Game

This is not a PUA blog.  To learn PUA, read Heartiste and Rollo, But, I seem to have been conscripted by the Dark Enlightenment

How to deal with woman, the pitch.

Call +31 J-I-M-I-A-N-I-T-Y right now and order our #1 best-selling product, how to deal with women.

to issue a post on how to deal with women in a relationship, what do with women after picking them up, and how the religion should deal with women, how the true religion should treat women and support husbands and fathers.  So here it is:

Women are wonderful, much better than men in some respects.  A woman wants, a woman needs, to serve and obey.

Women are terrible, much worse than men in other respects.  All Women Are Like That.

This is the dark enlightenment, so I am leading off with the bad news.

Women are hypergamous.  Men want to bang every fertile age chick. My little man salutes most of them. Women, however, only want to bang the very best. So men tend to be nice to every fertile age chick, while women give every attractive man a hard time, to see what he is made of, including the more attractive men in their place of employment, including the boss in their place of employment, so will invariably disrupt the working environment. They will give their husbands a hard time, to see what he is made of, and if you don’t pass the test, you become invisible to her.  And if you are her boss, also invisible to her.

A lustful man, such as myself, is nice to every fertile age woman he meets.  A lustful woman does the opposite. Like Kate in “The Taming of the Shrew”, her disruptive behavior and misconduct reveals her hunger. And I see a great deal of disruption and misconduct in the workplace, which disruptive misconduct seems to be strangely invisible to everyone else.

Women pay alarmingly little attention to the male hierarchy of status.  They want an alpha male, but in our society, alpha males are severely restrained from violence, aggression, and misconduct, which restraint registers with women as not alpha.  All Women Are Like That.

Hypergamy never sleeps, a man must always perform, can never relax, is always on stage, can never let his guard down. I generally maintain the semblance of a charismatic arrogant asshole playboy with potential for violence and crime (Marlon Brando in The Wild One) but if General Butt Naked showed up wearing an AK 47, his trademark necklace of human eyeballs, and absolutely nothing else, I would be $#!% out of luck.

You will be $#!% tested, often brutally, and you have to pass your $#!% tests. $#!% tests are hard to pass, and are subconsciously intended to be hard to pass. There is no easy magic trick for passing $#!% tests. Anyone who says it is easy is lying, because women intend it to be hard. They want to separate the men from the boys, and the top men from the ordinary men. If you have an easy magic trick for passing $#!% tests, then as soon as chicks figure it out, it will not work any more.

Although women pay alarmingly little attention to the male status hierarchy, that is because our existing hierarchy fails to register with them as real. They are nonetheless much impressed by males backing the status of other males. If you have a driver, you score pussy points because you dominate the driver. If you have a bodyguard, you score huge pussy points because the bodyguard registers on women as alpha, and because he implies the potential for violence. Similarly, cops impress women, but you will not be able to get a cop to treat you as high status, though you may well be able to get a security man to treat you as high status. Observe the theatrical way in which Trump deploys presidential security. He is very good at this.

God, of course, is the ultimate high status alpha male. So the husband should be the priest of his family. Say grace, don’t let anyone start eating till you start, and don’t let family leave the table till you are done.

Paul commanded: 1 Timothy 3:

  1. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, …
  2. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
  3. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The Church should support the Sovereign in his state, the husband in his marriage, and the father in his family. And has not been doing that. We got Romance, celebrating adultery, at the same time as the Church undermined the power of the Holy Roman Emperor, and tried to require mandatory female consent to marriage.  Priestly celibacy is a Christian holiness spiral, without support in the New Testament or the practices of apostles, which has been blowing up in scandal since it was introduced, because, as Paul observed, God calls very few men to celibacy.

Female consent should only required for virtuous women. Female misconduct should be dealt with by shotgun marriage, and in practice, despite near a thousand years of Church opposition, misbehaving women were shotgun married until quite recently.  The holiness spiral that led to Romance, mandatory female consent, and priestly celibacy resulted in a Christianity that has failed to support proper earthly authority for husbands, fathers, and Kings, and in recent times has become dementedly and dangerously hostile to the authority of fathers and husbands.

All marriages that actually work are quietly eighteenth century.  If your Church is hostile to such relationships, and it very likely is, you just cannot go there.  Because then your wife or girlfriend sees you emasculated by other men, and by the the most alpha male of them all, God, and then she starts cruising social media looking for someone more alpha.  The Pauline rules of worship (that women should cover their heads, and should not speak in church, nor exercise leadership positions) provide psychological support for the proper relationship of men and women, thus  provide social support for durable relationships, thus make it possible for men and women to cooperate to conceive and raise children.  If a Church deviates from these practices, it is likely not just failing to support, but aggressively undermining, the relationships necessary between men and women to form families.  Dalrock has a great pile of horrifying anecdotes on this topic.  Don’t get burned.  Do not let your wife or girlfriend see you bow your head before enemies who hate you.  You need a God that backs you, not a God that emasculates you.  If your church edits Ephesians 5:21 into Ephesians 5:22, and then drops Ephesians 5:23-29, they are your enemies, they hate you, they intend you harm, they intend to deny you children and grandchildren.  Ephesians 5:21 is part of Ephesians 5:19-21, referring to the congregation, while Ephesians 5:22-29 refers to the husband and the wife.  If they cannot say 5:22 without first saying 5:21, they are evil people who intend you harm, they twist the words of the bible to emasculate you before your women.  By quoting 5:21-22, without quoting 5:19-21, or 5:22-29, by joining these two verses, and separating them from their context, they place a false context on 5:22, which false context is intended to harm you and poison the relationships between men and women, for the context of 5:22 is 5:22-29, not 5:19-21.  Whosoever does this is is a heretic and a white knight. White knights are evil and dangerous, and need to be punched out whenever you can get away with it.  The God of Saint Paul’s Church backed husbands and fathers.  Accept no substitute Gods.  The usual substitutes will destabilize your sexual relationships, impairing your ability to reproduce.  There is no better ground for violence than that some male is impairing your sexual relationships and capability to reproduce.  You need to defend your extended phenotype.

For your relationship to survive, you cannot be hardcore asshole all the time. From time to time you have show her a bit of nice guy beta provider. But not too much. Hard exterior, soft inner core that only she can reach. It is easy to overdo the nice guy. You have to make her earn it, or she will not appreciate it. You have to keep her on her toes. Having gracefully handled an exceptionally brutal $#!% test, then it is a good time for a generous chivalrous action. Having failed a $#!% test, then it is a really bad time for any action that is the slightest bit chivalrous.

Women want attention.  They want a lot of attention.  I wish women had an off switch like a television and could be put in a closet, but unfortunately they do not.  Women want to help you.  They want to be valuable to you, and you have to find ways to keep them busy, and then spend time appreciating what they have done.  Quite frequently she will however not do stuff you have told her to do.  This is both a $#!% test (she is daring you to make her do it) and also a cry for attention.  Hear that cry.

Yes, you have to give a woman lots of time, energy, and attention, or she is going to go looking for attention on social media, where she will find a hundred males richer than you, handsomer than you, and with bigger tools (which they will show her) than yours.  But at the same time, Poon Commandment Number Three:  “You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority”  The natural order is that a woman’s focus is her man, and a man’s focus is something higher.  If your focus is her, suddenly and mysteriously she will lose interest in your interest.  You have to give her attention, but you have to keep her on short rations and make her earn it, because you are an important person with important things to do.

When you get her doing stuff for you, reward her liberally with attention.  When not satisfied, turn your face away.  She wants attention, but also wants to earn it, not simply demand it.  Shouting and spanking is attention and drama, and women love attention and drama, so shouting and spanking is not very effective in getting compliance.  Women love to be made to comply.  Just as you tip generously so that you can not tip when displeased, you should supply attention generously so that you can not supply attention when displeased.  This is more effective in obtaining compliance.

But some kinds of attention are bad.  If you are looking at her, and she is looking at her task, this is the wrong dynamic.  She should be looking at you, and you should be looking at your mission.  Reversing the dynamic will make her unhappy.

A woman wants you to use her, to exploit her, to take advantage of her.  At the same time she is going to make it difficult for you to do so.  Life would be so much easier if  women had an off switch, but since they don’t, you just have to get on with the use, the exploitation, and the taking advantage.  She wants to please you, so you need to give her avenues and opportunities to please you.  At the same time, she is going to test you for weakness and neediness, and the tests are going to be hard.  You cannot be weak or needy.  Have to be arrogant, not weak, and demanding, not needy.  You should want lots of things from her, and communicate that you are pleased when you get those things – while at the same time being totally entitled to get it, pleased but not grateful, because you are completely entitled to get whatever you want from her.

And, of course, there is that soft inner core.  You should care, not about what she wants, for that will only irritate her, but about what she should want, as though she was your own flesh.

You will notice that for everything I have told you to do, I have also told you almost the opposite:  Be an asshole and cherish her.  Give her attention and don’t give her attention. But it is worse than that.  The difference between what I am telling you to do, and telling you to not do, is pre verbal, and by expressing the difference in words, I necessarily oversimplify and exaggerate the difference.

 

 

276 Responses to “Game”

  1. Glenfilthie says:

    [Comment deleted as a waste of reader bandwidth because Glenfilithie told the same lie in almost the same words one hundred times already, and was rebutted in almost the same words one hundred times already.]

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Good god, Glennie, will you shut the fuck up? Put your own house in order before coming and repeating the same mindless drivel that put it in disorder to start.

    • Koanic says:

      Glenfilthie exemplifies the sort of white knight one is supposed to do violence to when convenient. Nabil is his name, and hippy BS is his game. Eradicate his male line.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        He already took care of that. He is the last of his male line, and his only daughter is a rug biter. He has no sons, no future.

        • Ron says:

          I think you inadvertently got to the heart of the problem. On some level he has given up and this is his way of coping.

          I think the one great thing about being male, is that as long as we are alive we have the ability to generate possibility. This is true reproductively but also spiritually. For us, it ain’t over till it’s over.

          Glen managed to reproduce and raise a child. Granted it wasn’t to his or anyone else’s satisfaction. But that is life. Not every venture we engage in works. Even if we put all our love put all our heart into it. Part of it is a bad environment, part of it is mistakes in rearing, part of it is the child herself. Yknow she also has a bit of responsibility here.

          The fact he was able to do it once means he can do it again. But I think he doesn’t want to go through the pain and disappointment of it again, and perhaps that is why he coddles himself with the soothing white knight delusion.

          Then again, what the heck do I know about anything?

          Still, I do know that sometimes a man has to stand up, grab his gear, light his torch, throw open the door, take a deep breath and boldly stride out into the cold night.

          it done , it’s just a matter of choosing to face the cold darkness and boldly walk forward.

    • Yara says:

      It’s time for you to go.

    • peppermint says:

      > Good women spot good men and they get taken off the market relatively early.

      I guess I’m too trailer trash to have ever known a good woman socially. I suppose they learn about bananas and condoms in private school.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      “Good men and good women know what they’re worth and they’re worth and have no need for such childishness.”

      What percentage of women age 18-30 are considered ‘good’?

      • Bruce says:

        “What percentage of women age 18-30 are considered ‘good’?”

        Probably the percentage of women that have a hymen when they marry.

        Such women are probably a subset of the ones that are hid away from society (in a Church that modern people would consider a cult). So maybe a couple of percent at best?

        I was in a continuing Anglican Church – the traditional ones that broke from the Anglican communion in the 60’s and 70’s. On the morning that my 4th child was christened, the rock-n-roll teenage son of the priest (now bishop) fingered one of the good girls behind the altar.

        • Jehu says:

          That number (virgin when married) is around 3-10%. I married one. Thing is, even with that rarefied fraction, you still need at least non-negative game to keep them well behaved. I’m not sure what the fraction would be if you loosened the requirement to (has only fucked her husband). Perhaps as high as 15%.

          • peppermint says:

            0%. Not one of the women I knew, in any of the colleges or workplaces, except for exactly one totally asexual weirdo, hadn’t had a “serious boyfriend” by the time whe was college graduating age.

            And why would she expect to marry her first serious boyfriend? He’s going on with his career somewhere else and so is she, and everyone expects that to happen.

            If you married one it happened in the late 90s at the latest.

            • Bruce says:

              close to 0% for girls who go to college or who have a job.

              • S.J., Esquire says:

                ***close to 0% for girls who go to college or who have a job.***

                No, Jehu is correct; somewhere between 3-5% is accurate. Like him, I also married a virgin in the 2000s – the trick is I was a virgin too; you don’t generally see these women or get access to them unless you are Serious About It too.

                As for the college effect, it’s hit-or-miss. Yes, obviously the carousel is real. But sincere Christian women with the intelligence and dedication to complete a four-year degree in a non-absurd field are usually quite well-behaved.

                I do not usually comment on the manosphere’s rank overcynicism on this topic, because in the grand scheme of things it’s a relatively trivial point, in comparison to the titanically important issues like the ones described by Jim in this post, but since it was brought up, there you are.

            • Jehu says:

              No, I married her in the 2000-2010 decade. The frequency of virgins at marriage is estimated between 3 and 10%. Curiously enough, they don’t seem to particularly mind if you’re not a virgin that much either.
              3-10% is hardly zero, but it’s not something you can scale a solution on.

              • peppermint says:

                I knew a virgin college senior who was saving it for marriage in the 2000s. I fucked her and then broke up with her a year later.

                0%. The aughts and 2010s were the aughts and 2010s. Congratulations on finding your virgin wife before a soyboy like I found her during the aughts.

    • javier says:

      lol, dude won’t stop banging that drum, huh?

    • Glenfilthie says:

      Well I suppose at this point I’m just trolling the losers on the short bus. 🙂

      Have it your way: be assholes, abuse your women. God commands it; it even says so in the bible!

      • jim says:

        The correct way to treat women is written in the bible, and written in the world itself. Its also written in romance stories written by women. If you want to know what women want, pay absolutely no attention to what they tell you they want. What they tell you is just a test, and if you believe them, you fail the test. Pay attention to their sexual fantasies, which generally feature rape, violence, and egregious cruelty.

        • Glenfilthie says:

          [*Repetitious comment deleted. Repeating the same lie is a waste of reader bandwidth.*]

          • jim says:

            I had a successful marriage, children and grandchildren. I have once been the subject of a complaint to police for forcibly restraining a woman, but the complaint evaporated, and she followed me out of the police station back to my place – no arrest, no formal charges.

            No one who is doing that stuff has been convicted for it, nor have their marriages failed, except they succumb to feminism, except they are made weak by believing that what they are doing is wrong. It is not wrong. It is the will of Gnon.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Shitlib insults. Unworthy of the dialogue going on here.

              Thank you; dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              >Good luck to you and your little retards – you’re all gonna need it.

              Yeah, otherwise we might end up married to some cunt and have only a single dyke as an heir.

              Holy shit, we might even be so low in station in life to think that owning a “fully paid for RV” is something to brag about.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I will defer to your experience on militant dykes, since you are our resident expert in that regard. As to the rest, no one wants a feminist cat lady, because by the time they reach that point they are old and dried up.

            The point is that pre-cat lady women are all feminists. You tell a nominally Christian woman-not a Churchian, but an actual believer-that her place in life is to remain silent in church, learn the faith from her husband, and make herself helpful and sexually available and she is going to go thermonuclear. All of which are clear, explicit Biblical prescriptions, not subject to contextual interpretations. That is feminism. It is probably also a shit test, but feminism is what makes them able to react that way without fear of consequences.

            • peppermint says:

              Everyone is a feminist and a progressive, including the ironically alt-right soyboys who are going to make the world decent for their tumblrinas and keep their daughters virginal until they hand them off to men more respectable than themselves.

              If you ask me IRL, sexism is horrible, and sexism means not recognizing that women are women and need to permanently attach themselves to a man who will protect them, racism is horrible and racism means refusing to recognize that race exists and Blacks can’t be expected to do everything the same was Whites and Whites have interests too.

              • Mack says:

                One of my very favorite things in the whole wide world is making offhanded moralistic judgements about how [hardline prog cause] is such a terrible, horrible thing, I can’t even, I totally agree with you this travesty absolutely must be stopped for [insanely reactionary reason].

            • Mack says:

              “tell a nominally Christian woman that her place in life is to remain silent in church, learn the faith from her husband, and make herself helpful and sexually available and she is going to go thermonuclear”

              If you’re hot, you can tell anything.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Shit test first, then continue saying anything. Have to pass shit test to be hot.

                • Yara says:

                  Nearly every shit test, in practice, can be passed by simply ignoring the woman, no pseudo-witty banter necessary.

          • jim says:

            If you lie, and get rebutted, try presenting new evidence, instead of repeating the lie with twice the confidence and added insults.

          • Anon says:

            “Training will trump genetics and instinct every time.”

            You are living proof that this is BS. Stop posting.

  2. Koanic says:

    Agreed. Great stuff. Thank you!

  3. Yara says:

    Fortunately, what you are telling us is so pre-verbal that dogs have it in full, and so one can learn the essence of game by raising and training a pup. The two are very similar, except man’s best friend comes fully equipped with loyalty.

    • Thales says:

      Back in the day, you learned this stuff from watching naturals, watching dads and older brothers, and word of mouth. Sex realism was common sense. It’s called Game, I guess, because you’re not supposed to really care about the outcome, about what a woman thinks, but back in the day you didn’t care what a woman thought because she was low status.

  4. […] Source: Jim […]

  5. Trent Denton says:

    I’m guessing most of you guys haven’t talked to a lot of females.

    There is a reason that the pickup community is laughed at and mocked

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      When the people laughing look like this, who cares if they are laughing? The females are ugly and the males are weak. Their opinions are as worthless as they are.

    • Mack says:

      It’s true: nothing here should ever be spoken aloud. Nor should it ever need be spoken aloud, for it should be so instinctual that it be amygdaelic in response.

      But that was before my DMV-situated $50k/yr private boarding high school awarded literally all of its discretionary college scholarships to white girls, a couple of asianesses, and a token halfrican.

      Therefore I say unto thee,

      Psalm 136:1 O give thanks unto the Gᴏᴅ-Eᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ; for He is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

    • jim says:

      I guessing that you have not had sex in a very long time.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        Trent Denton eh?

        That’s Tiny Duck, a known Soros tool. He’s usually pestering the Z-Man for his shekels though so you’ve made it into the big time and picked up your own troll.

        Anyway good article Jim as always.

  6. Bruce says:

    Jim, what do you think of the idea (contra John Chrysostom) that coitus not (consent of) will creates a marriage?

    I don’t mean from a what should the policy/practice be perspective. I mean from a historical and/or biblical perspective.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Do you even Bible, bro? Coitus doesn’t create a marriage. Marriage, in the Bible definition, not the pagan Roman definition, is a covenant between two men, the father in law, and the son in law. The covenant is ratified through the shedding of blood, specifically the breaking of the hymen by intercourse. Marriage is an alliance between two men, or two households, mediated by the flesh of a virgin female. The female gets benefits from this covenant, such as guaranteed food, clothing, sex, and protection.

      If the son-in-law and father-in-law don’t agree to be married, then all the coitus in the world doesn’t create a marriage.

      • Edward III says:

        While your point about coitus is correct, what you described is precisely the pagan Indo-European definition of marriage, per “Aryan Household and its development” which explains this. Where do you think such an arrangement actually originated? Moreover, the IE marriage ceremony involves a mock rape, the woman can inherit nothing, the man literally IS the domestic high priest (cf. Jim’s metaphorical expression) and the House Father can kill his wife and even adult children with absolute impunity and no neighbour, state, or other social authority can say boo about it. IE peoples spent 4000 years under such pagan domestic arrangements and it only took Christianity 1000 years (in Western Europe) to fully dissolve patriarchy, however explicitly it endorses it. But this is what happens when you place a metaphysical father above the concrete father. If you want the alpha theology, go to the source.

        • Yara says:

          Based Normanposter.

          When Catholicucks walk into a confessing booth and say, “yes, Father,” “no, Father,” “three bags full, Father,” they subtly undermine the natural order of things. One might say that the Eternal Papist invented the microcuckoldry.

          The Puritans did nothing wrong.

          • peppermint says:

            when I was little I thought it was gay as all hell I was calling a priest father when I had a perfectly good father

            …who was and is a boomercuck

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Also, Chrysostum was an evil piker who hated the Bible and who allegorized it so much it became worthless. For the stability of the marriage, a woman’s consent is beneficial, but not necessary. Marriage is between two men, or between two households. Marriage is not only a covenant; it is a transfer of citizenship from one sovereign (the father) to another (the husband)

      • Bruce says:

        Ambrose also said the will makes marriage. I don’t know if anyone earlier took this position.

        Tertullian wrote about marriage, virgins, etc. but I’m not aware of any statements on what makes marriage.

        • glosoli says:

          Why do you care what some African guy wrote about it?

          Just read the Bible, there are plenty of examples in there.

          Catholics, they just hate the Bible.

          • Bruce says:

            The examples are all OT, the NT doesn’t describe it. It’s impossible to know to what extent OT practices were deformed (we know of at least one example of how they were). We know that Jesus restored marriage to its original state i.e. Adam and Eve.

            Catholics, Orthodox (eastern and oriental) don’t hate the Bible. They don’t believe the Bible is the complete faith.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Bruce, they don’t hate the printed book called the Bible. They just hate the words in it. As long as they can redefine the words and selectively ignore large chunks of it, they are ok with the Bible. As long as they don’t have to actually, you know, DO the things in the Bible.

              • peppermint says:

                The ((Bible)) wasn’t even codified until St. Jerome.

                The idea that you would take the text of the Bible and reject the college of bishops comes from the time when the Church was a little corrupt 500 years ago. Now we have the question of whether the bishops churches or the bible churches are more corrupt and which will be easier to reform, I don’t know the answer, but it’s not like lying about the situation will make it better.

        • Alrenous says:

          The will does make marriage, at least mechanically. If the State hadn’t arrogated enforcement of inheritance to itself, nobody would have to care whether it knew you were married. Or care when it decided you aren’t married anymore.

          Former wife: “I’m taking half your stuff!”
          Former husband: “No you’re not.”

          …and that would be the end of it. And perhaps the marriage contract would not now be worth less than toilet paper.

    • peppermint says:

      A sex act that could potentially create a newfag is a necessary part of a marriage. Eloping can create a marriage. Natural marriage shouldn’t be the usual case.

    • jim says:
      1. Marriage is a contract between the former owner of the bride, normally her father, and the new owner of the bride, normally her husband. Reproductive sex is an essential part of this contract.
      2. Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.
    • Alrenous says:

      Marriage is socially constructed. It is therefore whatever society says it is.

      However, there is a correct answer about what a marriage ought to be, given its purpose, and further a correct answer about what the purpose ought to be, given that a society must continue to exist if it wants to continue to get to define what a marriage is.

  7. Anonymous 2 says:

    One of the great social problems is the hazy concept of female consent, leading to impermanent marriages, families and now even casual sexual relations in some countries. One might be excused for thinking it is not well defined; definitely not so in a ‘contractual’ sense.

    (The current theoretical approach of tediously getting ‘consent’ at each stage will fail, as will any future approach of getting consent via apps, written deposition or blockchain, for the same reason.)

    I assume this is part of why we are nowadays exhorted to game women continuously. But society needs to fix the problem rather than indulge it.

    • peppermint says:

      Continuous husbandry is necessary for all manner of domestic animals. Female consent is a good idea, to the marriage itself.

    • jim says:

      Quite so. Women need to be compelled, and they rather like being compelled.

  8. Bonald says:

    I don’t know. Clerical celibacy isn’t all bad. I prefer for holiness spiraling to be a reproductive dead end.

    • jim says:

      It usually is a reproductive dead end, but like a plague, a dead end that can draw in entire nations. Better to have the state or tribal priesthood restrained from holiness spiraling. Superior holiness and supererogatory conduct should be rewarded with a hermitage in the outer wilds of Alaska, as far from the ArchBishop’s palace as you can get.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        The truly holy ones and they do exists will bless you every day for that gift too. Its win win.

  9. Big Brutha says:

    I watched a friend of mine fail some serious $#!% tests fairly catastrophically. His marriage has now ended because he listened to churchian advice instead of Scripture and tried to be the “good guy” to his wife.

    She was a lot younger and a lot better looking than he was on the social-sexual hierarchy. She was foreign so he used the blue passport benefit to up his status initially which is why he was able to get her in the first place.

    But once married, and specifically once she got citizenship all the leverage in the marriage reverted to her. Then she ruled the roost.

    Things came to a head over the last year. He kept doing what she told him because he thought it would make her love him. It didn’t. Then a stray male a lot better looking and significantly younger than he was started prowling around and instead of beating the dude to a pulp when his wife showed interest in him, he tried to be friends cause his wife told him that the guy was a nice guy who was alone and just needed a friend.

    She wanted to have this dude’s babies (not that she can, part of the problem here is that she is barren) but my friend didn’t understand that she was setting things up to jump ship.

    We all live overseas and she claimed she needed to go back Stateside for some schooling, despite her husband’s protestations that 1) now was not a good time and 2) that she hadn’t done the necessary prep to even take advantage of that. She left the country we were both in and went anyway.

    Surprise surprise she met up with the dude who had left for the States some months earlier and now wants a divorce.

    I could see this coming from a long way off but my friend was oblivious and feels stupid now. Even in the midst of all of this one of our mutual churchian friends was giving him stupid advice about being “nicer” to his wife so he could win her back.

    No, you idiot, I wanted to yell. Being “nice” to her is what made her run off with the other dude in the first place.

    Anyway the lesson is this: 1) the husband needs to rule and reign in his own household. Anything less than that invites mutiny. He doesn’t have to be cruel but there should be no doubt he is in charge and that crossing him is going to go very badly for anyone who chooses to do so, especially his wife.

    2) The husband needs to know that he WILL be tested and has to crush stupid $#!% tests immediately.

    3) Never…ever…let some other male get near your wife. Period. It doesn’t matter if it is a “friend” or a religious leader or whatever. If she is spending more than 30 minute in a week talking with this guy that is too much. No separate email accounts, no separate phones whose contents you do not have instant access to and no dinners, lunches, or extended car rides alone with any member of the opposite sex. Physical affection between her and some man who is not an immediate relative should be confined to a friendly handshake or with very old and very dear mutual friends a hug upon seeing each other after many years. No running around wrapping her arms around people.

    (As an example: my friend’s wife jumped up and gave the dude who is cuckolding him a hug with her arms AND legs while her husband was watching and then waited for a reaction. He didn’t do anything. That as much as anything gave her permission to jump ship and take up with this other dude.)

    • jim says:

      As an example: my friend’s wife jumped up and gave the dude who is cuckolding him a hug with her arms AND legs while her husband was watching and then waited for a reaction. He didn’t do anything.

      A $#!% test.

      Which he massively failed. Perhaps it was impossible to pass, for anything short of killing or seriously injuring the adulterer, and then beating her would likely have been perceived by her as failing the test.

      Perhaps he could have passed the test by merely chasing the adulterer away, and then beating his wife. Would have been worth a try.

      • > Perhaps it was impossible to pass, for anything short of killing or seriously injuring the adulterer, and then beating her would likely have been perceived by her as failing the test.

        I dunno. My basic reflex would have been to bellow, call her a whore and immediately file for divorce. At that point there is no point in trying to win her back by a marvelous shit-test passing, there is no point in being married to a bad woman. Just cut your losses, including the loss of face.

        But then again I instinctively avoid women like that. I don’t know, some guys just don’t sense which woman is a wife type and which one is a mistress type.

        An old friend of mine married a mistress type – makeup, bleached blonde, all that. Not sure what happened but he divorced her, reasons are easily guessable, learned the lesson, and married a plain fat woman with two kids who looks exactly that kindly mother type that you can almost smell the cake she is baking. They made another two kids and seem happily getting fatter together. Maybe he has a mistress on the side, dunno. Not really that type who would have extra energy for that.

        • jim says:

          All women are the same. Whether the inherent nature of womankind manifests as this kind of bad behavior depends on you. Good women are made by their men, not born, nor are they made by family or society, except that family and society supports or fails to support their men.

    • peppermint says:

      The secret is you just do your thing and let a woman follow you around if she wants to. Women don’t do that kind of thing because they know who I’m going to next and the only way they get me to act sentimental about our beautiful relationship is when I’m full of oxytocin after sex.

      It isn’t complicated or difficult. I’m just autistic.

      • peppermint says:

        All the soyboys watched the adults getting screwed over and their smugness while it happened, like Dale from King of the Hill who refused to leave his cheating whore wife for a woman who actually wanted him. So now soyboys say, well I’m not a cuck, if you’re planning on screwing someone over it’s not going to be me.

        The tumblrinas want a serious man who isn’t a cuck.

        The first season of Little House on the Prairie shows what kind of man the superman Hitler knows we could be is. We’re not gassing any kikes until we start taking things a little bit more seriously.

      • Yara says:

        >It isn’t complicated or difficult. I’m just autistic.

        Aren’t we all?

        >The first season of Little House on the Prairie shows what kind of man the superman Hitler knows we could be is.

        Please explain.

        • peppermint says:

          The guy takes care of his wife and daughters, including lying to them or not telling them things regularly to spare their feelings. He doesn’t look for moral support from them because he’s the guy. He deals with other men in a friendly manner, makes good deals and honors his word, doesn’t ask for handouts and works constantly. He has a little box of tobacco to chew that his wife gave to some indians so they would go away, which is his vice. He doesn’t drink, doesn’t get emotional or use strong language.

          That is the man who can do anything, or at least the most that is in any way possible.

          He immediately reprimanded his daughter for calling another girl snippy at his dinner table, but heard her out. I’d like to live in a world where snippy is shocking enough and doesn’t need to be tagged with fuck and bitch. I’d also like to return to mincing oaths, saying bless ’em instead of darn ’em, and saying off-topic nice things as an insult.

    • Yara says:

      >my friend’s barren wife left him
      Problem solved.

  10. Big Brutha says:

    Yep. Massive $#!% test, massively failed. Which is why game is so vital. The guy is a great guy. Loves his wife, doted on her, supported her wholly, and did everything he could to please her and she shat all over him. They had been married for 13 years. Talking to him after it all came out he was clear that she had been $#!% testing him a lot over the years and he thought that it just meant he needed to “be nicer”.

    The churchian advice to “be nicer” literally brought him nothing but misery.

    Had he followed the Scriptural advice to be the patriarch and to ensure that his wife submitted to him this might not have happened.

    Chalk one up to the road to hell being paved with good intentions and that female hypergamy is real and even “good girls” will do this stuff if they are not managed properly.

  11. Roberto says:

    In normal circumstances, marriage is the transfer of ownership over a female, from her father to her husband. Abnormal situations do exist, however, as this allegory from Ezekiel 16 shows us:

    4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water for cleansing; thou was not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. 
    5 No eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field in the loathsomeness of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. 
    6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee wallowing in thy blood, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live; yea, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live; 
    7 I cause thee to increase, even as the growth of the field. And thou didst increase and grow up, and thou camest to excellent beauty: thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair was grown; yet thou wast naked and bare.
    8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, and, behold, thy time was the time of love, I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness; yea, I swore unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest Mine.

    The tl;dr is that even if you have not acquired a female from her father or from other male relatives of her, if she’s living in your home, eating from your food, wearing the cloths you gave her, and — most crucially — you (and only you) are fucking her, then by all means she is your legitimate wife.

  12. The Cominator says:

    > “You will notice that for everything I have told you to do, I have also told you almost the opposite: Be an asshole and cherish her. Give her attention and don’t give her attention. But it is worse than that. The difference between what I am telling you to do, and telling you to not do, is pre verbal, and by expressing the difference in words, I necessarily oversimplify and exaggerate the difference.”

    This is why us unironic spergs have such trouble with learning game by reading forums… certain things I can learn but nuances no. I’m also in Massachusetts which is nightmare difficulty for “game” though. Can’t wait to leave.

    Jim how would your marriage laws deal with cases of elopement where the woman ran off to marry someone (and yes this did happen in the 18th century)?

    Lets say the girl is from a wealthy family and she ran off to marry some thug (don’t want to say Jeremy Meeks because that has been overdone).

    • Roberto says:

      That *a* woman runs off with Mr. Meeks is not a big problem. That women — in plural — run off to join his great Oriental Harem (or as Jim calls it: “booty call list”) is the problem; you don’t want the fine gentleman to deflower the whole neighborhood.

      The solution, in my view, is twofold: formally institute Biblical monogamy, so that Meeks couldn’t formally own a harem; and also, have women married off young, and I mean actually young — shotgun marriage if need be, and arranged marriage if need be — so that it’d be an offense (violation) against the legitimate husband’s property rights over the female for individuals like ol’ Jeremy or General Butt Naked to screw the woman.

      What else is there to do, really?

      • jim says:

        Right

      • glosoli says:

        ‘formally institute Biblical monogamy’

        No such thing.

        So many patriarchs had multiple wives and scores of kids, polygamy was part of the plan from word Go.

        • Roberto says:

          Rumor has it that a NT happened.

          • glosoli says:

            God is very consistent, so don’t think He suddenly made sinners of all of those men with multiple wives in the NT times by changing the rules. He didn’t, hence it’s not even mentioned in the NT.

            You’re just another cucked Puritan.

            • Roberto says:

              >if you don’t practice glosoli’s eclectic religion made up of Karaite Judaism and crypto-Mormonism, you are a cucked Puritan

              You know what? I’m not even principally opposed to polygyny; in a hypothetical future in which the male-female ratio will change to even 40:60, to say nothing of 30:70, I’ll be all for polygyny. But currently, with a sex-ratio of 50:50, polygyny is socially disastrous. And Gnon doesn’t support socially disastrous customs.

              • Yara says:

                >in a hypothetical future in which the male-female ratio will change to even 40:60, to say nothing of 30:70

                I like the cut of your jib.

              • glosoli says:

                >formally institute Biblical monogamy,

                >I’m not even principally opposed to polygyny

                The incoherence is strong with this one.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                You quibble and prevaricate over nothing. Human sexual dimorphism means, when property rights in women are restored, many men can have two virgin brides, and every man gets at least one virgin bride. Even with your 50:50 sex ratio at birth. See, men marry later than women. Takes us longer to grow physically, economically, and in social status. Women marry younger. There is your 30:70 ratio right there, once you take that into account. I’ve run extensive population simulations to verify this.

                The New Testament positively endorses polygamy, even the writings of Saint Paul. When he said “Let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband”, he used two different words in Greek; for the man having his own wife, it meant exclusive ownership. But Paul shifted when it came to the wife having her “own” husband, and it was the word for shared or group membership, living being a citizen of a city-state. Not exclusive. You are exclusive in your single citizenship, but citizenship in your city is not exclusive to you.

              • peppermint says:

                The sex ratio is going the other direction fast.

                As Our Lord and Redeemer gets us jobs, the soyboys from age 40 to age 20 are going to be looking for wives, who they will want to be between 20 and 30.

                The obvious solution is to take the mud women the boomers brought in and get donor eggs.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  You’r eover-estimating the soyboys. Soyboys want mama. They are ok with women their own age or older. Look at Macron. Someone has to wife up young women before they become whores and then bitter bull dykes and crazy cat ladies.

              • peppermint says:

                Polygamy is bad in principle because if it is allowed in principle it is a moral hazard.

                If it is accepted, not spending all your energy competing with your fellow Aryan men for extra pussy, and nigger cunt, makes you a cuck.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Moral hazard? You’re insane, peppermint. Polygamy isn’t a moral hazard. Enforced monogamy, leading to bull dykes and crazy cat ladies, leading to unrestrained hypergamy and a legion of cucks wifing up the 30 year old castoffs of a few alpha males, that is the moral hazard of monogamy.

                • Roberto says:

                  Oh look, two puritans-in-denial accusing each other’s respective positions of leading to a “moral hazard.”

                  Slap the purifagism out of your amygdalae and get realistic about life!

                  When half the population is men and the other half is women, you need enforced life-long monogyny or something similar to enforced life-long monogyny for society to not descend into Hypergamous Hell, like right now.

                  If ever women significantly outnumber men (perhaps as a result of an extreme eugenic program of sending dumbasses, psychopaths, sperglords, and puritans to death camps; or maybe large-scale sex-specific infanticide), it will be in everyone’s interest to allow men to marry several women.

                  Really not that perplexing a proposition.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Take your Papism elsewhere, Roberto.

                • Yara says:

                  Roberto,

                  To a zeroth approximation, if men aged 30 marry women aged 20, provided a TFR of 4, the ratio of eligible bachelors to eligible bachelorettes will be 2:3, as a woman doubles her bloodline-quantity each 20 years, while a man doubles his bloodline-quantity each 30 years, meaning, assuming strict monogamy, a hard minimum of 1/3 of all women never marry, exactly the sort of truncation selection prerequisite for female beauty.

                  Yet it is in my individual interest to own several womb-men. The NAP abides.

                • peppermint says:

                  the word moral hazard means a particular thing, not just any externality.

                  30 year old castoffs of alphas and unrestrained dykes weren’t a thing until very recently, yet enforced monogamy was. Do you wonder why that is?

                  Some rock star in the 70s claimed to have taken 1000 womens’ virginities. I conjecture a 98% probability that from 50 to 5000 years earlier he would have gotten shot by one of the fathers before he hit 50 women.

    • jim says:

      Shotgun marry her to any suitable male that will have her. Assuming a wealthy family, the family adds a nice job and a nice dowry to sweeten the deal. That is how Sir Stamford Raffles got his start. His boss unloaded a misbehaving daughter on him with a major promotion attached to the daughter. Legalize the husband killing adulterers, as in King Solomon’s Israel, or quietly overlook it when gentlemen do it.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Legalize the husband killing adulterers, as in King Solomon’s Israel, or quietly overlook it when gentlemen do it.”

        What do you think of dueling by consent?

        If you use the 18th (and very early 19th) century model they couldn’t just kill in cold blood even if gentlemen and even if outraged and if they did it was a murder conviction. Generally had to fight a duel (and if a duel jury would not convict) which meant that sometimes the adulterer ended up killing the husband. But if a gentlemen dueled a non gentleman (which would only happen in rare circumstances like the gentleman’s wife fucking around and getting caught) the gentleman would generally win because they generally trained more for dueling. This made the upper class of the male status hierarchy more “badboy” and appealing to women.

        Now you may think the requirement overlooked this when gentleman just killed a lower class person (it certainly was in Eastern Europe) but if I remember the case of where a British officer in the Napoleonic wars killed an enlisted man caught with his wife the officer was found guilty of murder and hanged (the officer was not strictly speaking a gentleman as he was a rare case of a man “raised from the ranks” but generally the officers would back a fellow officer against enlisted even if they thought him an upstart).

        I cannot find the website that sourced this and it may no longer exist but I swear I read about the case.

        • jim says:

          We have to stop women from fucking around. We have to use violence to stop it. Beat the women and kill the man who sleeps with another man’s wife or betrothed. King Solomon’s Israel had the correct solution. If husbands deal with adulterers, it makes them more manly in their wife’s eyes than if the state does it.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            “We have to stop women from fucking around. We have to use violence to stop it.”- Unfortunately this eminently Natural and reasonable solution is excluded by the modern State, what with its bloated and greedy pretensions to a complete monopoly on violence. In the meanwhile, what for example is the abovementioned guy whose wife signaled her intentions to cuck him in front of her face supposed to do? If he beats him, he gets a criminal record at the very least, and if he beats her as well he is at serious risk for being sent to prison. Is there any non-actionable way he could have passed the shit test in your opinion?

            • jim says:

              He might get away with non verbally signalling willingness to cause death or serious injury to the interloper, whereupon the interloper makes himself scarce, and you can usually get away with beating your wife. You should not be leaving visible stripes anyway.

          • The Cominator says:

            We’re not in pre industrial times and whites are not Arabs you might need to discourage it but we need an effective way that is less severe then the death penalty even a private death penalty…

            Oliver Cromwell (who was IMHO an okay Puritan) tried to impose the death penalty for adultery (and yes adultery under Cromwell meant either a woman fucking around or a guy fucking a married woman, a married guy fucking someone was not capital adultery under Cromwell) even back then juries wouldn’t convict for it.

            I suppose you could have non jury trials but I think the popular backlash to making adultery a death penalty or even a private death penalty offense would be too great to sustain.

            Women are very sensitive to public humilation, a severe flogging at the husband’s discretion (medically supervised to NOT cause death) and a Scarlet letter system might work.

            • jim says:

              If we don’t have a problem killing sixteen week old fetuses, no reason why we would have a problem killing adulterers – or sixteen year old bastards.

              • The Cominator says:

                If juries nullified adultery charges in Cromwell’s England (when I’m sure the average person heard a Puritan sermon/rant at least once a month about how such abominable sins brought down the wrath of God on Britain) at a rate of nearly 100% after it became a capital offense how much popular support will there be for killing adulterers today?

                People don’t have a problem with killing fetuses because they don’t view them as human yet and don’t view it as murder.

                I think most people oppose very late term abortions but the earlier term it gets the more popular support for banning it slips away.

                I know Moldbug talked about demotism but I think his argument was flawed there, generally non Democratic governments lack the “illusion of consent” Democracies have and thus actually have LESS flexibility to go far out of line with public opinion.

                • peppermint says:

                  A late term baby has been there for several months during which, presumably, its parents didn’t want to get rid of it. The question is, what changed and why?

                  An early term baby, if its parents don’t want it, is a future burden on society, which I should make instead of that jackass.

                  Abortion-as-birth-control in a world where pregnancy means shotgun marriage is a potential moral hazard, which is why many people support a limited ban on abortion of healthy babies where the parents would be permitted to marry.

                  That would create the moral hazard of women messing around with men they wouldn’t be permitted to marry, so we need to discourage that with a stick.

                • jim says:

                  At sixteen weeks, obviously human, obviously a baby, obviously conscious, already has a distinct personality. If people can be socialized into killing babies, not hard to socialize them into killing any category.

                  We became human through a thousand genocides. If authority says it is fine to kill people of category X, everyone will believe it is fine to kill people of category X. Much easier to sell killing adulterers than to sell killing babies.

                • The Cominator says:

                  A fetus doesn’t have a personality at 4 months even if it is the other things…

                  As far as selling killing adulterers Cromwell couldn’t even get his own fanatical puritan juries to do it (I imagine anti puritan royalist were excluded from juries but I could be wrong) though perhaps this is partially due to the aversion to blood that follows terrible wars (even the Soviet Union had a halt to the death penalty after WWII for 5 years).

                  Its easy to get people to kill foreigners or political enemies. Not easy to get people to want to kill fertile age women of your own or even men for doing what we’re all tempted to do.

                • jim says:

                  Oh come on. Watch the 3D videos – one four month fetus jerks off, two four month twins get into a fight, they react to the sounds of their parents voices. They have personalities, distinctively human personalities. If we were murdering jews, or murdering non Jews, you would be telling me that they do not have personalities either, that they are not people.

                • peppermint says:

                  An adulturer is just a man doing what we’re all tempted to do?

                  No. He is an enemy of civilization, and anything he says to justify his action compounds his treason with subversion.

                  Only a people that has already accepted romantic love and female consent could possibly believe that an adulturer doesn’t deserve a vastly harsher punishment than a cattle rustler.

                  Clemency would consist of merely chopping his balls off so he won’t make that mistake again.

                • jim says:

                  In order for an adulterer to be an enemy of civilization, women have to be owned. Their husband has to have a right to their sexual and reproductive services. If a woman is entitled to not have sex with her husband, there is no point in attempting to forbid other males from having sex with her.

                  Making adultery a crime for men is part of making women property of fathers and husbands. If no property right, then no property crime.

                  Similarly, it would be silly to have a law against cattle rusting if we forbade farmers to fence their cattle in.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim we agree on the direction we want to go… just disagree on method.

                  You think it will be easy to get people to support death for adultery but you don’t address the fact that Cromwell’s Puritan juries balked at actually sending them to the gallows. Modern people are much much less militant against adultery then Cromwell’s Puritans.

                  It will be easy to get people to accept floggings and public humiliation (which will not discourage adultery as much as death will but will deter a lot of them, particularly from women who are very sensitive and fearful of public humiliation).

                • jim says:

                  Your source for this “fact”?

                  In any case, I favor the solution applied in King Solomon’s times. The state does not execute adulterers – but if the husband kills an adulterer, no problem. Clearly lots of societies in our time are, or recently were, fine with honor killings.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Source: Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of the Puritans in England by Charles Harding Firth. Page 351

                  “Juries steadily refused to convict persons charged with adultery under the act of 1650”.

                  (This was not my original source and I do not recall where I read it originally)

                • peppermint says:

                  Why would we need to lie about our enemies in order to destroy them?

                  Do they pretend nazis don’t have personalities?

                  That bastard in a whore’s womb is a burden on us and permitting it to live incentivizes whores and their johns, regardless of what he is like. There is a real cost to letting every bastard and sad sack migrant come along and try to make a name for himself. It changes the incentive structure and destroys the cohesion of our people.

                  The last president was a bastard migrant, and the final argument of the defenders of migrants and bastards is that he didn’t make a name for himself honestly but was merely made use of by existing networks of traitors and subversive bacillus iudaeus created when the Aryan was on a bender of stupid ideologies after working overtime conquering the world. Does this really defend the honor of the average bastard or migrant? No, everything a bastard or migrant is or has is stolen from the people and given to him by traitors, inevitably in exchange for services.

                  We don’t need to pretend they don’t have personalities. We just need to shoot the traitors, and put the bastards and migrants and jews in camps so they can live out their lives without affecting us and our economy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  In general abort bastards, single motherhood should not be permitted BUT…

                  The few who end up born anyway don’t kill or put in camps… the optics of even discussing this are bad. Let infertile people adopt them.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Those juries that wouldn’t convict, weren’t Puritan. The Puritans may have taken the levers of power, but they weren’t the dominant group in England, the juries were made up of regular people. And regular English loved adultery and Papistry and other abominations. That is why the Puritan government toppled right after Cromwell’s death. The Puritans were in power just long enough to get New England, and hence America, off the ground. Perfidious Albion.

                • jim says:

                  The Puritans were correctly perceived as trying to destroy the family and stop men from having sex, and this provoked resistance.

                  If we implement King Solomon’s system of family law, where the state does not itself execute adulterers, but is fine with offended husbands engaging in honor killing, this will be correctly perceived as enabling men to have sex, hence is going to be way more popular than killing four month old fetuses.

          • Perhaps the problem of Protestant societies is that you managed to stop men from fucking around. As a result men married mistress types, because they could not keep a wife and a mistress, and as a result mistress types reproduced a lot and now most women descend from them.

            Having a good reliable if boring wife and mistresses on the side, the wife having daughters and the mistresses not is bound to breed good girls after enough iterations.

            It cannot be much harder to eliminate whores from the gene pool than to eliminate male criminals from it and both whites and asians had quite some success with that. The trick is that the man must be allowed to visit whores because if not then he will marry a whore and then they reproduce.

            • jim says:

              You subscribe to the NAWALT myth.

              The Australian authorities in the late eighteenth, very early nineteenth century had no problem turning bad women into good women. That the women were bad was merely a shit test.

            • jim says:

              It cannot be much harder to eliminate whores from the gene pool than to eliminate male criminals from it

              all women are potentially whores. It is, like homosexuality, environmental. Evolution cannot eliminate homosexuality, because if it could, it would have. As a result, there is predictably very little concordance in homosexuality between identical male twins raised apart, and very little concordance in prostitution between identical female twins raised apart.

              What determines the behavior is primarily events happening to the female between the ages of nine to thirteen – her sexual awakening, learning how to get off. Women are, however, malleable. It is fully correctable – if you are sufficiently violent and criminal to correct it, or backed by a society that makes the necessary corrective behavior legal and socially acceptable.

              Converse of this, however, is that good girls can turn bad – typically as a result of meeting Jeremy Meeks.

              • Hm, I haven’t heard this puberty-imprinting angle before. So if I meet a good woman, there is a good father to thank to. Probably a good mother as well.

                A good friend of ours has a surprising decent teenage girl, given that her father is a bum and her mother is working her ass off to support her daughter alone. The reason seems to be sport. She is doing this rythmic gymnastics thing, jumping around with ribbons, and the discpline necessary for competition – instilled mostly by the trainer, who often plays a role of a father figure and often plays it well, also for boys – may have imprinted her well during puberty.

                • peppermint says:

                  Boomer whores were raised by nice people and tumblrinas were raised by Boomer whores, but tumblrinas take things seriously and have a burning desire to become nice people while Boomer whores don’t care about anything other than immediate giney tingles from being approached with a pickup line.

                  The best Boomer cucks went to universities and signaled leftism in between trying to get into the panties of every woman, while the best soyboys are outwardly not cucks and secretly neon nazis. Boomer whores could find endless attention for mudsharking and providing other sexual services to the Left, they would be complimented as big brain nibbas for it while tradwives were denounced as brainlets, while tumblrinas don’t really get anything out of whoring for communism.

                  The left Boomer cuck would tell the right Boomer cuck that he fucked and continues to fuck bitchez and he makes money by being a cuck, while the right Boomer cuck says Jesus loves you. The left soyboy gets no women or money while the right soyboy fucks plenty of whores in addition to his tumblrina tradwife, the tumblrina gets tons of attention for actually having a husband, and a husband with a job, instead of a parade of cucks using her dank hole.

                • Roberto says:

                  What happened, Peppermint…? You used to be down with the soyboy-genocide, but now you do apologetics for ’em.

                • Are you drunk, Peppermint? I write stuff like that when I am drunk: not relevant, rambly, and not cohesive (what the hell is a tumblrina tradwife to begin with?)

                • peppermint says:

                  Boomers are or want to be cucks and whores, millennials are or want to be soyboys and tumblrinas.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The rot had already set in if a man was convicted for murdering an adulterer in flagrante delicto, in bed with his wife. That is not murder, that is being a good citizen.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Amen to that.

            • The Cominator says:

              18th and early 19th century convention was you couldn’t just shot them in cold blood for such things (or you WOULD be convicted and hanged). You had to DUEL them if you wanted to kill them (which was not legal but they would not convict you for). I’m not sure how it was handled if the transgressing party refused a duel but any aristocrat or gentlemen who did so over a serious matter would be branded a coward and lose all social standing.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Walking in, finding another man in bed with your wife, and then shooting him is not cold blood. It is the exact opposite. Heat of the moment execution of a scumbag. Hence, rot.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think dueling became insisted on because doing it the even older way typically led to blood feuds.

                • peppermint says:

                  blood feud? cattle rustlers have no honor

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  No, it became insisted upon because they were attacking the family and sex.

                  Peppermint is right, they have no honor. A duel is to prevent the aristocracy, a class based upon the cleverness and skill at violence, from killing each other over wounded honor and pride. An adulterer has no honor, so killing him is a service to the rest of men around. It says that your woman is your woman and we will enforce this on pain of death. It helps trust between men, and allows cooperation. It allows family formation and men having authority.

                  Men having authority over women is bad to leftists of all time periods, so they attack it. They hate sex, hate authority of men, so give power to women and permit adultery.

                • Yara says:

                  >Men having authority over women is bad to leftists of all time periods, so they attack it. They hate sex, hate authority of men, so give power to women and permit adultery.

                  Not so.

                  The prototypical leftist for hundreds of years has been the IDGAF alpha male, the seducer, the playboy. Casanova, Lord Byron, Hugh Hefner. Jim himself was a radical leftist in the 1970s because the most macho men were fire-and-steel commies, and had been of that strain for two hundred years.

                  The laws to permit adultery are to benefit the adulterer, not the adulteress. Their only problem is that they have run out of runway; the forest is burned; the fuel is spent; and so we must, like responsible environmentalists with a life wish, rejuvenate the ecosystem, for in the current year, every elm has met its beetle, and every cuckold its cuckoo.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                The crime passionel was apparently still a thing in France of 1975 and Italy of 1981.

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

                (The article seems a bit haphazard, but some data points at least.)

              • Doug Smyhte says:

                It is the guy who has been given offense who is absolutely obliged to issue a challenge. The transgressor is under no obligation to accept the challenge, but is liable to be seen as an anti-social jerk if he denies the people he insults the chance to obtain satisfaction.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  If he does not accept the challenge, the transgressor has failed to defend his honor.

  13. Mister Grumpus says:

    Your previous answer to this question was “watch old movies”. And thank you for that. But for those who missed it (and in case I missed something myself) I’ll ask again:

    What do you recommend for fellows out there who are so off-track that they no longer desire a woman IRL in the first place, but can at least intellectually agree and confess that surely that’s a “sub-optimal” state to be in? How to help one’s desire crack through his pessimism?

    • jim says:

      If you are male, not getting sex, and not burning with desire, your testosterone levels are well below what used to be normal for males.

      • But Jim, if you have burning desire you are basically 80% there anyway. I mean, my view of Game is mostly about simulating burning desire. I mean, when I approach girls with my body language saying “life would be less dull with a girlfriend to do things with, I guess” and someone else approached them with their body language saying “Drop panties. Now.” guess who won.

        Act like you have burning desire *with options* and that mostly sums up Game.

    • Yara says:

      If you don’t experience wood nearly every morning, see a hematologist and demand the most thorough blood screening he will give.

      • “You drink?” “Like a sponge.” “You smoke?” “Like a chimney.”

        “Get the fuck out of here and come back when you stopped.”

        Doctors are like that. On the other hand, those who live that Jim-like super virtuous, not a smoker, only drinks at social occasions, does not eat random stuff life should have erections well into their sixties. (Note: lifting does not counter-balance said habits, I am the proof.)

        Seriously I know one non-smoker, teetotaler dude, who does not even lift or watch his diet much and he has more energy at 50 than everybody else at 40.

  14. Mister Grumpus says:

    In your words, how do you explain the “coincidental” correlation between your being 1: a woman-taming game-maestro, and 2: a top-flight neo-restorationist political educator and prophet?

    I could make something up myself, but I want to hear it from you.

  15. alf says:

    > Women want attention. They want a lot of attention. I wish women had an off switch like a television and could be put in a closet, but unfortunately they do not.

    Amen to that. As was once explained to me: women are like high maintenance flowers: need lots of water, or they’ll wither.

    As for the rest, thanks as always.

    • glosoli says:

      >’Jesus was an excellent salesman, had no problem faking a miracle here and there to increase demand for his product. Which I don’t blame him for, in fact I think it was very clever.’

      Hey alf, until you ditch the hatred and mockery of Jesus and God, you guys are just going to keep on doing what you’ve been doing for the past xxx years. Losing.

      You’re literally no better than the Enlightenment Frenchies, they also mocked God and thought they were very clever. Also bagged whores and were proud of that fact.

      It’s sad but amusing that you consider yourself a reactionary, when in fact, you’re a humanist, i.e. a prog.

      Sort yourself out.

      • alf says:

        When I see a car riding 100 km/h, I do not think: wow, it must be magic. I think: wow, that’s pretty neat. I wonder how it works. So, I investigate and learn about mechanics, oil combustion and engine parts. It is a natural curiosity for how things work.

        Similarly with Jesus. When I read that Jesus walked over water and rose from the dead, I do not think: wow, it must be magic. I think: wow, that’s pretty neat. I wonder how it works. So, I investigate and learn about prophets, miracle workers and religion. A natural curiosity for how things work.

        If you don’t like what’s under the hood, get out of the garage.

        • glosoli says:

          Interesting that you try to fathom ‘how’ it happened, but not much interest in ‘why’.

          You’re so wrapped up in modernist, materialist and humanist thinking, you’ve totally missed the whole point of Jesus’ resurrection, preferring to try to debunk it.

          So you read a few articles online eh? Nice job. The writers of those articles are happy to lead you into the woods, very happy.

          Meanwhile, the West dies, and is accursed, and men like you guarantee that continues, as well as guaranteeing your own demise (i.e. the death of your soul).

          But none of that really bothers you, because you’re too stupid (in your own mind, too clever) to even consider that the rule of men, which is all you will ever want or get, is bound to lead to the usual global wars and tens/hundreds of millions of deaths, whereas the rule Of Jehovah leads to the opposite.

          I’ve probably lost you already, maybe have a read of this, and try to find some humility before your maker, before it’s too late:

          https://fredoneverything.org/the-bugs-in-darwin-and-other-raptures/

          • peppermint says:

            The West isn’t dying because of war, unless you recognize that mass migration is war, and who is at the forefront of accepting the migrants? Why, the Christcucks. Yet you rage at angry drunken atheists instead of heretics. Why is that?

            • The Cominator says:

              Depends greatly on which sect of “Christcucks”.

              The Catholic Church is the worst by far (of course their clergy has no allegiance to any country and the 1st amendment should have excluded Catholics for that reason, Muslims too) and many of the “mainline” (ie pozzed) Protestants are also bad.

              The Southern Baptists and the Orthodox are to my knowledge not bad at all.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                The Southern Baptists are also cucked, but the most likely to bounce back, if such is possible. The Orthodox are even more cucked than the Catholic church, propaganda notwithstanding.

                • The Cominator says:

                  As far as I know the Orthodox Church doesn’t sponsor illegals and doesn’t lobby for illegals the way the Catholic church has been doing since John Paul II (who was the truly evil Pope, Francis actually helps nationalist by discrediting the Vatican by being so OPENLY shitlib), do you have a source?

                  The Southern Baptist Convention has recently gotten a pozzed virtue signalling anti Trump leadership but the SBC also doesn’t actually have any power over member churches to my knowledge.

                • Rule Britannia says:

                  “As far as I know the Orthodox Church doesn’t sponsor illegals and doesn’t lobby for illegals the way the Catholic church has been doing since John Paul II”

                  Holy shit, the Catholic Church has been lobbying for illegal immigration since 1978? That’s when it all began!

            • glosoli says:

              Read my blog, I rage at fake Christians too.

          • alf says:

            We both appreciate Christianity for its greatness, but I also appreciate the fact that Jesus did not literally bring dead people back to life, while to you the mere suggestion that Jesus was human is blasphemy. This tells me you live in an old, dead age. Evolve or die.

            Also, linking Fred ‘we need more Mexicans in teh US’ Reed is not the best way to convince me.

            • glosoli says:

              >but I also appreciate the fact that Jesus did not literally bring dead people back to life

              Ah, the hubris of a young man. I bet you also know for a fact that the universe just banged into existence out of nothingness for no reason too? Truly, you are a smart man.

              Read the Fred article, it’s not about Mexicans, might inject a few microns of humility into your little head, don’t be scared by the cognitive dissonance, with guys like you, that’ll pass pretty quickly.

              • alf says:

                You and Fred Reed’s article are strawmanning my argument. The argument was about Jesus’ miracles, not whether evolutionary theory explains everything about life. Of course I believe that only God knows how many angels can dance on a pin.

                I know God exists, I believe in religion. But, per Jim, the trick is to get God just right; not too big, not too small.

                For humans to colonize space, it is very helpful to believe that Jesus metaphorically made the blind see. It is however counterproductive for them to believe that Jesus literally made the blind see. It’s bad science.

                It is in fact you who are being arrogant, in that you make God larger than he in actuality is and use that as a weapon against me.

                Similarly counterproductive, you negate the arrival of any future prophets, because in the information age, for unexplainable and mysterious reasons, they can never literally raise people from the dead which in your eyes makes them a fake.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Debating the supernatural divides us and causes us harm for no purpose.

                  Religious debates should be confined to the secular fruits of religions and sects.

                • alf says:

                  If glosoli’s response to me calling Jesus (or his disciples) miracle fakers were something like: ‘yeah sure, so what’, that would be an appropriate response.

                  Instead, he is greatly triggered.

                  Wanting people to believe in obviously false supernaturals is what divides us and causes harm for no purpose.

                • glosoli says:

                  Use His name, Jehovah. Otherwise we’ll assume you’re a Muslim.

                  There is no point believing in ‘religion’, whilst at the same time mocking Christ, at least be man enough to admit your hubris and likely damnation.

                  You parroting Jim on matters of Christian faith is not useful, as both of you lack faith, lack belief, hence the West will be accursed until we repent.

                  I do not negate modern prophets at all, one was around in South Africa just 100 years ago.

                  And miracles happen all of the time, so stop spewing lies:

                  https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/the-authoritative-and-auditory-almighty/

                • The Cominator says:

                  You need to enhance your understanding of Jim and Moldbug.

                  There are some people who can take a completely rational materialistic worldview but they are rare.

                  Most people need to believe in something supernatural. If they do not believe in the miracle of the risen Christ they are likely to get their fix believing in the miracle of the 57 genders and female equality.

                • alf says:

                  > Strobel discovered (by a poll) that nearly 40% of Americans said had they experiences that can only be explained as miracles from God.

                  I guess this is our divide. Huh.

                  I do not negate metaphorical miracles. But I do negate literal miracles. They are silly.

                  Take this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuBV3uPxaAc

                  Say I were a member of that congregate. Would I tell everyone that, obviously, Jehowah himself did not literally came down to cure this him? No, because it is a nice metaphorical miracle. Why spoil people’s faith? However, as an observer, I’d probably strongly consider 2 things:
                  1) he is faking.
                  2) he is a pastor, thus if his voice would ever heal, a not insignificant chance it heals during a sermon.

                  Every miracle in history has been explained this way, and not a single magical miracle from history has been replicated in a manner that makes them much more convincing than the pictures we have of the Loch Ness monster.

                  In the information age, any kind of world-convincing miracle would have to be thoroughly documented. Not some vague backyard story with doctors exclaiming ‘its truly a miracle!’, no, some real ‘holy shit this is impossible’ video proof.

                  In your demand that we believe in Jesus’ literal ability to change water into wine, you are, like a child, demanding that the magician makes the ball disappear again and that everyone enthusiastically claps along and says: wooow how did he do that.

                  If Jesus would ever return, you would not recognize him because you’d be looking only for prophets who are good at fooling you.

                • jim says:

                  Literal miracles are not silly, since even though a particular miracle may be falsifiable, the possibility of literal miracles is unfalsifiable. Further, even if they were silly, it is impolitic, socially disruptive, and anti civilizational to say so, since our civilization is in substantial part based upon a miracle, which miracle provides us with a God big enough to give us strength, yet simultaneously small enough to permit human flourishing – a God who is wholly man and wholly God;

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Rational materialism is a bug in the wiring of the brain. It is like arguing with someone who is colorblind about what the color red is. They cannot see God, so arguing with them is pointless. Likewise, getting their advice on God and the supernatural is similarly useful. They are the blind who try to not only lead the blind, but those with eyes who can see.

                  Much wiser men from healthier times worked their way through the logic that their must be a higher supernatural power. Any attempt to remove that higher power from an ideology invariably leads to a catastrophic crash in that ideology. The closer you get to God, the better your society works, and the same patterns are seen as men get further from God and the demonic forces rise in their place.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m sorry you’re a materialist, it’s a very foolish way to view humanity, just meat and bones. Guys like you carried out the various atrocities of recent centuries and didn’t bat an eyelid. Why would they? None of it matters. Just meat and bones.

                  >Every miracle in history has been explained this way, and not a single magical miracle from history has been replicated in a manner that makes them much more convincing than the pictures we have of the Loch Ness monster.

                  Impressive that you have knowledge of literally every single miracle ever to have happened. What’s the number by the way? I’ll make it easier for you, what’s the number in the bible?

                  There are several examples of people being bought back to life in the bible, thousands of years apart, same method used. Weird eh? Bet you wish you didn’t spurt crap ignorantly.

                  >If Jesus would ever return, you would not recognize him because you’d be looking only for prophets who are good at fooling you.

                  Do me a favour, stop telling me what I would or wouldn’t do. I know my bible, I will know when Jesus returns (not if).

                  I’ll conclude my comments to you by confirming, once again, that the Dark Enlightenment is just as bad, if not worse, than the French version. You have less excuses than they had, as we saw theirs already and we know where it leads (to here).

                • alf says:

                  *Sigh.* Christcucks gonna Christcuck.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  *Sigh* is not an argument. Rational materialists slaughter millions, displace nations, destroy peoples, and lead to Dark Ages. People who, over and over again, end up believing in things that are neither rational or materialist. Ever heard of the Human Right Particle? How about the Strong and Weak Trans Forces? Yet those who call out in the name of science and human reason still believe.

                  Are you really so sure that you can do better this time? Or have your ideas never really been tried before?

                • peppermint says:

                  > Much wiser men from healthier times worked their way through the logic that their must be a higher supernatural power

                  The Catholics hold dogmatically that there exists a logical proof of God. I believe that dogma to be perfectly unfalsifiable.

                • alf says:

                  > *Sigh* is not an argument.

                  I made my argument, but Glosoli does not want to hear it. Hence the sigh.

                  Change is difficult and for the good reason that it is dangerous to play with Chesterton’s fence. I am not saying throw away the power of the supernatural; it is powerful for a reason. But I am saying that we can not repeat what Jesus did, that it is childish to demand of a prophet to do what Jesus did, because in his time there weren’t 100 people in the crowd with smartphones filming.

                • glosoli says:

                  He wasn’t a prophet you dull ***, he was the Son of God.

                  Cretin.

                  Next time he comes, people like you will be shitting themselves, then you’ll be dead forever. And it probably will be within your lifetime too the way we’re going.

                • alf says:

                  Show some respect.

                • Roberto says:

                  >For humans to colonize space, it is very helpful to believe that Jesus metaphorically made the blind see. It is however counterproductive for them to believe that Jesus literally made the blind see. It’s bad science.

                  Wrong. Believing that a Palestinian rabbi 2,000 years ago performed miracles has no bearing on modern space exploration and so on. Believing that you can explore space *by* relying on a contemporary performance of such miracles would indeed be counterproductive, but since most religious people don’t make that kind of argument, I just don’t really see a problem.

                  The Jimoldbug argument is that you can’t see leprechauns not existing, but you can definitely see equality not existing, which makes belief in equality infinitely more dangerous than belief in leprechauns; you want your religion unfalsifiable, in other words. That Jesus literally raised people from the dead two millennia ago is, at least currently, an unfalsifiable statement of faith. Who knows, right? But leftism is demonstrably, empirically false; it is disproved every single day in a billion different ways, and is in fact impossible scientifically.

                  A belief that Jesus literally cured the blind from their blindness doesn’t lead to your space program running into the ground; at least not necessarily. Meanwhile, a belief that negresses are just as competent as white men does inevitably lead to you not having a functional space program anymore.

                  You may think to yourself, “But why should I choose between two falsehoods? Let me adhere to my logic-based worldview.” But as TSK points out, your logic-based worldview somehow consistently fails to prevent various catastrophes from happening. Which is probably why Moldbug, the atheist mischling who supports anal-marriage and is suspiciously silent about the Woman Question, nevertheless has signaled in favor of old-school Christianity.

                • alf says:

                  > Believing that you can explore space *by* relying on a contemporary performance of such miracles would indeed be counterproductive, but since most religious people don’t make that kind of argument, I just don’t really see a problem.

                  But that is exactly the argument Glosoli makes.

                  Jesus’ miracles are unfalsifiable in the sense that we don’t have a time machine to go check for ourselves, but they are falsifiable in the sense that all our scientific knowledge tells us they did not happen exactly in the way the disciples described them.

                  If our standard is that miracles are literally real, then we will never be able to reconcile Christianity with Darwin, because for completely mysterious and unknown reasons no one will be able to equal Jesus’ miracles in the age of smartphones. Nothing will change, and Christianity will continue dying, because the standard has been set impossibly high.

                  If our standard is that miracles are metaphorically real, 40% of the people that believe in miracles can carry on believing in miracles, are free to interpret certain events as miracles, but we have the added benefit that we do not require future prophets to perform literal miracles, making it possible to reconcile Christianity with Darwin.

                • Roberto says:

                  >for completely mysterious and unknown reasons no one will be able to equal Jesus’ miracles in the age of smartphones. Nothing will change, and Christianity will continue dying, because the standard has been set impossibly high.

                  Well that’s the thing – the miracles were a one-time event. Without a time-machine to go back and check, the NT account of Jesus will remain a thing to believe in rather than a thing to witness. That’s a feature, not a bug. You are searching for modern prophets, but the neat trick is that they aren’t needed – Christianity certainly doesn’t depend on the ability of modern miracle workers to perform whatever Jesus performed.

                  That Christianity expects miracles to actually be miraculous is an effective method to ensure that various con-artist won’t show up to disrupt, subvert, or co-opt the religion. The con-artists do indeed show up, but none of them are accepted into the mainstream, exactly because they can’t actually do Jesus’ stuff, thus they are recognized by the mainstream as fraudsters.

                  Your beef is with people who interpret *current* phenomena as miraculous. But that is a problem with the people, not with the religion. Christianity doesn’t tell you, “If you see something strange, automatically assume that God did it.” That’s a bias common among believers, though not a religious requirement by any means. And it’s still better than a religion that actually does tell you, “if you see group X being socially subordinate to group Y, assume injustice and oppression and exploitation, and agitate for revolution.”

                  If people assume that electricity is a form of supernatural magic, that’s not because Christianity is “irreconcilable” with the laws of physics, but because people are ignorant. Human stupidity simply is not caused by the state religion saying that, once upon a time, weird stuff happened. These things are orthogonal.

                  >we have the added benefit that we do not require future prophets to perform literal miracles, making it possible to reconcile Christianity with Darwin.

                  There not being any “future prophets” is a feature, not a bug.

                  Darwin is not supposed to be a prophet in the metaphysical religious sense (just the opposite), and Darwinism is not supposed to be a metaphysical religion (ditto). Keeping metaphysics away from physics is exactly what setting the standard for legit miracles “impossibly high” does – which is a good thing; we want our scientists to do science, not religion, and we want our priests to stay away from science.

                • alf says:

                  > There not being any “future prophets” is a feature, not a bug.

                  This is Christcuckery.

                  It is like Fukuyama announcing the end of history. Just doesn’t work that way.

                • Roberto says:

                  You need new prophets when there is something severely, fundamentally broken with the old religion; otherwise, you treat Prophets, Seers, Sons of God, Wonderworkers, and other such persons as you would any madman (which is what half of them actually are; the other half are outright scoundrels) – you mock them dismissively, and if they become a serious nuisance, permanently run them out of town into the remote regions.

                  The jury is still out on whether or not Christianity is a broken religion. To me, it looks like Christianity isn’t in need of Moar Propheetz; rather, it urgently needs masculine warriors to fight for it against both the enemy inside (Progressivism) and the one outside (Islam). After we defeat Puritanism-Feminism, we will have those masculine warriors in spades.

                • alf says:

                  Christianity is splintered, broken, battered and near dead. It utterly fails in protecting the West, it fails to protect whites in Africa, it fails to make any meaningful impact, it fails fails fails. I mean, WHOSE interpretation of Jesus am I to take serious anyways? Glosoli’s mysterious Theonomy plans? Zippy Catholic, because he has Catholic in his name? Rod ‘cucked like Rod’ Dreher? 2 Christians, 3 opinions.

                  Or should I take your Christianity serious? Masculine warriors to fight Islam and progressivism you say. Perhaps you can quote some stuff Jesus has metaphorically said on the subject, but I’m pretty sure that your neighborhood priest will metaphorically interpret those exact same quotes to mean the exact opposite.

                  I believe it to be obviously true that Christianity was once great, but I also believe it to be equally obviously true that Christianity today is a broken religion, and that the remaining Christians refuse to see the shards for what they are: shards, splintering further and further.

                • Mack says:

                  Alf, at this point, Christianity is pretty just a brand with some vague positive associations that people choose to affiliate with if they haven’t yet quite figured out that they should be getting the Good Word from Bishop Stephen Colbert.

                • glosoli says:

                  @alf,

                  Firstly, re respect, you don’t deserve my respect whilst you mock Jesus Christ.

                  Secondly, you are correct that Christianity is very broken these days.

                  It was similarly broken just before the Reformation in the 1500s, so it’s possible that all we need is a grand solar minimum, a century of starvation and plagues and misery (all of that and more besides the curse of Jehovah), and perhaps people will turn back to God once again.

                  Rest assured, if there is no turning back, it’s over for this time around, Babylon will be destroyed, the elect will be saved, and everyone else will die.

                  Theonomy is hardly a mysterious subject, it even has its own Wiki page. Alfred The Great (through faith) knew that the best set-up for fledgling England was by using Jehovah’s rulebook, and so he did, and so England prospered, and eventually ruled the vast majority of the known world. Just a piddling little island in the North West of Europe, but that’s what it became thanks to God’s blessing. And soon it will be worse than 3rd world, as it has lost its faith.

                  I suggest to all readers that you listen to the KJV bible, New Testament first, then the Old, at this link: http://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/ListenToTheKingJamesBible.html

                  If you simply pray or ask to know God, and do it with earnest, He’ll show you the Truth, and the Light and the Way.

                  When I became red-pilled in 2016 I wrote to a new online contact and said: ‘Although I am a lifelong atheist, God revealing himself to me would be my top personal wish.’

                  Lo and behold, he revealed Himself within just a few months.

                  It’s up to you and others if you believe the garbage that Darwin wrote, more and more scientists today are acknowledging that it was all BS, and Fred’s article does the same. And it’s not a straw-man, as life itself is a miracle. It’s not really supposed to happen, the coincidence of factors needed to support life on this planet is incredible, and impossible by chance. Likewise the souls we have, in God’s image, there’s no scientific explanation possible for that.

                  So, keep your faith in science and meat and bones, and if everyone does the same, we don’t have long left. Or choose to seek God and find faith.

                  I pray that those reading this comment will seek God and find the Truth. Amen.

                • jim says:

                  He did not mock Jesus. Rather, you put him on the spot by asking questions that would reveal his lack of faith, and then got indignant because he lacked faith.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  This is why the neoreaction movement will fail. Your ideas may continue on without you, but as a group, you seem incapable of believing in the things which you need to believe to be good priests. For every Jim, there are ten or a hundred Alfs. Not to say your insights on Christianity are without worth or merit, but as a warrior, I cannot base my power on what the priests say if the priests are all talking about how they do not believe.

                • alf says:

                  TSK, you do not understand the point.

                  Christianity is dead. For a religion to be dead, it means it has lost faith. I want to connect with faith, I am in fact connecting with faith, but it is impossible for me to connect with a faith that is as dead as the parrot in Monty Python’s sketch, which is what so greatly triggers Glosoli.

                  For me to connect with a new faith, to actually believe that and have assabiyah, I need to be able to reconcile faith with Darwin and the red pill, and so do 60% of the people who don’t believe in literal miracles either.

                  At the same time, I recognize the need for metaphorical miracles, and the need for people to interpret them as literal miracles. Which is why the correct path is to tacitly acknowledge that the 2nd coming of Jesus will not be able to endlessly divide fish and bread in front of a crowd that has 100 smartphones aimed at him, and that that is in fact entirely okay. That Glosoli refuses to acknowledge this and shouts like a spoiled kid that he demands FAITH IN GOD’s LITERAL INTERVENTION IN THE WORLD, that to me is refusal to have faith, refusal to cooperate. It is a Gnostic holiness spiral.

                • alf says:

                  TLDR: you want a priest who can lead the congregation of the 40% who believe in literal miracles, but that is impossible without building a bridge to the 60% who believe in metaphorical miracles.

                • Roberto says:

                  Not sure what a “metaphorical miracle” even is, tbh fam.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  You do not have faith. Christianity is not dead. Mass Christianity is dead, but when has what the masses think really mattered to NRx?

                  You are a blind man trying to lead those who can see. It will not work. You are not the priests needed. The warrior caste will need to find others.

                • Yara says:

                  A metaphorical miracle is just like a fable, except you believe them to be true because you’re cucking your weltenschauung to people who don’t have much of anything to offer and who themselves no longer really believe what they profess to believe.

                  There’s nothing that says that people, in order to function, have to believe in stupid and self-evidently insane things except that their betters are believing them and they’d better, too. Rational thought never drove anyone mad; that was the opportunity to suckle at the government teat for propagating ideas that furthered the mission of the CIA, quote, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

                • jim says:

                  A shared belief in unreasonable things demonstrates cohesion, and generates cohesion. If the shared belief is in things that falsifiable, and have in fact been falsified (the progressive belief system, point deer make horse) it generates cohesion even more effectively, but also generates lies, being itself a lie, and generates madness.

                  No one can prove that Jesus did not heal the sick and return from the dead, but you can easily see that individuals and groups are not equal. Progressivism is a faith where the preachers claim to work miracles in the here and now.

                  While Alf needs to be diplomatic about his understanding of miracles, other people should refrain from demanding excessive clarity. Glosoli has been disruptive by demanding excessive clarity, Alf disruptive by supplying it.

                • peppermint says:

                  The compromise was always that (1) I can’t prove the miracles in the Book didn’t happen (2) claims of latter-day miracles are almost certainly false and probably heretical and I can make fun of them as much as I want until they are certified

                  The only question is what Book.

                  I think the ((Bible)) sucks and would prefer a White-centric document.

                  Traditional Christians like the New Testament and only have the Old for context.

                  Some traditionalist Christians think upholding the Old Testament is the solution to the heresies of the day.

                  Some communist and feminist Christians like the New Testament because ((Jesus)) was a community organizer.

                  My problem is, the only real option for a White-centric Book is Mein Kampf – which I’ve read about as much of as the ((Bible)). ((Jesus)) was a community organizer, but we also need to do hermeneutics to get Hitler to be right-wing enough.

                • jim says:

                  > I think the ((Bible)) sucks and would prefer a White-centric document.

                  Well, yes, but we are here now. Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe, whites are the Christ bearers.

                  And we are not going to get a white centric document – ever – because whites are wolf to whites. Whites and East Asians are the smart races, and smart is important for military and economic success, but whites are both more manly and aggressive than East Asians, and yet at the same time more cooperative than East Asians, hence are the most militarily formidable race, thus whites always end up fighting whites over nonwhites, rather than fighting nonwhites.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Rational thought never drove anyone mad; that was the opportunity to suckle at the government teat for propagating ideas that furthered the mission of the CIA

                  Well, if we can’t have the Moldbug’s Antiversity of Truth because TPTB keep disrupting its emergence with their psyops, Plan B has to be fomenting chaos for chaos’ sake – support and build-up as many bizarre and unconventional ideological movements as possible to make the C(i)athedral lose the plot completely. Fighting astroturf with counter-astroturf, IYKWIM.

                  “If you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

                • alf says:

                  Literal and metaphorical miracles are subtle, hard to explain and depend on who you are explaining to.

                  If I were to explain to an atheist, I would say that literal miracles are quite obviously in contradiction with natural law, e.g. fake. When discussing Jesus, I would say that while it is impossible to know what really went down (disciples getting guards drunk, stealing body, hiring actor, or just plain making the entire story up years later) it is entirely obvious that Jesus did not literally came back from the dead.

                  I would then add that while literal miracles are fake, they are not without merit. In fact, miracles have great power in gathering and uniting people, and it is only a defeated cynic who does not respect that aspect of miracles. Hence, even atheists can ascribe to the phenomenon of metaphoric miracles.

                  Now, if I were to explain to a devout believer of miracles. I would state that of course miracles are real, as real as the chair I am sitting on, but that they are incredibly rare, in fact so rare that they are impossible to prove to the unbeliever, existing only in the certainty of faith. I would add that most people do not understand miracles because they are disappointed with life, cynical, jaded, and that they will never understand miracles.

                  Perhaps Jesus’ miracles were real. Like Peppermint said, the compromise was always for the cynics to say they couldn’t decisively disprove it. But, in the age of smartphones, any cynic can start a YouTube channel and faithfully prove that he is holier than any contemporary Jesus — https://www.youtube.com/user/CaptainDisillusion/videos

                  In the age of smartphones and internet, a captain Disillusion will always out-holy a Gnostic.

                • peppermint says:

                  I feel like I should get a copy of The Art of the Deal to thump

          • jim says:

            This is argument from design. Darwin disposed of that argument.

            Complexity is not an argument against evolution. Complex systems do not evolve in a single step. Evolution starts out with some simple capability that usually does not work, and once in a while barely works, and then elaborates it. The result is not only complexity, but needlessly roundabout complexity.

            • glosoli says:

              I admire the faith of anyone who can read Fred’s article and still believe in the theory of evolution.

              • jim says:

                As TheDividualist correctly points out, the overly elaborate complexity discussed in that article is not evidence of design, but evidence of a very long history of tinkering with small changes.

                • glosoli says:

                  No, there’s no way evolution explains the stages needed to produce a butterfly. Ridiculous. Nor the reason why sperm and egg combine to produce a new life. You need more faith to believe it than to be a Christian.

                  Also, recent evidence sees changes in birds within just a few years, big changes, very quickly. Nothing Darwin theorised has been left standing.

                • jim says:

                  The reverse is true. If you look at any creature, it does not make sense as designed from scratch, but only has the result of many small increments. Thus, for example, the dolphin’s flipper contains the bones of a hand, even though it is no longer useful as a hand. And, similarly the footbones of a horse only make sense if originally the most important use of that limb was gripping tree branches.

                  The complexity is not evidence against evolution, but rather, the frequently needless complexity is proof of evolution, since much of the complexity is the result of something used for one purpose then being adapted to another purpose.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I don’t want to get into this too much but sometimes the final change is advantageous in natural selection but the incremental intermediate changes are NOT advantageous.

                  Hence why I tend to agree with our devout theist friends about Darwinian evolution being an inadequate theory to explain speciation (in some cases anyway).

                • peppermint says:

                  > sexual reproduction couldn’t have evolved
                  wew ok we’re done here

            • > Evolution starts out with some simple capability that usually does not work, and once in a while barely works, and then elaborates it. The result is not only complexity, but needlessly roundabout complexity.

              Really, this one is just too easy for people who can write code. That is exactly how code that was not designed, and not when needed redesigned, but mostly just evolved looks like.

              They should rename Intelligent Design to Idiotic Tinkering as the result is closer to that.

              From that viewpoint evolution is seriously hilarious. We need to determine which way the Sun is, not accurately but roughly. Well, let’s stick a few light detectors around the end of a cable, the strongest light implies the Sun. Wait, I want to be able to detect obstacles now. Well, let’s just stick more light detectors there, obstacles are likely to be darker or lighter than the water around them. Good, but now I want to be able to tell a predator from a prey. Moar pixels! Wait, we actually have something like a camera now, but we routed the cable right through the center of the field of vision? Nevermind, hardware is expensive, we’ll just solve it with software: we’ll just tell the camera motors to shake it around the blind spot and assemble the full picture from that. Good enough?

              • Alrenous says:

                Microevolution can be carried out in the lab and on the farm. Macroevolution is seemingly unfalsifiable. Unless you know how code works.

                Once you admit that organisms are built to the design in DNA, you’re done, macroevolution is inevitable. There’s nowhere special in DNA to put the markers for species, and even if there was it too would be subject to mutation and thus get busted.

                • jim says:

                  If macroevolution was false, species would be well defined. It would be a matter of fact whether two creatures were of the same species or two different species.

                  It is not a matter of fact. We are always arbitrarily splitting and lumping, and these decisions are always capricious and political.

                  Since species are, as Darwin pointed out, fluid and ill defined, microevolution (proven by direct observation) necessarily gives us macro evolution (proven as a logical consequence of microevolution).

                • Koanic says:

                  Not true. Microevolution has limits and works slowly. Those limits are broken by rare hybridization events. See Hybrid Stabilization Theory.

                  http://www.macroevolution.net/stabilization-theory.html

                • jim says:

                  Slowly? Compare any plant or animal that humans have been working with for a few thousand years, and compare it to its wild ancestors.

                  Then ask what happens in a million years.

                  Yes, in a lab, when you work with a population of thirty creatures and have to publish a report at the end of the grant, microevolution has limits and works slowly.

                  Compare wild Californian eucalyptus trees, that have been evolving to an alien environment for less than two hundred years, with their wild Australian cousins. When you have an entire forest, rather than a lab cage, and centuries rather than a grant cycle, you see some quite impressive changes.

                • Koanic says:

                  Natural selection != microevolution. Selection can dramatically alter the look of a species. Microevolution is still slow, yes.

                  Also, plant domestication has not occurred in a hybridization-free environment.

                • jim says:

                  The changes to maize are primarily from five identified mutations. Hybridization was not involved. You have to admit that maize is a different species to its ancestors.

                  And if you don’t admit that, wait another six thousand years. Those are not small changes.

                • Koanic says:

                  I think species should be defined according to interbreedability only. And that it should be expressed as a probability of successful offspring. Because hybridization is where the real evolutionary fireworks happens.

                  If maize can breed with modern corn, then it’s the same species.

                  To me, the ability of corn to go from maize to big ag and back again shows the amazingly flexibility of a species to adapt via selection. It’s one of evolution’s most impressive results. And I think it supports the idea that evolution has been recycling parts through hybrid gene sharing networks, not just reinventing the wheel via random-mutation microevolution every time a change is required. That would be really inefficient.

                • jim says:

                  It is very common that species A can interbreed with species B, but the offspring have reduced fertility or viability. And species B can similarly interbreed with species C. But species A cannot interbreed with species C. There simply is no species definition that will give you well defined species – which implies no distinction between micro evolution and macroevolution.

                • Koanic says:

                  > It is very common that species A can interbreed with species B, but the offspring have reduced fertility or viability.

                  That’s fine. Include that effect in the interfertility score.

                  > species B can interbreed with species C. But species A cannot interbreed with species C.

                  Yes, a ring species. Species is a relative concept, like space and time. My interfertility criterion is inherently relative. Let’s say you have ring species ABCD. It exists on a gradient across Eurasia and North America. Adjacent letters can interbreed, but non-adjacents can’t. The dividing lines are arbitrary, but the number of species is still countable. If you pick two arbitrary specimens that can’t interbreed, and define them as the “center” of your two separate species, then one of those two can interbreed with every other ABCD. Therefore there are only two species in ABCD.

                  > There simply is no species definition that will give you well defined species – which implies no distinction between micro evolution and macroevolution.

                  Genes don’t care about verbal definitions or superficial appearances. The sexual reproduction either works or it doesn’t. And even that’s actually a probability.

                  There is a massive difference between a random mutation, which is like marking one card in a deck, and a hybridization event, which is like shuffling the deck with a different deck. This is the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

                  Evolution has been creating and shuffling those cards a long, long time. And at this point they all do interesting useful stuff. The remarkable flexibility of selection is just part of what makes hybrid stabilization possible.

          • jim says:

            The God of the Gnostics is not useful to support our civilization or our families.

            The God that we need said:

            Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

            So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

            And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

            And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

            And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

            And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

            • glosoli says:

              You have no chance of getting the God that you need (Jehovah) whilst your cronies (alf) mock Jesus as a faker magician. Rather you will get His mighty wrath, and serve you all right.

              You do realise that right? You have to choose a side now, before it’s too late. And you have to have faith and believe, not just ‘think it’s a sound basis for running society’.

              • peppermint says:

                How To Build The Perfect Society:
                1) purge everyone who doesn’t truly believe in the miracles of ((Jesus))
                2) the rest, because they believe, can live harmoniously by ((his)) teachings

              • The Cominator says:

                @Glos

                Leaving aside whether Christianity is metaphysically true or false (which I don’t think we should debate at all) how do you propose to get a critical mass of people to believe in a non pozzed Christianity again?

                Which sect of Christians would you pick to be the true church (the only two real existing choices are Orthodox and Southern Baptist as the rest are all pozzed and run by borderline communists, and the SBC bureaucracy has become pozzed even if local churches have not)?

                • glosoli says:

                  None of them.

                  I’m working on a theonomy project with someone, we’ll launch it online and spread the word, and see what happens.

                • jim says:

                  The true religion must support the father, the family, and the sovereign, with each earthly family and each earthly tribal identity being an image of the divine order, as a man is the image of God. Gnosticism does not swing that way.

                  Gnosticism serves up the black pill, our bad reaction to the fall, our bad reaction to the red pill. The true religion supplies the white pill, without denying the red pill.

                • glosoli says:

                  Theonomy is the golden pill.

              • jim says:

                I am not going to choose the gnostic side. Gnostics behaved badly and failed to reproduce.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Theonomy is the golden pill.”

                We’re living in a leftist theocracy right now we’ve just managed to install an open heretic as President… I wonder if Henry IV of France had as much hysterical opposition as Trump had.

                I want a system where the state religion is weak (it always exists to some degree but I want one that nobody takes too seriously) but the establishment doesn’t tolerate Islam or leftist religions.

                Sounds like you want a strong theocracy of whatever version of Christianity you imagine is the true version.

                • glosoli says:

                  There were only 613 laws given to Moses, and some of those no longer apply since the changes Christ brought about.

                  So, probably around 500 laws, and that’s it. I seem to recall there was plenty to cover property rights and fathers’ authority, Jehovah loved the Patriarchy, it is literally His design, from Adam onward.

                  People just obey those laws and honour God and everything will take care of itself, as God will bless your nation.

                  Other nations want to worship baal or Zeus, their choice, but likely they’ll be wiped out eventually, just like Jehovah destroyed the mighty Egypt, now a perpetual shithole.

                  http://forgetfuljust.tumblr.com/post/172876299240/egypt-the-base-kingdom

              • peppermint says:

                Who will you accept, coexist with, and purge?

                I want to accept angry drunken atheists and normal Christians, coexist with philosophical atheists, protestants and mormons, and purge communists, feminists, christcucks and muslims.

                Glosoli, we don’t have enough time and resources to get this wrong.

                • jim says:

                  Atheists will be required to be discreet and respectful. True believers will be socially required to refrain from putting atheists on the spot. Atheists will be required to believe in … something … and will not be required to be all that clear about the incarnation and similar unobservables.

                • Koanic says:

                  You can’t put an atheist on the spot because being rude is a good way to get killed in an armed patriarchal society.

            • The Cominator says:

              I suppose the only example you have of a gnostic civilization is southern “Cathar” France which lost the war against the Northern French “crusade”.

              What historical evidence there is indicates their society was kind of a purity spiral and somewhat believed in female equality, so its probably a good thing the crusade wiped them out.

      • peppermint says:

        bagging whores is a thing to be proud of if you have free time, certainly it’s better to be a wastrel bagging whores than a wastrel doing nothing. What we need is for men in charge to have better things to do with their time. Bagging whores should be exclusively done by low SMV slaves in their off time.

        But you see it as a moral issue for reasons you don’t understand because you believe that in order for you to be a good person you must subscribe dogmatically to a fundamentally cucked worldview because you were told it’s the worldview of your ancestors who conquered and built this country.

      • Yara says:

        >sort yourself out

        I swear to Jesucristo, if that’s a veiled reference to Jordan “Beta Orbiter Maximus” Peterson, it really puts the final cuck-nail in the cuck-coffin.

        • glosoli says:

          Bow to Jehovah, or cuck to the father of lies, it’s a simple choice and a surprisingly easy one. Gnon = satan btw.

          There was no intent to reference Peterson.

          • peppermint says:

            q: why do you say Jehovah, knowing that Yahweh is a more accurate translation of the name that should not be put in print?

            a: because of a long history of people intentionally pissing each other off, which you refuse to acknowledge, because you think your particular fragmentary type of Christianity is the one true type preached by the itenerant Nazirite community organizer.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              If glosoli “knew” that the correct form of the name is Yahweh, he would be believing a lie. Jehovah, as pronounced by our Puritan forefathers “Yehowah” is as close to accurate as we will get in modern times. The Yahweh pronunciation is a Jesuit invention.

              • peppermint says:

                Like you just said, jehovah, as pronounced by any normal person today, is wildly inaccurate, and yahweh is better, but we could do better still.

                Today, for normalcy we would use god, for accuracy yahweh, and remind people we stand in the ancient tradition of Latin Christians, jehovah.

                Also, I hear the original name was just yah and he had the head of an onager.

          • jim says:

            The proposition that Gnon is Satan is Gnosticism. Which is countercivilizational, heresy, and flatly incompatible with the Bible

            31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

            The Gnostic abandons this world, which means he abandons good conduct in this world. He is not required to know the truth or speak the truth about this world.

            • glosoli says:

              Bullshit. Anything that seeks to turn men away from Jehovah is from the father of lies.

              It’s just a way of (yet again) denying that Jehovah is our God. You will not win with gnon, you might as well call yourself a pagan.

  16. Neurotoxin says:

    “Women… want an alpha male, but in our society, alpha males are severely restrained from violence, aggression, and misconduct, which restraint registers with women as not alpha.”

    Or, as you once pricelessly put it,

    “Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status).”

  17. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    A girl doesn’t really want to hear about your accomplishments.

    She’s doesn’t really want to hear about your six figure income, or your position at the agency, or your debate club trophy…

    …not right away, that is.

    She wants to see if you are an impetuous, possibly violent, possibly criminal, smoldering with barely restrained rapetastic lust, living on the edge flirting with respectability and giving it a good spank on the cheek as you pull out bad boy…

    ..and THEN she finds out that you were secretly the earl’s son the whole time and set to inherit a landed estate and come with me if you want to live.

    This is seriously the backstory of like 80% of the male love interests in harlequin romances (just reading the back covers alone can be an endlessly enlightening experience).

    She doesn’t want to hear all the impressive (to other men) things about you right away… because *she wants the opportunity for her ‘female intuition’ to be validated, and loves it more than anything when it happens*.

    A girl experiences a ZFG shitlord who seems emotionally capable of doing all sorts of ravishing things like listed, gets gina tingles, and if prompted on the matter may rationalize it as ‘i just know there *something* about him’. It is not strictly necessary of course (the display of hotness comes first, and over all; even if given precious little seed material a girl will oft still find a way to rationalize their bike gang boo), but not for no reason this exact sequence figures so highly in female fantasies of what ideal men are like.

    To the extent that talking about all your what you think is cool shit first *could* titilate her with no precondition, it would be to the extent to how it might relate to being a possibly violent possible rapist. Things like being a patrolman, or owning weapons, or success in combat sports for instance. (Side note, to this day it can still surprises me, but it’s hard to understate the idealization most people commonly have towards their idea of martial arts, and someone who does martial arts, in their minds. Every good reactionary should train a form of wrestling and submission grappling, along with some boxing or muay thai or a general mixed martial arts gym if you desire to round yourself out. If you have a number of options or have limited options in your area and are unsure what to pick, as a general rule, go with whoever has the most prominent competition success, whatever they call themselves. It can be a much longer and nuanced topic to expound upon, but the short of it is, you cannot rely on a gym, style, or stylist, that does not regularly compete, to be more than worth-less. Then if anyone asks you can tell them you ‘trane ufc bro’.)

    This, incidentally is an operative kernel in why ‘mystery’ can be so attractive to women; not just *simply* a more general fascination or amusement that comes from things that prompt the working of the imagination, but more also and like above; she loves the idea that she has a ‘special intuition’; she loves the idea that the man she’s attracted to has special ‘hidden depths’; and she *especially* loves the idea that *only she can be capable of accessing those hidden depths* (unlike all those other bitches), that she just *knew* were there, thanks to the power of her special female powers.

    ~

    If your kid likes playing horse, you play horse with them. If girls like playing out a certain theatrical play, what else, but to know the roles?

    • peppermint says:

      “martial arts” is for homosexuals and women. Men eat creatine, get gainz, and learn to box. The function isn’t to win every fist fight because that’s impossible, the point is to credibly deter. The function is as seen in The Santa Clarita Diet, if someone won’t stop hitting on your woman, you need to get yourself and him kicked out of the bar.

      Men also lean to shoot and have a weapon at home in case of whatever, because free men have weapons and friends who are socially obligated to defend them and slaves don’t have weapons but maybe have the protection of their owners.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Martial arts are the combat arts. If you, as a man, do not know how to hold your own in combat, you are fucking up. Boxing is nice, but any decent wrestler will take you to the ground and turn your limbs into matchsticks in a real fight. At the very least, you need to add wrestling of some sort.

        Close combat on your feet and on the ground, with and without a knife, and pistol training are the bare minimum to be basically proficient in combat. If you lack any one of these, you must rectify and remediate.

        • peppermint says:

          that’s nice, navy seal. Real men have jobs and wives and kids instead of practicing kawtaws all day in their gay sensay’s doe joe. Actual fights occur with specific, asymmetric intentions and acceptable outcomes in mind, over the course of seconds, and don’t include every move in the kama sutra.

          You need to understand anatomy, including your own anatomy, but that should be natural to a man. You need to have the strength, speed, flexibility to do what you can given the body you have, which should be natural, but isn’t, because so many men these days have never even seen a heavy thing let alone picked one up and then put it back down. High protein diet and creatine can help but the gainz are on the lifter.

          Having a respectable musculature means you get respected by men and women alike. That makes it essential for any man, including the man who doesn’t have time for dance lessons.

          Yes, learning all the beautiful ways to throw a woman on your bed is a nice way to impress your wife or future wife.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            It does not require Seal levels of time to be minimally competent. Bodyweight, iron, boxing, and grappling. Shooting at the range once a month or so. No fancy Eastern “martial” arts that have gotten away from fighting. Boxing, Graeco-Roman Wrestling, and MMA to tie them in together. If you do not want to put in the time, then that is laziness, which is not my problem.

        • Yara says:

          Pure conservacuck fantasy, typical of those raised on FPS video games and/or those in the orbit of the security services.

          In real life, conflict is pure, ritual posturing until it turns violent, and it only turns violent when one side becomes convincingly stronger than the other. Even supposing that every man is still a military asset in the current year, a dubious proposition, few have any need of close combat ability whatsoever, and those few that do are pretty much SWAT and no one else. Rather, what would be important is some combination of physical fitness, intellect, MacGyveresque engineering ability, and medium-range riflery skill.

          And of course none of it really matters very much because you will never. fucking. revolt.

          P.S. Pistol-focused self-defense is nothing but a sublimated omnipresent-nigger-danger “””crime””” fantasy. Like crime is in the air, or something.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Combat is ritual posturing until it turns real. Then you better know how to fight. Have a pistol if you get into a situation which from which you may not be able to fight clear. If you carry a knife, and you should, then you better know how to use it.

            If you are not a military asset, then you are irrelevant. Man is wolf to man, and if you are not a wolf, then you are prey. You do not need to be John Wick to be a wolf, but you had better be a wolf regardless, or you are going to get eaten.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              You should know how to handle yourself in a physical altercation precisely *because* most combat is actually social combat, ie, ritualized posturing; things men do to have fun, bond with each other, settle differences, and reify group hierarchies, not really self-defense situations.

              Neever underestimate the confidence boost a man can have from being able to think: ‘i could beat up anyone in this room’. A man who is not confident of his chances in a physical altercation with another man will act noticeably different. Ironically, that can so often mean they will be tend to be more sensitive, argumentative, and disruptive (until put in check in some way). This is all pre-rational.

              Naturally it all has implications on police or security work as well; someone who does not have the wherewithal to deal with an aggressive suspect without immediate escalation to lethal force will, naturally, have more limited options to deal with a wide range of different situations, without immediate escalation to the nuclear option. Of course if they just so happen to be in a war zone (that is to say, a locale filled with aliens not their own blood), then this is much less of a concern, breathless headlines notwithstanding. If you happen to be working in a civilized land (stocked of people your own kin), then i would say ability in less than lethal restraint becomes more important, and not less.

            • Yara says:

              Mark this down as Exhibit A under “why soldiers are politically irrelevant”. It’s because your entire outlook is centered around the thought of you and another man in a small room spontaneously deciding to fight each other to the death. Your mentality is like that of a fighting dog; which is fine, I guess, if you can reasonably trust your master to be looking out for your welfare. Otherwise, you might have to ask some tough questions, like,
              “why am I in this room?”;
              “where is this room?”;
              “where was I before this room?”;
              “where will I be after this room?”;
              “who will get the loot in this room after I’m done here?”;
              “why do I get none of it?”;
              “if I’m killed or critically injured by the other man in this room, will I be taken care of (lol VA, amirite)?”;
              “will anyone care?”;
              “why must I kill this other man?”;
              “is it morally justifiable to kill him at all?”;
              “are his women and children legitimate targets as well?”;
              “why?”;
              “what is my reward for fighting the other man to the death?”;
              “who put me here in this room in the first place?”; and
              “is this room even real?”.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                For this is the law of the jungle,
                As old and as true as the sky,
                And the wolf that keep may prosper,
                But the wolf that break it must die,

                As the creeper that girdle the tree trunk,
                The law runneth forward and back,
                For the strength of the pack is the wolf,
                And the strength of the wolf is the pack

                There is more, of course, and it is a very good poem.

                If you cannot perform violent action, you will be ruled by those who can. I get away with plenty in my life because I am big enough and mean enough to beat up just about everyone I meet. I am friends with most of the men that could pose a threat to me, and they will usually back me up, making it harder to oppose me.

                If the Dark Enlightenment wants to be taken seriously, you need to have warriors. Jim is a warrior, but the rest of you are weak, or present as weak. I cannot tell on the internet, so I assume you are as weak in realspace. Weak, so not worthy of respect.

                Except Jim. Jim, I respect. I feel as if Jim could put up a fight. If I could beat him up, I would not, because he is still dangerous and he seems trustworthy and cooperative. If he could beat me up, I feel as though he would not because he would cooperate with me and we would beat up other people together, and take their women and their gold, and I would get some women and gold.

                • Yara says:

                  If you cannot think, you will be ruled by those who can, for they will do your thinking for you.

                  How many Pentagons are there?

                  ”We’re at the end of that tail… getting whipped.” What did he mean by this?

                  Where was the Second Foundation?

                  Why was a humble fledging tarot card game maker raided by the Secret Service?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Oh, but I can think. Which we have in common. I can also act, and enforce my will where you cannot. Your thought without action is useless, harmless.

                  The link is dead, so I cannot answer your questions. Someone wanted that information scrubbed. I assume because it provides intelligence that the responsible parties do not want available.

                • Yara says:

                  Link: https://abcnews.go.com/US/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-regrets-working-us-state/story?id=20931184

                  You can think, as is evidenced by your appreciation for Kipling, but in certain key elements your thoughts are evidently severely curtailed; it seems to me that your world-perspective is that of a man living an existence of tenuous or nonexistent property right. By some confluence of your birth, your specific culture, and your military experience, you have learned at a primordial psychological level that it is impossible to own that which you cannot personally physically defend. In an extreme honor culture, this may in fact be true; in our society, with a robust state and strong right to life, liberty, and property, it is seriously maladaptive.

                  For better or worse, we are headed toward a world in which a robust state turns tyrannical and right to life, liberty, and property become a luxury afforded only to a few, and so our most likely relationship is me hiring you as private security, in which capacity, I imagine, we will get on just fine.

                  Do you remember when “our boys” were halfway across the world fighting Terrorism for baseball, grandmother, and apple pie? I don’t.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The robust state is an illusion. Rights are an illusion. At the bottom of it all, it comes down to force. Every law is a death threat. Every decision is made under duress.

                  Any belief otherwise is a collective fiction we agree to as a society. That agreement is powerful, but tenuous. If it goes away, the illusion disappears, and we are all left staring at reality. I choose to look at the reality without the illusions. I know it is an illusion, so I have power over it.

                  Erik Prince thought he was part of the power structure, and then he realized he was just another peasant, and his money and physical power meant nothing. He was the face of the bad decisions, and so they made him the sacrifice. He was the lowest man in the chain of responsibility and he was also a public face, putting him in a position to be sacrificed.

                  It appears that he has decided to back another faction in response, and take his place there. I suspect that Erik Prince now belongs to the Trump faction of the Red Empire, and that he is providing his services. Note that he is now working behind the scenes, indicating increased personal power. The power behind the throne, as it were.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Force is both the Foundation of any society and the “ultima ratio” of any faction that thinks they can win but the faction that can extert the most force doesn’t always rule.

                  In the West the “Priests” have ruled over the warriors for a long time. The “warriors” should rule IMHO and this is why I think the wrong side won the 1st world war (Prussia was a warrior country, the Western allies were “Priest” countries… I don’t apply this to WWII because I think Hitler was by 1941 best described as simply a lunatic).

                  Erik Prince was involved in the red empire/military intelligence PRO Trump conspiracy (it exists, its just much smaller then the anti Trump conspiracy) with Michael Flynn from at least the late primaries. I don’t think he is a low rung… Billionaire ex navy seal who ran security for VIPs who has family connections with other billionaire’s (and I mean billionaire’s with way more then Trump himself) doesn’t strike me as low run.

                • Yara says:

                  Yes, yes, the government is an illusion, the dollar is an illusion, etc. etc., only FORCE is real.

                  Bosh! We are creatures of illusion. To us, the illusion is not less but more real. We expend our very lifeforce in the service of this illusion or that. And why? Because we act like everyone else acts, and everyone else is acting like everyone else is acting. Hence, episodes of madness like organized warfare or the Nongqawuse Phenomenon or the epoch-making Tech Bubble 2.0.

                  You claim to swagger around like a pale tribal warlord, breaking things and fucking bitches. Fine, fine. I even believe you. You’re friends with the locals, with the regional police, and with the militia. Fine; I believe you. But reflect, if you will, upon your small-time thuggery, and realize how thin is your pretence. Namely, I’m not buying your claims to cosmic importance, and I’m just some rando on teh interwebz.

                  The significance of Erik Prince’s statement is not that he decided to back the Gᴏᴅ-Eᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ faction – that faction did not even exist when he gave ABC the interview – it is what it implies about the nature and strategy of an agency such as State Department. His working behind the scenes does not necessarily indicate increased personal power, only an updated PR strategy.

                  Female status is an illusion. Divorce court, an illusion. Your troubles with unruly white trashettes, also illusion.

                  If you are in a man’s employ, you are an extension of his will. I would not hire you; you are too unstable.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Not breaking things and fucking bitches. It is more subtle than that. I am a civilized man, after all. When you can see beyond the illusion, it gives you a sort of magic. Like being able to walk through walls, or at least see through them.

                  Small time thuggery is fair enough, and I have less friends in places of power than you give me credit. Certainly no real influence. I mean that I have influence in the social groups in which I travel. Strength brings respect, and mutual respect among the strong leads to cooperation, means that the social rules are the ones we set.

                  Which, back to my original point, is why physical strength and the ability to cause injury to another are so important. It gives you a leg up on everyone else, and does not require explicit, open violence.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Power resides where men believe it resides, its a trick a shadow on the wall”…

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  To be a gentleman, one must also be capable of harsh, cruel behavior. Not to be the barbarian, but be able to be the barbarian

                • Yara says:

                  >Which, back to my original point, is why physical strength and the ability to cause injury to another are so important. It gives you a leg up on everyone else, and does not require explicit, open violence.

                  >To be a gentleman, one must also be capable of harsh, cruel behavior. Not to be the barbarian, but be able to be the barbarian

                  That’s true. And in the current year, most of being capable is being willing. We were born into bondage, into a prison we cannot see or taste or touch, a prison for our minds.

                • Yara says:

                  >“Power resides where men believe it resides, its a trick a shadow on the wall”…

                  100%.

                  Wow, I’d forgotten how good that series was before they ran out of book. Phenomenal stuff, the first three-ish seasons, before the chucklefucks in charge had to write a single line of dialogue.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        A reflexive response like this is, itself, emblematic of the distorted view ‘mundanes’ have towards combat sports, or perhaps that word in particular, ‘martial-arts’, for good or ill.

        I simply can’t agree with you because i think combat sports are cool as fuark and nearly endless in their depth of complexity and nuance. That is to say, disclosing more easily noticeable, easily appreciable, easily *verifiable* differences in subjects abilities wrt to dealing with such same depth of complexity and nuance of the game(s). And hence, what makes them ideal vehicles for the edification men and the testing of virtues.

        Fanciful example; if say, academic deans (parish bishops) could only be selected by success in a rivalrous physical contest of mettle, their character (and the character of their sees) would be radically different. I guarantee it.

        I say, if you have a man introduced to fight game, that then does not understand fight game, has dumb ideas with regards to what brings success in a fight game, you can reliably rely on him to be unreliably dumb about lots of other things too. Things that can be much more important, but also *much harder to verify* (ie, easier to bullshit). Be they topics martial, political, philosophical, or theological.

        There are other things, numbers of other things, that can be operating along similar dynamics (for instance, i would honestly and with only very little hesitation sooner trust someone with a Master I league rank on the sc2 ladder to run something like the mayorship of a city, than any one of a hundred different harvard graduates), but i consider combat sports to be amongst the very best; because they touch upon so many different facets of performance all at once (including T levels), and more, are much more directly entangled with the physical world, and your competition with an other very real person, which cannot be faked, and forces by necessity people out of the conceit of being merely disembodied ‘mindclouds’ tangentially interacting with space, into a being rightfully entangled with Being.

        A good general rule there is i’ve found, that has served me well, and that is: if there is a vocation with a lot of ‘meat’ in it, with much to learn, much to *talk to other people* about… it very well likely has value. I myself had almost exactly this experience many years ago on the subject of firearms. That is to say, I have never met someone who was anti-gun who was not also supremely ignorant about guns.

        • peppermint says:

          Ballet is more rigorous and beautiful than any other martial art. Unfortunately, women have abandoned it, because they all got lazy and stopped training. Consequently they suck at all the particular dance routines they claimed to be abandoning ballet for.

          Who is bad at fighting because he didn’t pay attention in greenoch class?

          The #1 thing that would help the average man is to lift once in a while. Learning tai chi isn’t even on the list.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Because fuck tai chi. That is not a martial art. It is dancing with a sword. A martial art requires that it actually be martial and not prancing about. If you got turned off learning something like taekwondo or tai chi, then you are an idiot for thinking those were any good for fighting.

            Boxing is a martial art. Brazilian Jujitsu is a martial art. Graeco-Roman Wrestling is a martial art. Fuck, find a HEMA club nearby and train with a sword or an axe. Respect your culture and learn an art of your own people. It is not just about learning to fight. It is the mindset that fighting engenders.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              I like the term “combat sports” or “fighting sports” for this.

              “Martial arts” as a brand is permanently tainted by psudo-Eastern mystic bullshit as peppermint here is reflecting back.

              • jim says:

                A lot of martial arts, and a lot martial arts training, is not in fact very effective, and indeed is likely to get the practitioner into trouble.

                Martial arts plus “mystic bullshit” is in fact an effective combination, for the right mind body connection makes the body more deadly – but that is not necessarily what you will be getting. Mystic bullshit is apt to replace, rather than facilitate, effective combat, in which case it is indeed bullshit.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Learn to do what’s forbidden by the MMA rules. That’s your secret power.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Also, ballet is great, if you can do that.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            You’re the first person to mention tai chi, friend.

    • Dave says:

      Don’t be either. Half my kids’ classmates have daddies in prison. If you want to be choosy about women instead of waiting for one to choose you, commit unplanned, impulsive acts of violence, get arrested, do a few years, and get some cool prison tattoos. Women love to fuck guys who don’t give a fuck.

      I live in a rural white area, but I trust Jim when he says upper-middle-class women are even worse. You saw that cute billionaire’s daughter totally smitten with Jeremy Meeks.

      I realize that men aren’t entitled to sex, but women aren’t entitled to food and shelter either. Let them grow and build those things for themselves, instead of expecting men they won’t have sex with to provide them.

    • jim says:

      This article “Don’t be a nice guy be a good man” is a malicious lie, intended to harm men and prevent sex and reproduction – its evil is progressivism manifesting its infamous puritan roots.

  18. TheDividualist says:

    I can’t really add more than my usual nawalting. This all is absolutely true for most women, and you can see this a mile away, most women given out the kind of danger signals that they require a treatment like this and that makes me give them a very big berth. But I can also sense when it is not the case. How to put it. I can sense in the face of women and also many men if their behavior seems calculated, instead of natural. That they behave in a way they think impresses people or is expected of them – the monkey dance. This gives me the danger signals. And I get it very quickly when it is not the case. Maybe I just have a radar for fellow autists, no idea.

    Anyway. As for women liking to do things for men, sure, but I don’t really need much to be done, I have immense amounts of identical white polo shirts for work, and a rotisserie chicken with an random salad is good for two dinners. The kind of women I consider normal, not giving me the danger signs, would never think about flirting on social media. Usually they are neurotic about housework, keep shining the door handles, because they consider it somehow necessary for their self-worth. This gives them more than enough to do. I am constantly amazed how in a flat, not even a house, my wife has a long backlog of things she wants to do when she will have some free time, things I would not even consider like taking out all the books and dusting them off and putting them back in an alphabetical order.

    • jim says:

      Sounds like she wants to provide service, and you are not demanding enough and oppressing her enough, so she winds up shining the door handles and alphabetizing the books.

  19. >Although women pay alarmingly little attention to the male status hierarchy, that is because our existing hierarchy fails to register with them as real. They are nonetheless much impressed by males backing the status of other males. If you have a driver, you score pussy points because you dominate the driver. If you have a bodyguard, you score huge pussy points because the bodyguard registers on women as alpha, and because he implies the potential for violence

    That is a very roundabout way of saying that women pay attention to real status: who defers to whom, not the fake ass status that seems to abound these days. Seriously, for maybe centuries now, fake status seems to be a primary occupation of white men. When we are kids, we shit test teachers because we instinctively understand a teacher does not just have authority, he must take authority by punishing misbehavior and if he has no guts for it, he has none. Then we grow up and somehow believe that a teacher, a policeman etc. just has authority, and we are shocked when they don’t seem to be able to have their way. Or somehow believe a good sounding job title equals status. Or some item of conspicious consumption. There is a social conditioning in forgetting what we knew in childhood.

    But just hiring a bodyguard will have the reverse effect. Since jocks don’t like to be bossed around by geeks, he will try to get the upper hand, “when I say duck you duck, for your own safety, even the President does that” etc. etc., and women will read that perfectly.

    You are better off with an apprentice. Just as women like to have an ugly friend or two around, for contrast, a meeker, younger, beginner at womanizing wingman could be a good idea.

    • jim says:

      > But just hiring a bodyguard will have the reverse effect. Since jocks don’t like to be bossed around by geeks, he will try to get the upper hand, “when I say duck you duck, for your own safety, even the President does that” etc. etc., and women will read that perfectly.

      Yes, big problem – but it is not that hard to retain the upper hand. Do Trump’s bodyguards boss him around?

  20. pdimov says:

    In totally unrelated news, Ron Unz is dispensing red pills by the truckload. If he keeps it up, he’ll become the second Jewish anti-Semite in recorded history after Bobby Fischer.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/

  21. Anonymous 2 says:

    On the lighter, or at least more ridiculous, side, billionaire heiresses Sara and Clare Bronfman turn out to be entangled in BDSM-cult NXIVM along with a cast of Hollywood actresses and others. They might even have been running it (or have been on its board).

    So here, revealed at last, is how women want things done in the household. (Not mentioned below is the infamous branding of subjects.)

    The secret sorority, which was billed as an exclusive opportunity for female acolytes, operated on a system of “slaves” and “masters.” According to court documents, masters recruited slaves and initiated them, in part, by demanding collateral—“naked photographs, assets, criminal confessions, and other damaging information.”

    “DOS masters, including defendant [Allison Mack], groomed DOS slaves for sex with Raniere by requiring DOS slaves to adhere to extremely restrictive diets and not remove their pubic hair (in accordance with [leader] Raniere’s sexual preferences) and by requiring them to remain celibate and not to masturbate. DOS masters, including the defendant, who directed their slaves to have sex with Raniere, received financial benefits in the form of continued status and participation in DOS, as well as financial opportunities from Raniere.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/heiress-behind-nxivm-sex-cult-unmasked-in-court-let-her-watch-netflix

    • Mack says:

      Silly goy. Latter-day sex cults are as equally extinct as orphanage rings of child trafficking and ancient Mesopotamian religions.

    • Mack says:

      P.S. Anthony ”Oh God” Weiner and Huma “My Alienface Is Showing Through” Abedin definitely did have anything to do with any little death cult. Scout’s Honor.

  22. Alrenous says:

    “Instead, he is greatly triggered.”
    Indeed. When doubt from within is matched by doubt from without, social-status supporting beliefs go into overdrive defence.

    https://blog.jim.com/culture/game/#comment-1855617

    That said, if god really did create miracles it would hardly impossible for him to do so only when nobody can prove it’s a miracle. He would do this for the same reason he doesn’t simply make a gigantic hand grow out of the clouds and declare (BELIEVE IN CHRIST) every fifty years or so.

    Human belief is not entirely voluntary. The giant hand thing – or miracles – would force belief, just like when you see an apple, you can’t choose to believe you don’t see an apple. The god described in the bible clearly values freedom very highly. He wants the believer to choose to believe, not to be coerced into believing.

    Or, alternatively, the Bible is about as accurate theologically as Aristotle was accurate about physics.

  23. sewa elf says:

    sewa hiace

    Game

Leave a Reply