Trump probably on track

When Trump says one thing to us, and another thing to his enemies, we should not necessarily assume he is lying to us and telling the truth to his enemies.

One very promising sign is that he invited Duterte, who is on the State Department death list, to the White House, which would imply that he can control who gets murdered in the United States and who does not. I expect however that a swarm of Trump’s praetorians will be in the vicinity of Duterte at all times. Inviting Duterte is also another gentle hint to our lawless, corrupt, and criminal judiciary.

Of course, the real power in Washington has long been the White House Press Corps. This weekend he broke them. He skipped the annual White House dinner and, lo and behold, the celebrities fell into line with him against the White house press corps. This weekend, the White House Press Corps dinner was not only missing a president, it was missing hot young movie stars there to get nailed by high status alpha males, and Silicon Valley billionaires with briefcases full of hundred dollar bills there to beg and buy political influence.

The press corp piously announced that they had a good time, the party continued just fine, and it was just great to not to be crowded by movie starlets and silicon valley billionaires on their knees offering blow jobs. The press declared glorious victory over Trump’s attack on their status. The press tells you that they are high status and holy, that Trump is low status and unholy, that they are winning and he is losing. You would not be so low status as to doubt the press, would you? Only low status people doubt the press. </sarcasm>

Another good sign – the Cathedral Streisanded our smug Pepe meme – revealing profound status insecurity. People are starting to smell blood in the water. When a high status person shows status insecurity, you can gain status by insulting him and by desecrating what is holy to him.

OK boys, there is blood in the water. Time for the feeding frenzy. He who joins the feeding frenzy early is more likely to win status points than when everyone is doing it. It has been working for Milo, hence Scott Alexander is jealous. Also, time to split the ninth circuit. A necessary first step to splitting the ninth circuit is ridiculing and denigrating the ninth circuit judges as individuals – their races, their appearance, their personal conduct, their sex lives, their corruption, their conspicuous lack of intelligence, and last and probably least important, their arrogant and absurd judicial opinions.

281 Responses to “Trump probably on track”

  1. snarky rat smugbucket jon liebowitz says:

    The (((Legacy Media))) is Dead
    Long Live The Internet

  2. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Those things which beings on this earth find most persuasive, all involve at least one or more of three cardinal concepts, which are: humor, fear, and above all, potential.

  3. Contaminated NEET says:

    Everybody in this corner of the right is so tsundere toward Scott Alexander. Why does a middling blogger loom so large in our imagination?

    • jim says:

      Scott was the last channel of communication between right and left, the last possibility for avoiding democide and/or civil war.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        He is a spergy cult member with a fairly popular blog and a ridiculous tumblr-snowflake gf. He has no power, and no influence over people who actually do have power. He could go full /pol/ and it wouldn’t change a thing about the future.

        • peppermint says:

          Scott Alexander is as stupid as Scott Aaronson (for Aaronson, read his book about quantum computers to discover that he can’t describe and probably doesn’t understand the quantum part). But he’s listened to by young intelligent status-conscious lefties so by looking at what he says you can find out what my leftie friends are thinking about.

          If he went /pol/, he would lose his commenters, and since psychology has been SJW converged since the beginning, he would lose his career.

          • jim says:

            “Quantum” is high status. See also “Einsteinian constant”

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Scott Alexander isn’t stupid – he’s cowardly, dishonest, and scheming but not stupid.

            • Cavalier says:

              Trump is on his own side, it just happens to be a lot closer to ours.

            • jim says:

              If the Democrats, the Judges, and the Permanent Government flattered Trump and let him have his way, we would be screwed. Fortunately, however, we flatter him, while they complain he is a low status orange skinned meany.

              So, I still say, despite recent disturbing movements towards World War Three: Hail God Emperor Trump!

              • Turtle says:

                Those who consider God Emperor’ blasphemy are not meant to be your enemies. Just say Holy American Emperor. It’s sensible, and more romanesque, thus romantic. God Emperor is prole-chic. Who wants a prole-monarch? I wouldn’t mind NASCAR guys at the White House and hot dogs being higher status than steak, but those are trifles. I think names matter more than the prole-or-not question. Adding ‘American’ to Trump’s title is crucial to maintaining honorable, charitable, community-connected nationalism, not falling into blatant ego-stroking sycophancy and vanity, which would not please me, and thus, not please almost any Christians. You might not care for my preferences, and I don’t need them to be honored. I just think it’s advantageous to be modest, as in, Holy American Emperor.

              • viking says:

                admitedly inviting Duarte is the coolest thing hes done yet Im not convinced he quite gets what it signifies, oh he gets its a populist thing but not quite how close duarte came to being taken out last year we will know when he does or does not disinvite.
                Trump is unaware of the dissident right he is a jew lover he thinks his base is basically tea party and hes correct breitbart and bannon are tea party not alt right reaction.
                However disright is making progress? at entry or at least blurring the line.Sailor just got an expose, moldbugs keeps getting cited, people like milo and other youtube sensations are increasingly familiar with our concepts even accepting them.
                however even all that is not the same as racism sexism becoming acceptable to any significant part of the population, and for all the protests of many “reactionaries” all new rightism is founded on HBD
                we can dislike hitlers aesthetics [I kind of think theyre cool but doubt i could conform] we can certainly object to socialism, even if we have legitimate concerns about globalism and crony capitalism. maybe we think gassing jews was a bit much, { but no one would take them]
                But reaction alt right hrx whatever is at core a continuation of the nazi project. Its a recognition that evolution applies to humans too and science can guide that process now. a recognition that an ethno state is the natural and most effective national social organization.That the states authority can not be allowed to be undermined by competing authorities like priests.That leftism is a degenerate death cult.
                I could go on we all know hitler nazism had problems that we dont actually want to be neo nazis or socialists etc. But the fact remains its hard to imagine a political project that more closely anticipates reaction.
                and thats a hard fucking sell so lets not kid ourselves. What has also happened recently is people like charles murray have been called nazis in the times.the cia and deep state has publicly declared war on a president and his recently won agenda.and much similar stuff

                • Cavalier says:

                  Every elite derived their power from somewhere, and though Jim likes to jerk off about titles of nobility and aristocracy and all that, those things aren’t a source of power.

                  The source of power is your economic base. The various strata of the aristocratic-agricultural class lived on the rents derived of the agricultural laborers working the estates they owned. The great industrialist “robber barons” took the burgeoning Industrial Revolution energy sources and created vast empires of oil (Rockefeller), coal, steel (Carnegie), railroads (Flagler, others), finance (Morgan, others), shipping (Vanderbilt) and so on. The lawyer-bureaucratic class skims off the top of legal battles and the implementation and enforcement of byzantine regulations and so benefits by making the legal system as impenetrable as possible. The Fed is a power center owned and operated by…somebody.

                  Donald Trump’s source of power is real estate. He builds great buildings and golf courses, recruits high-value people to live and play in them and on them, and with his influence and personal charisma maximizes his real estate value by protecting them from the legal vagaries and miscellaneous living-space-related depredations of the increasingly chaotic, degenerate, and lawless thousand-ton squid we slur “The Cathedral”.

                  And now he’s OUR landlord.

                • peppermint says:

                  if productivity is power, why does leftism happen?

                  Jim’s description of leftism, by contrast, makes it sound impossible to defeat.

                  Power is the ability to tell people what to do. It comes from institutions and the high-status positions of running them, and the respect that normalfags have for them.

                  The left is dying because young men and women can’t hook up while being leftist, somewhat older men and women can’t raise kids while being leftist, the legacy media is obsolete, legacy educational institutions are obsolete, and, finally, because no one believes in souls anymore and it’s never been harder to be White and normal, the talking points that worked on boomers and genxers about how its sad when trannies kill themselves or its sad that niggers can’t catch a cab don’t work anymore.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The left is dying because

                  It isn’t. It is becoming less popular and less tolerable among normies, but for the short-term at least, the left is not going anywhere – Cathedral/USG only needs minimal cooperation (read: no violent, armed, mass revolts to overthrow it) from the citizenry to keep going.

                  The Overton Window is not so much “shifting right” as it’s becoming wider overall, expanding in all directions. The internet has accelerated the fragmentation, polarization, and radicalization of society, and opened up novel venues of communication for fringe weltanschauungen to reach, broadcast, the disaffected and those who conceive of themselves as a “have-nots”.

                  Cthulhu has not began swimming to the right. He’s just grown in size, formidably taking up more space – and the growth appears exponential.

                  To make a long story short, until a new elite, a competent elite, arises out of the alt-right, willing and (more importantly) able to disenthrone the current elite and take its seat, the left has emphatically not “lost”, much lest “died”. When you see any mass retirement of bureaucrats and academic faculty, then you’ll know that winds have changed. If Bannon and Trump want to help, let them foster a new elite. Is Putin not funding political parties and movements globally? Why can’t Trump fund them, “one way or another”, domestically?

                  If you want to kill the left, must wrestle institutional power from its holders, thus, need institutional takeover. No institutional takeover, the left is alive and kicking. Converting normies is okay, if you have a lot of time on your hands. If you’re out of time, go for the “big boss”. You want professors and CEOs browsing alt-right websites, perhaps even contributing.

                  Memes alone are futile. Need people, flesh and blood, to carry out the will of the memes, the will of Kek. Need strong people, high-status people. Therefore, must on some level signal to them. That’s the task.

                • peppermint says:

                  Those strong men you want, they want girlfriends and families and have to dodge leftism to get them. They want good workers under them, not to mention good grades for themselves, and have to dodge the legacy educational apparatus. They want to know what’s actually happening in the world, at least in their field, and have to dodge the legacy media. And finally, since they don’t recognize souls, much less heaven and hell, they’re less willing to go along with the left because it’s for the greater good.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >if productivity is power, why does leftism happen?

                  There are different facets to this, but economically… massive upward mobility, that is, the recycling of elites.

                  Elites make fortunes, become economic elites, seek to secure them and gain status. State elites provide the answer: pay your dues, fund our pet projects, set up some NGOs and pay our agents lucrative salaries to help Haiti, or whatever, and we’ll give you security (i.e. de facto monopoly, duopoly, etc.) and status. Thus does Gates go from evil robber baron Silicon Valley capitalist to wonderful charitable African overpopulation patron practically overnight.

                  Jim says, “oh, well our capitalist overlords are really frighteningly right-wing John Galts”. Nope. The reality is that the plebes are right-wing free-market independent-businessmen types because they want to seize a part of the pie (supplant the current elite), and the elites are left-wing state-sucking monopolist types because they have the pie and want to keep it.

                  Thing is, if you lock down the economy with state coercion, you stop economic growth (energy utilization). So we say that the government should stay the hell away to the best of its ability because we want a growing economy and consequent higher standard of living. Corollary to this, if economic growth just completely stops, either by state intervention (Soviet Russia) or by simple stagnation (us now, apparently, maybe), the elite solidify their power because their station is no longer being corroded from below by aspirant elites creating new wealth to challenge the current elites and ultimate usurp them. Russian “Great Stagnation”, anyone?

                  Rockefeller was pwned by USG because he didn’t get the message — he was trying to set up an alternate Cathedral. The other robber barons felt the shockwave of the shot off their bow, and they converged voluntarily (for the most part).

                  Of course, there are other aspects, this is just one perspective from one angle.

                  >[The left] isn’t [going anywhere].

                  Correct. Unless Trump succeeds in an autogolpe, which is very much a hostile takeover. Otherwise, the left is the institutions and the institutions are the left. Economic collapse is necessary to root them out. Coincidentally, the real interest rate is at zero, and Trump gets to pick the next Chairman of the Fed. Make sure to buckle your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy 2018—20??.

                • peppermint says:

                  Every elite gets their power from the consent of men with guns, either through providing them with essential services or by indoctrinating them. Boomers were both, genxers are indoctrinated, milennials and post-millennials are the opposite of provided for and the indoctrination is openly hostile, obviously false, and must be worked around in order to get a gf or a job.

                  By Jim’s definition of left, we’re the left and going to win by historical inevitability. By my definition we’re the right and going to win because reasons. By the christcucked definition we’re the left and must be resisted in the usual christcucked way by surrendering while grumbling about it.

                  No one wanted trannies, not even trannies themselves, except for boomer christcucks. Both winning and losing on this issue is demoralizing to our enemies, except for boomer christcucks who are used to advocating for faggotry they don’t even know anything about.

                  Trump’s police have blown the cover off of FGM in the US. This makes all feminists uncomfortable, including boomer christcucks. The nine year olds currently being mutilated for the tranny ideology will make everyone uncomfortable very soon, and these people, being younger than me, will never go away for my lifetime.

                  Liberals and christians stand for pedophiles and sexual mutilation of children. That’s not a winning platform.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Every elite gets their power from the consent of men with guns

                  No. Because if you squint a little bit and re-read what you just wrote, it comes out looking suspiciously like…

                  >Every elite gets their power from the consent of the governed

                  Do I even need to debunk this?

                  Look, I’ll just say this: it isn’t the disorganized rabble militia from whence power is derived, it’s men on the battlefield. And men on the battlefield is how many mouths you can feed and guns you can keep equipped and shells you can fire. In other words, it’s a matter of logistics. What’s the old saying? “Mediocre generals focus on tactics; good generals focus on strategy; great generals focus on logistics.” Something like that.

                  >No one wanted trannies, not even trannies themselves, except for boomer christcucks. Both winning and losing on this issue is demoralizing to our enemies…

                  >Liberals and christians stand for pedophiles and sexual mutilation of children. That’s not a winning platform.

                  While true, the platform doesn’t matter, because “platforms” are by and for politicians sweeping to power (“power”) on campaign promises of some kind. “I’ll do this and this and this for you if you elect me as your glorious leader.” Democratic power doesn’t work like that. Democratic power isn’t persuaded by elections or opinion polls or the news cycle; rather, it waits until the democratic process of elections or the opinion polls or the news cycle align with what it wants to do, whereupon it spontaneously yields to public opinion, that mighty volanté géneralé.

                  And sometimes, of course, it needs to radically alter this People’s Will — it is after all the People’s Servant — and so radical measures are taken; for example, FDR’s inciting and then ignoring the imminent Jap attack, LBJ’s cultural revolution, and a certain trio of controlled demolitions.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, the just consent of the governed.

                  It can be through ideology – Christianity – saying that government programs, while maybe not ideal, are at least reasonable things to want to do and not worth getting to worked up over. It can be through bribes, like a good career for anyone who says government stuff, or White Christians get to keep their suburbs if they keep their nazi friends in line.

                  This matters because the current government is incapable of bribing young White men and the old ideology is intolerable for young White men.

              • viking says:

                and hail his son in law Soros billion dollar partner and his jew daughter in fact hail all the jew cabinet members hail israel hail neocon globalist generals running dogs for the jews and cathedral. fuck it hail jim deluded idiot or cathedral plant

                • lalit says:

                  What an incoherent rant!

                • B says:

                  the jews stole my capital letters and punctuation and made all my sentences unreadable run ons and gave me dyslexia with their neocon jew running dog jew powers jews

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  Hey, at least he triggered two Jimsblog Jews.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Nick Land, in particular, seems endlessly tickled by the idea of ‘smart leftists’, an almost perverse fascination if you will. Perhaps an undercurrent of fellow feeling even?

      Europoids in general pay far too much regard to the opinions of their rivals.

      • Garr says:

        I keep imagining that a cute smart leftist woman (since all cute smart women are leftist, at least in NYC) would be SO smart that she’d get too much of a kick out of my truthful-ish bullshit to want me to censor myself.
        It almost seems as though all women should be leftist, all men rightist – as natural as different body shapes. But while men think it’s cute of cute women to be leftist, women think that rightist men are horrible. This is unfair, and mean of them. Gosh, why can’t women be sweeter?

        • Turtle says:

          Gosh, move somewhere that’s not America’s least happy city (if you don’t mind my rude advice). NYC is the childhood home of 3 current Supreme Court Justices (and Scalia was from Queens), so it’s very legalistic and bureaucratic. You’ll be safer and happier elsewhere, I bet.

          It’s not cute of women to sin. Sin is ugly. Leftism, if untrue, is a sin to believe. I wonder why you say leftism can be cute in women.

          Women’s leftism bothers me, especially when they’re stubborn, and realize I’m right but won’t admit it. It’s not funny or amusing.

          • Garr says:

            Everyone’s got his own inadequate reasons for staying stuck where he shouldn’t be … yes, it isn’t cute when they’re cross about it … on the God-Emperor thing — I think that’s from Dune and Warhammer, so not really prole.

            • Turtle says:

              I think plenty of people do move – 5 million long-time Californians left the “Golden Showers State” in the last 10 years. We can call this economic cleansing, because the yuppie/hipsters coming in drive up prices, which evicts the working poor, but not the unemployed poor. At the same time, maybe this is better for those who left. And NYC is so expensive, you could be more financially comfortable almost anywhere else. I also think it’s important to participate in good organizations wherever we are.

              GotNews has reported on NYC’s Metropolitcal Republican Club being #NeverTrumpers, kicking Trump supporters off of their board of directors, and further shenanigans. So you might not even be sociopolitically safe in NYC. I know it’s not a good place for my classmates who moved there. You could just move to a NY state suburb, or the ‘extremely livable’ (according to competitive city quality of life rankings) Pittsburgh, or less of an improvement, Boston or Philadelphia. There are many metro areas, assuming you like big cities.

              on the God-Emperor thing — I think that’s from Dune and Warhammer, so not really prole.

              Dune has strong memes, from the references I’ve seen. If you know the lore well, maybe you could utilize it for meme-ing.

              The Warhammer players I know are middle class, but lower class than their parents in behavior. They are both athletic and good-looking, besides some nerdiness, so I guess it’s an ok hobby. I don’t like it myself though, in the sense that it’s dramatic chess, a fancy game. here’s another point-do Warhammer players often marry? I think not, because it’s such a heavy low-status bro-culture commitment, repelling most women.

              Anyway, it’s fictional, unlike Trump. Trump needs actual support, not rhetorical flourishes. God-Emperor may be bourgeois or aristocratic, but it sure doesn’t appeal to religious monotheists, who are underrated in American politics because they don’t vote much, nor do they mind being underrepresented as a consequence. Can we imagine a U.S. Congress that’s 1/3rd Evangelical? I can only speculate on how differently cucked that would be.

              • Garr says:

                I agree that “Holy American Emperor” is better (I like Evangelicals and the Holy Roman Empire).
                I was more thinking of the Warhammer books than of the game[s?] — my brother’s really into the Horus Heresy series.
                My son’s living with his mother an avenue away from me — that’s my main excuse. I’m washed up anyway (borderline/spectrumy 51-year old adjunct). And a half-Jew and lapsed OJ convert, so any kind of political organization is out for me. But more power to you.

                • Turtle says:

                  I haven’t heard of Horus Heresy, I don’t like fiction.

                  You could still move to a local suburb, that’s still quite close by, assuming you’re not seeing your son multiple times a week.
                  You can probably accomplish more than you think, despite your limitations. And I don’t see why you can’t join org’s.

        • PYSIH says:

          Women want consensus, stability, status based on cooperation and getting along. The worst thing for a woman is to be pushed out of their social group. Nothing will depress a young woman more.

          Right now, women have been steeped (remember they’re more indoctrinated/educated than men right now) in the value of adhering to the progressive line. But they will throw that line of thought to the wind in a heartbeat for the right man. A strong, well-framed, stable but mysterious male is catnip for your average progressive woman who secretly craves to be taken and owned but will never admit it until she has it.

          • peppermint says:

            》 secretly craves to be taken and owned but will never admit it until she has it

            evidently you haven’t been to the tumblrina porn blogs or seen young women’s facebooks

        • viking says:

          If youre an alpha male you can get leftist women to submit to your racism and misogyny for as long as you can keep them enthralled.However it doesnt last eventually you get sick of fucking them and they get bitter and resentful and tell people your a sexist racist pig, if you have alphad your entire social set they yawn because well yeah but thats michael. never in my life has any leftist ever won an argument with me or even deluded themselves they have, but neither have i really ever converted one, they are not motivated by reason on leftism no matter how reasonable they are about other things or how much of a reasonable defense of leftism the proffer in the end they can never be argued out of leftism because they know know in their bones that sexism and racism is wrong that sacrificing for the weak is right and good.The famous examples [ thatcher arguing in parliament comes to mind] of leftists admitting they would rather a million future people die than harm one present person are legion. leftism is female thinking all leftist men have a faggot gene that an only be remedied with a bullet through the brain to him and his children.In aproper world these men with these faggot emotions would have been culled in fights and war where their hesitation would have ended their lives.
          This is the problem with Jims idea of a woman for every faggot, faggots should not be allowed to breed they sire more faggots, we have an entire generation of millennial faggots that could not fight a war if the survival of mankind depended upon it which it does.

          It does not matter what women think because they have no right to an opinion in a world that does not belong to them because they did not and could not build it. their leftist thoughts will be reordered to their children

          • Garr says:

            Your first two sentences are, I think, the correct reply to both PYSIH, above, and Peppermint, below — “Sure, but only for a little while.” My theme is always that this domination-subordination thing is a game; men and women tend to lose interest in the game after a while — then you need a common project to keep you together, and the only conceivable common project (drawing upon both male and female creativity and intelligence) would be raising children.

            • viking says:

              Its true, the intensity of the game dampens as (if) the relationship matures.
              And its true that wills must align to a common purpose.
              But I correct me if Im wrong but you seem to be implying the “partnership” model. This doesn’t work. She must give him children , and raise his children as he directs.She must submit and align her will to his. The game of taming the shrew doesn’t end in truce but submission. This is necessary because otherwise every decision will again become a contest of wills, and the ship will have no captain and founder. Or the decisions will be reached through oppression and bitterness and resentment will grow until the marriage is toxic.Marriages where the woman has not been convinced through the game that the man is worthy of her submission, or with women who are to leftist to submit will not be marriages these will be tactical alliances, and unsatisfying to the human condition. Marriage is already a stretch for us apes, neither men nor women will feel secure in these wary truces, children will be raised with no clear direction, more often than not the default direction ends up being the children can choose for them selves even if the parents dont explicitly allow them this freedom they will sense a power vacuum and exploit it.As I said I am not convinced Jims model of a woman in every betas bed works. And I dont see a way back to where we must be there are very few women prepared for the role of a woman anymore or men prepared to assume command. War is the only thing I can think of that could reorder the sexual dynamics. But I simply cant imagine the past two generations of western men winning a war.

            • peppermint says:

              》 My theme is always that this domination-subordination thing is a game; men and women tend to lose interest in the game after a while

              Men who lose interest in their woman’s upkeep are cruel and deserve to be cucked. Your woman will remain faithful as long as you grab her ass. That is your responsibility, as much as feeding and clothing her. If you feed and clothe her but make her take responsibility for sex, you are treating her like a whore, and she will feel like you are treating her like a whore and act accordingly – maybe fall in love with a male biped with less resources but who treats her like a woman by fucking her.

              • B says:

                You know, you can make these points without being crass. You want to be in charge of something, like a noble, correct? An aristocrat can discuss delicate matters without speaking like the son of a prostitute advertising his mother’s services.

                A woman never wants her husband to stop being a man. However, the PUA version of being a man is basically a rap/porn video. Since the majority of women with whom they deal also get their idea on what a man is from the same sources, it’s not surprising.

                • peppermint says:

                  language nazis who reject sapir-whorf are encouraged to restate that in their preferred language

                  maybe it will sound like “Aryan princesses will remain faithful for as long as you take care of them, but if you lose interest in their needs they will seek emotional attachments from other humans who may even have less SES but are no less than your equal and probably have larger penises.”

                  But you would say Jewish princesses and add that if they want a divorce the original man might have to pay back the dowry, and stress that they can marry any African-American Israeli as long as he is a Jew.

                • B says:

                  Again-when you speak like the son of a prostitute who is advertising for his mother, it does not do credit to anything you intend to communicate.

                  The way one phrases things matters a lot.

                  I don’t believe in princesses. I believe in human beings. I also believe in the Torah, which says that every man is obliged to provide his wife, at a minimum, a house, food and conjugal relations, each to a specific standard.

                  I suspect this goes for non-Jews as well, or at least is very good advice.

                • jim says:

                  We have to rectify names, to name things in way that cuts reality at the joints. Calling cucks “cucks” cuts reality at the joints.

                  The supposedly high status speech of our enemies lays a gentle cloud of snow over everything.

                  Come the restoration, speech that calls a spade a spade will be the high status speech.

                • peppermint says:

                  When I’m hanging out with Nazis, I consciously avoid pronouncing words like chipotle or tsunami with the consonant clusters. That’s driven by social status, same as liberals consciously using the consonant clusters.

                  I once dated this Israeli Jewish chick who smugly smirked after she said “Jesus Christ!” when she almost bumped her car into something.

                  I’m under no illusion that I’ll ever lead anything, but someday I’ll buy the missus an ouse and be king o me own cassel.

                • B says:

                  When your idea of “rectification of names” is to speak like a junky, a prostitute or some such petty criminal do, this means that your whole movement is doomed.

                  The men who did great things throughout history almost invariably spoke and wrote like nobles, not like slaves and criminals.

                  The glorification of the speech and mannerisms of slaves and petty criminals as somehow being more “authentic” is a typical progressive thing. Notice how the great struggles of progressive literati always involved the “right” to publish curses, crass and graphic descriptions of sexual behavior, etc.

                  Well, we’re all authentic now. There’s not a ten year old in mainstream America who hasn’t listened to rappers or watched hardcore pornography. Has this brought a new, better era about?

                  As for a cassel and an ouse for the missus, you will, presumably, want children. I can tell you from personal experience that it is very difficult to switch from the speech of a petty criminal to proper speech on walking through the door of your house. It’s not as difficult as hearing your toddler speaking like a petty criminal, though. Might as well start practicing now.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The men who did great things throughout history almost invariably spoke and wrote like nobles, not like slaves and criminals.

                  Or, more likely, they had someone else speak for them, and even more often, had someone else write for them. Pretty sure that the Great Men we have witnessed with our own eyes, so to speak, the Great Men of the 20th and 21st centuries, spoke nothing at all like nobles.

                  >There’s not a ten year old in mainstream America who hasn’t listened to rappers or watched hardcore pornography.

                  Now that’s just an exaggeration. Depravity is prevalent, but some intact, wholesome family-life does go on, even in normie America.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure our ancient elite spoke as they wrote. We have letters written between them in their own hand.

                  But B is wrong in calling the present day high high status dialect of Harvard “aristocratic”. It is, like the writings of the late Roman empire in the west, flowery, floury, euphemistic, ignorant, and degenerate, the dialect of sodomites, degenerates, and flatterers.

                • B says:

                  >We have letters written between them in their own hand.

                  And in those letters, they do not speak like slaves and prostitutes’ children.

                  >But B is wrong in calling the present day high high status dialect of Harvard “aristocratic”.

                  As usual, you do not read what B writes, because B never wrote such a thing.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >When I’m hanging out with Nazis, I consciously avoid pronouncing words like chipotle or tsunami with the consonant clusters. That’s driven by social status, same as liberals consciously using the consonant clusters.

                  Do elaborate.

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  Tsunami
                  was Soonawmee
                  Now it’s Tsunami
                  Not Soonawmee

                  Why did Soonawmee get the works?
                  Because Skypes like B are evil jerks.

            • B says:

              The common project involves raising children, G-d willing. But not only. People who can’t have children also have to get married.

              The common project does not involve equality, but congruency. Meaning, that a woman is created as man’s counterpart and counterweight. Not his equal.

              Maimonides has the best overall view on this that I’ve seen:

              https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/maimonides

              • peppermint says:

                》People who can’t have children also have to get married.

                Like lesbians

                》 The common project does not involve equality, but congruency. Meaning, that a woman is created as man’s counterpart and counterweight. Not his equal.

                Oh, so like as equal, but not equal, but morally superior

                • B says:

                  No, not like lesbians. Like a man who is infertile, or a woman who is infertile. They must still marry.

                  No, not like as equal but morally superior. The link I gave you more or less gives the reader’s digest version.

                  More details here:

                  “Similarly, our Sages commanded that a man honor his wife more than his own person, and love her as he loves his own person…And similarly, they commanded a woman to honor her husband exceedingly and to be in awe of him. She should carry out all her deeds according to his directives, considering him to be an officer or a king. She should follow the desires of his heart and shun everything that he disdains.”

                  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952889/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Fifteen.htm

                • jim says:

                  No, not like lesbians. Like a man who is infertile, or a woman who is infertile. They must still marry.

                  That is a foot in the door to emptying out marriage.

                • Mackus says:

                  I dunno, Jim.

                  By that, you mean we shouldn’t encourage infertile to marry, or that we should actively discourage infertile from marrying?

                • jim says:

                  Marriage is primarily a contract to produce and rear children.

                  Monogamy and female chastity is a price control program to lower the price of women, and to this end, need to apply a rule that a woman should have sex with one man and only that man while he lives, so as part of that program (lowering the cost of women so that beta males who do the bulk of the war service and production are in the market) we apply the rule that even infertile women have to marry, or something like it, to get sex. But a known and intended infertile marriage should be substantially lower status. On the one hand, cannot let women run around fucking whomever they please, or they play one man against the other to raise the short term price. On the other hand, cannot undermine the centrality of childrearing as the cornerstone of marriage. Women should marry while fertile and stay married all their days.

                  Older women, women who are visibly infertile, should not marry after they become visibly infertile, should not have sex, and should be low status. Men are disposable, old spinsters are even more disposable. Fertile age women are precious. Children are precious. Old wives, not disposable.

                  On the one hand, we don’t want to give infertile women a license to try to imitate “Sex and the City”. On the other hand, we don’t want to separate marriage from children. The solution to the contradiction is to make women resembling the cast of “Sex and the City” low status. If you are infertile, your marriage is an inferior imitation of marriage.

                • B says:

                  Can’t get an “ought” from an “is.”

                  Your marriage may be, primarily, a contract to produce and raise children. This is basically a livestock-raising philosophy.

                  In our perspective, children are a wonderful thing. You may notice that our marriages produce many of them. But the primary function of marriage is that “the Lord G-d said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

                  Actually, “help meet” is not a very accurate translation of “ezer k’negdo,” which literally means “a helper AGAINST him”, which our Sages interpreted to mean that if the man does the right thing, the woman will be his helper, and if not, she will be against him.

                  Anyway, point is, there is a lot more to marriage than children, and even in the absence of children, a marriage is valid and necessary, especially for a man.

                • jim says:

                  Can’t get an “ought” from an “is.”

                  Yes you can. An individual needs to act in ways that help him get into cooperate cooperate relationships and out of defect defect relationships, and therefore needs to be seen to believe in behavior that will achieve that.

                  A King needs to regulate status and holiness competition in his Kingdom so that people earn status and holiness points for behavior that advances the interests of the Kingdom

                  A high priest needs to promote behavior that improves the welfare of his flock.

                  which our Sages interpreted to mean that if the man does the right thing, the woman will be his helper, and if not, she will be against him.

                  I find this very hard to believe.

                  Pretty sure that the sages did not say that. Rather, late twentieth century Rabbis tortured the text of the sages to say that, addressing the text with all the reverence and respect one applies to a contract one is trying to get out of.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Older women, women who are visibly infertile, should not marry after they become visibly infertile, should not have sex, and should be low status.

                  Old infertile women have a sex-need and a love-need, albeit the former is often greatly diminished, and there are men, fertile or not, who have no sex (and no love, though for men that’s of lesser immediate importance), — have no sex because they can find no sex with fertile-age women due to being unattractive — men who biologically and psychologically need to have sex, and matching them with these old infertile women is a service to both parties, and is better than letting the men, and the women, “burn with desire”.

                  Ideally, every unattractive man could be matched with a fertile-age woman.

                  But when old, successful, well-established men take up young, attractive, fertile-age women, then fewer fertile-age women are left for the young unattractive men, and so either young unattractive men have to endure years of loneliness, and old infertile women also have to endure the same fate, or you choose pragmatism and match between them.

                  This is not an ideal marriage, obviously, because we are not dealing with ideal people. Low-value people get a low-value deal, but a low-value deal is still better than no deal at all – involuntary celibacy and involuntary solitude.

                  Another option is to forbid old men from taking up young fertile-age women, but we’re not advocating that, are we? So it’s better to match the young and unattractive men with old and infertile women, and to allow old wealthy men access to fertile chicks. People need not burn with desires and passions in solitude – that doesn’t achieve anything at all.

                • B says:

                  Well, I guess you’re a deeper thinker than Hume.

                  Nobody NEEDS to do anything. People can try various things to make society better, if that’s their bent. The last 200 years have been full of atheists such as yourself experimenting with ways to improve human society, using their best guess based on their knowledge and deductions of human nature, with invariably bad results.

                  We have a certain philosophy of the way that relations between men and women should work, and we have a long track record of successful implementation. What do you have, besides hand-waving?

                  >I find this very hard to believe.

                  That’s the difference between me and you. When I see something surprising, I say “show me.” When you do, you say “I find it hard to believe (based on my infinitely high opinion of my knowledge) that X says/does Y. Rather, it must be Z.”

                  Thus, I learn something new from most arguments, while you learn nothing, and when sources are brought that you are wrong, you typically double down to avoid looking dumb.

                  In this case, the source is Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth, Folio 63a:

                  “R. Eleazar further stated: What is the meaning of the Scriptural text, I will make him a help meet for him?6 If he was worthy she is a help to him;7 if he was not worthy she is against him.

                  “Others say: R. Eleazar pointed out a contradiction: It is written kenegedo9 but we read kenegedo!10 — If he was worthy she is meet for him;10 if he was not worthy she chastises him. “

                  https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.63a?lang=bi

                • jim says:

                  Well, I guess you’re a deeper thinker than Hume

                  Which is not difficult. When Hume seeks to persuade you of X, he does not provide evidence for X, but rather tells you that if you agree with X, you are terribly smart person unlike those stupid people who disagree with X.

                  We have a certain philosophy of the way that relations between men and women should work, and we have a long track record of successful implementation.

                  You are doing better than recent Christians – but they, and you, are rapidly changing that philosophy.

                • jim says:

                  I was wrong: Your ancient sages were idiots also.

                  It is transparently false that a woman will be better behaved for a good man than a bad man.

                  I had thought a religion with a married priesthood would have a better quality of ancient sage.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Come on B. Pretty sure Muslims can reproduce just fine without sharing your interpretation of “kenegdo” as “against him” rather than “towards him”.

                  The rabbis can engage in word-play all they want, but Pauline or Mohammedan female-subordination bring about the same “results” as your doctrine, if not better results, and may I add, without looking as silly as you look when you interpret Tanakhic (biblical) words the opposite way than the original meaning – as Jim says, torturing your own texts.

                  No, “kenedgo” does not literally mean “against him”. It literally means “towards him”. You are using modern Hebrew, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda-inspired Hebrew, to interpret biblical words. The rabbis of the Talmud at least knew that they were not ascribing “kenegdo” the literal meaning, but a non-literal meaning, hence: “don’t read X, read Y”, where X is the literal and obvious meaning, Y the non-literal and not obvious meaning.

                  Every time the Talmudists say “don’t read X, read Y”, they are replacing the literal meaning with a non-literal one, usually involving wordplay. In this case, the literal “towards him” has been replaced with the non-literal “against him”. But you are right – the tradition of torturing biblical texts is not modern – it’s an ancient custom.

                  Paul got female subordination right, as did Mohammed. As for the rabbis, generally their advice is sound, but in the texts you’ve quoted, their view is cucked, and had Jews taken seriously the view expressed therein, would’ve failed to reproduce. Good thing that, just as the rabbis didn’t take the bible very seriously, you don’t take your rabbis very seriously!

                  And I’m saying all this while generally agreeing with your larger point.

                • B says:

                  Jim, obviously either you are an idiot or our Sages are idiots.

                  I’m sure the near future (next few decades) will make it obvious which is the case.

                  Anonymous, I’m not sure what your point is. This is not a case of “do not read X, read Y.” Whatever the Christians and Muslims do is their business. We believe that a woman is a man’s counterpart, not equal, and that an unmarried man is not whole precisely because he needs a counterpart.

                • B says:

                  >It is transparently false that a woman will be better behaved for a good man than a bad man.

                  It is transparently false in your society, where social pressure upon men is to act like dishrags if they are smart and criminals if they are not, and social pressure upon women is to act like prostitutes.

                • Anonymous says:

                  In all societies, women influence men much more than vice versa.

                • Eli says:

                  You are correct in spirit, jim.

                  From Talmud Bavli (Shabbat 152a) (the part where the Sages are discussing old age, its benefits and its troubles):
                  _____
                  “And the caper berry shall fail”; this is sexual desire that ceases.

                  The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was reading biblical verses before Rav. When he got to this verse, Rav sighed. Rav Kahana said: We can derive from this that Rav’s desire has ceased. Rav Kahana also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For He spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood” (Psalms 33:9)? He understands this to mean that God created man with desires that push him to do things he would not do if he acted purely on the judgment of his intellect, and Rav Kahana therefore interprets the verse in the following manner: “For He spoke and it was”; this is a woman that a man marries. “He commanded and it stood”; these are the children who one works hard to raise. A tanna taught in a baraita: A woman is essentially a flask full of feces, a reference to the digestive system, and her mouth is full of blood, a euphemistic reference to menstruation, yet men are not deterred and they all run after her with desire.
                  ____

                  Overall attitude towards women is quite low, as you can see.
                  I think the call (linked by B, from Yevamot) to love one’s wife more than oneself cannot be separated from the commandment to *the community* (and hence its elders) to keep women in check, not give them an inch. This is reflected in marriage and divorce laws.

                  Basically, as I’ve said, the difference between collective paternalism and individuated patriarchy — subtle but real.

                  Having said that, I agree with you that (American) Modern Orthodox are losing touch with the old norms.

                • Eli says:

                  Here’s another one, probably even better, from Megillah 14:
                  _________
                  Apropos Abigail, the Gemara explains additional details in the story. Abigail said to David: “Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bond of life with the Lord your God” (I Samuel 25:29), and when she parted from him she said to him: “And when the Lord shall have dealt well with my lord, and you shall remember your handmaid” (I Samuel 25:31).

                  Rav Naḥman said that this explains the folk saying that people say: While a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle, i.e., while a woman is engaged in one activity she is already taking steps with regard to another. Abigail came to David in order to save her husband Nabal, but at the same time she indicates that if her husband dies, David should remember her and marry her. And indeed, after Nabal’s death David took Abigail for his wife. Some say that Rav Naḥman referred to a different saying: The goose stoops its head as it goes along, but its eyes look on from afar to find what it is looking for. So too, Abigail acted in similar fashion.
                  ______

                  In other words, R Nahman is hinting that Abigail was interested in her husband’s death, in order to get to top status male, King David. The death of Nabal, indeed, was a strange affair.

                  So far, jim is correct: women (like children) are more evil by nature, by virtue of not being able to control their animalistic desires, letting them drive their high-level being. Talmud does not disagree but in fact illustrates this.

                • Eli says:

                  Also, one can love someone more than oneself (e.g. a man can love his child), but that does not imply that, if reasonable necessity arises, one shouldn’t punish them. In fact, Maimonides explicitly advocates corporal punishment administered to misbehaving wives, said punishment being administered by husband directly. This is not a metaphor — you need to be quite “dafook” to read it in non-literal way, to imply that community authorities ought to administer such minute-to-minute punishments (which some rabbis, along with Chabad have tried to imply).

                • B says:

                  >Overall attitude towards women is quite low, as you can see.

                  This is one Tanna, with no context.

                  There’s some amount of this sort of thing (disgust with physicality) in the Talmud. For instance, the Pirkei Avot says “Know from where you have come, from a stinking drop, and to where you are going, to a place of dirt, worms and maggots.”

                  On the other hand, there is a fair amount of exhortation to enjoy every physical pleasure which can lawfully be enjoyed. The Jerusalem Talmud says “A person will have to give account on the judgment day for every good permissible thing that he might have enjoyed and did not.”

                  Maimonides has these two viewpoints at the same time!

                  On one hand:

                  “Those who desire to be men in truth, and not brutes, having only the appearance and shape of men, must constantly endeavor to reduce the wants of the body, such as eating, love, drinking, anger, and all manners originating in lust and passion; they must feel ashamed of them and set limits to them for themselves.”

                  On the other hand:
                  “Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever.”

                  >cannot be separated from the commandment to *the community* (and hence its elders) to keep women in check, not give them an inch

                  Not only women, but men as well. Maimonides says in Mishne Torah:

                  Before the Torah was given, when a man would meet a woman in the marketplace, and he and she desired, he could give her payment, engage in relations with her wherever they desired, and then depart. Such a woman is referred to as a harlot.

                  When the Torah was given, [relations with] a harlot became forbidden, as [Deuteronomy 23:18] states: “There shall not be a harlot among the children of Israel.”4 Therefore, a person who has relations with a woman for the sake of lust, without kiddushin, receives lashes as prescribed by the Torah, because he had relations with a harlot.

                  Also,

                  “A woman who withholds marital intimacy from her husband is called a moredet (“a rebel”). She is asked why she has rebelled. If she answers: “Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot voluntarily engage in relations with him,” her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately. For she is not like a captive, [to be forced] to engage in relations with one she loathes”

                  >In other words, R Nahman is hinting that Abigail was interested in her husband’s death, in order to get to top status male, King David.

                  Your interpretation of his words can not be correct, because it is contrary to the plain text, where Abigail goes out to intercept David who is on his way to kill her husband already, and persuades him not to do it.

                  >This is not a metaphor — you need to be quite “dafook” to read it in non-literal way, to imply that community authorities ought to administer such minute-to-minute punishments

                  Let’s see what the Mishne Torah says specifically:

                  “Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod.16 When a husband complains that [his wife] does not perform [her required tasks], and [the wife] claims that she does, [the dispute should be clarified by having] a [neutral] woman dwell with them or [by asking] the neighbors.17 The judges should clarify the matter in the best way they see fit.”

                  I think that from the text it seems that if it were at the husband’s discretion to beat his wife, there would be no need for judges, no room for a neutral woman, etc.

                  Regardless, it’s obvious that a man should be the man of the house, and the leader. But the woman has rights and is not property, or his slave.

                  >women (like children) are more evil by nature, by virtue of not being able to control their animalistic desires

                  You don’t know the story of King David and Batsheva?

                • peppermint says:

                  》 Old infertile women have a sex-need and a love-need, albeit the former is often greatly diminished

                  Sex and love in old age is a perk of marriage.

                  Boomers and genxers sent their parents to die alone in nursing homes under the tender loving care of turd world doctors.

                  What they do in their old age is hold onto the housing or reverse mortgage it, in a much more difficult market than they faced, and “remarry” when they’re infertile to distract them from any kids they may have managed to have. But that’s good, because it means they’re not being taught to be gay or fuck niggers.

                  We’ve all heard rumors about boomer or genxer single moms whose negroid boyfriends help themselves to the daughters.

                  Sex tourism by old women has reached an extent where it’s a significant HIV vector into England.

                  But yeah, go on about the needs of these women and how it would be cruel to prohibit them from meeting those needs.

                  Honestly it would be less disruptive towards the family and other families if the old woman started fucking her teenage son than some nigger off the street.

                  When a woman fucks a man she accepts his authority over her. That means a stranger has authority over her children – which is insane, and women even intuitively understand this and go along with it, not because muh feels, but because the smart young White men they’re attracted to tell them that souls need to do whatever and questioning it is evil.

                  》and there are men, fertile or not, who have no sex (and no love, though for men that’s of lesser immediate importance), — have no sex because they can find no sex with fertile-age women due to being unattractive — men who biologically and psychologically need to have sex, and matching them with these old infertile women is a service to both parties, and is better than letting the men, and the women, “burn with desire”.

                  So basically, you’re so pathetic that you want to get cucked and be grandfather-in-law to someone else’s grandchildren in exchange for some saggy old pussy. Most men aren’t actually that into it, but there are plenty of niggers.

                  You sound like an anti-science old boomer or genxer still pushing the same old line as if the last 40 years of experience hadn’t happened.

                  It is reasonable for fertile single moms to marry and have some more, infertile single moms to marry single dads with kids, and single men to marry. Beyond that, someone’s getting cucked.

                • Anonymous says:

                  When I wrote about old-infertile-female, young-unattractive-male couples, what I had in mind is childless old women, not mommies or grannies –> not divorcees or cheatin’ cunts.

                  If a woman reached 50 without reproducing, and a man is mate-less and has only a slim chance to find a fertile pussy to nut inside, it is best if he nuts inside the old woman, rather than jerking-off forever, and she (and whoever is affected by her) will also benefit from having a real dick between her legs instead of a dildo; and if that is so, then it’s best if they marry.

                  This is also not about niggers, again, I had white people in mind when describing this scenario, not a race-mixing case. Wew, you’re almost as obsessed with niggershines as I am with kikery. You do realize that not every white slut is having niggers, right? Most white sluts fuck white men (perhaps these men are goofballs – still white though), I’m not sure why you’re even bringing niggers into the discussion.

                  Yeah, a childless 50 y/o woman could find herself some negroid drug-dealin’ gangsta from da hood, but could also find herself some unattractive low-status WHITE MALE who at least has a job and is not a total fuck-up, and the latter case is much more common than the former, if only because demography, but really because contrary to kike-brainwashing, most human females aren’t mudshark coalburners.

                  Srsly peppe, sluts and otherwise maladjusted women are not all husband-cuckers or nigger-fuckers. Some women just failed at life, but if they make some lonely and quite-hopeless WHITE MALE happy, and if with such mating we can save society the trouble of dealing with lonely sexless people who by-nature are apt to cause problems until they stop being lonely and sexless, so that a sort of social harmony is established, then what’s your beef?

                  I’m acquainted with cuckoldry (not a cuck myself) and some inter-racial sex, but the case of an old, married, child-having woman ditching hubby and neglecting the kiddos so she can fuck random thug niggers off the street is simply not something I’ve personally witnessed. Your mileage may vary, and I don’t deny that these cases exist, but it’s not as common as you make it out to be.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Perhaps all the women you know who fucked-around in their 20s and 30s eventually got married, kids or no kids. There are, however, unmarried childless old women, obviously very low-status women, and I think that matching them with very low-status men is good for the individuals involved and good for society. Because, as far from ideal as such a mating is, it’s still better than having around people with unfulfilled needs.

                  And again, I have white people in mind, and am referring to white people as they exist in practice (especially in Europe but also in the Anglophone world), not describing a case of race-mixing with niggers. It’s an issue much greater than niggers.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Let me illustrate with a specific case I’m familiar with.

                  40 year old woman, all of her life was a raging mad slut; up until recently, had orgies on a weekly or fortnightly basis with strangers. I know of/about several similar women, but let’s focus on her. So this 40 year old slut now has a younger boyfriend who is schizophrenic. She doesn’t want kids, afraid she would be a “bad mother”. She had plenty of boyfriends before this guy, but ultimately it always ended in failure due to “incompatibility” i.e degeneracy. This one though, seems to be going okay – I don’t know much about the schizo dude, but pretty sure he’s not gonna reproduce, so dysgenics is out of the question.

                  Now tell me, is it better that she keeps slutting it up in drunken orgies where men penetrate her from both holes simultaneously, or that she eventually marries the young schizo? Isn’t he also better off living with her, assuming his sterility is maintained?

                  That’s what I had in mind when describing the old woman (who is either infertile, or doesn’t want to be fertile, as in this case) and young very low-status man dynamic. As long as no reproduction occurs, aren’t these people better off together than alone? Shouldn’t they marry, if only as a technicality? This is not about niggers.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Getting ought from is, is pretty much the essence of natural law, Gods immanence in and continual revelation through his creation.

                  If you wana try and deny concepts like natural law and all things that depend on it, you may as well stop calling yourself reactionary, conservative, or right wing altogether.

                • peppermint says:

                  would you prefer to have gays fucking 1000 guys a night and spreading GRIDS, or would you prefer them getting married?

                • peppermint says:

                  honestly, i don’t know if prostitution should be forbidden or not. im just saying it’s not clear that permitting old women to shack up is desirable from a whole-society perspective

                • Eli says:

                  B, sorry very late reply (tons of stuff to do at work). If divorce under pretense of disgust were a common practice, there would not be the problem of the agunot. The rabbis specifically suspect that a woman who wishes to divorce her husband wants to do so, because she has eyed another man. I remember reading about this from authoritative source, though don’t remember exactly where. That is the default mode: suspicion of the woman’s intentions.

                  The whole thing about get/divorce: only a husband can issue it, and he can only be compelled in extraordinary situations — this is Halakha. There are, of course, interesting legal devices when it comes to the issue of unintended mamzers (a cooperating husband can divorce “retroactively,” to prevent his wife’s child by another man to be absolved of mamzerhood — such issues were extremely pertinent after Holocaust, where people got separated and didn’t know if their spouses were alive).

                  Again, the woman is not granted divorce on the capricious pretense of “repulsion.” Yes, I know that Maimonides wished it to be so in his Mishne Torah, but the majority of rabbis (rightfully) are of different opinion. Here:

                  https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/divorce-halakhic-perspective

                  Here:

                  ______

                  Rabbenu Tam and the Rosh both take issue with Maimonides’s position that it is possible to coerce a husband to give a divorce to his rebellious wife who abhors him. The Shulhan Arukh (Even ha-Ezer 77:3) resolves this debate: A rebellious wife cannot be forced to have intercourse with her repulsive husband; but her husband cannot be forced to divorce her. He has the choice of keeping her to serve all his needs except his sexual ones; or to divorce her, at his discretion.

                  Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen of Haifa has claimed that cases today should be decided in accordance with the Legislation of the Academy. A similar position could be attributed to Rabbi Eliezer Judah Waldenberg (b. 1912) regarding young women who, if their husbands refuse to divorce them, may be tempted to “act immodestly” i.e.: to ignore the need for the get and cohabit with other men (Ziz Eliezer 5:26).

                  Supreme Court Justice Moshe Silberg took the position that the debate between the Rosh, Rabbenu Tam and Maimonides did not refer to the cases in which the claim of the rebellious woman was reliable, sincere and above suspicion. He claimed that the Rosh and Rabbenu Tam, like Maimonides, would certainly agree to coerce a husband to give his rebellious wife a get, if the following could be proven:

                  a) that the wife truly despises her husband;

                  b) that such revulsion was for good reason (i.e.: the fault lies with her husband); and

                  c) that she does not merely “have her eye” on an alternative lover.

                  Zilberg’s claim is that the Rosh and Rabbenu Tam objected to the coercion of a blameless husband to release a wayward wife, but that they certainly would not object to such coercion if the husband were the cause of his wife’s suffering. This position was also taken by Rabbi Shlomo Dechovski, at least in one case.

                  Unfortunately, most contemporary rabbinic court judges do not order husbands to give their wives a get on the basis of their revulsion towards them.

                • Turtle says:

                  @jim

                  ” If you are infertile, your marriage is an inferior imitation of marriage.”

                  You skip over adoption, godchildren, and parenting without one’s own fertility. I know you speak for yourself, but others don’t mind raising other couples’ children, especially their friends’ children. So we have a partial solution to the infertile couples problem- let them adopt. Orphans do exist, and need parents or guardians. I don’t know the statistical scale of this solution, maybe only 10% of infertile couples, but it does count.

                • jim says:

                  Have you noticed that when people want to illustrate the insult “cuck” they show a white man with a white wife raising a non white child. Don’t you feel a gut wrenching obscenity, wrongness, and evil, when the person acting as the father is obviously not the biological father?

                  It is not just a personal preference. It is wrong. It feels bad the way it feels bad when you see someone with palsy.

                • B says:

                  >If divorce under pretense of disgust were a common practice, there would not be the problem of the agunot. The rabbis specifically suspect that a woman who wishes to divorce her husband wants to do so, because she has eyed another man. I remember reading about this from authoritative source, though don’t remember exactly where.

                  I think it’s in the Mishne Torah.

                  >That is the default mode: suspicion of the woman’s intentions.

                  Yes.

                  >If divorce under pretense of disgust were a common practice, there would not be the problem of the agunot. The rabbis specifically suspect that a woman who wishes to divorce her husband wants to do so, because she has eyed another man.

                  Yes.

                  But this does not mean that women are more likely to eye another man than a man is to eye another woman. The halacha according to Beit Hillel is that a man can divorce even if only because he finds another woman more attractive.

                  >The whole thing about get/divorce: only a husband can issue it, and he can only be compelled in extraordinary situations — this is Halakha.

                  Yes.

                  >Unfortunately, most contemporary rabbinic court judges do not order husbands to give their wives a get on the basis of their revulsion towards them.

                  We need a Sanhedrin.

                  >Don’t you feel a gut wrenching obscenity, wrongness, and evil, when the person acting as the father is obviously not the biological father?

                  No.

                  The manliest period in American history is the conquest of the frontier. Many, many times people either adopted orphans or married widows (or divorced women) with children from a previous marriage.

                  One of the best families I know has two children from the wife’s first marriage and eight from the second.

                  What is wrong is not a man raising his wife’s child from her first husband. What is wrong is a woman betraying her husband.

              • jim says:

                People who can’t have children also have to get married.

                Bad idea. That doctrine leads to marriage being emptied out. That doctrine is a foot in the door for Romance, Gay Marriage, and all that stuff.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Wait, what’s so bad about infertile people getting married to each other? I think you’re wrong here, Jim.

                  First, it’s better that they get married to each other than if they take up a fertile spouse. Secondly and more importantly, every normal person has a sex-need, and it’s better if sex-needs are fulfilled within marriage than outside of it.

                  People whether fertile or not need to fuck! And marriage is annulled and “emptied out” not if there aren’t any children resulting out of it, but if there isn’t any regular sex within it.

                  If there is sex, but not children, marriage not annulled. If there are children somehow without regular sex, in my view that’s the really “emptied out” marriage. At any rate, sex-needs are as legitimate as reproduction-needs, and are much more acute, so marriage it is.

                • B says:

                  This has been our doctrine for ever, and it has not led us to gay marriage.

                  Maimonides says:

                  “it is a mitzvah of our Sages that a man should not live without a wife, so that he will not be prompted to [sexual] thoughts. Similarly, a woman should not live without a man, so that she will not be suspected [of immoral conduct].”

                  The Talmud says:

                  “Any man who is unmarried is left without happiness, without good and without blessing.”

                  People who are infertile still need companionship and a mate, and leaving them without such is cruel and leads to socially destructive behavior.

                  By the way-that bottle of whisky…

                • jim says:

                  Sorry I am late about the bottle of whiskey. I have been busy. Getting to it.

        • peppermint says:

          》 women think that rightist men are horrible

          it’s funny because in order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should
          women seek domination. They don’t want you to convince them that everything they were told in school by teachers who wanted them to sleep with low quality men are false using facts and logic. They want you to simply believe in yourself and believe in the things you believe so that they can believe in you.

          If a woman asks if you’re a feminist, tell her you’ll say you’re a feminist if she needs you to for her coworkers.

          The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.

      • Alrenous says:

        I would love to find a smart leftist.
        Unfortunately, they aren’t stupid enough to think writing for the public is a good idea.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Moldbug? With his plan of formalizing Brahmin domination.

          I’m pretty sure every smart leftist knows what Jim knows, and what I know. Look at what Alan Greenspan wrote on the gold standard when he wasn’t in the establishment yet.

          • Alrenous says:

            Certainly a left-er temperament. Being against demotism is further right than fox news though. Further right than Trump, who is to the right of fox.

    • Space Ghost says:

      Because he’s obviously a deep-cover reactionary who has infiltrated leftist social circles. His technique for converting people is to give them all the facts, lead them right up to the edge, and then say “NO! It’s too terrible to contemplate!”

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        It is how I ended up here. That said his position towards racial difference (society is fixed, biology is mutable) sort of implies that he thinks genetically engineering black people out of existence is a good thing.

        Which technically makes him more genocidal then the Nazis (current and historic). I think “rationalism makes you completely insane” is a better explanation.

  4. Andrew E. says:

    Trump inviting Dueterte for an official White House diplomatic visit without consulting with the State Department, who are predictably livid over it, puts a big, wide grin on my face.

  5. Cavalier says:

    Trump is on his own side, it just happens to be a lot closer to ours.

  6. R7 Rocket says:

    Here’s judge Orrick who blocked Trump’s withdrawal of funds from criminal sanctuary cities:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/judge-orrick-1.jpg

    Note the asymmetrical face. Asymmetrical faces are explained in detail by Chateau Heartiste, especially that of cuckservative William F. Buckley.

    • Ron says:

      Anonymous conservative goes into a lot depth over these. Basically, the left side is less under control,than the right. He’ll use photoshop to split the face in two and mirror each side on its own.

      A simpler method is to cover the right side with your thumb and look at the left.

      And what I see is a frightened, worried man, even angry. But Im a bit spergynand not so good with expressions.

  7. Alrenous says:

    So…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Correspondents%27_Association

    Current president: Jeff Mason. Who does not have a wikipedia page.

    Those who -control- the news don’t end up -in- the news. This is one reason I strongly suspect Soros is merely a second-level cutout.

    Though there’s also a fine likelihood that this is one of those squirrely bureaucratic things where the status and control chart doesn’t at all look like the org chart. Regardless, looks like none of the correspondents have a wikipedia page.

  8. Karl says:

    Inviting Duterte is not a promising sign. It is neutral. Subtle hints won’t change anything at this stage. His adversaries won’t back down because of subtle hints. That will take a show of raw power, at least sacking some people, perhaps even some arrests.

  9. Turtle says:

    “The press declared glorious victory over Trump’s attack on their status. The press tells you that they are high status and holy, that Trump is low status and unholy, that they are winning and he is losing. You would not be so low status as to doubt the press, would you? Only low status people doubt the press. ”

    The press is declaring glorious victory over dissent and post-ideological politics. They want to stay Liberal, Democratic, Smart, Funny, Fiscal Conservative, etc. It’s like a dating profile became their religion. They do use Tindr, if not Grindr, so I don’t assume they think straight about their identity or group affiliation. They actually believe in gnostic idealism, as in, “my feelings are the real laws of social physics.”

    I think the press is saying:
    “go back to Buckley, Russel Kirk, and cuckservatism… please? pretty please, if we start talking about honesty and honor, will that appease you?”

    Here’s the quote I refer to:
    “This is the action not of a sexual predator but of an honest and honorable woman in love.
    Even if she is mistaken in her beliefs about his intelligence and ability to communicate, it is undeniable that these beliefs are sincere and that she was neither reckless nor negligent in forming them. This ought to have been a mitigating, if not wholly exculpating, consideration in the sentencing.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/opinion/who-is-the-victim-in-the-anna-stubblefield-case.html

    Also, Slate called a book about an ‘evictions crisis’ “deeply moral.” They’re really trying to win over cuckservatives with words they don’t understand.

    “Cathedral Streisanded our smug Pepe meme – revealing profound status insecurity.”

    What? is Streisanding like Barbara Streisand’s current claim that she lost Oscar nominations due to sexism?

  10. Hesiod says:

    My Nuts!

  11. vxxc2014 says:

    “Trump is on his own side, it just happens to be a lot closer to ours.”

    WINZ DA THREAD

    • viking says:

      Really a lot closer? it might be the closest a politician has been to my side since the 60s but If you put our positions, trumps positions, and the lefts positions, on a scale he would be way closer to the left than altright. Even when hes right its for the wrong reasons or no reason he can articulate

      • peppermint says:

        》 Even when hes right its for the wrong reasons or no reason he can articulate

        He’s a boomer. If he doesn’t destroy the alt-right, we’re taking power one way or another.

        Last year at this time we were discussing whether the Whites of the US can die in place or whether they’ll ensure all other White countries don’t leave the suicide pact.

      • pdimov says:

        Bannon is close to our side. Trump minus Bannon isn’t. Trump plus Ivanka minus Bannon is basically Hillary.

        • B says:

          How the hell did all you guys line up behind someone so weak-minded, with no ideas of his own, then?

          I mean, how is this big alpha male genius future emperor under the thrall of his 30-something daughter (supposedly)?

          Personally, I think both ideas are wrong. He was always a bozo at heart, following trends or anticipating them slightly. Ivanka isn’t doing anything to him that his buddies the Clintons weren’t doing when he was hanging out with them.

          Look, I WISH he was the guy all you guys thought and hoped he was. “Lock her up,” “build the wall,” end the wars, move the embassy to Jerusalem, etc. But that was all kay-fabe, WWF stuff. How could you not notice?

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Everyone knows Trump probably isn’t going to fix anything. Its not his job.

            His job is to push the Overton window our way and to buy us time to formulate an alternate to the Cathedral.

            He already done those things

            It would be a miracle if anything got fixed and while miracles can happen, don’t count on it. Its going to be war but the sane people don’t have the mindset to rule yet. Trump will make things less desperate and provide just enough hope that can be yanked way to provoke the fix

            Revolution require hope and with Trump you’ve got it and if we are very very lucky, it will be mostly bloodless as well.

          • pdimov says:

            Let’s assume for the sake of argument that we didn’t notice. Now imagine that we noticed instead. What should we have done differently?

            Trump is what we have. And, as the great prophet Rumsfeld has foretold, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you’ve had.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Nothing.

              As Moldbug said, when you fight the left, either win or don’t play. If Trump turns out to be a dud, the left’s response will be savage because you just increased their paranoia and determination 2x, and it wasn’t low in the first place. if they used to wonder if the white vaishyas should be exterminated as a class, they’re not wondering that now.

              • pdimov says:

                The left’s response will be to run Chelsea Clinton.

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                That “class” as you put it is the most heavily armed group of civilians on the planet many with extensive military experience in modern urban warfare . Its party such as it is controls or has partial control of 3/4th of states and all 3 federal branches . The Left while its done a tiny bit better in elections where they hadn’t expected to mainly do to its anger still hasn’t picked up a seat

                Maybe they could pull a 200 whatever that was with another Obama and get total power but its not that easy . They lost heavily since than

                Most importantly over the last few weeks the members of the Right have started to enjoy fighting leftist thugs a great deal.

                Now this is all ritual combat for the public space but I’ve noticed since the Right decided they weren’t going to take any more shit, they have done amazingly well

                Of the 5 or six fights including an ambush in Sacramento last year (150 AntiFa vs 20 More Or Less Nazis) at most the AF have managed one partial victory and note in Sacramento the vastly outnumbered Trad Youth hospitalized several AntiFa allegedly with their own knives despite being mobbed and ambushed

                The most the Left has been able to do thus far is stop timid Leftist run cities and weak Republicans.

                If the Left calls real exterminatus , even the bow tie looter cuck crowd is going to be on the kill list and they are starting to get that they won’t get their measure of respectability nice White gated community and sinecure but instead a firebomb through the window .

                The goal here of actual Conservatives and Right Wing radicals like here is to prevent such a war since it will be a blood bath and win.

            • B says:

              Not made asses of yourself proclaiming the everlasting reactionary glory of a guy who turned out to be WWF Reagan.

              • pdimov says:

                We’ve lost our respectability in your eyes? My, how terrible. First we’re called Nazis, and now this. We’re finished.

                Trump in fact did honestly want to do good. It wasn’t all an act. He probably even knew that USG’s steering wheel has no physical connection to the front wheels. But he didn’t expect the ninth circus to disregard the law in such a blatant manner, wasn’t ready for a raw power struggle.

                Trump is an executive. He gave Bannon his chance, Bannon achieved nothing.

                • B says:

                  You are now the official Trump oracle, and know what he did, what he wanted to do, what he knew, what he expected…

                  The whole idea of NRx or alt-right or whatever it is now is that the members (or leaders) have deeper insight into human nature than the Cathedral cucks do, which better qualifies them to run things.

                  I certainly wouldn’t argue with this if it had any ring of truth to it. I mean, it’s hard to be crazier and more deluded than the Cathedral.

                  But when your insight into human nature is such that you got fooled by a bozo with a combover who used to sell apartments to rappers, hang out with the Clintons and appear on WWF, that really doesn’t speak well for you.

                  And blaming it on his daughter is even worse: you are such arbiters of alphaness, you know so much about masculinity, that you chose a guy who is supposedly controlled by his hot 30 something year old daughter as your champion.

                  Or is it that you can’t tell a Guido car salesman bozo from a heroic genius, but nonetheless you have deep and profound insights into the human condition and the problems of governance and social engineering?

                  It’s like Weev’s black “computer scientist” who had no idea what ToUpper() did.

                  But nevermind all that, yo! I’m sure that despite it all, you’d do a great job if someone put you in charge of the whole mess.

                  PS Say what you will about F. Scott Alexander, the guy at least seems humble and writes about different and interesting things all the time.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You are now the official Trump oracle…”

                  No, I’m giving you my reading of Trump.

                  “… got fooled by a bozo with a combover who used to sell apartments to rappers…”

                  Got fooled in what way?

                  “And blaming it on his daughter is even worse…”

                  Blaming what on his daughter?

                • B says:

                  >Got fooled in what way?

                  Fooled into believing that Trump actually intended to deliver what he promised to get elected, and into believing that he intended to deliver MORE than what he promised.

                  >Blaming what on his daughter?

                  His failure to deliver on his promises, the fact that he is actually more of the same.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Fooled into believing that Trump actually intended to deliver what he promised to get elected…”

                  As I said, whether we got fooled in this way or not doesn’t matter one bit. P(wall|Trump) >> P(wall|Hillary), which is what matters.

                  You say that we shouldn’t have acted as if fooled, should have at most displayed cautionary optimism instead as befits the wise. But you haven’t explained why. Would that have raised P(wall)? I don’t think so. I think it would have lowered it.

                  And I/we don’t blame Ivanka for Trump failing to deliver. It’s however fairly obvious that there’s a difference between Trump with Bannon advising and Trump with Ivanka “advising”. It’s also obvious that Dina Habib Powell doesn’t quite belong on the NSC. Trump’s decision to be “advised” or not is still entirely his own.

                • B says:

                  The wall in itself (along with the whole associated set of measures like mass deportations) is worse than useless. All it does is mobilize the left. In 4 or 8 years, they will be back, the wall will be knocked down/not maintained, the illegals will be back in twice the numbers with a fast track to citizenship, etc. Operation Wetback.

                  The wall makes sense in the context of a whole other set of sweeping changes which would amount to a revolution (similar to the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.)

                  The Roman Empire was no great shakes, by the way, except for a brief period in its existence.

                  So you’d need someone very discerning to transition from the American Republic to the American Empire and do it in such a way that the Empire wouldn’t make people look wistfully back on the Republic in a few short generations.

                  The Trump hype was that he could be this person, or at least get this person into the place they needed to be to make it happen.

                  And the reality is, the dude is a bozo.

                • pdimov says:

                  “The wall in itself (along with the whole associated set of measures like mass deportations) is worse than useless.”

                  The left doesn’t think so. They understand that symbols are important.

                • B says:

                  Well, good luck playing their game.

                • pdimov says:

                  Their opposition to the wall is not a game. They genuinely feel threatened by it, as do illegals. In their terminology, it makes them feel unsafe and unwelcome.

                  The wall would be a big, beautiful, physical reminder of the underlying factors that have brought it into being.

                  All that is, of course, beside the point. I used ‘wall’ as a stand-in for ‘things that benefit our side’.

                • B says:

                  The Left fights to the death on every issue, and acts like every issue is apocalyptic.

                  It can due this because the battlefield is massively tilted in its favor, and if it loses on a given issue, it has a hundred others on which it has advanced in the meantime, from which the screaming and the noise have distracted its enemies.

                  The Right can not do this. If it wins on a given issue, after expending massive amounts of time and political capital, it has lost on a hundred others in the meantime.

                  Its wins are framed in purely negative terms-what is the wall, but the right NOT to be overrun by illegal immigrants? It’s like spending all your time and energy in a struggle against cancer-at the end of the day, you’re in remission, and you’ve done nothing about your odds of getting heart disease, emphysema or hepatitis, or being run over by a truck. You don’t have any energy or time left for that stuff. And, of course, the cancer will be back in 4-8 years.

                  The wins of the Left, on the other hand, are POSITIVE-they continue working to assure its future dominance. So when it pushes through something like Obamacare, or massive immigration amnesty, or the Great Society, or the New Deal, not only does that energize its base and open a whole new pig trough of delicious slop to distribute among its clientele, but it continues to pay off over the following decades, helping it maintain dominance. Using the cancer analogy, the Left’s wins are like giving their opponents cancer, while somehow making money off it.

                  So, yes, you are playing their game. The only way out is a coup/revolution/collapse into anarchy.

                • pdimov says:

                  “So, yes, you are playing their game. The only way out is a coup/revolution/collapse into anarchy.”

                  OK, let’s suppose that is so.

                  In what way would our acting as if not at all fooled by the bozo Trump have advanced our cause?

                • B says:

                  >In what way would our acting as if not at all fooled by the bozo Trump have advanced our cause?

                  It would avoid demoralization, avoid looking stupid, and allow the alt right or whatever to focus its mental energy on finding and implementing a strategy likely to bring significant, lasting, positive change.

                  Substitute Reagan for Trump. Was the Right better off because they rallied behind Reagan and then spent 20 years worshiping his memory?

                • jim says:

                  Substitute Reagan for Trump. Was the Right better off because they rallied behind Reagan and then spent 20 years worshiping his memory?

                  Reagan won the cold war. The strategy of the progs, as envisaged in the future history depicted on Startreck, had been “Oh we must surrender to the might of the Soviet Union.” Likely the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway, but it would have lasted considerably longer without Reagan.

                  So yes, the right was a hell of a lot better off with Reagan.

                  The problem with Reagan was that the external enemy was only a proxy for the internal enemy, and he did nothing about the internal enemy. Trump is doing something about the internal enemy. Likely he is not doing enough, likely he will fail, likely he will be seduced, but quite possibly he will succeed. He is sure doing something, he is doing quite a lot. He is doing more than any other politician would have.

                  It is obvious that Trump would like to make peace with the progs, but they will not let him. They are going to try to kill him. If they succeed, democracy is exposed, so we win. If they fail, chances are democracy is defeated, and we win.

                • pdimov says:

                  Hard to say which of the two strategies, “do whatever is good for /ourside/ in the long term” (Jew-favored) and “support /ourguy/” (white-favored) is better. I favor the latter mostly because all complex calculations are wrong.

                  Now in this case we had “Trump is potentially /ourguy/ but we’re not sure.” Still, usually people who aren’t /ourguys/ go to great lengths to assure us in that, and Trump intentionally did not. So, we supported /ourpotentialguy/ with the idea of encouraging the timeline in which he’s indeed /ourguy/ to come into being. Or, stated less esoterically, of encouraging Trump to choose /ourside/.

                • B says:

                  Why do you have a need to bring Jewish vs. non-Jewish into this? It’s exactly this kind of needless epistemic filtering that makes you guys so ripe to be taken by someone who tells you what you want to hear, instead of the truth.

                  The first rule is, don’t be a sucker. Don’t project your wishes onto reality. Hedge your bets. People whom you don’t know, who are strangers, have to prove themselves before you trust them.

                  Now, you can sit there and say, “in Wisconsin, everyone is NICE and treats you like a good guy by default, until you prove yourself otherwise. And we should strive for that.” And that is true. But in Wisconsin, it’s highly likely that the typical person that one meets IS a good guy. And when it comes to American politics and big business, the opposite is true. Anyone who is at a high enough level to appear on your TV screen is a scumbag and/or idiot until repeatedly proven otherwise.

                  The sad fact is that most of the ideologues/mouthpieces of the alt-right (and all of the ones of the PUA movement, obviously) are basically salesmen, using NLP and other 20th century techniques along with segmentation to create and exploit a new market: alienated Western males. And Trump is, I guess, the Tony Robbins of the bunch.

                • jim says:

                  The first rule is, don’t be a sucker. Don’t project your wishes onto reality. Hedge your bets. People whom you don’t know, who are strangers, have to prove themselves before you trust them.

                  That is not the rule that you are in fact recommending. Nor is it the rule Jews followed. The rule the Jews followed and that you urge us to follow here is “Hate your potential friends and stab your allies in the back” which rule has not worked out all that well for the Jews.

                  Trump is our guy. Yes, we all we knew he was vain, that he was in it for himself, that he was eager to be seduced by his and our enemies. He is still our guy.

                • jim says:

                  Why do you have a need to bring Jewish vs. non-Jewish into this?

                  Because your behavior, and the behavior you urge us to follow, is stereotypically Jewish. It did not work for the Jews, it does not work for the Jews, and it will not work for us.

                • Anonymous says:

                  B is correct in that the alt-right should not have shilled with such great enthusiasm for Trump (which applies to Putin as well, btw), particularly after the election was a done deal, but he overstates his case. It’s a good thing that Trump will fail, because it demonstrates the utter infeasibility of the system.

                  If Trump could do all he promised, and would’ve done all he promised, the dissident right would become placated and like a pierced balloon, completely deflate. Everyone would go home, move on with their lives, and the collapse would have been postponed some 20 years, with no real movement to avert it, since people here would be satisfied and contented with Trump’s superficial achievements. This, again, while all the core, underlying issues would have remained unsolved, inevitably leading to decline, with no movement to resist it. Not good.

                  If Trump tries to fulfill all his promises, and gets mercilessly eviscerated by USG, that’s for the best. It shows that the whole system has to be flushed out. Hillary would have been worse, because she would’ve done great damage to the country while keeping up the illusion that, if only /ourguy/ was elected, things would be different, so, so radically different. That /ourguy/ was elected, and things are not different, is excellent. Now, it’s no longer deniable that USG itself, the permanent establishment, has to go down. Good. We’ve got the best possible scenario.

                  Trump has shattered all the illusions about American democracy. If he hasn’t yet, he will in 4 or 8 years. He won’t be as destructive as Hillary would’ve been, rather, he’ll be merely impotent, and his impotence will serve as final proof that the core problems are not “who nominates whom”, but lie much deeper. Real, determined resistance to the Cathedral establishment could then develop. If /ourguy/ is POTUS, but Cthulhu keeps swimming Left, then Moldbug is vindicated. If Moldbug is vindicated, need radical change. A reboot of the entire system.

                  Before Trump, there was growing real resistance in our corners. When Trump came along, NRx rightly voiced fears that he’ll make everyone forget the real problems, serving as a fatal distraction from them, thus ensuring the collapse. That Trump is being devoured by the wolves of Washington, and that people, smart right-wing people, as a result, have not forgotten the true issues underlying our predicament, is excellent. ANTIFA is going around assaulting everyone from Tricky Dicky Spencer to milquetoast conservatives. Good!

                  If Trump can slow down the decline (relative to Hillary), without diffusing radical right-wing political radicalization, that’s for the best. His failure, not his success, should be our source of optimism. Let’s make it clear: he could not, *could not*, avert the decline. Nope. The only thing he’s truly good for is giving the dissident right time to organize, to develop. That it seems to be happening, that should put the smug-pepe smile on our face.

                • jim says:

                  B is correct in that the alt-right should not have shilled with such great enthusiasm for Trump (which applies to Putin as well, btw), particularly after the election was a done deal,

                  Trump drives our enemies insane. If we continue to shill with enthusiasm for Trump, that drives them even more insane. Hail Trump, the Holy American Emperor

                • pdimov says:

                  “Why do you have a need to bring Jewish vs. non-Jewish into this?”

                  When discussing the strategy of long-term optimization the (admittedly incidental) association is hard to avoid. Ignore it. It’s still “presume you can predict the long term” against “follow these heuristics.”

                  “Don’t project your wishes onto reality.”

                  In this specific occurrence, not projecting wishes onto reality is not superior to projecting wishes onto reality. Since electing Trump is a one-off event, there’s no danger of projecting wishes onto reality to become a habit (AKA drinking one own’s Kool-Aid).

                  Trump is a human, not some kind of a natural phenomenon, and his behavior is affected by what his supporters do and say. Obviously, believing that Saturn will do this or that will not affect Saturn’s behavior. Enthusiastic support for Trump implementing his promised agenda, however, does have the potential of encouraging him to indeed attempt to deliver on his promises.

                  ‘Build the wall, God Emperor, we have faith in you.’

                  Would you not build a wall if people tell you that?

                • pdimov says:

                  “If Trump could do all he promised, and would’ve done all he promised, the dissident right would become placated and like a pierced balloon, completely deflate. Everyone would go home, move on with their lives, and the collapse would have been postponed some 20 years, with no real movement to avert it, since people here would be satisfied and contented with Trump’s superficial achievements. This, again, while all the core, underlying issues would have remained unsolved, inevitably leading to decline, with no movement to resist it. Not good.”

                  That’s the conventional, Cthulhu only left, Reagan dindu nuffin, etc, view.

                  This is not Reagan. The alt-right is winning for the simple reason that the cucks are dying out. It will continue winning. The current movement left will cease. Cthulhu will still always swim left, but it will be a completely different left.

                  Not deflating the balloon doesn’t matter. Demographics matter. The fewer immigrants from here onwards, the better. The less welcome, less safe, they feel, the better. You want foreigners to want to leave the country, not flock into it. Assuming collapse, the whiter, the better. White enough, could even avoid collapse.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Yes, we all we knew he was vain…”

                  Which is actually a feature. He wants to be remembered as a great builder, which makes it more likely for him to build the wall as promised. This will be his visible legacy.

                • B says:

                  >The rule the Jews followed and that you urge us to follow was here “Hate your potential friends and stab your allies in the back” which rule has not worked out all that well for the Jews.

                  Ah, yes, the perfidious Jooos.

                  Who are these potential friends and allies we’ve treated so poorly? Please don’t mention the South Lebanese Christians-they live around the Kinneret now, except for the ones who cut a deal and returned.

                  Also, it’s not polite to mention this, but have you mailed that bottle out yet?

                  >It’s still “presume you can predict the long term” against “follow these heuristics.”

                  Not really. We don’t assume we can predict the long term (except for the extremely long term.) The heuristic I’m suggesting is not to be a sucker for bozos.

                  Also, this heuristic, formulated by King David:

                  It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

                  It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

                  >Would you not build a wall if people tell you that?

                  Which people? Some pseudonymous dude with a blog about how prepubescent girls keep coming onto him and we should make all women property? Spencer? I think that if I were the kind of guy Trump is (nouveau riche bozo, buddy of the Clintons,) I would use those people to the hilt, and then discard them. He thinks of you more or less the way Hillary thinks of black dem voters, seems to me.

                  >The problem with Reagan was that the external enemy was only a proxy for the internal enemy, and he did nothing about the internal enemy. Trump is doing something about the internal enemy.

                  The exact same thing as Reagan is doing: making quips about them. Reagan’s quips were smarter, Trump’s are funnier (in a WWF way.)

                  >The strategy of the progs, as envisaged in the future history depicted on Startreck, had been “Oh we must surrender to the might of the Soviet Union.”

                  This was not the strategy of the progs. This was the strategy of the people who ran the US.

                  Let’s see what Norman Dodd, chief investigator for the Reece Committee, has to say:

                  http://realityzone.stores.yahoo.net/hiddenagenda2.html

                  ‘Rowan Gaither was, at that time, president of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said: “Mr. Dodd, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves?” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and said:

                  ‘“Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience either with the OSS during the war or the European Economic Administration after the war. We’ve had experience operating under directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?”

                  ‘I said, “Mr. Gaither, I’d like very much to know,” whereupon he made this statement to me: “Mr. Dodd, we are here operating in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”’

                  So, the USSR died, but the USSR was not the problem. These people were.

                  >Likely the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway, but it would have lasted considerably longer without Reagan.

                  Well, great! The USSR died, so now all US residents have to worry about is endless war throughout the world, and a limitless panopticon surveillance state.

                  Is Trump doing anything about either of those two minor issues?

                  >The alt-right is winning for the simple reason that the cucks are dying out.

                  The alt right does not noticeably have many children.

                • B says:

                  PS: Leftists, in the sense of pink haired freaks, can’t get it together enough to kill anybody.

                  The people who can are the Deep State. Are they “leftists”? See the Norman Dodd interview. If they wanted Trump dead, he’d be dead already. But he’s appointing guys like McMaster and Mattis, who’ve been playing ball for 40 years, and firing guys like Flynn and Bannon, who’ve shown some signs of not wanting to play ball. Why kill him? He’s doing his job fine.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The alt-right is winning for the simple reason that the cucks are dying out.

                  Translation: “the alt-right is winning because the Outer Party is dying out.”

                  Who, exactly, is dying out? No one in the deep-state establishment has died out. Not a single strand of hair has fallen off their head. The permanent government is running the show just as smoothly as yesteryear. Ronald McDonald is making some funny noises, but who cares? As Yarvin says, instead of USG implementing a 1,000 out of a 1,000 of its preferred policies every single day, it only gets 999.

                  The only people who seemed to be dying out are the neocon warmongers, and right now, you can’t even be sure about that.

                  The wall is band-aid. Sure, it may minimize the chance of wound-infection. If in the meanwhile you’re dying of cancer, meh. Something is rotten in the united states of America, but Trump’s air freshener definitely smells great.

                  The spics are clients. You want to deprive the Cathedral of these clients. Well, first of all, good luck. Secondly, this is goring the cape, not the matador. The cape is annoying, no doubt, The matador, however, has a whole plethora of tools up his sleeve. The CIA could hardly care less about Trump’s wall. Post-wall, the poz will still be pouring into the water supply, perhaps even more fervently. The white race will still be diminishing, percentage-wise, globally and nationally. Dysgenic breeding will continue apace. Feminism, not necessarily in its blue-hair SJW-iteration, will keep going strong. This is not what victory looks like.

                  We want the Cathedral burning down to the ground. Trump won’t deliver that one. Sorry – he is not really a God-Emperor. The only long-term solution is elite-replacement. Institutional takeover. Unless and until that happens, the struggle continues. Trump’s arrival should not pacify our minds. Rather, let’s utilize Trump to build a substitute elite. Or convert the current elite to our side. Or both. No other way out, if collapse is to be avoided.

                  And democracy should be abolished.

                • jim says:

                  As Yarvin says, instead of USG implementing a 1,000 out of a 1,000 of its preferred policies every single day, it only gets 999.

                  And it is driving them crazy.

                  Obviously a mere president cannot deliver what we want. Only a holy American Emperor.

                  War comes. When it comes, we go to war led by the Trump we have, not the Trump we would like to have.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Who, exactly, is dying out?”

                  In short, the Republican base.

                  “Feminism, not necessarily in its blue-hair SJW-iteration, will keep going strong.”

                  Something called feminism will probably still be going strong, it will just have nothing to do with its present form.

                  “We want the Cathedral burning down to the ground.”

                  This doesn’t preclude attempts to limit or reverse third world immigration in the more immediate future. Hedge your bets, as the wise B advised.

                  Unless you think that more immigration will help in burning down the Cathedral, in which case, good luck.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >In short, the Republican base.

                  Oh, okay. Outer Party it is, then. I’m sure the CIA is shaking in its boots.

                  >Something called feminism will probably still be going strong, it will just have nothing to do with its present form.

                  Not a victory. I don’t care about third-wave slut-feminists. They’re cute, sometimes. It is first-wave feminism that is the core problem. If you don’t solve first-wave feminism, you don’t win.

                  >This doesn’t preclude attempts to limit or reverse third world immigration in the more immediate future.

                  I support The Wall. Still band-aid.

                  But if it placates the dissident right, and anaesthetizes it into inaction, then it’s better that the wall isn’t built. There has to be a resistance movement.

                • pdimov says:

                  Outer Party it is. The whole Inner-Outer sham can’t go on without people who buy it. The Outer Party will die, and by the looks of it, the Inner Party will likely die as well as it doesn’t seem capable of surviving on its own. (We need to help them in this hour of need by encouraging their electing stronk womyn of color in leadership roles.)

                  “If you don’t solve first-wave feminism, you don’t win.”

                  Yeah, going there from here would be kind of hard. Or rather, it’s very easy, just flood the country with Muslims, but you probably didn’t have that in mind.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >The solution we do not want.

                  Mohammed was white, but what he founded was an Arab supremacist religion. Arabs are mud”people”. Islam is a brown supremacist religion.

                  If you gain patriarchy but you lose the blood, it certainly is a solution… a final solution.

                  Give me liberty, or give me death, something something.

        • viking says:

          If you have read enough about bannon you would know he identifies and was strongly active in tea party and first backed Palin. And sure Palin over the nigger was a no brainer and like trump actually better than trump she had good instincts, but neither are really smart. bannon is pretty smart but not smart enough to avoid the easily predictable ostrification hes gotten.Bannon from what limited resources i could find is not a typical tea partier, hes a bit more globally focused and attuned to the larger trends, but in a lot of ways hes just a irish catholic reagan democrat which would on todays scale be a neo nazi. I suppose if you mean could bannon be red pilled, I think he could be and I dont think trump ever could be.

  12. pdimov says:

    The spending bill looks like a disaster.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      Not a surprise. Excepting the Tea Party guys and Freedom Caucus the Republicans are fiscal Liberals and no more want to cut spending than the Left does.

      A good chunk of the Republicans are looters or have constituents that are moderate and use or want certain government programs as well. They are paralyzed with indecision, cut spending , get voted out. Don’t cut spending, get primaried and possibly voted out . So far the latter seems less of a threat

      Spending will go on until it can’t because no one has a clue how to stop and very possibly there may be disaster is they do. The disaster will be worse when it grinds to a halt but they might not be in office then. Long and short, they are not smart enough nor honorable enough to actually solve the budget issue

      In any case what Trump is doing is exactly what he needs to do, heat up the culture war and defrost the Right . Its working

      I want that wall for symbolic reason but if he can’t get it this year, so be it. Try next.

  13. Lex Corvus says:

    > the Cathedral Streisanded our smug Pepe meme

    And now they’re doing the same with the OK hand gesture. It’s a beautiful thing to behold.

  14. bob k. mando says:

    when the top two google results for the Correspondents dinner are articles in Rolling Stone and the Washington Examiner ( not really a surprise on that one ) talking about how insipidly stupid the night was?

    whatever that is, it’s NOT winning.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/white-house-correspondents-dinners-most-cringeworthy-moment-w479611

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-piety-and-trump-bashing-the-sheer-awfulness-of-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/article/2621729

  15. peppermint says:

    Blackpillers should listen to Molly https://youtube.com/watch?v=IivIvop_VPg

    The ideas that were discussed here two years ago have reached the masses of the alt-right, which is itself growing exponentially.

    • peppermint says:

      Trump says Bannon is alt-left. That (1) correctly points out that alt-lite is left of alt-right (2) legitimizes alt-right (3) suggests that all current rightists and leftists should get on board with the alt stuff.

      • pdimov says:

        Alt-left is like left-libertarian, another way to spell left. The two options are left or alt-right. No place for anything else.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Right Libertarians? Like myself.

          • Turtle says:

            The political axes I note are: up-down (authority-anarchy), left-right (artificial-natural), and in-out (attitude towards historical time, progressive or reactionary). Paleolibertarians are more like paleocons than progressive libertarians. Everyone here, AFAIK, is up-right-out (reactionary). Your libertarianism seems to be a dispersal of otherwise central authority, not less total authority.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              I don’t really understand what you mean by in-out axis, the other two are obvious, although left-right is more disorder-order. Arguably leftism is more natural than rightism since the normal condition of things is that they are shit.

              I always assumed it was common sense for libertarians that libertarianism worked because the best people have to compete so that the natural aristocracy is in charge and responsible. I guess common sense is not so common. I do think there is a huge difference between authority forced upon you, and authority you accept (although there are some exceptions like the family).

              • Turtle says:

                Progs believe in axis of history/ right side of history stuff, which is chronological chauvinism. Reactionaries like htory, and the present, and the future. Reactionaries are comfortable, not agitated or unhappy (see antifa in Portland: https://kek.gg/i/77t9XD.jpg ).

                So the natural/ unnatural axis, to me, is in/out, for 3 total dimensions. Leftism is anti-order, meaning chaos for fun, while disorder is a more neutral in-between state, which happens between settled periods.

                Leftism is violence against nature, and liberty is natural, so libertarians are all rightists. I don’t think there is only one kind of aristocracy, and different times call for different traits/ coalitions. Libertarianism is mostly the default, in that liberty is natural. It is not normal, theologically speaking, to have any badness or sin. Leftism tends to be a cover for selfishness, so it is common in rhetoric, but not in action. Rightism is common in action, but not in rhetoric, as in Jim’s example of real marriage vs. equal relationships.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Leftism wins because in a free competition of memes the most virulent memes win, and as the most virulent memes are the most power-centric memes, the more power-centric memes outcompete the less power-centric memes. This also applies to non-heriditary power and connected with horiziontal vs. vertical transmission of both memes and genes.

            • pdimov says:

              The political axis at this specific junction is AIDS positive vs AIDS negative.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                AIDS negative and Alt right do not completely overlap, there are AIDS negative people not part of the Alt right, and Alt rightists like Milo and “Please have a white nurse kill my grandma instead of a mestizo” Spencer who are pozzed.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                In the case of Milo, probably literally.

          • pdimov says:

            Need to pick a side, like everyone else who imagines himself beyond such a vulgar divide.

      • viking says:

        Trump and very few elites actually know what the alt right is from our perspective. If you go to breitbart and read enough comments you will see they think they are the alt right and the channels that will occasionally troll breitbart comments with racists memes the breitbart alt right will call soros putin trolls, trying to make the alt right tea party look racist and non christian, the left supports this because they call everyone a nazi.

        Now alt right in the last decade has come to mean several different things from pre moldbug paleo/dissident right through chan/spencer, we all know the current terms for the diaspora of right thinking and may sometimes particularly if we have been around this area for 10-20 years may even refer to all of it as altright or concede the current usage of kekcult neo nazi. Trust me no one in the elites that hasnt researched it for a hit piece let alone the masses has a clue, their is in fact an alt left now though i havnt looked into them the natsocs are alt left from my perspective

        • pdimov says:

          Alt-left means “we want to be alt-cool but please don’t call us Nazi” which basically betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of alt – namely, its rejection of Left’s authority over branding. Alt means “call me Nazi, I don’t care” but the alt-left cares, therefore, not alt.

  16. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    On the subject of the Emperors proper appellation;

    Others have mentioned Dune, but Warhammer is definitely the more memetically massive influence here (for example, all the image macros floating around of trumps head shooped onto the GEoM’s power armour).

    Warhammer 40k is perhaps the most chunni/extravagantly reactionary setting that’s ever been produced in popular western media; its been normalizing theocracy, militarism, inquisition, xenoscepticism, explicit chauvanism, supremacism, and genociding racial enemies within nerddom for decades.

    God-Emperor references are wholly and completely appropriate. In fact, it may even be overrating.

    As example, i will now take the opportunity to quote the source material liberally and marvel at the audacity;

    “Contact with alien races always renews one’s faith in humanity. It is my belief that foreign travel narrows the mind wonderfully.”
    – Helem Boesch

    “Hate! Hate! Hate!
    An emotion as pure as it is deep!
    Hate! Hate! Hate!
    Let it flow, let it run free!”
    – Inspirational Verse, Imperial Hymnal Vol. IV

    “What is the terror of death?
    That we die our work incomplete
    What is the joy of life?
    To die knowing our task is done.”
    – Anonymous

    “How can a man be happy if he cannot serve his lord with his whole heart?”
    – Litany of the Adeptus

    “To be Unclean
    – That is the mark of the Mutant
    To be Impure
    – That is the mark of the Mutant
    To be Abhorred
    – That is the mark of the Mutant
    To be Reviled
    – That is the mark of the Mutant
    To be Hunted
    -That is the mark of the Mutant
    To be Purged
    – That is the fate of the Mutant
    To be Cleansed
    – For that is the fate of all Mutants”
    -Extract from a Training Chant, First Book of Indoctrination

    “There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival.”
    – Lord Solar Macharius

    “The warrior who acts out of honour cannot fail. His duty is honour itself. Even his death – if it is honourable – is a reward and can be no failure, for it has come through duty. Seek honour as you act, therefore, and you will know no fear.”
    – Anonymous

    “You accuse me of being a madman. What right have you to judge what is sane and what is not?
    I have fought with the shadows on the edge of your vision.
    I have seen the faces that laugh at you in your nightmares.
    I have smelt the foetid breath that issues from the mouth of hell itself.
    I have heard the silent voices that make your spine tingle with dread.
    I have entered the realms between worlds where there is no time or place.
    I have clashed with creatures the sight of which would sear your soul to the core.
    I have bested horrors that chill with a gaze and tempt unreasoning terror.
    I have faced death eye to eye and blade to blade.
    I have stared into the eyes of insanity and met their all-consuming stare.
    I have done all of this for you, for your protection, and the guarantee of a future for mankind.
    And yet you accuse me of being a madman, you who have never had your sanity tested so sorely.
    What right have you to call me a heretic and a blasphemer, who have not heard the whisper of dark gods in your ear?
    You are weak. Vulnerable. Human in your frailty. I am strong and yet still you judge me.
    And yet you still judge me for my sins, you who art most sinful to the heart?
    Only the insane have strength enough to prosper; only those that prosper truly judge what is sane.”
    — Inquisitor Lichenstein

    “This is as my Master told it to me and now I tell it to thee.

    There are a billion names of damnation! A billion kinds of things that slither and slime and defile the land and sea and wind. Each thing is a kind of sin spawned by man’s evil. And that man is very sinful there are many of these damned things and their power is great.

    As the purpose of all things in nature is to increase so it is with the damned. They would we joined them and so they seek to overcome us. In alien forms they assault us. In sleep they come to spread doubt and fear among us. They would corrupt our hearts and see us damned too. Trust them not nor suffer them to live.

    For each alien destroyed is a soul freed from eternal bondage. Each mortal alien life extinguished is a human soul raised to glory. Thus our eternal destiny is written in the blood of the alien.

    With sword and spear destroy the alien. With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars. With tooth and fist and hammer blows, with axe and shell and poison-bombs, with VIRUS-CHARGE and THERMAL MINE!

    KILL THEM ALL! KILL THEM ALL! KILL THEM ALL!

    As my Master told it to me I now tell it to thee that thou shalt tell others in thy turn.

    Suffer not the Witch to live.”
    — Commandments of Holy Terra

    “Bring fire and bring shell and heap all upon the pyre. With flame and gun we shall make an end to the withered husk that is human life. And in the blazing furnace of battle we shall forge anew the iron will of a yet stronger race.

    Let the Flames of Battle Consume Us!

    All that the Emperor asks of you is that you hate!”
    — Commissar Anton Gebbet, Last Words

    “It is the savage beast of war that drives Mankind on his course and pursues him to his destination. It feeds upon his terror. It grows more hungry with each passing year and soon it shall consume him whole.

    The Age of Battle is begun. The fires of war burn brightly from star to star. Everywhere the fortresses of Man are steeped in blood and ancient enemies appear from the darkness. Sensing weakness they gather for the kill. They know as we know that as night approaches all mortal life shall be extinguished. We know, as they cannot, that there shall be a new dawn and a new day when we will rise anew and they shall be driven into the darkness forever.

    The Age of Battle is Begun.

    I am the hammer, I am the instrument of His will, the tip of His spear, the edge of His sword, the flight of his arrows, the gauntlet about His fist. I am the hammer, the hate, the bane of the treacherous and the woes of all daemonkind.”
    — The Malleus Maleficarum

    “The martyr’s grave is the keystone of the Imperium.”
    — The First Book of Indoctrinations

    “The will of the Emperor be done.

    As the blood of the slain is laid upon you so may you lay the enemy’s blood at the feet of the Emperor.

    Lay blood at the Emperor’s feet.

    As the rune of protection is inscribed upon you so may the litanies of protection ward your soul.

    May your soul be guarded from impurity as the warriors within you guide your weapons, may you in your turn, guide their lives.

    Stand true against the trials of war.”
    — The Prima Incubatorta

    “Ask not the name of the Enemy. Ask not his Will, nor his Method. Ask not to think his Thoughts and ask not to speak his Words. Ask only for the strength to kill him!”
    — The Imperial Infantryman’s Uplifting Primer (Addendum Spiritual)

    “Oh, Emperor, help me massacre on this day of days.”
    — Klovis, the Redeemer of Necromunda, during Devil Night

    “Praise the Emperor and pass the ammunition. For what one doesn’t cure, the other will.”
    — Adepta Sororitas Proverb

    ” Lead us from death to victory, from falsehood to truth.
    Lead us from despair to hope, from faith to slaughter.
    Lead us to His strength and an eternity of war.
    Let His wrath fill our hearts.
    Death, war, and blood;
    in vengeance serve the Emperor and the name of Dorn!”
    — Vow sworn by the Black Templars before the Lifting of the Long Night

    “While vile mutants still draw breath, there can be no peace. While obscene heretics hearts still beat, there can be no respite. While faithless traitors still live, there can be no forgiveness.”
    — The Catechism of Hate – Verse I of XXV

    “Acknowledge death as it approaches, but do not succumb to its touch, for your purpose is greatness.”
    — Reclusiarch Avindus, of the Blood Angels

    “In fury, faith
    In hatred, purpose
    In battle, honour
    In death, a martyr’s end.”
    — The First Book of Indoctrinations

    “With bolt shell and thermal bomb did the Saint cleanse this wretched hive of sinners. With virus charge and fusion lance did the Saint bring wrath to those who would turn their back to Him on Terra. With flamer and melta mine did he purge and purify. And lo, upon a pyre of a billion burning heretics did he leave us to join the Emperor for all eternity…”
    — The Ballad of the Hive Ganger Saint

    “Smite now the scions of the Witch!
    Grant us the strength to pierce their unclean flesh!
    To cover their fields with the pale form of the blasphemous dead!
    To drown the thunder of guns with the shriek of their dying!
    To lay waste to their citadels with hurricanes of fire!
    To wring the hearts of their kin with unavailing grief!
    To send them into the waste of their desolate land in rags and hunger, broken in spirit, worn with travail and begging for the refuge of the grave.
    We ask it, in the spirit of wrath, O Master of Mankind!”
    — Battle Prayer

    “A spiritu dominatus,
    Domine, libra nos,
    From the lighting and the tempest,
    Our Emperor, deliver us.
    From plague, temptation and war,
    Our Emperor, deliver us,
    From the scourge of the Kraken,
    Our Emperor, deliver us.
    From the blasphemy of the Fallen,
    Our Emperor, deliver us,
    From the begetting of daemons,
    Our Emperor, deliver us,
    From the curse of the mutant,
    Our Emperor, deliver us,
    A morte perpetua,
    Domine, libra nos.
    That thou wouldst bring them only death,
    That thou shouldst spare none,
    That thou shouldst pardon none
    We beseech thee, destroy them.”
    — The Fede Imperialis (commonly known as the Battle-prayer of the Adepta Sororitas)

    ~+++Imperial Thoughts For The Day+++~

    ” An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
    Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.
    Beginning reform is beginning revolution.
    If a job´s worth doing it´s worth dying for.
    Educate men without faith and you but make them clever devils.
    My armor is contempt. My shield is disgust. My sword is hatred.
    Even a man who has nothing can still offer his life.
    It is better to die for the Emperor than to live for yourself.
    Zeal is it’s own excuse.
    Serve the Emperor today, tomorrow you may be dead.
    A suspicious mind is a healthy mind.
    Faith without deeds is worthless.
    Men must die so that Man endures.
    The wise man learns from the deaths of others.
    Death is the servant of the righteous.
    Excuses are the refuge of the weak.
    To withdraw in disgust is not apathy.
    Cowards die in shame.
    Mercy is a sign of weakness.
    A broad mind lacks focus.
    A mind without purpose will wander in dark places.
    A narrow view sees better.
    Tolerance is a sign of weakness.
    The loyal slave learns to love the lash.
    The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Imperium.
    Heresy grows from idleness.
    Despair is a sign of weakness.
    Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
    Better crippled in body than corrupt in mind.
    Hatred is the Emperor’s greatest gift to humanity.
    Work is Prayer.
    There is nothing to fear but failure.
    No man died in His service that died in vain.
    Through the destruction of our enemies do we earn our salvation. ”

    (post-ironic shitlordism, coming to a friendly local game shop near you!)

  17. Garr says:

    Jim, please consider reviewing/assessing Mencken’s In Defense of Women. A commenter at Zman recommended it, and I’ve read 19 chapters of it today (Gutenberg has a PDF online). I’m trying to put the things that he says together with the things that you say and the things that I’ve experienced.

    • BigCheese says:

      Mencken’s In Defense of Women is pretty old news around here. If you search Jim’s site you you’ll probably find a post mentioning it.

      • Garr says:

        Everything interesting is old. I’d enjoy a post about Plato, too.

        • peppermint says:

          Plato was a faggot whose sole redeeming factor is transcribing how Socrates trolled an entire government and discredited democracy forever, but somehow failing to understand what happened. His book about how to organize society that was put commie autism and his inability to understand that ideas like good and justice are human abstractions that can apply only to degrees made our civilization vulnerable to being taken over by christcuckoldry that reified his forms in the diety and souls and reified his communism in the afterlife.

          Aristotle mused about the possibility of common descent, while christcucks like Aquinas believed that each animal type had a Platonic form reified as a soul.

          • Garr says:

            I think that Plato’s kidding around a lot of the time. It’s hard to tell what he actually thinks about anything. You’re right, though, that the “soul theory” is more from (or through) him than from Genesis (where it’s the “Man of Dust” who becomes a “living nefesh(=person)”; also, the Gospels speak of resurrection of bodies, bodies becoming revivified, so there’s no soul-theory there either. Schopenhauer seems to assert something like “each animal [having] a Platonic form reified as a soul” — the All-Self radiates outward in species-forms that Schopenhauer calls “(Platonic) Ideas”. I’m guessing you like Schopenhauer …?

            • peppermint says:

              no one cares about jew books or philosophers no one talks about, faggot

              • Garr says:

                That was a mean thing to say. Why you gotta be like that?

              • Anonymous says:

                Philosophy is mostly bunk, though. Pompous mental masturbation. It can be interesting sometimes, other times it’s just yawn-inducing autistic verbosity, but ultimately, it is inferior to concrete technological endeavors and experimentation.

                Technological creativity and inventiveness > empty abstractions e.g “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

                Benjamin Franklin’s weltanschauung was shit. His scientific inventions, pretty good. Am I wrong?

    • Anonymous says:

      Got a bunch of Mencken books I plan to read, IDOW is one of them. Suffice it to say, criticism of Anglo-American Puritanism, which is a recurrent theme in Mencken, sounds different when it comes from a German, than when it comes from a Jew. I’ll have more to say about the matter when I get to actually reading the stuff.

      • Garr says:

        Mencken’s picture in IDOW is incomplete, to say the least, but he notices things that do have to fit into an overall account (“realism” of women vs. “sentimentality” of men). At the end of this book he recommends an earlier book by a bacteriologist named “Wright” (friend of Shaw, according to Wiki) called “The Unexpurgated Case Against Women’s Suffrage” — I’ve started this (online PDF) and it’s pretty good.

        • Garr says:

          Almroth Wright is more truthful than Mencken, but Mencken, of course, is funnier. Mencken’s assertion that women are more intelligent than men is completely compatible with Wright’s emphasis on the private/domestic/concrete focus of female intelligence; by “intelligent” Mencken merely means “prudently self-interested” — Mencken despises religious and patriotic enthusiasms. Mencken’s assertion of women’s greater realism might seem odd given the female Progressivism of today, but actually makes sense if you see Progressivism as (1) merely destructive of any positive worldview; (2) a tool that women use to grab concrete stuff for themselves and to build their personal nests/webs in more desirable (higher-status) locations.

          • Anonymous says:

            Simon Baron-Cohen’s characterization of male thinking as “systemizing” and female thinking as “empathizing” seems pertinent here.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing–systemizing_theory

            Obviously, we know which sort of thinking gets civilization built.

            The inherent conflict within every dynasty is between Cabinet (essentially male) and Boudoir (essentially female). This was relevant to the Tokugawas, see chapter 6 here:

            https://archive.org/details/awakeningofjapan00okakiala

            And just as surely, relevant to Trump.

            • Cavalier says:

              >The inherent conflict within every dynasty is between Cabinet (essentially male) and Boudoir (essentially female). This was relevant to the Tokugawas, see chapter 6 here:

              Outstanding.

            • Garr says:

              Interesting how the Japanese author sees a natural association between Boudoir-power and the tyrannical behavior of the male ruler favored by the ladies. (Also between Boudoir-power and what he calls “conservatism”.) I think that Aristotle also links tyranny with female power.

  18. Mister Grumpus says:

    There’s a slight derivation of Dunning-Kruger at work here.

    To a low-power impatient person — like me — who hasn’t (lately) put in lots of work and time, over multiple years, towards an impossible-looking goal (like making X-$billion in real estate and then becoming President for example)…

    …when I see someone who IS doing that, I can’t detect the difference his long-term cunning and planning… and his simply having abandoned the goal entirely.

    I hope that my frustration with the Holy American Emperor Donald Trump is really just my congnitive-dissonance temper-tantrum over the fact that True Power isn’t what I wish it was: an “on paper” matter of straight-A’s and a license/permission-slip from some bureaucrat in an office somewhere.

    No sir. The reality out there is much more gruesome, brutal and multi-spectral. Being confronted with this fact NOW is humiliating because it shows that I’ve been long-conned my whole life by everyone I trusted.

    • Zach says:

      Hardly a temper tantrum. There is lots to like. Lots to hate. Signing this new spending bill isn’t 20d chess. Shut it down. I doubt his base would be upset and turn on him over such a thing.

    • Alrenous says:

      >I’ve been long-conned my whole life by everyone I trusted.

      This is also the reaction of many leftists of the gender-bent debates.

      The major problem is: it’s completely true. Not particularly their fault, though, as they’re simply passing on the conning they themselves received. However, the psychological barriers to realizing society is your enemy are high enough that overcoming them literally counts as a form of torture.

  19. vxxc2014 says:

    He just gritted teeth and agreed to CR spending until 30 Sept.
    then tweeted if not fixed needs a shutdown

  20. glosoli says:

    Trump is a stooge.

    Ron Paul was the real deal (an outsider) so he didn’t get any media coverage at all. Just ignored.

    Trump was fake opposition to the establishment. He still is.

    Everyone wants him to be the real deal, but there will be failure after failure. Ultimately he’ll be the same as the last 10 presidents or so, a leftist.

    Give me a shout when he bans abortion.

    • jim says:

      Invasion is the problem.

      • glosoli says:

        The North Koreans are saying this too.

        • Cavalier says:

          So? Cathedral vs. North Korea is near vs. far and strong vs. weak. You, the Christcuck, instinctively side with weak and far. Forced to choose, I, the Nietzschean Übermensch aspirant, will take strong and near, thank you very much.

          • glosoli says:

            It’s not an either or.
            Just leave them in peace, rather than swallow the neocon lies…again.

            • Cavalier says:

              Will to power.

              Every manly man in history felt the masculine desire to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandaled feet, to feel the earth tremble at his advance, to make his enemies quail before him and to hear the lamentations of their women.

              Fuck Christstain peace. Draw the sword.

              • Hidden Author says:

                And if the US remakes North Korea into a land as progressive and modern as itself, reshapes it into the mirror image of America as it exists now in the first week of May 2017, that adds to your personal wealth, power and prestige, how?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >And what about the Cathedral hanging over our heads?

                  Same problem, same answer: draw the sword.

                  And if Christain Cons weren’t such eviscerated pansies, they would get somewhere too. Instead of serving as the loyal security caste for those that hate and wish to destroy them, they would simply depose them and rule by themselves for themselves. Will to power. There wouldn’t even be any fighting; there would be no one to fight.

                  So why not? Why not draw the sword? Duh, Christcuckery.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  >>Draw the sword

                  Show us how it’s done!

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Show us how it’s done!

                  Put an army at my back.

                  And because I’m not really into matyrdom, it’ll have to be an army greater than the Christcuck Conservative army arrayed in legions before the Cathedral, legions bound by sacred Christcuck oath to fight and die for the security of those who hate them and wish to destroy them, and are. And because the Christcuck Conservative legions are the greatest army in the world it’ll have to comprise the superior part of that fighting force.

                  You, being a hardline Christcuck yourself, are ideal for this mission, should you choose to accept it, and in its pursuit I hereby knight you Secretary of Conquest under my Supreme Lordship Imperator Cavalier, Slayer of Dragons, Avenger of King Louis, Conquistador of the Galaxy, and Patron Saint of Milk and Dark Side Cookies.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  In other words, Cavalier, you are full of hot air…

                • Cavalier says:

                  All is fair in love and war, and gallant fools get cut down like reeds.

                  I serve the prerogatives of power, and numero uno prerrogativa is survival of the fittest.

                  Pragmatists don’t become martyrs, Christcuck.

                • glosoli says:

                  Christian martyrs do, being concerned with more than worldly matters.

                  S’funny, it’s still the biggest best religion on the planet despite the millions of martyrs.

                  Atheistcucks.

                • peppermint says:

                  did any priests risk martyrdom at the Cologne cathedral to give sanctuary to the women being assaulted by the mud people?

                  no. instead, the priests help the invaders in every way possible.

      • Cavalier says:

        Conquest by Cathedral. Cathedral cannot invade what it already owns.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Oh yeah, thank god if abortion ever gets banned, that way when your daughter gets raped by nignogs you can have the joy of raising the cuckbaby yourself.

      Living in a world without such a privilege is surely a weight on your soul.

      • glosoli says:

        As a Christian I’d help raise the baby in the example you gave, whilst also killing the rapist.

        That way the guilty is punished, rather than the innocent.

        I’d merely banish evil folk like you to Africa.

        • Cavalier says:

          And propagate nonhuman genes whilst suiciding your own bloodline, tarnishing the sanctity of what’s left of your civilization, and fostering the physical reincarnation of the genes that raped your daughter.

          • glosoli says:

            Nonhuman? One of my best friends in the world is a black Berber Moroccan. He’s worth c.100 of the likes of you.

            The price, whatever that may be for my family or bloodline, would be worth paying to avoid the slaughter of an innocent child, about whom you seem to care not a bit.

            That’s Christianity for you, it’s focused on doing the right thing.

            • Cavalier says:

              Innocent child is blank slate. Blank slate is nonexistence. Merely by the fact of our existence are we the cumulative product of the actions of our germ line stretching back in time to the first self-replicating molecule.

              Your ancestors killed, your ancestors raped, your ancestors got hot and horny for their rapers, your ancestors cared for their children whilst not caring for not-their-children, and your ancestors by and large favored marriages of certain degrees of kinship which I will leave unstated, merely implied, because those degrees are evolutionarily optimal.

              More recently, your ancestors both underwent and exerted themselves rather intense selection against such things as rape, along with a suite of other temperamental characteristics which in combination with our industrial Garden of Eden has produced you, the pathologically altruistic nümale cuckold.

              • peppermint says:

                perfect answer to libertarianism and other forms of utilitarianism 👌

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m neither of those.
                  Merely a humble Christian, who recognises that sin deserves punishment, whilst innocence does not.

                  Your perfect answer still results in a dead baby, so it cannot, by definition, be perfect. It just fits your bias.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Individuals are but contingent expressions of a greater body, a more transcendent Power, from which they sprang, and to which they return. The conflict between these lesser divinities is the true conflict and purpose in this plane of purgatory.

            • Cavalier says:

              The son inherits the sin of the father.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          Kill the rapist? But what about the poor little baby? You want him to grow up without a father?! You monster! What did the innocent baby ever do to deserve that? Far better to give the rapist a few classes on consent so he won’t do it again. That way, the problem is resolved and your grandson can have his father in his life. It’s a win-win.

          • glosoli says:

            Its father committed a crime that would carry the death penalty in a biblical world, Jehovah doesn’t mess about.
            The baby would be fine in a good Christian family.
            I recall another baby that was raised very nicely by a man not his father, what was his name again?

            • peppermint says:

              》 The baby would be fine in a good Christian family.

              You are the most vile anti-White I have ever encountered. This ideology is the reason the mulattoes I personally know exist. They didn’t have good Christian families, however, because “sadly” White men aren’t by and large christcucked enough to want to be cucked. For that reason, presumably you think White men deserve to die out and be replaced by niggers willing to be “married” to women who birth niggers, since niggers don’t have the same family instincts humans do.

              Fortunately your kind is dying out. Unfortunately the process is slow. At some point the alt-right will begin speeding it along, asking christcucks if Whites have the right to exist, slapping them each time they say no, and seeing how many believe in heaven strongly enough to get slapped to death.

            • peppermint says:

              This woman I know, is cucking her teenage son’s father in front of her teenage son, and cucking her teenage daughter and elementary school daughter’s fathers in front of them, leaving these children eating spaghetti sauce out of the bottle or ramen, or maybe her adult children feed them, while she takes home niggers to fuck. It’s an extreme example, but it’s the obvious consequence of Christianity.

              Her mother’s father was a freedumb rider protestant minister.

              Her firstborn was a nigger, not because she couldn’t abort, but because she didn’t want to.

              Because everyone my age knows this kind of thing is happening, and everyone under 20 knows another man under 20 whose mother cucks his father in front of him, the consent of the governed to sexual immorality and Christianity will be drastically reduced over the next 40 years.

        • Anonymous says:

          With a morality such as yours, who needs Jewish subversion? The dissident right has a problem with hyper-moralists. Case in point:

          http://www.renegadetribune.com/vr-jewish-pedophile-face/

          I mean, who cares? Why should I care if Dov Katz wants to fuck 15-year-olds?

          My anglophobia is reaching new heights right now.

          • glosoli says:

            It’s not my morality, its Jehovah’s, and it is spot on.
            Spare the innocent, punish the guilty.
            It’s not complicated is it?

            • Anonymous says:

              The issue isn’t innocence or guilt. The cockroach I killed yesterday was purely innocent, as were the cows and pigs from which the steaks in my freezer are made. In a struggle for genetic continuity, and civilizational continuity, survival is the only morality. Nigger-rape babies are detrimental to genetic or civilizational survival. Saving them is immoral.

              You are raising your adversary’s progeny.

              I’m against killing white (human) fetuses, in general. Especially after they commence producing brain-waves. In contrast, nigger-rape fetuses are, to use peppermind’s vulgar phraseology, like veal to me.

              Look, if you’re not a troll, if you’re “for real”, then I respect your religious/moral convictions. Really – you’re a good person. But what you believe is catastrophic, and if I could, I’d make it extremely low-status to practice what you practice, and to preach what you preach.

              Diversity is good, and it’s also a strength. You should be able to practice your madness freely and unperturbed. But the majority of whites should not follow you, otherwise the white race will go extinct. You must be made low-status in the eyes of the majority.

              • peppermint says:

                What he believes is pure evil, because it mocks what is sacred, White DNA, and upholds the most filthy of abomination, in the name of the evil volcano demon ((Jehovah)), god of an enemy tribe.

                The most disgusting thing I have ever heard was White mothers of White children saying if they had been knocked up while being raped by niggers they would cuck their husbands – the way she said it. She was in between boomer and genxer, so her husband probably made her do all the work in bed for fear of oppressing her with his penis.

                Death to christcucks. There is no god but Kek and Pepe is His avatar. White sharia forever. Shadilay 👌

                • Anonymous says:

                  I think we should meme dolphins into a hate-symbol. “A dolphin” and “Adolph in” are the exact same sequence of letters. Are dolphins Nazis? We know that dogs are Aryan-supremacist, and are (white) man’s best friend, but what if high-IQ dolphins are also on the side of the White Race against the rat-faced kikes? Whites aren’t gooks; don’t eat these animals. Dogs and dolphs are quite similar – loyal, self-sacrificing, supportive.

                  From the perspective of Esoteric Hitlerism, dolphins have very strong potential to join the pantheon of hate, and it’s actually surprising they haven’t been memed yet into Nazis. If I have time and motivation, I’ll shill this meme all over /pol/. If Jews can be trolled by frogs, dolphins (dolphs) are a whole new level of MEME MAGICK triggering. It’s happening.

                • Anonymous says:

                  The phenomenon of “otherkin” can be appropriated by the alt-right. Identifying as “a dolphin” (adolph in) would be a code of Nazi-signalling, as well as be used to agree upon a given Nazi plan or idea. It can be used to summon from beyond the void the spirit of Hitler, to succor one’s endeavor. An example: are you a dolphin? Yes, I’m a dolphin. Or: no, I’m not a dolphin, when you disagree with an aforementioned proposal. Once it’s realized that “a dolphin” stands for “adolph in”, an invocation of Adolf’s spiritual guidance, the sky — or, as it were, the sea — is the limit.

                  Indeed, the sea has never been friendly to the Heeb. Whites are a seafaring people, while Jews are Semites of the desolate desert. Dolphins live in a Utopia underwater because the Jew won’t invade their territory. Arguably, Jews would’ve been expelled from the ocean had they tried to infiltrate the high-trust, low time-preference, jovial, harmonious dolphin society. Jews should be informed of the fact that when they see (sea) a dolphin, they are witnessing their enemy. The dolph wants to gas you from the inside, by “tinkering” with your scuba-diving cylinders, filling them with zyklon-b instead of oxygenated air. Meme magick works in such a way, that once it’s memed that Jews are afraid of dolph-ins, Jews will *actually become* afraid of them. The dolph doesn’t really intend to drown me to death deep-down in his aquarium, r-r-right goyim?? Oy gevalt, aquatic antisemitism is — literally — raising its head again.

                  That’s enough material for all of us to work with, I believe.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Just one last thing, let’s not gloss over the fact that niggers and muds in general can’t swim. Swimming, like milk, is white privilege. Milk is Aryan – lactose tolerance. Swimming is Aryan – just look at all the best swimmers. If swimming and diving are part and parcel of white privilege, then dolphs are assistants to the oppression of POCs, because whenever outcomes differ (in favor of whites), there, according to leftist doctrine, privilege manifests, and who could possibly give whites the privilege of a swimming-faculty, if not the denizens of the sea? Swimming/diving lessons – white privilege. Pools – white privilege. Google “best swimmers”. That’s the Aryan race right there.

                  Who are the usual visitors of public aquariums? Whipepo. It is whites, and only whites, who care about marine animals and marine ecology. (Only whites care about any kind of wild-life or ecology, full stop) Dolphs reciprocate kindness with kindness, so it’s not surprising that whites and dolphs get along with each other so well. Dolphins are natural allies against the Jew, dolphins are the Aryans of the ocean. If you are white, you are pro-dolphin. If you are non-white, you resent whites for being able to swim and dive, so you are automatically anti-dolphin; you also resent whites for conquering the seas. Shipwrights (and all classes of naval engineers) – overwhelmingly Aryans.

                  Oh, ADL, ADL… ADL. You’re gonna need a longer list of hate-symbols.

              • glosoli says:

                It’s worth mentioning that Jehovah favoured tribes/nations of the same kind, so inter-race rape would be uncommon in the right set up.
                I’m all for segregation or better still the forced repatriation of foreigners from my lands.
                To compare a human baby to a cockroach is really very poor, there’s no comparison, unless you value human life so little. Very sad.

                • peppermint says:

                  miscegenation creates abominations that will never be at peace because they are at war with themselves

                  and you believe that these abominations should be created because “human life” is precious – though not, apparently, the lives of humans, only the lives of mud “people”.

                  ((Jehovah)) favored the filthy rat kikes and his attitude towards foreign children is shown in the Plagues of Egypt.

                  ((Jehovah)) alternatively encourages rape of foreign women and admonishes kikes not to consider the children of those foreign women to be Chosen.

                  You are a cuckold fetishist. You are not a kike, you do not demand most favored nation status from the kike god you worship, you just want to, as the rabbis say, serve the kikes while they sit like effendi and eat.

                  Cuckold fetishists and all other traitors must be killed.

                  Shadilay!

                • glosoli says:

                  I think I saw you write the same thing a few weeks ago. Fascinating.

                • Anonymous says:

                  No, you definitely can compare an innocent biological entity to another innocent biological entity, in order to drive home the point that innocence, in itself, can’t serve as a defense if just by being yourself (or just by being) you negatively influence other biological entities.

                  If just by being yourself, or just by being, you harm others, those others have grounds to disregard your “innocence” and tackle the issue. Cockroaches and nigger-rape fetuses are alike “innocent”, but alike pose a problem, so the comparison is apposite, and the solution may also be similar.

                • glosoli says:

                  I have no time for someone who considers human life to be equal to animal life.
                  You’re on the road to hell sonny.

                • peppermint says:

                  go die in a nursing home under the tender loving care of a jamaican nurse

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “miscegenation creates abominations that will never be at peace because they are at war with themselves”

                  I don’t think it’s that they’re at war with themselves – it’s more that they can plainly see which side is inferior and which side is superior and they know they can never be fully accepted as a member of the group they know is superior. Even if they were accepted they have such strong internal distaste for their inferior ancestry that they would assume that everyone around them is laughing at them behind their back.

                • glosoli says:

                  Isn’t it awful when people laugh at you, behind your backs, or to your face.

                  Give me death in the womb over that any day.

                • peppermint says:

                  They will never be at peace, because they are at war with themselves. The only way they can be remotely happy would be if they were able to make it illegal to make fun of them and bring down the superior – after which they would be brought down for being superior.

                  Do you know any conscious mulattoes? Most of them don’t want to be conscious of anything. Others want to promote diversity so they can believe that they’re helping their superior family, their inferior family, and people like them.

                  Mixed women want to marry superior men and pretend they’re fully superior. At some point it will be possible for them to use just their superior parent’s DNA to reproduce with their superior husband. They will be willing pay a lot of money for that.

                • glosoli says:

                  You’re rambling now.

                • viking says:

                  Thanks in all sincerity for demonstrating why western civilization in the future and christianity are incompatible.People like jim and other religious reactionaries need to see this.
                  Its taken many of us a long time to come to terms with this sad fact. i know you take as fact your religious beleifs and values, the problem is they are not actually facts.there is no god your morals are arbitrary. and i say thay understanding full well the lefts moral relativists part in the decline of the west thus far it just happens to be the only true thing they said and you notice they dont say it about gay rights or nigger humanness.
                  Niggers are or are not human its really semantics what is fact is they are not us and are not able to live in our societies without destroying them. your christian logic is suicidal altruism which you think is a virtue some mythical being demands the rest of us are acting on what we can actually know. we know how evolution works survival of the fittest.any morality must proceed from that any god that might have created the universe based on that evolution must be good with that, this is how we know yours is a faery tail a jewish faery tail at that, yeah it might have once served us when we were relatively isolated and had less altuism in us but now it is sher cuckery

            • pdimov says:

              It’s not complicated.

              Gets more interesting when you want to banish evil folks to Africa for the crime of saying mean words to you over the Internet.

              Gets significantly more interesting when you make the logical next step of adopting innocent Somali children to replace those evil folks.

              • glosoli says:

                That was a bit of rhetoric, designed to show my disgust for his view. I’d merely banish him to Cuba.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      Sooooooooo true

      I’ve actually traveled to Washington to meet Ron Paul in person, to make sure he wasn’t an illusion produced by a projector or something. He is like a fossil from the golden age, a gentleman in an age of scumbags. Paul is the only politician I would not hesitate to bow down to as divine emperor for life, although he’d decline it.

  21. A necessary first step to splitting the ninth circuit is ridiculing and denigrating the ninth circuit judges as individuals – their races, their appearance, their personal conduct, their sex lives, their corruption, their conspicuous lack of intelligence, and last and probably least important, their arrogant and absurd judicial opinions.

    An excellent point, but don’t forget. You are allowed to mock Presidents and legislators, politically and personally, but traditionally judges are off limits. Except for the Supreme Court, and the occasional the judge of a celebrity trial, you are not supposed to even know the names of individual judges. Mere criticism of a judge is often punishable as a “threat.”

    Of course no one has ever really done the Alinsky “freeze the target and personalize it” to a judge in the era of the internet, so who knows?

    • Cavalier says:

      >You are allowed to mock Presidents and legislators, politically and personally, but traditionally judges are off limits.

      Lèse-majesté. Power can make itself invisible to speech and thought.

  22. @Cavalier May 3, 2017 at 12:08 am

    I wish I could upvote that comment.

  23. Interesting comments here.

    There’s a lot of confusion about what Trump is and who is influencing him. You really need to start understanding Jews like B and the other one as slightly smarter Muslims, instead of thinking of them as future Christians.

    B wants to paint Trump as just a dolt and mocks you if you think that his daughter is influencing him. But of course they don’t want to point out that she’s a pretend Jewess, raising Jew children, married to the Israeli spy Jared Kushner.

    The “Alt-West” types here are still so afraid of criticizing the Holy Land of Holy Jews they still think of the Zionist entity as an annoying but harmless little buddy, instead of a dangerous venomous snake wrapped around your leg. Jews are Muslims, just smarter, and you’ve been dulled by their venom.

    Trump is a liberal Democrat that doesn’t need “the Cathedral” (snicker) because he has the Zionist entity, and the full power of AIPAC, on his side. He also has the proles. What you are really witnessing is a full on drag out fight between the Diaspora and the Israelis over who gets to be the True Jews. The Diaspora hates Trump, the Israelis hate him too but think he’s useful, just like they held John Hagee in contempt but found him useful.

    WWF Reagan knows he’ll be allowed to bask in the cheers of the proles as long as he keeps doing what the Israelis want. If he turns on the Israelis, the Israelis will let the Diaspora loose on him. So we see that Trump jumped to it when Assad defended himself from the Israeli planes that have been shooting at him, and Trump bombed Assad to warn him self-defense against Israelis isn’t allowed.

    Of course, this will all end in tears for both the Diaspora and the Israelis and I’m sure they will use their Sampson option against whichever “goyims” are close by, but there time is running short and they know it, which is why they had to throw this Hail Mary and allow Trump to rile up the nazi proles with all this talk of building a wall to keep the browns out for a while.

    But then again maybe Jim is just much smarter than I am and knows full well that B and his ilk are just smart Muslims, and even more deadly, and he’s keeping them around to keep an eye on them. Who knows.

    • Cavalier says:

      Trump’s Jews are good Jews if they are willing and able to put him in a position of power which by its nature is unaccountable to them. Then Trump can rule them as he sees fit, as supplicants, as he rules all other subject populations.

      Otherwise, we’re all just jerking off in a dusty corner of the Internet.

      Incidentally, once a Great Man is in power he has a funny habit of… disposing of those who helped him attain it.

      • A “good Jew” is just like a “good Muslim.”

        Trump, being a cuckold, is forever loyal to the land of his grandchildren, the apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine. There is no salvation in Trump. But all we needed Trump to do was to destroy the cuck GOP and he’s doing a great job of that, so it’s all good.

        The liberal Zionists, the Diaspora, kept their power because of the media. The internet is destroying the Jew media. Once that goes “liberal” Whites won’t get any positive feedback and social status for signaling over trannies, chick STEM majors and “refugees” and things will quickly revert back to normal.

        I know people like to believe the Scandinavians are natural cucks, but they have the same Jew media that we do:

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

        The internet is making all that go bye bye. This isn’t the black pill, this is the white pill. Trump isn’t the future, he is the last gasp of the past.

        What comes after Trump will be pure win.

        You won’t get your king of any of that NRx silliness, but we will get our nice white countries back.

        • jim says:

          It is absurd to call a man like Trump a cuck.

          He reproduces just fine.

        • Anonymous says:

          >I know people like to believe the Scandinavians are natural cucks, but they have the same Jew media that we do

          The nuanced view is that Scandinavians, particularly Swedes, are an extremely high-trust people, and are by-nature obedient to authority, hence, when the Talmudvision screen tells them that Somalian invaders are an organic part of society, and that some penises are female (you transphobic bigot!), they buy it hook, line, and sinker.

          You could just as easily brainwash them to go full-fasch. Come the restoration, I expect Scandinavians, if any remain, to be among the most eager and diligent gas-chamber technicians, or helicopter pilots if you like.

    • Y. Ilan says:

      Do you understand how weak you sound with all these unrealistic prognostications regarding our imminent demise? It’s not going to help you, wishing death upon us – if we are such a threat to you and yours, I suggest you aid those people most ready and willing to put these threats into practice. The Iranians maybe? Man, not much to choose from.

      • Anonymous says:

        And you sound weak when you unrealistically prognosticate your occupation of a large chunk of the Middle-East, from Egypt and Arabia to Turkey and Iran, at some point in the indefinite future, when in reality you can’t even deal with tiny Gaza properly, much less build the Third Temple and restore the House of David.

        • Y. Ilan says:

          Have I ever prognosticated such a thing? Have you every met anyone with a genuine belief in Greater Israel? It’s a very unrealistic proposition, what with the millions of hostile Arabs all over the place. You know why we don’t properly deal with Gaza, right? Even with our incredibly low civilian to militant kill ratio we still get shit for slaughtering Palestinians, and our elite truly appreciates and cares about the opinions of the Progressive Western elites. Elite-replacement will have to take place before we can approach these problem with clear minds.

          • B says:

            >Have you every met anyone with a genuine belief in Greater Israel?

            errr

            • Y. Ilan says:

              Well, fair enough – my mistake. Still, it should be obvious to dear Anonymous that as a secular person, I don’t involve myself with prophesies. Although facetiously supposing that I do was probably his intent.

              • Anonymous says:

                Not that you personally do. That plenty of your Jewish brethren do, and if Hipster Racist is ridiculous, so are they.

              • Anonymous says:

                Was addressing you as a collective. Perfectly justified, given:

                a) you chimed in as spokesman of Israeli Jewry, calling yourself “us”;

                b) our dear friend B has confirmed that Israeli Jews do indeed believe in Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              >Have you every met anyone with a genuine belief in Greater Israel?

              I wish some gefilte-niggaz WOULD!

              I WISH they’d get off their asses, use that allegedly bad-ass military of theirs (of THEIRS dammit, not ours) and just start kicking the living shit out of everybody around them.

              A goy can dream…

              • jim says:

                I genuinely believe in a greater Israel – that Jews should fulfill the prophecies without waiting for God to do the heavy lifting: take back the temple mount, rebuild the sanctuary (or better, just rededicate the Dome of the rock as the sanctuary) institute Judaism as the state religion of Israel in place of progressivism as the state religion of Israel, and conquer their neighbors.

                Because I would dearly love progressivism to lose any country, and especially and particularly to lose Israel. Muslims are a threat to us, and progressives a bigger threat. Muslims and progressives both losing to a genuinely Jewish Israel would be a load off our backs.

                Orthodox Jews in America are a minor problem. Orthodox Jews in Israel are no problem at all. Prog Jews in America are a major problem. A genuinely Jewish Israel would provide substantial relief for both problems.

                • Anonymous says:

                  How would a genuinely Jewish Israel solve the problem of American Prog Jews? I believe that if Israel goes there, Israeli Prog Jews would emigrate to the US.

          • jim says:

            Armenians don’t get nearly as much crap for defending themselves. I think it is mainly Jews that give Jews such a hard time for killing Palestinians – that and that Jews are so guilty about it, which attracts those that home in on guilt like flies to horse manure.

            • Anonymous says:

              Jews don’t feel guilty about anything ever.

              Rather, Jews care deeply about PR. If Al-Jazeera, CNN, and BBC blast footage of incinerated body-parts of Arab kids and wailing Hijabi mothers trudging through piles of rubble, that’s a PR disaster. Hence, the low-IQ retards of the Israeli government wasting millions of shekels on futile Hasbarah operations that convince no one. “Share this video if you think Israel has a right to defend itself!” all over your facebook feed, posted by strongly-identified diaspora Jews. It’s pathetic.

              Israelis see “the goyim” or “the world” as a nondescript hodgepodge of generic humans, so create videos and visual memes intended to appeal to everyone and anyone, in reality appealing to no one. “What would you do if missiles were raining on London or Paris, huh?” Whoa there, Chaim, rein in your explosive charisma, lol. Apparently, targeting specific groups with finely-crafted messaging is too much of a hurdle!

              At any rate, Jews don’t want to be seen as BadWhites. It’s not about guilt, it’s about signalling. Israelis would kill all the Muslim Arabs if they could. Not that there’s anything wrong with that – the sentiment is mutual. The funny thing is, Israelis do their futile abortive Hasbarah projects to sharply differentiate themselves from BadWhites (Nazis, Rhodesians, Apartheid-SA whites), while some diaspora Jews do their anti-zionist shilling as a means of holiness-signalling against their brethren overseas. Never underestimate the centrality of signalling to Jewish conduct. It’s not about morality – no one really gives a shit about Palestinians.

              If you really want to mess-up an Israeli, insinuate the following notion, phrased as a joke:

              “What do Kahane and Hitler have in common?”
              “What is it?”
              “Both of them were right.”

              Mind: blown. Think about it.

              • jim says:

                > Al-Jazeera, CNN, and BBC blast footage of incinerated body-parts of Arab kids and wailing Hijabi mothers trudging through piles of rubble, that’s a PR disaster. Hence, the low-IQ retards of the Israeli government wasting millions of shekels on futile Hasbarah operations that convince no one. “Share this video if you think Israel has a right to defend itself!” all over your facebook feed, posted by strongly-identified diaspora Jews. It’s pathetic.

                If Jews only worried about press coverage, they would slap down the iron curtain, shoot half a dozen journalists just for fun, and take care of their Muslim problem in a few days.

                The problem is that they are more pozzed than anyone, and are posturing for progressive holiness points in front of each other. And the ultimate holiness is, as in South Africa, suicide.

                The problem is that the worst Jews, the very worst Jews, are precisely those Jews that do not think they have the right to defend themselves, and these conversos, who being converts have twice the zeal of those who were born in the faith, are willfully infecting the rest of us with this Christian derived belief system.

                Israel was founded in substantial part by commies, a Jewish derived belief system, and the commies had no worries about defending themselves and conducting ethnic cleansing operations. The Poz is Christian derived.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Israel was founded in substantial part by commies

                  Zionism is, or was, basically NatSoc for Jews, hence the fashiness that persists to this day in terms of fertility and weapons and personal combat and such, the hilarious belligerence and hilariously one-sided victories of early Israel, the obsession with living space and territorial settlements, the Nazi-Zionist alliance, the (voluntary) transportation of the first several hundred thousand Jews to Israel by Germany, and in fact Hitler can be legitimately regarded as the single man with the most responsibility for the recreation of Israel as the Jewish State. Even just ideologically, Zionism was born in the same memetic stew as Nazism.

                • oogenhand says:

                  “Christian derived”

                  Aha, you understand why Jesus burns in hell…

                • Anonymous says:

                  Read Theodore Herzl’s “Der Judenstaat”, Cavalier. He wanted a German-speaking, quasi-socialist, quasi-progressive, fully democratic, fully secular, culturally-European, thoroughly Gentilized in essence, “Jewish State”. And it could actually come to pass, believe it or not.

                  You know where things went wrong, right? First the Ostjuden and “holocaust survivors”, then Mizrahim. If it were up to old-school Yekkes, his vision could’ve been fulfilled.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Read Theodore Herzl’s “Der Judenstaat”, Cavalier. He wanted a German-speaking, quasi-socialist, quasi-progressive, fully democratic, fully secular, culturally-European, thoroughly Gentilized in essence, “Jewish State”.

                  Sounds like Nazi Germany, except holier.

  24. Alrenous says:

    http://blog.jim.com/war/trump-probably-on-track/#comment-1589726

    Did you rule out the possibility they meant something quite different when they said ‘good’ than what it means now?

    Couldn’t it be the opposite way around – a man who makes a woman behave better is good?

    • B says:

      The Talmud (in Genesis Rabbah) says otherwise.

      “It once happened that a pious man was married to a
      pious woman, and they did not produce children. Said they,
      ‘We are of no use to the Holy One, blessed be He/ where-
      upon they arose and divorced each other. The former went
      and married a wicked woman, and she made him wicked,
      while the latter went and married a wicked man, and made
      him righteous. This proves that all depends on the woman.”

      And it is very difficult to make a wicked woman behave properly (if she is really wicked.)

      ” R. Joshua b. Nehemiah said:
      If a man is fortunate, she is like the wife of Hananiah b.
      Hakinai ; if not, she is like the wife of R, Jose the Galilean.
      R. Jose the Galilean had a bad wife ; she was his sister’s
      daughter, and used to put him to shame. His disciples said
      to him : ‘ Master, divorce this woman, for she does not act
      as benefits your honour/ ‘Her dowry is too great for me,
      and I cannot afford to divorce her/ was his reply. 4 Now
      it happened once that he and R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah were
      sitting and studying, and when they finished, the latter
      asked him, ‘Sir, will you kindly permit that we go to
      your home together?’ ‘Yes,’ replied he. As they entered,
      she cast down her gaze [in anger] and was making her way
      out, when he looked at a pot standing on the pot-range and
      asked her, ‘Is there anything in the pot?’ ‘There’s a hash
      in it,’ she answered. He went and uncovered it, and found
      in it some chickens. Now R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah knew
      what he had heard, 5 and as they sat together and were
      eating he observed, ‘ Sir, did she not say it was hash, yet
      we have found chickens?’ ‘A miracle has happened,’
      replied he. When they finished he said to him: “Master, abandon this woman, for she does not treat you with
      proper respect/ ‘Sir/ he replied, ‘her dowry is too great
      for me and I cannot divorce her/ ‘We [your pupils]/
      said the other, ‘will apportion her dowry among ourselves, 1
      so you can divorce her/ And they did so for him; they
      apportioned her dowry and had her divorced from him,
      and made him marry another and better wife. As a punish-
      ment for her sins she [the first wife] became married to
      the town watchman. After some time he was visited with
      affliction, 2 and she went about leading him round the whole
      town, begging in every district, but on coming to where
      R. Jose the Galilean lived she used to turn back. But since
      that man [her husband] was well acquainted with the town,
      he said to her, ‘Why do you not lead me to the house of
      R. Jose the Galilean, as I have heard that he is charitably
      disposed?’ ‘I am his divorced wife/ she confessed, ‘and
      I cannot bring myself to face him/ On one occasion they
      came begging in the vicinity of R. Jose the Galilean, when
      he began to maltreat her, and their cries brought a crowd
      and the whole town was shocked at them. Looking out, R.
      Jose the Galilean saw how they were being jeered at in the
      streets, whereupon he took and settled them in a room in
      his own house 3 and supported them for the rest of their
      lives, in accordance with the verse, And that thou hide not
      thyself from thine own flesh (Isa. lviii, 7). “

  25. Jack Highlands says:

    Interesting that Orthodox Jews get on here to interpret the Talmud vis-à-vis Jim’s Blog. Definitely a status marker in light of #PresidentKushner’sCoup.

    Life is short or I might even read their shit. But my observation has been that, unless led by Faustian Aryans, Jews waste their verbal IQ building Nominalist castles of airy legalese.

    So I won’t.

    • Alrenous says:

      Did you know the Rationalist (vs. Empiricist) school was 100% Jewish?

      • Jack Highlands says:

        Ah yes, those famous Jews René Levi-Descartes, Gottfried Leibnizstein and Immanuel Strauss-Kant.

        • Alrenous says:

          Liebniz is not beyond suspicion. “was born … to Friedrich Leibniz and Catharina Schmuck”

          “Baptized ‘Emanuel’, he changed his name to ‘Immanuel’ after learning Hebrew.” What’s he learning Hebrew for?

Leave a Reply