Why feminists support Islamic Rape Jihad

Doubtless you have heard of the recent Idaho gang rape.

This was Islamic Rape Jihad, not just Muslim rapists, because the girl was five, because the boys put it on video, because the boys expected the support of their community, and because the boys received the support of their community.

Feminist response to this rape shows what feminists really want. Everyone reacting to this in an indignant manner is a male who is in favor of patriarchy to a greater or lesser extent, and many of them want to completely reverse female emancipation.

In the ancestral environment, and indeed today’s environment, if a woman was property the way a cow is property, she was likely to have substantially greater reproductive success than a free woman. If a man was property the way a cow is property, likely to have zero reproductive success.

In the ancestral environment, as today, male slaves don’t reproduce. Female slaves generally outreproduce free women. Thus the optimal strategy for a woman is to provoke until provocation results in enslavement.

The evolutionary optimal strategy for a female, in the ancestral environment, and in our present day environment, is to act in ways that gets the west conquered by Islamic State. If free, likely to have 1.5 children, and similarly her grandchildren, rapidly resulting in the total disappearance of her genes. If her menfolk are conquered and she is sold naked in chains on the auction block by Islamic state, likely to have six or seven children.

Optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to be captured by a man who owns her much as he owns a cow and can do anything to her he could do to a cow. The optimal reproductive strategy for her owner is to treat her considerably better than he treats his cows, but the less he has power to do bad things to her, the more it is in his interests to do bad things to her. For a free woman, the stable strategy is defect/defect, for the woman to defect by serial monogamy, for the woman to spend her hottest and most fertile years continually trying to trade up to a higher status male or better place on some other male’s booty call list, and for a male to defect by keeping as many women as possible on his booty call list, to spin as many plates as possible, without investing in any of them. For a slave, because the slave cannot defect, because the slave is guaranteed to play cooperate, cooperate is also a good move for the male owner of a female slave, because he has a biological interest in the welfare of her children. He is free to impose cooperate/defect on her, but that is not actually all that much in his biological interest, which biological interest manifests in the tendency of men to love and care for women that they regularly have sex with, provided that they believe those women are not having sex with other men.

Feminist demands for emancipation ever escalate, no matter how extraordinary the privilege women are granted, because they are pushing for someone strong enough to master them. In the ancestral environment, free women were unsuccessful at reproducing, because prisoner’s dilemma. That she can defect on a man guarantees defect/defect, guarantees that he will try to defect before she does – giving her no care, protection, or support, keeping as many plates spinning as he can, so they look for someone powerful enough to stop them from defecting. Slave women will generally outreproduce free women, because he who owns a woman absolutely has incentive to invest in her and her children. Similarly, cows are numerous, their wild ancestors are generally extinct. If animal liberationists liberate chickens and cows, there are not going to be very many chickens or cows. If the People’s Popular Committee for Food Abundance tells the farmer he does not own his land and his crops, there is going to be crop failure.

And feminists, in supporting Rape Jihad, are unconsciously pursuing their optimal evolutionary reproductive strategy, which is to be sold by Islamic state naked in chains on the auction block. We are descended from free men and unfree women. Peoples, nations religions, cultures and groups with strong, proud, free, and independent women died out. They always die out.

Female emancipation is a shit test that we failed. Feminists support Rape Jihad because they are unconsciously looking for men who will pass their shit test.

Tags: , , , ,

248 Responses to “Why feminists support Islamic Rape Jihad”

  1. Alrenous says:

    And suddenly I’m in favour of mostly emancipated females, because I want to breed out the ones that initiate the defect cycle. Obviously when they support immigration that has to be slapped down, but emancipated up to that point.

    It is normal and natural for men to cooperate on this and encourage the cooperate cycle. If a woman he still wants to bang goes and uses another man, he kills the second man. This encourages men to turn down such requests. He dumps the faithless whore, and eggs on the other women when they call her a slut.

    Legalize this revenge murder, and prevent them from asking foreigners to conquer them. Result: whores are confined in a nonreproducing ghetto, with the rakes, until the vicious genes drain from the gene pool.

    Defecting is not rational. The men defect because the women defect, but the women defect because they’re driven by janky instincts. At once, she wants to defect, but also to provoke a forced cooperation? One of those has to go. Cooperation is rational and reproductive, so the choice is crystal clear.

    • BigCheese says:

      >And suddenly I’m in favour of mostly emancipated females, because I want to breed out the ones that initiate the defect cycle. Obviously when they support immigration that has to be slapped down, but emancipated up to that point.

      Trying to breed out that cycle in women requires a massive decrease in the number of males to be successful. And if you have the power to kill men on that scale you also have the power to kill women on that scale thus negating the point of liberating women.

      • Alrenous says:

        Sophistry. Doesn’t look intentional – looks like you’ve been spending too much time around sophists.

        The men of the defecting women are already failing to multiply. You don’t need to kill them, you just have to fail to protect them from not multiplying. Thus are the wonders of The Pill.

        • jim says:

          You have this backwards. Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect.

          He makes the excellent point that if you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works.

          Bad male behavior is rewarded, good male behavior is punished. That is simply the way that it is. Except for religious communities like the Mormons and Amish where good behavior is socially enforced, well behaved men and women are reproducing at far below replacement. The good man winds up marrying a forty five year old woman with two existing children.

          Optimal strategy is to have a good wife and sleep with other women as well, and it is in fact easier to keep a good wife if you sleep with other women as well.

          Natural selection, in a society with black mating patterns, selects for black sexual behavior. It is a self reinforcing cycle.

          If you are going to enforce good behavior on your wife without backup from the wider society, through your own personal violence and personal charisma, you have to be, or pretend to be, a bad guy.

          • Alrenous says:

            When I think of shotgun marriage, for some reason I think of defending his marriage with a shotgun, i.e. shooting anyone who manages to make off with his woman.

            I did mention bringing this back, didn’t I? Ah, yes, I did.

            The northerner’s disinclination to defect must also be adaptive, must have been adaptive for some time, or it wouldn’t exist. It has some co-adaptations which the state is currently running interference on, that’s all.

          • Turtle says:

            >> well behaved men and women are reproducing at far below replacement. The good man winds up marrying a forty five year old woman with two existing children.

            This judgmental assertion implies you are everyone’s patriarch and moral superior. Not to prog. out, I mean that you could have had more children yourself, and still could, but have not. So why did you have low fertility, if your wife was obedient? That’s a bigger question than why people you approve of are not fertile.

            There are plenty of bad people with no fertility, I feel, such as corrupt bishops and harlot-nuns. There’s not much of a correlation here, unless you’re separately considering each demographic, such as {good people without kids}. The maritally/sexually unsuccessful people I know are not so different than the ones with happy marriages.

            I would say charisma seduces good behavior, and threatens to withdraw support and affection with LTR ‘dread game,’ rather than enforcing it. It might be ‘enforcement’ to leave a bad wife, but I don’t know for sure.

            Also, what’s bad about a guy who requires/ enforces good behavior? Isn’t that what a *good* husband does? Or do you mean ‘socially unacceptable’ by ‘bad’?

    • Dave says:

      Male-specific and gender-neutral instincts are subject to natural and artificial selection, and have evolved a great deal since our ancestors squatted in trees picking lice out of each other’s fur.

      Female-specific instincts have evolved very little because no pre-medical society could afford to cull 60% of its females in each generation. Thus in the absence of social coercion, women act like monkeys and seek out sex with the most monkey-like men.

      • Cavalier says:

        >Female-specific instincts have evolved very little because no pre-medical society could afford to cull 60% of its females in each generation. Thus in the absence of social coercion, women act like monkeys and seek out sex with the most monkey-like men.

        [a href=”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line”]West of this line, the average age of marriage for women was 23 or more, men 26, spouses were relatively close in age, a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, and 10% to 20% of adults never married. East of the line, the mean age of both sexes at marriage was earlier, spousal age disparity was greater and marriage more nearly universal.[/a]

        Significant and substantial racial change can occur in a very short time, just a few hundred years. Truncation selection is extremely effective. Which 10% to 20% were being discarded?

    • peppermint says:

      Your problem is that you’re still a Christian at heart, trying to perfect humanity to be more perfectly loving.

      We didn’t have a problem with women being programmed to defect where possible until your bullshit about love showed up.

      White women need a lot of prompting to get them to defect. Less than Christians talking about love would like.

      • Alrenous says:

        >Your problem is that you’re still a Christian at heart, trying to perfect humanity to be more perfectly loving.
        kek
        Sure buddy, whatever you say.

        >White women need a lot of prompting to get them to defect.
        That sounds lovely. Means the eugenic program can be very limited. Doesn’t appear Jim agrees though.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        White women need no prompting to defect. They need less coercion to prevent defection than, say, black women, but they will gleefully defect absent that coercion. Do not let your ideas blind you to reality. White men naturally organize to prevent defection, but white women will eagerly cuckold their men if they get the chance. White sharia is enforced by white men. You let your foolish ideas about the natural loyalty of White women guide your decision making process, and we will be right back here in a generation or two.

        No pretty lies. Pretty lies are what started us down this path. The next generation will think white women are loyal, so they will emancipate them. Then they will have below replacement fertility again, and the whole cycle starts over again.

        Women, all woman, even white women, need to be controlled. You fail to do that, and they will fuck around, kill their white babies, and generally be a complete nuisance and destructive little wenches. Luckily for you, there will be White Crusaders that will put them in their place, so they will not have to fuck niggers or wogs, but either way, they will not be fucking you.

        The Shadowed Knight

  2. Pepe minion says:

    Your analysis is, as usual, succinct and persuasive. But…

    Are not succinct and persuasive analyses now in superabundance? What good they can do has mostly been done unless you hope that these truths can gain sufficient hold for electoral success. Such hope it seems to me is forlorn.

    The breadth and depth of the reordering necessary to rebuild civilization is so vast that it can only be done – if it can be done – through violent revolution. “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

    • BigCheese says:

      >Are not succinct and persuasive analyses now in superabundance? What good they can do has mostly been done unless you hope that these truths can gain sufficient hold for electoral success. Such hope it seems to me is forlorn.

      Convincing people how human nature actually works is pointless. They won’t believe it because it feels to foreign and too simple. The solution is religion. Create a religious tradition that includes the correct principles but with reasons that regular people will accept.

      The only way out of this mess is a new religion.

      • Rod Horner says:

        New religions almost universally come out of old religions in the midst of a frantic revival. I think you won’t see those conditions until the Boomer generation is well on their way out, at which point it’s really anyone’s game.

      • peppermint says:

        The smart fraction is convinced, the normies are supposed to go by instincts anyway. The reason male feminism is a signal for intelligence and sociopathy is that it takes a lot of both to believe it and act on it.

        You believe that this is complicated because you’ve been trying to destroy your intuition that contradicts Christianity all your life.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      Hack the voting machines, delete the women off them.

  3. B says:

    You’ve got some sort of mental issue about women, dude.

    >Optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to be captured by a man who owns her much as he owns a cow and can do anything to her he could do to a cow.

    In slave-owning societies with female legal rights for free women, do you see slave women outbreeding free women?

    It’s not very hard to find examples of such societies.

    >For a free woman, the stable strategy is defect/defect, for the woman to defect by serial monogamy, for the woman to spend her hottest and most fertile years continually trying to trade up to a higher status male or better place on some other male’s booty call list

    In Western society, women are free. Do you see promiscuous women, or ones who are serially monogamous, having many children as opposed to the ones who marry early? What is this “stable strategy”?

    >and for a male to defect by keeping as many women as possible on his booty call list

    Do you see men who have a booty call list having many children? Except among the feral underclass, who have nothing to lose, of course.

    How many children have you managed to have, after all your decades of whoring around?

    How many children does Roissy have?

    >For a slave, because the slave cannot defect

    Sure, anyone who’s ever been in the military knows that you have absolutely zero ability to slack off.

    The reality is that slavery leads to a state of semi-permanent defection. Even the overseers defect. For instance, Carroll Quigley writes about this in the Evolution of Civilizations: http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Carroll-Quigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionToHistoricalAnalysis-1st&2nd-Editions.pdf, pages 317-318.

    When it comes to something like childbearing, which is not a situation like agriculture, a slave can defect very easily, for instance, through suicide or infanticide. And if you look at history, this is exactly what many of them did. American Indians made very poor slaves for this exact reason. And Igbo were infamous for killing themselves everywhere they were brought as slaves.

    Come on-this is autism, not just confusing the map for the territory, but ignoring most of the existing maps.

    • jim says:

      In slave-owning societies with female legal rights for free women, do you see slave women outbreeding free women?

      It’s not very hard to find examples of such societies.

      Most slave owning societies do not exactly have free women. Non slave women have protections and status that slave women do not, but their capability to make their own sexual decisions, let alone defect on their husbands, is very limited. They are required to honor and obey their husbands, and their husbands can beat them if they do not. Thus, for example, in early nineteenth century Australia, although a woman’s consent was theoretically required for marriage, this tended to be disregarded in practice. “Free” women in early nineteenth century Australia actually had less sexual choice than convict women.

      In the pre civil war american south, daughters of the aristocracy tended to be married at thirteen or so, shortly before puberty and menarche, so though they were theoretically consulted, it is unlikely that they exercised any substantial real choice.

      Imperial Rome, however, did have free women with substantial legal rights. And Rome died through failure of its elite to reproduce. Similarly Sparta. Sparta never had a helot shortage. They had a shortage of free spartan men. So clearly the helot women were outbreeding the free Spartan women.

      • B says:

        >Most slave owning societies do not exactly have free women.

        “What’s black and white, really?”

        Obviously, freedom is a matter of degree.

        You stated that for women, the less freedom, the better. Obviously, nobody has less freedom than a slave.

        Look up reproductive rates for slave vs. free women in Viking societies, colonial Latin America, the American South AND North (there were slaves in the North for about two centuries.)

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “You stated that for women, the less freedom, the better. Obviously, nobody has less freedom than a slave.”

          Slavery is a legal state. You can have less freedom. Living in a society where free women must constantly be supervised by a male relative means free women are less free then slave women (who are not required to be constantly supervised).

          • B says:

            For some reason, I feel like I’m reading 1930s literature published by Columbia University about how, properly understood, the USSR is a free and democratic country, more so than America if you really think about it!

            • Rod Horner says:

              I feel like I’m reading 1930’s literature published by a Bolshevik about how, properly understood, the elimination of the Kulaks is a desirable policy, more so than bemoaning displacement and cultural erasure if you really think about it!

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          If your slaves and free women have approximately the same amount of sexual freedom and you get to choose between a well-bred southern belle or a black slave woman, the choice is obvious. Free women might have other liberties granted to them, but so long as their sexual choices are restricted, they have no more freedom in that context. As an added difference, the southern belle is going to receive more care and attention in childbirth and life in general, so her children are more likely to survive.

          B, even you should be able to infer that from the subtext, unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

          The Shadowed Knight

        • jim says:

          > > Most slave owning societies do not exactly have free women.

          > “What’s black and white, really?”

          That is a stereotypically Jewish argument. You deliberately miss the point.

          The relevant variable is sexual freedom, the power to defect, the power to give your husband unpassable shit tests.

          Most slave owning societies have been severely patriarchal, with “free” women having substantially less sexual freedom than slave women, not more. (Or, in the case of early nineteenth century Australia, less sexual freedom than convict women.) And those that have not been severely patriarchal, Classic Sparta and imperial Rome, failed to reproduce.

          Feminists are stuck in defect/defect equilibrium, and their wombs are telling them to find a man and a tribe strong enough to take them out of it.

          • B says:

            >Most slave owning societies have been severely patriarchal, with “free” women having substantially less sexual freedom than slave women, not more.

            I gave you examples of slave owning societies above which were quite prominent in history. Bring some sources for your assertion.

            As for “typically Jewish”-this is you getting nervous about being called on bloviating, for which you have no source.

            Go ahead, bluff through it, your NEET audience doesn’t read enough to know better.

            • jim says:

              > > Most slave owning societies have been severely patriarchal, with “free” women having substantially less sexual freedom than slave women, not more.

              > I gave you examples of slave owning societies above which were quite prominent in history.

              There was this thing called “female emancipation”. Do look it up. In the old South, slaves could own property, but women generally could not.

              You are projecting twenty first century status of women back to biblical times, when in actual fact Mizrahi Jewish women were not emancipated till the later half of the twentieth century, and anglo women not emancipated till the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century.

              • B says:

                >In the old South, slaves could own property, but women generally could not.

                As I said, white is black and black is white, freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom.

                Women were legally the same person as their husband. However, they had plenty of rights-they had the right to be supported in a manner commensurate with their husband’s status and could sue him for failure to support them in such a way. He could not sell or mortgage his real estate without his wife’s consent-freely given.

                >You are projecting twenty first century status of women back to biblical times

                I am projecting what I see in the Gemara and Mishne Torah back to biblical times.

                >when in actual fact Mizrahi Jewish women were not emancipated till the later half of the twentieth century

                You are the one using this word “emancipated.” I don’t see this concept as very useful.

                If you want to say that religious Ashkenazi Jewish women enjoyed personal freedoms that religious Mizrahi ones did not, I can’t say one way or the other. Religious Ashkenazi women had very high fertility. I do not know about the Mizrahim, would guess the same, but less surviving children because of a worse climate and worse medical services (though the latter didn’t play much of a part until germ theory was implemented in obstetrics).

                • J says:

                  The operative issue here the age of marriage. As a father I could have married out my twelve years old daughter to my best friend and business partner’s 14 years old boy and everybody would have been happy. Specially the boy, because he would have been spared the urgent need to masturbate twice or thrice a day. But having the daughter arrived to age 25, I have totally lost my influence in her choice of sexual and marriage partners. She would have been out in the jungle alone, free prey to the wildest beasts around. In summary, I am for the original Ashkenazi way of life, where girls were married early to adolescent boys, and maintained by the parents till the boys were ready to join the family business. The status of the women in Ashkenazi society was high and could and did own property and manage businesses, in fact adult married women with many children were more involved in business than men, who tended to be scholars. Marriage is too serious to be random, children have to be married before adolescence by their families.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >I am for the original Ashkenazi way of life, where girls were married early to adolescent boys, and maintained by the parents till the boys were ready to join the family business.

                  >Marriage is too serious to be random, children have to be married before adolescence by their families.

                  The question is whether or not that’s indeed how the Ashkenazi mating praxis went. It seems that the arrangement you describe fits more with Jewry between, say, 350 BC and 150 AD, than with Ashkenazim post 900 AD. As far as I know, Ashkenazi communities (unlike the rest of Jews) married off their children around 17 rather than at 12. Of course, that’s still better than 25.

                  Marriage — needless to say, by parental arrangement — at 12 was common among many ancient communities, and is still common in various parts of the world; not sure though that Ashkenazim have practiced it.

                  Instead of promoting an infinity of social ills, you could become a true “light unto the goyim” by adopting this ancient custom; that, however, requires you to divest from feminism, egalitarianism, liberalism, progressivism, “social justice”, and the enlightenment in general. Well, good luck. No ethnic group is more invested in these ideologies than Jewry.

                  I mean, you could even appeal to gentile puritans with “if you want to spare your teenage son the urgent need to masturbate 2 or 3 times a day every day, get him married before adolescence.” Sin prevention! That’s something that the puritans may reluctantly, begrudgingly tolerate. I think they are opposed to masturbation even more than they are opposed to teen marriage. Framing your argument along this line is wise diplomacy.

                  Yeah, I’m being wayyy too generous here; no chance in Hell that the Jews will become a force for such extreme, unmitigated reactionism. It’s a totally hypothetical thought-experiment. How can you turn the most progressive ethnicity into the most reactionary? Can George Soros be converted to an ISIS-like weltanschauung? Preposterous.

                • J says:

                  Anonymous,

                  “…no chance in Hell that the Jews will become a force for such extreme, unmitigated reactionism. It’s a totally hypothetical thought-experiment. How can you turn the most progressive ethnicity into the most reactionary? Can George Soros be converted to an ISIS-like weltanschauung? Preposterous.”

                  I do not think we Jews want to become a force for anything, except for being left alone and in peace. As for me, I have no missionary tendencies and do not want to convert the most progressive ethnicity into the most reactionary, although my Orthodox co-ethnics are actively working on that, with some success.

                  I think George Soros is lost to the cause because (1) he is over ninety, (2) he manifested many times that he has no desire to belong to the Jewish people, (3) He is a typical Budapest assimilated Jew who believes that tribalism, nationalism, Zionism, religion are the roots of all evil.

                  I do not try to impose early marriage, if you notice that I spoke in first person singular, I did not even try to impose it in my own children. It does not work at the individual level.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >I did not even try to impose it in my own children.

                  You care too much about what society may think. While I understand it may not always be very practical to get your children married between the ages of 12 and 14 in modern society, one should still try to instill the values of marriage, patriarchy, and reproduction in one’s progeny, so that no more than a decade after the ideal age bracket (that is, no later than at age 24) they’ll either be getting married, or try really really hard to find a suitable mate for the purpose of marrying them.

                  You may no longer control the choice of your 25-year-old daughter’s partners, but had the value of married life been properly instilled into her, you probably wouldn’t have to. There’s a lesson here for everyone who has small children. Get it through to them that the issue is not so much whom they fuck (if they aren’t marrying in their early teen years, or in their teen years at all, they probably won’t “save themselves for marriage”), but whom, and when, they marry.

                • B says:

                  > Marriage is too serious to be random, children have to be married before adolescence by their families.

                  Sure, correct. But we live in a world where that is not possible. Have not lived in that world for 150 years.

                  So, what does one do? The Haredim and daati leumi communities do okay with influencing people to get married in their early 20s. The secular world is a disaster.

                • B says:

                  >It seems that the arrangement you describe fits more with Jewry between, say, 350 BC and 150 AD, than with Ashkenazim post 900 AD. As far as I know, Ashkenazi communities (unlike the rest of Jews) married off their children around 17 rather than at 12.

                  As I told you several times, your problem is that you are an idiot who prefers making things up to reading.

                  Look up the biographies of the Hasidic rebbes who lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. They all (practically all) married in their early teens, and married their children off in their early teens, and there are no indications that this was exceptional.

                  Another primary source on Ashkenazim in the Renaissance and enlightenment period is the autobiography of Gluckel of Hameln, who lived in the 17th and early 18th centuries in Northern Germany.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I did not randomly make up the “late teen marriage” notion. I vaguely recall reading that marriage among European Jews, at some point, has shifted from the early teens to the late teens, in contrast to ancient Judea. It seems that you are correct about the Hasidic rabbis, so it’s possible that either my memory has failed me, or the original source was wrong.

                  Not sure how representative the Hasidic rabbis are of the general Ashkenazi population, though. Also, I just checked wiki on Besht, founder of Hasidism, and turns out he married after 18. Could be an outlier, I guess.

                • J says:

                  Of course Ashkenazim married very young till the Emancipation instilled in us the ambition to become Europeans. Napoleon decimated and ruined not only the French nation, but also the Jewish people. Today, marrying off one’s minor children is not only considered immoral but illegal, and the State’s social services are in constant search for unconventional – bad – parents to take away their children. Western nations will go on dying out till they relax their inhuman, anti-natural, rigid social laws and let human biological instincts to play out.

                  Let me correct myself: Western nations will go on dying off till they die off.

                • Anonymous says:

                  It should be illegal for state agents to take away kids from their parents’ homes, for any reason, ever. Do-gooder “altruistic” (pathologically altruistic) puritans will never cease with these anti-family, “uh-oh, we gotta protect the children from their own parents”, interventionist atrocities until someone makes them cease – by brutal force.

                  And whoever that is, it’s not gonna be the Jews, because the Jews are cooperating with the puritans. At best, orthodox Jews will stand by — as they usually do — and won’t participate. I’m blaming the puritans because taking kids away from parents “for their own good” is an idea that only puritans could come up with. It’s one thing to send parents to the gulag – that doesn’t require puritanism, rather, it requires Judeo-Marxism. But “social services” that basically work towards a “moral uplift” of society are a strictly, quintessentially puritan meme.

                  And I’m blaming the Jews because the Brahmin caste is full of Jews, and moreover, Brahmin ideologies carry Jewish memes with great disproportion; and far from disrupting the dissemination of puritan memes, the Jews, who nepotistically latch on to the Cathedral teats, are serving the puritans by making puritan propaganda that much more efficient, all while turbo-pozzing society with their own memes.

                  >Western nations will go on dying out till they relax their inhuman, anti-natural, rigid social laws and let human biological instincts to play out.

                  100% correct. Also: are Western Jews working for the achievement of this “relaxation”, or are Jews responsible for a large part of this inhumanity, and right now are doubling-down on any and every puritan affront to human dignity?

                  The Jews are not allies of the white race, because 1) duh – the Jews are conducting white genocide worldwide; 2) the Jews have cast their lot with the puritans; instead of obstructing the Cathedral, Jews are utilizing the Cathedral for their own tribalist purposes.

                • peppermint says:

                  A child can either have a parent or a slave master. The idea of foster parents is romantic cuckoldry. Yes, unrelated people can form the psychological bonds that are evolutionarily supposed to form between family members, but this isn’t something to depend on on base public policy on. Barry Soetoro’s book “Dreams from my Deadbeat Dad” should be the final word on foster parenthood.

                  Romanticizing cuckoldry and ignoring fundamentals is a generic problem with family policy in the 20c.

                  It is possible that the parents could be so incompetent that the child would be better off with a slave master, especially with a contract emancipating the kid when he turns 18 or gets a husband, and directing the master to provide the kid with a trade or matchmaking services. However, since the government can’t be given tools to destroy families – too much power is a generic problem with the European governments – there can’t be a legal mechanism to strip the children from a man.

          • Alrenous says:

            the power to give your husband unpassable shit tests.

            Yes. That’s the articulation I was looking for.

            “I’m going to divorce you!”
            “Woman, I’ma beat your ass for even threatening it.”
            “I’m calling the cops! If you really mean your shit, you’ll beat me anyway!”

            Don’t beat: fail shit test. Get divorced.
            Beat: pass shit test, go to jail. Get divorced because ‘you’re never around.’ (Because women feel unowned if he doesn’t mate-guard them. And indeed in this situation her ownership reverts to the state.)

            My example is not the best, so take it as the vague direction pointing that it is.

        • Eli says:

          According to my knowledge, slave woman has an inferior status vis-a-vis both herself and, more importantly, her progeny. No reasonable slave owner (especially, one of noble heritage) is interested in having *his* children be born slaves, unless it happens so (as it, obviously, has happened throughout history). In those cases, I suspect, the slave-owner would typically either free the child or not consider the child to be “his.”

          From my reading, In Judea, a slave woman was considered to be of separate species (a slave), outside of Israelite hierarchy (even if she had been an Israelite before the acquisition). If freed, she/her progeny born in captivity, would be classed as just above mamzer status.

          In summary: In terms of sexual behavior, a man has much more incentive to control sexuality of his legal wife than of his slave woman. I think the laws of levirate also reflect that.

          Most of contemporary Western society consists of slaves — if not of their jobs/mortgages, then of their obsessions. Therefore, the sexual liberty that comes with it is an epiphenomenon. Or, possibly, it’s a self-reinforcing spiral — where rampant sexual liberty of women makes both men and women ever more like slaves.

          • B says:

            >According to my knowledge, slave woman has an inferior status vis-a-vis both herself and, more importantly, her progeny.

            Depends on the society. For instance, Ottoman Turkey-every Sultan from the 15th century onwards had a slave mother.

            >In Judea, a slave woman was considered to be of separate species (a slave), outside of Israelite hierarchy (even if she had been an Israelite before the acquisition). If freed, she/her progeny born in captivity, would be classed as just above mamzer status.

            Source needed.

            >Most of contemporary Western society consists of slaves — if not of their jobs/mortgages, then of their obsessions. Therefore, the sexual liberty that comes with it is an epiphenomenon. Or, possibly, it’s a self-reinforcing spiral — where rampant sexual liberty of women makes both men and women ever more like slaves.

            This is very true. The modern West, since Bernays, has been built on the idea of most efficiently enslaving the citizens through their natural desires. Those can be the desire for friendship, love, sex, food, social status, health, long life, anything-there are teams of very intelligent, well-trained, dedicated slaves working on figuring out how to use them to enslave you.

      • Alrenous says:

        Imperial Rome, however, did have free women with substantial legal rights. And Rome died through failure of its elite to reproduce. Similarly Sparta. Sparta never had a helot shortage. They had a shortage of free spartan men.

        It’s a pretty important piece of evidence.

    • Anonymous says:

      >countersignalling antifemitism because I’m so holy
      >here’s why we’re better than all the goyim ever
      >countersignalling slavery because I’m so holy
      >the goyim should just accept the status-quo we’ve created for them lololololol
      >I’m a divorcee with 2 kids who thinks he’s a reality-winner “par excellence”

      You are a cum-guzzling gay homosexual faggot and I support America going to war with Israel with hydrogen bombs FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of reducing your personal TFR to 0 (actually, you deserve death for being a Jew).

      Hey faggot, why is the TFR in Eastern Europe below replacement level? Because they have exactly what you propose – women lower status than men, but not slaves. If Polish women were literally non-ironically enslaved by Polish men like cows, Polish TFR would be higher than 2 rather than the meager 1.29 as last measured. Same applies to the rest of E-Europe, where there’s a modicum of patriarchy and nothing more. We want *real* patriarchy.

      I’ll get a Torah book and crap all over it and post it just to prove a point – kikes like you are shit.

      • B says:

        u mad bro?

        • Anonymous says:

          Daily reminder that you believe every baboon named Coco from the land of Morocco has a right to settle in France “because once upon a time there was a Jew”.

          Hey guess what, once upon a time there were whites AND niggers in Canaan, does that mean that #OpenBordersForIsrael is justified? Hell yeah, sissify the Jewish male (this is rhetorics because you’re already a sissy) by forcing him at gunpoint to prep Sub-Saharan niggers before they poz his wife’s neghole!

          Incidentally, “once upon a time there was a Jew” will be how the history books will remember Satan’s Chosen People.

        • Anonymous says:

          B the cocksucker pussy whose wife and children deserve to be killed by Arab suicide bombers wants all of us to forget the following:

          Russian TFR 1.7
          Polish TFR 1.29
          Czech TFR 1.46
          Ukrainian TFR 1.5
          Romanian TFR 1.41
          Bulgarian TFR 1.48
          Latvian TFR 1.52

          and it goes on and on and on and on.

          Why is it so? Because they have the kind of “soft patriarchy” “women should have human and legal rights” “holiness spiral whoo-hoo” “slavery is immoral” thing going on that B advocates. The only countries where TFR is normal, other than the illegal zionist occupation regime, are countries where women have their stupid face punched in when they misbehave.

          B doesn’t care about the facts because he supports White Genocide and wants Europe to turn Islamic because Islam is “good for the Jews” in his retarded kike opinion. Here’s the deal: soft patriarchy existed in America itself between 1890 and 1950, and where did that go? Into the crapper. If you support soft patriarchy you are a cuck pussy faggot. The West needs harsh hardcore patriarchy where Alice goes POW! “straight to the moon” if her husband disapproves of something she does.

          When that happens, suddenly TFR is higher than 2. Question is: under the green banner of the sandniggers, or under something else? B wants the green banner all over dar al-harb (except kikerael), hence his shilling and countersignalling ITT.

          No Choice!

          • B says:

            oh he mad

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              He writes like peppermint, if peppermint suddenly was 10 IQ points higher.

              • B says:

                I wasn’t joking-it was the full moon. Notice how he has calmed down over the last week as it waned.

                A good machine learning project would be to use natural language processing to plot the tone of blog comments against the phases of the moon, and then drill down by blog segment. Maybe in a year I’ll get around to it.

      • Anony-maus says:

        I feel like the additional cost of childbearing(expected) has a lot to do with lowered TFR.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >Carroll Quigley

      lel

      Now im not saying he’s the worst, but he is also a 20th century writer, and more over, a *post ww2* 20th century writer; what is good in it is also ineluctably alloyed with squid ink.

      For any such writer, even when not *consciously and cynically* disinformative for the purely consequential goal of the Liberal Project’s ascension, there was inevitable tension between the demands of good writing, and the demands of the liberal ideological precepts they were raised to observe; who’s vision of goodness is the only vision of goodness they’ve ever known, where turning their back on that vision would seem like turning their back on *goodness itself*. Naturally, it was the good writing that would find itself distorted to one degree or another to fit.

      Even moldberg termed him as an overheated obfuscator; though perhaps that is because Quigley’s focus on the financial establishment as the global hegemons (which they are) hit a little too close to Rothschild references for his amygdala to handle.

      He himself boasts, after all, right in the preface of his history that he had privileged access to the records of various ‘masters of the universe’ orgs. Not for no reason of course; academia provides a ready supply of potential toadies to validate your message in return for lucre, a prospective master of the universe merely has to pick the ones he finds agreeable to throw money at, with no direct command necessary.

      It’s a classic expression of the old mid 20th century CIA strategy of controlling information through a tsunami of disinformation, rather than secrecy; in particular here, nipping any of those budding conspiracy theorists from developing into anything *truly* subversive by distracting them with a more lib-elite favorable vision of conspiracies first that preserves their frame.

      Cf. Alex ‘the globalists are NAZIS’ Jones
      (i’ve got love the guy and he’s certainly come a ways since then, but he’s a perfect example of the phenomena at work).

      • B says:

        >He himself boasts, after all, right in the preface of his history that he had privileged access to the records of various ‘masters of the universe’ orgs.

        Look at the story of what happened to his book.

        It is the only case I know of American Samizdat.

        Moldbug refers to him as “the great Carroll Quigley” and says Tragedy and Hope is “criminally underread.”

        http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.il/2007/11/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-7.html

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          2010 Moldbug vs 2007 Moldbug then ( http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.id/2010/09/slow-history-and-mysterious-20th.html )

          ” Sweden, of course, is a minor case of “abroad.” What Hassell really means by “abroad” is the Anglophile world – the world Nazi Germany is rebelling against. Thus, when interlocutors from England and America ask about the “secret Germany,” we can at the very least suspect the existence of a “secret England” and a “secret America.”

          “Conspiracy theorists unite! Which leads us to the famous Carroll Quigley quote:

          >The radical Right version of these events as written up by John T. Flynn, Freda Utley , and others, was even more remote from the truth than were Budenz’s or Bentley’s versions, although it had a tremendous impact on American opinion and American relations with other countries in the years 1947-1955. This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements, operating from the White House itself and controlling all the chief avenues of publicity in the United States, to destroy the American way of life, based on private enterprise, laissez faire, and isolationism, in behalf of alien ideologies of Russian Socialism and British cosmopolitanism (or internationalism). This plot, if we are to believe the myth, worked through such avenues of publicity as The New York Times and the Harold Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s Magazine and had at its core the wild-eyed and bushy-haired theoreticians of Socialist Harvard and the London School of Economics. It was determined to bring the United States into World War II on the side of England (Roosevelt’s first love) and Soviet Russia (his second love) in order to destroy every finer element of American life and, as part of this consciously planned scheme, invited Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and destroyed Chiang Kai-shek, all the while undermining America’s real strength by excessive spending and unbalanced budgets.

          >This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies….but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

          “Please do not run out and buy a copy of Tragedy & Hope on the basis of this quote. Quigley is in fact turgid and quite unreadable, and not at all informative. You would do much better to read Flynn, Utley and Budenz .

          “Quigley’s first paragraph above is in fact more or less the truth about the 1940s, although stated in pejorative terms to discredit itself. Connoisseurs of 20th-century propaganda will be very familiar with this technique. Straight-up ridicule is the propaganda equivalent of running the ball up the middle: it’s a play you can call when you can’t think of any other play. Think of all the proposition that ordinary propaganda consumers believe, for no other reason but that they consider the converse ridiculous. Or possibly evil. Or maybe just insane. ”

          Excuse me, his exact words were ‘turgid”, “unreadable”, and ” not at all informative”.

          I mean, i’ve literaly got the front flap of my 1966 copy open, what will we find on the eye-catcher profile blurb?

          ” Carroll Quigley (1910-1977), professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, formerly taught at Princeton and at Harvard. He has done research in the archives of France, Italy, and England, and is the author of the widely praised Evolution of Civilizations. A member of the editorial board of the monthly Current History, He is a frequent lecturer and consultant for public and semipublic agencies. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Anthropological Association, and the American Economic Association, as well as various historical association. He has been lecturer on Russian history at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces since 1951 and on Africa at the Brookings institution since 1961, and has lectured at many other places, including the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department, and the Naval College at Norfolk, Virginia. In 1958 he was a consultant to the Congressional Select Committee which set up the present national space agency. He was collaborator in history to the Smithsonian Institution after 1957, in connection with the establishment of its new Museum of history and Technology. In the summer of 1964 he went to the Navy Post-Graduate School, Monterey, California, as consultant to Project Seabed, which tried to visualize what American weapons systems would be like in twelve years. ”

          This isnt a guy just talking *about* the establishment, this is a guy who *is* the establishment, *telling you what he prefers you to think about himself (itself)*.

          If you want the most salient examples of 20th century american writers who most definitely *were* subversive to the liberal establishment (and were most definitely persecuted *by* the liberal establishment, *for* being subversively reactionary [and aint that a quintessential irony of modernity]), look at men like Francis Parker Yockey, Revilo P. Oliver, or indeed, the whole John Birch Society itself.

          • B says:

            Yes-Moldbug was for it before he was against it.

            Quigley was in a position to write what he wrote precisely because he was at a high vantage point in the establishment.

            Once he published it, however, it was suppressed (unsuccessfully): https://tragedyandhope.com/which-versions-of-tragedy-and-hope-are-the-uncensored-editions/

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              I’ll go with the wisdom of age and experience, and am willing to forgive his more youthful indiscretions.

              Censoring material is a far cry from literally killing people or ruining their life and lively-hood in some way. If anything it may as well be an intentional Streisand Effect.

              Not only was Quigley’s life *not* negatively impacted in any serious way, much like communist terrorist (but i repeat myself) Bill Ayers, he in fact went on to continue having a long and comfortable career in the rarefied halls of officially approved academia and consulting, bringing up the next generation of evil overlords.

              His book on the conspiracy(s) working to instantiate a one world government for the sake of building communi-. i mean liberalism, (and any contradictions inherent therein notwithstanding), is a lot like Edward Bernay’s book on propaganda, who describes how he who decides the propaganda is the true ruler in a society under popular governance.

              Which is to say, the book Propaganda is *itself* a work of propaganda, *advocating rule by propaganda*.

              Likewise and just so, at every turn Quigley takes great care to devalidate any truly ‘problematic’ right wing/reactionary interpretations of events before providing his own, most egregiously demonstrated in the previous quote. Far from being a *condemnation* of the liberal conspiracy, it is in fact an *advocacy and constructive criticism*, as he himself also mentions often. Is in fact, a *recruitment pitch*.

              “…as a teenager I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so…”
              – Bill Clinton

              What did he mean by this?

              • B says:

                I can’t think of a book I read as an adult which I thought was great at the time, which three years later I thought was unreadable crap.

                >went on to continue having a long and comfortable career in the rarefied halls of officially approved academia and consulting

                Ten years after publishing the book. He had tenure.

                >What did he mean by this?

                Presumably, that Quigley opened his eyes to the way to the halls of global power, since he went on to be a Rhodes Scholar after Georgetown, and the Rhodes Scholars are a recruiting ground for CFR (the American affiliate of the Round Table groups.)

                It is precisely this insider quality that gives Quigley his value.

                There are aspects where Sutton is more valuable in providing insight.

                You need many perspectives to start developing the whole picture.

                Others include Norman Dodd, Charlotte Iserbyt, etc.

                You can’t be objective if you see this in terms of good guys vs. bad guys. That sort of thinking is exactly what the 20th century popular governments’ propaganda arms promoted, because it plays into their agenda.

                Anyway, Quigley mentions repeatedly that these guys, who thought they were some group of super-geniuses, turned out to sort of be bumbling retards, who knew nothing about economics and whose policies led to disastrous consequences. The fact that he is restrained in his style makes this all the more condemning. It’s not exactly Jim’s Blog, where everything is THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION, CUCKS.

                Similarly, by the way, Skull and Bones, evil Hegelian geniuses that they are, got their war-it was Vietnam, the biggest clusterfuck in American history.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >I can’t think of a book I read as an adult which I thought was great at the time, which three years later I thought was unreadable crap.

                  That’s an interesting personal factoid, but are you moldbug?

                  >You can’t be objective if you see this in terms of good guys vs. bad guys. That sort of thinking is exactly what the 20th century popular governments’ propaganda arms promoted, because it plays into their agenda.

                  We don’t know each other well, so i’ll just tell you that that’s how i’ve *started*, for many years previously on the topic; being impersonal, ‘issues focused’, broad perspectives, and et cetera, all that good debate club ethics.

                  My use of rhetoric here, now, is a quite purposeful affectation, informed by the broader context of the issues at work. It’s all about the *directions* you want things moving in, statements that are most likely to move in less wrong directions (depending on your audience). There are a lot of things that can be written on this or any other subject, but really, practically speaking, can’t. So the short of it is that labeling men like Clinton and Quigley as evil enemy scum is less wrong than labeling them as ‘well intentioned but occasionally mistaken fellow travelers’ that modern conservatives so often saw them as, failing to grasp that their ‘counterparts’ saw *them* as evil enemy scum needing to be completely extirpated by one means or another. Failing to grasp that they were not in a friendly debate girded by mutual understanding, but were in fact in a knock down drag out no holds barred culture war where they were being defected on by the other side, since redtribesmen are instinctual cooperators with their perceived ingroup.

                  >Anyway, Quigley mentions repeatedly that these guys, who thought they were some group of super-geniuses, turned out to sort of be bumbling retards, who knew nothing about economics and whose policies led to disastrous consequences.

                  As implied previously, the biggest problem is not that there is no value in the book, the problem is there *is* value in the book.

                  It is sometimes said that works which attract the most vociferous criticism are ones with some form of redeeming virtue; ones which are truly terrible drek are hardly read at all in the first place.

                  A little bit of good is what can produce, is necessary to produce the greatest ills.

                  Someone *can* read this book and get something of edifying value out of it, but that someone would have to be someone who more or less *already knows* going into the reading. I would definitely not recommend it to someone who is uncertain and unlearned, looking for clarity and answers, lest they credulously internalize the varying shades of squidink along with everything else.

                • B says:

                  >That’s an interesting personal factoid, but are you moldbug?

                  No, but I don’t picture anyone else, as an adult, reading a book as big and as dense as T&H, loving it, then deciding it was crap after all.

                  >It’s all about the *directions* you want things moving in, statements that are most likely to move in less wrong directions (depending on your audience).

                  This is “propaganda”. I’m not really interested in that so much as the truth.

                  >There are a lot of things that can be written on this or any other subject, but really, practically speaking, can’t.

                  What does this sentence mean?

                  >So the short of it is that labeling men like Clinton and Quigley as evil enemy scum is less wrong than labeling them as ‘well intentioned but occasionally mistaken fellow travelers’

                  I’d hate to live in a world where those were the only two options.

                  >Failing to grasp that they were not in a friendly debate girded by mutual understanding, but were in fact in a knock down drag out no holds barred culture war where they were being defected on by the other side, since redtribesmen are instinctual cooperators with their perceived ingroup.

                  Oh, yeah, of course. “It’s our very innate goodness that makes us such innocent victims.” Never heard that before.

                  >failing to grasp that their ‘counterparts’ saw *them* as evil enemy scum needing to be completely extirpated by one means or another.

                  I don’t see that in Quigley.

                  >Someone *can* read this book and get something of edifying value out of it, but that someone would have to be someone who more or less *already knows* going into the reading.

                  That’s true for any scholarly work.

  4. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you man!

  5. Mycroft Jones says:

    B is correct on this one; historically, and presently, slave women reproduce less than “free” women. Much less. Rome had a slave based economy, and they had to keep importing more slaves; they weren’t reproducing themselves. If we look at other mammalian species, even in the primates most closely related to us, we can see something similar. Low status females are picked on by higher status females. Their children have poorer survival, and lesser breeding opportunities.

    An oppressed group with its own hierarchy, can have a great growth spurt. But if the two groups are intermingled, atomized individuals, then the lower status individuals will breed less. Much less. That is why India never ran out of dalits to do the dirty work. Each caste had its own hierarchy and boundaries and ability to police them; so each caste had an acceptable level of fertility.

    • jim says:

      Patriarchal Republican Rome, where a husband could execute his wife and sell his children into slavery, imported slaves. Imperial Rome, with emancipated women, imported elites.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Patriarchy == good.

        • Alrenous says:

          Patriarchy is true, and not lying is good. As a matter of physical fact, men can oppress women whenever they want and to whatever extent they desire.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        The city of Rome did import foreign elites during the Empire, but it wasn’t foreign elites that were working the latifundia to feed the Empire. That was just the regular type of slaves. And those were the ones who weren’t breeding. Many of the foreign elites ended up being freed and given citizenship.

  6. vxxc2014 says:

    A Possible working path back to this is working with what we have: The Rule of Soldiers instead of insane evil priests. We certainly have lined up lots of war we might as well get something out of the struggle. The Rule of Soldiers each getting 1 share of Power is Democracy from Athens until the 19th Amendment. Restore balance, restore skin in the game, restore sanity.

    Good for rest of you as well-we’d suddenly be incentivized.
    We aren’t now because the rest of you cancel our vote, vote for those who betray and sell our Valor to Arabs or anyone with money, empower tribunals of reporters and shysters to judge our battlefield actions. My vote is cancelled by white trailer trash mama’s, Meso baby farms, nigger welfare queens.
    And you who fancy yourself qualified to wield franchise power without risk.

    The test and certification of being worthy of Power is to take Power’s Risk: risk of life for others=only soldiers, police, firemen/EMT’s who take risk for others get the 1 share of Power that is the Vote. In History those who fought or otherwise risked their lives i.e. saved a Roman Citizen’s life got full citizenship.

    Property is not only not enough it guarantee’s another failure in the immediate [most if not all property in America and the West actually owned by the Elite, using derivatives they have already made the Dollar/CHF/EUR Rentenmark money] but also in the long term as the same commercial interests that owned the Confederacy before it was even declared will own us again.

    Power is Force. Force is Power’s price. Only those who risk the price should have the power. America, The Republic and the Vote aren’t going anywhere, even under a dictatorship our ancient systems from Athens, Rome and above all the Saxon fyrd/militia concept don’t get programmed away simply because it isn’t optimal for Right Wingers who want power without risk. The gunbearers not only always have a veto their the ultimate vote. No Sulla or Caesar nor ancient King crossed them. Any who risk war while not being ruled by Soldiers will only survive conflict with enemies worse ruled than themselves.

    Hold the power among the soldiers and other’s who take the risk grounds power among the necessarily grounded. We know women can’t be and commercial interests including property owners failed. They have failed us in the War on Terror [interests lie with the Saudis and other Gulf Bribemasters]
    Commercial Rule Failed the Confederacy from the outset as their was at every step and day a divorce between the interests of the Commercial property/Plantation Class and their Warrior Class.

    The Commercial Interests and local power interests like Governor Joe Brown starved their Generals of power, their soldiers of logistical support [Richmond lived well as Lee’s men at Petersburg starved, when Lee finally broke out of Petersburg the Ration Train that could have kept his starving men fed and in the fight was looted by his own side and they had no energy to link up with still extant Southern Forces] and so the Confederates fought barefoot on empty bellies.

    Lee wasn’t even given unity of Command [basic principle of war] until 1865 when he was trapped at Petersburg. Joe Brown* denied 100K soldiers from the Confederate Army that could have checked Sherman’s march and so on..and on and on. Commercial Interests in charge of Armies have failed since Hannibal and Carthage. As Taleb and the Ancients that guide him point out no skin in the game means failure and corruption, betrayal.

    *Joe Brown still worshiped by the losers today because he waved Priest word of State’s Rights at the deluded masses and their foolish descendants. You should have drawn and quartered him instead ye worship his priestery. He did fine under Yankee rule afterwards as well. Ye Southern Priests are worse than the Yankee priests.

    Restore grounded rule to the men who have their skins in the game and they’ll instantly change the rules so our women can’t cut and run – for few have the divorce rate of cops, soldiers and the more you cop and soldier the worse it gets. The rate of divorce in Special Ops [most deployments] is incredible, most of them are on 4th++ marriage or quit trying after 1st divorce.

    More you deploy better soldier you are, less you are likely to have a family.
    We of course want families and children [which I wasn’t blessed with but would love to try under right conditions=she can’t cut and run] and now here gents you see our warrior skin in the game: we want more skin. Offspring.
    You want more warriors or you’re truly fucked. I know what we’re up against.

    Our offspring will die off and you normies will be dead or enslaved soon as bravery inherited trait, military/police family cultural trait we’re raised with as well. One high attrition war and America’s warrior class is gone. We need kids and you need us to have kids more than we do -see when I’m dead I consider my duty done. Death for this soldier means my hardships are at an end. Wouldn’t it be good for your skins if my skins continue?

    No you won’t be competitive at war suddenly springing from the gamer couch into the tankers seat or the infantry’s boots. No Conscription of normies won’t solve this problem [need guns at back to fight not run]. Brave men are born and raised over generations and centuries. Don’t find your family serving in war, cops, firefighters? We’re bred and raised to each other. No it won’t suddenly gift itself. Can it be taught? Soldiering can. Courage can’t. It has to be there already. Then there’s the matter of skills being passed on.

    Democracy we’re stuck with, Ango-Saxon militia we’re stuck with, Republic under whatever name or form we’re stuck with-restore sanity by restoring the franchise to military, veterans, police, firefighters/EMT – risk of life. We’re grounded and have our skin in the game, we need and desire a new arrangement, your interests of survival and prosperity are tied to our interests of skin in the game.

    If above doesn’t persuade you perhaps this will: we can see how better the men of the Arab’s esp the fighters live. We see than woman you desire as wife. Arab’s got marriage locked down, that man is not contradicted, silently obeyed, respected and master of his house. Bring my guests food and a meal fit for 20 Lords appears before merely you and him. The more ruthless and killer, cunning he is hotter the wife. Excuse me – wives. 2d wife the hottie on the side for us but he owns her as well. He’s supposed to spend his time equally among them [meaning 1 nut each] but often [quote] quits with the 1st wife [older] and gives the 2d one two nuts. The Arab raises his son as a young lion who worships, WORSHIPS his father. He is God to his son.
    His son is a warrior fearless and fierce. His daughters are modest esp in public but wildest fucks ever in private-they demand to be raped and smacked around. The woman is a slave.

    I’m just incentivizing you. You see we see Islam’s deal for it’s warriors.
    We compare this to our deal.
    How long do you think we wait?
    Oh we’ll get to something like there….I only care about the perks not the God.
    Fuck all priests and iman’s to death by impalement. They sold us out.
    Fuck clever sillies too of any leaning or affected values -real is killing for them. Fuck your pen I have the sword.

    See?

    I need incentives Gents. My wolfpack [just certified for war -I told them so] my wolves need incentives. I need incentives. And the only way we can guarantee not being sold out again is…power. Power to set the rules.

    Like Trump is the easy way so this is the easy way.
    If people reluctant to surrender an imaginary power they can’t wield and so don’t actually have want the hard way that’s fine too. In current feral mood even better.

    My skin’s in the game. Where’s my cut? Not asking for much. Exactly the cut and exactly the point of Jim’s post. I merely offer a realistic path.

    Think it over while there’s time. Like I told the platoon they’re ready. So did the other Vet. They don’t know about the alt-right and all the clever silly nuances…but they know us. They want the same things even if they don’t know it yet. Young and all.

    Think it over, tick tock.

    PS: Show me is a mistake. See cuz no turning around or stopping.

    Cheers.

    • B says:

      > that man is not contradicted, silently obeyed, respected and master of his house

      hahaha you should hear some of those women talk to their men when they think nobody is listening. Like anything else, what goes on behind closed doors is not what is on display.

      >The more ruthless and killer, cunning he is hotter the wife.

      sorry, not so. You can see some large, scary women if you go in those guys’ houses at three in the morning. Not saying it holds up to what you will see waddling around the typical US airport or strip mall, but it’s not 1001 Nights.

      >His son is a warrior fearless and fierce.

      Well, when it comes to talk, or ganging up on his neighbors, yes. When it comes to actual fighting, the Arabs kind of suck. And a big part of that might have to do with being brought up by women who are treated the way Arab women are treated-LaFond thinks so: https://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=3443

      Personally, I think that Western women at their peak resembled Daniel Boone’s wife, Rebecca: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Boone

  7. vxxc2014 says:

    Reposting the actual up close take on Islam for emphasis.

    Gonna explain modern lawfare/warfare climate with this song ‘Heathens” as well…somehow this kid nailed it. See we’re currently combat prison labor with pussies as Turnkey’s…and it ain’t gonna last. It will end the instant we don’t need them for the plane ride home [like war here] if not sooner.

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

    —If above doesn’t persuade you perhaps this will: we can see how better the men of the Arab’s esp the fighters live. We see than woman you desire as wife. Arab’s got marriage locked down, that man is not contradicted, silently obeyed, respected and master of his house. Bring my guests food and a meal fit for 20 Lords appears before merely you and him. The more ruthless and killer, cunning he is hotter the wife. Excuse me – wives. 2d wife the hottie on the side for us but he owns her as well. He’s supposed to spend his time equally among them [meaning 1 nut each] but often [quote] quits with the 1st wife [older] and gives the 2d one two nuts. [unquote]

    The Arab raises his son as a young lion who worships, WORSHIPS his father. He is God to his son. His son is a warrior fearless and fierce. His daughters are modest esp in public but wildest fucks ever in private-they demand to be raped and smacked around. The woman is a slave. She loves it.

    I’m just incentivizing you. You see we see Islam’s deal for it’s warriors.

    We compare this to our deal.
    How long do you think we wait?
    Oh we’ll get to something like there….I only care about the perks not the God.
    Fuck all priests and iman’s to death by impalement. They sold us out.
    Fuck clever sillies too of any leaning or affected values -real is killing for them. Fuck your pen I have the sword.

    See?

    I need incentives Gents. My wolfpack [just certified for war -I told them so] my wolves need incentives. I need incentives. And the only way we can guarantee not being sold out again is…power. Power to set the rules.

    Like Trump is the easy way so this is the easy way.
    If people reluctant to surrender an imaginary power they can’t wield and so don’t actually have want the hard way that’s fine too. In current feral mood even better.

    My skin’s in the game. Where’s my cut? Not asking for much. Exactly the cut and exactly the point of Jim’s post. I merely offer a realistic path.

    Think it over while there’s time. Like I told the platoon they’re ready. So did the other Vet. They don’t know about the alt-right and all the clever silly nuances…but they know us. They want the same things even if they don’t know it yet. Young and all.

    Think it over, tick tock. —-

  8. Mycroft Jones says:

    Jim has conflated slavery with chastity. In a society that restricts women’s sexuality and limits their ownership of property, then loyalty (and breeding is incentivized). But incentives or no, slave women never outbreed free. Free women harass and pick on slave women, and this is bad for successful child-birth and child-raising. Miscarriages are easy to induce. Even mild stress can do it. If a man defends his slave woman from the free women, he finds his social status mysterious drops like a stone, and all his children with the slave women are of the slave child class; not free children. Breeding with slaves is a bad deal, that is why it wasn’t never done on a large scale. It was tried. It failed. Slavery limits reproduction.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Classic example from Bible: Look at how Sarah, the free woman, harassed her slave girl Hagar. And then God tells Abraham (the husband) that Sarah is in the right, to let the dynamic play out. Women have their own hierarchy. For fertility, women need a separate status in society, like a related but separate species. Within their society, they have their own hierarchy, just as men form their own hierarchies in the absence of women.

      • B says:

        > And then God tells Abraham (the husband) that Sarah is in the right, to let the dynamic play out. Women have their own hierarchy.

        Context.

        G-d also tells Abraham to listen to Sarah when it comes to dealing with his firstborn son Ishmael, and to do everything she tells him. Also, see Rivka and Esau/Yaakov.

        But hey, back then they didn’t have PUA forums-weren’t as advanced as the alt right.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          The “context” you are providing is irrelevant to the point I’m making; it neither helps or hinders it.

          • B says:

            Point is that you can’t use the fact that G-d told Abraham to listen to Sarah as an indicator that women should hammer out their own hierarchy and settle those issues among themselves, because her (and her daughter in law’s) scope of authority went far beyond that.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              A demonstrates B. But, for no obvious reason, I’m not allowed to use A to demonstrate B! Fantastic logic, “B”. You never graduated yeshiva did you.

              • B says:

                If your dad tells you to listen to whatever Uncle Bill, who is a plumber, tells you to do, and Uncle Bill tells you to change the oil in your car every 10000 km, it does not follow that plumbers are automotive experts.

    • jim says:

      Slavery does not limit reproduction nearly as much as emancipation limits reproduction.

      The relevant variable is freedom to defect, freedom to shit test your husband, freedom to disobey your husband, freedom to take a succession of lovers rather than get married – if “free” women do not get sexual choice, then they reproduce more successfully than slave women.

      • Turtle says:

        This concurs with my theory that women *only* want to be mothers with a “good-enough” husband/father figure. Thus, abortion is meant to save children from a life as a pseudo-orphan, with a shameful, incompetent, hated ‘single mom.’ The pro-life crowd has no appreciation for the moral impulse women have when pregnant against their will (they might have liked the sex, but not the fertile consequence of their lust for and submission to Mr. Sperm).

        These women are not only selfishly saying no to motherhood, but also believe, though I disagree, that growing up without a good dad is hell. I was incredulous, quite shocked, to learn why, in January- women hate their families. WTF???
        They claim they *must* abort the fetus, to spare it from suffering dadless orphanhood. I don’t like this argument, but it does indicate women believe in the importance of fatherhood more than conservatives claim to believe women value fathers.

        Jim could call women’s emancipation ‘a woman’s slavery to her unruly, power-hungry, proud passions.’ This clarifies that patriarchy is the most-free option for women. Jim has simply been less-than-perfect in phrasing his claims.

        Slavery has limits, as B points out- free will is guaranteed by God, or else we would either be perfectly ‘obedient’ (automatically, not humanly) or not exist. Why would God keep failed robot-humans around? He doesn’t need us! So, ‘slavery’ must be qualified – is it merely de jure ownership, not at-will obeyed authority?

        Freedom to defect is freedom to sin; God guarantees this in this fallen age and life. Maybe B agrees that we can’t force women to be perfect- for example, who can you make them pray for you and the family? This counterexample is simple- women have free will, even when they are addicted to a man’s commands. Even if they are enslaved, in an absurd work of fiction, with Pavlovian methods and sci-fi devices, they (Eve) are still made from Adam’s rib, not our imagination.

        Sexual choice includes inviting demons into one’s body. Any creature can do this- even non-human organisms can be possessed, from algae to ants. Such spiritual choices are not about human sex or any period in secular history, neither Australian nor American.

        By <> Jim means “if women are liberated from their powerlust by a strong, loving husband and greater patriarchy.” But this, I believe, involves our guardian angels’ choices.

        What about infertility? I think women are infertile unless God wants them to have children. God does not judge women’s motherhood-deservingness by worldly standards. I really think we underestimate how independent He is of our judgments, such as ‘this one should have as many kids as possible, she’s smart’ or ‘this one sucks, her bloodline must die.’

        P.S. What if women have children in spite, “because life sucks, so let’s share the awful experience” ? That’s strange, and my point is that aside from greed (For daddy’s money), lust for parenthood, and pride (I’ll do better than *my* mom did) I don’t know of any bad reasons motherhood happens. It’s still a blessing, even in this world. Blessings are not ‘mixed’ or ever bad. We should just be grateful there are any children or living creatures at all.

        • B says:

          >I don’t like this argument, but it does indicate women believe in the importance of fatherhood more than conservatives claim to believe women value fathers.

          Western women not having children has very little to do with lack of suitable fathers. Even in Soviet GULAGs women were having kids, obviously with zero expectation of those kids having a father in their lives.

          Meanwhile, you don’t exactly see the women who are married to American rock stars, athletes, billionaires having many children. Just for reference’ sake, women who do not use birth control and do not have any fertility problems tend to have children every 1-3 years during their fertile period, depending on whether they breast feed/sleep with their infants, and how long. So you’d be expecting those so-called alphas to have something like 5-15 children per wife.

          What it has to do with is that people in the West, men and women, have no reason to live, and are afraid to die, so they try to while their lives away in hedonism. On one hand, having a child is the ultimate expression of the desire to live, and on the other hand, children cost money and time and limit the amount of hedonistic behavior you can engage in.

          >I really think we underestimate how independent He is of our judgments

          Oh, yeah.

          >Maybe B agrees that we can’t force women to be perfect- for example, who can you make them pray for you and the family?

          You can ruin people, but it’s very difficult to get them to be good. For this, you need a larger society which lives by good values, you yourself need to be good (as opposed to “nice”) and it helps if they come from a good family. And even then nothing is guaranteed.

          • jim says:

            If, as in communist countries, the farmer does not own his land, his cattle, and his crops, you get crop failure.

            Since the alpha does not have any real control of his women or his children (see Roosh on mate guarding) he does not want children. His children would be hostages against him. Roosh is mighty damned alpha – look at his photo. But his position on mate guarding reveals deep fear, frustration, weakness, and powerlessness.

            • B says:

              Oh, come on.

              You think Mormons or Orthodox Jews “own” their wives? But they have lots of kids.

              Mafia types don’t noticeably have more children, though of course they have recourse to extralegal measures vs their wives.

              You yourself could have, presumably, had many more children but didn’t. I doubt this is because you were deeply afraid, frustrated, etc-rather, you presumably did not want more kids enough to have them.

              As to what an “alpha” is-the term is pretty gay, in its common usage. Was Daniel Boone an alpha, in your terms? Absolutely not, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d slept with less than four women in his whole life. Now, Wilmot-that was an alpha! Well, Boone was admirable and Wilmot was a faggot, whom only faggots could admire. So, “Roosh is an alpha, just look at him” doesn’t really hold much water with me.

          • Anonymous says:

            >What it has to do with is that people in the West, men and women, have no reason to live, and are afraid to die, so they try to while their lives away in hedonism.

            Niggers in Africa, with their high time-preference, are every bit as hedonistic as white westerners. Yet, in stark contrast, their TFR is pretty high.

            It’s not about hedonism.

            It’s about the puritan regime. In Africa the puritan regime is weak, so African niggers are liberated to have high TFR, provided they have access to western medical care. In America the puritan regime is at its strongest, so “American” niggers have low TFR on par with American whites.

            The Orthojews and Mormies are both tolerated dissidents against the puritan regime, as are the ululating goatfuckers. It doesn’t matter whether or not they are hedonists.

            Whereas, in Eastern Europe and many parts of East Asia you’ve got plenty of religiosity, but still low TFR. Again, hedonism or religiosity isn’t the issue. It’s the

            P
            O
            W

            Puritan-Occupied-World.

            The solution isn’t Moar Religiosity. The solution is to break the regime. The regime is the enemy, and there is no greater antithesis to the puritan regime than enslavement of women by men like cows. Literal slavery succeeds where “soft” patriarchy fails. Why? Because that way, there is no choice. Gotta have those babies. Which is why the Cathedral would fight tooth and nail against whites ever having real hardcore patriarchy.

            Jim may have had patriarchal relationships, but he has never owned a woman like a cow. If he had ever owned a woman like a cow, he’d have plenty more children.

            So, who is preventing this “hardcore” patriarchy from materializing? The same force that has reduced Japanese TFR to where it is today. POW. Puritan Occupied World. Get rid of the puritan regime, and men can own women like cows. TFR shoots up instantly.

            You don’t want to be rid of the puritan regime because you are allowed to be a dissident. You are allowed to be a dissident because you are deemed incapable of disrupting the Cathedral’s work. If the Cathedral ever decides that you’re a formidable, credible threat, you’ll find yourself in deep shit.

            And there is something else going on.

            Who controls the SS (secret service)? Mormies. So the nepotistic Mormies are allowed to dissent. Who controls the propaganda department of the Cathedral? Secular Jews, who despite their disputes and disagreements, see themselves as in the same category as Orthojews. So Orthojews are allowed to dissent. Who are the radical pawns used as a cudgel against the vaisyas? Derka-derka snackbars. So again, allowed to dissent.

            Normal whites are the enemies of the Cathedral, aka the puritan regime, aka the POW government, so they get their shit shoved in, are not allowed to dissent, and can’t have high TFR. Since you are not a normal white, since you are (((you))), you are in cahoots with the Puritan-Occupied World-Government. Proof? You have no enemies:

            The zionist regime is on your side, despite the occasional expulsions of settlers. Need to out-breed the Arabs. Womb-war! The puritan regime is hesitant about you, because on one hand, you’re a force against normal Legacy-American whites, so you may prove useful; but on the other hand, you also hate the towelheads, who are the chief allies of the Cathedral. A dilemma.

            You are blaming the victim, by accusing the victim of “hedonism.” It’s not the issue. The simple truth is that men can’t own women like cows because the Cathedral doesn’t let it happen. If the Cathedral moved out of the way, you’d see white TFR rising. And you would see, in some places, where whites aren’t CUCKS and testosterone isn’t abysmally low, that white men own white women like cows, and TFR is, as you say:

            “5-15 children per wife.”

            The Mormon-dominated SS has to be dismantled. They should “retire.” Go home. The Jewish-dominated propaganda organs should be shut down, and the hook-nosed CEOs should get vaporized, or “fumigated” to be precise. In wooden shower rooms. Shower time is helluva fun — family fun! — and you can’t spell “helluva” without “hell”, now, can you? The hajis also need to get out one way or another.

            Destroy the Cathedral, punch the puritans’ teeth out, retire the Mormies, fumigate the oven-dodging propagandists, and expel the hajis back to the the middle east (then nuke the middle east). White TFR will get to 10 per wife in two decades, not more than three. Hedonism isn’t the question. The question is multi-faceted: puritans? kikes? sandniggers? magical-underwear coffee-abstainers? And the answer is “bye bye.”

            Bye bye!

            • Cavalier says:

              The real-world, actually-existent Puritans had the highest fertility of any population in the entirety of human existence.

              • peppermint says:

                …followed by vanishing from the page of time.

                What if the reason the Chinese emperor recalled the fleet was he had a vision that blue-eyed cultists would tame the land and build cities before killing themselves intentionally so the Chinese could have an easier time walking in?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >…followed by vanishing from the page of time.

                  Lots of things have vanished from the pages of time. Classical composers. Malthusian conditions of life. Colonial America.

                  America stopped being English America, stopped being “for ourselves and our Posterity” in about 1820. Pennsylvania spoke German until around the time of WWI.

                  Why, starting in 1820, did USG import Germans, Irishmen, and Scandinavians by the millions? To do a port-side end-run around the Puritan-descended English Americans. USG imported ethnic whites with inclinations to socialism because the native stiff-upper-lip types just weren’t lefty enough.

                  What happened to the Puritans? They bred themselves out with Germans and Irishmen.

                  The Know-Nothings were right.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Palatine Germans were assimilable to Anglo-America, as were the Ulster Scots, as were the Dutch, as were the Huguenots. By and large America remained distinctly English until the 1850s.

                  The Puritans, the Quakers, the Shakers who branched-off from the Quakers – their descendants are still around. Speaking of the Shakers, one of the very first things wiki says is:

                  “They practice a celibate and communal lifestyle, pacifism, and their model of equality of the sexes, which they institutionalized in their society in the 1780s.”

                  Q.E.D. It’s these people who today gladly wear chastity-belts while their wives spread for niggers every night. Do you really think that the problem is, or began with, Germans and Scandinavians? Progressivism isn’t primarily German or Scandinavian (or Irish or Italian). Progressivism is Anglo-Jewish.

                  Of course, Anglo-Americans had every right — in the “might makes righ” kind of logic — to restrict immigration to East Anglia alone, and to kick out all the non-Anglo minorities, if they so desired. But that doesn’t solve white Progressivism. Quite the contrary.

                  Speaking of East Anglia, it’s very strange that the most Teutonic part of Britain, perhaps excluding Orkney and Shetland, is the most puritan (Puritan), considering Teutons tend to be *much less* puritanical than Celts, by a wide margin.

                  It’s truly an enigma. Anyway, when you say:

                  >the native stiff-upper-lip types just weren’t lefty enough.

                  Come on. They were the left-most in the world. They really gave the English a run for their money, and went wilder than the French ever could. It’s just that their leftism wasn’t socialistic as much as it was puritanical. With all due respect to classical liberalism, if you have celibacy/sterility because of a vicious holiness spiral, you lose – big time.

                • peppermint says:

                  Only 1790 to 1820? That’s pathetic. Puritanism is therefore an abject failure.

                  But if you say Puritanism lasted another 30 years, it’s obviously to blame for Lincoln’s nigger war.

                  And if it lasted another 50 after that, mass circumcision of Aryan boys, corn flakes and graham crackers, reconstruction, social science professors, and social science professors’ evil war for dhimmocracy and the League of Nations.

                  Thereafter the Puritans passed the torch of destroying civilization to the Jews.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >They were the left-most in the world.

                  You know the whole Dutch elm disease thing? They, having coevolved with their memes, had immunity. Then the holiest of them teamed up with capital to import cheap labor and the easily-proselytizable-to. And the immigrants have been voting for the Guv Givs Gibs party ever since.

                • Cavalier says:

                  For whatever reason, Palatine Germans and Yorkshire-area Englishman have an affinity for one another.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >They, having coevolved with their memes, had immunity.

                  But that’s just not what I see. Anglos have been PWNED *by their own memes* basically throughout the entirety of the American experiment; initially the prosperity provided by the New World made it all but impossible to see the deep flaws in the Puritan memeplex; but eventually, the country built by fucking whites males got infected with AIDS, and that happened due to the memes originating with those very fucking white males.

                  The problem was there fron the get-go.

                  In an alternate universe where it’s not Anglos, but (let’s suspend disbelief; imagine, say, that Islam never happened) Spaniards, Russians, Germans, and possibly some Frenchmen and Dutch who have taken over the North-Western Hemisphere, there’s no puritan problem, and probably no kike problem. Anglos are uniquely susceptible to these issues.

                  And again, if you want to argue for Anglo Supremacy, you have a very strong case; but Supreme or not, the great country built by Anglo males is dying of poz, and is pozzing-to-death the rest of the world with it.

                  (Would that have happened without Jews? Who knows. Fact is, Anglos treat Jews like allies, despite conspicuous lack of reciprocity)

              • Anonymous says:

                When secular Jews “transform” their kids into “transsexuals” (testosterone blockers are literal cock-blockers), an asylum-escapee-tier insane platform which disproportionately harms not red-blooded prole Aryans, but (((fellow leftists))), what is it called? Getting high on one’s own supply.

                When puritans take the doctrines of Christianity, originally intended to convert the pagan goyim into shabbos goyim — as you have claimed — plus the legal tradition of Albion, and use them to evangelize for spiritual as well as material femdom *for themselves*, what is it called? It’s the same thing.

                But if puritans had force-evangelized only to themselves, that would be one thing. Take a look at puritan-occupied Europe, specifically Deutschland, and observe Nippon too. Remember Hitler? Why was it so important for the Americuck regime to defeat him? Because Yankee-Judea demands femdom, cuckoldry, poz, emasculation, and chastity-induced sterility everywhere on Earth, and the unruly Austrian would have had none of it. “Sovereignty” is reserved for the neutered. This is not revisionism. The Cathedral was anti-Hitler and pro-Stalin for ideological reasons, not strategical ones. There’s no strategy behind siding with the fucking Soviet Union against anyone. Lunacy!

                (Also because of Jewish influence, but why would you listen to Jews in the first place? If there’s an imperious Jew sitting on your back, you probably need something more “result-oriented” than osteopathy to solve your back pain, don’t you?)

                Chastity-induced sterility (CIS) – that’s the gist of the puritan programme in but 3 words. Try to break free, get bombed to oblivion. Jim argues that Scott Alexander is sterile because of puritan memes, and that’s probably close to the truth. Puritanism in its modern iteration is the diametrical opposite of a fertility cult – it is a sterility cult. That’s why they promote “Muh Career”, “Muh Consequence-Free Sex”, and “Muh Abortions” to women, and emasculation, faggotry, and subservience to men.

                Puritans push the bad kind of BDSM (femdom) rather than the better kind (male dominance). The end-goal is sexlesness and childnessness. Counterintuitive as it may initially appear, promiscuity-culture has lead to sexlessness. Millennials in general have little sex. Elliott Rodger killed the sorority thots because his balls were blue like the deep ocean, below the surface.

                Promiscuity for the minority is chastity for the majority. Go back to your cubicle job, goy; you don’t deserve sex, love, wife, kids. Find fulfillment in your careeeeeer. Go watch some netflix, poz yourself out. Good goy. Are your women having bestial coitus with dogs and niggers? That’s their right. Meanwhile you’re going to go home and open 31 tubs of pornhub. Chastity-induced sterility is the quintessential puritan agenda, though the Jews are using it to achieve WG. Jews and puritans promulgate the same shit, for slightly different reasons. Puritans occupy Europe from the outside, Jews subvert it from the inside. Double penetration.

                Japan has no substantial Jew Problem, so they only get one edge of the shaft. Who killed Japanese fertility with sterility? Those who “liberated” the Japanese woman: puritans. The Japanese go hikikomori, even married couples don’t have sex, the TFR is atrociously low, and the population is getting geriatric. That’s chastity-induced sterility. That’s your CIS. The Nips are P.O.Ws in a P.O.W (puritan occupied world), and like all captives in an artificial environment, their psyche is deeply perturbed and their sexuality is radically, unhealthily out of sync. It is exactly the “real world, actually existent” puritans who are culpable here.

                Die CIS scum.

                Seriously. Hang the Homos, Gas the Schlomos, and Pike the Puritans.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Canine transmissible venereal tumor is descended from a dog, but isn’t a dog.

                • Anonymous says:

                  But puritanism isn’t just “descended”, cladistically, from the stiff-upper-lip Anglo types. No; puritanism follows them wherever they go. Just as Talmudism isn’t “a Jew”, but it’s a genuine reflection of the Judaic personality; so likewise puritanism isn’t “an Anglo”, but somehow it always happens that where there are Anglos, there is puritanism.

                  Look, Anglos are obviously one of the Master Races, if not the supreme one. They deserve not hate, but love-hate. Love, for all the excellent, superior things they’ve created. Hate, for producing world-devastating memes, in conjunction with the Jews.

                  Contrast them with the Germans, for instance, who are also a Master Race. Well, Germans pretty much dindu nuffin. Were it up to the Germans, modern leftism wouldn’t exist. Chesterton often accused Germans of being “barbarians” who are materialistic (spirituality-lacking) and science-focused. As a Nietzschean, you should view these as compliments, shouldn’t you?

                • peppermint says:

                  How about that catlady slam poet from the 19th century whose packer we had to suck in middle and high school? “Because I would not stop for death, xe gladly stopped for me”. That would be blasphemy if she wasn’t a wymyn.

                  Or Robert Frost: the road forked and I took the narrow road towards salvation instead of the wide and we’ll traveled road to perdition.

                  The Great American Vidya is Bioshock Infinite. In it, a city more lovingly crafted and beautiful than any city of puritans (loving something other than God? Beauty outside of God is vanity) is destroyed by a drunken gambler who sold his own daughter and a rabble of commie terrorists. You play as the rampaging drunkard, and you get to be self-righteous about it because the city is full of sinners.

                  Puritanism’s strength is that is is a religion of jihad. Its weakness is that its jihad is against everything that doesn’t come directly from God, or Nature, or the Computer, instead of against the enemies of the people.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >but somehow it always happens that where there are Anglos, there is puritanism.

                  And somehow Puritanism didn’t get out of hand while it was carried by Anglos exclusively. It had first to possess the serious, humorless, autistic Germans and then the Yid-Bolshevists. Then it mutated, becoming something else entirely.

                  >Were it up to the Germans, modern leftism wouldn’t exist. Chesterton often accused Germans of being “barbarians” who are materialistic (spirituality-lacking) and science-focused. As a Nietzschean, you should view these as compliments, shouldn’t you?

                  Half-German, half-English. I can swing between poles at will. Doesn’t matter to me.

                • jim says:

                  And somehow Puritanism didn’t get out of hand while it was carried by Anglos exclusively.

                  It is the nature of holiness spirals to escalate.

                  And in any case, I would say that Puritanism got out of hand when they emancipated women, freed the slaves, nationalized the British empire, prevented the divorce of Queen Caroline, and raised the age of consent – indeed I would say that Puritanism got out of hand when they started giving undue weight to female consent, all of which predates substantial Jewish influence.

                  The trouble with people who blame the Jews is that they wind up arguing that New Deal was just fine – the trouble with Nazis is not that they are racists, but that they are socialists. Racism works, socialism fails.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >cat lady slam poet
                  >Frost

                  Sorry, I was never subjected to that crap. Although, to be fair to Frost, he’s basically a god compared to the shit-for-brains who get published now.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >It had first to possess the serious, humorless, autistic Germans

                  Well then, here’s the flaw in your argument: Germans have never actually taken over the Puritanism. They may have joined it (because for all their “autism”, they care deeply about integration), but that’s that; the escalation of the purity spiral is still a thoroughly Anglo endeavor. It’s like how various Anglo musicians write excellent music, while the German musicians are better at performing it. So you have the Beatles’ songs performed superbly by Klaus Wunderlich, for instance.

                  Point is, I see no proof that Germans took over puritanism. On the other hand, the Snipdicks do seem to have taken over, but unlike cultured and pro-social Germans who sincerely — perhaps naively — care about integration, the Hebes haven’t so much assimilated puritan memes into their agenda as they have independently come up with their own memes and perhaps just disguised them in puritan veneer.

                  Jews may appeal to the puritan sensibilities, but they aren’t actually earnest puritans and, for the most part, show no signs of attempting to be. The “puritanism” of Jews is nothing but a con devised to promote their own ethnocentric agenda. The actual source of authentic Puritanism was, and remains, Anglos. Jews are pharisaic, so what matters to them is looking holy, not being holy. In fact, prefer to look holy without actually being holy. That’s phariseeism.

                  Germans are earnest. But haven’t taken over. The mutation is a consequence of the Anglo-initiated purity spiral, not foreign subversion. Foreign subversion is clearly evident in Cultural Marxism, and regular Marxism; which at best pay (stiff) lip service to puritanism. Of course, it may well be that the modern left is more Marxist than Puritan, but that’s not the issue.

                  No reason to confuse Jew memes and Anglo memes. Whereas German memes are… nonexistent.

                • Cavalier says:

                  American immigration from the very first was the election of a new people, very much against the wishes of the native population.

                • peppermint says:

                  The problem is Harvard and the fact that puritanism’s jihad appeals in particular to men of leisure through letters.

                  The solution is the eradication of this class though enslavement and sale of their evil schools for redevelopment as luxury condos.

                  Without the professors, the Jewish journalists and entertainment moguls wouldn’t have been able to exert their influence. Without them, corrupt families like the Kennedys and Clintons would never have been able to run cover for the Deep State.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >American immigration from the very first was the election of a new people, very much against the wishes of the native population.

                  That’s true, and again, if Anglo-Americans ever decide to change course and assert their collective authority over the land of their pioneering ancestors, up to and including the expulsion of every post-1820 non-founding-stock American back to his country of origin, that’s understandable. Madison Grant was right.

                  But puritanism is still an affront to human well-being.

                  If and when (((diversity))) is over, I suspect that many non-puritan whites currently immersed in alt-right rhetoric, such as Andrew Anglin, will direct their grousing at puritan mind-control rays, and with similar enthusiasm. Not a certainty, but I can envision the day.

                  Be that as it may, the origin of puritan mind-control rays is not primarily Germans/Scandinavians/Irish/Poles/Italians/Slovenians. Most whites never emitted puritan rays in the first place, and significant numbers of Anglos would opt out of the purity-spiral if given the option. The vast majority of Europe — French, Germans, Italians, Iberians, Greeks, Danes, Dutch, and Slavs — have not arrived at puritanism organically. It was “brought” to them by the same power that now, under Jewish domination, is trying to outright destroy them with mass turd-world immigration.

                  The only people who swallow wholeheartedly the puritanism emanating from the Anglosphere are the Scandinavians of Sweden and Norway, who have taken puritanism to an exceptionally extreme level. In Norwegian schools, it’s forbidden for men to pee standing up. Also, I recall how in one of these countries, a student was charged with “sexual harassment” for — get ready — *refusing* to stare at a female lecturer (her deep cleavage made it impossible for him to concentrate on her words, so he listened to her without looking at her. Sexual harassment!). And we all know how Sweden sees Julian Assange.

                  These 3 examples are what happens when you listen to puritan mind-control rays. Pretending that human sexuality doesn’t exist is a puritan meme.

                  But I digress. If Jim is right, and the rot set in with “all men are created equal”, and with the Victorian conception of human sexuality, then you can hardly blame the German/Italian/Slav immigrants for the poz spreading throughout the Anglosphere. They dindu nuffin. You can and should blame the Jews for Marxism-derived memes and for all the shit that has occurred throughout the 20th century, and that is still occurring. Yid-Bolshevism. So, it follows that there are two sets of memes operating to poz the world:

                  1) Jewish memes, whose purpose is to ruthlessly dominate (Communism), gradually marginalize (Neoconservatism), or finally exterminate (SJW-ism) all white people everywhere;

                  2) Puritan memes, designed to reach levels of purity that shouldn’t even possible, by punishing you for insufficient purity. The telos of puritanism is “struggle against sin”, and if that’s your mentality, then everything you see looks sinful, hence boys aren’t allowed to pee standing-up in Norwegian schools, or the police going after Corey Walgren for possessing an audio of his 16-year-old girlfriend moaning.

                  Neither of these two sets of memes can be blamed on most European ethnicities. Jewish memes have exterminated dozens of millions of white people, and if not stopped, will exterminate hundreds of millions more. Puritan memes look less like a bloodbath full of torn limbs and piles of scorched cadavers, and more like heavy fetters that completely paralyze your movement and turn you into a hapless prey, destined to die a prolonged death from dehydration, or an abrupt death when a predator puts you out of your misery.

                  The only immigrant group that arrived in America between 1820 and 1910 and sent the country down the crapper is Jews. Sure, all the other ones have their own issues. Irrelevant. I’ll repeat: Anglos are a superior Master Race, and everyone outside the Hajnal Line is demonstrably, unequivocally inferior. But puritanism is from inside the Hajnal Line. No coincidence. There are no coincidences.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Progressivism is Puritanism as humans are bony fishes. The majority of the time, including this time, it simply isn’t useful to characterize progs as Puritans, despite their common ancestry, which no one is disputing. Did Puritanism lead inevitably to Progressivm? Perhaps. Perhaps multicellularism led inevitably to Homo sapiens. But progs are nevertheless a complete inversion of everything the Puritans stood for.

                  > then you can hardly blame the German/Italian/Slav immigrants

                  Lefties import Germans > Germans vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some Germans join the lefty gene pool.

                  Lefties import Irishmen > Irishmen vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some Irishmen join the lefty gene pool.

                  Lefties import Italians > Italians vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some Italians join the lefty gene pool.

                  Lefties import Poles > Poles vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some Poles join the lefty gene pool.

                  Lefties import Jews > Jews vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some Jews join the lefty gene pool.

                  Lefties import Jews > Jews vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some Jews join the lefty gene pool.

                  Lefties import Mexicans > Mexicans vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some Mexicans join the lefty gene pool.

                  What do you notice here? The natives, especially the Anglos, and in descending degrees everyone else, already have immunity, so a new electorate is needed.

                  >Puritan memes, designed to reach levels of purity that shouldn’t even possible, by punishing you for insufficient purity. The telos of puritanism is “struggle against sin”, and if that’s your mentality, then everything you see looks sinful

                  What we have today is the result of nearly 600 years of completely free memetic competition. It is for precisely this reason the most adaptive memeplex in existence. But there’s a twist, you see: Progressivism has shut down, blocked out, and walled off all its competition… and in this well-insulated “safe space” is clearly and obviously shriveling, weakening, and stiffening by sclerosis. Whereas, we are descended from Moldbug, who is descended from Progressivism, and in the free anonymity and pseudonymity of the Internet are honing and refining our memes, the best surviving and propagating by natural selection.

                  This thing you call “Puritanism” has gone through several iterations, several completely different incarnations, first exploiting the printing press, then exploiting the First Amendment, then exploiting the television and the radio…

                  Who, I ask you, are the true heirs to the Puritan throne?

                • jim says:

                  Progressivism is Puritanism as humans are bony fishes. The majority of the time, including this time, it simply isn’t useful to characterize progs as Puritans, despite their common ancestry, which no one is disputing. Did Puritanism lead inevitably to Progressivm? Perhaps. Perhaps multicellularism led inevitably to Homo sapiens. But progs are nevertheless a complete inversion of everything the Puritans stood for.

                  Puritans committed regicide, desecrated marriage, raised the age of consent, attacked Christmas, and were general killjoys. I would say today’s progs look mighty like Cromwell’s puritans, and are almost indistinguishable from the lefter than thou puritans that Cromwell violently suppressed. In particular the Diggers were late twentieth century progressives in all respects, except that though holier than Jesus, they were not yet holier than God.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The majority of the time, including this time, it simply isn’t useful to characterize progs as Puritans

                  I’m not characterizing progs as strictly Puritans or Calvinists. That’s what Moldbug did, and his epistemology is wrong. I’m designating a specific personality type — you may call it a “puritan personality disorder”, if you will — as typifying both many (not all) modern lefties and many (not all) modern conservatives. This type of personality is not equally distributed among all ethnicities of mankind.

                  Moldbug’s mistake is twofold.

                  First, his epistemology states that a meme spreads through the same mechanism through which a gene spreads: selection for it. WRONG. Memes spread because the people who are prone to create them gain power relative to other people, which can happen for many different reasons. In other words, memes aren’t selected for by being adaptive. Rather, an ethnicity — or other kind of biological entity, but usually it’s an ethnicity — gains power (again, the manner in which an ethnicity gains power is complex, and memetic warfare usually has very little to do with it), and once it has the power, proceeds to top-down dictate the memes to everyone else.

                  Secondly, Moldbug gives conservatives too much — or too little, depending on your perspective — credit. In Moldbug’s view, the leftists push forward while the conservatives impotently scream “stop!”, and so the leftists keep winning slowly but surely, because the average of 2 and 0 is 1. Sounds nice, but that’s not how it works. In reality, the American left and the American traditional right, when stripped down off various foreign elements, are made from the same cloth, and push *together* in a very similar direction.

                  Taken together, what all this means is that puritans, who yesterday may have been “leftists” and tomorrow may be “rightists”, or vice versa, had been the dominant and animating force in the US (and generally in the Anglosphere) up until the 20th century, when the Jews arrived; and that right now, outside the loci of Jewish influence, the puritans *still* determine which laws are passed, and who goes to jail.

                  Here’s your Red Pill.

                  >Lefties import X > X vote for lefties > lefties drift further left > some X join the lefty gene pool.

                  It’s not that your formula is wrong, it’s that you overestimate its significance. The Jews, for instance, did not move the left further by “voting.” They did it by gaining power (through social climbing, high verbal IQ, nepotism, etc.), then once in power, dictating their own memes to the masses. As with puritans, it’s not that Jewish memes were adaptive, gave Jews an advantage, and thus Jews became powerful. It’s exactly in the other direction: Jews became powerful, gained a memetic advantage by having the media at their disposal, and only thus did Jewish memes win. Power first, meme-dissemination later.

                  And actually, the Jews aren’t the best example for why you overestimate the importance of your proposed formula. Take Italians. Are Italian “votes” a significant factor, overall? Dunno. Has the newly-added Italian DNA attached itself to the American left (thereby bolstering it), or has it simply made America more Italian? I don’t catch a particularly Italian vibe emanating from Harvard. Now, Italians may have been lefter-than-average at the time, but if you explain the leftward drift by pointing at Italian immigration, you have 2 major problems: 1) Italians may be loud, but they aren’t that plentiful; 2) the people in power, who create the memes, do not strike one as very Italian.

                  These 2 problems apply to all other immigrant groups that arrived between 1820 and 1910, except Jews, whom I address here separately. You can say that, taken together, all these white immigrants are numerous enough to cause a leftward drift. Maybe. But the people in power are not Poles, or Italians, or Germans, or Irishmen. And since it is the media-bureaucracy-academia Cathedral complex that constitutes USG, it matters a lot who staffs it. If you don’t see many Poles occupying high positions in those places, then USG is not under Polish influence.

                  So to reiterate, it’s not that your proposed process is wrong. Technically, you’re right. But that’s not the main factor at play in American memetics.

                  >What do you notice here? The natives, especially the Anglos, and in descending degrees everyone else, already have immunity, so a new electorate is needed.

                  What if the causation goes the other way? What if the country becomes leftier first, then immigration occurs as a result? Take Britain. For the past several decades, it has been drifting ever leftwards. Also for the past several decades, there has occurred mass second-world and third-world immigration to Britain. Does that mean that you can explain the leftward drift with the arrival of the foreigners? Nu-uh. Rather, as leftism grew ever lefter, more people were allowed in, and from more “exotic” places. But it’s not the exotics who are the source or engine behind of leftism. Leftism came first, and it came from the people *already in* power. The same people who, as you must have noticed, are still in power.

                  >What we have today is the result of nearly 600 years of completely free memetic competition. It is for precisely this reason the most adaptive memeplex in existence.

                  This is Moldbuggian epistemology. “Free memetic competition.” Not what happened. Rather, different biological entities struggle for power — by manifold means, with memetic warfare being of rather marginal importance; military prowess and the sheer force of numbers are much more important factors — and once there is a victor, the victor imposes his memes on everyone else. In America, there has been up until the 20th century one undisputed biological entity in charge.

                  Puritan memes are not adaptive. Jewish memes are not adaptive. When puritan memes spread through Yeltsin’s Russia, it wasn’t because the puritan memetic complex suddenly defeated all the others by being so much more adaptive. Lol, no. It happened because the hegemon said so, period. Had the hegemon said something different, different memes would have spread. To argue that “the memes are adaptive” is basically an unfalsifiable argument. The memes aren’t adaptive. The memes are chosen for your country by the people in power, and the people gain power independently of the adaptiveness of their memes.

                  “Separation of Church and State” is itself a meme, and it’s no more adaptive than the opposite meme. No; rather, this meme is the result of the founding stock being in charge; when the founding stock is, for whatever reason, no longer in charge, there won’t be SOCAS anymore. Adaptiveness has little to do with it. If the Chinese take over, it won’t prove the adaptiveness of Chinese memes. It will merely prove a certain superiority on the part of the Chinese *themselves*.

                  There is no “free competition of memes” at all here. Moldbug was wrong about several things, this is one of them. There is free competition of groups, a struggle fought by sundry means, not primarily memetics, and the outcome of the struggle determines the shape and form of the resultant memetic complex.

                  WWII was full of memes, but it wasn’t a war between memes. It was a war between biological entities; the biological entity that lost had its memes lose, while the biological entities that won had their memes firmly enshrined worldwide. You can argue that the Germans lost because their memes were not adaptive enough. Would you make a similar argument for every war ever waged by men? It’s silly and wrong. The factors are multitudinous. You can have better memes than I do, but if I start off with more land, better strategists, more people, more trading partners, better geographic location, better natural resources, and the weather happens to be on my side, guess whose memes are, in all likelihood, going to triumph?

                  >Whereas, we are descended from Moldbug, who is descended from Progressivism, and in the free anonymity and pseudonymity of the Internet are honing and refining our memes, the best surviving and propagating by natural selection.

                  The internet is one thing, and the entire world history is another thing. Yes, the internet is indeed a game-changer in this regard. Memetic warfare has never been more real than today (meaning: the further back you go in history, the *less* real it becomes, until you reach our ancient ancestors, who couldn’t communicate through memes even if they wanted to), but even today, if USG shuts down the internet, or China does something especially reckless, or WWIII begins, or a grand natural disaster occurs, pretty sure that all our memes, as dank as they are, may instantly come to naught.

                  I reject your (Moldbug’s) epistemology. Memes have never been the primary factor in determining “who has the power?” Whoever wins, you can always look at his memes and declare “ah yes, it is clear that his memes have made him superior, praise le memes.” Absolutely unfalsifiable. Not buying it.

                  >This thing you call “Puritanism” has gone through several iterations, several completely different incarnations, first exploiting the printing press, then exploiting the First Amendment, then exploiting the television and the radio…

                  And as long as people biologically predisposed to puritanism remain in charge, there will still be some version of puritanism at work throughout the culture. Moldbug, who isn’t as coherent as he seems, implicitly understands this point, though his false epistemology prevents him from saying so outright. So, he ends-up saying “the new state is a Jew state”. And how could it become a Jew state? Only if Jews *already have* enough power to impose Jewish memes on society. It’s not that Jewish memes were sharper than puritan memes, it’s that the Jews themselves have outsmarted the puritans. To a (very limited) degree, may I add.

                  I don’t want a Jew state. I don’t want a puritan state. And there is no guarantee that my ultra-autistic memes are going to make a difference in the long-run. In the long-run, the process is outside our control. The internet does offer some ground for, as you say, “honing and refining our memes”, but it’s naive and even solipsistic to think that the sun shines out of our arse.

                  Nick Land has noted that the alt-right, or Neoreaction, rise not because the AR/NRx memes are superior, but simply as a natural result of the Cathedral weakening. Meaning, first the Cathedral had become weaker (due to several factors), then an alternative ideology, and an aspiring new elite, began blooming, filling some vacuum. We don’t know for how long this blooming will last. Hopefully, long enough to be there after (“if and when”) the whole system falls down. But you can’t promise that, can you?

                  >Who, I ask you, are the true heirs to the Puritan throne?

                  The very center is full of Jews. The vast periphery, which is larger than the center by 9,900%, is Anglo-dominated. Everyone else, except the Chinese and (maybe) the Russians, have no say at all. The Puritans have conquered the world, and Jews have occupied the center of the Puritan base. We like to imagine Jews and Puritans as natural enemies, but it seems that they get along just fine.

                  And the short answer is that anyone who has a puritanical personality, and who is invested with power, is the heir; the puritanical personality afflicts superior whites more-so than inferior non-whites, and it afflicts the superior Anglos more-so than the other white ethnicities; and Jews were cunning enough to be able to pretend to be puritans so they were allowed to gain power.

                  Anglos are one of the best white ethnicities, and the most puritan of them all. However, the definite Anglo superiority in very many fields doesn’t prove the superiority of puritanism, any more than Ashkenazi high verbal IQ proves the correctness of Talmudic memes. Life is full of paradoxes and nuances. Englishmen are superior to Latvians, but Latvians are saner and more naturally right-wing. Ashkenazim are “smarter” than Danes, but you’d rather have a country full of Danes than one full of Ashkenazim. These are the paradoxes of life.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Memes spread because the people who are prone to create them gain power relative to other people, which can happen for many different reasons.

                  Yes, that is the selection. That is how the “Puritanism” memeplex gradually went from strict monogamy and the highest fertility humans are capable of sustaining to subhuman-tier sexual degeneracy and the lowest fertility humans can be impelled to do. And that story is the story of democratic politics, of the voter and the expansion of the franchise, of the least common denominator.

                  >Sounds nice, but that’s not how it works. In reality, the American left and the American traditional right, when stripped down off various foreign elements, are made from the same cloth, and push *together* in a very similar direction.

                  Not really. The conservatives don’t push for anything. In fact, their function is right their in their name: “conserve”. All they do is conserve what we already have. Now, occasionally, a con will defect, but that’s just part of progress. Most cons are loyal to their cause. Now, you might argue that the conservatives have been winning on the economic side of things, and in a certain sense (the “massive money” sense), they have, but then that’s just a case of con/lib polarity flip.

                  >It’s not that your formula is wrong, it’s that you overestimate its significance. The Jews, for instance, did not move the left further by “voting.”

                  I don’t think I do. It’s clear that Moldbug was wrong: Congress is firmly in charge of the bureaucracy. Granted, Congress is mostly aligned with the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy is more or less on autopilot, but the point is that when Congress wills something, the bureaucracy follows through — unless the bureaucracy can get the thing in question vetoed by the President or by the Supreme Court. For this I cite Obamacare: something every prog everywhere has wanted to absolutely ages, but nothing ever happened until Congress signed on the dotted line.

                  >It’s exactly in the other direction: Jews became powerful, gained a memetic advantage by having the media at their disposal, and only thus did Jewish memes win.

                  Incompatible. First you say that “Puritan” memes are dominant, and then you say that Jewish memes are dominant. Pick one.

                  Also, Jews became powerful by selling their souls to the “Puritans” — that much is clear. They gained some minor influence in exchange, but it was obviously minor.

                  >Italian “votes” a significant factor, overall? Dunno.

                  The Italians and the Irish have been bloc voting for the left since they arrived. And they were a more cohesive bloc than the Africans are today. I’ve heard reliable anecdotes that one could go to the Irish part of the city, knock on everyone’s doors, and not find one single Republican voter.

                  >Italians may be loud, but they aren’t that plentiful

                  La Wiki says 5.5% of the “White” population today considers itself Italian. Plus, you evidently have never been to the Northeast — they’re like a plague.

                  >But the people in power are not Poles, or Italians, or Germans, or Irishmen.

                  Obviously false. Many of the most effective agents are conversos, conversos both to being Americans and to being progressives.

                  >If you don’t see many Poles occupying high positions in those places, then USG is not under Polish influence.

                  Strictly speaking, this isn’t true. Real power is invisible; you won’t see it at all. Anyway, there are Poles and other Slavs lending their talents to US power, and sometimes you even get to see them, like Zbigniew Brzezinski or Natalie Jaresko. That isn’t equivalent to “under X influence” in the least.

                  >What if the causation goes the other way? What if the country becomes leftier first, then immigration occurs as a result?

                  Is the power of the Democratic Party expanding because it has ever more mestizo voters and welfare clients, or is the expanding power of the Democratic Party causing it to have ever more mestizo voters and welfare clients?

                  >The same people who, as you must have noticed, are still in power.

                  Not the same individuals, though. Part of the same continuity, yes, but a continuity that curves ever leftwards as a result of organic voting trends.

                  >“Free memetic competition.” Not what happened. Rather, different biological entities struggle for power — by manifold means, with memetic warfare being of rather marginal importance; military prowess and the sheer force of numbers are much more important factors

                  Between systems, this holds true. Within our system, this does not. In our system, there has been free competition for a very long time. “Insecure power”, if you will. Bad for the people whose power is insecure, and bad for the people whose rulers’ power in insecure, but great for the virulence of the memes involved.

                  Memetic warfare, in democracy, is paramount, and military prowess insignificant. Least common denominator, remember. From Puritan to well…

                  >When puritan memes spread through Yeltsin’s Russia

                  What about when “Puritan” memes spread through Romanov’s Russia?

                  >If the Chinese take over, it won’t prove the adaptiveness of Chinese memes. It will merely prove a certain superiority on the part of the Chinese *themselves*.

                  …And how might the Chinese take over?

                  >Memetic warfare has never been more real than today

                  Please. The apex of memetic warfare was FDR, Hitler, and Trotsky.

                  >Englishmen are superior to Latvians, but Latvians are saner and more naturally right-wing.

                  >the heir

                  You complete missed it.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Catholic doctrine had declared virginity superior to marriage; the Puritan reply was that marriage “is a state . . . Far more excellent than the condition of single life.” Many Catholic commentators claimed that sexual intercourse had been the resultof the Fall and did not occur in Paradise; the Puritan comeback was that marriage was ordained by God, “and that not in this sinful world, but in paradise, that most joyful garden of pleasure.”

                  Here you are, Peppermint:

                  > So closely linked were the ideas of marriage and sex that the Puritans usually defined marriage partly in terms of sexual union.

                  >is a coupling together of two persons into one flesh, according to the ordinance of God. . . . By yoking, joining, or coupling is meant, not only outward dwelling together of the married folks . . . but also an uniform agreement of mind and a common participation of body and goods.

                  Whoa, dude, like, man.

                  >Given the Catholic background against which they wrote and preached, the Puritans’ praise of marriage was at the same time an implicit endorsement of marital sex as good. They elaborated that point specifically and often. This becomes clearer once we are clued into the now-outdated terms by which they customarily referred to sexual intercourse: “matrimonial duty,” “cohabitation,” “act of matrimony,” and (especially) “due benevolence.”

                  >to justify and make legitimate the rites of the marriage bed; which was not unneedful, if for all this warrant they were suspected of pollution by some sects of philosophy and religions of old, and latelier among the Papists.

                  Out from under the Papist thumb.

                • peppermint says:

                  How to Puritan:

                  (1) take sacramental theology and remove priests because they’re not pure enough. Ironically this means getting marriage right, though it’s polite to have a party with all the relatives and everyone.

                  (2) instead of having hypocritical confessions in front of a priest, sincere confessions in front of God alone. That’s what the Elect do.

                  (3) prove you’re Elect through supererogation

                  (4) call everyone else out on not being pure enough and dancing and celebrating Christmas

                  (5) write gay poetry about death waiting for you because you have more holy work or taking the road less traveled by

                  (6) talk about how much you would prefer an Elect nigger marry your daughter instead of a normie

                  (7) get racially replaced in the city your people founded by Irishmen. Try to get them racially replaced with niggers.

                  (8) peace on earth, good will towards men

                • Anonymous says:

                  >And that story is the story of democratic politics, of the voter and the expansion of the franchise, of the least common denominator.

                  You neglect to mention the purity-spiral. I’ts the purity-spiral that transformed the puritans from the relatively stable folks they were into the degenerate and unstable people that they’ve become, combined with Jewish memes. While it’s true that democracy incentivizes the purity-spiral, these things happen independently of democracy.

                  >Not really. The conservatives don’t push for anything. In fact, their function is right their in their name: “conserve”. All they do is conserve what we already have.

                  False. Names don’t mean anything. Of course “conservatives” push their own agenda. Look:

                  “Washington, D.C. — In a move that advances the Trump administration’s push to establish mandatory minimum sentencing practices nationwide, last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would require courts to send teens convicted of sexting to federal prison for 15 years.

                  The bill — the “Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017” — was introduced back in March by Representative Mike Johnson, a conservative from Louisiana. He and the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly supported the legislation, with only two from the right side of aisle voting against it, along with 53 Democrats who opposed the bill.

                  But Johnson, the Louisiana congressman who introduced the bill — and who has also been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump — seems to think the federal government has the divine right to dictate policy. He said so himself while speaking on the House floor:

                  “In Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.””

                  http://theantimedia.org/sexting-teens-prison/

                  How is that not a purity-spiral? Here you have one Mike Johnson, a scripture-quoting conservative Republican from Louisiana (by no means a ‘prog’) illegalizing yet more pixels and audio-signals. The intensified illegalization of pixels and audio-signals is core puritanism in action.

                  Do they need to make tea-possession a capital crime for you to see that it’s puritanism in action? Because that’s how purity-spirals work. First you have alcohol prohibition, then all caffeinated beverages are illegal, and finally only water is allowed (or is it?). Slopes are slippery. Now, since prohibition was repealed, the purity-spiral stopped there. But sexual puritanism is alive and kicking, hence mandatory 15 years of jail-rape for teens who possess sinister pixels and sinister audio-signals.

                  >Incompatible. First you say that “Puritan” memes are dominant, and then you say that Jewish memes are dominant. Pick one.

                  America is a chimera of puritan memes and Jewish memes. The central Jewish meme of the 20th century is extermination of whites, and extermination of whites is actually very compatible with puritanism. When puritans say “chastity is good”, and Jews say “promiscuity is good”, the end-result is sterility whichever option one chooses. Both paths lead to the same doom.

                  Americans need to be told: “chastity is not good and promiscuity is not good – get married young, have lots of sex, be fruitful and multiply.” Now, you claim that this was the puritan position back in the day. Obviously, modern puritans don’t hold that position; they are busy worrying about satanic pixels and audio-signals.

                  Like fish in water, you are so steeped in puritanism that you can’t even notice it. 40 years ago in Europe, you could have a sense of what non-puritanized life is like. The problem in Europe was that the Judeo-Puritan coalition ruling the Anglosphere had pozzed the shit out of everything, spreading Jewish memes (shitskin immigration) and puritan memes (the usual joykilling) to effectively destroy the whole continent.

                  Would all that have happened had WWII ended in a different outcome? Who knows. Surely the shitskin immigration would be unimaginable.

                  >Obviously false. Many of the most effective agents are conversos, conversos both to being Americans and to being progressives.

                  Agents? You must mean entertainers. Right, converso entertainers are very effective. But the professors and the top bureaucrats and most of the journo-media are biological puritans and biological kikes, not polacks/spaghetti/micks.

                  You are focused on “progressives” rather than on “Jews + Puritans” because you still view things from the perspective of a certain mischling American patriot who believes that “Cthulhu swims left because of demotism” when in fact Cthulhu swims towards puritanism and kikery because of the people in charge of him.

                  Progressivism and conservatism are not real categories. These are meaningless terms. Progressivism is not about progress and conservatism isn’t about conservation. Puritanism, on the other hand, has real explanatory power, and indeed you can demonstrate that “rightwing” and “leftwing” ideologies derived from puritanism all push in approximately the same direction, just with slight variation.

                  In the same way that “rightwing” and “leftwing” Jewish ideologies such as, respectively, Straussianism and Trotskyism all basically push in the same direction, just with slight variation. Now clearly, you can see that Straussianism and Trotskyism are both Judaic, and whether or not one is “progressive” and the other “conservative” is just not relevant and not interesting. Boring. What’s relevant is that a real category — Jews — is behind it. That’s all.

                  So in the same way, the distinction between puritan-derived “traditionalism” and puritan-derived “feminism” is much smaller than one would initially assume; these “enemies” are actually very frequent, and intimate at that, bedfellows. Which is why Mike Johnson should be described as a puritan, not as a “conservative”, since the first is a real category with actual explanatory power, while the second category doesn’t tell you much.

                  Moldbug didn’t want to take his “cladistics” idea far enough, because if taken far enough, discover that the puritans of today are surprisingly similar to the puritans of yesterday, and are still pushing the same shit, but with novel “twists”; and likewise, the Jews of today aren’t that different from the Jews of yesterday, and culturalmarxism is still marxism.

                  In Moldbug’s view, demotism is the source of the problem. Thus, dislike for Hitler and Trump. (or maybe he dislikes Hitler and *therefore* blames everything on demotism)

                  He’s wrong, demotism isn’t the principal problem. Specific groups are the problem, and ITT these specific groups are explicitly named: puritans and Jews. Both Jews and puritans are prone to have purity spirals (in the case of Jews, we call it “holiness spirals”), and are prone to propagate their own unique memes, which can show up as either “leftwing” or “rightwing”, “prog” or “con”, doesn’t matter.

                  When you say that feminism is a “prog” meme, you say nothing at all. Gibberish. In contrast, when you say that originally it’s a puritan meme; however, one that is currently heavily infested with subversive Jewish baggage – now, *that’s* a meaningful statement. It has explanatory power. The people behind the damn thing, both past and present, are explicitly “named.” You can visualize them. You can analyze their motives, their psychological impulses. That’s pure gold.

                  Jim and Kevin, both from Clann Dòmhnaill, have each deciphered and elucidated the different origins of the modern malaise – Jim has shown how pre-20th-century memes are puritan, while Kevin has shown how post-20th-century memes are Jewish.

                  >Real power is invisible; you won’t see it at all.

                  Balderdash. You know that power exists because you feel governmental intrusion into every sphere of your life; and you know who has that power based on the nature of said intrusion. If the guy robbing you has an ebonics accent, you know it’s a hoodrat nigger, regardless of the balaclava. If Mike Johnson sends your teen son to 15 years in prison for the appalling, heinous crime of possessing sinister pixels and profligate audio-signals on his mobile phone, you needn’t guess what motivates Mike Johnson. You know what this is about.

                  The Deep State is the Deepshit State. Power has never been more transparent. The “human material” filling the ranks of the Feds is out there in the open. And the “human material” entrenched within the innermost chambers of the Cathedral-complex is pretty much constantly “in your face.”

                  It’s a black Coalition of Cucks & Kikes. You can say it’s a “black COCK.” The world is governed by a gigantic, intrusive, black COCK. (seriously though: it’s a coalition of cucks and kikes, and that has never been more obvious) (man, I should’ve come up with this pun in the Obama era)

                  >Is the power of the Democratic Party expanding because it has ever more mestizo voters and welfare clients, or is the expanding power of the Democratic Party causing it to have ever more mestizo voters and welfare clients?

                  What are you talking about? Mestizos are brought by dems and repubs alike – the entire deepshit establishment wants them, the entire cathedral (power center), not just one of the parties. To answer your question – the “left” is getting ever lefter, all the time, and it getting ever lefter, all the time, is the reason why spics, niggers, and sandniggers keep arriving at accelerating pace – the left (puritans and Jews) getting ever more insane is why the worst garbage on Earth is actively invited to the US.

                  So, first the left is getting more batshit barking-mad frothing-at-the-mouth crazy, *then* various species of shitskin are invited – the more far gone is the establishment up in its purity-spiral, the worse are the specimens that are invited. Since the entire cathedral is acting as one, this is not an issue of one party overcoming another and gaining power at its expense. (it’s one party with an outer and inner wings) The people who already have the power haven’t changed for the last 100 years. Some 150 years ago, it was strictly puritans. The Jews were then invited, for various reasons, gained power by hook and by crook, and 50 years afterwards – voila, coalition of cucks and kikes, which hasn’t changed.

                  The key phrase is “already have”. Both factions of the cathedral, the puritans and the Jews, are not in any fierce competition. On the contrary, they amalgamate – literally, they marry each other. That’s how WASP-Jew Moldbug was born. Power hasn’t changed for 100 years, but due to the purity spiral, the people already in power got madder – hence military age nigger and sandnigger men invited RIGHT NOW.

                  >Part of the same continuity, yes, but a continuity that curves ever leftwards as a result of organic voting trends.

                  NO. As a result of people in power passionately engaging in a purity spiral, which they have been doing, and would be doing, regardless of Italians and Poles. The only “organic” thing here is the purity spiral.

                  Now, of course there is a feedback loop. I do not gainsay it. But the feedback loop is always initiated when the people already in power move “of themselves” to the left, which happens because we’re going through a morally panicked purity-spiral right now.

                  You don’t need any outsiders to explain the leftward drift – it has been well documented in homogenous societies as well as in “immigrant societies.” After all, America used to be rather homogenous. But then leftism (of the puritan brand) intensified, in an ever-escalating purity spiral, and all kinds of people were allowed in. The country would’ve moved leftwards regardless, but yes, it’s true that the immigrants have fed a feedback loop. It’s just that the feedback loop isn’t the main issue – the main issue is the “organic” purity spiral.

                  >What about when “Puritan” memes spread through Romanov’s Russia?

                  The Russian nobility and intelligentsia have always been dependent on European “memetic sovereignty.” Where, or by whom, do you think that the entire upper class has been educated? There really wasn’t much of a “free competition of memes” here. On the very contrary – enlightenment crap was adopted in Russia rather swiftly. For instance, wik says:

                  “The need for urgent reform was well understood in 19th-century Russia. Much support for it emanated from universities, authors and other intellectual circles. Various projects of emancipation reforms were prepared by Mikhail Speransky, Nikolay Mordvinov, and Pavel Kiselyov. However, conservative or reactionary nobility thwarted their efforts. In Western guberniyas serfdom was abolished early in the century. In Congress Poland, serfdom had been abolished before it became Russian (by Napoleon in 1807). Serfdom was abolished in the Governorate of Estonia in 1816, in Courland in 1817, and in Livonia in 1819.[5]”

                  Yes, it says here that “conservative or reactionary nobility thwarted their efforts”, but in 1861 — that’s quite a short lapse of time — it happened. Where’s your competition of memes here? It’s not here. Has nothing to do with any purported “adaptiveness” of enlightenment (later puritan) memes, or lack thereof.

                  >…And how might the Chinese take over?

                  There are 1.3 billion of them, and their average IQ is 105. Is it because communist memes are adaptive? Nah – communist memes have sunk their TFR and poisoned large portions of their brains.

                  Or do you expect a Confucian memeplex to wholesale replace the Judeo-Puritan memeplex by the sheer soundness of its teaching? Lel. If you’re going to ignore all possible factors that may influence the prevalence (or lack thereof) of a meme, and concentrate exclusively on “memetic competition”, well, that’s looking for the keys under the lamppost.

                  >Please. The apex of memetic warfare was FDR, Hitler, and Trotsky.

                  And? The outcome of the war has been influenced by myriads of factors. The reason Europe isn’t Naziland today lies not in the weaknesses and strengths of Nazi memes, or the weaknesses and strengths of the competing memes. Nope. It could’ve ended in a completely different outcome had certain conditions were different.

                  Memetic competition doesn’t explain why the world today looks the way it does. It may explain the future, because the future is indeed intensified memetic warfare. But if these are the only lenses through which you analyze the rise and fall of memes throughout history, then your perspective is deeply flawed. Memetic warfare hasn’t an unlimited explanatory power.

                  >You complete missed it.

                  An elite composed of puritan WASPs and quasi-puritan Jews, if that’s the answer you were looking for.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >take sacramental theology and remove priests because they’re not pure enough. Ironically this means getting marriage right, though it’s polite to have a party with all the relatives and everyone

                  Great.

                  >instead of having hypocritical confessions in front of a priest, sincere confessions in front of God alone. That’s what the Elect do.

                  It is the eternal dilemma: give the priest the power, or keep your dirty laundry to yourself?

                  >prove you’re Elect through supererogation

                  The purest Hajnalienism.

                  >call everyone else out on not being pure enough and dancing and celebrating Christmas

                  “We’re pure Christians, so let’s kill that old pagan ritual.”

                  >write gay poetry about death waiting for you because you have more holy work or taking the road less traveled by

                  Puritanism: a 20th century phenomenon: the post.

                  Also, I update my opinion on Frost, if this article is true.

                  >talk about how much you would prefer an Elect nigger marry your daughter instead of a normie

                  Not the Puritans. Not even the Progressives. Only the connedservatives trying to put-prog the progs, and other poor, status-anxious, and insecure interlopers. Fun fact: the real deal look down on people who touch politics in public as crass and low-status, because they are.

                  >get racially replaced in the city your people founded by Irishmen. Try to get them racially replaced with niggers.

                  Class warfare, cheap labor, mutation, and immigrants vote left.

                  >peace on earth, good will towards men

                  “on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests”, where peace == [undisputed victory]

                • Cavalier says:

                  Your example is of garden-variety conservatives moving the right edge of the Overton window, making formal what has already been solidly established by progressives, the vanguards of the left edge of the Overton window. If you have a point with regards to this, it isn’t clear.

                  Prohibition was the experimental phase of woman suffrage.

                  >When puritans say “chastity is good”, and Jews say “promiscuity is good”

                  Extermination of whites is incompatible with Puritanism, who thought themselves a light unto civilizations, that they were destined to inherit the earth, and all that.

                  Puritans said “Catholic chastity not good, let us rather encourage marriage and encourage sexuality within marriage.”

                  Jews are just sexual degenerates.

                  >modern puritans don’t hold that position; they are busy worrying about satanic pixels and audio-signals

                  We have a perfectly good word for this: progressives. Are they descended from the Puritans? Yes. Are they Puritans? No. Stop debasing the English language.

                  >Like fish in water, you are so steeped in puritanism that you can’t even notice it.

                  Not really.

                  >Would all that have happened had WWII ended in a different outcome?

                  Maybe. After Hitler’s death the Reich would have devolved into oligarchy, as Hitler had no heir and was due to die soon anyway, and though Germany did have a solid shot-in-the-arm of Führerprinzip, I’ve read things suggesting that Adie neglected the Nazi/aristocratic education of his future elite in his special schools.

                  >because you still view things from the perspective of a certain mischling American patriot who believes that “Cthulhu swims left because of demotism” when in fact Cthulhu swims towards puritanism and kikery because of the people in charge of him.

                  It’s pretty simple, really. Is ideology in the driver’s seat of power, or is power in the driver’s seat of ideology? Ideology is pretty and a great organizing tool, but power is power. Given natural selection, which do you think comes out on top?

                  >because if taken far enough, discover that the puritans of today are surprisingly similar to the puritans of yesterday, and are still pushing the same shit, but with novel “twists”; and likewise, the Jews of today aren’t that different from the Jews of yesterday, and culturalmarxism is still marxism.

                  The mechanism is the same, but the substance is radically different.

                  >feminism

                  >You know that power exists because you feel governmental intrusion into every sphere of your life

                  The highest power is financial, and inflation is invisible, intangible, and to the polloi, virtually unnoticeable, and Washington, D.C. is the most middle-class city in America.

                  >it’s a coalition of cucks and kikes, and that has never been more obvious

                  Are they cuckolding themselves, or are they cuckolding you?

                  >Mestizos are brought by dems and repubs alike – the entire deepshit establishment wants them, the entire cathedral (power center), not just one of the parties.

                  Yes. And yet the Republicans want them as much as the Democrats, almost like the Republicans aren’t their own master.

                  >the people already in power got madder, hence military-age niggers and sandniggers

                  There are two possibilities here. The first is that they really are nuts, and are undermining themselves because they hate having power so much. The second is that their power is so secure that they can do whatever the fuck they want — firstly, that the *nig males are no threat to them, and secondly, that their own people are no threat to them… both of which propositions are manifestly true.

                  >Chinese

                  Can the Chinese fight a war and win? First they have to want to engage in war. Then they have to mobilize. Then they have to fight vaingloriously in battle. Or they can just use nukes, but, you know, MAD. Maybe they win economically without warfare, but I’m not convinced.

                  >Memetic competition

                  Competition within memeplexes, not competition between memeplexes. Nazism lost because of an early winter and because Hitler couldn’t get his hands on enough oil. Feminism won because it empowered women to expand the federal government.

                  >memetic heirs

                  Us.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Your example is of garden-variety conservatives moving the right edge of the Overton window, making formal what has already been solidly established by progressives, the vanguards of the left edge of the Overton window. If you have a point with regards to this, it isn’t clear.

                  That’s how these things go. One after another, unprincipled exceptions are eliminated, and because the worldview is impractical when attempted in earnest, usually this process stops just short before the last unprincipled exceptions are eliminated – or else, there’s collapse.

                  The bigger point is that the “left” and the “right” today, as during the past 2 centuries, are usually just two wings of the same meme. In this particular example, it’s the “right wing” of puritanism in action; which goes to show that the important distinction is not between left and right, but between puritan and non-puritan. (and, in different contexts, between Jewish and non-Jewish)

                  Two words: “meta ideology.” Left and right are usually within the same ideological framework. Different angles, same edifice. The meta ideology here is puritanism. Back in the glorious days of NRx, it purported to be not simply another ideology, but a meta-ideology. An ideology of ideologies.

                  Take national socialism. That’s an obvious meta-ideology. Within the nazi framework, there can be more “left” and more “right” bents, with very bitter disagreements between the two poles; but it’s still clear that the operative idea is nazism. It’s not a particular location on a spectrum. It’s a completely distinct spectrum of its own.

                  In the same way, when you worry about sinister pixels, it doesn’t matter if you articulate your worries with religious jargon or with feminist jargon. In practice, what you’re looking for is criminalization of pixels for their insufficient purity. Does it matter if your motivation and argumentation are considered “right” or “left”? For someone who rejects your entire worldview — your meta ideology — this distinction is wholly irrelevant.

                  Which means that the bigger point is that Mike Johnson operates within the framework of puritanism, and his “conservatism” is only pertinent once one accepts the validity of the puritan framework, which I do not. I know, it’s a very autistic point, but it’s a crucial one to make when discussing meta ideologies.

                  If you understand this, you understand why it’s pretty pointless to define the the dominant memetic framework(s) within contemporary occidental society as “progressive” versus “non-progressive.”

                  From yet another perspective: the eugenics movement, and the larger Darwinism movement, were originally “progressive.” Why should it matter to us?

                  It’s the prerogative of distance. Think of two hardcore Islamist ideologies. One of them would be the more “left”, the other – more “right.” Would you bother making any such distinction, in practice? Both of them are after your throat. Both don’t belong in your country.

                  The overton window is defined by the meta ideology.

                  >Extermination of whites is incompatible with Puritanism, who thought themselves a light unto civilizations, that they were destined to inherit the earth, and all that.

                  Extermination of the bourgeoisie is incompatible with democratic socialism, which seeks reform by peaceful methods, empowerment rather than disempowerment, and all that. Yet, somehow, in practice, the extermination does occur.

                  >Puritans said “Catholic chastity not good, let us rather encourage marriage and encourage sexuality within marriage.”

                  That’s the first generation. Next generation, sex within marriage is still encouraged, but there are some added conditions: a husband shall not raise his hand to discipline his wife, for instance. Next generation, sex within marriage still encouraged, but let’s invent the notion of “marital rape” – you know, “just in case.” Next generation, sex within marriage still encouraged, but divorce results in the wife having full custody of your kids, whom you must fully subsidize but can rarely see, and taking half of your stuff. And so on and so forth.

                  Eventually, you simply can no longer say that sex within marriage is encouraged. That doesn’t prove that the system isn’t puritan anymore. On the contrary – proves that it is more puritan than ever; proves that puritanism has been taken to its logical end-point, and that all the unprincipled exceptions have been removed. Purity finally reins supreme. Removal of unprincipled exceptions means that the inner logic of an ideology is allowed to play out. That’s what we’re seeing.

                  >Are they cuckolding themselves, or are they cuckolding you?

                  There are only so many subhumans one can import into one’s country before the effect is felt by everyone except the billionaires – and your average Brahmin is far from being a billionaire. Everyone, almost, is cucked.

                  >Competition within memeplexes, not competition between memeplexes.

                  Okay, but do you understand why marriage that in theory isn’t supposed to be chaste, but in practice is heavily incentivized to be chaste (thus, it isn’t a real marriage), is puritanism playing out its inner logic – rather than, say, shintoism playing out its inner logic?

                  (The answer is that as long as biological puritans, rather than biological nips, are in charge of the memeplex — as long as memetic sovereignty belongs to puritans — it follows that whatever shape and form the memeplex takes, it must necessarily be the design of the puritans)

                  The people who came up with the meta ideology were puritans. And the people who have guided it (“mutated” it, if you will) all the way to the 20th century were puritans, given memeplexes are thought-out by the cognitive elite and are disseminated top-down, rather than vice versa. Then the Jews came, took over top positions within the cathedral, and once there, injected the puritan memeplex with Jewish memes, chiefly among them being the extermination of whites.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Okay, but do you understand why marriage that in theory isn’t supposed to be chaste, but in practice is heavily incentivized to be chaste (thus, it isn’t a real marriage), is puritanism playing out its inner logic

                  You’re not making any sense, frankly. Puritan marriage, when it existed, wasn’t chaste within marriage, whereas marriage heavily incentivized to be chaste, thus being not a real marriage, was Catholic. You know, Catholic guilt; and I’ve heard through the grapevine that really serious Catholic men abstain from non-reproductive sex with their wives, which, firstly, is insane, and secondly, doesn’t seem to have noticeably improved their fertility over the societal norm.

                  Was that ideological difference the prime cause of the early fertility transition of the Anglos and of the late fertility transition of the Catholics? Maybe, but I’m skeptical.

                  >From yet another perspective: the eugenics movement, and the larger Darwinism movement, were originally “progressive.” Why should it matter to us?

                  Because, like anything else, ideology is only good or bad measured by its effects. Eugenics would have excellent effects on us — “good genes”; it’s basically axiomatic. Worldwide dysgenia is what’s killing us. Both were (or are) “progressive” in their time and place, but their outcomes are completely and totally different. Similarly, “progressivism” in the 20th century alone showed a remarkable ability of adaptation, encompassing social systems producing total fertility as high as 3.7 and as low as 1.2, most notably dramatically reversing itself for about 30 years, starting in 1933. Golly gee, I wonder what happened in 1933.

                  What is the difference? The difference is not derived from ideology. That would imply that “progressivism” is somehow consistent and coherent in its weltanshauung in an ideological sense, which it manifestly is not. However, “progressivism” is consistent and coherent in its weltanshauung, which is: that which is effective and expedient for the acquisition and maintenance of power. In other words, “progressivism” is not an ideological phenomenon. Nazism was an ideological phenomenon. Communism was an ideological phenomenon. Christianity was an ideological phenomenon. And all were very effective, in their time and place. But none of them could proclaim one thing in the morning, turn on a dime at noon, and proclaim the exact opposite thing in the afternoon, if it were so advantageous.

                  >There are only so many subhumans one can import into one’s country before the effect is felt by everyone except the billionaires – and your average Brahmin is far from being a billionaire. Everyone, almost, is cucked.

                  I look at cities and I see a whole lot of territory being reclaimed — gentrified, if you will. Entire neighborhoods in D.C. The schools and hospitals in St. Louis are growing self-contained cities-within-cities around themselves. The UES isn’t quite the place it used to be. Visit Park Slope sometime; its denizens think of themselves in terms like “double stroller”. Are they degenerate? Probably, by any reasonable standard. And yet….

                  P.S.

                  >Brahmins being in charge

                  lol

                  >average Brahmins being in charge

                  lol^n

                • peppermint says:

                  you think a culture honoring thots like Emily Dickinson is fertile? Only one of traitor Harriet Breecher Stowe’s children reproduced.

              • jim says:

                This is not true.

                And I know it is not true, because the Puritan aristocrats failed to reproduce. People are extremely proud of being descended from those that came over in the Mayflower, and there just are not very many people who can trace their descent to those that came over in the Mayflower.

                The claim that a significant portion of Americans are descended from Puritans is inconsistent with genealogies. We find very few twentieth century, or even nineteenth century, biological descendants of the early Puritan settlers.

                Pretty sure we know every biological descendant of the Mather family to the nineteenth century, and there were very few of them.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >People are extremely proud of being descended from those that came over in the Mayflower

                  Nope.

                  >and there just are not very many people who can trace their descent to those that came over in the Mayflower

                  Nope.

                  >The claim that a significant portion of Americans are descended from Puritans is inconsistent with genealogies.

                  Which Americans? Obviously not the Scandis or the Germans who settled the Midwest and Great Lakes, or the cracker whites in Appalachia, or the Poles who came to the cities and never left, or the Italian denizens of Long Island, or whoever settled way-the-fuck-out in California… but nearly everyone in New England with English ancestry has at least one Puritan ancestor.

                  >Pretty sure we know every biological descendant of the Mather family to the nineteenth century, and there were very few of them.

                  We already covered this, dude. Your Mather anecdote is silly and wrong.

                  Firstly, you have this:

                  “[Cotton Mather] was twice widowed, and only two of his 15 children survived him; he died on the day after his 65th birthday and was buried on Copp’s Hill, near Old North Church.”

                  Tried for 15, got 2. Bad genes and shitty luck. 15. How many did you try for?

                  Then you go here and discover that one of his daughters had 4 children, one of the second generation had 9 children, one of the third generation had 4, and one of the fourth generation had 9 and another one 6. The truth is that no one really knows about the others, because evidently no one has cared to publish the info on the Internet, but we can reliably say that a) these people didn’t live in isolation, but in their communities, among whom they were born, grew up, and died, and thus their fertility was overwhelmingly probably in line with their communities’ norms, b) we know that the TFR in America was 7 in 1800 and 3.5 in 1900, and c) we do have information on two of Mather’s fourth-generation descendants around 1800, and their fertility, averaged between the two of them, was 7.5 — slightly higher than the overall population’s norm.

                  In short, I’m calling you out on your bullshit.

                • B says:

                  Typical Jim logic. Instead of looking up how many kids the actual Puritans actually had, let’s take a semi-factoid about today and make some sweeping extrapolations.

                  Another figure is Daniel Boone, who came from Quaker stock (quite close to Puritans) and had ten kids with his wife Susannah (despite spending a couple of his prime years in Indian captivity, where he had a couple more kids with his Indian wife.)

                  Or you can look up the founders of Rhode Island-one had no children, the others had 6-14.

                  But why read all that old boring shit when you can just make something up off the top of your head? If you say it confidently enough, what are the odds someone will check you?

                • jim says:

                  I have read the genealogy of the Mather family. Some of them, quite a few of them, had ten children or so, but with high infant mortality, late marriage, and failure to marry, they just died out. That later Mathers are all imports from England fleeing the restoration. When one Mather had ten children, another would not, and a lot of those ten children would die, and the remainder would fail to produce surviving children of their own, due to late marriage.

                  Yes, the number of children was often high by modern standards. But it was not consistently high enough to outpace high infant mortality and frequent late marriage. If most of them had had ten children, population would have grown, despite high infant mortality. Some of them, quite a few of them, did have ten children or so. But not nearly enough of them.

                  That the Mather clan died out, the surviving Mathers being imports from England fleeing restoration anglicanism, indicates Puritan failure to reproduce biologically.

                  Another indication is the disappearance of congregationalism, congregationalism being the church descended from Puritans reproducing their religion biologically rather than memetically.

                  Churches based on the biological descendants of Puritans have been in continual decline from the beginning.

                • jim says:

                  The biological descendants of the Puritans are the Congregationalists. Congregationalists had mostly died out by the early nineteenth century.

                  Anyone descended from those who came over on the Mayflower probably knows it, and there just are not very many of them.

                  Puritanism was a dead man walking, an ambulatory cancer patient. The problems that stop people reproducing today set in in the children of the second generation after the Mayflower, and rapidly became more severe.

                  Yes the Mayflower settlers were mighty fertile, and their children reasonably fertile. Their grandchildren however, mostly failed to reproduce and those of them that did reproduce were too few to keep up with very heavy infant mortality.

                • Dave says:

                  I’m descended from at least seven Mayflower passengers, including this busy man:

                  http://mayflowerhistory.com/warren/

                  True to form, I was raised in a Congregational church. Around age 8-10, I realized Santa Claus was a myth, and quickly dismissed God as “Santa Claus for grown-ups”. My parents could not convince me God was real, having recently said the same of Saint Nick. Never lie to your children!

                  Anyway, it’s very hard, even on a wide-open virgin continent, for a farming society to maintain exponential growth, because the average distance one must travel to reach the frontier also grows exponentially.

                  The Amish outgrew Pennsylvania some time ago. When an Amish farmer in Ohio buys his third son a farm in Iowa, does the lad load up a horse-cart or call Atlas Van Lines?

                • B says:

                  >The Amish outgrew Pennsylvania some time ago. When an Amish farmer in Ohio buys his third son a farm in Iowa, does the lad load up a horse-cart or call Atlas Van Lines?

                  Check out the Hutterites out West. They are constantly outgrowing their communal farms and splitting off to form new ones. They went from 400 founding members to 45,000 in 130 years. Not bad. I guess birth rates went down from an average of 10 children per family to 5 over the last 40 years, but probably not because North Dakota and Saskatchewan ran out of space.

                  >Their grandchildren however, mostly failed to reproduce and those of them that did reproduce were too few to keep up with very heavy infant mortality.

                  Nonsense.

                  Massachusetts’ population went from 8000 to 268000 in 140 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Natural_growth

                  Infant mortality was low compared to that of Europe. The environment was much healthier, because there was more space and easier access to clean water sources, not to mention more protein. Game hunting was not available to Europeans, except for royalty.

                  Further, even after Unitarianism made its appearance on the scene, the birth rates did not tank for a long time. The West was heavily settled by descendants of the Puritans. The Pacific Northwest has a big presence. The Mormons largely came from New Englander Puritan stock.

                • jim says:

                  Massachusetts’ population went from 8000 to 268000 in 140 year

                  Due to immigration from England and rapid reproduction by Anglicans – as is manifest in the relative and absolute decline of Congregationalist churches.

                  The doctrinal instability of puritanism is due to reproducing memetically, rather than biologically. Much like worshippers of Moloch

                  Infant mortality was low compared to that of Europe.

                  Indeed it was. And yet the Mathers had, by the by the nineteenth century, very few descendants of the original mayflower Mathers, though merely treading water, having two kids per family surviving to have two kids per family should double the number of descendants in each generation.

                  The observed fact is that apart from the first and second generation, the American puritans just failed to reproduce. This is manifest in the genealogy of the Mather family, in the dire shortage of people who can claim descent from the Mayflower, and in the absolute and relative decline of the congregationalists.

                • B says:

                  >Due to immigration from England and rapid reproduction by Anglicans – as is manifest in the relative and absolute decline of Congregationalist churches.

                  Anglicans?

                  In Massachusetts?

                  These Anglicans?

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

                  “The first Anglican parish in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was King’s Chapel in Boston, founded in 1688, 58 years after the city. After the American Revolution, King’s Chapel became the first Unitarian congregation in North America.”

                • jim says:

                  Remember that Anglicanism was highly illegal in Massachusetts until 1688. That it became legal hints at significant demographic problems by 1688. Late seventeenth century data shows hints of demographic decline, early eighteenth century data shows major indicators of serious demographic decline.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Some of them, quite a few of them, had ten children or so, but with high infant mortality, late marriage, and failure to marry, they just died out.

                  This is a defensible argument. “Some of them, quite a few of them” could have had “ten children or so, etc., but Bad Things happened, because Darwin is a harsh mistress.” Fine and dandy. Trouble is, you can’t magically expand from here to “Mather family died out due to Puritan memes”. And even less can you go from here to “all Puritans died out due to Puritan memes”.

                  For one thing, you attribute fertility 100% to female status, and the Mather descendants, where I can find the records, continued having, or attempting to have, fertility in line with the prevailing fertility of the day — which was extraordinarily high.

                  Secondly, the Puritan/Quaker New England English didn’t have hereditary aristocracy or family dynasty. There was nothing special (or magical) about Mather’s descendants: to the extent that they themselves were not latently inherently superior, they were basically just regular people with a famous ancestor.

                  Thirdly, it is a common theme throughout history: the middle class is meritocratic, not hereditary — or, hereditary insofar as merit is hereditary, prominent families with long, unbroken histories of high achievement being very much prime examples of survivorship bias — and New England was exceptionally, even prototypically, middle-class.

                  Finally, New England was settled almost entirely by Puritans and Quakers, and all population expansion from the mid-17th century to the mid-19th century was biological expansion of their biological descendants.

                  “Seeking religious freedom in the New World, one hundred English Pilgrims established a small settlement near Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. Tens of thousands of English Puritans arrived, mostly from the East Anglian parts of England (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex), as well as Kent and East Sussex.,[3] and settled in Boston, Massachusetts and adjacent areas from around 1629 to 1640 to create a land dedicated to their religion. The earliest New English colonies, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, were established along the northeast coast. Large scale immigration to this region ended before 1700, though a small but steady trickle of later arrivals continued.”

                  “The Eastern and Northern frontier around the initial New England settlements was mainly settled by the descendants of the original New Englanders. Immigration to the New England colonies after 1640 and the start of the English Civil War decreased to less than 1% (about equal to the death rate) in nearly all of the years prior to 1845. The rapid growth of the New England colonies (approximately 900,000 by 1790) was almost entirely due to the high birth rate (>3%) and the low death rate (<1%) per year.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#Colonial_Era

                  This is the last time I’m responding to this utterly inane argument of yours, I swear to Christ.

                • jim says:

                  For one thing, you attribute fertility 100% to female status, and the Mather descendants, where I can find the records, continued having, or attempting to have, fertility in line with the prevailing fertility of the day — which was extraordinarily high.

                  Untrue. We have the records, in that we have the genealogy of the Mather family, and that is not what the records show. The records show a rapid collapse in fertility associated with the rapid rise in female status, associated with women speaking in Church

                  Firstly, females rapidly acquired status in Puritan New England.

                  And when they acquired high status, the genealogy of the Mather family shows a collapse in fertility, fewer and fewer Mather descendants having ten children, or indeed any children.

                  Yes, the people that came over on the Mayflower had extraordinarily high fertility. Their children, not so much, but still mostly high. Their grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren, if the Mather descendants are typical, had absolutely terrible fertility except for converts to Mormonism.

                  “The Eastern and Northern frontier around the initial New England settlements was mainly settled by the descendants of the original New Englanders.

                  Wikipedia simply lies. Anyone descended from the Mayflower is extremely proud of the fact, this has been a source of great pride from the beginning, and there are very few people who can make that claim.

                  The assertion that the Puritans expanded biologically is just not based on evidence from the time. It is a story fabricated fairly recently.

                  You give me a twentieth century source, but how would someone in the twentieth century know? He would only know from early eighteenth century sources. And the early eighteenth century sources indicate that Puritans were in a demographic death spiral.

                  The Mather genealogy would be a mighty small book if they did not count Mathers who came over fleeing the restoration. The disproportion between Mayflower Mathers fleeing Charles the first, and post restoration Mathers fleeing Restoration Anglicanism indicates that Puritans were only successful in reproducing when coercively subjected to Restoration Anglicanism.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >These Anglicans?

                  >“The first Anglican parish in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was King’s Chapel in Boston, founded in 1688, 58 years after the city. After the American Revolution, King’s Chapel became the first Unitarian congregation in North America.”

                  lol

                • peppermint says:

                  I remember asking my father what the congregationalist churches dotting the landscape were. He said that when the state church went unitarian, the congregation left and needed new church buildings.

                  We are nominal catholics. In reality the puritans have captured the catholic church through their usual vertical method of convincing men of letters.

                  Was Massachusetts obligatorily puritan? Is it now filled with Irish catholics, negroes, and other immigrant populations. Anecdotally, a lot of people in New England have grandparents from the Midwest, and almost all subhumans have ancestors from dixie and below.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Wikipedia simply lies.

                  La Wik tells the truth the vast majority of the time, because that is the currency upon which it lies. It doesn’t lie about irrelevant things, like the fertility of the biological descendants of Puritans and Quakers in New England 200 to 400 years ago, because the biological expansion of the English-descended peoples in New England 200 to 400 years ago is basically irrelevant to everyone besides a few dozen people on the Interwebz.

                  >Anyone descended from the Mayflower is extremely proud of the fact

                  This is more revealing of you than anything else.

                • jim says:

                  >Wikipedia simply lies.

                  La Wik tells the truth the vast majority of the time

                  Wikipedia tells the official truth the vast majority of the time, and the official truth is usually a lie.

                  Wikipedia lies about everything that is political, and these days, just about everything is political. Wikipedia is set up to report the official truth, without regard for the evidence of one’s own senses, the evidence of one’s own senses being “original research”, and without regard for first hand sources, the more highly derived the source, the further the distance between the person directly observing things and what is reported in Wikipedia the better.

                  This form of “truth” is by its inherent structure guaranteed to be entirely unreliable.

                • jim says:

                  the biological expansion of the English-descended peoples in New England 200 to 400 years ago is basically irrelevant to everyone besides a few dozen people on the Interwebz.

                  Wikipedia has exactly the same motivation to lie about Puritan demographic decline as it has to lie about Puritan socialism.

                  Leftists don’t like to acknowledge early leftism, because recollecting past disputes implies that present doctrine is the result of the victors rewriting history, rather than truth and goodness naturally prevailing. Thus facts that suggest that Puritans were leftists way back are highly unpopular. Reporting that the early Puritans failed to reproduce is like reporting that early Puritans were socialists. Just as reporting that early Puritans were socialists implies that socialism has been tried and turned out to be a disastrously bad idea, reporting that early Puritans desecrated marriage implies that current demographic decline is the result of ideology, rather than progress.

                • Cavalier says:

                  P.S. This doesn’t count as a response because as this point I’m basically just mocking you.

                • peppermint says:

                  People _were_ proud of the Mayflower until around 2000 after which the people older than the Boomers stopped having any cultural relevance.

                  I remember the conflict between some teachers in my elementary school saying that pilgrims came on the Mayflower and pioneers went Out West, and other teachers saying that the Injuns who they called “Native Americans” to confuse us about what native and American meant said that Injuns invented sitting Indian style, using the whole buffalo and being environmentally conscious, and we’re cruelly wiped out by profit-seeking religious hypocrites.

          • Turtle says:

            I counted about FIFTY comments after this, including amazingly long ones. Is this a new record for small-group shit-posting?

            I really don’t have the patience to keep up with so many opinions, but I’ll try to skim. The effort put in here is what I’m noting. Everyone’s so intellectually confident and uncompromising, it’s impressive.

            Those who commented below seem to contribute 80% of the total comments word count. Maybe we could keep statistics 🙂 . It’s funny, right?

  9. Anony-maus says:

    Here’s a thought to run with: in modern society, everyone is actually a slave, so our TFR is terrible. The only places where men have any real sense of freedom are in less developed countries, where TFR remains high.

    • Rod Horner says:

      I’ve got two problems with this:

      First, men don’t control TFR nearly as much as women. Your population can be 90% women and that 90% can still be pregnant year-round. Turn the other way, you’ve got 80% of your population not breeding.

      Second, “freedom,” is hard to pin down, but in the past more authoritarian and less “free,” countries both by the male and female commoner standard had much higher TFR. Regulatory state excesses are a part of the problem, but I think it’s logical to assume that the worst damage they’ve done is pushing women into the workforce and encouraging those women to stay on the pill into their 30s.

      • Alrenous says:

        Maus’ point is that only propaganda says the ‘authoritarian’ regimes were less free. Your body knows different. Your body knows you spent 13 years in school, treated as the lowest of the low rungs, expected to obey the orders of frumpy discoordinated ‘teachers’ in every detail. And in adult life we have anarcho tyranny.

        You can debate that these unfreedoms don’t add up to the explicit unfreedoms of the past, but you can’t argue that present de jure freedom is substantially higher than de facto freedom.

        • Rod Horner says:

          Be that as it may, a proscribed male life from birth to age 30, to take an extreme, wouldn’t get us the TFR of the west alone. 30 year old men marrying teenage women is not historically anomalous in the least, even for the most egalitarian western traditions.

          You can debate how various schemes of proscription and rent-seeking have an impact on the men of a society, but you cannot make the case that female behavior, and the proscriptions that guide it, have far and away the most impact on TFR.

          Give a man a hellish job he must work 14 hours a day, all week long, and given a home wife he’d still come around to producing at least a few children. Give a man the most liberty possible and no wife at home and he’s unable to reproduce at all. It’s just that simple.

          Male disposability isn’t something you must celebrate to admit this, but one should be aware that restricting women to home life (or at least drastically reducing their ability to be out of home life during their fertile years) would turn around TFR in ways that absolutely no amount of freedom would or could due to biology.

          • peppermint says:

            People elsewhere talk about r-selection and k-selection. The proper terms are territory-limited and food-limited.

            Aryans are territory-limited. We often fail to reproduce even when married with a wife in the home if we don’t think we have the territory for our kids. Thus those boomers who weren’t starchildren, and genxers who weren’t queers, had much fewer kids than previous generations that didn’t have to pay through the nose to get out of nigger-infested areas and send their kids to non-nigger-infested schools.

            Niggers are food limited, give them food welfare, they reproduce. The reason Aryans even came up with the concept of food welfare is Aryans don’t just reproduce on welfare.

            It is true that marriage is necessary for any fertility at all. It’s also true that crushing White masculinity has an effect, and preventing Whites from having the resources to raise children had an effect.

  10. Ryan C says:

    free women during the Mongol conquest often committed suicide.
    tfw no bioengineered gf

  11. spandrell says:

    While The Jew© is trying to be obtuse on purpose; it’s obvious that Jim doesn’t refer to slaves as in Roman slaves, a distinct legal category of people, men or women. He’s talking about societies where women didn’t have legal personhood; i.e. most of the world until recently. An ancient greek housewife and a greek female slave were both effectively non-persons in Greece, although housewives had higher status. I’m sure housewives took care that the slavegirls weren’t having too many children. First wives tended to be nasty to young concubines and their babies in China too.

    I know a funny case I heard recently. A couple friends in China, upper-class women, two sisters in Beijing, both 30-something, single and childless.

    When they were kids a neighbor begged their father to take their daughter, whom they couldn’t raise anymore. They would have starved at that rate. So the rich family took the daughter, had her as a servant at home. Eventually adopted her legally; but she kept being the maid.

    The adopted maid married some blue-collar guy at 20 years old and has 2 kids by now. The classy daughters are looking for a beta husband right now.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      My dude that’s a kick ass story.

    • jim says:

      The adopted maid married some blue-collar guy at 20 years old and has 2 kids by now. The classy daughters are looking for a beta husband right now.

      Perceived her status as low, therefore married while hot and fertile. Her stepsisters perceive their status as high, while their sexual market value collapses into the toilet.

      High status women only have sex with men of higher status than themselves.

      What men want is that their support comes with an enforceable guarantee of sex and fidelity. What women want is to belong to a substantially higher status male. If men and woman are equal on average, there are not enough higher status males, and they have to share.

      Enforcement of the marriage contract plus de-emancipation of women gives everyone what they want. The traditional marriage contract was felt to be oppressive because if you impose it on a woman who feels her husband to be similar in status to herself, it really is oppressive.

      • Turtle says:

        > High status women only have sex with men of higher status than themselves.

        So is “rich dame has an affair with the pool-boy” a fantasy/ fetish for men who wish it were real for them? I don’t believe it’s real, but there are some women who marry ‘trophy husbands’ who are more handsome than successful. Maybe you’re overgeneralizing, in that women’s ideas of status might vary. They might have different ‘laws of the jungle,’ with different emphases, and every major manosphere blogger teaches that personal conceptions of alpha vary. The rudimentary essence seems constant for nearly all women.

  12. Mister Grumpus says:

    I absolutely resent that the above is true, and it depresses me to no end, but I also love you for sharing it and I don’t want to go back to my previous form when everything sucked AND nothing made any damned sense.

    What I want to know NOW is this:

    It’s been a while. The truth about women (and also about me) is just SO chimpy and gross that I don’t want anything to do with them. And if I didn’t want children then I’d be at peace with that arrangement. But I do. So I’m not.

    How might one recover/rehabilitate his desire to get with women in the first place, knowing what we now know about them?

    How might one intentionally rebuild his desire to get laid IRL in the first place?

    -5

    • Alrenous says:

      when everything sucked AND nothing made any damned sense.

      I am tempted to think that the ignorant aren’t that happy, because then being an asshole and shattering their illusions is actually doing them a favour…

      SO chimpy and gross

      Everyone pretending it’s not chimpy is even chimpier than you are. Remember all the great things done in the past that you admire were done by fuckin’ chimps.

    • spandrell says:

      They’re pretty and smell nice. Why would you care about anything else?

  13. Z says:

    This is year-old fake news.

    Pathetic.

    • jim says:

      You are in denial

      • EH says:

        According to the mayor and police chief, in that specific incident no rape was alleged, no weapon was used, and there was no support for any rape or violent assault from the families or Islamic community since no such thing happened. Naturally they’re going to say the things parents do if their boys are sent to juvie, “they dindu nuffin!”, but that means nothing either way. It apparently was slightly more serious than playing doctor, but there was no penetration or violence. Also, the boys involved were Iraqi and Sudanese, not Syrian as some reported. Not that it matters except to show that the story was falsified. Now, such Islamic and Black gang-rapes of White girls do occur, and not all that rarely (though age 5 would be unusual), so finding a better example for your argument wouldn’t have been difficult.

        • peppermint says:

          > according to the mayor and police chief

          > no weapon was used (on a five year old girl)

          > no (evidence of) violence (against a defenseless and suggestible five year old girl)

          > no penetration (presumably they mean the vagina and anus, not the mouth)

          > slightly more serious than playing doctor

          You mean playing Jew psychiatrist, you Talmudic kike. I didn’t think it was possible to get angrier at Jews than I already was.

          • EH says:

            Not a Jew, Papist – just wish Jim had used an accurate example when they are readily available. Just because a story is infuriating doesn’t mean it’s true, and just because I point out an exaggerated story doesn’t mean I’m claiming similar stories aren’t accurate.

            • peppermint says:

              The fact that you dismiss foreign teenagers violating a five year old girl as playing doctor demonstrates that no matter what kind of story is found you’ll dismiss it.

  14. Anonymous says:

    The facts about this story as you state them are wrong, and it takes all of 5min to confirm this. Accurate and factual information is important.

    “There were no Syrians involved, there was no knife involved, there was no gang-rape,” Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs said.

    His comments largely refute several differing accounts about the incident circulating on anti-refugee resettlement and conspiracy websites and anti-Muslim blogs. Most of those accounts claim a group of Syrian refugees sexually assaulted a mentally disabled girl at knife-point June 2 in the laundry facilities of Fawnbrook Apartments, a low-income housing complex in Twin Falls, and that the attack was celebrated by the perpetrators’ families as city officials orchestrated a cover-up.

    An incident did occur, Loebs said, and two juveniles have been charged after authorities obtained video shot on a cellphone. But the details of the case don’t match what’s being reported by anti-refugee groups, the prosecutor said.

    There were no adults involved, Loebs said, the boys didn’t have a knife, and the incident wasn’t a “gang-rape” instigated by the oldest boy.
    “All those involved are juveniles, and the older one didn’t touch the victim in any way,” Loebs said. Only one person is alleged to have touched the victim, said the prosecutor, though he declined to elaborate.

    http://www.snopes.com/three-syrian-refugees-assault-5-year-old-girl-at-knifepoint/

    • jim says:

      So, they were not Muslim “refugees” from Syria. They are still Muslim “refugees”. I don’t think anyone claimed they were from Syria, or that they used a knife. Who needs a knife when you are gang raping a five year old girl?

      You are correcting “assertions” I did not make, and that I have not heard anyone making.

      As for there being gang rape, the prosecutor is splitting hairs. She was not raped vaginally, but she was forced to engage in oral sex, which certainly counts as rape when a white man does it.

      Jolene Payne, an 89-year-old retired nurse who lives at the complex, told WND she was an eye witness to the incident and gave her account to police the day after it happened.

      “This happened three weeks ago around 3:30. I was sitting on my porch patio and I looked over and saw this boy taking pictures with a camera,” Payne told WND. “He was from Africa or somewhere overseas, standing outside the laundry room taking pictures of kids in the laundry room.”

      She said she immediately walked over to the laundry room and opened the door.

      “I found them in there. I knew there was something going on because the boy (with the phone camera) was acting funny, he was taking pictures but he was telling the two younger boys what to do,” she said.

      She said the boy filming the assault is 14 and the two who were inside the laundry room with the girl are ages 7 and 10, all of whom she described as having “dark cloudy skin and curly hair.”

      When she flung open the door she found a disturbing scene.

      “The door was cracked enough for him to see the pictures he was taking. I opened that door and I almost fainted when I saw what was going on and I’m a nurse,” Payne said. “What a pitiful thing for a poor little girl to go through.”

      The “little tiny white girl, 5 years old,” was standing there with her clothes off, Payne said. The two younger boys were also naked.

      “I saw two boys and one little girl scared to death,”

      If white heterosexual males were involved, imagine the outcry.

      Two naked boys and one terrified girl whose clothes they had forcibly removed Pretty sure that gang rape occurred, no matter what the prosecutor says.

      • Anonymous says:

        You state that they received the support of their community – there is no evidence for this, it is debunked. You repeatedly call it rape or gang rape – it was not rape. You characterize it as Islamic in nature – what about it is Islamic? Does this mean you prefix every crime committed by a child with the religion of their fathers (purported religion, since nothing anywhere has said anything about the families being Muslim, though it’s a fair guess)?

        In answer to “if white heterosexual males were involved imagine the outcry” – surely you jest? You don’t think this type of misbehavior happens with and between white kids? It happens with all colors of kids. if it was white kids we wouldn’t even be talking about it, because it’s not a big news story.

        • jim says:

          You repeatedly call it rape or gang rape – it was not rape.

          Two naked boys were doing sexual things to a terrified naked girl whose clothes they had removed and forced her to perform oral sex on one of them.

          You state that they received the support of their community – there is no evidence for this,

          They received the support of the Judge and prosecutor, which is unlikely without massive community pressure, and the family of the victim was driven out of town, whereas the assailants are having no problem. That is community support.

          You characterize it as Islamic in nature – what about it is Islamic?

          Rape Jihad, done in the service of Islam with the support and endorsement of the local Islamic community.

          • Anonymous says:

            The prosecutor and all the officials decline to call it rape. There was no oral sex (where do you get this stuff?)

            You have no evidence that the community supported it – your own judgment on the relative likelihood of “massive community pressure” is worthless.

            Rape jihad? They were a bunch of messed up kids. You’re projecting fantasy.

            Finally, you don’t respond to the last part because it’s so obvious the only reason this “blew up” in certain circles is the, possible but never confirmed, “refugee status”, and ethnicity of those involved. If they were white, we wouldn’t even be talking about it.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              They refuse to call three boys sexually molesting a five year old girl rape, but when two drunk college kids wander out of a bar and the girl passes out while the boy is fingering her, that is rape, and they destroy his life.

              The prosecutors are at best moral cowards, and at worse are complicit in the cover-up of a rape. A rape that would have been national news if it had been whites. The only reason we do not see it all over the news is because it does not fit the narrative.

              You side with the savages, and abandon civilization. You would rather signal your own virtue rather than protect that of a five year old girl. Coward, monster, a pathetic form of evil. When we send them back, you will go with them.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • Anonymous says:

                >two drunk college kids wander out of a bar and the girl passes out while the boy is fingering her, that is rape, and they destroy his life.

                Infuriating.

                1) it happens because USG is a literal puritan theocracy. Look up what the FBI was originally established for. That’s right – to suppress prostitution. Today they are busy chasing down men who possess erotic audios of their 16-year-old girlfriends, because it’s “child pornography”. The Feds have always been puritans.

                2) it almost exclusively happens to heterosexual white males, because of two reasons. First, nobody cares about shitskins or deviants. Second, the Jews are using puritanism, which is destructive and perilous in its own right, to harass and eradicate whites, aiming for total WG. It’s the same dynamic playing out again and again –

                Whites come up with some dubious idea, such as democracy; the Jews then snick in, and proceed to use said dubious idea to subvert their host society, turning the meme directly against the people who originally created it, in bitter irony. That’s what happened to secular humanism, ditto “live and let live” liberalism, ditto agnostic rationalism, ditto puritanism.

                Time to eliminate the bad ideas. Jews are a bad idea.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  I know why it happens. I was just pointing out to inferior Anon that he was full of shit, and that he has to go back.

                  Also, it may be to our advantage to breed out Jews and Puritans instead of killing them. Use their genetic tendencies to our advantage. The worst will have to be terminated, of course, but the marginal cases may be useful to raise the standard of the lower classes.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • peppermint says:

                  The puritans have reached the end of their rope. Replacing God with Nature led to the hugely embarrassing global warming hoax while it is now clear that only civilized Aryans care about stewardship. Replacing God with the Computer, and younger puritans like the lesswrong cult do, will become increasingly embarrassing as menial labor doesn’t disappear and old Computer-worshipers die and don’t have their souls reconstructed with 72 virgins. Transhumanism led to embarrassing.

                  Additionally, the puritan memeplex evolved to take over Aryan Christian civilizations in a vertical manner. With horizontal communication and Christianity no longer a factor, the alt-right memeplex is rapidly taking all the young intelligent men that puritanism used to dazzle and buy, while puritanism now refuses to permit young White men a reproductive future except if they miscegenate.

                  Tim Kaine’s son is a antifa and got arrested for rioting. Perhaps his blue eyes and rugged good looks can get him pussy – but then he’d be effectively one of us, and his fellows would call him out. Joe Biden’s son is a coke-sniffing gambler who pays whores to tell him he’s sexy when his wife won’t.

                  We must restore patriarchy and eliminate snivel rights. Then we’ll see what the value of different DNA is on the sexual marketplace.

                  Jew DNA is worthless and Puritan, by which you mean normie White, DNA is great.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Checking the value of DNA in the sexual marketplace is letting women do the vetting, and women are stupid and degenerate little monsters. The actual goods and services marketplace is a better evaluation, because then it is men doing part of the evaluating. Even better would be the combination of the social network and the economy, because that involves the least amount of female input.

                  The only input women should have is to select her preference from a list of men that other men drew up. Her opinion of the men in question is irrelevant. Her answer to, “Will I fuck him,” is, “You had damned well better.”

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, mate selection will be controlled by the father, grandmother, brothers, etc, as before, and the government will forbid miscegenation to Aryan women. All marketplaces have rules.

              • Anonymous says:

                When you send them back? Lol. Keep on larping your Emperor Trump fantasy – he’s an embarrassing incompetent who doesn’t give a damn about your nazi nrx ideology. He can’t spell ideology.

                No one is sending anyone back.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Fuck you; you have to go back. Once the wall is built, you are going to go back.

                  The Shadowed Knight

    • B says:

      dey sum gud bois, dey dindu nuffin

    • peppermint says:

      While the past hundred years since the suppression of neo-classicism by the puritan jihad have seen adverse selection, before that higher status people reproduced more. Which sort of is the point of social status.

      • glosoli says:

        Yes, but I was pointing out that most of us are likely not descended from free men. So, pick your poison. Would you make the cut? Doubtful.

        Also, it’s not a puritan jihad, it’s a satanic commie jihad.

        • peppermint says:

          I’m descended from free men who owned houses and had well paying jobs with the same company for decades (what word should I use? Profession sounds like they’re not working but talking, while career sounds like social climbing. Work doesn’t sound like it includes professional work. Professor is a dirty word, but pro will surely be retained). Before then they owned farms.

          Maybe I wouldn’t make the cut. Glory be to the race. The men who can’t get high-quality puss are supposed to be paid by the men who can. As it is men who can’t pay men who can, leading to class resentment and confusion.

          You’re literally a communist, talking against satanic commies, presumably in favor of some kind of brotherhood of man or peace of earth goodwill to men.

          Communism in the USSR didn’t include as many outrages against the White sharia family as social democracy in the US and satellites.

          How many times are you faggots going to countersignal eugenics? You’re not really an underman, are you? Just a cuck worshiping an itenerant Nazirite faith healer community organizer.

          I am not alienated by the fact that my labor product is consumed by a boss who gives me cash to buy vidya and cannabis. If Marx would feel alienated by a boss who would only pay him to write true things, he could be an unemployed moocher.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Those are good links Glosoli. Read them a bit more closely. Most white slaves died. Not many contributed to the Founding gene pool.

  15. glosoli says:

    ‘Descended from’ is not the same as ‘related to’.

    Go back to the 1700s or 1800s, you will likely find slaves in your family.

    You don’t appear to have a very deep knowledge of God’s truths, or what Jesus preached and did.

    One day you will, I am sure, all red-pills lead to God, He is the ultimate red-piller.

    • peppermint says:

      Descended from means that I trace my paternal line through skilled workers to farmers. These men were not slaves.

      Male slaves only reproduced in the Antebellum South because cuckolds like you love the little children, each and every one, black and brown and red and yellow, but there’s a moral obligation to kill White babies or at least chemically castrate them.

      • glosoli says:

        If they were in farming, bet you a dollar your descendants were escaped slaves. c.75% of whites coming from England to America were slaves you know.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Remember, slaves don’t breed very well. 90% of the white slaves died before reaching freedom. The percentage of white founding stock that came from slaves is fairly low.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Indentured servitude isn’t slavery, it is a form of loan.

          • Cavalier says:

            There are many forms of slavery. Indentured servitude is one. Student debt is another. Alimony and child support are a third.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Loans are just time transfers of money. Indentured servsnts traded labour time for passage to America which is the same way you pay for everything you buy. Slaves pay their labour and it buys them nothing.

              • jim says:

                Experiment has demonstrated this theory of slavery to be invalid.

                Some people will not work productively unless subjected to coercive supervision. In due course they get hungry and start helping themselves to other people’s stuff. You can enslave them, imprison them, kill them, or put them on welfare. Imprisonment is expensive, welfare is cheaper but causes the population of unproductive people to rapidly increase. Killing them means you are killing people for persistent petty crimes, the classic problem of executing a hungry man for stealing bread, which sounds bad if one does not inquire why he is hungry.

                • Cavalier says:

                  When most people are unemployable at any price, the value of a slave is minimal.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Slavery is the worlds most successful form of socialism in history; the most efficient, de-bureaucratized, and anti-fragile form its ever taken.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  That is all true but it is a defence of indentured servitude, not slavery. Enslaving Ben Carson or Barack Obama really would be monstrously evil. But if people who default on their credit card debt become indentured servants of the credit card company we would have something 90% approximating Confederate black slavery tomorrow.

                  In other words the market already decides who should be a slave and who not. Black slavery as such was a sort of welfare programme for indigent whites – largely the demographic to which it still appeals today.

                • jim says:

                  That is all true but it is a defence of indentured servitude, not slavery. Enslaving Ben Carson or Barack Obama really would be monstrously evil.

                  Enslaving Ben Carson would indeed be monstrously evil, but Obama has never done a day’s useful work in his life, and the only way to get useful work out of him would be to enslave him.

                  And, by and large, the Ben Carsons were for the most part not enslaved. Blacks tended to be enslaved for petty crime and having no visible means of support. (The penalty for major crime being execution)

                  If Ben Carson had been born a slave in the Old South, chances are he would have earned his freedom one way or another, and then himself become a slave owner. While if Obama had been born free in the Old South, (which he would have been, being born to a free upper class white woman) chances are he would have wound up enslaved, and damned good thing too.

                • peppermint says:

                  » That is all true but it is a defence of indentured servitude, not slavery.

                  nope

                  » Enslaving Ben Carson or Barack Obama really would be monstrously evil.

                  nope

                  » But if people who default on their credit card debt become indentured servants of the credit card company

                  nope

                  » we would have something 90% approximating Confederate black slavery tomorrow.

                  nope

                  » In other words the market already decides who should be a slave and who not.

                  nope

                  » Black slavery as such was a sort of welfare programme for indigent whites

                  nope

                  » — largely the demographic to which it still appeals today.

                  nope

                • peppermint says:

                  » When most people are unemployable at any price, the value of a slave is minimal.

                  nope

                • Cavalier says:

                  >>When most people are unemployable at any price, the value of a slave is minimal.

                  >nope

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVc2TlIqHxE

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  BHO isn’t slave material, he’s just an above average priest.

                • peppermint says:

                  Priests are slaves of their bishops and theoretically slaves of God. Giving him a human owner and meaningful work would be a favor.

              • Cavalier says:

                The kind of slavery practiced in the South was historically anomalous. In general, there were three kinds of slaves: war captives, people who entered slavery as a consequence of their unpayable debts, and white girls from Eastern Europe kidnapped by Jews and sold to Middle Eastern sheikhs to pad their harems and whiten their gene pools.

                • B says:

                  >and white girls from Eastern Europe kidnapped by Jews

                  ???

                  Eastern Europe was subject to slave raids by Turks and Crimean Tatars (who lived off running slave markets). Russia was subject to slave raids by the Turkmen of Khiva for a long time. Jews occasionally dealt in slaves, but I’ve never heard of us kidnapping anyone-kidnapping is expressly forbidden by the Torah. I call bullshit.

                  You missed the huge amount of European slaves kidnapped by Corsairs, kidnapped or bought from parents and sold into indentured servitude in America (where most died from hunger and overwork,) and sold by France into Mediterranean galley slavery (another death sentence.)

                • Cavalier says:

                  >???

                  >but I’ve never heard of us kidnapping anyone-kidnapping is expressly forbidden by the Torah. I call bullshit.

                  I’m just exaggerating. Slightly

                  “Records of long-distance Jewish slave merchants date at least as far back as 492, when Pope Gelasius permitted Jews to import non-Christian slaves into Italy, at the request of a Jewish friend from Telesina.[25] [26] [27] By the turn of the 6th to the 7th century, Jews had become the chief slave traders in Italy, and were active in Gaelic territories. Pope Gregory the Great issued a ban on Jews possessing Christian slaves, lest the slaves convert to Judaism.[27] [28] By the 9th and 10th centuries, Jewish merchants, sometimes called Radhanites, were a major force in the slave trade continent-wide.”

                  “Jews were one of the few groups who could move and trade between the Christian and Islamic worlds.[30] Ibn Khordadbeh observed and recorded routes of Jewish merchants in his Book of Roads and Kingdoms from the South of France to Spain, carrying (amongst other things) female slaves, eunuch slaves, and young slave boys. He also notes Jews purchasing Slavic slaves in Prague.[9] [27] [31] Letters of Agobard, archbishop of Lyons (816-840),[32] [33] [34] [35] acts of the emperor Louis the Pious,[36] [37] and the seventy-fifth canon of the Council of Meaux of 845 confirms the existence of a route used by Jewish traders with Slavic slaves through the Alps to Lyon, to Southern France, to Spain.[9] Toll records from Walenstadt in 842–843 indicate another trade route, through Switzerland, the Septimer and Splügen passes, to Venice, and from there to North Africa.”

                  That’s not to say that Jews alone were responsible; nearly everyone was in on it at least a little.

                  “When the sale of Christians to Muslims was banned (pactum Lotharii [13]), the Venetians began to sell Slavs and other Eastern European non-Christian slaves in greater numbers. Caravans of slaves traveled from Eastern Europe, through Alpine passes in Austria, to reach Venice.”

                  “…describes such merchants. Some are Slavic themselves”

                  “As German rulers of Saxon dynasties took over the enslavement (and slave trade) of Slavs in the 10th century, Jewish merchants bought slaves at the Elbe, sending caravans into the valley of the Rhine. Many of these slaves were taken to Verdun, which had close trade relations with Spain. Many would be castrated and sold as eunuchs as well.[9] [21]”

                  etc.

                  Also,

                  “Jews would later become highly influential in the European slave trade, reaching their apex from the 16th to 19th centuries.[9]”

                  (all from here)

                  “The Jews of Algiers were frequent purchasers of Christian slaves from Barbary corsairs.[98] Meanwhile, Jewish brokers in Livorno, Italy were instrumental in arranging the ransom of Christian slaves from Algiers to their home countries and freedom. Although one slave accused Livorno’s Jewish brokers of holding the ransom until the captives died, this allegation is uncorroborated, and other reports indicate Jews as being very active in assisting the release of English Christian captives.[99] In 1637, an exceptionally poor year for ransoming captives, the few slaves freed were ransomed largely by Jewish factors in Algiers working with Henry Draper.[100]”

                  “Jews participated in the European colonization of the Americas, and owned slaves in Latin America and the Caribbean, most notably in Brazil and Suriname, but also in Barbados and Jamaica.[94][95][96] Especially in Suriname, Jews owned many large plantations.[97] Many of the ethnic Jews in the New World, particularly in Brazil, were “New Christians” or conversos, some of which continued to practice Judaism, so the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish slave owners is a difficult distinction for scholars to make.[citation needed]”

                  etc.

                  (from here)

                  Just to be clear, I think you Jews are a wonderfully amoral enterprising group — the ultimate capitalist-entrepreneurs, if you will.

                • B says:

                  Jews bought and re-sold slaves. That’s not in question. But they didn’t kidnap anybody.

                  Would you like to have a discussion on whether it’s moral to buy slaves from Algerian corsairs if you live in the 16th century?

                • B says:

                  >Many would be castrated and sold as eunuchs as well.

                  The Torah explicitly prohibits castrating males. Even male animals.

                  The Oral Torah extends this to even giving male animals medicine to make them sterile.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Would you like to have a discussion on whether it’s moral to buy slaves from Algerian corsairs if you live in the 16th century?

                  I think it was great.

                  >Even male animals.

                  Nice jab.

                  >Jews bought and re-sold slaves. That’s not in question. But they didn’t kidnap anybody.

                  Well, I don’t blame you guys for not directly getting your hands dirty. I mean, it’s not like I think your coethnics are actually going out to the slav countries to personally grab the women they’re importing to Israel.

                • B says:

                  >I think it was great.

                  I don’t think it was great, but I don’t think it was evil, either. It’s a rough world, it was rougher back then.

                  >Nice jab.

                  No jab. Man, you’re more sensitive than the professional blacks: “what do you mean, ‘YOU PEOPLE?!'” It’s literally forbidden to castrate males, human or animals.

                  >Well, I don’t blame you guys for not directly getting your hands dirty.

                  Not about that. It’s just typical bullshit to, when non-Jews are kidnapping and selling each other, to claim Jews did it.

                  >I mean, it’s not like I think your coethnics are actually going out to the slav countries to personally grab the women they’re importing to Israel.

                  Nobody grabs those women-they are hookers going to work in Tel Aviv to make money. You know, we have a functional police force, it’s not like any of those girls don’t know how to say “Mr. Officer, I’ve been kidnapped.”

                  At least, as far as I know. I don’t patronize whores or associate with people who do anymore, so my knowledge is second hand.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Nobody grabs those women-they are hookers going to work in Tel Aviv to make money. You know, we have a functional police force, it’s not like any of those girls don’t know how to say “Mr. Officer, I’ve been kidnapped.”

                  As I said: you deserve having your entire family explode to pieces from Arab suicide bombers.

                  “One thing Yeltsin never has done, however, is make any move to curtail the operations of Russia’s organized Jewish crime gangs, which are running rampant through the country and displaying their wealth and power, while ordinary Russians struggle to feed themselves and keep their homes warm this winter.

                  And tens of thousands of pretty but naive young Russian and Ukrainian women are being swept up by the Jewish gangs — called “Russian” gangs by the New York Times — and shipped off to a life of misery and degradation in Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, and Israel, as well as to countries in Western Europe, where Jews also control organized crime. The young women, unable to find work in Russia or Ukraine or Poland and facing a bleak future in countries ravaged by decades of communism, are eager for any chance at a better life. They respond to advertisements that offer them work abroad as receptionists or secretaries and also promise free training and transportation. When the girls arrive at their destinations, however, they find something quite different — but by then it is too late.

                  One of these girls, Irina, a 21-year-old, green-eyed Ukrainian blond, was interviewed in Israel. She told how her Israeli employer took her to a brothel soon after her arrival in Israel. He took her passport away from her, burned it before her eyes, and told her that she now was his property and must work in the brothel. When Irina refused, she was beaten and raped. Luckier than most of the Slavic women lured to Israel, Irina eventually was swept up in a police raid and sent to prison as an illegal alien. She was awaiting deportation, along with hundreds of other Russian and Ukrainian women, when she was interviewed. She lamented the fact that the Israeli who had raped her and forced her to work in the brothel was not even arrested. Indeed, according to Jewish law, the rape of a Gentile woman is not illegal. Nor is it illegal in Israel to buy and sell slaves, so long as the slaves are not Jewish. Amazingly, the New York Times article reveals this fact.

                  The White slave trade is big business in Israel. Ukrainian authorities estimate that as many as 40,000 Ukrainian women under the age of 30 are taken from Ukraine each year. Some of these women respond to advertisements promising employment abroad, like Irina did, and some are simply kidnapped and smuggled out of the country. Those who try to escape from their Jewish captors are treated brutally. Often they are butchered in front of other captive women to keep the others terrified into doing whatever they are told. At slave markets operated by the Jewish gangs in Italy young Slavic women are stripped, put on blocks, and auctioned off to brothel owners.”

                  (Jews and the White Slave Trade)

                  “Jewish domination of White slavery continues. In fact, it is on a larger scale now than ever before in history. The New Orleans Times-Picayune on January 11, 1998, ran an article titled “Slave traders Lure Slavic Women.” It (written by Michael Specter and distributed by the Jewish-run New York Times News Service) documents a Jewish-run White slave operation of huge proportions. The piece begins with a poignant story about how a beautiful blonde Ukrainian girl hoping to escape the poverty and despair of her village life answered an ad in a small newspaper in her hometown promising work and opportunity abroad. She wound up a sex slave in Israel.

                  She was 21, self-assured and glad to be out of Ukraine. Israel offered a new world, and for a week or two everything seemed possible. Then, one morning, she was driven to a brothel, where her boss burned her passport before her eyes.

                  “I own you,” she recalled his saying. “You are my property, and you will work until you earn your way out. Don’t try to leave. You have no papers and you don’t speak Hebrew. You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and bring you back.”

                  In Israel the government does little to end the brutal slave system other than deport a small percentage of the girls they find with no immigration papers. Almost 1,500 Ukrainian women have been deported from Israel in the past three years. The deck is completely stacked against the Gentile woman and in favor of the slavemasters, for if they file a complaint against the slavemaster, they must remain in prison until a trial is held. Specter quotes the prison director at Neve Tirtsa as saying she did not know of a single girl who chose to testify against her Jewish slavemasters. The White slaver is thus protected by the Israeli system, while the victims are punished.

                  Specter identifies both the prostitutes and their masters. He quotes an Israeli White slave master, Jacob Golan:

                  The women who work there, like nearly all prostitutes in Israel, are Russian, their boss is not. “Israelis love Russian girls,” said Jacob Golan. . . . “They are blonde and good looking and different from us,” he said, chuckling.

                  Of course, Israel is not the only destination of the Eastern European women. The Jewish gangs in Russia have strong connections with Jewish organized-crime syndicates all over the world. According to the Ukraine’s interior ministry, an estimated 400,000 women under the age of 30 were lured from the Ukraine in the past decade — and that is just one of the former Soviet states. Specter quotes the International Organization for Migration as estimating that 500,000 Eastern-Block women are trafficked into Western Europe and around the world annually. It is a tragedy of huge proportions that gets very little press.

                  Moment magazine, the “Magazine of Jewish Culture and Opinion,” had an article on page 44 of the April, 1998 edition, called “Hookers in the Holy Land.” 380 In it they discuss the thriving prostitution of blonde Russian girls as a “national institution.” It goes on to talk about the customers who even include rabbis riding bicycles to the whore houses.

                  A good percentage of the customers — or Johns, in the lingo — are ultra-Orthodox Jews, pious men whose lives are guided by halachah (religious law), which tells them when they can or cannot have sex with their wives. So, on Thursday afternoons, (boys night out in Israel) busloads of Orthodox Jews travel from Jerusalem, Haifa, and points beyond to Tel Aviv for a few precious moments of passion in a massage parlor, behind a sand dune, or in an alleyway. Other customers are accountants, lawyers, policemen, and politicians. “The entire spectrum of Israeli society is keeping the hookers in business.” Claims Detective Shachar, a cynical veteran on the Tel Aviv vice detail… Tel Baruch is so very absurd and so very Israel.

                  It blatantly goes on to describe the girls, who are mostly East European Gentile women along with some Palestinians, as virtual slaves who are put on a slave auction block.

                  Once the girls arrive in Israel, the crime bosses take over. The girls are usually taken to an “auction house,” where the owners of the various massage parlors can bid on the talent — each one offers a price, and the highest bidder gets the girl…. The girls are virtual slaves

                  The article goes on to note that many of the prostitutes in Israel, especially those of Arab descent, encounter physical abuse from Jews who abuse them as an expression of their “racial-nationalist fervor.”

                  …find that their Jewish customers only come to them after a Palestinian terrorist act to get their own brand of sexual revenge laced with racial-nationalistic fervor, “…and they do it with hate and anger.”

                  In discussing the forged documents used to smuggle the girls into Israel, Specter notes that they have often been obtained from “elderly Jewish women in the Ukraine.” Even so, Specter casually refers to the Jewish perpetrators of this international White slavery ring as “Russian crime gangs” or “Russian mafia.” It would be bad for Jewish public relations if the Times-Picayune had titled the article “Jewish Slave traders Lure Gentile Women.”

                  (Jewish Supremacism)

                  “Six months later, however, a special Israeli parliamentary committee looking into the slave trade in Israel challenges the claims made by senior State Dept. officials. The special report revealed that “3,000 women are sold each year in Israel’s sex industry, in transactions with an annual volume of $1 billion,” according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz.

                  The report described Israel’s sex industry as a “modern form of slavery.”

                  Most of the women slaves are sold to the owners of some 250 brothels in the Tel Aviv area, according to The Jerusalem Post. There are an estimated 300 to 400 brothels engaged in Israel’s slave trade, it said.
                  Victims trapped in the sex industry “suffer physical and emotional abuse, rape, threats against self and family, passport theft, and physical restraint,” according to a State Dept. description.

                  The women, mostly from the republics of the former Soviet Union, are usually smuggled in by traffickers who promise them legitimate jobs. The report said the borders with Egypt should be better controlled, making the dubious claim that it is along this border that women were being smuggled into the country.

                  Because Israel has some of the tightest border controls in the world it is highly unlikely that thousands of women could be “smuggled” into the country without the knowledge and acquiescence of the highest authorities.
                  Once in Israel, the women are sold and forced to work in the sex industry. They receive $25 – $30 per customer, of which the pimp takes between 80 and 90 percent, the report said. The women are forced to work 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week and receive an average of 10 to 15 clients daily, the report said.

                  Testimony provided by sex workers – and minors – who appeared before the Israeli parliamentary committee detailed the abusive, criminal aspects of trafficking. After the women are purchased, their passports are confiscated and they have to “buy back” their freedom, enduring constant threats, coercion and rape, the report said.

                  Under current Israeli enforcement procedures, most attempts to prosecute trafficking offenders end in plea bargain agreements and light sentences of public service work, or brief prison terms. The report says that current Israeli law enforcement efforts against pimps and slave traders are “inadequate”.

                  Israeli judges do not deliver harsh sentences against convicted slave traders, Ha’aretz wrote. Although the maximum is 16 years in jail, the courts have made a travesty of the laws, the report said. The lengthiest sentence handed down against a convicted sex slave trader was four years, yet most sentences are no longer than 18 months. Israeli police do not go after the top echelons of the sex trade industry, Ha’aretz wrote. Most indictments are served against low-level pimps.
                  The chairwoman of the committee, Zehava Gal-On, said the Israeli legal system does not have the means necessary to deter traffickers, she said. “When traffickers get to court they get lenient sentences,” she said.

                  Gal-On said that since Israel had been placed on the State Department blacklist as a place where “white slavery” thrived, some improvement had been made in Israel.

                  Israel’s law against trafficking remains fundamentally flawed because, like all Israeli law, there is a different standard for Jews and non-Jews. According to an Israeli expert who exposed this double standard within Israeli law, the late Israel Shahak, under Jewish laws “racist definition, all women who happen to have been born non-Jewish are automatically considered to be ‘harlots’.”

                  “I had a nervous breakdown. I wanted to escape from this place and asked a client to help me. He turned out to be one of them and I was beaten up by the owners. There was nowhere to run — there were bars on the windows and bodyguards all the time, day and night.” (Testimony of a woman trafficked from Moldova)

                  The Israeli government is failing to protect the human rights of women and girls who are trafficked from countries of the former Soviet Union to work in Israel’s sex industry, Amnesty International said today in a new report.

                  “Many of these women and girls become ‘commodities’, literally bought and sold for thousands of dollars or held in debt bondage. They are locked up in apartments and have their passports and travel tickets confiscated. Many women are subjected to violence, including rape. Yet most of the people who commit such human rights abuses are never brought to justice by the Israeli government,” the organization said.

                  Anna, a 31-year-old physics teacher from the Russian Federation was lured to Israel by the promise of a job in the sex industry earning 20 times her Russian salary. When she arrived, her passport was taken from her and she was locked in an apartment with bars on the windows along with six other women from former Soviet Union countries. She was auctioned twice, on the second occasion for US$10,000. The women were rarely allowed to leave the apartment and never allowed out alone. Much of the money they earned was extorted from them by their pimps.

                  The worldwide phenomenon of trafficking in human beings has attracted increased attention in recent years from governments and intergovernmental organizations. But governments have tended to ignore the human rights abuses to which trafficked persons are subjected, instead viewing trafficking primarily as an issue of organized crime and illegal immigration.

                  Rather than taking action against human rights abuses experienced by the women, Israeli governmental agencies in effect treat them as criminals, by holding women in detention for extended periods, for example. In 1998, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed its regret that “women brought to Israel for the purposes of prostitution … are not protected as victims of trafficking but are likely to bear the penalties of their illegal presence in Israel by deportation.”

                  Many trafficked women end up in detention in a police lock-up or Neve Tirza prison following raids on brothels and massage parlours by the police and they are rarely released on bail pending deportation. Others may be detained for longer, sometimes because the Ministry of Justice has issued an order preventing the woman from leaving the country until she has testified in a criminal case.

                  Israeli officials maintain that it is difficult to bring to justice persons who commit human rights abuses against women in sex work who are illegally in the country. However, various Israeli laws and policies, in particular the strict enforcement of immigration laws against these women, actually make prosecutions difficult.

                  Moreover, many women are afraid to file complaints with the Israel Police or testify in court because they fear they will be imprisoned, deported or be subjected to further human rights abuses in Israel or abroad. Despite these realistic fears, the government officials tend to blame the women for not cooperating with the police and the criminal justice system.”

                  (Worldwide White Slave Trade Centered In Israel)

                  “Police raided the Furmis Brothel, one of 250 whorehouses in Tel Aviv. The three-story building was under video surveillance. The police charged through iron gates guarded by armed bodyguards, next storming through the armed guards and iron doors fortifying the elevator, then ascending to the third floor and maneuvering through a narrow corridor where they noticed a suspicious cupboard. Crashing through the cupboard, they found another passage, where they collided with armed bodyguards, then hurtled through a locked door. Tel-Aviv magazine describes the officers’ horror at their find: Ten girls were locked up in a filthy, foul two-room brothel with only mattresses on the floor.

                  “These girls are kept like dogs.” A Tel Aviv police officer told U.S. News and World Report.

                  The Palace Club, a seedy brothel in Tel Aviv, was the target of a group of journalists on a fact-finding mission. Down a few flights of dark, stone stairs three girls huddled in a corner of a reception area waiting for johns. Their fat pimp dabbed the sweat from his forehead with a large silk handkerchief. The pimp bragged that his women make 120 shekels for a half-hour, “100 shekels for me, 20 shekels [$6] for them.” If their earnings had to be put into a kitty to pay the tax bill, the girls served as unpaid slaves.

                  At the Tropicana, in Tel Aviv, according to journalist Michael Specter writing in The New York Times, 20 women share 12 cubicles, working eight-hour day-shifts and 12-hour night-shifts.

                  One sex-slave, lured by an offer of legitimate work, told Amnesty International that she “had a nervous break-down. A client offering to help me escape turned out to be one of them and I was beaten up by the owners. There was nowhere to run – there were bars on the windows and bodyguards, day and night.”

                  “The conditions were terrible. One girl was kept to work in the basement for eight months. It was damp there and she got tuberculosis as a result. Most of the girls had different diseases – venereal and others related to their reproductive organs. I do not wish even to my enemies to go through what we went through.”

                  She escaped by jumping from the first floor of the building. When she returned to help another friend escape, she was arrested in a police raid as an illegal alien. She was afraid to testify against the pimp, who knew the whereabouts of her family in Ukraine.

                  “Nearly all prostitutes in Israel are Russian [70%], their boss is not. Israelis love Russian girls,” according to “Wake Up or Die,” an organization monitoring sex-trafficking who quotes a chuckling Jacob Golan, an Israeli slave master. “They are blonde and good-looking and different from us.”

                  “This is a whole industry – recruiting them, bringing them and distributing them to all of the parlors,” said Efraim Fhrlich, former commander of the Tel Aviv vice squad. This “national industry” brings in $450 million yearly. A pimp can earn $50,000-$125,000 per year on pimping one slave. A 10-slave brothel can take in up to 750,000 shekels or $215,000 a month.

                  “Elderly Jewish women in the Ukraine often lure the girls into the trade,” Specter said. Or, the girls are recruited through “an ad or an unexpected meeting on the street, with a proposition to work abroad as a maid, secretary, showgirl, nanny or waitress.” A typical ad, writes Walter Zalisko, 24-year police veteran, authority on Russian organized crime in New Jersey and New York, seeks ” … pretty woman, under age 40, slender, educated, to work in modern office setting; $600/month; documents and transportation provided.”

                  Reuters interviewed one girl, starving in Russia, who got caught up in the whirlwind of international crime. Defrauded into working in Israel, she was kidnapped by a pimp, kept in bondage with eight women in two apartments and extorted of her pay.

                  “I came into this circle and then it was very hard to get out. My papers were fake, I had no money, I had no acquaintances and I was in an enclosed place.” Torn between her fear of physical abuse by her pimp and fear of deportation back to hunger, she did not dare seek help at the police station across the road.

                  Specter tells the story of a Ukrainian who, after seeing an ad, slipped off a tour boat when it put in at Haifa, hoping to make a bundle dancing naked on the tops of tables. In Israel, she was taken to a brothel, where her boss burned her passport. “I own you,” he said. “You are my property, and you will work until you earn your way out. Don’t try to leave. You have no papers and you don’t speak Hebrew. You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and bring you back.” Subsequently, the brothel was raided, and she was jailed.

                  Megan Goldin interviewed one 18-year-old girl that “has been bought and sold so many times she has lost count.” Admittedly lured to Israel by promises of large sums of money if she turned to prostitution, she said “I never thought I would actually have to do it � I thought once I arrived would find a way to escape and find other work, as a waitress or something.”

                  She had been flown to Egypt, where with 20 other women aged between 18 and 24, she was smuggled by a Bedouin cross the Sinai desert. The girls were forced to crawl under a barbed-wire border fence in the middle of the night.

                  Organized crime from the former Soviet Union invested $4 billion dollars in real estate and businesses in Israel in seven years. In a warped marriage based on greed that has no boundaries and no loyalties, Israeli mafias join with Russian mafias to cooperate with Arab Bedouins to smuggle women and children to the “Promised Land.”

                  The unfenced, unguarded 70-mile Israel-Egypt border allows the Bedouins to navigate through the desert with dune buggies and all-terrain vehicles. Israeli Border Patrols, focused on intercepting terrorists, ignore the Bedouin slave traders.

                  “It’s horrible,” an Israeli official said. “The women we found had been used along the way (by the Bedouins). After all, their masters had to test their product. They are touched and measured and prodded in heinous ways to ‘ensure the quality of the product.’ Some also bring friends or family to use the women. Then the women have to work for a period of one or more months free of charge to ‘pay for their passage.’”

                  “It’s like a car. It depends how valuable she is,” “Amir,” a Tel Aviv pimp told Reuters. Four of the girls who were valued at lower prices ended up working in the slum area around Tel Aviv’s old central bus station where they were trapped and burnt to death when a religious fanatic torched their brothel, a Jewish weekly said. Girls are traded and bartered for a variety of goods, including drugs.

                  The girls, many of whom are Palestinian, are displayed naked at pimping auctions going at prices ranging from $4,000 to $20,000, depending on her looks, according to one Tel Aviv pimp.

                  Chaim Nardi, an Israeli sociologist, links the slave-trafficking to machismo attitudes in Israeli society, which “allow men to consider women their toy.” Most prostitutes suffer from depression, he said.

                  Prison officials report that 80% of the girls become addicted to drugs, mainly heroin, Israelis’ drug of choice. A vicious cycle of prostitution finances their addiction.

                  One 18-year-old Moldavian sought refuge in a Tel Aviv police station. Some of the officers, who were her clients, recognized her and called her pimp. She fled. The pimp found her and forced her back to the brothel.

                  “There are police who just come as clients, those who get special discounts because of their good relationships with the owner of the place and those that inform the owner about police operations,” Levenkron said.

                  Hotline found police involved in six of 24 cases in 15 months – four cases of policemen warning of impending police raids, one policeman managed a brothel, and another sold a woman to another pimp after her arrest.

                  Hotline accused the Israeli officials of: arresting pimps at their convenience, and ignoring crimes of notorious pimps who cooperate with the police on other matters; of disregarding the 16-year sentence allowed, and of making “shameful” plea bargains with pimps.

                  The authorities, according to Hotline, lied about women refusing to testify. Less than 20, of hundreds of women interviewed in two and a half years, had been asked to testify. Of 1,370 files opened between 1998-2000, only 2% were prosecuted.

                  “N” was arrested when she filed a complaint. The police refused to release her on bail for five days, claiming that her life was in danger because the pimps were too dangerous to be arrested. N’s Israeli boyfriend informed the pimps that the police were looking for them and advised them to turn themselves in, which they did.

                  Charges were pressed against her two pimps. One of them was declared unfit to stand trial and the other was sentenced on 15 February 2001, to two years in prison, one year on probation and fined $5,000. The prosecutors claimed that N was “rented” for only five days from the time the new law against trade in human beings was approved till her escape, and that her testimony was weak. No charges were pressed against the pimp for rape, managing a brothel and living off prostitutes’ income, although he had confessed.

                  “V” was arrested in a brothel and sent to prison for three months, waiting for her traveling documents. For a month and a half Hotline was told that there was no evidence to support V’s claims. The day after Hotline notified the Parliament investigation committee, the police decided to cooperate. V named eight people who sold, bought or raped her, giving their addresses. Twenty-two more days passed before the first pimp was arrested. Another pimp had fled the country.

                  Tatiana arrived in Israel from Belarus to work as a hotel maid to support her mother and son. The pimp met her, took her to a brothel and told her that she would have to repay her “sale price” and the travel costs. After several failed escape attempts, Tatiana was finally released from the brothel after a police raid – a friend of hers had contacted the Belarus Consulate who contacted the police.

                  On her prison bunk, she found an anonymous note threatening to kill her and punish her family if she squealed. Hotline petitioned the Chief of Police for witness protection, who replied that the Police could not guarantee anyone’s safety outside Israel. She was deported to Belarus despite begging to be flown to Poland or Lithuania and then allowed to cross into Belarus by car. She was reportedly met by a male relative and taken to an unknown location. Tatiana’s subsequent fate is unknown. “I don’t know the outcome of the trial. I only know that Arthur [the pimp] is at liberty I talked to him on the phone …

                  Arthur knows my address in St. Petersburg and my telephone number because he kept my passport. I have a small daughter, eight-years-old there. He threatened that he would find me in Russia, at home, if I did not do what he wanted me to,” one girl told Amnesty International.

                  A Jewish weekly interviewed Tel Aviv Police Superintendent Pini Aviram, who heads a special investigative team dealing with the trafficking issue. “My team consists of only five Russian speakers,” he said, frustrated at the lack of manpower.

                  (Jews’ traffic in white sex slaves escalates)

                • peppermint says:

                  The fact that being a cuck doesn’t get you pussy anymore means that every White who isn’t a professor or a journalist stands to gain immediately by defecting to the Nazis and to the extent he defects, since the antonym of faggot is Nazi.

                  Consequently all White men under 25 are Nazis and elementary school White boys are saying nigger the way they said fuck when I was in elementary school.

                  These men, when we seize power from the cucks, who will, in the end, either meet the sweet release of death gladly or meekly hand power over to us, will, not being cucks in any way, react with explosive anger to the history of Aryan women taken as sex slaves by muds, because it is intolerable for muds to touch Aryan women. There will be a reconquest, not only of Europe, but also the entire Western hemisphere, the middle east and all of africa.

                • B says:

                  Yes, it’s all true. Russian and Ukrainian women are kidnapped daily and brought to Tel Aviv. How else would you find prostitutes willing to work for $30 per trick in Russia and the Ukraine? It’s totally mission impossible.

                  And of course slavery of non-Jews is completely legal in Israel. Cannibalism, too. Right across the street from the brothel is a shawarma joint, and the shawarma is made out of Russian baby meat.

                  ““They are blonde and good looking and different from us,” he said, chuckling.”

                  What, no hand-rubbing?

                  In short, only an idiot like you could take this seriously.

                • jim says:

                  Anyone who proposes that prostitutes are forced into prostitution is completely deluded. They obviously have ample opportunity to wander off with their clients, and often enough do exactly that.

                  The typical pimp is a broken man, because it is mighty rough on a man’s soul to live on his girlfriend’s money and for his girlfriend to fuck other men. Maybe he beats her from time to time, but he is still a dancing monkey. If he beats her it is part of the dancing monkey’s performance.

                  Women are apt to fuck other men even if they don’t get paid for it. The problem is not forcing women into prostitution, but forcing them to refrain.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Vitriol aside, you really have made an ass of yourself with this “why don’t they just go to the police and complain about being kidnapped?” line. Even by your standards this is far too retarded. Ridiculously retarded.

                  This wall of text was intended to prove the absurdity of your very suggestion. It’s interesting (typical) that instead of addressing the actual issue, you deflect from it by going about hand-rubbing and baby-meat shawarma.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I mean, this was the original asinine statement which I’ve quoted:

                  “Nobody grabs those women-they are hookers going to work in Tel Aviv to make money. You know, we have a functional police force, it’s not like any of those girls don’t know how to say “Mr. Officer, I’ve been kidnapped.””

                  Every single sentence here – nay, every single word here, is false. And ridiculous in addition to being false. You’ve outdone yourself. Many of them literally can’t even say those words, because they only speak their native language. And you pretend like the the pigs aren’t themselves “regulars” and pals of the pimps?

                  You do realize that pigs got a rape-habit more-so than non-pigs, right? And I’m calling them “pigs” because, in non eastasian countries, police are invariably pigs.

                  Btw, when you say “we have a functional police force”, that also contradicts everything I’ve heard about Israeli police.

                  Also btw, one “David (Dudi) Digmi” actually literally deserves to explode in a bus to millions of pieces.

                • jim says:

                  Police are indeed irrelevant, and B is entirely deluded if he thinks that police matter. But the things that prevents women from being “forced” into prostitution are:

                  1. Far too many of them need absolutely no forcing.

                  2. They can and regularly do wander off from one man to the next. They are always shacking up with a client, and then trying to turn him into a pimp.

                  What is the difference between a pimp and cuckold?

                  A pimp is even less manly because he is supported by his girlfriend.

                  There is no end of men who have attempted to “rescue” a whore. They always wind up horribly burned, hence the saying “you can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

                • B says:

                  For some reason, if there’s one subject that I trust Jim on, it’s whores.

                  Police matter in that, if these girls were actually nice, innocent victims of kidnapping, they would be do what you would do if you were kidnapped-go to the cops. Every sixth person in the country speaks Russian, every second person speaks English. It’s not an issue.

                  The actual deal is that these women were whores in Chelyabinsk or Zaporozhye, where the average salary is a couple of hundred bucks a month, and are over here making that in a day. Then, when they get busted, it’s a sob story-“save me, Mister Officer! I thought they were bringing me over here to be a physics tutor!” Come on, how stupid do you have to be? The same reason that NYC is full of Russian and Ukrainian plumbers and electricians coming over to work for six months and then going home with the equivalent of three years’ wages in cash, the same reason you can see Mexicans at your local Home Depot, the same reason Iraq is full of American and Phillipino and Nepalese contractors, that’s the reason these women are here.

        • peppermint says:

          nope

          I know a thing or two about my family history

          Not giving details, but White farmers aren’t slaves except in Russia

      • Anonymous says:

        Male slaves only reproduced because …. say what?? What the fuck is freshmint talking about?

        They were an extremely valuable commodity. They reproduced like farm animals. They were encouraged to reproduce.

    • jim says:

      You don’t appear to have a very deep knowledge of God’s truths, or what Jesus preached and did.

      Progressive Jesus is a twentieth century invention, invented by people who do not believe that Jesus is God.

      To make Jesus progressive you tear a few of his words out of context, and then interpret them in a radically different way from the way that Christians have interpreted those words for two thousand years.

      • peppermint says:

        32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

        33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

        34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

        35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

        36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

        37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

        38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

        39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

        40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

        41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

        42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

        43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

        44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

        45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

        46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Hey Jimmy I see you’re a big fucking pussy but we all knew that. You nrx patriarchy obsessed types maybe have some women issues? You spank it watching the Handmaidens Tale? Anyway, Nice moderating, of course you won’t allow commentary that says the obvious truth: you are living in a fantasy world, Trump is a moron who gives not one half a fuck about you or your nasty little bunch of cretins, and this whole thing is a big circle jerk. Be kind and keep the reach arounds going you delusional twat.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Fuck you; you have to go back. You want savages so bad, you can live with them.

      The Shadowed Knight

      • Anonymous says:

        It seems you fellows are ideal candidates for some fundamental mormonism. They let you fuck your 12 year old cousins (so long as you marry them, which I understand is the important bit), they’re a bunch of insular retardo fanatics (another key point), and you can keep the blood lines pure and free of all the “savages”!

        Funny think about those savages: America was built on the backs of their slave labor. They didn’t ask to be brought here, although it’s hard to imagine the early and rapid progress of the colonies without their efforts.

        • Anonymous says:

          Who cares? Niggers should be either enslaved, returned to their homeland, or killed. In a race war, your skin is your uniform.

          On the other hand, Antifa rats like you deserve only one of these treatments. It involves helicopters.

        • peppermint says:

          » America was built on the backs of their slave labor.

          false

          • Anonymous says:

            The cotton economy depended on slavery. Wall Street was literally a slave market built by slave labor. You’re fucking delusional if you think the southern secession wasn’t based on economics. Why the fuck would you care anyway? Shouldn’t they all just be re-enslaved, as your friend the anonymous race warrior says. I wonder how many “nigger kills” he’s notched up? My guess is a big fat 0, because like the rest of you he’s a delusional head case with self-worth issues, living in a fantasy world of patriarchy and helicopter rides.

            • Anonymous says:

              When niggers chimp out en masse, it looks like San Domingo (“Haiti”) 1804. When whites chimp out en masse, it looks like Germany 1933. Right now, Antifa, it is your nigger allies who are chimping out. Guess what happens when the tides turn?

              Take the dildo out of your ass before posting.

            • peppermint says:

              If niggers were worth anything on their own, they would have made something of Haiti, Rhodesia, Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa, Ivory Coast, Detroit, etc.

              Niggers are worth something either as White slaves or as serfs directed by Whites.

              • anonymous says:

                You don’t think european colonialism and the literal and figurative rape of Africa – for slaves, for diamonds, for conquest and riches – has had some s part to play with how things have played out in that continent?

                I think you need to have a nice little wank to clear your mind – fantasize about that wife you want chained up in the basement. Because that’s all you are, a bunch of delusional wankers. Nobody’s going back, there will be no helicopter rides, and you will die as impotent hate filled old men, having accomplished nothing.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Colonialism made Africa great. The reason Africa is crap today is because it’s full of “independent” niggers. If niggers were wholly replaced with humans, Africa could be the most prosperous, scientifically-advanced continent. It has all the resources.

                  Africa was never great until outsiders (whites, occasionally browns) went there and built stuff. When the niggers were left to their own devices, Africa became… Africa. It’s not a coincidence that South Africa and Rhodesia were built by whites. Instead of making excuses for your beloved Kangs who dindu nuffin, you should go to Africa and help the niggers there build their countries. I’m sure it’ll be a “fruitful endeavor.”

                  The only wanker here is you, Antifa. Usually, when someone comes around and goes “hurr durr, none of you is getting laid”, it’s a pretty sure sign that he’s projecting his own state of affairs on the others. You are convinced that everyone else is as miserable as you are – and oddly enough, you choose to waste your time with us, the poor deplorables, rather than in the company of the niggers and the feminists for whom you shill so hard.

                  Why is that?

                • Anonymous says:

                  The thing is, Antifa, whenever those “feminist” (lol) women were into you, which must not have been very often, you’ve ruined your chances by being the odious leftist pedant that you are, autistically taking their every word at face value. You were supposed to hold closely the woman you’ve been dating and, with some measure of plausible deniability, tell her: “I wanna know what love is. I want you to show me.” You’d get the blowjob.

                  Instead, what you did was telling her something along the lines of: “I respect you as a woman and a human. And I will never dare hurt you.” Of course, you’ve received no blowjob for your efforts, went back to your place to the delightful company of 31 tubs of pornhub, and after the session had ended some 1.5-2 hours later (you have delayed your climax because you wanted to watch more and more), you went here to kvetch about how “delusional” we all must be.

                  How does that feel, ANTIFA?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Whoa, someone has got their masturbation technique down! An hour and a half, really?

                  In any case, the odious nature of, again, you bunch of DELUDED LOSERS – lots of bullshit talk about subjectifying women and “niggers”, installing someone as fucking retarded as Trump as King (lolol), and every pedantic piece of minutiae related to these odious and moronic goals (with no action, thankfully) – came as a surprise. I was aware humanity was basically shit, but for fucks sake. I leave you fellows to it. It’s a hilarious little grotesque corner of the interwebz, and it’s all yours.

                • peppermint says:

                  Hypothesis: niggers could be like, if not japs and gooks, at least flips, if they weren’t being raped by vicious Aryans

                  Experiment: release all nigger countries from Aryan colonialism and forbid Aryans from using the word nigger

                  Result: pending

                  》you will die as impotent hate filled old men, having accomplished nothing

                  To the left, the ’60s never ended. Accepting that the ’60s could end means accepting that Boomer starchildren and their rock stars are mortal.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >An hour and a half, really?

                  4 hours straight is kinda rare.

                  >lots of bullshit talk about subjectifying women

                  The dictionary definition of this word is:

                  1) to make subjective.

                  2) to identify with (a subject) or interpret subjectively.

                  I guess it’s a portmanteau of “subjugate” and “objectify”. Actually, I like the sound of it. Subjectification. Hmmmm. We deplorables can work with that. Thanks.

                  In all seriousness, if you’ve ever been in a patriarchal relationship (you haven’t), you’d know that women enjoy and are turned on by male dominance. You call it a “fantasy” because you’ve never been there, and you can’t be there, because you are a sissified sperglord.

                  You know what patriarchy looks like? Like fun. Like a woman washing the dishes, and suddenly getting ass-spanked by hubby, who begins caressing her boobs randomly, from behind. “Not now please, I’m in a hurry cuz I need to blahblahblah.” Her words are ignored, she gets kisses on her neck. “Stop it, I can’t concentrate that way” she murmurs. “Damn right you can’t.” She turns around from the sink and hubby can almost smell her vaginal irritation system working at full capacity.

                  Sounds like some kitschy script, but that’s literally how it works. That’s how it goes, in real life. If you think it’s a fantasy, it’s because you’re a feminine cuck, your social milieu is heavily cucked, and your childhood was heavily cucked. Since your dad is either a henpecked goofball or been destroyed by the courts, you could never observe this reality yourself, and so you believe it to be made-up. It’s not made up. You’re a faggot.

                  If the collapse is final, your nigger allies will eat your brains out – zombie style. If there is restoration, feminism will be eliminated (hopefully puritanism will also be eliminated, so feminism couldn’t ever return; for puritanism is the mother of feminism), and faggot SJW Antifa cucks like you — traitors like you — will be made an example of. So either way, you’ve got no future.

                  The Jews promised you a multicultural paradise in the not-too-distant future. They lied, Antifa. They lied. People like you never had a future.

                  >and “niggers”

                  Wait… you think the race war is *not* going to happen? And that whites are *not* going to win it, and flip the table out completely? Just wait 3 decades. I mean, I could be wrong. Who knows? Gotta wait. You sound like a “fast shooter”, but why the rush? We’re just getting started. The rope’s waiting, Antifa.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Like fun. Like a woman washing the dishes, and suddenly getting ass-spanked by hubby, who begins caressing her boobs randomly, from behind. “Not now please, I’m in a hurry cuz I need to blahblahblah.” Her words are ignored, she gets kisses on her neck. “Stop it, I can’t concentrate that way” she murmurs. “Damn right you can’t.” She turns around from the sink and hubby can almost smell her vaginal irritation system working at full capacity.

                  Thanks for the broner.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “To the left, the ’60s never ended. Accepting that the ’60s could end means accepting that Boomer starchildren and their rock stars are mortal.”

                  It’s amazing how frozen popular culture has become since the West’s cultural revolution. It’s still perfectly relevant to reference the 60s in a way it certainly wasn’t perfectly relevant to reference the 30s in 1987. In fact just about everything about the 60s cultural revolution makes a hell of a lot more sense if people stayed 22 for centuries. Kind of awkward that they are all literally dying before our eyes. Our whole left-washed culture is one great big Carrie Fisher waiting for the final heart attack.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Whites do not need slaves to build civilization. We kept it running just fine after we freed them. In the end, you have to go back.

              The Shadowed Knight

            • jim says:

              It is completely ludicrous and delusional to claim that Wall Street was a slave market, or built by slave labor. Slavery was economically irrelevant in the cooler parts of America.

              And the South was doing blacks a dangerously great favor when it purchased them from Africa. The ones that caught the boat were the lucky ones.

              • Anonymous says:

                You are wrong. Where do you think the banks and financiers and all the rest of the machinery that made the cotton industry the lifeblood of 19th century America were located? In big cities on the eastern seaboard like New York.

                Wall Street was *literally* built by Dutch slaves in the 1600s. There was *literally* a slave marker operating on Wall Street in the 18th century – the meal market. Slavery was an intrinsic part of the colonial and then early American economy, in the north and the south. Do some really basic homework before making silly responses.

                • jim says:

                  Bullshit.

                  Wall street was a tree on wall street, where people met under the shade of the tree to buy and sell shares. Streets in New York were not built by slaves, nor was there a literal slave market operating in New York.

                  This is similar the story that Edison did not invent the electric light bulb, a black slave did, that black women were responsible for the moon landing, and so on and so forth. Just “We wuz kangs”

                • peppermint says:

                  “Dutch slaves”, because everyone but an Englishman is a slave, and everyone but a Puritan is a slave to his passions.

                  Destroying the word slave is not helpful because it makes it look like we have something to hide. Our ancestors were not only as good as us, they were better.

                • Anonymous says:

                  BULLSHIT – indeed. Jim , your ability to blithely ignore history / reality that doesn’t suit you is remarkable.

                  I urge you to do a tiny amount of research before making false claims over and over.

                  Wall Street and slavery – there are a million sources, let’s just look at wikipedia:
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street#History

                  In the 1640s basic picket and plank fences denoted plots and residences in the colony.[13] Later, on behalf of the Dutch West India Company, Peter Stuyvesant, using both African slaves[14] and white colonists, collaborated with the city government in the construction of a more substantial fortification,

                  ….

                  Slavery was introduced to Manhattan in 1626, but it was not until December 13, 1711, that the New York City Common Council made Wall Street the city’s first official slave market for the sale and rental of enslaved Africans and Indians.[19][20] The slave market operated from 1711 to 1762 at the corner of Wall and Pearl Streets. It was a wooden structure with a roof and open sides, although walls may have been added over the years and could hold approximately 50 men. The city directly benefited from the sale of slaves by implementing taxes on every person who was bought and sold there.[21]

                  Your absurd refusal to acknowledge historical fact is astounding.

                • jim says:

                  Wikepedia citing “We waz Kangs” is not evidence that they were Kangs.

                  If Wall Street was a slave market and built by slaves in the seventeenth century, then there would be seventeenth century sources for this supposed fact. There are only late twentieth century sources.

                  How could twentieth century people know this supposed fact unless there was someone in the seventeenth century who recorded and reported this fact?

                • Grampy_bone says:

                  What difference does it make? When you have someone build your house, they don’t own the house, it isn’t *really their’s,* and they’re not better than the occupants.

                • Anonymous says:

                  There was a slave market on Wall Street – all of Wall Street wasn’t a slave market, and no one has ever made such a claim.

                  Where do you think modern sources come from? They look at the actual historical record. Your argument is ridiculous.. I don’t want to resort to ad-hominem, but how fucking stupid are you? I have no doubt that there are contemporary accounts of all these things. More modern historians rely on these contemporary accounts when writing their works. It’s fucking dead simple. Either your brain is broken, or you simply turn it off when you hear something you don’t like.

                • jim says:

                  There was a slave market on Wall Street

                  How do you know?

                  The only way anyone in the twentieth century could know is if someone in the seventeenth century observed and reported such a slave market.

                  Which those highly unreliable seventeenth century folk somehow neglected to do.

                  More modern historians rely on these contemporary accounts

                  Do they? The past is always changing, and changes with alarming rapidity.

                  Whenever I seek an ancient source for the latest and most up to date versions of history, I either do not get it, or if I get it, it fails to support the claimed factoid. What I get instead of ancient source is a critique of an ancient source explaining why the ancient source is unreliable and means the opposite of what it says.

                  It has not been my experience that modern historians rely on ancient sources.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You are full of it Jim. I don’t believe for a second your claim that you make or have made a legitimate search through ancient / old / contemporaneous sources on the subjects under discussion (or likely any subject) and find the “opposite” of what is the acknowledged scholarly consensus.

                  You are -not- a scholar. I don’t know what precisely you did or do to make a living, but this much is clear.

                • jim says:

                  I have not made a search for contemporaneous sources for Slave Market in New York, but I have made enough such searches on enough such topics, to conclude that the probability of finding actual historical sources that provide real support for the claims is unlikely. By and large, if there is actual historical support for a claim that is likely to be controversial or disputed, people link you quite directly to a historical source. If instead you get modern scholars citing other modern scholars …

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Anonymous,

                  This should be quite simple for you to demonstrate then. Go to wikipedia which has a policy of “no original research” and find their citations. Go to those citations and find the contemporary reports. Link those. Argument won.

                  So just having done that guess what the cite for those claims is?

                  # Zinn, Howard (1970). The Politics of History. Boston: Beacon. p. 67. ISBN 9780252061226.
                  # ^ Slave Market. Mapping the African American Past, Columbia University.

                  Yep, a lying sack of shit.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Steve, you’re a moron. Jim, you’re a liar. This stuff is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Howard Zinn did not make it up out of thin air and, more importantly, he isn’t the only source. Just from the Wikipedia article you have –

                  The New York historical society:

                  http://www.slaveryinnewyork.org/PDFs/White_New_Yorkers.pdf

                  Columbia University:

                  http://maap.columbia.edu/place/22.html

                  WNYC:

                  http://www.wnyc.org/story/nyc-acknowledge-its-slave-market-more-50-years/

                  AND MORE! Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by a bunch of guys who think a pathological liar like Donald Trump would literally make a good king.

                • jim says:

                  “Common knowledge” means that all right thinking people agree it is true without the inconvenience of any actual evidence that it is true.

                  If it was true, someone in the seventeenth century would have mentioned it was true, and that person’s words would be known to everyone, the way Lincoln’s speech is known to everyone.

                • Anonymous says:

                  The contemporary documents do exist; from the Dutch, from the British and finally from the American bureaucracy that was and is New York. I have no doubt a casual search through the archives would substantiate everything about this. This is why it is all in the history books!

                  Common knowledge means just that; knowledge that is commonly held. It doesn’t imply a lack of evidence. In fact, just the opposite. In any case, by Jims own definition he is discounted. He is many things – “right thinking” is not one of them. Read a fucking history book Jim. History is not subject to your imagination nor your prejudices.

                • jim says:

                  I doubt it.

                  If search would substantiate these claims, how about you do the actual searching?

                  If the evidence to substantiate these claims existed, it would be taught ten times over to every schoolgirl till we were all sick of hearing it.

                • jim says:

                  The contemporary documents do exist; from the Dutch, from the British and finally from the American bureaucracy that was and is New York.

                  If they exist, produce them.

                  Produce copies of seventeenth century documents, not twentieth century documents telling us what supposedly happened in the seventeenth century.

                  How would anyone know what happened in the seventeenth century except he got it from a seventeenth century witness?

        • Spph says:

          I agree, we should give them the promised 40 acres and a mule, along with a ride back to its location on the African continent

    • Cavalier says:

      Feel free to produce your “Patriarchy Very Bad Oy Vey” manifesto. We don’t believe in censorship here, just cuckstain anal destruction.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hi Antifanonymous. Do you prefer Botswana or Afghanistan? Just curious.

  17. […] the comments here the talk turned to the game that goes on between men and women who are potential mates. On the […]

Leave a Reply