/8 white may be categorized as simply white; thus Alexander Pushkin should really be counted as a Russian, not a “Russian-Cameroonian” or something like that. It really depends on the compatibility level, while also taking the regression to the mean phenomenon into account.

              Tyrone is an archetype; he is Bixnoodus Americanus. A nigger’s nigger. Hey, I’m unabashedly supportive of holocausting those who can’t function at all within civilization – one central reason I support the legalization of all drugs is to kill niggers and other inferior specimens.

              Now if you say, “I’m an Oreo Cookie: black on the outside, white on the inside,” and if you can get your typically African superstitious proclivities under control, then AFAIC you don’t count as a nigger, just a normie-compatible black person, and come the Restoration, you will be given your own plot of land, preferably far away from these wypipo crackers genetically engineered by Yakub (I know, I know, you’re Catholic, not Nation of Islam – it’s a joke), and maybe even some slaves from your own kin:

              Joke: “MUHFUGGA GIBSME REPARATIONS FO’ SLAVERY.”

              Woke: “I’m black myself and I’d like to avail myself of some black slaves, thank you very much.”

              (Cominator objects to chattel slavery, so you see, we’re not monolithic)

              Point is, Tyrone is not a synonym for all blacks, just those blacks who’ll likely end up on the wrong side of the heroin needle when all drugs are legalized, and after the harsh selection for basic competence, the tiny black remnant (of which you may well be a member) shall be given its own territories separate from whites, where you will be free to run things your own way, as long as you don’t create too many negative externalities for other races and ethnic groups.

              We won’t insist on racial purity as a state policy (no need to explicitly ban interracial marriage), but immigration to whites zones — i.e., most of the country under our rule — will be greatly restricted to whites and to those compatible with white society, which naturally excludes the vast overwhelming majority of blacks. On the private level, most white fathers will be rather reluctant to give their daughters away to BASED black gentlemen, but if you’re really outstanding, who knows. But why not stick with your own race? Get yourself a nice black lady with thicc heavy booty and all that, and be merry with her.

              Obviously the races should remain separate, and moreover, different ethnic groups should practice intra-ethnic breeding rather than inter-ethnic breeding, but things are flexible and fluid enough to allow for some exceptions to the general rule. As I said, a “One Drop Rule” is not needed much, but the restoration of families and the establishment of “Multi-Zionism” entail fragmentation along racial and ethnic lines, not — needless to say — intermixing.

              Let’s get serious, there will probably occur a race war, though hopefully whites will win it rather swiftly, and blacks wise enough to stay out of it will be rewarded by not being holocausted: This is incredibly generous, considering all the demonic suffering that you inflict on whites on a daily basis. (Same applies to other groups dumb enough to fight a race war against whites) You’ll be offered to go back to Africa with some compensation, or to live in a separate black territory in America, or — if you’re really decent — to live among whitey, though your status will not be “equal” to that of those officially categorized as whites. #Sorry #NotSorry

              The nigger is kinda like an archetype itself, in that some niggers are as pale as snow, i.e. all races produce the “Spiritual Physiognomy” (to borrow a Spenglerian term from Aidan McLear) of the nigger, though some races and ethnicities are on average more nigger-like than others. Simply put, those who are very dumb and very aggressive will not exist in a Reactionary society, or perhaps will exist as low-status slaves; free people won’t marry into them, and I advocate mass sterilization of niggers from all races.

              The primary enemy is not blacks, indeed, the primary enemy is not any specific ethnic group, but a hostile memeplex. Blacks and browns are racially incompatible with white civilization, but need not necessarily be ideological adversaries; as Steve Sailer often says, “That’s what different countries are for.”

              To further console you, lemme note that browns are much more likely to be outright political enemies than blacks, one reason being that blacks have such a low average IQ that a coherent weltanschauung is quite beyond their cognitive purview. But it’s not merely IQ, obviously; the African nature is essentially devoid of abstract concerns, such as ideology, in sharp contrast to e.g. brown Semitic Mohammedans, and also in contrast to spics. No offense intended, but blacks really are fundamentally different from the rest of humanity, and are more like a type of unreasoning — ergo apolitical — animal (this is true both of Sub-Saharan Africans and of Aborigines, despite them being two altogether different races). So you see m8, that may actually play to your favor, ironically.

              Tl;dr: Broad separation by territory (there will naturally be exceptions), cooperation with those willing to cooperate, and absolute genocide of those unwilling to cooperate.

        • shaman says:

          Reaction 101 on the WP is that marriage has been highly illegal for a long while, ever since men lost property rights over women, hence defect-defect equilibrium, plummeting reproduction, and dysgenesis.

          For marriage to be legal again, need to restore property rights over women. Sexually misbehaving girls need to be owned by men who can give them reproductive sex, need to be under the legal authority of husbands who can fuck their brains out, hence husbandhood out-alphas fatherhood. If you deflower an unbetrothed virgin, need to keep her. A non-virgin slut is up for grabs to whoever is willing to take her.

          There is nothing remotely similar to that in the West, and hasn’t been for a long while. Coverture is now strictly illegal, whereas divorce on demand is both legal and encouraged. That is the problem, and anyone suggesting or implying otherwise has no grasp of Reaction 101 on the WP.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            I’m not going to get irritated … not … not … geez, I DO NOT WANT TO GET “mirrored” — DON’T MIRROR ME, BRO!

            But I kind of feel as though fathers are getting their balls cut off here, kind of the way the way fathers are getting their balls cut off now in the real Progressive world.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              Your narrative does not correspond to how things work in real life. If a daughter is openly flirting with someone next to dad, it should be assumed that she has already hopped on the cock carousel, and is looking for her next upgrade thereon. It should be assumed that a dick, or rather several dicks, have already jizzed their nuts out inside her cunt and the other two orifices. It should be assumed that she opened her big teenage mouth and gulped in a bunch of facial cumloads.

              Joey is not the problem, and blaming it on him is blue-pilled as f**k. If you don’t like greasy wops and dagos, that’s perfectly fine, indeed spaghetti doesn’t mix very well with biscuits or whatever – what is not fine is the assumption that he is seducing her, rather than vice versa. And if she is seducing him, then “I’ll beat you up and kill you, punk” is sheer idiocy; dad should beat his daughter up, and then promptly marry her off, perhaps to one of his incel-in-denial friends.

              • Friendly Fred says:

                Okay, Joey’s not the problem and Dad shouldn’t be rude to him. He should just pull Cindy away from Joey and marry her off as quickly as possible. CINDY IS A VIRGIN.

                (I like NYC Italians, by the way. I just needed a name suggesting a group that would be likelier than WASPS to include guys that Dad wouldn’t want Cindy to have sex with.)

                • The Cominator says:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCuMWrfXG4E

                  You gotta marry her off before Billy Joel abducts her.

                • shaman says:

                  CINDY IS A VIRGIN.

                  No, she really isn’t, and adding a line to the original story saying “Cindy is a virgin” would be lying.

                  If she were as innocuous and innocent as your scenario depicts, she would not be sexually flirting with Joey in front of dad. But of course she is flirting with him: She wants to jump his bones, and has probably already jumped the bones of a few men before him.

                  And no, re-writing the story to present her as more innocent will not make the story more realistic, but just the opposite, will only make the situation even more absurd, i.e. will make the story even less realistic: Young girls have volcanic sex drives, so of course she will be flirting with him. This is natural.

                  What is not natural is dad trying to keep her a virgin past reasonable age, instead of marrying her off, or allowing someone else (e.g. Joey) to take her.

                • Friendly Fred says:

                  I thought of her as a virgin when I wrote the scenario, so it isn’t lying to assert afterwards that she’s a virgin — lying involves intent to deceive and there’s no intent to deceive. I assumed that people would assume she’s a virgin because her age is explicitly given as 14 and I assumed that most people would assume, as I do, that regardless of the volcanic character of the average 14 year old girl’s sex-drive she’s overwhelmingly likely to be a virgin (she probably masturbates a lot.)

                  “What is not natural is dad trying to keep her a virgin past reasonable age, instead of marrying her off, or allowing someone else (e.g. Joey) to take her.” — I have him telling her that she has to choose Archibald or Seymour or stay chained to the basement wall until he comes up with a couple of new names for her consideration, so his intending to marry her off quickly is explicitly written into the story.

                • The Cominator says:

                  14 y/o virginity is possible even if she is the flirtatious type, at 16 not so much.

                • jim says:

                  The presumption that Cindy is a virgin, and that it is Joey that is endangering her virginity, is what is wrong with this scenario.

                  Cindy is endangering her virginity – and was likely popped at nine.

      • Ron says:

        Don’t forget to follow the Bible and allow the father to collect a years worth of salary for a middle class male as a fine, provided the father can prove she was a virgin before she banged her (current) One True Love

      • jim says:

        Nuts

        The progressive state demands that you send your daughter out of sight.

        We don’t

        Enormous difference.

        Your daughters is going to wander off anyway, but under our state you will be able to have her hauled back on a leash by the cops and beat her with a stick.

        This is absolutely nothing remotely like the progressive state.

        • The Cominator says:

          Will we even have professional standing police outside of major cities? I always had imagined we generally would not.

          I thought we would have justices of the peace (unpaid gentlemen, and it should be restricted to rich men only not low class status seekers, who work part time) but true police only in large cities.

          • jim says:

            Cops, hotel security, mall security, the officer of the militia: the general concept is that the authority of husbands and fathers to use force will be backed by society and the state, who will physically support them in the use of force on erring daughters, but when there is a conflict between husband and father over the daughter, the state and society will normally back the husband.

            On the role of cops: Private security gets ultimately backed by the militia, but state force is not routinely involved in day to day stuff. But when serious push comes to serious shove, state force shows up to make sure that the good guys win.

            Most use of force needs to privatized, partly because socialism fails, partly because males who are high status in the male hierarchy need to be able to use force, so that upper class virgins stop “falling in love” with Jeremy Meeks.

            But the state is the ultimate arbiter of force, and will kick ass from time to time – less frequently than at present, but still, when push comes to shove.

            The problem is always not so much force – any man can can coerce any women, and women rather like it. The problem is that you cannot find your daughter. She is away in some vaguely specified place doing something vaguely specified. So we need a rule that hotels and such like card women – not for age, but for being unaccompanied, to make sure they are authorized to be unaccompanied, or that the male accompanying them has authority to do so.

            When I was a young man, there were a whole lot of places where unaccompanied women were not permitted to go, and where the males accompanying women would be asked about their connection to those women. We are going to set things back to the way I remember them being, and that is what I meant by “The cops hauling your daughter back on a leash”

            • The Cominator says:

              On the role of cops: Private security gets ultimately backed by the militia, but state force is not routinely involved in day to day stuff. But when serious push comes to serious shove, state force shows up to make sure that the good guys win.

              Yes there will of course be a militia (of which all able bodied men not suspected of disloyalty should be nominally a part of) but I don’t think small towns should have many paid government employees at all. I’d also get rid of “speed limits” so that eliminates the “need” for most small town cops.

              Most local government employees to the extent they need to exist at all should be replaced with unpaid gentlemen volunteer employees. Justices of the peace (the only permanent day to day government “law enforcement” outside of the cities) in particular will be open only to men already of independent means. In the event of serious disturbances the state can of course mobilize the militia or the standing army (and there should of course be an Imperial Secret Police tasked with finding and disappearing active shitlibs, communists, feminists, anti-monarchists etc.).

              Cities realistically will have to retain professional police departments.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                Many hick towns here in Canada have traditionally managed to get along w/no police force at all and continue to. RCMP or provincial cops are called in when a serious crime happens but otherwise no State presence whatsoever. You could do whatever you like in these towns as long as it doesn’t seriously bother anybody (ex. open carry in a country where that’s severely forbidden by law, ride bob-street-legal dirt bikes on streets and do it without wearing a helmet, etc. etc.).

              • 2019 is boring says:

                Most cops these days are utter degenerates. The average pig is made from the same cloth as Philip Brailsford and his ilk.

                There are entire departments that need not exist.

                All modern sex-crime legislation will be scraped. “He is punished for fucking a 11-year-old escort” and “He is punished for possessing an erotic video of a 11-year-old chick masturbating to a squirting orgasm with her toothbrush” will be completely incomprehensible notions, suggestions so bizarre and alien that no person will recognize them as anything other than nightmarish, dystopian gibberish. (Let the cucks get triggered! Let the “pedo” accusations rain on me! I want the white knights to finally, finally, finally GTFO and never return)

                What just happened to Donald Trump’s old-time friend (and what may very possibly happen soon enough to the God-Emperor himself), Jeffrey Epstein, will be literally mentally impossible to process; what is right now happening all over the Anglosphere and Western Europe with these “child sex trafficking” hysterical witch-hunts will be remembered as a quaint burst of full-on florid howling-at-the-moon frothing-at-the-mouth psycho-psychopolitical madness. The new sex-related legislation will be in line with recent discussions here. If you really want to stop 11-year-olds from selling their thinly-haired pussies as escorts, then punish them for doing it, beat them with a heavy stick for doing it.

                Drugs should be considered low status, unbecoming of gentlemen, but legal – the police has no business regulating the drugs market. Let subhumans destroy themselves as they see fit; let St. Darwin do his job. (I feel less strongly about this issue, though)

                • info says:

                  I presume that you read voxday article and the comments. But jeff is a key player in the c

                • info says:

                  Cabal. And his interrogation will lead to the real demons that like to murder and torture.

                • shaman says:

                  I don’t read VD or his comments, and I would much rather rely on Jim for political prognostication than on Qanon and similar crazy stuff.

                • quarty says:

                  The real crime is espionage. Make the enemy live up to his own rules just clouds the issue and confuses people.

                • shaman says:

                  The real crime is that Nikolai (who admires you) keeps asking you questions and you rudely refuse to answer them, because you’re a piece of shit. Stop spamming our discussion of the WP, you little faggot, or you’ll receive a bullycide ten times worse than the previous one, and ten times worse than what Kookanic received.

                  Talk about issues you’re more familiar with, such as how that bisexual guy at the gym stole your girlfriend, and how your poor reality testing made you conclude from that awful cucksperience that Jim should be violently murdered for being a “pedophile.”

                • Not Tom says:

                  what is right now happening all over the Anglosphere and Western Europe with these “child sex trafficking” hysterical witch-hunts will be remembered as a quaint burst of full-on florid howling-at-the-moon frothing-at-the-mouth psycho-psychopolitical madness

                  Literal satanic panic. The purple-pillers are positively elated by the Epstein news. They finally caught Muh Jewish Pedos! Justice has been done! Hollywood Pedos are next! All of you terrible black-pillers were worried that Trump wouldn’t put Epstein in prison (a concern expressed by no one, ever; the blackpillers were worried that Trump wouldn’t put Hillary in prison, or Obama, or the Awan brothers, or…), but he actually went and did it! The madman!

                  It’s just like the satanic panic of the 1980s, not because it’s blaming Satan (who does exist, either in reality or metaphorically), but because the behavior it insists is satanic is either boring cheesy occultism or sexual mores that were completely ordinary from the time of the Old Testament up to about 60 years ago.

                  From what I’m reading in MSM, these weren’t even 11-year-old sluts; the youngest they found was 14, or approximately peak female fertility.

                  My optimistic hope is that Epstein already agreed behind closed doors to give up the dirt on various power players to Team Trump, and the arrest is just political theater for his blue-pilled base. A plea bargain provides political cover so that they appear to be adversaries and not old boys palling around trading secrets.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Where I disagree with you (and shaman) on the satanic panic thing is that while I don’t see heterosexual sex with postpubescents (which as far as I know is what Epstein was involved with, nothing as of yet more sinister) as something that should be a crime much of the pizzagate stuff implied many things far far worse that indeed definitely should be crimes.

                  Now maybe it was a clever hoax concocted by some of ours to kneecap Hillary shortly before the election (coordinated with the Comey dump) but Podesta was clearly using code in his emails and there were indeed things way way off about David Brock’s boyfriends’ pizza place…

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  much of the pizzagate stuff implied many things far far worse that indeed definitely should be crimes.

                  Pizzagate, beyond typical screeching pedo-hysteria, implied cannibalism and necrophilia in underground basements and similar stuff. These things are already crimes. But pizzagate itself is a hoax, whatever the intention behind it.

                  but Podesta was clearly using code in his emails and there were indeed things way way off about David Brock’s boyfriends’ pizza place…

                  I dispute 95%-100% of the materials provided by pizzagate (and a solid 100% of its supposed “implications”), but I don’t dispute the general idea that there are some legitimately weird, creepy people among shitlibs. Problem is, autistics are bad at telling that edgy humor is sometimes just that: edgy humor, so they are bad at telling which individuals are truly creepy, and which ones only LARP for shits and giggles.

                  Really, if you want to find folks whose psychology is altogether twisted, as in “insane-in-the-membrane, crazy-in-the-coconut” twisted, among members of the Cathedral, then instead of wasting time with various politicians and their associates — who are usually shallow, uninteresting, boring people — go look up the ardent abortion enthusiasts, those wide-eyed women who are so, so excited about “terminating pregnancies.” Bureaucrats and apparatchiks may have edgy humor, and hang around some other people with edgy humor, but if you want to see genuine Moloch worship, observe the pro-abortion activists.

                  Related:

                  https://blog.jim.com/culture/intact-fetal-cadavers/

                • The Cominator says:

                  Pizzagate, beyond typical screeching pedo-hysteria, implied cannibalism and necrophilia in underground basements and similar stuff. These things are already crimes. But pizzagate itself is a hoax, whatever the intention behind it.

                  Not totally unreasonable to think that the Podestas and some others in the DC elite have to be initiated in a mutual blackmail cult that involves doing something so horrible that they could never “plea deal” out and rat. BTW I DO NOT think Epstein was part of that, I think Epstein was CIA (whiich is how he got his money and his sweetheart deal) and his island was a more traditional honeypot.

                  If they have to rape and kill a kid to get initiated that would do it and it would not surprise me about these people at all.