“Hail Fellow ComicsGate Fan”

ComicsGate died. It died because it allowed a leadership that hates ComicsGate and hates the fans to take charge.

Hate is defined as wanting tropes that are now forbidden, like the Han Solo of the first Star Wars movie who rescued Princess Leia and the original very manly Thor. Thus either ComicsGate is hate movement or it hates the fans. And the leadership of ComicsGate hates the fans.

> “Go write it and find your audience”

But when Vox Day went half way towards writing what the fans want, the leadership of ComicsGate denounced, deplatformed, and demonetized him.

According to the leadership ComicsGate is against “politics” in comics – where “politics” is any trope or archetype that has been forbidden. And Vox Day’s stuff is indeed political, very political, not because it flagrantly defies the Zeitgeist by using tropes and archetypes forbidden in 1979, shortly after Han Solo rescues princess Leia, but merely because it uses tropes and archetypes forbidden in 2010.

For this horrid crime (cool character wearing a confederate flag) Vox Day was denounced, deplatformed and demonetized. But 2010 is not what the fans want. The fans don’t even really want the rogue Han Solo rescues princess Leia. Princess Leia is a subversion of the trope, because she is “feisty” They want the the rogue rescues princess Andromeda.

Perseus rescues princess Andromeda, returns her to her family, who turns out to be tight fisted about giving him his rightful reward. He then kills Princess Andromeda’s fiancée (after Princess Andromeda passive aggressively manipulates him and her fiancée into a fight by acting like a cat toy), abducts her, and bangs her like a drum, and she enthusiastically gives him his reward.

Similarly the Sea Wolf, a pirate king played by Errol Flynn, abducts the princess not once but twice. The first time she is rather feisty, but the second time he bangs her like a drum. Her feistyness the first time was just a shit test. The second time he abducts her, he has passed the shit test with flying colors, and her feistyness vanishes.

Similarly McComb, played by Errol Flynn in “Silver City” deliberately causes the death of Georgia’s beloved husband after amogging him, and Georgia (who, despite being not in the least feisty, passive aggressively set up their conflict by acting like a cat toy) forgives him with indecent swiftness.

The fans want the original Han Solo rescues princess Leia, and no one dares give it to them. They want the original Thor, and no one dares give it to them. And I am pretty sure that they would want Errol Flynn as the Sea Wolf rescues, then abducts princess Andromeda in the style of Perseus, cheerfully leaving a river of blood behind him, and no one has dared give them that for two centuries. Indeed the Pirate King “Captain Blood” played by Errol Flynn was itself a subversion of the trope, because of a disappointing lack of the promised blood. The fans who had watched Errol Flynn as the pirate King in “the Sea Wolf” were disappointed with insufficient wolving, wanted to see the pirate King “Captain Blood” earn his name, but he failed to do so.

The female fans want to see two extremely alpha males in conflict over a woman, and the male fans want to see two extremely alpha males in conflict. When I set up a party I always try to arrange for females to heavily outnumber males, so that amog is not a problem, but amog makes for good stories even though it makes for terrible parties. When I am host at a party I milk the host role to the max to amog, and when I am a guest I try to support the host in the role of amog, but I am apt to carelessly amog him anyway.

No one dares write for the masses. The masses want Han Solo to rescue Princess Andromeda, and instead they get action girl rescues lad in distress, even from Vox Day.

Cap’n Jack Sparrow is gay and respects women. He is a subversion of the Han Solo trope, not a modern example of Han Solo trope. And even the original Han Solo is a subversion of the trope, in that he rescues Princess Leia, not princess Andromeda.

The only comics producer who goes half way towards producing what the fans want claims to speak for ComicsGate, and the self appointed leadership of ComicsGate, who fail to produce what the fans want, denounce him: Only those who hate ComicsGate may speak for it.

The fans are not getting what they want, and the self appointed leadership of ComicsGate denounced, demonetized, and deplatformed Vox Day as ultra right because he weakly went half way in the direction of giving the fans what they want.

Ariana Grande can do rock concerts that promote prostitution to unaccompanied eight year old girls, but no one dares realistically depict the male and female courtship roles, Han Solo has not rescued Princess Andromeda for 196 years.

Rock music videos can do sadomasochistic rape on screen, but they are not allowed to do Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Hara on screen.

> “I want well written characters of all types”

Supposedly the leadership of ComicsGate wants well written stories of all types, but instead gives the fans action girl rescues lad in distress.

No one has been able to write the Perseus and Andromeda story for two centuries. They were writing in the corners, and the corners have become ever smaller, so that now they cannot write anything entertaining at all, just as Chris Rock can no longer be funny.

If ComicsGate got what it wanted, Han Solo would fly again and rescue Andromeda the way Perseus did. The leadership of ComicsGate melted down over Alt Hero comics and called it politicized fiction that goes against everything ComicsGate stands for. Imagine how they would react if the original Thor rescued Princess Andromeda after the fashion of Perseus.

When Perseus rescued Andromeda he did not ask her permission to touch her, just as Han Solo did not ask permission to touch Princess Leia. Perseus killed her fiancee, abducted her from her family, and banged her. She liked it, but it would have made no difference had she disliked it. No one has been able to publish such fiction for two centuries.

Vox Day’s fiction is political right, but the heroine always rescues the lad in distress, the rogue is not lovable, let alone rescues the lady in distress. What does he have to do to be sufficiently left wing to meet the standards for “non political” comics?

Vox Day is an ultra extreme far right winger because he makes the heroines of his books a hot archer or spell caster rather than a fat frumpy lesbian who punches out a dozen mooks in one blow and rescues the lad in distress by punching through prison walls. If Vox Day were to do the original Han Solo in comics or books the leadership of ComicsGate would scream “Hitler” until their heads exploded.

And similarly, you cannot depict romance in movies and rock videos any more, because the male and female roles now have to be interchangeable, as for example the role inversion in “The Wedding Date” and the role symmetry in the Lord of the Rings movie.

You cannot do the pirate trope successfully if the pirates are required to be respectful towards women.

Romance in the the “Lord of the Rings” movie trilogy was sickening and boring, because they could not depict the mating dance as having fundamentally different roles for men and women, could not depict men conquering and women surrendering, nor men performing and women choosing, after the fashion of Errol Flynn and Rhett Butler.

Social Justice Warriors have declared tropes and archetypes that are an essential part of the fan mythos to be unacceptable and out of bounds. To write stories containing necessary and important elements is “extreme right wing”. And no one is transgressive enough restore them. The bounds have become so restrictive that it is no longer possible to write good stories or tell funny jokes.

ComicsGate was a reaction to hostile acts by social justice warriors against the fan’s myths and culture. To call for a “politically neutral” ComicsGate is like calling on the Warsaw uprising to even handed between Poles and German soldiers. It is preemptive surrender.

A “politically neutral” ComicsGate is a suffocatingly left wing ComicsGate that hates and despises its fans.

Han Soyboy’s identity in the latest Star Wars was a pussy whipped beta loving from afar. Turned out that a lot of people preferred the identity of the bold alpha rogue who laid hands on women without asking them for permission. But not even Vox Day dares to be such an “extreme right wing misogynist”.

When the leadership of ComicsGate tells us Vox Day comics are “Right Wing” and “don’t appeal to everyone” they are telling us that there is a vast untapped audience that wants to see frumpy fat lesbians acting counter stereotypically.

If the movement had been glad to associate with the only substantial publisher who does not shove social justice down their throats, it would still be a movement.

There is no ComicsGate community any more. Once you punch right and purge rightists, everyone knows they will be next. Purgers need to be preemptively purged, because purges go ever leftwards until the purgers are themselves purged.

603 Responses to ““Hail Fellow ComicsGate Fan””

  1. Really Jim?

    You actually give a care about comics?

    So Ayn Rand boring rape fantasies are what you want to see for your Dark Knight? So write some comics and put then out there. comics.jim.com would be so popular. Thank U, Next!

    • pyrrhus says:

      Comics are as important as any other part of western culture, more important for young men…The revolution against SJWism has to start somewhere.

  2. jim says:

    Ayn Rand cannot write a romance, let alone a rape fantasy, because her empowered women are too empowered, but “Perseus abducts Andromeda” rape fantasies have had lasting power that shows that they are not boring.

    • Inquiring Mind says:

      What about the Fountainhead, where the Dominique Francon avatar of Ayn Rand is, to put it charitably, rather neurotic for someone empowered?

    • At the party when Dagny purchases the Rearden steel bracelet, Rand uses these words: “the most erotic sight in the world: a woman in chains”. This open acceptance of female submission stood out for me, as it seemed contradictory to the stronk empowered woman theme. Later on, Dagny proceeds to submit fully to all her lovers. Albeit the climbing of a cock ladder until she gets the top alpha male is kinda repulsive to me, but it is female fantasy, and as a female fantasy it seems quite redpilled and quite accepting of female submission to me.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        It’s just hypergamy. The submission’s a female kink of sexual empowerment, nothing more. There’s never any status submission or genuine obedience in Taggart, let alone fidelity. If Ragnar took his stolen gold and opened a burger chain, she’d throw Galt under the train in an instant.
        As for Francon she had her bit of rough with the mean uppity prole then married the beta cuck provider and drove him to suicide.

        These are disgusting people.

  3. The Cominator says:

    You mention Thor. Thor Ragnorok was pretty based. “Asgard isn’t a place its a people”… I’m surprised the Cathedral commisars let that one through.

    • Comic Fan says:

      It could have been based, but the “people” of Asgard were a multiracial stew which included Norse gods played by black actors.

  4. Steve Johnson says:

    Rock music videos can do sadomasochistic rape on screen, but they are not allowed to do Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Hara on screen.

    Arctic Monkeys portray alpha widowhood to a T in this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8tLS_NOWLs

    Note the details – broad is married to an obviously very rich guy – or even is very rich herself (but c’mon, no, she isn’t) and she still pines for the 10 minutes of alpha attention she got one time.

    • peppermint says:

      Taylor Swift on alpha widowhood: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk2MVFUqtAo

      • jim says:

        Yes, absolutely spot on.

        But as I said before, if you were an alien who reproduced by spore pod explosion, and you watched what you tube tells us are the top music videos, you would conclude that the mating dance is entirely symmetric with the male and female roles interchangeable.

        Which is the romance that we were shown in the Lord of the Rings movies. Jack Sparrow never gets the female lead, because he is not allowed to court rogue style.

        • alf says:

          In the first Pirates movie, Jack actually got pretty far with Keira Knightley. The deal was never sealed and Keira ended up with beta protagonist, but the badboy flirtations were there and probably big part of why the movie was a hit with the women.

          Course, Jack is not allowed to actually to do what we knew he was doing, so it went downward after the 1st movie.

          • peppermint says:

            The beta is who the female lead is supposed to end up with, and he’s a beta because Jack could only be as manly as he was because he’s a lich and looks like a mulatto.

          • Alrenous says:

            There’s a trick with Jack Sparrow in that he goes up to the line and then, “Well, you know what really happened after this but we’re not allowed to show it on the silver screen.” Of course the whole point of putting it in metaphorical joke form is that the Correct people don’t get the joke. And especially their children don’t.

        • B says:

          So women waste money not despite the fact it angers, but because it does.

  5. One thing to understand about Vox is that he does not believe in the leftward ratchet, and does not believe that tactics have anything to do with ideology.

    In other words, he believes that leftism can be reversed through the same process by which it gained power, that Alinsky’s tactics are a weapon like the rifle or the airplane that both sides in a war need to adopt.

    Vox believes in repealing the 19th Amendment and reinstating heresy laws. He also believes that to get to repealing the 19th, you need to start off by ratcheting the fat dyke action girl back to the sexy action girl, back to Han and Leia, then back to Cugel the Clever and his ruthless conquest of uppity women.

    I do not agree with him, I see leftism as an alchemical formula that transmutes order into chaos, and thus it is like Sauron’s ring, everything done with it turns to evil. But it is important to understand his perspective, because he is not a circa 2010 leftist, he is a circa 1830 romantic nationalist who believes that you have to go back through 2010, and 1965, and 1919, to get to 1830.

    • jim says:

      Quite so. Vox Day thinks you can run leftism backwards using leftist methods.

      But to get to 1850, we are going to have to go through 1660 – which is easier than it sounds, because the diggers were Alinksy and Ocasio-Cortez.

      The Restoration had the advantage that the old social order still existed in living memory, while we will have to recreate it from dusty books, but we have gene reading, evolutionary psychology, and remote procedure calls, while they did not. Gene reading and evolutionary psychology make restoring their sexual order a whole lot easier, while remote procedure calls make restoring their legal system a whole lot easier.

      • Paulus Someone says:

        The battle field is the same though. You can’t get anywhere lasting if you do not do something to win back the culture. The smart strategy for the left is simply to make sure they control something ie: the house, and then wait Trump out before he can do something meaningful. I mean they can even wait out multiple conservative nominations to the supreme court because they have thoroughly corrupted the judiciary, media and academia anyway.

        The damage done by leftism is wholesale.

        I actually watched a video discussing prophecy by a sedevacantist priest and one of the prophecies said that America would lose to Russia in a war, and to be honest that is slowly not becoming far fetched. America and the west has been completely hollowed out of competency in almost every military and industrial field by leftism.

        • Alrenous says:

          Peasants genuinely believe they believe whatever the nearest locus of coercion tells them they believe. Best example being a huge number of men who think they’re not attracted to women younger than 18.

          Belief flows from the barrel of a gun. You can fight in the swamps downstream all you want, but unless you’re willing and able to actually fight it will not matter.

          • jim says:

            Hence the magic cloak of invisibility around female bad behavior and to a lesser extent around alpha male behavior.

          • The Cominator says:

            Peasants don’t believe this suburbanites and urban bugmen do.

          • peppermint says:

            How did Tolkien not notice Galadriel’s misbehavior in 1954? People notice female bad behavior but approve on the theory that overall more sex or near sex experiences are had, for them, if you approve of fornication and adultery.
            Today people just think all women are sluts, which is true, all women are the same, and all women are sluts. They still notice female misbehavior and may or may not approve based purely and almost consciously on if they like the man.

            • peppermint says:

              If Mr. Spaceley, the CEO of Spaceley Sprockets, can say it’s disgusting how henpecked young men are these days in the early 60s, then Tolkien a decade earlier was a cuckservative with a vague pastiche of aesthetic preferences and a sex pervert with a fetish for action wymen.

              • peppermint says:

                Action whamen everywhere, and one of the action wemen in the Silmarillion fornicates with her brother.

            • Tolkien was not great on women. Not awful, but not great. Eowyn was a dumb girl trying to impress alpha male Aragorn, but her heroics were basically divine providence and she learned humility and a proper role in the end.

              Luthien in the Silmarillion helped Beren out, but she did it with magic and trickery and not by flipping around with a sword. Tolkien’s attitude towards women is the Viking attitude towards women, which is to say the belief that they are noble and capable but along a different axis than male nobility and capability. More specifically, that women are these mysterious creatures of guile and intrigue and magic and should thus be feared and respected in their own right. There’s no woman in Tolkien who does anything evil whatsoever.

              Contrast with the Christian myth of King Arthur, where Gwenevere is a dumb broad who fucks Lancelot because he’s a better knight than Arthur, and ends up causing a civil war and ruining the civilization that he sweat and bled to create out of barbarian chaos. Or Arthur’s sister, who seduced him in disguise and tricked him into begetting the bastard son who proved his downfall.

              • peppermint says:

                > women should be feared

                …so they’ll find a man who doesn’t fear them

              • peppermint says:

                The idea that whamen can serve as spec ops instead of just as honeytraps and assets is retarded.

                Eowyn, as a royal whamen, should have been with the whamen and children. She shirked that duty and snuck into a war zone which suggests serious problems with discipline. How to the Rohirrim fight when they have no idea who each other are? Could orcs or Haradrim have also infiltrated?

      • The Cominator says:

        The right to some degree can employ leftist methods (Trump and 4chan did it during the election) but its hard for them to execute them in as coordinated a manner as the left and with the constant fanatical drive.

        The left has spontaneous coordination because of its shared religion and religious goals.

        The Alinsky tactic I think the right CAN employ effectively is “make the enemy live up to his own rules” the left has many points of friction in its coalition because its based on “intersectionality” by exploiting their rules we can particulary the rest of the leftist coalition against white women.

        • peppermint says:

          Already accomplished.

          White women are seen as Whites by the left, not as women. Because we acted like cartoonish nazis, in order to aid the leftists in organically discovering that race comes first.

          Meanwhile White women are terfed out of their own White women’s leftist organizations by trannies that we have done nothing but condemn and occasionally discuss pretending to be.

          Consequently White women no longer have any political role or representation apart from us whatsoever, and can go back to the kitchen where they belong.

          • The Cominator says:

            The left’s hostility towards white women is not nearly high enough yet. We need to make them turn it up to 11. They need to feel totally unwelcome in the state church of progressive whitie hating leftism.

            They are considered 2nd class church members but women like being low status as long as they aren’t ostracized. They need to be driven out entirely.

            • peppermint says:

              The WoC have made our evil sluts shut up, and Trump and the Trump Economy kicking in means a White baby boom. Women with babies are naturally higher status than women without babies and the men and women who have White babies know that these deranged sluts envy and hate them.

              Sluts have no status because there’s no room for a high class mistress in this economy, and everyone is aware that women hit The Wall because there are so many old sluts crying into their glass of wine now. The market for old sluts is glutted and there are foreign sluts for them to compete with.

              Patty and Selma used to make fun of Marge for marrying Homer, and once got Marge drunk and got her to send Artie the boring weird jew she dated in high school an email. Does it make any sense for them to make fun of Marge now, or to try to get her back with Artie?

              I’m not saying it’s time for us to tell stupid whores that we tricked them. I’m saying it’s time for them to tell the WoC that Nazis drove a wedge between White women and WoC to destroy feminism and WoC can help fight Nazis by letting White women have their prestige back lol

    • Andre says:

      “and thus it is like Sauron’s ring, everything done with it turns to evil”

      I didn’t read the books so maybe that’s why I never understood the deal with the ring. But w(hat)tf is the actual problem with it, and w(hy)tf do people crave it so much when all it seems to do is make you invisible to the world and then visible to beings that then want to kill you? I’m not interested enough to look deeper into the stories but I get the feeling that if I did, I would discover that Sauron is “the good guy”, some kind of symbol of God, and the real lesson is to never throw the ring away.

      • peppermint says:

        Mairon is a maia originally working for Aulë, the vala who made the dwarves, which Ilúvatar liked so much he gave them souls. However, when Melkor rebelled and went to Middle Earth to rule from Angband in Thangorodrim, he came along, becoming Melkor’s second in command, instead of turning into a balrog.

        After Melkor was defeated following Ëarendil the Mariner’s perilous journey and the War of Wrath, he was commanded to appear before the Valar for sentencing, but he was afraid, and thought if he tried to mitigate the damage he had done he would get a lighter sentence, so he called himself Annatar (Lord of Gifts) and started constructing rings of power with the Noldorim of Hollin to aid the elves and men and dwarves.

        Eventually he got frustrated and built the One Ring at Orodruin.

        Celebrimbor recognized him and kicked him out before he could ruin all. He came back with an army, destroyed Celebrimbor’s kingdom leaving only Elrond’s remnant, and the gates of Moria were shut.

        The elves only retained three rings, held by Cirdan the Shipwright, who gave his to Olórin, recognizing him as more powerful than his ostensible leader Curunír, and also by Galadriel instead of Celeborn for some reason, and also Elrond who used his to keep Imladrisl secret and safe.

        Gil-Galad and Elendil formed a Last Alliance, because in the Third Age the elves were too scattered and few in number for an alliance to be truly meaningful, and with their Gil-Galad’s spear Aiglos and Elendil’s sword Narsil (forged by Telchar of Nogrod in the First Age) they engaged Sauron in personal combat and defeated him. Isildur took up Elendil’s broken blade and took Sauron’s ring. Gil-Galad’s lieutenant Elrond tried to convince Isildur to destroy it, but Isildur saw it as a hard-won family heirloom and precious to him.

        Thranduil marched back to Mirkwood without his father Orophin and shut the door behind him. Isildur died in an orc ambush and the ring was lost in the river. Saruman, looking for the ring, had Isildur’s armor in Orthanc and never let Isildur’s heirs know.

        Cirion, Steward of Gondor, called for aid and Eorl answered his call, winning the battle and earning the Eorlings the plains of Calenardhon, in exchange for a permanent alliance, entered at the tomb of Eledil, before the One who sits above all thrones. The horse-lords new land was known as the Riddermark.

        The ring was eventually found by a hobbit named Sméagol, who was corrupted by it into the wretched creature known as Gollum.

        Aragorn’s challenge, then, was to unite Gondor with its ancient allies and fix his forefather’s mistake. Sauron expected Aragorn, if he had the ring, to try to claim it, as he did claim the Palantîr of Orthanc, but the Palantîr was truly Aragorn’s, an heirloom of the Kingdom or Gondor and Arnor, and the ring was not.

        • Andre says:

          None of that answers wtf is the deal with the ring.

          • StoneMan says:

            The ring is Sauron’s offer of power in exchange for the soul of the wearer. It’s a deal with the devil; compromise on principles for the sake of worldly gain. To put it in terms more relevant to the blog, to wear the ring is to contribute to the holiness spiral. You get to be “virtuous” and you might even get some power out of it, but sooner or later a ringwraith is going to torture you to death, potentially after everyone else has been tortured to death.

            Fortunately reactionaries don’t believe that power is evil so it is no compromise of our principles to pursue it, we just want the “power game” to have less collateral damage, we want truth to no longer be caught in the crossfire of status competition.

            • The Cominator says:

              That was not what the ring did.

              The ring enhanced your existing power but it couldn’t make hobbits powerful since they were weak and lowly. Sauron did not intend for the one ring to ever be worn by anyone else (except perhaps Melkor).

              Maiar like Gandalf Saruman and Sauron himself would become way more powerful with the ring enough to probably control the world. It would have a similar effect on elder elven lords like Elrond or Galadriel…

              It MIGHT HAVE given strong supernatural powers to strong warrior Numenorians like Aragorn but maybe not.

            • peppermint says:

              the Ring may have had the power to bewitch other bearers of Rings of Power and definitely could extend its bearer’s life unnaturally. Tolkien may have thought it gauche to be a wraith king with wraith dreadlords; as Bioshock puts it, aesthetics are a moral imperative. But as focused as he was on the right aesthetics apart from in dealing with whamyn, he was also kind of a cuck, unlike Lovecraft, his contemporary who also invented a new genre and hated evil art and architecture which he referred to as cyclopean, ill-proportioned, alien, and built by cultists who were impious towards the gods of this world so were taken in by the eldritch abominations from outside.

              Besides preferring breathing, dying kings, Tolkien was sort of an anarchoprimitivist like Uncle Ted. Lovecraft didn’t see tech as a problem, he saw spiritual decay in itself as the problem, and agreed with Hitler where Tolkien dismissed him as bad optics.

              Consequently, when it’s brought up how Tolkien treated Dunland axemen and orcs, his letter to the Nazis saying he wasn’t a jew is held up to prove he wasn’t racist.

              • The Cominator says:

                Tolkien hated industrialization because he saw in it the cause of WW1 which he served in… Tolkien didn’t talk directly about the war but isengard making orcs and weapons by burning the forest down and turning the surrounding area into a nightmare landscape clearly reflected his thoughts about it… Where the shire represented his idyllic pre industrial English countryside.

                I think personally Tolkien was deeply disturbed by his war experience and his withdrawal to a fantasy world was the result. Tolkien did better with his wife then Minecraft did with his. Lovecraft was also one of those odd super anti Semites who married a Jewish woman…

                • peppermint says:

                  yeah, Lovecraft may have been redpilled by marrying a Jewess and seeing what legal and illegal immigration were doing to Boston and New York (The Street and Horror at Red Hook).

                  Lovecraft’s favorite city, Providence, is still pretty good.

                • peppermint says:

                  The Shadow over Innsmouth may have been inspired by Lovecraft’s thoughts about the future of his potential mischling children. Like his half-Deep Ones, mischlinge only start to look and act alien when they’re fully grown.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No he hated Jews BEFORE he married her.

                  If he hated Jews afterwords that would make sense.

                  Providence used to be fun city but the Boston prog joylessness has infected there too in the past couple years. They should bring back Buddy Cianci and the Mafia and Make Providence Great Again.

                • peppermint says:

                  Lol, didn’t know that. Dunno how a guy can be that beta without putting strong female characters in lol there are strong female characters in Greek myths from the days when combat was decided through strength.

                  Should that make me respect him less or more? How much did the suffragette sluts feel entitled to a good looking husband, how frequently did daughters of the city class marry into the working class versus never marry? Would he have been visible to working class girls simply by being a man of letters or were the women primarily interested in gangsters and secondarily in good looking professionals?

              • Andre says:

                In other words, Frodo really was a fag?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Frodo’s character was modeled on Tolkien himself including the post war of the ring war trauma.

                  Fag no, but a strange bookish intellectual type who didn’t want any part of what happened and unlike most priestly types he had no desire for power. Sam was based upon Tolkien’s “batmen” during the war (and Tolkien explicitly admitted this).

            • Andre says:

              “in exchange for the soul of the wearer.”

              Meaning?

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            The one ring is Sauron’s essence trapped in a device. It essentially performs 2 functions: empowers Sauron (who is a demi-god with a foot in the physical and a foot in the spiritual) and invests a non-Sauron wearer with A) delusions about what they can accomplish and B) a spiritual essence that makes them highly visible to both Sauron as well as others who exist partially or fully in the spirit realm. The invisibility is a worthless side effect, a baubel that just serves to further enamour the bearer with it so they will be inclined to wear it and thus be easier located.

            To me, it is a perfect representation of Demotism/suffrage/popular government. So many men are snared by its “powers,” so certain that they can use it for good, so certain that they can master it, bending it to their will. And each of them fails, becoming that which the sought to defeat. Lesser races can weild it, delaying the effects and “hiding” from its master for a time, but they too inevitably find ruination, or it finds them.

          • FrankNorman says:

            Andre – the Ring was made to do something that in Tolkien’s world was intrinsically wrong, no matter who did it, no matter the motive – which was to enable the person with it to control over people, to turn them into extensions of his own will.

            Sauron may have started off seeking power over others, and over nature itself, as a means to an end, perhaps even good ends, but the search for absolute power became an end in itself.

            Gandalf understood that the Ring was not merely a morally neutral tool that could be used for good or evil. It was a tool for evil, and anyone who tried to use it for good would have ended up twisted into a dark parody of himself. Gandalf, had he taken the Ring and tried to use it for good, would have become an even worse tyrant than Sauron himself was.

            The nine men who were given Rings of Power initially prospered – they became more powerful, and seemed not to age. But over time they “faded” – their bodies turned into wraiths, and their wills became enslaved to their rings, which were themselves under the control of the One Ring that Sauron had made for himself.
            The Elves who had the three rings – which were actually good, not made by Sauron – were careful not to use them until after the One Ring was lost. Or they too might have fallen to Sauron’s control.

            • Andre says:

              “Andre – the Ring was made to do something that in Tolkien’s world was intrinsically wrong, no matter who did it, no matter the motive – which was to enable the person with it to control over people, to turn them into extensions of his own will.”

              In other words, the ring is a reactionary symbol, and the books, to the degree that they are interpreted in the mainstream fashion, a degenerate piece of literature, very much like the original Star Wars trilogy.

              • Might is Right says:

                Ragnar “Andre” Redbeard.

              • The Cominator says:

                Tolkien’s politics to the extent he spoke of them were close to Hoppe (monarchistic with small communal sub governments) and Hoppe is pretty close to neoreactionary thought.

                LOTR was probably the ONLY good thing that came out of the 1st world war.

                Frederick Algernon is right. You, CR, and glos are the three stooges.

                • Andre says:

                  Do you not see that Sauron is God, and the ring represents the divine right of kings and the promise of eternal life? All power flows from heaven, which is within. The ring is a symbol of faith, of loyalty, the alliance which is the gateway to that kingdom of heaven and communion with its supreme sovereign. All others in the story are pharisees who exalt themselves and trust in their own armor, who hide beneath the rocks and in their high castles. You fail to recognize true christianity because the world has painted it as ugly for you, and given you a pretty version of the demonic to worship.

                  “Frederick Algernon is right. You, CR, and glos are the three stooges.”

                  Well at least I’m not a cuck.

                • Andre says:

                  Don’t tell me you also think Anakin/Vader is a villain while Solo/Luke are heroes?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Sauron is explicitly not God nor was even the original devil.

                  Anu/Illuvatar was the God of Middle Earth and Melkor (a Valar… Valar are lesser gods and/or archangels who rebelled and tried to take his place) was the original devil.

                  Sauron (a Maiar which are lesser angels then the Valar) was his greatest servant.

                  Melkor also represents the true face of leftism the irrational malice and envy which destroys. He wanted to take Illuvatar’s place or failing that destroy Middle Earth.

                  Sauron is more like Stalin, he worships Melkor as Stalin to some degree worshipped Marxism but his drive was more for clockwork totalitarian order as Stalin’s was. He was far more effective as the dark lord (Melkor was cast out of Middle Earth and banished to the void) despite having far less power because he lacked the mindless stupid sadism of Melkor.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Vader was a failure who fell due to his stupidity.

                  Palpatine OTOH in the Expanded Universe definitely has a “good” aspect in that all that he did was to get the galaxy ready for an extragalatic invasion that he knew was coming and the race that was invading was 1000x times worse then he was.

                • Andre says:

                  “Vader was a failure who fell due to his stupidity.”

                  Describe this stupidity.

                • peppermint says:

                  Vader was a failure, but he was a hero. Vader is us. Luke is a Boomer tard, who does stuff for no reason and doesn’t care to find out what’s going on.

                  Tolkien said some of the right things, but was wrong on the WQ, the defining question of our age.

                • Andre says:

                  “Luke is a Boomer tard, who does stuff for no reason and doesn’t care to find out what’s going on.”

                  Why? Because he was stolen from his father and therefore did not receive proper guidance. He was brainwashed into parental alienation and therefore became a blind, stupid tool of the matriarchy. What drove him into a final fit of rage in the movies? The suggestion by his father that if he couldn’t be turned “to the dark side”, then perhaps his sister could. Vader’s final act of mercy towards his degenerate son showed that by absolutely all metrics, he was the most decent human being in the galaxy. He was the sacred Father that fought to his dying breath to nurture and protect his family, despite countless tragedies, despite being surrounded by those who would prevent him from doing so.

        • calov says:

          holy shit this is nerdy

    • Yes. And this is a common problem with many rightists. The most useful looking rightist in Germany, Götz Kubitschek, also likes the idea of imitating leftist activist tactics. Which is a terrible mistake for two reasons, one is that they really believe when the Left says they are or were a demotic folk movement, do not notice the elite support behind them. Second, grabbing power as opposed to earning power through building order is fundamentally pro-entropy. This is an idea that sets NRx fully apart from the Alt-Right. Granted it is somewhat abstract and hard to understand.

      My hunch is that the Lockean homesteading that libertarians like to talk about, is a special case of a more general principle of earning power (over a piece of land, in that case) by building order. And it is the more general principle that we should study more and understand, the difference between order-building leaders earning the “mandate of heaven” vs. power-grabbers.

      I really wish to try to de-abstractify this principle and make it more intuitive for more people but I don’t know how. My vague hunch is that every system tends to towards entropy and every action inside the system, up to and including ruling, exercising power, increases entropy. But there is a special case of ruling, which case focuses on kicking entropy out of the system, into its larger environment. This is the only good kind. But it is still too abstract this way…

  6. Karl says:

    The heroine-rescues- boy theme is in Vox Days Fantasy novel, so far not in his comics. The heroine with the confederate flag costume is recued from prison, although by a mixed Group and not by a single male hero

  7. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Deleted for telling me what I said. It is not what I said, and saying it again would be a waste of bandwidth.

  8. Oog en Hand says:

    Religion of the Priest:

    https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j014htBelloc_Rousseau_2.htm

    “There is a third and more curious kind of religion, which, giving men two legislative orders, two rulers, two homelands, puts them under two contradictory obligations and prevents them being at the same time both churchmen and citizens. Such is the religion of the Lamas, such is that of the Japanese, and such is Catholic Christianity. One might call this the religion of the priest.

    It produces a kind of mixed and anti-social system of law which has no name. From the political point of view … [this kind of religion] is so manifestly bad that the pleasure of demonstrating its badness would be a waste of time. Everything that destroys social unity is worthless; and all institutions that set man at odds with himself are worthless” (Social Contract, p. 160).

    • jim says:

      That is an accurate criticism of Roman Catholicism after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, but it does not seem accurate for Tibetan Lamas, and even less accurate for Japan. The Japanese religion is Japaneseness, and its homeland is Japan.

      • FrankNorman says:

        Christianity teaches that mankind is fallen, and so this world is a mix of good and evil. Buddhism, on the other hand, seems to regard existence itself as evil. Hence if people in those Eastern cultures take their Buddhism seriously, how can they want to be part of, or help to build, any sort of society at all?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Christianity had to tell people that suicide damns you to hell because if it didn’t, people would kill themselves to get to heaven. Presumably Buddhism has similar safeguards in it.

          • peppermint says:

            Sounds to me more like some twerp asked the bishop, master, master, what happens if a man kills himself in a state of grace, does he go to heaven, and the bishop said, a man in a state of grace does the Lord’s will. Or maybe because threatening to suicide and self harm is annoying behavior and being annoying for no good reason is sinful. I really think more nominal Christians should understand the Greek philosophy underlying St. Paul’s understanding of sin, but, as nominal Christians, they claim to recognize him, so some day they will.

            When the pro-LGBBQ Catholics claimed to want to be pre-St. Paul Early Church, I thought they were just nuts, I didn’t fully appreciate the direct assault on the moral philosophy underlying our civilization.

            Those gosh-darn queers.

            • FrankNorman says:

              Pre-Paul? So they want to be under the Law of Moses, which says to stone gays to death?
              Didn’t think that one out, did they?

          • Oog en Hand says:

            Buddhism does.

        • No, it regards living without a fully awakened mind characterized by suffering. At any rate Buddhism is not functional at all for a society-building folk religion, nor was it meant to. The Buddha wanted to create a sort of an elite school, where the basic schooling was provided by Hinduism. It has always been characterized by monastic elites who had little contact with the average population. In India it worked, it was normal enough to have reclusive sects around who are not interested in wider society, as wider society ran well enough on Hinduism. Of course it also meant when the Muslims invaded nobody cared about protecting these weird dudes in their ivory towers so Buddhism was purged from India.

          Similarly, in China or India Buddhists were mostly reclusive monks and folk religion was provided by others.

          Tibet was a bit of a special case because the king wanted to import Buddhism as a state/folk religion, my guess is that he was engaged in a bit of a power struggle with Bon shamans and replacing turbulent priests often means replacing the religion. At any rate it didn’t really work well, the monks had little contact with the peasants. Imagine Christian monasteries but without the wordly village priests.

          In short it was never intended to be a society-building folk/state religion at all. It is instructive to look at the origins: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#wheel it is very unusual for the founder of a religion to first decide to not teach it at all, because people will not understand it. Then when others plead, he goes on to look for a few people who have “only a little dust in their eyes” and teach them. This is how one creates some kind of a reclusive, ivory tower, elite school, not a folk religion.

          • peppermint says:

            Boston scum with no regard for anyone else except that others see them as morally superior ruined open source.

            First they said it was Free Software and corporate programmers could never use it at their jobs.

            When that didn’t work, they systematically destroyed fixability with SystemD, destroyed configurability with NetworkManager and PulseAudio, killed the functionality of the UI with Gnome 3, and blocked further development of the UI backend with Wayland.

            • jim says:

              The story of Wayland is that someone needs to support X Window for his use case, discovers it is enormous, so decides he will only support the bits he specifically needs.

              This is a failure mode of open source – someone writes clever stuff for his case and his environment, which breaks all the other uses.

              Integration with, and support for, a very specific use and a very specific environment is apt to break all the other uses – it is the reverse of factoring.

              Factoring is a one way problem. Factoring is hard, composition is easy, and difficult to reverse

              Everyone working on open source wants everyone else to support his own use case, and he does not want to support their use cases.

              “Hey”, he says, “let us simplify things by me not supporting you”. And then he proceeds to complicate things to support his very specific use case, thus making you support him.

              Open source gets eaten by composition, which glues a pile of stuff together into a single gigantic intractable whole which then succumbs to bitrot.

              The CMake find_package for wxWidgets does not just find the package – it does an enormous pile of stuff, and I have no idea what it is doing except that it does not work in my environment. It has a bunch of mystery flags for configuration to particular cases, which is a symptom of fragility.

              When I am manually setting up a build, all I need is the directory where the wxWidgets package lives. And all my compiler needs are the two subdirectories of that where the header files live, and all my linker needs is the subdirectory where the compiled library files live. So why cannot find_package just give me the directory, and then I just add header directories to CMake’s header includes, and the library directory to Cmake’s library includes. But this does not work and I have no idea why.

              So I don’t use find_package. I just manually tell CMake to add header directories and the include directories. And it does not work in my environment either. So I look at the makefile that CMake generates, to compare it with my manually created makefile, to see what went wrong and the CMake generated makefile is enormous and incomprehensible and exceedingly clever. Damnit. All this just to set a small number of entries in a small number of search paths? Why not just set them?

              CMake was a good idea, but either wxWidgets breaks it, or it breaks wxWidgets. They both of them do too much, too cleverly. wxWidgets does some things that are properly the domain of CMake. And then CMake added complexity to program around those things, and now the zone of coupling between them is enormous, incomprehensible, complicated, and so fragile it breaks all the time.

              The problem with CMake’s find_package is that find_package will bake the cake and order the flowers. It should just find the package, and report the package location. Unfortunately, wxWidgets does some automagical configuration stuff, and CMake’s find_package does a gigantic pile of automagical configuration stuff, and they step on each other in incomprhehensible ways that probably no one understands.

              Someone has written an enormous pile of terribly clever code in wxWidgets to make it simple to configure and install wxWidgets, and someone has written an enormous pile of terribly clever code in CMake to make it simple to configure and install wxWidgets, and the net effect is that wxWidgets becomes extremely complicated to configure and install, and a lot more complicated to configure and install if one attempts a CMake based build setup.

  9. John Henry Eden says:

    I just read an article that said adults taking comic book seriously is ridiculous.

    I agree.

    • Contaminated says:

      A sophisticated man of the world such as you only reads graphic novels.

    • Koanic says:

      The lie is in the phrase, “taking seriously,” an anticoncept that lumps otaku omegas with laid and paid professionals doing NRx social commentary, with the occasional pop culture references, including comics.

      Progs would of course like NRx to ignore the popular and stick to the obscure, as do their Guild academics signaling superiority to their captive audience of indebted indoctrinates, because to do otherwise would threaten their control over mass culture. They may even invoke imaginary standards of masculinity to do so, although they themselves are the unmanliest of boys ever to squee over soy.

      As to the artistic worthiness of the graphic novel, every new medium is pooh-poohed by elitist critics until it becomes obsolete, at which point it is adopted as high status since it has become useful for virtue signaling by virtue of mass rejection. Akira is surely a work of art, and Vox’s stuff is pretty good, highly relevant to NRx’s current ambitions of cultural influence, and thus worthy of commentary.

      I urge you to more carefully select someone else’s opinion to signal your superiority by agreeing with next time; looking stupid undermines the point.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      This from a guy with the name of a character in a video game.

  10. J says:

    Plainly, Jim is talking about S&M porn, and there is plenty of it in the internet and Japanese comics and so. No legit mass publication can adopt that genre because it would scandalize the delicate sentiments of the ladies. Well mannered people does not talk “business” at the dinner table.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Don’t forget 50 Shades of Spanking. And then there’s the venerable genre of bodice rippers. All by women, as it happens. The Story of O was written by a woman too. It is apparently enticing to imagine crawling over nine miles of broken glass with the right incentives.

  11. Andre says:

    “But 2010 is not what the fans want. The fans don’t even really want the rogue Han Solo rescues princess Leia. Princess Leia is a subversion of the trope, because she is “feisty” They want the the rogue rescues princess Andromeda.”

    Don’t they have Conan, The Cimmerian graphic novels? How about John Carter graphic novels? Both sets of stories are in the public domain.

    • jim says:

      Give me an example of Conan performing the male role in courtship in a post 1975 comic.

      Pretty sure that when I perform to pull the chicks, I put on a way more masculine performance than any comic character since 1975.

      The Conan of Dark Horse comics, like Captain Jack Sparrow, turns gay whenever there is a female in the vicinity.

      • Joe says:

        If you don’t mind me asking, how do you prevent yourself from being mobbed by white knights, disemployed, or thrown out of your community when you are performing?

        • jim says:

          People just do not react in practice to events taking place right in front of them as they think that they would in theory were the same events to be described in text. Having failed to react to these events as ideology tells them that they should have reacted, they then do not rightly recollect what happened right in front of them.

          People not only fail to see bad female behavior happening right in front of them. To a lesser extent, they fail to see my “bad” behavior happening right in front of them. This, of course, requires that the “bad” behavior be carried out with complete confidence. If I were to act as guilty and wicked as official truth tells them I should act, then they would be able to see it.

          Do it with confidence, determination, good cheer, and without doing any checks for potential opposition or resistance that other people might detect you checking for, and you have a dreamlike magic cloak of invisibility.

          Other people’s crimestop and doublethink makes my “bad” conduct invisible to them. Instead of attempting to remedy a violation of the narrative, they just refuse to see it.

          • BC says:

            >Do it with confidence, determination, good cheer, and without doing any checks for potential opposition or resistance that other people might detect you checking for, and you have a dreamlike magic cloak of invisibility.

            Interesting. I’ve had a similar experience talking frankly about life with friends at a bar full of leftist college students, many, many times. The only time I’ve seen anyone try to call us out about it, it was directed at my friend who was echoing my sentiments but he was kind of being reserved about it. It was like they didn’t even hear my side of the conversation despite the fact I was closer to their group than my friend was.

            • jim says:

              Chances are, if your friend had been more confident in echoing your sentiments, would have had no problem.

          • calov says:

            This is true. When I preach things you would have expected to hear from a clergyman a hundred years ago, such as, “Those who live in this or that sin unrepentantly are going to hell,” people continue to view me through the frame of, “Clergymen are nice men who want to affirm you” even though you’ve just committed sacrilege against homosexuals or their carousel riding granddaughters. This only changes when you individually say “no” to something they expect you to do; for instance when you say, “No, your harlot granddaughter or your boomer daughter who joined the community church cannot receive the sacrament.” Until then, they continue to deal with you according to the stereotype of what clergypeople are supposed to be, ignoring almost any other signals you send that contradict that stereotype.

            • calov says:

              Also I learned after a year or two of telling people they or their relatives couldn’t receive the sacrament that people tended to, counterintuitively, take it better when I simply said “No” with a one-sentence explanation. Early on I tried to explain it in the nicest possible way, and this inspired people to rage on me, particularly women.

      • Andre says:

        I wouldn’t know, I don’t read comics. The point is, anyone can make a Conan comic, and I think anyone can make a John Carter comic (not entirely sure, although most of the books are in the public domain). I didn’t actually read the Barsoom series but I’m pretty sure it’s at least not as bad as what passes for adventure and romance today.

      • Andre says:

        AND Vox actually made a comic book adaptation of the Jeeves books.

  12. Andre says:

    “Romance in the the “Lord of the Rings” movie trilogy”

    Wait what? There was romance in the movie trilogy?

    • peppermint says:

      Arwen said she would marry Aragorn if he became King of Gondor and Arnor, and Eowyn tried to impress a suitable man into marrying her to become King of Rohan. Also Galadriel gave Gimli some of her hair for some reason in front of Celeborn. Also Sam had to go fight for the King so Rosie would marry him.

      • HOW DARE YOU says:

        GIMILI AND GALADRIEL ARE DIFFERENT RACES. THE HAIR THING WAS OBVIOUSLY BASED ON DWARVISH SKILL WITH WROUGHT METAL AND FINERY. YOU KNOW THIS.

        >IMBLYING

        >I CANT EVEN

        -t. Algernon

    • jim says:

      Arwen and Aragorn

      • simplyconnected says:

        Ah, I thought you meant that dwarf (Kili) and elf action girl (Tauriel) thing:
        See “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug – Tauriel heals Kili”, the title says everything about the role inversion:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Kb3VAEtiY

      • Andre says:

        Sorry, who’s this Arwen? All I remember is there was this blonde skinny dude, his midget friend, some guys in horses, a couple other midgets treking through some mountains, this big eye, some monsters, some talking trees and something about a ring. I honestly can’t recall any women being at all involved.

        • The Cominator says:

          Liv Tyler played Arwen, Aragorn’s elvish girlfriend who was making a very bad mating decision as elves mated for life and tended to get inconsolable depression and die of grief if their spouse died.

          • Andre says:

            Oh I do vaguely remember some dude telling this girl she was being foolish for loving a human. Was that her father? Did he give her a proper spanking for not obeying daddy?

            • The Cominator says:

              The elves did not have white shariah but her father told her that in the best case that she would die of depression and grief after Aragorn inevitably died of old age.

              • Andre says:

                So basically this swedish girl who her father couldn’t control got restless and decided she would go date some afghan barbarian. I do recall something about the elvish civilization being in some sort of death spiral. God damn irresponsible cucks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think you are taking modern alt-rightish thinking way too far.

                  Aragorn wasn’t supposed to be a low quality human the problem was human’s die of old age and elves didn’t, but in Tolkien’s world elves never recover emotionally if their spouses die for any reason they get incredibly and inconsolably depressed and die of grief. Arwen’s decision was bad not because he was a bad low quality man (the “diversity” of Tolkien’s world are Orcs and Sauron’s Eastermen vassals) but because no matter how good a human was pairing with elves and humans inevitably ended badly for the elf.

                • Andre says:

                  “I think you are taking modern alt-rightish thinking way too far. Aragorn wasn’t supposed to be a low quality human”

                  What are you talking about? Are elves human now? He wasn’t low quality “for a human” but he was low quality “as a human”. Of course it seems clear to me that the elves were the real degenerates, living off the remnants of a dying, collapsing civilization. I don’t think afghan men who date swedish women are low quality. I think swedish men that allow afghan men to date swedish women are low quality. Well comparatively speaking anyway.

                • Andre says:

                  “modern alt-rightish thinking”

                  For the record, I think the alt right is ridiculous. Obviously I’m a race realist but they would rather spend their time begging women to join them to control migrants when they would do better asking migrants to join them to control their women.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Elrond himself was only half-elf – but the gods gave him a choice and he chose to live as an elf. His brother had that same choice and chose to live as a man.

                  Aragorn was descended from Elrond’s brother.

              • Andre says:

                #saurondidnothingwrong

            • Simon says:

              The internet has all the answers to your questions. Your feigned insouciance is tedious.

  13. Kate says:

    “But when Vox Day went half way towards writing what the fans want, the leadership of ComicsGate denounced, deplatformed, and demonetized him.”

    LOL no.

    Firstly comicsgate isn’t a club, it has no leaders, it’s a leaderless consumer revolt.

    As for Vox Day, he was told in no uncertain terms by those same consumers that no one wanted him getting his grubby mitts on the name & associating his specific brand of political idiocy with comicsgate., when he tried to co-opt the name for his own financial gain

    See it turns out that when people who subscribe to comicsgate said they didn’t want hack partisan politics in their comics, they meant ANY hack partisan politics in their comics, not just far left hack partisan politics.

    That would include Vox Day’s own brand of far right hack partisan politics & they most certainly weren’t going to let Vox Day smear the name of their consumer revolt with his brand of far right hack partisan politics.

    Which then sent Vox in top a panic trying to back peddle & pretend he was totes saving the name from the SJW’s & for everyone else & totally wasn’t trying to make money off of the name, for his own financial gain.

    Unfortunately for Vox, the rest of us aren’t as gullible as Vox’s own fanboys are & we all saw thru him.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Leaderless demonetizaion and deplatforming” Cool story lady and btw not a comics guy.

      • Kate says:

        “Leaderless demonetizaion and deplatforming”

        Except the fact that someone somewhere had an issue with Vox Day publishing his garbage tier books had nothing to do with Comicsgate. Don’t try to pin that on a consumer revolt on the basis that the people in that consumer revolt refused to bend the knee to Vox like you fanboys did.

        There isn’t a single piece of evidence to even suggest that the crowd funding platform closed down his account due to a single outside influence, let alone that the outside influence was somehow related to comicsgate.

        In fact when it happened the only people who said anything in opposition to it were the people in places like KIA, who are mostly opposed to Vox’s nonsense, but still opposed to platforms being able to close down peoples access to such platforms without suitable rule or law breaking cause.

        So, would you like to provide any evidence that Comicsgate was in any way involved in getting Vox deplatformed?

        • The Cominator says:

          Once again not a comics guy.

        • jim says:

          > Except the fact that someone somewhere had an issue with Vox Day publishing his garbage tier books had nothing to do with Comicsgate.

          Bullshit. I know a coordinated attack when I see one. Everyone was speaking off the same script and acting at almost the same time. You are using the same phrases as everyone else. Those who denounced, deplatformed, and demonetized Vox Day got their marching orders in what sounds like a text that went to all of them, either that or the same person spoke to all of them.

          You sound like a bunch of robotic npcs, and you tell me you are all acting independently? Come off it.

          If you were spontaneously posting this on your own initiative, posting ideas that occurred to you individually and independently, you would have specifically replied to some of the specific things I said in this post. Instead you are giving us the generic script that covers all cases, like a telephone support girl on an unhelpful help line, who is “helping” the customer using a script that does not cover his case.

          • Kate says:

            “Bullshit. I know a coordinated attack when I see one.”

            Great, then show us your evidence for this co-ordinated attack. Clearly you must have evidence that not only shows there was a co-ordinated attack, but also where the attack came from, right?

            Because if you don’t have that, you actually can’t tell a co-ordinate attack when you see one.

            “Everyone was speaking off the same script ”

            Except there was no everyone. The first anyone heard about it was the day it happened.

            “You sound like a bunch of robotic npcs, and you tell me you are all acting independently?”

            No I’m telling you there is no evidence of anyone, let alone everyone.

            “If you were spontaneously posting this on your own initiative, posting ideas that occurred to you individually and independently, you would have specifically replied to some of the specific things I said in this post.”

            I did specially replied to some of the specific things you said in your post. That’s the conversation we are having right now, where I quote & directly address things said in your post. This is us, you & me, right now, having that conversation.

            So when you are ready, you can offer up a citation from the co-ordinated attack you think existed to take deplatform Vox Days product by Comicsgate. Time for you to show them receipts.

            • jim says:

              > I did specially replied to some of the specific things you said in your post. That’s the conversation we are having right now,

              Yes, you have now specifically replied to replies, like a human, yes as in your reply just now to which I am replying, you come across as an individual, but your initial comment was just generic robotic spam dumped by someone sent here by her boss – you obviously did not read the article to which you were supposedly responding – your boss told you it was a type X article, and you robotically gave the scripted type X reply, regardless of what was actually in the article

              For example, you told us “See it turns out that when people who subscribe to comicsgate said they didn’t want hack partisan politics in their comics, they meant ANY hack partisan politics in their comics, not just far left hack partisan politics.” which is completely unresponsive to my post, which is entirely about how the all traditional beloved tropes, archetypes and themes have been deemed right wing political, leaving artists with nothing to say.

              • Kate says:

                “Yes, you have now specifically replied to replies, like a human,”

                LOL Jim, the opening statement of my opening message to you started with me citing & then addressing your blog. Don’t pretend like it’s something that only started occurring after you pointed it out, it’s been what we’ve been discussing from the get go.

                “you come across as an individual, but your initial comment was just generic robotic spam dumped by someone sent here by her boss ”

                LOL sure because I’m totally getting paid to point out specifically that you are wrong. Yep, you are totally that important a person that somewhere there is a department of telling Jim he’s wrong, at Comicsgate main office, where we all plan 24 hour psy-ops on how to tell you that you are wrong.

                In fact take a look out of your bedroom window, you see that white van down the street? Have you noticed how it hasn’t moved all day? Yeah, that’s one of our mobile listening posts we have watching you thru the video broadcast bugs we have thru your entire house.

                That’s how I know your insecurity about manliness & appearing like a manly man is predicated on your tiny penis.

                “For example, you told us “See it turns out that when people who subscribe to comicsgate said they didn’t want hack partisan politics in their comics, they meant ANY hack partisan politics in their comics, not just far left hack partisan politics.” which is completely unresponsive to my post”

                It’s entirely responsive to your post. It was specifically repsonfing to your strange belief that comicsgate deplatformed Vox Day, which FYI I’m still waiting for those receipts.

                “which is entirely about how the all traditional beloved tropes, archetypes and themes have been deemed right wing political, leaving artists with nothing to say.”

                LOL no it’s not. IT’s pointing out that the consumers who make up the consumer revoelt didn’t want their comics turned in to partisan political propaganda of any sort & that extended to Vox who wanted to throw it on to his political propaganda comics as a brand.

                • alf says:

                  Ooh tiny penis she got u there

                • The Cominator says:

                  “LOL sure because I’m totally getting paid to point out specifically that you are wrong. ”

                  But of course you were sent here and are paid to be here.

                  How does a woman who claims to want her comics to be utterly apolitical and thus we must assume if she were a real unpaid person stumble upon an obscure ultra reactionary (far to the right of Vox) blog and one where the bloggers solution to the problems between men and women is a legal framework very similar to Shariah law (for what its worth lady I’ve argued with Jim that I don’t think we should go quite that far).

                  No normal apolitical comic fangirl would have stumbled upon this obscure den of extreme reactionaries and if they did they wouldn’t have opened up by what sounded very much like a script (even if your responses don’t sound like a script).

                • jim says:

                  > LOL Jim, the opening statement of my opening message to you started with me citing & then addressing your blog.

                  You cited, but failed to address. Your first message was generic robotic spam, and your subsequent messages, though responsive, show you to be aware of neither the media you are addressing nor the politics you are addressing, hence you are following a script. You are neither a fangirl, nor a political activist except you are paid to be a political activist. You are unfamiliar with the our ideology. which is not all that surprising, but you are also not all that familiar with the ideology you seek to impose on entertainment.

                  For example you are shocked, shocked, that I think a dashing rogue abducting a fair lady is romantic. If you had actually read my post before responding to it, you would have been a lot more shocked a lot sooner. There is a history of earlier feminists getting indignant about this trope, so not only did you not read my post, you did not read the earlier works in the feminist ideology that you are imposing on comics and attempting to impose on me.

                  I disagree with what feminists think is entertaining, therefore I must be a serial predator.

                  Observe the huge success of feminists in expanding the market beyond serial sexual predators. </sarcasm>

                  Now come out with the favors-guns-therefore-small-dick, favors-men-being-men-and-women-being-women-therefore-small-dick, favors-traditional-marriage-therefore-small-dick jokes.

                  If you had been to blogs like this before, you would have known that gimmick does not work on us.

          • Koanic says:

            SJWs by their cowardly nature mimic the behavior of schools of fish or flocks of birds, for similar reasons – to avoid predation and find safety in the school. I suppose the leaders of the school must change over time, just as the leaders of a school of fish change, depending on the direction. Scalzi used to be a school leader; no longer.

            Herd dynamics are opaque to me because I am innately pack-oriented. Who do you think the current “leaders” of this school might be? The only person who comes to mind is 2VS…

    • jim says:

      By “partisan politics” you mean the themes and tropes that now forbidden, which prohibition makes comics boring, and the lack thereof is causing the customer revolt.

      The most daring thing Vox Day did was put a confederate flag on cool character, which was not political back in 2008. If he gave the fans what they actually want, if a manly hero in the old Thor archetype, had rescued the heroine instead of a mixed sex team, you would scream “Hitler Hitler Hitler” until your head exploded.

      • Katw says:

        “By “partisan politics” you mean the themes and tropes that now forbidden”

        No, by partisan hack politics I mean being able to use comics as a platform to solely propagandise from, at the expense of being entertainment. That has always been the stance of the customer revolt known as comicsgate.

        So for Vox to show up & then say “hey I want to make money off my partisan hack political propaganda comics, while emblazoning it with the name comicsgate a consumer revolt directly opposed to people doing that exact thing” simply wasn’t going to fly.

        “The most daring thing Vox Day did”

        Let me stop you right there. Vox has never done anything daring, the man is a moron who has convinced the most gullible people in the word that he’s some kind of insightful, erudite person, when it’s self evident to anyone with half a brain he’s really not.

        “was put a confederate flag on cool character, which was not political back in 2008.”

        Hahahahahaha, oh how very daring of him, doing something that was done in 1986 in the form of Captain Confederacy & then again in 1991 & then again in 2011. How daring of him to daringly copy things done more successfully by other people, over a period of 30 years.

        This is what I mean about Vox’s fanboys, you’ve convinced yourselves for some reason that the mediocre things Vox does poorly is in some way impressive.

        What’s daring adventures will Vox Day have next? Will he drink water from a glass, while standing? Oooooh that Vox Day, he’s so dashing & manly, drinking water from a glass while standing, has there ever been a man so daring.

        “If he gave the fans what they actually want”

        It wouldn’t look anything like any product he has ever created, or could ever conceive of, let alone create, since the things he creates are also not what the fans wanted, which is why the consumer base refused to allow him to co-opt the name comicsgate for his political propaganda comics imprint name.

        “if a manly hero in the old Thor archetype, had rescued the heroine instead of a mixed sex team, you would scream “Hitler Hitler Hitler” until your head exploded.”

        Except that still exists today & hey will you look at that, no ones head exploded. It’s almost like what you are saying is utter garbage.

        • jim says:

          > > “if a manly hero in the old Thor archetype, had rescued the heroine instead of a mixed sex team, you would scream “Hitler Hitler Hitler” until your head exploded.”

          > Except that still exists today & hey will you look at that, no ones head exploded. It’s almost like what you are saying is utter garbage

          So, what manly man has recently rescued a fair lady in distress?

          When Han Solo rescued a fair lady forty years ago, she was not allowed to be distressed, she had to be “feisty”, and heads still exploded like popcorn. And it has been ninety years since Errol Flynn was allowed to abduct any fair ladies.

          And even Vox Day is forced to depict action girl rescues lad in distress.

          You tell us that the traditional themes fail to attract the vast untapped market of fat black lesbians, but I am pretty sure that there is a horde of ladies who would love to be abducted by a character played by Errol Flynn.

          The fact that you imagine that superman still rescues Lois Lane tells me you do not read the media that you are so eager to silence and destroy.

          • Koanic says:

            Redneck Apocalypse by Eden Hudson has what feels like pretty realistic sociosexual interactions to me. Which is extremely unusual for a Christian-themed book. Worth checking out. It gets a little too real for me to stomach, so I take frequent breaks, but I return whenever I tire of weak wine.

            Of course, part of why I find the book realistic is that it features an atomized nuclear family of Southern crusaders pitted against a dark and treacherous modern world. I imagine not many people identify with that.

            It’s on Kindle Unlimited:
            https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IJJBHDI/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i9

          • Kate says:

            “So, what manly man has recently rescued a fair lady in distress?”

            Jim it’s so routine in superhero comics as to be a quintessential part of the genre, from Aquaman to Kamandi. You’d have an easier time finding a super hero, regardless of sex that does not rescue people in distress.

            “When Han Solo rescued a fair lady forty years ago, she was not allowed to be distressed, she had to be “feisty”, and heads still exploded like popcorn.”

            LOL, no they really didn’t Jim.

            “And it has been ninety years since Errol Flynn was allowed to abduct any fair ladies.”

            Actually you’ve never been allowed to abduct women, that’s a crime you creeper. Also He’s been dead for almost 60 years, so that probably has something to do with why he’s not running around committing the crime of kidnapping.

            Jim I got to say this, but I’m getting a really strong “sexual predator with a basement full of female corpses” vibe from the things you write.

            “And even Vox Day is forced to depict action girl rescues lad in distress.”

            LOL no he actually doesn’t have too. There’s no one holding a gun to his head screaming “draw a woman saving a man, or i’ll kill you.” There is no law forcing him to do it. There is no goblin living in his closet, possessing his body as he sleeps & forcing him to write it as he slumbers.

            So no, Vox isn’t FORCED to write any such thing.

            What you mean to say is you personally have an issue with female characters being competent & you are annoyed that the entire of fiction world doesn’t comport itself to your personal preferences.

            “You tell us that the traditional themes fail ”

            I said nothing of the sort. Again you are shadow boxing imaginary forces that exist only in your mind. Traditional themes are awesome, which is why comicsgate want’s them back. The traditional theme you seem fixated on however hasn’t disappeared, it’s still there.

            “but I am pretty sure that there is a horde of ladies who would love to be abducted by a character played by Errol Flynn.”

            Not sure there are as many women in to being kidnapped by rotting zombie corpses as you seem to think there are.

          • KAte says:

            “The fact that you imagine that superman still rescues Lois Lane tells me you do not read the media that you are so eager to silence and destroy.”

            Oh you mean like in issue 998 of Action Comics that came out just a month or so ago, where he actually travels back in time to save her life.

            It certainly seems one of us doesn’t read the comics we are talking about.

            • jim says:

              > > “The fact that you imagine that superman still rescues Lois Lane tells me you do not read the media that you are so eager to silence and destroy.”

              > Oh you mean like in issue 998 of Action Comics that came out just a month or so ago, where he actually travels back in time to save her life

              Here is a link to issue 998 of Action comics. If that is supposed to be romantic, you are doing it wrong.

              Give us some romantic frames from a rescue. Show us. This is the internet. It supports images. Notice the lack of recent movie posters showing rogues being dashing and heroes rescuing fair ladies. What happened to all the sexist movie posters?

              • Kate. says:

                “Here is a link to issue 998 of Action comics. If that is supposed to be romantic, you are doing it wrong.”

                Romance has nothing to do with saving someone. And you wonder why you come off as a sexual predator, with a basement full of womens corpses.

                Did Superman, or did Superman not rescue Lois Lane? Because I just saw him rescue Lois Lane, you sexual deviant.

                I understand it must be hard for you, that reality won’t comport it’s self to how you think it should run, but clearly you aren’t reading the very material you are complaining about.

                • jim says:

                  > > If that is supposed to be romantic, you are doing it wrong.”

                  > Romance has nothing to do with saving someone

                  Well there is the problem right there. The fans rather like it when romance does have something to do with saving someone. In fact that’s the only way you can do romance without the male fans chucking the book against the wall. That and the Sea Wolf abducts the princess.

                  The trouble with “No politics” is that the personal is now political, thus everything is now political, thus every story other than action girl overfullfills collective 1786929’s rice production quota and marries the tractor is now forbidden. Only stories about transexual prostitutes leading happy healthy normal fullfilling lives despite the hostile efforts of evil white male married heterosexuals with children are now “non political”.

            • jim says:

              > It certainly seems one of us doesn’t read the comics we are talking about.

              This is the internet. It does graphics. Pretend you are trying to sell comics to women who want manly men and men who want to be manly men, and show us some recent frames of a hero rescuing a fair lady, after the style of a cover or a movie poster.

              It was not bulging muscles that made Errol Flynn or the original Han Solo manly. Superman’s body has become ever more manly as his character has become ever more effeminate. Take a look at some Errol Flynn movie posters.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “if a manly hero in the old Thor archetype, had rescued the heroine instead of a mixed sex team, you would scream “Hitler Hitler Hitler” until your head exploded.”

          Except that still exists today & hey will you look at that, no ones head exploded. It’s almost like what you are saying is utter garbage.

          Right. Which is why there’s no consumer revolt against what’s getting published.

          Wait a little while and the same person who says that there are still manly heroes will now say that the lack of manly heroes is a sign of progress.

          • Kate says:

            “Right. Which is why there’s no consumer revolt against what’s getting published.”

            The consumer revolt is predicated on many things, this isn’t one of them.

            “Wait a little while and the same person who says that there are still manly heroes will now say that the lack of manly heroes is a sign of progress.”

            What lack of manly heroes? Comics are full of manly heroes. Those heroes would be the ones that the SJW’s keep on turning in to gay 1990’s clichés, or swap out for sociopath teenage black girls.

            You know, those things comicsgate is actively opposing.

            • jim says:

              > > “Right. Which is why there’s no consumer revolt against what’s getting published.”

              > The consumer revolt is predicated on many things, this isn’t one of them.

              You are unresponsive and in denial: The consumer revolt is exemplified by the rejection of transexual Thor and Han Soyboy. They want stuff that is now deemed far right wing fascist politics – the toxic masculinity of the old Thor, and of the 1977 dashing rogue Han Solo who would lay hands on a woman without asking permission. They want the Marvel Comics Conan.

              They want to see romance where the man and the woman have different roles. They don’t remember Errol Flynn abducting his love interest, or killing his love interest’s husband, but I am sure that if they did remember, they would want that even more.

              • Kate says:

                “You are unresponsive”

                LOL Jim, you might want to look up what the word unresponsive means, because someone responding directly to you again & again is not the definition of unresponsive, in fact that is the definition of the antonym of the word unresponsive; responsive.

                “The consumer revolt is exemplified by the rejection of transexual Thor and Han Soyboy. ”

                No it’s not. Firstly we aren’t talking about what exemplifies it, we are talking about what it’s predicated on.

                There are five basici principles comicsgate is predicated on & they are.

                The adoption of art styles influenced exclusively by Progressive politics, & by the awkward, stilted injection of said political messages into stories regardless of whether context demands it or not.

                2. The hiring of people based purely on their surface traits and “oppressed demographic” status (Women, Minorities, LGBT) rather than hiring based on merit, affinity or enthusiasm for craft.

                3. The change or outright replacement of beloved classic characters to pander to Progressive and/or Leftist politics instead of creating new characters for this end.

                4. The elitist purge of anything that is “not progressive enough.”

                5. The rejection of honest criticism, swept aside as harassment or discrimination.

                THAT is what comicsgate is predicated on & because of that comicsgate will continue until one way or another it’s no longer an issue, because either the comic industry has ignored the consumers & has failed, or it’s listened to the consumers & has found financial success again by setting the ship right

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Action Comic #8 has Superman destroying slums to give poor people better homes. The X-men are a civil rights metaphor.

                  Progressive politics and awkward political messages were there from the start.

                  Justice League picked Hawkgirl and John Stuart for affirmative action reasons.

                  In short, the 5 basic principles don’t work.

                • jim says:

                  Han Soyboy did not turn gay, black, or transexual. He turned unmanly. The defining characteristic of Han Solo used to be that he was manly.

                  Luke Skywalker turned unheroic.

                  And so has every character in comics, movies, and music videos. Remember when Chris Rock was still allowed to be funny?

                  That Thor turned outwardly transexual is merely an outward symbol of the inward sea change, less easy to describe and define, that all of them have suffered. Superman’s body has become more buff as his character has become less buff.

                  And the fans revolted against that.

                • peppermint says:

                  So when Luke was supplemented by Anakin the child into manchild, that was fine, and it did explain why Anakin turned into a fascism nazi, like the children who grew up watching his movies.

                  And when Kylo’s uncle burned everything down because to heck with having things, well, his family history of useless traitors is why he’s an even more dedicated fascism nazi.

            • jim says:

              If comics were still full of manly heroes, the fans would not revolt. Trouble is, when you eliminated toxic masculinity, turned out that all masculinity was supposedly toxic.

              When was the last time a manly hero rescued a fair lady in distress?

              It has been ninety years since a dashing rogue abducted a fair lady.

              • Kate says:

                If comics were still full of manly heroes, the fans would not revolt.

                LOL no Jim, they are still full of manly men, that’s not the issue, we gone over the five principles of comicsgate already.

              • Kate says:

                “It has been ninety years since a dashing rogue abducted a fair lady.”

                I’m calling this now. Some time in the near future, this blog is going to go off line, because you’ve been arrested for some kind of sexual assault.

                There is just no way a man who thinks kidnapping a woman is romantic hasn’t got a past as a sexual predator.

                • Koanic says:

                  Talk about racist. Do you realize there are entire cultures which practice bridal abduction? I literally can’t even.

                • BC says:

                  >There is just no way a man who thinks kidnapping a woman is romantic hasn’t got a past as a sexual predator.

                  Have you ever read a romance novel? They typically have 3 themes: Rape, out of control men doing what they want, and men who conquer women often through force. Men think romance is wining and dining, while women view romance as the sort of stuff you find in best selling Romance novels.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Kate: You ought to be ashamed of yourself for making accusations like that in an argument about…comic books (!). It’s as nasty as it is frivolous. Moreover, it won’t work here. We’re political dissidents and have been called every name in the book.

                • jim says:

                  > > “It has been ninety years since a dashing rogue abducted a fair lady.”

                  > There is just no way a man who thinks kidnapping a woman is romantic hasn’t got a past as a sexual predator.

                  They sure thought it romantic when Errol Flynn’s character did it.

                  Again, you show lack of familiarity with the content of the media that you seek to silence and suppress.

                  And again you show you did not read the article to which you are supposedly responding, which has lots of stuff along similar lines. Your boss told you “The damned comicsgate haters are pushing back on us silencing Vox. Push back on them. Here is a link”

                • I wanted to be raped. Just not like that - not by him. says:

                  Hi Kate 🖐👵

                  “There is just no way a man who thinks kidnapping a woman is romantic”

                  Romantic. Now that’s a word you don’t hear as often anymore. How old are you, late thirties (but call yourself a Millennial, gen X?

                  But you’re right. Most girls don’t find the tropes Jim talks about (and feminist cat-ladies with sticks up their ass complain about 👵👈) ‘romantic’. But a considerable number of them find them hot, though there is still a stigma around admitting to it. (As an aside: I think this is an artifact of the long history of shaming woman for their sexuality that has been the norm under patriarchal oppression. Doubt it will last.)

                  What is more revealing than your tone def comments is that you are here pushing back on this – as apposed to the other more controversial things Jim has said. We here should remember: most culture is downstream of stories – not autistic political debates.

                • peppermint says:

                  All women want to be done in the manner of a female cat.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >What is more revealing than your tone def comments is that you are here pushing back on this – as apposed to the other more controversial things Jim has said.

                  Not surprising, though.

                  Once I had advocated both child prostitution and rape of un-owned women, triggering a bunch of Feminists about the latter issue and *only* about the latter issue, because — as a commenter told me regarding the affair — rape takes away the female’s most essential leverage mechanism (her power to control who enters her vagina and who doesn’t, a great power indeed), while all the other controversial stuff: porn, pedophilia, infanticide, perversions, etc. is merely incidental to female power.

                  “Legalize rape” (Old Testament style, i.e. marriage by abduction) is the trigger of all triggers, surpassing in edginess everything else combined.

                  You can say that 8-year-old girls wet their hairless snatches for wealthy businessmen, tattooed bikers, Jeremy Meeks, and General Butt Naked – in short, alpha males with adult female pre-selection and big swinging dicks; that men do not, in fact, use evil mind control rays to make women misbehave merely to get their dicks wet (quite the contrary); and lay out in the open for all to see the entire Jimian repertoire; yet the unforgivable sin has always been, “Woman, if you’re not owned by any man, then I shall abduct you and rape you – and it is perfectly moral for me to do so.”

                  Rape is not the answer, though. Rape is the question. The answer is “yes.”

                  🙂

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Kate you’re absolutely right.

                  This man’s a disgusting liar and after interacting with him on economics, I’m seeing his sexual politics in a new light.
                  Call me ‘blue pilled’ or whatever but right now, I’m less ‘trad’ and less anti-feminist than at any time in the last ten years.

                  Carlyle told us to embrace the world as it really is rather than as we’d wish it to be. That means the things the Whig revolution has done can’t be crudely undone: we have to find new ways to live.
                  That means we’re stuck with the stupid laissez-faire labour market and it also means we’re stuck with equal legal status for men and women.

                  We have to find non-retarded ways of dealing with it.

                  Calling for abduction&rape is not non-retarded, and the more I re-read the older articles talking about pre-pubescent sexuality, the more they just sound lascivious.

                  Not cool, Beavis.

                • jim says:

                  And according to you the world is as social justice warriors and cultural Marxists tell us it is.

                • Untaimed African nigger leering at your aroused daughter says:

                  “jewish pedophile”

                  Any sex outside of marriage is rape. Rape is degenerate. The more chaste the woman, the more degenerate. It is wrong because it is a property rights violation. I think that you are mostly right about female sexuality. (however I’m not sure about 8 year old rape fantasies. I know they are common when woman get older and their sexuality escalates. But at 8 or 10, maybe laying naked next to a man they are attracted to. I may be wrong. I hope I’m not. Becoming disillusioned about female sexuality is painful.) What woman want is unimportant. If woman get what they ‘want’ they will destroy themselves and eventually all of western society.

                  I think the alt right should adopt a position on female sexuality that is based in reality. I think that your position is one of the closest I’ve read. But I think we should also distance ourselves from the strawman that we are advocating for abuse. Not as defined by some manipulative woman playing headgames but the kind of abuse that doesn’t need any words to call it abuse. The kind a child could see and respond to. On my early days on the internet, on an uncensored forum, there were two videos I saw that shaped my thinking on abuse. Both were viscerally sicking and I think for similar reasons.

                  The first was of a new born getting beat up by a ‘parent’ who thought it was funny. the video lasted five minutes. I didn’t watch the whole thing but skipped to the end to see if the baby had been killed. He was still breathing, but unconscious. There was a lot of blood. I think the reason the video was so sickening is because the lasting harm was so obvious – on a preverbal level. I knew the baby would recover from his physical injuries, but on a deeper level, I knew he vary well may never recover from his emotional injuries – may never be able to experience relationships or trust people in a healthy way. And all experiences are relational.

                  The second video was of a, maybe 7 year old, getting hate-fucked by her ‘dad’. I don’t remember how long the video was and I didn’t watch more than a few seconds but the video was just as hard to watch as the baby being abused and I think for similar reasons. The girl was zoned out. She seemed to be in denial about what was happening. (I learned later this is a dissociative state that can be brought about by abuse and is correlated with conditions like schizophrenia) I think this video was hard to watch for similar reasons. I think there is a vulnerability associated with sex that makes abuse in this context more damaging. Her ‘dad’ was also stealing her ability to experience sexuality in a healthy way for, probably, the rest of her life.

                  Abuse is wrong. Abuse is carried out by losers, by people who have failed in some way and have internalized shame. They escape this by juxtaposing themselves against their victims. They can only feel big by making someone else feel small, only feel clean by making someone else feel disgusting, only feel whole by making someone else feel broken. Winners without this shame don’t feel the need to abuse. They get their pride from living well and being loved well. If society is ordered well, men will find success frequently. If communities and families are ordered properly, men will be loved well. Abuse is wrong and is a side effect of leftism. If CR destroys the economy, we will see a lot of abuse. If Kate destroys the family and church, we will see a lot of abuse.

                  The left tries to gaslight us into believing the alt-right is hateful. This is a lie. We are not motivated by hate but by love. We love our family, we love our people (including our woman), we love virtue, and we love God.

                  Now love as a virtue is something cultural not something somehow innately tied to the ‘good’. The pre-christian Romans did not think of love as a virtue. They valued things like strength, competence, loyalty, wisdom ect… When they expressed too much love they were often ‘lol fag’ed. And when you think about it, why should love be considered any more of a virtue than say sexuality? Under the right conditions, love is easy, natural, and pleasurable. Of-course it makes sense that love being virtuous was memetically adaptive (who wouldn’t want to do something pleasurable and feel virtuous for it -even more pleasurable!) but any kind of love being virtuous does not comport with reality. Love is fragile and can only exist in certain spaces where it is protected. Spaces protected by virtuous men. If those spaces exist, love will happen automatically. If they don’t, love can not exist (though i’m sure the horde of leftest abusing each other would call it love). Part of the sex positive movement is attempting to do the same thing to sexuality that happened to lvoe. If they are successful- and they have been making progress – the broader or more exotic someone’s sexuality the more moral the person would be. Seems weird, but love as a virtue seemed weird to the Romans.

                  I am not for bringing back Roman morality but I am for a functional morality that comports with reality. Love should be trumped by loyalty. To be filled with love for a helpless deer while your family is starving is not virtue but weakness. To be filled with love for your enemies as they overrun, abuse and and destroy your family and society is not love but cowardice. You cannot love well and love universally. Someone who claims to love universally does not love at all.

                  The alt right needs to embrace a functional morality. This includes understanding – and not blaming men for – female sexuality and misbehavior. It also includes understanding that abusing the weak is something only losers do (without forgetting that White Knights are almost always creeps who want sex from the person they are White Knighting for).

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Untamed &cetera, ie. Cominator probably, writes:

                  “If CR destroys the economy, we will see a lot of abuse.”

                  As I’ve said many times, you’re libertarians. You see ‘the economy’ as not only paramount, but as beginning around the time of the Whig revolutions and especially well represented in the early days of the US, up to 1913.

                  If ‘the economy’ translates to people living paycheck to paycheck and spending what little they have left at Franky&Benny’s then to hell with ‘the economy’. That’s not a bonus, a boon, a benefit: it’s a curse.

                  Worse, you toss around the rape of innocents as if it were just another humorous ‘debating tactic’.

                  At this point, there are two types of people in the world.

                  On the one hand there are the realists who understand that government exists to protect the people of a particular place from people of other particular places, currently known as nationalists.

                  On the other hand are the intellectuals who come up with fancy theories as to why thousands of people should either be killed or else just left to rot in the service of a higher ideal – generally an economic ideal – and that what matters right now is winning debates in the service of that generally economic ideal.

                  It’s pretty obvious where people here fall: you’re a new incarnation of right-economics in the tradition of Whigs from Adam Smith to Murray Rothbard. You dress it up in a few new fancy features, including saying shocking things about little girls, but it’s basically the same old j-right shtick: ‘the economy’ first, people last.

                • jim says:

                  Your economic program is Cuba and Venezuela.

                  People are starving in Venezuela for lack of bread.

                  I have seen the Cuban economy close up and personal.

                  When I was in Cuba people had plenty of bread and sugar, and were guaranteed a very adequate supply of bread without butter, but a dire shortage of everything else, and as a result many people were going blind from nutritional deficiency. The medical system for ordinary people was a guaranteed free bed to die in. People were dying for lack of asthma medication, which could only be obtained on the black market.

                  Maybe it is better now, because when I was there, they were beginning to back off from socialism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling me what I think and what I said. It is not what I think, and it quite certainly not what I said.

                  Deleted for presupposing the Marxist account of history, that capitalism is new, and is progress towards leftism, without defending or explaining this account.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Capitalism IS new (ie. 18th century).

                  To claim otherwise is completely ridiculous, just as ridiculous as to claim that if someone closes a shop, that’s the same as Cuban communism.

                  You’re a joke, and your hair trigger censorship, on a par with The Guardian, just makes it easier to see the joke of all your other positions, including that 9 year old girls want to fuck you.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  The Marxist rewrite of history to make employer power recent, is part of the priestly rewrite of history to make priestly power ancient. Priestly power is not ancient, because it always blows up in people’s faces.

                  Capitalism in the sense of wage labor, savings, investment, and investing capital for profit and wage labor goes back to our earliest written records, the start of the iron age, thus is at least iron age, and probably late neolithic – probably ensued following the Y chromosome genetic bottleneck, ensued under the first Priest Kings, ensued under Nimrod, the mighty hunter.

                  The Book of Deuteronomy, which predates Solomon and the Temple, presupposes a capitalist market economy, and regulates the relationship of employer and employee.

                  The Book of Proverbs, the famous wisdom of Solomon, urges work, employment, saving, investment, and right conduct of employees towards employers and of employers towards employees.

                  The Parables of Jesus, for example the Laborers in the Vineyard and the parable of the talents, presuppose a capitalist market economy, and take for granted the legitimacy of the employer, and the right of employers and employees to freely contract for work. The Rabbinic versions of the vineyard parable also presuppose capitalism, and in their version the employer is rather more thrifty, profit oriented, and tight fisted – very like the employer in the parable of the talents.

                  Corporations existed all the way back to the Roman Imperium, but they were not really corporations in the modern sense, since they generally were not for profit, hence their shares were generally not traded. Modern corporate capitalism, the for profit corporation where the board and management have a duty to make money for the shareholders, derives from Charles the Second and the restoration, from the seventeenth century, and in the seventeenth century we first see Ayn Rand’s heroic capitalist engineer entrepeneur CEO, the man mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to create technology and make it widely available.

                  Ayn Rand’s engineer entrepeneur CEO commanding the capital of his shareholders is the absolute essence of modern capitalism, the highest and best exemplar of modern capitalism, and he shows up in the seventeenth century immediately following the restoration.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m fed up arguing with your horseshit: any sane person can see that what I’m saying is factually obvious and what you’re saying is conveniently specious.

                  “Capitalism in the sense of wage labor, SAVINGS, investment, and investing capital for profit and wage labor goes back to our earliest written records,” [my emphasis]

                  Even if everything you were saying were true, you should STILL be in agreement with me that the status quo of millions upon millions of workers living paycheck to paycheck without saving a single penny is unsustainable and inherently dangerous.

                  If you were to go that far, putting a stop to the outlets that overcharge and exploit those gullible fools would be a logical next step, and any sane person could see that this had ZERO to do with Marxism or Socialism.

                  Sadly, the truth is in spite of your rhetoric you’re in fact ANTI-SAVINGS. You LOVE the modern economy and will lie and cheat to defend it.

                • jim says:

                  You guys, the priestly class, are causing that status quo, not capitalists.

                  People are not living paycheck to paycheck because they eat Domino’s Pizza. They are living paycheck to paycheck because of the artificially high cost of housing, because of unreasonably prolonged incarceration in academia, and because of lack of an enforceable apprenticeship system.

                  And also because, with old type marriage criminalized, they have no pressing reason to not live paycheck to paycheck.

                • CR dropping his wife off to volunteer at the refugee camp says:

                  I’m not Cominator and I’m not a libertarian.

                  “Worse, you toss around the rape of innocents as if it were just another humorous ‘debating tactic’.”

                  God youre such a fag. The reason “I wanted to be raped, just not like that – not by him” is funny is because of how true it is. My previous username “Untamed African nigger leering at your aroused daughter” is not funny but also speaks to something true. There is not a PC way to communicate ‘untamed African nigger’ without saying ‘untamed African nigger’ just as hate fuck describes something that is hard to say in another way.

                  Second, they are not ‘debating tactics’ but attempts to communicate things that are true and interesting. We are here fighting Gnon for a better understanding of the world. You are here playing rhetorical games and lying.

                  Your ‘HOW DARE YOU, SIR’ is not likely to work here. I have been very clear about what I advocate for and what I don’t. If you are going to lie at least try to come up with something interesting. I advocate for understanding the world as it is – even the parts that are hard to look at. Your craven refusal to see ‘offensive’ truths is not virtue but cowardice.

              • The Cominator says:

                CR Kate is quite transparently a paid shill. There is just no way a concerned apolitical comics fangirl would ever find her way here.

                Your economic program does not benefit the nation because it doesn’t work and would in fact impoverish the nation. “Right wing socialism” works only very slightly better then left wing socialism as an economics program.

                Argentina had decades of “right wing socialism” without foreign military intervention, before Peron it was as rich as the United States after Peronism not so much.

                You are right that Jim mostly agrees with 19th century economics (though he argues with me about general incorporation) where we differ from Mises etc is we support much more reactionary politics.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If ‘my economic programme’ is so ridiculous why don’t you attack it instead of attacking something else and pretending to attack it?

                  ‘My economic programme’, remember, consists solely of closures. No bureaucracy required, no regulations, nothing. Just close X Y and Z and if similarly awful things start to emerge, close them too.

                  Anyway it’s all beside the point because the meta story here is that this community has shown a few important things about NRx, or at the very least this side of NRx:

                  – economics trumps society
                  – nation and people doesn’t matter much at all
                  – sovereignty has limits
                  – intellectual dishonesty is a tool to be used
                  – strategic censorship (of a substantial quantity) is a tool to be used

                  Those are genuinely interesting points.

                  Here’s Jonathan Bowden from 2013 on Thomas Carlyle.

                  I guess Carlyle’s more BNP, less SocialMatter/Thermidor after all, and Moldbug’s fetish for him says less about Moldbug-as-commonly-adopted and more about Moldbug-in-transition.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXRoW2mBpZs

                • jim says:

                  That is the economic program of Venezuela. They found they were closing everything and people were starving, so they re-opened stuff under “worker control”. Which failed to refill the shelves. Leftism fails, and you either back off as in 1949 England when famine loomed, and English people were writing to Australian kinfolk for food parcels, or forge ahead as in Venezuela to fail even more catastrophically.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well from what I remember of your specific proposals you

                  1. Want to close restaurants

                  2. You want to ban private swimming pools

                  3. You want to ban travel abroad

                  4. You want to only allow people to invest in computer trading funs or something

                  All of which are stupid irrational socialistic proposals and of course you’d need a bureaucracy to enforce it. Is king CR going to personally close all the restaurants of course not.

                • alf says:

                  A while ago I got my deposit back from a former landlord. It was significantly short of the non-spoken amount we had agreed upon.

                  So, I visited him. I told him I was insulted and demanded a larger sum. To my surprise, he was amenable, we agreed upon a sum which he paid the next day.

                  CR, in your capitalists-rule-the-world world, the meeting would not have made sense: why was the landlord amenable? Why wouldn’t he just have kept my money for ‘maintenance reasons’ or whatever? The law? But capitalists are above the law in CR world. It makes no sense.

                  However, in capitalists-don’t-rule-world world it makes perfect sense: he was just trying to make an extra buck. That’s all.

                  Your economy is Marxist.

                • Koanic says:

                  I agree that Kate sounds the most like a paid shill of any I can recall.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Garbage.

                  I’ve never heard such childish rubbish. Closing Franky&Benny leads to Venezuela (ie. Maduro getting re-elected in a landslide victory that international observers wanted to call illegitimate but couldn’t, unlike most American elections, or even British ones where Leave voters were advised to bring a pen to the polling booth to stop scum erasing pencil marks).

                  It’s nonsense.

                  If the glory of the capitalist economy consists IN the fact that people are living paycheck to paycheck, unable to ever own a home but living it up at overpriced shithole burger joints, then down with capitalism, simple as that.

                  The only reason you call CLOSING A RESTAURANT big state regulatory bloat is you have no argument against it. You cannot reasonably defend those restaurants on price, on quality, or on any other grounds. They’re rip-off shithole joints that exploit the fact people can never afford a family or a family home.

                  They’re the ultimate parasites and they need to be closed tf down, but you can’t tolerate that because it violates the NAP so you find endless excuses, and when there are no more excuses, you just call your opponents communists, because obviously closing a restaurant is the very essence of communism LOL

                  You’re a pervert, a loser and an arsehole.

                • jim says:

                  Closing a restaurant because you disapprove of the prices, or the packaging, or the portion size, or some such, is not regulatory bloat, and I never called it regulatory bloat. It is socialism. Regulatory bloat becomes standard socialism when carried to Venezuelan extremes, as for example, by setting prices. And, since you will mysteriously find yourself with long breadlines, you will pretty soon be re-opening them under “the control of the proletariat.”

                  The problem is that you want priests to have and exercise general authority over merchants, over everyone. Anyone exercising general authority over merchants is standard issue socialism, and leads to Venezuelan style, North Korean Style, and Chairman Mao style famine.

                  You also reveal your leftism when you assert that presuppose that Maduro winning an election by blaming evil white males for a famine he created is likely to favorably impress us.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          >the consumer base refused to allow him to co-opt the name comicsgate for his political propaganda comics imprint name.

          How exactly did they do this? You just said there was no coordinated effort against him and Comicsgate had nothing whatsoever to do with his crowdfunding removal. What did the “consumer base” do to take the name away from him?

          • Kate says:

            “How exactly did they do this?”

            When his entire livestream chat turned against him in the video he used to announce he was doing it & they the chat made it entirely clear they didn’t want him to be involved with it.

            This wasn’t some pre-announced announcement, this wasn’t a press conference, or him saying he had some special announcement, it was just another average Vox Day live stream & his entire live chat turned against him, calling him out for trying to once again co-opt something he wasn’t involved with, for his own profit.

            There was no co-ordinated effort, this live stream was an off the cuff thing Vox decided to do, just as it was a off the cuff opposition to it by the consumers.

            It was at that point he talked himself in to a hole, by trying to back peddle, while attempting to save face.

            “What did the “consumer base” do to take the name away from him?”

            Nothing. They can’t take the name away from him, he abandoned it when he got blow back from the consumer base, just as he had from his very own live chat.

            But you don’t need to take my word for it, you can watch the recorded stream, complete with live chat yourself on youtube, it was entitled “DARKSTREAM: ComicsGate Comics.”

            In fact it’s probably the shortest “darkstream” he’s ever put out. about half the length of the average “darkstream”, because he got flustered when his own live chat chewed him out for being as slimy as he was.

            • The Cominator says:

              “This wasn’t some pre-announced announcement, this wasn’t a press conference, or him saying he had some special announcement, it was just another average Vox Day live stream & his entire live chat turned against him, calling him out for trying to once again co-opt something he wasn’t involved with, for his own profit.”

              Bwahahahahahahahaha. So Vox Day fans “spontaneously” turned against Vox Day for doing something that Vox Day was planning to do for a long time. It couldn’t have been that a bunch of SJWs and shills flooded his chat.

              • Kate says:

                “Bwahahahahahahahaha. So Vox Day fans “spontaneously” turned against Vox Day for doing something that Vox Day was planning to do for a long time.”

                Vox doesn’t have long time plans, he just pretends that his newest idiot idea is some kind of long term plan. Like that time he pretended he’d built infrastructure for producing comics, when he’d built nothing.

                ” It couldn’t have been that a bunch of SJWs and shills flooded his chat.”

                No, it literally couldn’t have been. For it to have been that, people would have first needed to know that’s what he was going to be announcing & no one knew that was what he was announcing, or even the fact that he was announcing anything.

                You are going to have to accept the fact that consumers simply didn’t want Vox Day to co-opt their thing for his own financial gains.

                And then he got in to a strop with his livestream chat & fled his own stream early.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Vox doesn’t have long time plans, he just pretends that his newest idiot idea is some kind of long term plan. Like that time he pretended he’d built infrastructure for producing comics, when he’d built nothing.”

                  This is a blatant lie. I’m not even a huge fan of Vox (he has an abrasive personality in a lot of ways and picks fights he doesn’t need to constantly) but to pretend he is some low time preference moron who isn’t capable of putting together anything is insane.

                  Pretending that this was “spontaneous consumer deplatforming” is laughable. First of all we are reactionaries and we know that things just never ever really work that way.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Vox Day built a business, is continuing to build a business, therefore has long term plans

                  Further, that the fans turned against Vox Day is an absurd lie, for when the self appointed leadership of ComicsGate denounced, deplatformed, and demonetized Vox Day, thus revealing their venomous hatred of ComicsGate fans, ComicsGate died.

                  If it was the fans that turned against Vox Day, expelling him would not have killed ComicsGate.

                  The expulsion revealed that ComicsGate had been seized by its enemies, and what followed the expulsion revealed that the fans realized that ComicsGate had been seized by its enemies.

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              One live stream that went sour and persuaded Vox to name his company something else? That’s what you’re so proud of?

              Even granting for the sake of argument that the livestream pushback was the spontaneous and genuine reaction of Vox’s own offended fans, it’s not earthshaking. You’re puffed up, crowing about your great victory over Vox’s shitty comics, but it’s just a few dozen people and a different name for his company.

              I don’t buy it. It’s not the name and the livestream that have you feeling so jazzed and powerful. That’s a victory, sure, but a minor one. The big one is the crowdfunding removal. That’s why you’re feeling so powerful and victorious. You disclaim it upthread, I know, but that’s just because it would be inconvenient to defend it. It was a huge victory against your enemies, and you know it, and it feels great.

        • Joe says:

          Vox Day has written two comprehensive and field tested guides on dealing with SJWs. To call him incompetent belies your own lack of understanding.

          I quite liked his comics. They were funny. Are you telling me that Captain Europa is not one of the most hilarious villains you have ever seen?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Vox Day is a Christian Traditionalist. Partisan politics refers to supporting a specific faction. I’m not aware of any faction in the US government that wants to establish Christianity as an explicit state religion, set up an inquisition and punish heretics.

      The closest he gets is ‘leftists and globalists are horrible’ and ‘people who fight them are good’. A belief held by half or more of the population.

      The closest he gets is having his international conspiracy to rule the world be globalists. Because international conspiracies to rule the world are noted for the love of devolving power to others.

      • calov says:

        Despite being a Christian traditionalist, his level of Christian orthodoxy appears to be that of your average megachurch attender.

  14. Mister Grumpus says:

    Given all this, y’all give me your takes on John Norman’s “Gor” books.

    • jim says:

      The protagonist of the Gor novels is an unmanly faggot, and if dumped in a real Gor with real slavegirls, they would shit test him to hell and back, he would fail the shit tests, and they would eat him alive.

  15. Nikolai says:

    “Call me ‘blue pilled’ or whatever but right now, I’m less ‘trad’ and less anti-feminist than at any time in the last ten years.”

    Well I was pretty sure TRS is mind poison, but this makes it conclusive. If you want to save the white race, the #1 thing you need to do is get women in line. Poland, Hungary, Russia, Austria etc. all have rightists in high positions of power, sensible immigration policies and are 90+% white, but they’re all well below replacement fertility.

    Restoring patriarchy is the most important long term goal, without it the white population drastically shrinks and the remaining whites will be so apathetic that they won’t bother resisting invasion. And just in the individual sense, having a virgin wife who loves you to death and looks at you like a god is the best feeling in the world and the best feeling in the world for a woman is to be cherished and held dearly by the man she loves. It’s borderline impossible to have a marriage like that in the modern world, believe me I’ve tried.

    • peppermint says:

      That’s a crucial thing you bring up. CR has determined, like we did, that the future will be decided by the WQ, and that the best way to betray our people is to betray us on the WQ.

      Since the left has graciously agreed to assist us in getting our women under control, CR will now dedicate himself to getting us to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory again.

      Fortunately for us, we’re not cuckservatives.

      TRS isn’t what CR says TRS is. Note how he complains bitterly about what I say TRS is. The White Sharia meme came from TRS.

      As to marriage, women want it, listen to Taylor Swift and Adele. But 20cfags have stolen the word marriage with their legalized divorcefaggotry, adulteryfaggotry, and sodomyfaggotry. So call your woman sexbot instead of wife and make her watch The Jetsons and I Love Lucy until she realizes what you’re actually offering.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’ve argued with Jim over some points on the women question, Jim’s approach (I’m sorry if I’m wrong here) on the woman question is IMHO a bit close to white shariah.

        I favor going back to what the 18th century ACTUALLY was, no divorce, arranged marriage, shotgun weddings. But no draconian state enforcement of adultery… chad and stacy need a small outlet otherwise they’ll undermine the system and furthermore in practice whites are never willing to do that only Arabs and Turkic people are willing to actually kill people over adultery. Just a whipping nothing more…

        Also legalize dueling by consent.

        • jim says:

          Not proposing to go Muslim and have the state kill people over adultery.

          I propose to go first temple Israel and allow individuals to kill people for adultery (which makes husband a lot more manly in the eyes of his wife than the state doing it. For which system we have some precedent in white Christian countries, not to mention that the fact that the state attempts to deter me from doing it is frustrating, humiliating, and disturbing.

          • The Cominator says:

            I know you aren’t advocating the state do it per se but you are rather advocating a sort of license to kill in such cases. Here is why I’m opposed.

            The whole point of being worried about adultery is you’re worried she’ll leave (in the past you also worried she’d saddle you with a kid that wasn’t your by stealth but technology can eliminate this worry). Beating the shit out of a girl for cheating on you makes sense, killing her does not. Besides in our system she can’t leave anyway. Killing her lover probably will provide some emotional satisfaction but women who cheat generally entice and seduce the men they cheat with far more then the other way around and this can and will lead to reprisal killings and blood feuds.

            • alf says:

              > Killing her lover probably will provide some emotional satisfaction but women who cheat generally entice and seduce the men they cheat with far more then the other way around and this can and will lead to reprisal killings and blood feuds.

              This is cowardice.

              Well maybe cowardice is too harsh a word. Fear? Healthy cowardice, at least.

              You don’t have to kill your wife, nor do you have to kill the adulterer. But the point is that you could do so, if you wish. People understand. And the thing with women is… They kind of want you to do it. Well not killing them, but killing the adulterer. It’s just another shit-test in an endless line of shit-tests.

              If you don’t kill the adulterer, you fail the shit-test. Which is OK, you don’t have to pass if you want to, you’ll lose her for sure but plenty of fish in the sea and such, but men should have the option to pass the shit-test, to redeem their honor.

              I guess reprisals by family could be a thing. But if you fear those, don’t do it.

              It will happen just as often, if not more, that the adulterer is lowlife scum with no one backing him up.

              • The Cominator says:

                In our system the woman is of course not legally allowed to leave. You can pass the shit test by beating the shit out of her and perhaps having the adulterer horsewhipped or beating the shit out of him (both of those SHOULD be legal).

                Just lets not make it a matter of life and death.

                • alf says:

                  I have never been in the situation where my woman cheated on me, so I do not exactly know how the situation would feel. If you have been together for 10+ years, if she is mother to your children, I could imagine wanting to kill the adulterer, I also think it would be justified.

                  If she shit-tests you into being too much of a coward to kill a man, you can’t pass the shit-test by merely beating her; she’ll laugh you off as a loser while you whip her. Now I hear you say: can women be that cruel? Well…

                • The Cominator says:

                  Women can be very cruel (and in modern society can do far worse to you then cheating on you) but its not likely they’ll be that cruel if you can and will beat the shit out of them.

                • alf says:

                  Yes but then why’d she cheat in the first place?

                • Andre says:

                  Adultery is treason. It is the highest of crimes. It is the essence of war. If it is not worthy of the death penalty, nothing is.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Adultery is treason. It is the highest of crimes. It is the essence of war. If it is not worthy of the death penalty, nothing is.”

                  But Restoration marriage is not going to be a world of love matches it will be a system where women’s father choose their husbands whether they want them or not. With the women perhaps eloping after a certain age if the father fails to find a suitable match.

                  I’m all for making women get married and stay married against their will and for the husband being able to use some degree of physical violence to enforce his will in such cases. But extending it to death in cases where maybe the woman never liked the arrangement in the 1st place… that goes a bit far to me and its never been our way in the Anglo-Saxon world.

                  I’m saying lets go for actual reaction with marriage and not add Islamic and Old Testament style innovations to that. If you beat the shit out of your wife in Restoration England for adultery it was fine and even expected, if you murdered your wife for adultery in Restoration England and were caught they absolutely would hang you for it. If you wanted to kill her lover (openly with people knowing you did it) and avoid hanging you could prettymuch force them to fight a duel but otherwise you couldn’t do it.

                • jim says:

                  Chivalry is exemplified by William the Marshal.

                  William the Marshal became engaged to a French noblewoman by seizing her and her castle in the name of the King of England by siege and battle against her armed resistance and the armed resistance of her men. He then traded that fiancee and castle for the fiancee of another knight, without informing either fiancee or the guardian of the fiancee thus acquired. He then seized his new fiancee and her manor and lands against the armed resistance of her guardian and immediately married her. History does not record what either fiancee thought about the matter, but the first fiancee engaged in formidable armed resistance, and William the Marshal personally fought the guardian of the second fiancee in a sword fight while wearing armor.

                • Andre says:

                  “if you murdered your wife for adultery in Restoration England and were caught they absolutely would hang you for it”

                  Is that what you propose? That men that kill adulterous wives be hanged? If not, what is? What is the punishment you wish to inflict on men that break your “no killing women for adultery” rule?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Is that what you propose? That men that kill adulterous wives be hanged?”

                  Yes, beat the shit out of them but don’t kill them. Actual reaction for non-Arabs.

                • Andre says:

                  “Yes, beat the shit out of them but don’t kill them.”

                  Just to be clear, yes, hang the honor killers?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes, we’re not fucking Arabs…

                • Andre says:

                  “Yes, we’re not fucking Arabs…”

                  Well some arabs are pretty cute.

                  Anyway, good to know you are my enemy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You seem to have a thin skin. I propose giving you all sorts of power short of life and death. Also you are in Brazil perhaps it makes sense to do things differently in a Portugese(who have Arab blood)-Negro-Indian place but its a bad idea here.

                • Andre says:

                  “You seem to have a thin skin.”

                  Not really. I’m a pretty merry despot.

                  “I propose giving you all sorts of power short of life and death.”

                  So no power at all?

                  “Also you are in Brazil perhaps it makes sense to do things differently in a Portugese(who have Arab blood)-Negro-Indian place but its a bad idea here.”

                  I don’t believe in respecting borders. If you are my enemy, as soon as it is convenient I will take your land, your gold and your women. Perhaps we’ll both die before that time. Or perhaps not.

                • Koanic says:

                  Andre is correct. Adultery can only be made whole by the husband’s bloody avenging hand.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The chance that a punishment will be successfully imposed in response to an infraction is more important than the most severe possible penalty.

                  If most women who cheat are beaten, women will not cheat much, basically only in the few situations they imagine they won’t be caught.

                  If you can secure loyalty by beating, very few will escalate to execution, which is expensive both directly and indirectly (losing the woman you own), messy, and liable to make your peers think you are crazy.

                  You impose exemplary punishment when most crimes go undetected, because your system is not well designed, or because the people working within it are not very competent. Arabs.

                • The Cominator says:

                  @OC

                  Women are not all that apt to consider consequences at all if they really want to fuck someone. If you want to actually prevent it you would need a strict purdah system but personally I don’t want a strict purdah system and that has never really been our way in any hu-white country. Even the Albanians who are nominally Muslims and have a lot of Turkic blood besides don’t go for it (though I suspect they do go for things like bridal abductions and occasionally honor killings).

                  Lets consider three basic models of male-female relations.

                  1) The feminist one – women do what they want with no consequences and men don’t have any authority. We know why this is a disaster. Cultural feminism makes it even worse.

                  2) The Gulf-Islamic way – and also the system even before Islam in some of the same parts of the world. Arranged marriages. Strict sexual segregation usually with polygamy and honor killings. If you REALLY WANT to prevent adultery you need this. People here seem to want something close to this.

                  3) The Western Way before the 1850s (and the East Asian way until the 1940s). Arranged marriages with some possibility of elopement but elopement is probably 5% of marriages. Sexes not strictly segregated but they didn’t generally leave young unmarried boys and girls alone together. You could beat your wife but you couldn’t kill her. Your wife couldn’t divorce you. Maybe you could divorce her in exceptional circumstances but generally not.

                  Now because of lack of strict purdah this system does not prevent adultery but between paternity test and the fact that the women aren’t legally allowed to leave and you can beat them the REAL negative consequences of adultery (getting children that aren’t yours foisted upon you, her leaving you and divorce raping you, her being a miserable hellbitch because there are no consequences for it) are mostly eliminated.

                  Yeah you’ll be pissed off if she does it but a good severe beating followed by an angry marital rape (maybe you can do it a couple of times) ought to get both your anger and the risk of her developing a bad attitude towards you day to day out of your respective systems. No need to kill her for it. The kind of things that make a lot of modern women REALLY deserve death (divorce rape, false rape accusations both things far worse then cheating on a guy) won’t be possible under our system.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                In a conversation with Nathan Larson, he told me that the Patriarchist State (wherein women are property) will have a National Female Registry, and you will be able to check on any female if she’s married or unmarried. That way, you won’t have to risk unwittingly committing adultery with a woman who claims to be single, but isn’t.

                Then again, he’s an autistic lolcow.

                • Andre says:

                  Or you could just meet her father?

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  In ideal circumstances, sure. In practice, what the book of Proverbs says about seductresses is true:

                  “For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is a highway to the grave, leading down to the chambers of death.” (7:26-27)

                  If King Solomon’s Israel had such women in it, all societies (except, perhaps, the outright Islamic) would.

                  Sperglord as he is, Nathan’s idea of there being a National Female Registry — open and accessible to everyone, on the internet too — where the marital status of every female in the country will be listed, is actually quite practical in the 21st century. If “making women property again” (i.e. restoring coverture) is not just empty rhetoric but a legit goal of NRx, then there’s not much reason to oppose the National Databank.

                • peppermint says:

                  Making it obvious that you’re looking up if it’s okay is never going to be part of alpha game. So imposing it on gentlemen revokes their status over quasi-criminals.

                  But, it should be easy to tell from the biological signals that you should in the future be monitoring for health purposes anyway if your woman has had sex, and adultery should be pointless with mandatory genetic testing and abortion of bastards and downies.

                  So I disagree with national registry on optics grounds. I want women to be terrified of their husbands, not the government.

                  It’s a nice troll for whamen who want a national firearm registry, though.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  The registry was proposed after other solutions had been found inadequate: it was suggested that women should be marked with special signs (e.g. Bindi) telling the world, “I am married” or, “I have no owner – come and rape me.” But women are good at concealing and faking signs, hence the need for something more authoritative and credible.

                  It’s a real issue because under a Solomonic system, one is very likely to end up raping some married chick and ending up on the wrong side of a rifle – and these situations should be minimized and dis-incentivized. Allowing deceptive women to send fine gentlemen to their graves is incompatible with the 14 Words; the ability to verify marital status is not intended to deter women from committing adultery but to prevent innocent white men from being slain, a distinct prospect in Jimtopia.

                  You are correct about the optics of it. But we’re talking about rape here, not female sexual choice. As such, the options are:

                  1) Check, find out she’s married, back off.
                  2) Check, find out she’s married, rape her anyway, risk sacrificing the 14 Words.
                  3) Check, find out she’s not married, rape her with safety.
                  4) Don’t check, she is not married, safe rape.
                  5) Don’t check, she is married, the 14 Words are imperiled.

                  As you can see, 60% of these scenarios are positive and 40% negative.

                  Now, without a registry, there are only two options:

                  1) Rape her, she isn’t married, safe rape.
                  2) Rape her, she is married, 14 Words imperiled.

                  Which is 50% positive and 50% negative.

                  Well, assuming an equal likelihood for each scenario to materialize, the registry would reduce the risk posed to the 14 Words by un-safe rape from 50% to 40%.

                  But why assume an equal likelihood for each scenario? I believe that most white men, having low time-preference (in other words, less likely to Muhhh Dikkk than blacks and browns), would be gentlemanly enough to refrain from raping a married chick. Thus, the risk posed to the 14 Words by un-safe rape will in fact be much lower than 40%. More like 5%, if you ask me.

                  Okay, so the status of outlaws will rise over the status of single gentlemen in the eyes of single women (*not* in the eyes of married women, whose husbands have the right to slay adulterers like mosquitoes, thus the husbands being the final alphas, top-of-the-hierarchy), to an extent, but since we’re not looking to maximize One Night Stands, but to maximize family-formation, I don’t really see that as an issue. The “alpha strategy,” as you and Caamib and others would put it, should be, as Andre pointed out above, asking the father of the female – not seduction.

                  The registry increases the seduction-potential of outlaws versus single gentlemen (their SMV vis-a-vis single gentlemen), but it’s just not a big issue in a Solomonic-Jimian society with a white population, because in such a society, gentlemen asking fathers for their daughters will be the norm rather than the “free sexual market” of all-against-all seduction games.

                  When seduction of single females ceases to be the primary means of acquiring a wife, raising the sex-status of outlaws versus single gentlemen *but not versus husbands* will render the optics issue moot. Hubby will have the best optics of all, and you become a hubby by going to the father rather than by muh dik’ing the daughter, because you’re a white man in a white society that doesn’t tolerate chimping.

              • Nikolai says:

                “We’re not fucking arabs” is generally something cuckservatives, tradthots and fashy goyettes say in response to actual rightism. I could understand not wanting to kill your wife for adultery, and there are plenty of instances of married women seducing men under the guise of being single and men who have been tricked in that manner shouldn’t be punished the same way as a knowing adulterer.

                But if you lose a woman you love, you’ll be filled with homicidal rage. If not, then you didn’t truly love her or you have a massive testosterone deficiency. White people do this pretty much every day, not hard to find stories about a jilted husband committing a double homicide. As Andre shows this was considered normal and justifiable as late as the 1970s. Men who do this shouldn’t be punished, unless they kill innocents in the process.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Nikolai I think you replied to the wrong post.

                  Under our system she can’t leave so the only way you do lose her is if you kill her, and if she keeps a bad attitude you can hit her.

                  Women aren’t going to keep up a bad attitude when they CAN’T leave and you CAN hit them.

                  “not hard to find stories about a jilted husband committing a double homicide”

                  And even centuries ago it counted as murder and in the Anglo-Saxon world not generally jury nullified.

                • peppermint says:

                  Cominator, try getting a posslq, you’ll quickly discover that you can convince her to do pretty much anything and certainly anything reasonable by telling her what you expect of her, and she’ll watch you for signals of your happiness or displeasure closer than you can watch yourself.

                • Andre says:

                  “And even centuries ago it counted as murder and in the Anglo-Saxon world not generally jury nullified.”

                  I don’t know if that is true or not. Can you provide evidence? The New York Times said: “In some states, killing an adulterous wife, discovered in bed with another man, was considered justifiable homicide as recently as the early 1970’s.”

                  As far as I understand, justifiable homicide means you are considered blameless, pure as the driven snow.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I don’t know if that is true or not. Can you provide evidence? The New York Times said: “In some states, killing an adulterous wife, discovered in bed with another man, was considered justifiable homicide as recently as the early 1970’s.”

                  If caught in the act sometimes you could claim crime of passion defense (there was a sequel to the movie “Chinatown” called the “Two Jakes” apparently you could in California in the 1940s because that happened at the beginning of the movie) but generally not. France had a crime of passion provision in the law but it was not part of the common law.

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

                  The American South I think tended to treat it more leniently then the rest of the country in the US.

                  In no case in the US could you upon finding them after the fact kill them.

                • Nikolai says:

                  You’re right I did reply to the wrong post.

                  If you’re married and she’s sleeping with another man, you’ve basically lost her. The marriage can be salvageable after that, but it’ll take a lot of effort and it will never quite be the same.

                  “Women aren’t going to keep up a bad attitude when they CAN’T leave and you CAN hit them.”

                  With women, it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it. This is Vox Day type thinking where you imagine women will be perfectly submissive well behaved wives once they’re property and you can whip them. Not really the case. Women can take pain pretty well and if you’re beating them with the mentality of a beta, they’ll take it and mock you for trying. As Jim has said violence is often frustratingly ineffectual.

                  I’m sure you can present a particular case that in so and so year a few centuries ago such and such husband was hanged for killing his wife and her lover. But this strikes me as the exception and not the rule. Even in the cucked hellscape of the modern world men still do this and they get plenty of sympathy.

                  And even if you’re right, I’m not exactly convinced that because Anglos do X, we should emulate it come the restoration. The Anglo-Saxon world could use a bit of Slavic bravado.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And even if you’re right, I’m not exactly convinced that because Anglos do X, we should emulate it come the restoration. The Anglo-Saxon world could use a bit of Slavic bravado.”

                  Cost-benefit I don’t think innovating adultery as a life and death matter here is going to provide much benefit over giving husbands disciplinary powers and not allowing divorce.

                  Women are less horny then men MOST of the time but when they actually get aroused are way more horny then men (one girl who WAS cheating on her long term boyfriend, don’t feel bad for him he was an awful shitlib REALLY wanted me to fuck her against the wall of a bar once… now there was nobody inside but the bartender and the two other patrons were just outside for a smoke and we would have been seen and probably arrested… I can’t imagine a man getting like that). So it won’t work as a deterrent because women don’t make rational risk-benefit calculations when they really want to fuck around.

                  It is going to cause MASSIVE criticism both from betas who think it is barbaric and from chads who think they’ll do better if adultery rules are loosened a bit. Best to restore patriarchy as it actually was in our tradition and not add Arabic style innovations.

                  Also lets remember Restoration marriage is a coercive arrangement that will generally have no pretense of being love matches.

                • BC says:

                  >Cost-benefit I don’t think innovating adultery as a life and death matter here is going to provide much benefit over giving husbands disciplinary powers and not allowing divorce.

                  Yet most successful civilizations have endorsed and used death as by the husband as punishment.

                  > So it won’t work as a deterrent because women don’t make rational risk-benefit calculations when they really want to fuck around.

                  Letting a man kill his wife for cheating isn’t a deterrent, it’s a turn on for her. The man literally has the power of life and death over her if she chooses to misbehave. Automatically making her husband more of an alpha than any other man she is likely to encounter.

            • eternal anglo says:

              Simple: credible threat. Nothing nukes an apocalyptic shit test like reading in the news every now and again that some man has killed his adulterous wife and her lover, and got off scot free.

              • jim says:

                And to this I would add that the police are not particularly competent, and do not try very hard to be particularly competent. Reflect on the hilariously ineffectual search for Green River Serial killer. Only her pimp acted competently and effectually, and he was insufficiently motivated to himself deal with the killer, even though he found him almost immediately by doing quite obvious things. They have a standard formula for finding killers, and if a killing is not swept up by this formula, you can be pretty sure it will go unpunished, so, in practice, seldom get killers in the smart fraction. Consider what happened the Carrion Capital. The billionaires offended by the misconduct of Carrion Capital evidently hired competent hit men.

                As one of my bosses commented: “The sword of the law is blunt on both edges”.

              • alf says:

                She: *cleaning distractedly*
                he: *sitting behind laptop*
                she: did you hear about the guy who murdered his wife, just for cheating?
                he: hm hm.
                she: I heard she left behind children. Horrible, just horrible.
                he: yes honey.
                she: you wouldn’t ever do that would you?
                he: what?
                she: kill a woman.
                he: *not looking up from laptop* lets hope we never find out honey.
                she: *swoons.*

                • Andre says:

                  What sort of faggotry is this? If you marry a woman, it should be clearly and explicitly stated that should she betray you, nobody will ever find her body. Anything less than this is giving implied consent to adultery. If you cannot do this, either don’t marry, or accept your status as a cuck.

                • alf says:

                  lol.

                  I dunno, that’s just my game, that’s how I’d handle it. I prefer the unspoken dominance.

                  If it’s your game to threaten her that no one will find her body would she cheat on you, then fair game. Sounds a bit tryhard to me, but to each their own.

                • Koanic says:

                  The cultural context is what’s relevant here, Andre. In Brazil, yes, you tell your woman you will decapitate her and feed her to the alligators like a drug lord. In the Netherlands, simply not answering the question counts as a “Yes, I’ll kill you, and then lie smoothly to the police through teary eyes about it, and score a new girlfriend off the pity rebound.”

                  In other words, the faggotry is in the culture, not the player’s navigation thereof.

                  If you explicitly threaten your Western girlfriend with death, she will probably mention that, and you will not get away with murdering her afterwards.

                • jim says:

                  Being explicit about it is beta – it implies you are worried about losing her, which implies your threat is empty.

                  Rather than making a threat, you should be the kind of man who might avenge himself.

                • Andre says:

                  Being explicit seems to be working out pretty well for the arabs in Europe. A marriage was already an explicit “you are not fucking getting away with treason”; but now it is implied in every western relationship (including in Brazil) that adultery is perfectly fine and divorce more or less inevitable, and the man implicitly accepts all the feminist laws in place. You don’t have to yell every day shaking your hands “if you ever leave me!”, you just matter of factly and calmly explain that to her at the point where you wish to regard her as a wife. And you keep men who would obviously back you up around. I just caught some news story about a guy who was arrested because the girlfriend filmed him threatening her, saying he didn’t what happened to him, she was going die. No context as it is feminist propaganda, but as he turned himself in, it is obvious he barked too much. I’m not advocating that you bark as loud as you can, I’m telling you to be perfectly clear with her. It is only fair, as otherwise how is she supposed to know you don’t consent to be cucked?

                • The Cominator says:

                  In our system they aren’t divorcing you, none of us disagree on that.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Being explicit about it is beta – it implies you are worried about losing her, which implies your threat is empty.
                  >
                  > Rather than making a threat, you should be the kind of man who might avenge himself.

                  True, you shouldn’t bring it up. But if she were to explicitly ask, which is the relevant context here, I would assume giving the straight answer in Brazil is fine and expected. Due to cultural machismo, equivocating would be seen as weakness. Maybe I am wrong about that assumption; I know little about Brazil.

                • Andre says:

                  “Maybe I am wrong about that assumption; I know little about Brazil.”

                  Brazil is cucked as fuck.

                • Andre says:

                  “In our system they aren’t divorcing you, none of us disagree on that.”

                  How about a compromise. A woman is allowed to have sex with men other than her husband. The husband is allowed to throw her out of the home so she can live on the streets as the whore she is. Deal? We keep divorce as the husband’s right, without any of that alimony or splitting the assets crap.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Maybe he should be allowed to sell her as something akin to a slave in such cases (but not hereditary)… I don’t want very many unowned women running around.

                • Koanic says:

                  Jehovah Himself demands that adultery be punished by death. It is no coincidence that His chief metaphor for idolatry is adultery. Tolerate the one, and you will get the other.

                • jim says:

                  But the question then is, who should carry out the punishment?

                  The Book of Proverbs identifies itself as issued by King Solomon’s court, and reissued with additions by his successors. Similar books were issued during that period by other monarchies, so this is inherently plausible. Its advice on adultery presupposes no state action on adultery and that adulterers are apt to be killed by the offended party. This, of course, renders the husband far more manly in the eyes of his wife, than if the state were to carry out punishment.

                  In the Israel of the time of Jesus, the priests carried out the punishment, but this does not appear to have been the case in the Solomon’s Israel. That priests interfered, whether against the husband or against the wife, looks to me like priests out of control and grabbing state power. The ensuing holiness spiral led Israel into a foolish and suicidal war with Rome, which started, not with a protest against exorbitant taxes corruptly collected, not with a legitimate and reasonable grievance, but a protest against a Greek man in a Greek city sacrificing a chicken on his own land too close to the entrance to a synagogue – a typical holiness war driven by demonstrations of superior holiness. The chain of events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem had no direct connection to any grievance that was intelligible to us or to the Romans.

                  Looks to me that our priesthood is leading us into a holiness driven war (“human rights”) with Russia or China or both simultaneously. In our case they demonstrate superior holiness by acting against the husband in ever more extreme ways, but acting against the wife is almost as emasculating.

                • Koanic says:

                  > But the question then is, who should carry out the punishment?

                  I’ve adopted your opinion on the matter, but should the offended party be somehow incapable, and his male kin fail to revenge the slight, the sovereign must act to cleanse the land of pollution, lest wrath be upon the congregation.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, the sovereign should intervene in exceptional and unusual situations. And the state should monitor and record who is married to whom, and who is the parent of whom, so it can identify runaway children and wives, and return them. Also, private individuals need to be able to readily obtain this information, so that they can conduct themselves rightly in relation to members of other families.

                • Koanic says:

                  > And the state should monitor and record who is married to whom, and who is the parent of whom, so it can identify runaway children and wives, and return them. Also, private individuals need to be able to readily obtain this information, so that they can conduct themselves rightly in relation to members of other families.

                  That sounds reasonable. However, David was harshly punished by Jehovah for taking a census, not of every individual in Israel, but merely of all the fighting men. There was a specific method of counting fighting men only, described in the Law. At the time of the counting, each man had to atone for his life with a tax paid to the Temple. I am describing this from memory, but that’s the gist.

                  The point was that Jehovah owned the lives of every man, that they are HIS people. No one else has the right to count them, for to number something is the act of an owner.

                  Now we are literally given a number from birth. I intend to renounce my US citizenship and rid myself of this blasphemous number of the Beast. I require no socialist security.

                  I suppose therefore that these matters must be handled via subsidiarity. The apex sovereign’s vision should not penetrate beneath the patriarchal layer, except to judge exceptional cases, and render king’s justice.

                  In order to restore the sovereign, we must restore the tribes and counties beneath him, who rule by blood and honor, not regulation and committee.

                  The foundation of the state is the patriarch, and the patrilineage is sowed in the inalienable patrimonial estate. From this everything follows. Evil creeps in the shadows, but where the same men have lived on the same land for generations, everything is laid bare like noon on the Salt Flats.

                  For cases of travel, then there must be some system of vouching and identification between localities. This is where your database solution would come into play. But one region should have no unrestricted access to another region’s records.

                • jim says:

                  Problem then is that with big cities, or small villages with reasonable transport, it is easy for women to wander off. There is an infamous beach some four hundred kilometers from where I live, and it seems that every young woman in the vicinity wanders off to spend some time, quite a lot of time, partying on that beach. How do you handle that problem?

                • Koanic says:

                  > Problem then is that with big cities

                  In the Law, cities were governed by different rules. For example, land rights aren’t inalienable. Cities are indispensable but also prone to corruption; a strong conservative countryside does much to stabilize them. I have no problem with implementing your solution at a city scale. I don’t know what the best way is, exactly.

                  > There is an infamous beach some four hundred kilometers from where I live, and it seems that every young woman in the vicinity wanders off to spend some time, quite a lot of time, partying on that beach.

                  Bridal abduction should cut down on that sort of problem. Nobody wants to get abducted by Cletus.

                  Otherwise, travel requires passports. Certain classes, such as Levites, travelled through Israel regularly.

                  As far as women travelling alone, I can think of two examples – Dinah and ?pregnant Mary. I don’t know how far Mary went, but I reckon she was in some kind of safe zone. Dinah, that didn’t turn out well. Which explains why they probably didn’t travel solo much, or if they did, it was one way.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Census-taking is unavoidable in technologically advanced mass-scale societies. Being able to know if the female you seek to bang is owned or unowned serves the interests of both patriarchs and seducers; women should not be able to deceive men about their marital status. Hindus are using colorful dots on female foreheads, but these can be faked. An open database seems like a useful solution. It can be a regional, local thing if you don’t want the central government to have that information – but it probably will anyway.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  >inb4 someone suggests blockchain

                • Koanic says:

                  *register bitbang.com domain*

                • Andre says:

                  “Maybe he should be allowed to sell her as something akin to a slave in such cases (but not hereditary)… I don’t want very many unowned women running around.”

                  Is it an anglo-saxon tradition to auction off adulterous wives? What if nobody wants to buy her? I only really asked to know how far you’ll cuck. Do you propose that a man who was betrayed by his wife still has a responsibility to care and provide for her? To let her visit his children?

                • Andre says:

                  “women should not be able to deceive men about their marital status”

                  Good fucking God people… are you guys retarded or something? So you people think we can make women property again, but they’ll be running around by themselves with a tinder enabled smartphone on their pockets, going to college, partying at clubs, dancing half naked on the beach? This is NOT a real issue. There is absolutely no way for a woman to deceive a man about her marital status and get accidentaly fucked, because if she is married, even if she gets to hold some sort of job and walk around by herself and can claim to have no family to introduce you to and whatever else you can think of, she is going to be sleeping in his house. Even if the guy is some sort of trucker, there is just no realistic way to hide the fact she is married and if there is, it is the husband’s fault. Guys are tricked by married women today because women have absolute freedom and are showered with unearned resources. And because they want to be tricked. Half retarded primitives know how to deal with this issue.

                • The Cominator says:

                  And I ask again why are we paying any attention to Old Testament semitic law.

                  Our reaction should be Anglo reaction… to the extent it had biblical influences that is fine but by innovating these things into what the restoration should be we are holiness spiraling ourselves. Israel itself could not follow Old Testament law and Cromwell mostly quickly gave up on even bringing back Old Testament law lite and what laws he did bring back were declared null and void at the Restoration.

                • Andre says:

                  And I ask again Cominator, is it an anglo-saxon tradition to auction off adulterous wives? What if nobody wants to buy her?

                  You are perfectly willing to innovate. It is now an anglo-saxon tradition for men to die fighting for their wive’s right to cheat on them. Who actually invented “women’s suffrage”? Anglo-saxons, of course. A great tradition I say. Anglo-saxons will be so happy once they fully embrace their role in society and get on their knees to worship their whore and her bull as proper cucks. And then in a generation or two, there will be anglo-saxons no more and the world will be happy. Wait… omg, that is actually already happening! Three cheers for anglo-saxon self-genocide!

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You are perfectly willing to innovate.”

                  Andre what I have told you that works for us and what works for Brazil will probably be different.

                  So respect the Peace of Westphalia and stop trying to come up with a universal law.

                • StoneMan says:

                  “Husbands can’t kill adulterous wives” is just another way of saying “Cheating whores belong to the state.” Why do cheating whores belong to the state?

                  In THE CURRENT YEAR, cheating whores belong to the state because they humiliate decent men and destroy decent families. But post-reaction the state won’t be in the business of humiliating decent men and destroying decent families, so what is the incentive to protect them from the natural consequences of their actions?

                • Koanic says:

                  You can’t expect a Boston sperg to be comfortable with the idea of honor killing before it’s socially sanctioned. That’s alright, because you can expect a Southern sperg to be comfortable with nuking Boston. America needs more national parks, and a petting zoo full of tumescent Yankees sounds swell – nay, pustulent!

                • Andre says:

                  “Andre what I have told you that works for us and what works for Brazil will probably be different.”

                  I see, so you’re going to keep ignoring my question? Are you proposing that wives that cheated on their husbands retain the right to be fed by said husband, and live in his house, or are you at least willing to give the husband the right to abandon her?

                  “So respect the Peace of Westphalia”

                  Make me.

                • Andre says:

                  “Husbands can’t kill adulterous wives” is just another way of saying “Cheating whores belong to the state.”

                  Except it is not. It is another way of saying “the state belongs to cheating whores”. Which might explain why anglos like their Queens so much.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Andre doubtful any South American countries will ever conquer the world. Its almost certainly either Asians or Anglos (given how f***ed up our civilization is my money is on the Asians) so whatever form of Brazilian right wing borderless right wing conquest you imagine is not going to conquer the world.

                • Andre says:

                  “so whatever form of Brazilian right wing borderless right wing conquest you imagine is not going to conquer the world.”

                  Well first it has to conquer Brazil and get rid of cucks like Bolsonaro. Unless Bolsonaro uncucks himself, it will.

                • jim says:

                  Bolsonaro is no cuck, and Trump is no cuck.

                  The wall is late, but was nonetheless in the nick of time for the 2018 elections, and not yet as impressive as promised, but eight feet of razor wire on sharp stakes still impresses.

                  I hear an invader trying to infiltrate put her weight on the razor wire, fell down seven feet through the razor wire and impaled herself on a spike.

                  Oooh!

                  OK, the promised thirty feet would impress me even more, but eight feet of razor wire is still mighty impressive. And it really is thirty feet topped by razor wire in a few places where it is important to be really impressive. The wall the invaders recently stormed was indeed the promised thirty feet with razor wire on top.

                  Whee!

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You can’t expect a Boston sperg to be comfortable with the idea of honor killing before it’s socially sanctioned. That’s alright, because you can expect a Southern sperg to be comfortable with nuking Boston. ”

                  I sincerely doubt you hate that fucking commie shithole more then I do.

                  I’d do it in such a way some of the libraries and some of the best MIT minds were spared though.

            • peppermint says:

              U gay nigga?

              Your woman is not your friend or life-partner or whatever faggot 20cfaggotry you’re thinking of and she will resent you if you look at her like anything other than what she is, a walking fleshlight that can create a partial copy of you.

              Historically marriage is defined by consummation and consummation is defined by how babby is formed.

              Annulments are historically normal for infertility. Now it’s possible to pre-screen for likely infertility and use fertility treatments.

              Childless couples are not married and should not recieve any of the benefits married couples get. They should be ostracized as the sex perverts they are. If a woman cheats on her “husband” who never knocked her up, the state should reallocate her to the man who is willing to use her.

              If a woman cheats on her husband, she’s also cheating on the rest of her family. Whether or not she should be killed is up to her angry husband, and whether or not to kill the man should also be up to the angry husband.

        • Andre says:

          “and furthermore in practice whites are never willing to do that only Arabs and Turkic people are willing to actually kill people over adultery”

          That might explain why the white race is going extinct and “arabs and turkic people” are invading their lands, unopposed.

          • The Cominator says:

            That wasn’t the case back before mass divorce became legal and wife beating and marital rape became illegal. I want to go back to what was but not impose semitic innovations over what was.

            • Andre says:

              https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/21/us/what-penalty-for-a-killing-in-passion.html

              From OCT. 21, 1994, America:

              “Judge Robert E. Cahill sentenced Mr. Peacock to 18 months in prison, saying that he wished he did not have to send him to prison at all, but knew he must “to make the system honest.””

              “In some states, killing an adulterous wife, discovered in bed with another man, was considered justifiable homicide as recently as the early 1970’s.”

              https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/honor-killing-of-wives-is-outlawed-in-brazil.html

              From MARCH 29, 1991, Brazil:

              “Brazil’s Supreme Court has ruled that a man can no longer kill his wife and win acquittal on the ground of “legitimate defense of honor.”

              The ruling ends a 10-year legal battle. “It’s a historic decision,” said Jacqueline Pitanguy, a Brazilian women’s rights leader.”

              “In Brazil’s large coastal cities, juries have increasingly rejected the “defense of honor” as old-fashioned, but the strategy has continued to sway juries in Brazil’s interior.”

              “In the coffee-processing town of Apucarana, in Parana State, Joao Lopes became enraged in August 1988 when his wife, Teresa, announced that she was leaving him. Two days later Mr. Lopes found his wife and her lover, Jose Gaspar Felix, at a local hotel.”

              “Bursting into the hotel room, Mr. Lopes knifed his rival to death, then caught his fleeing wife in the street and killed her with two knife thrusts.”

              “At the first trial, a jury of nine men accepted the argument that Mr. Lopes had killed to defend his honor. An appeals court upheld the verdict. But in a 3-to-2 decision on March 12, the Supreme Court rejected the honor defense.”

              • peppermint says:

                So yeah, Brazil is looking a lot better than America. Capable White men actually haven’t been shut out of the economy very long in America. These men are the actual TRS crowd, not CR.

                Since Brazil presumably hasn’t done this to its future, Brazil’s 90 million Whites are going to be much more technologically and morally advanced than America’s 200 million in 20 years.

                Death to all professors.

          • jim says:

            I am absolutely certain that whites as individuals are willing to individually kill people over adultery, and a lot more whites would be willing to individually do so if it was legal. I want to restore the law of Deuteronomy as interpreted by the court of King Solomon on this matter. If The Book of Proverbs accurately reflects the policies of King Solomon’s regime, his regime did not punish adulterers, but if an adulterer wound up dead, no crime had been committed.

            • alf says:

              Oh I get it. So the main plotline of Shawshank Redemption was not escape from prison, it’s that the state now has permission to convict a man over killing his adulterous wife and her lover.

      • Nikolai says:

        “As to marriage, women want it, listen to Taylor Swift and Adele. But 20cfags have stolen the word marriage with their legalized divorcefaggotry, adulteryfaggotry, and sodomyfaggotry”

        Yes women want marriage, but they want it the most after they hit the wall and they want it the least while they’re in their prime. I was engaged to a 19 y/o virgin for a while, I’ll give you my experience.

        First off it’s not easy to even find a virgin at that age, most of the hot ones lose it in high school, but let’s say you find one and your game is so airtight that she’s head over heels for you. If you act alpha with her in public and she acts like a good girl who’ll do anything for you, it raises everyone’s white knight alarm. Many of her and your ‘friends’ will try to break you up simply for that. Some of them will confront her when you’re not around and ask her umpteen invasive probing questions about your relationship until they hear something they don’t like. Then everything you’ve ever done gets construed as abusive, manipulative or controlling.

        Won’t let her dye her hair purple? Abusive.

        Won’t let her be friends with mentally ill sodomites covered in self inflicted scars? Controlling.

        Trying to convince her that marriage is more important than a master’s degree? Manipulative.

        In the modern world, once women are able to read, they’re been bombarded with nonstop propaganda about how career is all that matters and she needs to stay in school from age 6 to age 24 if she wants a good career and that being a stay at home mother is worse than slavery etc. And her family buys it even more than she does and if they sense you’re a distraction from her education they’ll do everything they can to end it.

        Basically the cathedral, every social institution, all her family and friends, half your friends, her formative upbringing and most individuals will be against you. Eventually you guys will have a fight about something, interpret it as you no longer loving her just as everyone said you didn’t and it just kind of falls apart from there.

        “So call your woman sexbot instead of wife and make her watch The Jetsons and I Love Lucy until she realizes what you’re actually offering.”

        I have a feeling you’re saying something profound, but I’m not sure exactly what you mean. Dumb it down for me peppermint, don’t speak in riddles I’m but a humble <130iq.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Deleted for repetition. You made that argument before, failed to respond to people’s replies, and are instead simply repeating your argument.

            That capitalists are forced to employ women in jobs for which they are ill suited is unlikely to be a plot by the capitalist class against husbands, and does not serve the interests of capitalism. You made an argument that it does, it was not an entirely stupid argument, but not going to let you make it over and over again while ignoring other people’s responses.

            • The Cominator says:

              CR should be challenged to argue the following points since he disagrees with us.

              1) In economic terms we support a very quasi Misesian view (though we scoff at the idea of free market banking as rubbish that can’t exists) with a few differences on minor points. CR supports something much more akin to a command economy. CR should be asked to layout why he is right when we are wrong when command economies have a pretty consistent record of failure. Though I will grant in the short term command economies can do well in their areas of concentration though everything else suffers, thus you can make a real argument that command economies are okay short term for total war.

              2) CR argues a view popular on much of the alt-right but not popular here because Jim has debunked it fairly well that capitalist on the whole support the poz/globohomo/cathedral wholeheartedly, whereas in our view they are through means subtle and not so subtle coerced into doing it by various arms of the state.

              CR should argue his case on these points and then we can rebut and he wouldn’t have to keep arguing these two points.

              • jim says:

                He is unresponsive and repetitious, simply repeating his original claims over and over and over and over.

                Sometimes he makes plausible claims, and presents arguable evidence, sometimes completely absurd and and ridiculous claims, but either way, he never responds to a response, just makes the original claim all over again, perhaps in a different form.

                Thus, he will always assume Marxist Class Theory is true, and that capitalism is a recent innovation, but will never present an argument for this transparently insane claim (for any attempt to argue it would be nuts), instead telling us everyone know it to be true, that we know it to be true.

                Sometimes most of his argument consists of telling us that we agree with him, or that other authorities agree with him.

                I just censored the entirely plausible and defensible argument that capitalists favor female emancipation because it doubles their workforce. To which I could have made the obvious counter argument, and censoring an entirely reasonable and relevant argument was kind of bad, but the trouble is that arguing whether they do or don’t favor female emancipation presupposes that capitalists rule, and I am just not going to go there until he is prepared to make an argument that capitalists rule, and he is not going to go there until he makes the argument that capitalism is recent, which he never does.

                I am censoring the unsupported claim that capitalism is recent, until he is actually prepared to make an argument that it is recent, and I am censoring even relevant and responsive arguments that presuppose that capitalists rule, unless he is prepared to argue that presupposition.

                The trouble is that if I let him post stuff that presupposes Marxist class theory, he will post thirty pages of stuff that presuppose Cultural Marxist Class theory while supposedly arguing that the sky is blue. He bangs the table and says “I tell you the sky is blue!”, while all the time what he is really telling us that there is a broad consensus that cultural Marxism is true.

                It is not so much that I have to silence the claim that there is a broad consensus that Cultural Marxism is true, there is indeed a broad consensus that it is true. The trouble is that thirty pages telling us that the sky is blue wastes a lot of space. Similarly I will not let Troofers tell us that an object in free fall accelerates downward at ten meters per second per second, and that burning jet fuel cannot melt steel, because if allowed, will tell us that for thirty pages.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m trying to challenge him to step his game up and stop doing the “how do we do fellow reactionaries” thing which results in him posting long strings which you delete.

                  He can’t stop coming here apparently so he should make the case for his views and not keep trying to say that his beliefs on these two points are our beliefs.

                  Belief 2 IS popular on a lot of the alt-right now (Vox Day is going way too far in that direction) CR isn’t wrong about that but we don’t believe it here.

              • The Cominator says:

                “I just censored the entirely plausible and defensible argument that capitalists favor female emancipation because it doubles their workforce. To which I could have made the obvious counter argument, and censoring an entirely reasonable and relevant argument was kind of bad, but the trouble is that arguing whether they do or don’t favor female emancipation presupposes that capitalists rule, and I am just not going to go there until he is prepared to make an argument that capitalists rule, and he is not going to go there until he makes the argument that capitalism is recent, which he never does.”

                Also we know directly that isn’t what happened because its now a matter of record how second wave feminism started. The CIA (that would be an organ of the deep state/permanent government) decided to double the workforce and paid a bunch of almost entirely jewish woman to push this meme and arranged favorable media coverage etc.

                I guess CR could argue that the CIA was under the direct control of big capitalists at the time.

          • alf says:

            CR, at this point everyone here agrees that you are an idiot. There is nothing for you to gain in posting here, except reasserting that you are the village idiot. Which of course you are free to do if you wish.

            I’ll give an alternative option: surely you are by now slowly coming to the realization that the people here are evil, absolutely evil. Massive black pilling. Massive. But no one yet realizes it except you! You are like the scout in the movie Troy who discovers the Greek fleet never left at all.

            Better run off and tell everyone about the unspeakable evil you found here…

        • peppermint says:

          You’re supposed to consummate or leave instead of wasting its hottest years holding it like a teddy bear. There’s a reason normal men and sexbots, if they don’t use the sexbot’s full functionality, abandon the sexbot, probably returning it to its factory, after two to four years.

          Sexbots have to put up with that from men the way cars have to put up with driving on the same road back and forth for up to three hours every day. I bet the cars listen to Adele too.

          A sexbot is ready to take a man after 17-21 years, which is when a man, 21-25, is supposed to be ready to take a sexbot. But men aren’t ready. Some sexbots whine about manchildren in the media. Others see whining as presumptuous and just listen to Adele.

          • peppermint says:

            (I’m autistic, so I chose the most capable autistic sexbot and promised to use its full functionality when our representatives figure out just what the hll is going on. We have no choice. Autism is ripping us off on reproduction, that’s why people voted for a natalist)

          • jewish pedophile says:

            >A sexbot is ready to take a man after 17-21 years, which is when a man, 21-25

            Not this again…

            Women in modern society only become “ready for marriage” in their late 20s because they are subject to incessant unrelenting mandatory infantilization by kindergartens and schools (+academia) since age 3 or so. Obviously, if you’re going to incessantly relentlessly mandatorily infantilize everyone since age 3 till age 27, they’ll only be “ready for marriage” at 27.

            Males should be able to provide for their families since age 10 or so, females should be able to be housewives since age 10 or so. You don’t see anything remotely similar going on under the 20th century and 21st century Prussian School System, from which you should not conclude that people are only naturally “ready for marriage” at 27, but that the Prussian School System of the 20th and 21st centuries needs to be a-fucking-bolished.

            I cannot imagine a properly Jimian society with the Prussian School System in place. If we agree that the PSS needs to be fully terminated, we shall see that people are “ready for marriage” at age 10 or so, rather than at 27. If the PSS isn’t fully terminated, not a properly Jimian society, in my view.

            It’s not just the PSS: the entire infantilization culture, aka “kid culture,” (promoted by pedophile Lewis Carrol, btw), needs to be abolished. Not to go full-CR, but the King should ban Dora the Explorer. The King should ban anything that infantilizes kids and teens. There’s no way around this one.

            Ban Dora!

            • peppermint says:

              > 10 year old boys are capable of plowing a woman
              > 10 year old boys are capable of plowing a field

              • jewish pedophile says:

                Where did I imply the former? (I didn’t)

                What I said is that 10-year-old boys need to be able to provide basic sustenance for their would-be families, so that when they marry — at ages 12 or 14 or 17 — it will already be possible for them to function as patresfamilias, to depend as little as possible on other people.

                This should not be a controversial point.

                • peppermint says:

                  > 10 year old boys can use power tools without adult supervision

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  10-year-old boys can work a whole lot of thing. No need to infantilize them.

                • peppermint says:

                  I read Romeo and Juliet when I was 14. There was exactly one girl in the grade worth stabbing Tybalt over.

                  Tybalt would have been the gym instructor.

                  So after 16 year old me somehow duels the gym instructor and wins, getting the attention of the entire town…

                  …then I’m supposed to take a derpy 12 year old instead of my pick of 18yo qt3.14’s?

                  Why?

                  The power of love?

                  Shakespeare was a fag.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You are an outlier and estrogeno-cephalic.

                  Also, retard, 12-year-old girls don’t stay 12 forever; all Stacies, 100% of Stacies, were 12 once. A 13-year-old boy married to a 12-year-old girl may well have a smokin’ hot babe when both of them are older.

                • jim says:

                  The problem is not twelve year old girs getting married, or eight year old girls getting married. For quite a lot of girls, a substantial minority of girls, eight years is a fine age to get married, and by twelve most of them are impatient to get nailed. The problem rather is that for a husband to exercise proper authority, he needs his own household. The problem is thirteen year old boys getting married, because while a twelve year old girls is more than ready to perform the duties of a wife, a thirteen year old boy is not yet ready to command and support his own household.

                  I favor apprenticeship and early exit from the education system, a system where boys become men early by gaining the capacity to support their own household, be it ever so humble, and as soon as they can, they find themselves getting a virgin and obedient wife, and as long as they cannot, they don’t get any pussy, because all the pussy is kept locked up.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Shakespeare was a fag.

                  Shakespeare fully agreed with you that young sex is bad and evil and immoral – that’s why he wrote Romeo and Juliet. It’s a warning against allowing such relations to develop in the first place.

                  You’re both fags, for the same reason.

                • peppermint says:

                  Romeo should have been 22 so it would be reasonable for him to stab Tybalt. Juliet should have been 18 so she would be worth stabbing Tybalt over. Romeo shouldn’t have been a pussy fag bitch with oneitis.

                  So basically it should have been a normal action story.

                  The reason the men had so much trouble with orcs in LotR is their discipline standards were so low Eowyn was able to pretend to be a soldier and sneak into the most important battle of the age.

                • jim says:

                  Romeo was probably around seventeen in that he had a boy beard, but had to shave because he had “no manly beard” Thus plenty old enough to stab Tybalt. Juliet was thirteen, thus old enough to bear him children. Lots of thirteen year olds are well worth stabbing over. Most of them are not, but quite a lot of them are.

                  If Romeo was in the economic position to take care of a wife and child, and he seems to have been tolerably affluent, completely age appropriate. That he intended to elope with and marry Juliet presupposes the economic capability to elope and marry. Juliet is told she had better make sure he marries her, indicating a suspicion that he might pump and dump, but no one tells her that he is likely to pump and dump for lack of a place to keep her. People are worried about his willingness to perform the proper role of a husband, but no one worries about his economic capability to perform the proper role of a husband.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >So basically it should have been a normal action story.

                  But it wasn’t, because Shakespeare set out to prove that the wages of sin is always death, his raison d’etre for writing the tragedy.

                  According to Anglo Feminists, the sin is young people having sex drives when, “of course,” they should be absolutely asexual, like angels fallen from the sky. Bad, bad teenagers, being horny n’ sheeeit. Must be Satan’s evil mind control rays, without which erections and ejaculations would be unheard of till age 25. Sure.

                  According to Jim, the sin is puritans and feminists taking away our ability to enforce young marriage on misbehaving girls – or shotgun marriage on both parties.

                • Nikolai says:

                  JP you don’t exactly have a lot of room to call other people outliers

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  That’s actually true, but not for reasons I’ve disclosed here.

                  (I’m not a pedo)

                • peppermint says:

                  Romeo Montagyu is a 17 year old student at the elite Verona Academy. When he crashes a party and discovers the ravishing freshman Jurietto, with the help of his best friend Merukyushio, he must defeat the held-back otaku Tirubato at Dance Dance Revolution, while keeping his grades up and avoiding getting expelled.

                • peppermint says:

                  Usagi-chan is a well developed 14, and her friends are jealous that despite being lazy she gets the mysterious old man Tuxedo Kamen, simply because her cat told her she’s the princess of the moon.

                  No one really says it’s weird for them to be together based on age.
                  Tuxedo Kamen is a full grown man and fights with his stick sometimes instead of using girl magic.

                  Usagi throws her magic tiara at the people from the Negaverse and banishes them.

                  Eowyn in LotR isn’t surrounded by suitors because Tolkien wasn’t writing a romance, he just had an autogynophiliac sex fetish for action girls.

                  The irony that created 4chan is that these derpy Japanese cartoons are less derpy than what passes for great literature in the West.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            (You say “gas the professors, weltanscauung war now,” yet it is my weltanscauung that will lead to the abolition of the parasitic professoriat class. The irony)

          • jewish pedophile says:

            (I’ll pretend to be the Chinaman you accuse me of being: “The suggestion that people should get married past age 17 at the latest sets my blood boiling like a Wonton soup!”)

            • peppermint says:

              You’re still taking a WoW gold farmer’s attitude towards this game. Except sort of the opposite, more like a speedrunner’s attitude, it is technically possible to knock up a 12 year old at 13, therefore that’s when we’re going to do it.

              Serious men compete with each other at age 22 for the hottest 18 year old and ugly 22 year old whommurns wish they had been chosen at the age you specify.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                >it is technically possible to knock up a 12 year old at 13, therefore that’s when we’re going to do it.

                Do you take me for a puritan?

                Contraception dates back to prehistory. A 13-year-old boy married to a 12-year-old girl (not historically uncommon) does not have to knock her up.

                • peppermint says:

                  > what is a mortal sin

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  To have infertile, sterile sex past age 16 or so, because it harms the 14w. Prior to age 16 or so, not an offense against the 14w to have infertile, sterile sex.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                Jim’s position on 8-year-old girls is justified both rationalistically and empirically.

                Rationalistically, we know that girls mature several years *faster* than boys, earlier that is, meaning that a 12-year-old girl is the equivalent of a 16-year-old boy. We also know that non-deviant boys become super horny at 12 or 13. Which logically suggests that girls become super horny at 8 or 9.

                Empirically, we have ample anecdotes to confirm the volcanic sex drives of young girls. If they are uncontrollable, as experience demonstrates to those willing to look reality in the face without flinching back, then they should be married off, so as to prevent misbehavior.

                There is no reason to infantilize boys. Once they become interested in having a female “partner,” preparations should commence for getting them engaged and then promptly married. You want to force 13-year-old boys to suffer 10 years of blue balls and marry at 23. I see no reason to do that, other than you being a blue pilled puritan.

                Boys should not have to suffer 10 years of blue balls. It’s not justified to inflict that on them. Anyone who proposes to force boys to suffer 10 years of blue balls has had his mind infected by the blue pill. You are estrogeno-cephalic. Your brain is full of estrogen. Men aren’t fallen angels, but risen killer apes. Risen killer apes should not suffer years of blue balls to satisfy your puritan worldview.

                There is no reason to subject boys to 10 years of blue balls. Young marriage suits both males and females. Jimianity is a coherent worldview: each piece of the puzzle fits.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Is there historical precedent for this?

                • peppermint says:

                  lol jp

                  the world offers you comfort, but you were not made for comfort, you were made for greatness — Benedict XVI

                • BC says:

                  >There is no reason to subject boys to 10 years of blue balls. Young marriage suits both males and females. Jimianity is a coherent worldview: each piece of the puzzle fits.

                  Most successful civilizations wait until the boy is successful(owning a home is the typical standard) before assigning a wife. There is a good reason to make boys wait for marriage (not sex): Force them to become successful before they marry. The ones who are fuck ups don’t reproduce.

                • jim says:

                  We socially but not legally subject them to blue balls until they can afford to rent an adequate place, and they should be able to afford an adequate place on completion of apprenticeship.

                  By “socially but not legally” I mean that fathers are socially required to insist on adequate means before marrying off their daughters, but we should not meddle to prevent bad and stupid fathers from doing bad and stupid things, because if we do, we wind up with our current evil and disastrous “Child Protective Services”. The best of well meaning bureaucrats and judges is rarely an improvement on the worst of fathers, as our current system demonstrates with great regularity.

                  If elopement, and the eloping couple wind up sleeping under a bridge, or if the lad pumps her and dumps her, then rape, but elopement should be legally enforceable marriage if you have to knock on the boy’s door, unless the lad is stupid enough to tell the father and the cops that he intends to dump her shortly, in which case, the elopement was rape. If the lad plausibly claims intent to keep her, and has the means to do so, elopement should be marriage, not rape, even if the Dad is really pissed, with some exceptions for extreme and unusual cases.

                  But we need to make sure that successful completion of apprenticeship is very shortly followed by an obedient virgin wife. Otherwise we get both males and females trying to beat the system, resulting in dysgenic reproduction as bad boys reproduce and good boys do not, and girls become alpha widows, because the boys who do the socially required (but unrewarded) thing are not alpha enough for them. We have to give males and females prompt sexual gratification for working within the system, or else it will never be successfully enforced. Delayed sexual gratification is going to result in the social order being industriously subverted by both males and females.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If the lad plausibly claims intent to keep her, and has the means to do so, elopement should be marriage, not rape, even if the Dad is really pissed, with some exceptions for extreme and unusual cases.”

                  I think the father should have full control to arrange marriages between 14 and 20. If the father fails to do so by 21 then elopement without the father’s consent becomes legal.

                • jim says:

                  > I think the father should have full control to arrange marriages between 14 and 20

                  With a magic wand?

                  Full control of a fourteen year old girl resembles full control of an erupting volcano. Hard enough to make them stick with lover number one.

                  Delaying sex till twenty is probably feasible in a great many cases, and with sufficiently stern measures, probably most cases. But there are going to be a whole lot of colorful incidents where it does not work out. Need to regularize such incidents with least possible drama.

                  If your social order gets in the way of basic and powerful human drives, basic and powerful human drives are going to roll over it like a steamroller over a bug.

                  You have to try to channel these drives in prosocial directions. Attempting to thwart them is unlikely to work.

                • The Cominator says:

                  My priority is more to prevent unowned women and seeing suitable matches and restoring marriage 1.0 so I don’t care so much if the father fails to guard their virginity.

                  Obviously the father is probably not going to stop her from getting nailed at 17 at the latest but I still think he should be able to veto an unsuitable shotgun wedding up to that age, otherwise too many women will get to pick their partners spouses by climbing out of the house and fucking them, promising to keep it hidden but actually announcing it so they’ll get shotgunned wedding and then you are back to women picking their spouse rather then the father picking someone suitable. Hence the father still needs the ability to veto any marriage up to a certain age.

                  Elopement after a certain age should be a mechanism to get them paired off if their father fails in his duty to arrange marriage.

                • Koanic says:

                  In the Bible, in cases of “rape”, the father had the right to inflict a fine and refuse the marriage, if the man was utterly unsuitable. If the offender was unable to pay, he would then be sold into slavery.

                  The girl’s prospects would then be publicly damaged, of course. That’s what concubinage is for.

                • jim says:

                  The Bible has no concept of rape.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, I was using the scare quotes for brevity to refer to the Biblical analogue thereof, when a man lays hands on a virgin not betrothed, her consent irrelevant.

                • Koanic says:

                  Also, there is the instance when a man has sex with a married/betrothed woman in the field, meaning low population density, isolated location, and therefore the woman is presumed to have yelled for help, and only the man is executed.

                • jim says:

                  Her consent or lack thereof only affects her guilt, not his.

                • Koanic says:

                  Hence I called it “rape”, because it was the absent consent of the father that was relevant, not the maid, and this was Cominator’s concern, which I was addressing.

                  Rape should mean absence of father’s consent, or violation of husband’s rights, but has been perverted into an anticoncept. Back when it was called, “The Rape of Lucrece,” the word meant something.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            The Prussian School System is Feminism’s most insidious trick, because literally no aspect of Feminism can remain intact if the PSS is abolished.

            Hedonism, social engineering, puritanism, female careerism – all of it is incentivized by the PSS.

            No more Prussian School System means that youngsters will be accustomed to productive labor rather than to leisurely indulgence; it means that it will no longer be pretended that “education will bring equality – so we need more education to have greater equality, goyim”; it means that the myth of teenage asexuality will be dispelled once and for all, leading to teenage marriage and high TFR; and it means that mothers need to stay at home to raise the family rather than pursuing muh career.

            Jim wrote, “We need enforceable apprenticeships. Boys should start work at well before puberty. All academic job requirements are artificial.” This needs to be a Reaction 101 tenet.

            When boys start work well before puberty and girls learn domestic discipline well before puberty — when schools, kindergartens, and *infantilizing entertainment directed at kids* are done away with — you will see Feminism collapsing as women will have to be real mothers again! I want 1850 waifuism, not 1950 waifuism, and that necessitates abolishing the PSS.

            The King should ban Dora the Explorer.

            😉

            • The Cominator says:

              Now this is a good post. Public education is the biggest root of the poz if there is public education (other then military academies) it should be basic literacy and arithmetic and maybe a later course of Starship Troopers style civics only. Otherwise it needs to be abolished.

              • peppermint says:

                I watched a teenager teach a child sibling to read in order to play vidya. If school started a 6 months instead of 6 years people would think without going to school no one would know how to walk.

                I was quite capable of learning penmanship and arithmetic on my own schedule and I assume everyone who refused to pay attention in school and forgot about it and then learned as needed did too.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                Yep.

                USG’s war against Boko Haram is evil, is priests playing global thought-police and sex-police for Feminism. Bullshit needs to be forbidden. Even if girls aren’t taught to put condoms on bananas, even if they only learn “basic” stuff, that evidently completely disrupts healthy sex relations such as existed in 1850.

                There can be civilian schools for the top 1% of males, for geniuses. 99% of boys and 100% of girls should never have to sit inside a classroom and listen to some cuck or whore wasting everyone’s time.

            • This is not feminism’s trick but the establishment of rule by intellectuals, which is the essence of leftism, which was successfully co-opted by feminist intellectuals.

              If you zoom out, you find the PSS is a very good system for training an academic. I am talking about the structure, not content, of course.

              Everybody else being trained by how academics are is obviously bad for them, but the goal is to give high status to academics.

              I was doing a bit of a postgraduate in the UK, learning something entirely pragmatic one would use in a normal corporate non-academic job. Yet the whole thing was disguised as an academic thing, from the ethics like cheating at an exam is called Academic Misconduct which is absolutely not acceptable for future scholars to writing theses by comparing books instead of actually doing things.

              It was not very useful for my job at the end of the day, I just thought it will be. But my resume looks now a bit more like that of an academic, and that gets me better non-academic jobs because it equals higher status.

              This is the essence of the whole thing. While the oldest roots of the PSS may lie in military training, Prussia-Germany was perhaps one of the first countries where academics had the highest status, Fritz Ringer’s The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community 1890–1933 is a very intstructive work in this regard.

              Of course it also works for feminists, because feminism is marxism for women and marxism is academic power and status.

              • peppermint says:

                now if only academics were as useful to society as robbers

              • The Cominator says:

                “feminist intellectuals.”

                Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

                We may be ruled by priests who incorporated feminism into the state religion but the term “feminist intellectuals” is laughable. Feminists don’t have genuine intellectuals. They have shrieking idiots who read a script someone else wrote for them. Thats how feminism started (with the CIA giving scripts to a bunch of jewish women they paid) and its basically what it is today.

          • Nikolai says:

            Still not 100% sure what you mean. Are you saying I should’ve married her and gotten her pregnant?

            Well I would have been more than happy to knock her up, but there were a few things that kept me from doing so. She has really bad anxiety/panic disorders and is constantly stressed out and barely eats anything. Pretty sure in that state she’d miscarry within a few months. That and her dad is singlemindedly obsessed with her career and would almost definitely force her to get an abortion so she could finish college instead of raising a child.

            We were both in the age range you gave and she wore my ring for a few months. I wanted to compromise with her parents and wait till we graduated to get married and do marriage prep our senior year. Didn’t work out. Maybe I should’ve decided not to negotiate with terrorists, went to the courthouse and explicitly claimed ownership of her away from her 40 year old boomer dad. Maybe she’s too crazy to marry and the break up was God saving me from a life-ruining decision. Idk, I’ll let you know in 5 or years or so how it works out.

            And her favorite thing in the world was when I held her like a teddy bear. It was the only thing that brought her peace. Once I had my arm around her for 2 hours while we watched a movie, basically made her week.

            • peppermint says:

              /b/ro you were supposed to elope like Romeo and Juliet. Beyond being hard to define, feeling ready is a consequence of the hormonal changes due to it happening.

              The purpose of talking about being a man of action isn’t to trick sexbots into permitting you to use their fleshlight functionality. The purpose of the fleshlight functionality of sexbots is to inspire you to be a man of action.

              • Nikolai says:

                Can’t really Romeo and Juliet in the current year when we were both fully dependent on our parents and hers were completely hostile to the idea of marriage.

                I’ll ask you one more time, autist to autist. In plain English, what do you think I should’ve done? Where’d I fuck up? Impart your wisdom on me peppermint and relieve me of my errors.

                • peppermint says:

                  Oh. You were dependent on your parents, therefore she was betrothed to you pending you getting on your own feet. There is no answer. The game was rigged against us so Millennials need to flip the table.

            • Andre says:

              You should have kept her completely away from her toxic parents. Could you have? Could you have supported and properly husbanded a wife? Sounds like no. Yes, modern society makes this much harder than it should be, and it is disgusting the degree to which men are having their lives essentially ruined by feminism, and they don’t fucking fight back.

            • The Cominator says:

              “Anxiety disorder” = toxic bitch and ticking time bomb. You dodged a bullet.

              Girls with so called borderline personality disorder are far more manageable then “anxiety disorder” girls.

              • Nikolai says:

                Not a toxic bitch whatsoever. Most girls with anxiety are (though I wouldn’t say borderline girls are more manageable than they are) but I found the exception. Yes every guy says they found the exception, the thing is I actually did and the proof of that is that I’m currently not behind bars.

                She has many flaws, very severe flaws. Bitchiness is not one of them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You sure it was “anxiety”.

                  Anxiety girls are the type of girl who falsely accuses you of rape and other such things without giving you any warning.

                  Borderlines despite their bad reputation are likely to threaten to accuse you of rape with over the top warning but actually not follow through, be sincerely ashamed and sorry (which is one thing I like about so called “BPDs” in contrast to all other women, they don’t rationalize their bad actions they feel real regret over it and generally harm only themselves).

                • jim says:

                  My experience is that girls always give you ample warning before accusing you of rape. It is a shit test, and leads to the actual accusation to police only when you fail the shit test. If you handle the police in a respectful but dignified way, alpha male to alpha male, the accusation evaporates – she just wants to check you against other alpha males. You don’t have to out alpha them, that being a quite unpassable shit test when you are accused, but merely show you are comparably alpha, merely another alpha. It is a really harsh shit test, but still possible to pass it without being a billionaire vampire pirate king.

                  Well, your experience may differ, and I have not had to handle a statistically significant number of rape accusations, but that was my experience.

                • Nikolai says:

                  It wasn’t “anxiety” it was legitimate anxiety. As in public speaking makes her so scared she almost passes out. Crowds and loud noises give her panic attacks, though sometimes she’ll just get them for no reason. During severe panic attacks she’s basically unable to see or hear and can barely breathe. She told me it feels like water is trapped in her throat so she tries to claw her neck open, and if I wasn’t there to pin her wrists down she’d keep scratching until her neck’s bloody and she’d have a big scab on her for a couple weeks.

                  She’s had ample opportunity to accuse me of rape and many people have encouraged/demanded her to have me arrested, but she never even considered it. She really is one of the few virtuous women out there.

  16. Doug Smythe says:

    > In the Israel of the time of Jesus, the priests carried out the punishment, but this does not appear to have been the case in the Solomon’s Israel. That priests interfered, whether against the husband or against the wife, looks to me like priests out of control and grabbing state power.

    Jim, I think the priests would have seen it differently. Remember that in their religion, the prohibition on adultery is a matter of Divine law, not just family honour. If the cuckold fails to punish it with death for whatever reason, someone else has to. From the description in Proverbs, I think the Biblical author was addressing urban settings where it may have been much less likely that every offense would come to the attention of authorities (because of social atomization, and especially the lack of cops), hence the need to scare young people with the image of immediate private enforcement.

    Re: adultery today: A solution more compatible with Anglo traditions and way of life than allowing lawless dindu-like vendettas in the King’s streets would be: a) If one or both of the offenders were killed immediately after being discovered by the cuckold in the marital bed in his own home, defense of provocation available to him, and if successful, sentence dumbed down from 25-life to let’s say 12-8 months. b) If he hunts down and beats the shit out of the guy outside his home, the cops don’t press charges as long as the fight was fair (no weapons, etc.). Not a perfect solution, but what solution is.

    • BC says:

      >Jim, I think the priests would have seen it differently. Remember that in their religion, the prohibition on adultery is a matter of Divine law, not just family honour. If the cuckold fails to punish it with death for whatever reason, someone else has to.

      A remember reading a medieval story about a man who was being cuckolded by his wife. First, the public humiliated for not doing anything, then they moved on to beating up the man with a mob. This was all done socially.

      >Re: adultery today: A solution more compatible with Anglo traditions and way of life than allowing lawless dindu-like vendettas in the King’s streets would be: a) If one or both of the offenders were killed immediately after being discovered by the cuckold in the marital bed in his own home, defense of provocation available to him, and if successful, sentence dumbed down from 25-life to let’s say 12-8 months. b) If he hunts down and beats the shit out of the guy outside his home, the cops don’t press charges as long as the fight was fair (no weapons, etc.). Not a perfect solution, but what solution is.

      Anglo traditions used to beating the crap out of people who got out of line and the law didn’t care. You’re talking about progressive traditions of bending over and taking it.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Anglo traditions used to beating the crap out of people who got out of line and the law didn’t care.”

        But generally did care if you killed them except in a duel or a mass lynching for known criminals.

        • jim says:

          Whig History.

          When abruptly they turn the social order arse over tit, they always piously announce that everyone supports them, and next year it is announced that things have always been this way to the stone age.

          Private law enforcement continued all the way to 1910-1915 in California, with banks sending bounty hunters to collect bank robbers dead or alive.

          The founder of Stanford University was notoriously apt to personally hang wrongdoers in the 1880s

          Leland Stanford founded Stanford University “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization.

          He would also personally and in public promote the public welfare by hanging people who caused problems.

          By and large, the law did not care about private violence as such. It cared about bad behavior apt to lead to private violence. This automatically gave us a more manly elite – since if you are part of the elite, your violence is more likely to be tolerated, hence more manly in they eyes of females.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Private law enforcement continued all the way to 1910-1915 in California, with banks sending bounty hunters to collect bank robbers dead or alive.”

            Not disputing this but these were all done to known outlaws.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        I’m talking about the King’s peace, which is not a progressive concept, or a recent one. If you travel outside YOUR own home to beat the crap out of the person who YOU think did you wrong- you step on the King’s toes. But the Crown’s officers don’t have to press the issue in each and every case, and can give a guy a break where he deserves one, as long as the Crown thinks they should. Everybody wins. That’s the Anglo tradition.

    • The Cominator says:

      Agree with you.

      Adultery should be a mitigating factor in murder and an exempting factor in severe beatings but it should not be a scott free matter of life and death. That is the Islamic (and ancient Jewish/Semitic way) but its never been our way and when Cromwell tried to introduce a death penalty for adultery (with a much more puritanical and severe anglo society making up the jury pool) it was still almost always jury nullifed.

      Your solution is much closer to actual reaction.

      • jim says:

        Pretty sure your history is false. The trouble with Cromwell’s law was that he redefined adultery in a way unacceptable to the general public and heretical against older versions of Christianity. The trouble with his law, or at least what people were complaining about, was not the state executing adulterers but Puritanism, heresy, and supererogation.

        People just don’t get upset about husbands killing men who cuckold them, just as they don’t get upset with old men and very young girl couples. Theoretically they get upset, but actually, not too worried.

        • The Cominator says:

          How so? Cromwell’s law actually said married men screwing unmarried women wasn’t adultery. It was only adultery for a married woman to be screwing around and for her lover.

          This was the traditional view of adultery (it was the insane Scots Covenanter Puritans who went full retard on these issues). Cromwell was actually a rather moderate puritan and after the major general period (which lasted only two years) he mostly gave up on the idea of introducing Old Testament law…

        • The Cominator says:

          I guess you could say Cromwell’s law differed from what you want done in that it relied on the state to execute the offenders rather then private enforcement of it. But it was still the only attempt I know in the Anglo world (well the Puritan Mass Bay colony had a similar law) to make adultery (other then with the queen, adultery with the queen was treason) legally a matter of life and death.

          It is perhaps also found in the draconian lawes divine morall and martiall of the Jamestown colony (I haven’t checked) but the lawes divine morall and martiall make it clear that Jamestown was essentially a penal colony/labor camp something which Americans are lied about in school.

    • jim says:

      > Jim, I think the priests would have seen it differently.

      And I think Solomon would have been inclined to execute a priest who was grabbing status and power in that manner. I surely would have had I been in his shoes, and he did execute one high priest and install another. Supererogation is always a threat to the authority of the King as the fount of all honors, mortal and divine.

      But regardless of whether he did or did not, the Book of Proverbs, which plausibly depicts itself as issued by the Court of King Solomon, and subsequently edited and re-issued by his successors, depicts the killing of adulterers as a private matter. Looks to me that if the husband failed to take effective action, he would be socially shamed, but the adulterers would be fine.

      I think we can take the Book of Proverbs as an accurate indicator of the social order of the Israel of King Solomon, the way society actually worked, and the balance between social and legal enforcement, since in that period it was common for Kings to issue similar books for the purpose of encouraging right conduct and getting everyone on the same page about the social order. It reads like the sort of document that it claims to be, moral guidance supplementing and providing a context to coercive law. And the advice is that if you attempt to pay off the husband to not kill you, he may be disinclined to take the payoff, which implies that he should not take the pay off, but if he does, the adulterers will be fine. The husband, however, may not be fine, since people will disapprove of him accepting the pay off.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        > I think Solomon would have been inclined to execute a priest who was grabbing status and power in that manner. I surely would have had I been in his shoes, and he did execute one high priest and install another. Supererogation is always a threat to the authority of the King as the fount of all honors, mortal and divine.

        What I should have said is that if everybody including the King believes that the prohibition on adultery was literally dictated by God to an ancestral patriarch, then adultery becomes more than a private matter. Not every man is in a position to defend the family honour against the guy who cucks him, and if he can’t then there is at least one adulterer who needs to be punished, since you can’t make exceptions to Divine laws. (Not to say they *forbade* a man from trying to do it privately- I don’t know, and from Proverbs it doesn’t sound like it- but that it would be more than a purely private affair)

        • jim says:

          Book of Proverbs presents itself as Solomon writing advice for his numerous sons, and I suppose that in substantial part it is, though it also identifies itself in substantial part as the creation of royal scribes of the royal bureaucracy, revised under his successors, so this may be framing device. Similar frames appear in similar books issued by other Kings during this period of history.

          Book of Proverbs threatens the adulterer with private vengeance, not public vengeance:

          Proverbs 6:

          25 Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.

          26 For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

          27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

          28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

          29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

          30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

          31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

          32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

          33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

          34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.

          35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.

          Proverbs 7:

          10 And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.

          11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:

          12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)

          13 So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him,

          14 I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows.

          15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.

          16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.

          17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.

          18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.

          19 For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey:

          20 He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed.

          21 With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.

          22 He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;

          So, a thief can pay off his victim with a seven fold payout, but for an adulterer, likely no payout, and if he makes a payout, the offended husband can still take vengeance anyway. And the law of Deuteronomy specifies death for adulterers, from which we may conclude that vengeance was apt to be lethal.

          This implies a system of private enforcement. The specific amount for theft (seven fold) suggests private vengeance subject to government regulation or priestly regulation and restraint, and we would expect substantial government regulation of private vengeance since Solomonic Israel had a strong centralized monarchy with high taxes and (in time of emergency) universal conscription. But Solomon tells us that sleeping with another man’s wife is worse than theft of material goods, which of course it is according to Darwin.

          Evolutionary psychology predicts we should be more pissed about adultery than theft, Solomon tells us men are more pissed about adultery than theft, and that God is more pissed about adultery than theft.

          Killing adulterers comes to us naturally. To refrain from deadly force is as hard as not blinking during an eye exam, and intolerably humiliating.

          • Koanic says:

            Yes, definitely private enforcement. See the sanctuary city system. It is assumed that blood will be revenged with blood, by the clan of the offended.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Whatever the case may be, where men continue to have a strong sense of personal honour they’ll exact vengeance to restore it regardless of what the law does or doesn’t say. In our own, more recent European history it took centuries to get rid of dueling. A lot of these affairs took place over relatively petty insults much less serious than adultery, and even punishing dueling with death couldn’t deter them where a man’s honour was worth more to him than his life. A guy who’s willing to risk his life in a duel to prove a point is also willing to risk being led to the chopping-block for doing it. Likewise in our own day if you disrespect elite motorcycle clubs, you’ll be physically punished and possibly, killed for doing it as certainly as the adulterer in Solomon’s day would, since when it comes to defending their club those guys just aren’t afraid of jail.

  17. Nate Higgers says:

    A question for all the spergs, tradcucks, virgins, pedophiles, mischlings, mouthbreathers, and nerds-of-reaction.

    What makes you think that your “Restoration” will actually ever happen? You sound exactly like Antifa promising to take over America any day now… the Glorious Revolution errr Restoration is right around the corner, amirite?

    This community reads like an out of control LARP. Rest assured: “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” You should never forget that, my dudes.

    • Andre says:

      “What makes you think that your “Restoration” will actually ever happen? You sound exactly like Antifa promising to take over America any day now… the Glorious Revolution errr Restoration is right around the corner, amirite?”

      The writing is on the wall. If the west does not return to some semblance of sanity, then “the restoration” will involve going back to 610 and bin Laden will be hailed as the hero of our age. The empire is collapsing. The Machine is stopping. Living on a frontier province of the empire (Brazil) I can see this with possibly more clarity than those still enjoying the comfort of being in a core province, who think they can hide behind their walls. Men are the only true walls and The West (including the far east, which is in fact part of the empire) has destroyed its men. Masculinity is resilient but its restoration will involve rebellion against the current system, and the only rebelion that can last is one based on restoration principles.

      • The Cominator says:

        China is not part of the Empire its actually independent of DC and the Cathedral.

        Japan IS but its kind of only remaining in it voluntarily unlike most other countries they really could leave any time they wanted to and the US could do almost nothing to stop it.

        Taiwan and South Korea are the only parts of Asia that are really strongly part of the Empire and couldn’t leave if they wanted to (unless they wanted to get attack immediately).

        Most other Asian countries can maintain a measure of independence by flirting with China and the US alternatively.

        • jim says:

          Philippines being a good example of flirting with both. Thailand seems to be successfully ignoring the Cathedral.

          • Andre says:

            “Thailand seems to be successfully ignoring the Cathedral.”

            What makes you think that?

        • Andre says:

          “China is not part of the Empire its actually independent of DC and the Cathedral.”

          It is not. China was finally and absolutely conquered through Mao’s revolution. It has been a province of the empire ever since. That doesn’t mean it takes orders directly from DC. That is not how the empire is structured. Japan is not independent by any stretch of the imagination.

          • The Cominator says:

            Mao was a horrible example of leftism but I’ve read several books on the man and he absolutely did not take orders from anyone after taking over China. Mao believed in the empire of Mao.

            China does not have the same state religion nor does it take orders from DC. Its only dependence is Chinese jobs are dependent on export to the US.

            Japan absolutely takes orders from DC but DC doesn’t give them many because the US could not easily stop them from leaving. Japan is absolutely prepared to produce functional nuclear weapons within a week if the word is given and some higher end technology just can’t be sustained if Japan is removed from the world economy so Japan can’t currently be sanctioned out of existence either. Japan adopted the 1950s state religion of the US but refused to adopt the post 1968 state religion of the US because they rightly thought it was insane (all of Asia did).

            Japan finds it commercially convenient to maintain their relationship with the US, and the older generation of Japanese who still control the country still respect the US for what it used to be but if Japan wanted to leave the US couldn’t do a whole lot to stop them unless they wanted to nuke Japan immediately.

            • Andre says:

              So tell me, how did China, Thailand and Japan magically end up with the same collapsed fertility rate as Portugal, Canada and Germany?

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Japan has no fault divorce, but not third world colonists or high female status. Not quite exact chronologically but the sense of what The Cominator is saying is correct.

                It isn’t clear to me that the PRC is mentally independent of the West. Mao is a good indication that it isn’t. His predecessors, Chiang Kai-Shek and Sun Yat Sen, were also entirely on Western crutches ideologically. Sure, they all turned into strongman paterfamiliae eventually, because that is how the Chinese mind works. Not clear that that mindset is enough to resist the Cathedral in the long term. Bring a religion to a religious war.

                The Japanese still have a religion, but their geography sucks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Japan adopted American 1950s religion because they decided they should become very “American” after losing WWII, but refused to adopt the post 1968 more insane variant of progressivism which to the extent the Japanese saw it horrified them.

                  Japan also doesn’t want to encourage fertility right now, it has nothing to do with regarding women as equal the Japs think women are fuckholes, cleaning devices and baby factories but there isn’t really much room in Japan right now. What habitable areas there are tend to be packed in like New York City.

                • jim says:

                  Japanese males are terrified of women, and Japanese women have enormous power to capriciously destroy the lives of any male in the general vicinity. Hence the calamitous collapse of fertility.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Japan also doesn’t want to encourage fertility right now, it has nothing to do with regarding women as equal the Japs think women are fuckholes, cleaning devices and baby factories but there isn’t really much room in Japan right now. What habitable areas there are tend to be packed in like New York City.”

                  I find this unconvincing. They are not having frivolous sex on birth control; a very large and growing number of them are not having sex at all. This trend is as dysgenic in the West with high quality woman failing to reproduce, low quality women reproducing, and medium quality Japanese men reproducing with low IQ foreigners (mostly filippinos in Japan). The Imperial family has failed to reproduce. This is not a result of rational self-interested choice.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Re no frivolous sex… They have the rat paradise problem being trapped in urban areas. I don’t think their women though have the horrific personality flaws of western women I think the problem in Japan really is (uniquely) more with the men.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  They simply have a hypergamy problem, with the added problem of being people designed to operate within formal system that clearly specify powers and obligations. They are not choosing to have children. They are not deciding not to have them because of lack of space. They are failing to form relationships at all, with the society rotting from the head down like everyone else’s.

                  Look at how and who altered Japan’s constitution and the book of its Civil Code concerning family law after WWII – a Jewish New York feminist. Essentially Japan was thrown into “1968” already in the late 40s on this issue, but not on (for example) the immigration issue. By 1968 Japan had some freedom of action again.

                • Mackus says:

                  >Japanese males are terrified of women
                  That would explain why most manga/anime protagonists react to women coming on to the them as if they were being attacked by xenomorphs.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure Japan does have absurdly high female status. Spandrell has a anecdotes about them destroying the lives of men around them, anime has jokes showing males terrified of being accused of touching women: Some schoolboys are on a train with schoolgirls. The train gets crowded and they raise their hands in the air as if surrendering at pistol point, for fear of being accused of physical contact with the girls. I see a lot of indicators of Japanese men being terrified of the capricious power of females to destroy their lives.

                  Rather more Japanese females than males receive a university education, though the ratio is not so brutally and savagely extreme as Saudi Arabia or Iran. What is brutal and extreme is the capricious destruction of the lives of males on female whim.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Japanese males are terrified of women, and Japanese women have enormous power to capriciously destroy the lives of any male in the general vicinity. Hence the calamitous collapse of fertility.”

                  Where have you heard this?

                • jim says:

                  Spandrel and jokes in anime. The “hands up” joke was based on real incidents.

                • Andre says:

                  Good God people, I didn’t ask for the mechanism of a collapsed fertility rate, which is obvious (female empowerment). I asked why all of these countries, including the supposedly independent China, adopted the same sorts of policies. Obviously there are various levels of “on the ground” resistance to imperial rule, habits can be tough to break, personal greed and lust for power never goes away, but China is very much a province of the Empire. It might break away but it hasn’t yet. There was a story about japanese med schools rigging exams to try and get rid of female students. Awesome underground act of resistance… to Imperial Rule. Why do they need to do that in secret? Why didn’t Tokyo Medical University simply say “it’s a waste of time to train women to be doctors, don’t even bother applying”? They are not allowed to, that’s why. They are not really allowed to even think that. It is heresy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2016/10/25/where-did-the-samurais-go/”

                  The only anecdote I’ve seen that parallels our Western horror with Japanese women from Spandrell is this one and this is a divorce rape case which yes Japan does have (and I’m sure there are more horror stories along these lines). But to my knowledge Japan doesn’t have the sexual harassment craziness and I think their false rape hysteria is limited to public transportation.

                  This is a case (wife stealing and spending the life savings on stupid crap and then making up stories about why he is the bad guy) where a guy SHOULD be allowed to kill his wife.

                • Andre says:

                  Cominator, google “United Nations University”.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  For a country so obscure and about which so much nonsense is written I can only trust my experiences. They’re few, but this is one: attractive young woman with a good job at a big company in a big city tells me she is regularly asked my male colleagues of the same role and rank to make them tea, and she does so.

                  Here is the other side of the coin. When we are alone I tell her to make me some tea. She accuses me of being rude. I say that if she makes tea for her colleagues she must make tea for me. Not a particularly strong response, but apparently it shocked her, I guess she never heard it from any Japanese man. She made the tea.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Was the issue that she was alone and is only asked to do it in public? That you said it in the wrong way? That you were a Gajjin? Or that she was bullshitting about making tea?

      • jim says:

        Bronze age social decay ended in a lengthy, severe, and very dark dark age. Roman social decay was partially fixed by the Emperor Augustus, but he failed to restore the authority of the husband, and so the elite failed to reproduce, and so everything went to shit as a result of endless waves of foreigners and dysgenic decay. However, we bounced back from Puritanism just fine, with the greatest civilization ever, delivering conquest, science, technology, and industrialization, under an elite whose fertility was high and rising until the Queen Caroline incident.

        Generally the recovery from left singularities is very bad, but the recovery from the Mao singularity was pretty good, except that they have failed to restore the authority of the husband, so still suffering dysgenics, much as imperial Rome did.

        So, looking at history, our odds are bad, but not hopeless. And we have something none of the others did: The example of the restoration.

    • The Cominator says:

      Social Democracy must inevitably fail. Matriarchy must inevitably fail (through conquest if nothing else). Progressivism as a state religion must inevitably fail. If any one of them fail hard enough it will take the other two down with it almost simeltaneously as well.

      Now the big problem long term is Islam. Islam is a resilient religion and not prone to failure other then by conquest and genocide if necessary, but it also is incapable of high civilization.

      If we don’t achieve at least a semi restoration in time to get rid of Islam then Asians end up ruling the world (and being forced to fight a quick genocidal war against Islam).

      The best strategy now is to do what we can to help Trump achieve the true election…

    • peppermint says:

      Your first clue should have been the way we boldly pronounce ourselves heretics to progressivism, as Luther announced himself a heretic to Catholicism, instead of quietly being a lapsed Catholic or an atheist.

      Do you imagine us as the ghosts of the Confederacy having a rebel yell? That’s what we wanted you to think so you, the formerly orthodox progressive, would betray yourself and tie yourself in rhetorical knots justifying some of the policies we forthrightly embrace.

      The restoration is here. We put it in harsh terms so it could sneak up on you.

      The First Family is trad. The other option for First Family was an autogynophiliac’s action girl with an serious intellectual wonk, a “power couple”, the 20c’s stupidest and most widespread and harmful faggotry, since it alone pretended to be normal so much that it became a trope of “conservative” literature.

      The future Mrs. Peppermint is very intelligent and capable, and also self-aware, so she never wanted to be an action girl. She is very happy staying in her lane, as thousands of years of women before her were.

      Meanwhile the women who were raised by perverts to be action girls have been run out of politics. People my age are returning to trad social norms. Ask your fact checker about that.

      Mass media democracy is the dumbest thing imaginable. Do you still believe in it? No, because the man running on a platform of gassing illegals and turning them into soap won.

      The disbelief of the ruling party in its own platitudes is evident in its blatant fraud and heavy handed censorship where quiet fraud and whispering campaigns would have accomplished what the ruling party wanted. Oh, and while maniacally focusing on moar dems, they let the cuckservatives be forced out. Oops.

      We are the actual mainstream.

      And yes, political movements always attract weirdoes and perverts looking to justify themselves, but sola consent was a pervert doctrine from the beginning, and no one is weirder than the journalist, part bishop, part slave, part intellectual, part teleprompter reader, part man of the community, part grifter, part dead serious, part jovial.

      • peppermint says:

        No point in calling them cuckservatives anymore. They were always the real conservatives, trying to keep their myopic vision of the past alive. And their past was irredeemably cucked, with action girls like my middle school science teacher raising children purchased from “agencies” which “acquire” them from living third world mothers (while they piously rage against slavery).

      • peppermint says:

        ps. The senile harpy Pelosi was my choice for Speaker too, because she will serve to annoy everyone and accomplish nothing.

        • KMac Sodomized Me When I Was 8 says:

          Once you wrote:

          “infanticide is a legitimate tool of the patriarchy to control women’s reproduction.”

          “please explain the difference between eating veal and flushing niglets.”

          https://blog.jim.com/economics/fertility-and-corporal-punishment/#comment-1352714

          Do you stand by this position, or have you now turned around 180 degrees?

          • peppermint says:

            Infanticide is a legitimate tool of the patriarchy to control women’s reproduction. It should be used when other means fail, to prevent the greater harm of cuckoldry and bastardy and social acceptance thereof. If it is socially legitimate for bastards to have a future under ordinary circumstances, I will knock up your daughter. Can bastards be restricted to monastic life? Even if they can, you will procure an abortion for your daughter so she will remain marriagable, and no one will be the least surprised.

            • YOU NIGGER COCK IS A REAL PUNISHMENT says:

              You have some real problems. I think you need to undergo SNP replacement therapy.

        • Art of the Dill says:

          He already answered that, actually.

          https://blog.jim.com/war/the-drift-to-civil-war/#comment-1840099

          “Abortion is complicated. It is necessary to prevent downies, useful to control womens’ reproduction, but right now, it just keeps White women from being shotgun married. But if it hadn’t been legalized, would cuckoldry be more common and accepted?”

          Let him explain why mortal sins aren’t mortal sins.

          • peppermint says:

            A mortal sin is a sin that if you can take the idea of committing it seriously you’re obviously not in a state of grace.

            Condomistic sex between couples that should be married but aren’t because they’re just living the childfree life is a mortal sin. Childfree heterosexuality is a grotesque sex fetish that everyone pretends is okay because maybe it could evolve into marriage, but when it doesn’t is when the barren old maid wants to shove it in everyone’s face, because she needs social validation that what she knows isn’t normal is.

            Stranger adoption is better known as slavery. Once again, the dishonesty is the problem. People go from lies to other lies and away from truth and virtue, and I would prefer to be around open sodomites who declare themselves and hide their sin in instinctive shame to 40 year old couples pretending to be on their thousandth first date getting ready to get her preggers except that the open sodomites have recently declared that they are not ashamed.

            • Koanic says:

              Under patriarchy, decisions to abort are between the doctor, the father and God. Under the Law, a third party causing the death of an unborn is a lesser crime than murder, but still punished.

              Contraceptive sex is not a mortal sin. Onan’s sin was against his brother, and his brother’s wife. It was a specific egregious situation. The story should not be construed as condemning all contraceptive sex, much less masturbation.

              That said, it is very wrong to deny children to the wife who desires them, who married you expecting them. The husband is to care for his wife, and generally speaking a woman needs children. But this is not true of all women.

              This is a non-issue. Once patriarchy is reinstituted, the vast majority of men will want children. The rare deviant who abuses his patriarchal privilege is an exception whom God is capable of punishing; the law need not intervene, nor the preacher.

            • THESE DINDUS ARE MAKING ME SQUIRT! SQUIRT! says:

              Condom sex = mortal sin.

              Murdering fetuses and babies = okey dokey.

              Gotcha.

              • Andre says:

                “Murdering fetuses and babies = okey dokey.”

                While there are some cases where abortion/infanticide is reasonable (mercy kills, or actually required medical abortions), I will not allow my babies to be slaughtered for frivolous reasons, and I will not respect any man that would. As such, abortion is a hard line. If you are willing to cross that line, you are my enemy.

                • MY GAY DAD POZZED ME says:

                  And not a formidable enemy, either; peppermint lost one of his gfs (was it the Jewish one? can’t remember) to a bisexual yoga instructor, and ever since, he’s been fanatically convicted that all homosexuals are really just straight men who try to steal people’s gfs by cunning.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Pre-modern west went with attrition of foundlings. There is also the myths about changelings which presumably were justification for killing babies that were off. Are you claiming that is not the same as abortion (even though the goal of both is dead babies) or is there some other nuance I’m missing?

                  “he’s been fanatically convicted that all homosexuals are really just straight men who try to steal people’s gfs by cunning.”

                  Peppermint overstates his case but the existence of the sneaky fucker strategy is not controversial. We had a fun example of that last month involving a British transsexual in the military stealing another mans wife.

                • peppermint says:

                  If you don’t want me to abort your baby, don’t fuck my daughter without marrying her.

                • JTRIG Psy-Ops Operative says:

                  You’re not missing nuance – you’re missing the whole point.

                  A guy who goes on and on about “mortal sin” and quoting the Pope, claiming to represent normal normalcy and “the mainstream,” who at the very same time is also pro-abortion and pro-infanticide, is vocally and unabashedly pro-abortion, vocally and unabashedly pro-infanticide, is… well, I’ll let you judge what he is.

                  You’re not gonna do the trad CRx (Catholic Reaction) thing while concomitantly advocating baby-killing and comparing it to “eating veal.” That peppermint reconciles his pro-pornography stance with Catholicism is one thing; but reconciling Catholicism and literal infanticide? It’s a bridge a tad bit too far.

                  Claiming that all faggotry is NOTHING BUT the sneaky fucker strategy, based on some bisexual yoga instructor who got you cucked (or something like that), is utterly deluded and retarded. Some random tranny doesn’t prove otherwise.

                • jim says:

                  The problem with abortion and infanticide is that it is “a woman’s right to choose”.

                • Andre says:

                  “If you don’t want me to abort your baby, don’t fuck my daughter without marrying her.”

                  Here is an idea: don’t let your daughter be alone with men.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “A guy who goes on and on about “mortal sin” and quoting the Pope, claiming to represent normal normalcy and “the mainstream,” who at the very same time is also pro-abortion and pro-infanticide, is vocally and unabashedly pro-abortion, vocally and unabashedly pro-infanticide, is… well, I’ll let you judge what he is. ”

                  It means peppermint is Irish since they were doing that until the 1960s. Unless you want to argue Irish weren’t real Catholics I guess.

                  As for sneaky fucker, humans are evolved creatures. Not seeing why assuming something is a sexual strategy versus a genetic condition is retarded. It has to propagate somehow.

                • peppermint says:

                  Under what circumstances does a man want an explicitly open relationship?

                  Starts like what, ends like boring, but you know what it is and it’s kinda fun.

                  She got a better offer. Good for her, and me, because I don’t have to feel responsible for her.

                  There are a lot of things that are only really possible in that crazy decade we just emerged from. The Great Forgetting will erase them, and me, because I’m a jerk and should be ignored, since I’m just saying rude things everyone knows.

                • Andre says:

                  “The problem with abortion and infanticide is that it is “a woman’s right to choose”.”

                  That is one of the problems. The other problem is that any man that would make this choice, again, mercy kills and actual medical needs aside, cannot be trusted in civilized society. So it really makes no difference. Those who choose to butcher or allow the butchering of their own babies are savages.

                • jim says:

                  Consider the common case. Female fucks alpha, expecting betas who are looking after her to raise kid.

                  What then should be done?

                • peppermint says:

                  Right. In cases of rape/fornication or incest, it’s not a man killing his own baby; if a man kills the baby of his late 20c slut gf, he got to that point by doing several things wrong, is doing something wrong, and is likely to do many things wrong in the future.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so. Killing your own baby is the most terrible of murders. Killing someone else’s baby is usually self defense, like killing a burglar. If it was a man‘s right to choose, 99% of baby killings would be self defense.

                • MY DELICATE CUNT IS BLEEDING says:

                  That a shitposter named Patrick is an Irish Ameri-mutt is evident from the water-muddying tactics he employs every time differences between various white ethnicies are discussed; people like that always latch on to faggy (gay) White Nationalism as a source of identity, and the last thing they would want is people examining just how “white” various white sub-groups really are, and maybe even noticing that e.g. Portuguese and Russians aren’t exactly identical to each other. The usual exception is Jews – peppermint sees them as the final boss, to be killed on the DoTR, because we gotta unite against those guys, right? He’d shoot your Jewish father’s brains out to prove that potatoniggers are normal.

                  Faggotry is not spread by sneaky fuckers stealing the girlfriends of gymcels. It’s a really, really dumb idea.

                • MY DELICATE CUNT IS BLEEDING says:

                  That you, Samuel Skinner, make excuses for someone who considers 50% of your family to be “fertilizer” (peppermint is 14/88, and takes the 88 just as earnestly as he takes the 14), i.e. worthless non-humans deserving of genocide, makes you look like a pathetic little cuck. Even half-Jewish spergs need to show SPINE rather than apologizing for those who call for the murder of their own family.

                • Andre says:

                  “Consider the common case. Female fucks alpha, expecting betas who are looking after her to raise kid. What then should be done?”

                  Provide more details.

                • jim says:

                  Chick gives birth to child. Obviously not the child of the man looking after her. Actual father nowhere to be found.

                  Options:

                  1. Ditch the chick.
                  2. Kill the child.
                  3. Kill the child and ditch the chick.
                  4. Kill the child and kill the chick.

                  These are all defensible and reasonable choices, depending on circumstances.

                • The Cominator says:

                  What about killing the chick (trying to pass off a kid who isn’t yours as yours is way way worse then childless adultery) and ditching the child?

                • jim says:

                  Yes, good choice, I overlooked that one. Also might flush the alpha out of hiding.

                  Trouble with it being a woman’s right to choose is that abortion is apt to be a hard to pass shit test “Are you man enough to make me bear you children and take care of them?”

                • Andre says:

                  “Chick gives birth to child. Obviously not the child of the man looking after her. Actual father nowhere to be found.”

                  The thing that would justify the non-father killing the kid is mercy on account of it being destined to be an orphan, or destined to be raised by his enemies. If someone he trusts as a friend is willing to adopt, he is not entitled to kill the kid. There is absolutely no justification for killing the kid and not also killing the chick. If you do such a thing you are a degenerate coward.

                • jim says:

                  Vengeance on the man who harmed one, a deterrent to those that might harm one in future.

                  If one kills her child, she will stick around with one. If one wants her to stick around with one, one likely needs to kill her child. If one does not kill her child, she is likely to leave in the subconscious or conscious expectation that one might well kill her child. Unless she is convinced one is totally beta bucks, in which case she will stick around, but one will probably not get much sex.

                  I have big problems with wrath, gluttony, and lust, but in the hypothetical situation, wrath is entirely appropriate.

                • peppermint says:

                  JPII denounced abortion and capital punishment, saying that life imprisonment is an option, meaning Mumia Abu Jamal can host a podcast from prison after killing a cop. At least in the end he realized his choices were to die with dignity or become the god-emperor or the church without the whole using his psychic powers to save terra from warp demons thing.

                • Andre says:

                  “Yes, good choice, I overlooked that one. Also might flush the alpha out of hiding.”

                  Did you? It seemed deliberate to me but ok.

                • peppermint says:

                  Adopt is an anti-concept. The correct word in enslave.

                • The Cominator says:

                  And note Jim I’m not opposed to killing chicks for anything they do… that is a misunderstanding of my position. False rape should certainly be immediate death and trying to use any form of lawfare to steal a man’s life savings and future income should be death.

                  But my position is girls can do far far worse then cheating in itself (and routinely do in the modern world). And quite often cheat with no actual intention of abandoning their husband or long term relationship… I really think death in such cases is too severe when they can do far worse and making the penalty so severe when they can do far worse encourages them doing far worse.

                  Killing the child I think otoh is objectively morally wrong even if its instinctual in a state of nature. Early term abortion I’m fine with.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, give the child to your impotent brother and his live-in mistress was also an option. Now there are fertility treatments, and the whole procedure puts a woman who could have a husband out of the game until she recovers from pregnancy when the mistress may have a functioning uterus. Maybe transfer the foetus to the mistress’s uterus as a Pareto optimization. But at that point, why not take some genes from the brother, some genes from the mistress, and some good genes, and give bro and now-browife a real baby of their own?

                • Andre says:

                  “Early term abortion I’m fine with.”

                  Perhaps, if it is performed by beheading the mother. If you wish to have an “open relationship” and provide for a woman that sucks other men’s cocks, I don’t particularly care. The problem is you wanting to force other men to be as cucked as you. You refused to answer the question regarding a husband abandoning a cheating wife. Why? Seems to me that you don’t want them to have that right. Which means you don’t just want to avoid the death penalty. You want other men, and not just a few men that you regard as serfs but the men you pretend are allies, to be forced into cuckoldry. Which makes you unsuitable as an ally. Which makes you an enemy, a serf at best.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You refused to answer the question regarding a husband abandoning a cheating wife. Why?”

                  I was thinking about it. Problem is I would create a large pool of single men and unowned women and actually give women a real incentive towards adultery if they wanted out of the marriage. I want a system where they can’t get out.

                  Killing adulterous wives creates excess single men and the potential for blood feuds and would be massively criticized (though its probably the right solution for Brazil and for Arabs).

                  I just don’t see why it can’t be fixed by a severe beatings and marital rapes.

                • peppermint says:

                  I don’t like to talk about how I know that there is no such thing as a gay man who genuinely doesn’t want to do sex on a fe-male, or that girls who just want to be one of the guys pretty much exist because women want to be what men want them to be and men like JRR Tolkien have a sex fetish for action whamen, but I’ve never met a gay or a lesbian, and I never gave up my cornhole never meeting one.

                  Ironically, when lesbians want to experiment with men, they often get a total gaywad, i.e. sneaky fucker, i.e. exactly what they expect and deserve, who demands that they express vocal consent. Which women hate, because it means sex is just a transaction to be approved or not, which means the woman is a whore, and isn’t going to be able to convince the man to fall in love with her.

                  Imagine a gaywad womanizing a lesbian. Now it’s not a gaywad and a lesbian anymore, is it? And if the gaywad and lesbian were capable of doing that, they wouldn’t be gaywad and lesbian, would they?

                  If I’m right, during the Great Forgetting, many gaywads and lesbians will quietly get married.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >I don’t like to talk about how I know that there is no such thing as a gay man who genuinely doesn’t want to do sex on a fe-male

                  You are wrong, and a cuck.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Faggotry is a perversion of mentally damaged men, I’m not sure its origin (often being molested) but the perversion exists often accompanied by extreme effeminancy (I hate hate hate the effeminate ones with the exception of Milo, the BAP type fags are fine they take men out of the pool but don’t otherwise cause problems).

                • peppermint says:

                  Anonymous, if you’re right, all the real gaywads were driven out of the gay community by the hello fellow gaywads, I too am a gaywad routine Boston intellectuals are famous for

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  We know there are some men with 0% attraction to women in the same way we know that 100% of men are sexually attracted to 15-year-olds:

                  Penile plethysmography.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  (Actually I stand corrected: 99% of men are attracted to 15-year-olds. The other 1% are pedophiles, who are attracted exclusively to prepubescents)

                • The Cominator says:

                  Frederick the Great lived before open public faggotry was acceptable but yet clear from his life that he at no point had any interest in women (I resent gay historians trying to make everyone in history gay but as far as Frederick the Great goes I think the case is easily made) and it is also clear that his homosexuality horrified his father who wanted to have him executed at one point.

                • peppermint says:

                  Are you going to say that about every Catholic priest who doesn’t fug loose women going to confession? Surely St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t a sodomite?

                • peppermint says:

                  > the Buddha was a gaylord

                  no argument here

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Nobody said or implied that, cuckermint. Stop strawmaning.

                  That some men restrain themselves from fucking women, without necessarily being inwardly gay, doesn’t mean that real homosexuality doesn’t exist. It does exist.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Are you going to say that about every Catholic priest who doesn’t fug loose women going to confession? Surely St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t a sodomite?”

                  Catholic priesthood always has been attractive to homosexuals.

                  My point with Frederick the Great is that they certainly do exists apart from sneaky fucker game. Frederick as king would have no need to be a sneaky fucker. Also its unlikely he would have been molested.

                • peppermint says:

                  > some men restrain themselves from fucking women, without necessarily being inwardly gay, Frederick as king would have no need to be a sneaky fucker. Also its unlikely he would have been molested.

                  you guys are right. Maybe he just didn’t want to get married and have a queen and a royal baby. That’s his funeral.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Zero sex drive in men is almost always a result of low T or extreme depression.

                  Frederick the Great wasn’t low energy depressed (until the end) or low T… he wasn’t interested in women because he was a fag.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Phallometry works.

                  Cuckermint/viking: “BELIEVE ME, I HAVE ZERO ATTRACTION TO 15-YEAR-OLDS. THEY ALL DISGUST ME TO THE BONE. EWWW. JUST EWWW. GROSS. THESE ARE LITTLE INNOCENT 15-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN, FOR GOD’S SAKE!!! ONLY JEWISH PEDOPHILES ARE ATTRACTED TO THEM.”

                  Phallometry: erection detected.

                  Frederick the Great: “Why, of course I love women. What kind of man doesn’t dig boobs, vaginas, and all that yucky stuff? Of course I’m into them ladies.”

                  Phallometry: no erection detected.

                • peppermint says:

                  when i was in my mid 20s a 15yo with cleavage tricked me into hanging out with her for a significant amount of time. If there hadn’t been other people around i might of boned her.

                • Anonymous says:

                  In such situations, I always ask myself: WWJD.

                  What would Jim do?

                • peppermint says:

                  Maybe Fredrick thought the king isn’t supposed to just bone a ho and at any rate if he did everyone would know about it. Maybe he was waiting for a chance to consummate an alliance that never came. Maybe he secretly had a horse-riding accident or a micropenis. People used to say that orientation and libido are the polar coordinates of attraction to women and attraction to men. Well, if you know he’s (0,x), it only suggests that x>0 if all points are equally likely, which they’re not, because sexual orientation is gay as all hell, there are only strategies and Nash equilibria, and total dropouts, which could be for other reasons than inability.

                • peppermint says:

                  I like to think I would of asked to see some ID before putting my hand in her pants, at which point, everyone instinctively knows nothing kills a lady’s boner faster than a man who shows genuine fear. So I would of had to play it off as ‘you’re not a newfag are you? Those are disgusting’, just like JP says I say.

                • The Cominator says:

                  He was married he just almost never allowed his wife anywhere near him after he became king (he did spend time with her but probably never fucked her when his father who hated his homosexuality was still alive).

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >So I would of had to play it off as ‘you’re not a newfag are you? Those are disgusting’, just like JP says I say.

                  The feminist law doesn’t want you to fuck 15-year-old sluts, because they are little angels who need to be protected from evil, predatory, perverted men.

                  “THEY ARE NOT PSYCHOLOGICALLY DEVELOPED ENOUGH. YOU WON’T BLUSTER YOUR WAY OUT OF MY GENDER-STUDIES WELTANSCHAUUNG, JP. MY GENDER-STUDIES WELTANSCHAUUNG, BASED ON WHAT ME AND MY PALS DID IN 1890, ALSO DEVELOPED BY JEWISH PSYCHOLOGISTS IN 1920, SAYS THAT YOU ONLY BECOME MATUUUUUUUURE WHEN YOU REACH YOUR 18TH BIRTHDAY AND NOT A SECOND EARLIER! JP, STOP BLUSTERING! UNICEF IS 100% RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING. I STAND WITH UNICEF. TO BE A NEO-REACTIONARY IS TO SUPPORT UNICEF, SO STOP BLUSTERING, JP, YOU EVIL BASTARD. 15-YEAR-OLDS ARE NOT MATUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE.”

                  But no law asks you to write “15-year-olds aren’t hot,” as you have previously written. No law requires you to go out of your way to tell the world how “derpy” you think teenagers are. You do all that of your own volition, either to signal holiness, which won’t work here, or because you are sexually fucked-up, which you clearly are.

                • peppermint says:

                  Most 15 year olds are less attractive than 18 and 22 year olds and are painfully aware of it. Some of them, in high school surrounded by horny 16 year old boys all day, knowing they’re just as attractive as the average 19yo, will try to get an older man.

                  Some couples have a larger age gap than 4 years. Whatever.

                  I don’t feel bad about not having been able to bone hoes when I was 15 and I don’t feel bad about not boning 15yo hoes now.

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbw_BxDwdjk

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >I don’t feel bad about not having been able to bone hoes when I was 15 and I don’t feel bad about not boning 15yo hoes now.

                  Also known as “holiness signalling.”

                  “FINE, JP, AT LONG LAST EVEN I ADMIT THAT SOME 15-YEAR-OLDS TURN MY LITTLE MAN INTO A NOT-SO-LITTLE MAN. I CONCEDE THE POINT. UMMM, BUT, UHHHHHH, IT IS STILL NEVERTHELESS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SIGNAL THAT 15-YEAR-OLD SEX IS JUST NOT FOR ME, AND BY EXTENSION, NOT FOR ANY MAN, THEREFORE THE FEMINIST SYSTEM THAT THROWS MEN IN PRISON FOR BEING IN THE VICINITY OF TEENAGERS IS ACTUALLY — IN FACT — A GOOD SYSTEM, AND OH BOY, I SURE HOPE THOSE OTHER MEN (NOT ME!) WHO CHECK OUT SOPHOMORE SLUTS GET PUNISHED FOR THEIR EVIL SEXUAL THOUGHTS AND THEIR SINISTER TOXIC BODY LANGUAGE. AFTER ALL, NORMAL MALE SEXUALITY IS TRULY A HORRENDOUS AND HURTFUL THING, DON’T YOU AGREE, MY FELLOW HIGH-TESTOSTERONE ARYAN WARRIORS?”

                  It’s not *working*. It’s a bad sort of signalling, and one reason why Jim always double-downs on his edginess is to make the kind of holiness-signalling you exhibit here impossible or at least very low-status.

                • peppermint says:

                  Hey Cominator, it’s about time I’m wrong about something.

                  Dunno what Prussia was like. Don’t have time to read Carlyle. He didn’t like his wife or want to deal with women at all? Ok. There was a TV show once where a gay guy was a rapist because he hated women.

                • YOU FAGGOT UNCLE WHO RAPED YOU IN THE ASS says:

                  Funny; I can’t think of any occasion when you were right about something. The thing is, even when you are ostensibly right, you are still wrong. That is because you always have a unique “spin” which makes your take on any subject less accurate than it should be, like some kind of “noise” that prevents you from thinking straight. You never quite manage to “hit the nail on the head.”

                  Why is it?

                • peppermint says:

                  because this is sparta, not thebes

                • I HAD BEEN RAPED AS A FETUS, PRE-BIRTH says:

                  Being cognitively directionless is not Spartan. On the contrary: Spartans have no time for clever-silly sophistry that doesn’t get to the point.

                  It is said, “There is a short way, that is long – and a long way, that is short.” You always seem to choose the former: over-simplifying things (e.g., “homosexuality does not exist,” “just blame the boomers, bro,” “infanticide is a morally neutral action,” etc.) in a manner that makes them all the more complicated.

                  Ideally, a little should go a long way. In sharp contrast, your long way goes only a little. That’s all there is to it.

                • Koanic says:

                  The only one here who speaks laconically is Jim. Brevity is the point of the deadly.

                • peppermint says:

                  ahh, perfect, funny names man, you win last post in the thread

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “That you, Samuel Skinner, make excuses for someone who considers 50% of your family to be “fertilizer” (peppermint is 14/88, and takes the 88 just as earnestly as he takes the 14), i.e. worthless non-humans deserving of genocide, makes you look like a pathetic little cuck. Even half-Jewish spergs need to show SPINE rather than apologizing for those who call for the murder of their own family.”

                  Why should I give a shit if peppermint hates Jews? Has he someone founded a paramilitary group while I wasn’t looking? Has the CCP declared his writings are to form a new state cult? Does his existence cause coalburners to weep?

                • MY ANUS IS OOZING SPERM ALL OVER THE PLACE says:

                  You should not “care” in the sense of “Oy vey, peppermint is personally going to lampshade me.” However, it’s simply dishonorable (cucky) to defend someone whose one consistent principle is that 50% of your family should be murdered. You can be a self-hater, but no reason to ally with those who want you erased from existence. It’s shameful.

                • jim says:

                  Peppermint wants to kill all Jews?

                  News to me.

                • SKELETON'S WRATH says:

                  He has made his position about the Jews pretty clear in the past several years he’s been posting; if that is not his position — or no longer his position — then I encourage him to clarify exactly what it is, preferably using easy-to-understand language.

                • jim says:

                  In response to someone blaming Jews for everything, Peppermint very recently stated “Ultimately, jews and jewgolds aren’t the problem. Elections instead of erections is. We need a back to the kitchen movement of wymen.”

                  Which seems quite similar to my own position.

                  That seems plenty clear. Can you find a similarly clear “kill all Jews” statement?

                • Anonymous says:

                  He’s been practically all over the place with his kike gassing rhetoric. It’s strange that you find it new.

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/formalism/#comment-1268647

                  “in the nazi state of the future, autistics will be marked as special from birth and given government money or jobs at government regulated wages so they can stay on infinity-chan and funpost all day with their penetrating analyses, and when they all agree about something like gas the kikes race war now, the smartfags will listen to them and do it.”

                  I don’t know about you, but this one humorous example, out of a vast and abundant ocean of similar ironic or non-ironic examples, paints to me a pretty clear picture of where he’s coming from (the chans) and what he wants to do (resurrect Hitler). Combined with being blue pilled about every sex-related thing, it all forms a pattern.

                • jim says:

                  This strikes me a humorous sacrilege against holocaustianty, rather than a serious program of Jew eradication. Perhaps he may clarify, but when accused of pedophilia or of being a jew, or of being a jewish pedophile, I seldom bother to clarify, and I do not call upon peppermint to clarify, as that would spoil jokes such as the above joke.

                  We need to make Holocaustianity ridiculous, and if challenged to clarify any less than worshipful reference to the Holocaust, we cannot make it ridiculous.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Pretty sure I can prove that between 2015 and 2017 his position was what I claim it was. If you think that it’s an interesting subject, will gladly prove my point. But personally I don’t care what his Jew stance is; the point is that half-Jews like Samuel cannot defend it and keep their honor.

                • Koanic says:

                  > But personally I don’t care what his Jew stance is; the point is that half-Jews like Samuel cannot defend it and keep their honor.

                  Not true. Nationalists of every color can hate each other for perfectly valid and correct reasons, so long as they hate the globalists more, who would force them to live together, and negate all their particular identities.

                  Xenophobia is the basis of nationalism. Competition is healthy. I greatly prefer the foreign nationalist who frankly intends my extermination to the insidious subverter who seeks the destruction of my soul. The former merely seeks my death in honorable war, the mechanism by which the human race preserves and improves both patriarchy and IQ. The latter seeks the destruction of both patriarchy and IQ, and thereby the human race, that his degenerate phenotype may for a time flourish.

                  Nationalist Jews who wish to survive the coming white reaction should do everything possible to disavow that segment of their race which has dedicated itself to our extermination. Just as I, a white American, do everything possible to disavow the Jehovah-damned Yankees who have spread their faggot heresy across every ocean on this planet. DC delenda est.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Well Jim, I dunno. I guess we can go over his many posts and attempt to decipher just what he thinks of the Jews. Looks to me like a waste of space, given that peppermint can simply tell us in no uncertain terms what he thinks.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “However, it’s simply dishonorable (cucky) to defend someone whose one consistent principle is that 50% of your family should be murdered. You can be a self-hater, but no reason to ally with those who want you erased from existence. It’s shameful.”

                  This is a blog. I have stated that peppermint’s interpretation of something is correct, not sent him money, intel, manpower or drugs.

                  “I guess we can go over his many posts and attempt to decipher just what he thinks of the Jews. ”

                  Its peppermint. “kill the men, fuck the women, genetically engineer out the reside from your kids” is probably his motto. It is going to be the motto for the Chinese in a couple decades- why not look like a trendsetter?

                • Anonymous says:

                  >kill the men, fuck the women, genetically engineer out the reside from your kids

                  Now apply that to hated ethnicity X and tell me how it’s different than killing off hated ethnicity X.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “I’ll just end this article with some of my favorite quotes from Ben Garrison, which have unfortunately been misappropriated by others; I’ve marked the words the plagiarists changed with brackets:

                  Garrison: The idea is that it is possible to separate [Jewishness] from [parisitism], and it is not. There can be not [Jew] race without [parasitism]. Treason to [Jewishness] is loyalty to [??? humanity is a social construct, Ben]… We need to make it impossible for the legacy of [Jews] to reproduce itself.

                  Interviewer: And your views are popular in academia?

                  Garrison: Yes, I’d say my views are well recieved, not everybody agrees, but they’re well recieved.

                  “Is it the duty of every good [reactionary] to kill every newborn [Jew] baby?”

                  “You’re on the endangered list. And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving. In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more [kikes] around.”

                  “[Freud], [Marx], [Boasian anthropology], [Spielberg], [mass media democracy], [brutalist housing projects], [Saul Alinsky], the emancipation of women, [Susan Sontag], [interracial porn], et al. can’t redeem what this particular [race] has wrought upon the world. The [Jew] race is the cancer of human history.”

                  And a quote from Adolf Hitler, quoted by Ben Garrison in an interview:

                  “I’m going to kill all the Blacks, I’m going to kill Jewish children, and I’m just going to mass murder people based on their race or religion””

                  https://peppermintfrosted.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/648/

                  Look, this is as hilarious to me as it’s to you; probably more so. Yes yes, “it’s just satire.” It’s not just satire, and if Jim wants to pretend that we don’t see what we do, in fact, see… uh oh.

                • peppermint says:

                  This isn’t politics, this is eceleb drama.

                  In politics news, Starcucks just banned pr0n in their stores, where it was already illegal to view porn in public spaces, in what everyone sees as a first step towards banning Fox News. Conservatives are too principled to oppose this because each conservative is an induhvidual intellectual, while liberals trust their masters to do the thinking for them.

                  Which is Skinner, a liberal who instinctively goes by affiliation or a conservative who greps for words?

                  If you have to think about that, you have to acknowledge that facts are facts and it doesn’t matter who says them. Skinner hasn’t given me any drugs and if I’m going to be an eceleb I should make a monero wallet to recieve money to spend on marijuana once it’s legal to openly purchase so my fans can get v& as accessories to purchasing marijuana.

                  PS. Since the GBLT community can’t possibly be turning on pr0n, this means Starcucks is no longer as gay as it used to be.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Thank you for clarifying your position about kike gassing, peppermint. Someone else would try to change the subject, knowing that his position and Jim’s are radically different. Good thing you’re an honest man.

                  /s

                • peppermint says:

                  “Great men talk about ideas. From hearing lesser men talk about other men, you’d think they were women and sexually attracted to other men if you’d grown up with SSA and gender dysphoria being little more than a joke”

                • Anonymous says:

                  Instead of changing the subject, you should pick one of the following positions and explain why you adhere to it:

                  1) We should kill every single Jewish male, use Jewish women as sexbots, and genetically engineer the mud DNA out of the offspring.

                  2) I used to believe that we should kill every single Jewish male, use Jewish women as sexbots, and genetically engineer the mud DNA out of the offspring, but I no longer hold that position, because [reasons].

                  3) I have never, ever, ever, ever believed that we should kill every single Jewish male, use Jewish women as sexbots, and genetically engineer the mud DNA out of the offspring.

                  No changing the subject.

                • peppermint says:

                  (I’m on record many times saying Blacks to Africa, Jews to the grave. No one cares, because everyone knows the moderates are actually going to form the revolutionary government, for a number of reasons that if I had to explain it would mean this place is boring. Pretty much the most respected White terrorist was Uncle Ted, but his situation was unique, if he had been able to have a blog no one would respect what he did, or what he wrote, because of at least the most obvious hole in his proposal, that tech is a requirement for sovereignty and sovereignty for shutting down tech CR-style)

                • peppermint says:

                  (enough eceleb drama. I want to spend more time with my family and funny names man is pretty good at posting)

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Blacks to Africa, Jews to the grave.

                  As I thought.

                  (Btw, it’s a legitimate position… but you should be honest about it. Well, now you are!)

                • peppermint says:

                  Christian extremists are socially obligated to larp as moderates, Muslim moderates are socially obligated to larp as extremists. It doesn’t matter if I larp as bitterly agreeing with Hitler bitterly larping as wanting Christianity to be more like Islam, this isn’t about what I think.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You said, “Weltanschauung war now.”

                  You were given a slight taste of weltanschauung war, and suddenly “it doesn’t matter if I larp,” “this isn’t about what I think,” and desperate attempts to change the subject.

                  Yes, you have a weltanschauung – and it’s crap. Recently, it has been conclusively demonstrated that the worldview that is Peppermint-ism is either radically incompatible with NRx, or else just bizarre and deluded beyond measure.

                  You can say, “This is just a blog, and who cares about blogs, anyway?” You would be right. And yet, you feel the need to post here every day and try to persuade others to adopt Peppermint-ism. You are like CR’s pot-smoking twin.

                  Consider the idea that you are just a slightly more edgy version of your arch-nemesis CR. Are you upset about CR’s left-wing ideology? Yes. Similarly, I’m upset about your left-wing ideology. You constantly talk about CR, because you don’t want others to accept his left-wing, blue-pilled weltanschauung.

                  I don’t want others to accept your left-wing, blue-pilled weltanschauung.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You shouldn’t agree with peppermint, my fellow half-Jews. He seeks to murder approx. 50% of your families.”

                • Anonymous says:

                  His Jew stance triggers me the least, actually; nor is it the most salient feature of his shitposts, as of late. It’s the combination of deluded positions about a wide plethora of subjects, with the most important one being his position on the WQ, that compels me to shoah him.

                  You shouldn’t agree with peppermint, *because he is wrong.*

                  Him being a GTKRWN faggot and him being blue-pilled about the WQ are probably connected, but I consider the latter issue to be of far greater importance than the former issue, and would be mercilessly thrashing him about the latter issue even if he were more philo-Semitic than Jim.

                • peppermint says:

                  I’m sick of explaining every joke. I don’t care what you think. I hope a rabid earthworm bites you and you get tetanus.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You never explained anything. You were given ample opportunity to present your position about Jews (or “race + JQ,” or whatever, I don’t even care that much) in a coherent fashion.

                  You said what you said, which is what you have been saying since 2014. Initially Jim denied what was right in front of his face, but I believe that I did prove my case, by linking to *your* blog, among other things. You also tried to change the subject, but let’s pretend that it didn’t happen.

                  You constantly peddle deluded positions about many different subjects. A number of those deluded positions have been listed in this very thread, and rebutted in this very thread. If you are as open-minded as you pretend to be, perhaps you should consider that your WELTANSCHAUUNG is crap.

                • peppermint says:

                  like i said several posts ago, yuo=fagit (in the sense understood at about a hYa)

                • peppermint says:

                  Gas the professors -> stop trusting the professors (in Boomer times, it was customary to pretend that everyone in America cared equally about Americans, which is culturally imperialist to the max, which, being an obnoxious towards others attitude, was casually assumed to therefore be pro-American. Now the cat’s out of the bag on civic nationalism. I expect the same thing to happen to the sort of civic nationalism of university “science” and “education”, that it has to be good for Americans because it’s called the names of things that are good for Americans)

                  weltanschauung war -> revolution in our values

                  I’m an autistic troll -> instead of leading, my role is to make fun of it as it happens

                  yuo=fagot -> talking about glorious me instead of ideas is next to sucking my dick, which is women’s work

                • peppermint says:

                  Do you remember when, at the same time, everyone stopped saying GTKRWN? It didn’t happen the way people stopped cheering for Comey’s firing, if Andrew Anglin had that kind of pull Charlottesville wouldn’t have happened. It happened because the Jews had been outgrouped.

                  The phrase GTKRWN came from an A. Wyatt Mann cartoon in which a fed says it.

                  Now, Jews may resent trolls for their leading by jumping in front of the parade role in the outgrouping which had to take place if America was to survive, but, the actual cause was increasing diversity in America causing young Americans to reevaluate the civic nationalist detente of the late 20c, the financial and emotional stress caused by the looting of money and space to maintain that diversity, and the Middle East wars that became increasingly difficult to justify, increasingly difficult to fight, and increasingly difficult to ignore the favoritism shown to Israel.

                  Hypothetically, if there weren’t any grabblers in America, perhaps we would invent them, like the USSR invented wreckers.

                  We know that the Darwinian position on the WQ was suppressed, and male genital mutilation introduced to America by late 19c puritans. The puritan position on slavery, and the 20c debate about abortion, rest on a radically non-Darwinian, non-Biblical account of Creation, that instead of one Creation at 4000 or 4000000000 before Christ, the formation of each blastocyst, being perfectly observable, is a Creative act, and therefore each blastocyst that doesn’t implant is a soul lost to this fallen world probably because of the sins of the mother.

                  Understanding the WQ is what it truly means to be right-wing. Our culture took a hard left when we left the farms and stopped watching animals ourselves and took a hard right when The Discovery Channel entered into every home.

                • jim says:

                  We need to live peaceably with high IQ outgroups, preferably in different states with different state religions and a common adherence to the Peace of Westphalia.

                  But Holocaustianity consists of a demand by Jews that we ingroup them while they outgroup us, and we need to push back against that. Trolls who call for gassing the Jews are a vital and valuable part of that pushback, but actually gassing them, or even confiscating their stuff and expelling them in a swift and disorderly fashion, would be very bad, because their stuff would be ruined, rather than transferred in running condition to competent capitalists who valued it and would put it to good use, because it would undermine capitalism and the free market, because Jews are, like the matador’s red cape, a distraction from the real and major problems, and because we need to live peaceably when a reasonable peace is available.

                  Treasonous elites have always hired Jews to do their dirty work, and when they face pushback, throw the Jews to the wolves and tell their subjects “It is all the fault of the Jews”. It is never all the fault of the Jews, or even substantially the fault of the Jews. Its the fault of the treasonous elite that hired them to do its dirty work. Soros is a hireling. They pay him by him buying worthless third world debt, which is then made valuable by the American taxpayer, and by giving him inside information about upcoming changes in monetary policy ahead of everyone else.

                  Troofism is an elite backed operation to blame Israel and “de Joos” for Mueller’s evil and incompetence. As our elite prepares to purge whites, it is also starting to find Jews guilty of its own misconduct. Notice that troofism does not get suppressed, troofers do not conceal their true identities. Troofers are an FBI proxy, Soros is a State Department proxy, and the hand of their master is visible if you look carefully.

                  We need to reject Holocaustianity, reject one way ingrouping, without getting distracted by the matador’s cape. 9/11 was not caused by the Jews, it was caused by Mueller and the FBI in that Mueller ordered the FBI to find white male terrorism, irrespective of whether it existed or not, and ignore Islamic terrorism, irrespective of whether it killed people or not, and the Troofers get cover from the state, provided that they say “Mossad” and refrain from saying “FBI”, and provided that de Joos that they blame are always Israeli. If a Troofer says “Mueller” then he gets deplatformed and demonetized.

                • Andre says:

                  You people need to get a life.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted because unresponsive.

                  If people discuss your position, and you want to respond, then justify your position, or explain the difference between your position and the position they attribute to you, or criticize their position. I am aggressively censoring you for lack of content. I am always happy to publish free content. (Well, not always happy. Whenever you post the cultural Marxist position in a comment, you are apt to attribute it, almost at random, to someone you think that we respect and admire, much as Marx attributed the labor theory of value to Adam Smith. Attribute your position to yourself, and refrain from spammy repetition, then you will not be censored.)

              • The Cominator says:

                “Treasonous elites have always hired Jews to do their dirty work, and when they face pushback, throw the Jews to the wolves and tell their subjects “It is all the fault of the Jews”. It is never all the fault of the Jews, or even substantially the fault of the Jews. Its the fault of the treasonous elite that hired them to do its dirty work.”

                Even with the aspect of the poz that you can make the best case that the jews are to blame which is second wave feminism (because all the prominent women pushing it early on were jews) this holds true. As it also turned out later that everyone of those Jewish women was on the CIA payroll.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  “Don ‘t bother to learn Black Speech. Orcs aren’t the problem, Sauron and the Nazgûl are.”

                • The Cominator says:

                  The most Jewish type character in the LOTR was Grima Wormtongue. But he was just a puppet of Sauron and that is kind of apt.

                  The orcs and Easterlings are more akin to lower level diversity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Why did I say Sauron I meant Grima Wormtongue was a puppet of Sauron.

                  He was a key part of subverting Rohan, but he was still a pawn himself.

          • peppermint says:

            Jesus went around telling people to act normal until the supererogating authorities who tell others to lift heavy burdens killed Him. When asked how to pray, He said to pray simply: Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

            Childless women, dickless men, children purchased from other countries, bastards and whores, isn’t what He wanted. Ask the French about telling other people to lift heavy burdens. After the tax on prolefuel was increased, they now say of the Eurocrats, “they steal everything from us”.

            • BLESSED ARE THE BARREN says:

              Read Matthew 19:11. Self-castrated men is what Rabbi Jesus wanted for followers. Furthermore, childless women is what he wanted. Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 21:23 all have antinatalist Jesus preaching “Woe unto them that are with child.” And in Luke 23:29 he clarified that childlessness is a blessing. “Blessed are the barren.”

              • jim says:

                You are torturing the text. Your reading is defensible, and lately people have been reading it that way, but for over a thousand years, it was understood very differently:
                1 Timothy 3:

                2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

                3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

                4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

                5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                The doctrines you attribute to Jesus are violently inconsistent with his rejection of holiness signaling by the Pharisees, and his and Paul’s condemnation of the preaching of supererogation, and your interpretation is in practice invariably associated with holiness spirals similar to that of pharisees.

                Any Christian who reads Jesus that way today, also manages to simultaneously read him as being supportive of transexual male to female prostitutes and thinks that woman who divorce and remarry, or divorce and openly live with a man, should be allowed to be part of the congregation, and believes that the major concerns of the Church should be welcoming invaders and Global Warming

                • BLESSED ARE THE BARREN says:

                  Torturing the text? You’re projecting. You don’t get to say a book by one author doesn’t mean what it says because another book in the library by a different author says something different.

                • jim says:

                  Your reading of Jesus is a far stretch in context, contradicts what he said elsewhere, and is not the meaning understood by those who met the man, and those who followed his teachings over the next several hundred years.

                • BLESSED ARE THE BARREN says:

                  Sorry, Jesus didn’t write the book of Timothy. And contradictions in the New Testament are plentiful, except to those who like to stretch things way out of context, like yourself.

                • jim says:

                  A reasonable reading of Jesus – and the way he has generally been read for centuries – is consistent with both the pro sex and anti sex statements of Paul, which are that God does not call most people to celibacy.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  BATB, have you read “The Immortalist” by Alan Harrington? I think you can find some useful material in there.

                • BLESSED ARE THE BARREN says:

                  A reasonable reading of the Bible reveals different groups of Christians don’t agree on much. Followers of Jesus and followers of Paul certainly didn’t; e.g. Galatians 2:11. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” It’s not reasonable to read the New Testament as a homogeneous opinion.

                  Peppermint was referring to Jesus, and so was I. Inserting Paul, like you tried, doesn’t neutralize Jesus. You may as well appeal to Joseph Smith when we’re discussing what Martin Luther wrote.

                • jim says:

                  It is not reasonable to read Jesus himself as one homogeneous opinion. He uses irony, parables, allegory, hyperbole, and deliberate self contradiction.

                • DesperatelySeekingJewApproval says:

                  Jesus then, Hollywood now. Jewish storytellers never change.

                • peppermint says:

                  DesperatelySeekingJewApproval is a jew infiltrator trying to trick us into talking like fags so his people can rule over us

                • Anonymous says:

                  Up until recently, your most vitriolic attacks had been directed against “christcucks,” and you put Jesus in ((())) while denouncing Christianity in the harshest possible terms, just like our resident Asatru-ist here. That means that — according to you — you had been a Jewish infiltrator who talked like a fag.

                  You’re not a Jew infiltrator, obviously, but you do still talk like a fag. And you are very resistant to faggotry-correction methods. It is pointed out to you that your weltanschauung is crap, but you refuse to accept, or even consider, the notion. Stop talking like a fag, paddy.

                • peppermint says:

                  did jews use hollywood to gain power

                  why were jews able to provide the entertainment americans wouldn’t

                • Anonymous says:

                  Switching tactics, huh?

                  You had been spamming this blog with retarded TJG-tier faggotry long, long before TJG arrived here. One need not search far into the archives to uncover just what you had to say about Jesus, Paul, etc. We all remember what you had to say.

                  Okay, you no longer promote obsessive Christ-bashing as you used to do for years on end.

                  But your worldview is still left-wing, blue-pilled, bizarre, and deluded. You still very much talk like a fag, only the content of your faggotry has shifted from Christ-bashing to being deep into blue-pill territory in all matters pertaining to sexuality. You also suck at being an anti-Semite; I’m pretty sure that if I wanted to, I could make more compelling anti-Jewish arguments than you do. (I’ve probably already done that.)

                  Go ahead; tell us that, “Oh, don’t notice me, I’m just trolling.” Well, guess what? You suck at trolling in equal measure as you suck at being realistic about the WQ or the JQ or any other Q you have ever addressed. Trolling requires a certain standard of “elegance,” which you manifestly lack. Your autism is too acute to be able to troll effectively; a good troll needs to walk a fine line between presenting as a normie and delivering a well-calibrated sperg out; you don’t walk the fine line. You err on the side of too much autism, which no amount of weed can alleviate.

                  Keep trying, though.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Realizing that there are probably new readers here who don’t know how you have typically referred to all-things-Christian, here’s a comment from the very same thread where you discuss “the nazi state of the future”:

                  “Winners and losers aren’t simply abstractions, they’re incorrect terminology originating with the Jew Karl Marx, and, before him, the Jew Yeshua bar Yahweh who divided the world into saved and unsaved and defined global peace and happiness as getting everyone into the saved category. Stop letting yourself be Jewed even in the privacy of your own thoughts.”

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/formalism/#comment-1269197

                  Well, now that you no longer refer to Jesus Christ as (((((((((Jewish Rabbi, Kike-on-a-Stick, Yeshua Bar Yahweh))))))))), now that you realize that doing that makes you sound like a faggot and perhaps even a Jew-infiltrator, consider the groundbreaking idea that the things which you *believe now* are likewise bizarre, autistic, and wrong. Can it be? Can it be that your *contemporary* worldview is as crappy as your previous worldview? Can it be that your high confidence in your current bullshit doesn’t make it right, just as your formerly high confidence in your former bullshit didn’t make it right?

                  Do you understand this idea?

                • alf says:

                  I liked Lalit on Pep: the court jester, says things no one else can say. Sometimes nonsensical, sometimes pretty smart.

                • peppermint says:

                  my general strategy is to say everything so in the future i will have been right

                • peppermint says:

                  As a Jimist believer in apostolic Christianity, my interpretation of Jesus has never differed too strongly from that of the religion I believed to be dominant.

                • peppermint says:

                  Part of the context of that post has been overwritten. Trump has been winning for so long that the unitarian, universalist types, who are both pre-marxist and post-marxist, no longer talk about global winners and losers and mean marxist classiciations.

                • jim says:

                  Explain the context in fuller detail. This is a situation where I welcome repetition. If things have changed, we need re-analysis.

                • peppermint says:

                  Marcus says:
                  2016-05-08 at 12:45
                  Defining the “winners” and “losers” is not an abstraction, it is an empirical question.

                  Many descendants of yesterday’s winners become today’s losers, it is true, but the reason is that life is a bell shaped curve.

                • peppermint says:

                  …it’s really only been since the beginning of 2016 that “orthodox” progressivism has been unrecognizable.

                  How do I politely refer to Trump without sounding impious? I think what looks like blasphemy from our Trumpists is partly because I don’t know what the standard English phrase for praising the king is. “Hail” sounds weird.

                • Anonymous says:

                  An explanation that doesn’t really explain much.

                  What Jim is interested in is your theory of how Trumpism has discredited or transformed the non-Jewish (i.e. Puritanism-derived) Socialist meme-ology on the meta-political level. That does sound like a cool theory, but requires elaboration. Did Trump un-cuck Christianity?

                  Regardless, you could simply have said, “I now understand that many of my writings from 2014 to 2017 were very cringey indeed,” but you are unwilling to say that or even to contemplate that, because the next logical step may well be “And it’s quite likely that my current writings are no less cringey.”

                  A realization such as this elicits absolute, mortal psycho-shock, to be resisted most violently whenever suggested. Too bad.

                • jim says:

                  He is a troll and a jester. Of course his writings are cringey and will remain so.

                  Trolls and jesters are a vital part of memetic warfare when we are out of power, and will continue to be a healthy check upon hubris when we are in power.

                • jim says:

                  Christians are voting Trump, to the horror of Churchians. Something has happened, but I am not sure what it is. Perhaps no one is sure what it is.

                • Nikolai says:

                  From what I can tell, the intention behind peppermint’s blasphemy was to edgily mock progestants, cuckservatives and the Christian roots of progressivism as opposed to genuinely insulting authentic Christianity. He’s trying to piss off the people who think Christ was a homosexual communist or 5-10 years behind homosexual communists.

                  This is, of course, no excuse for blasphemy and peppermint should sincerely repent for his previous statements. The way to deal with progestants is to quote the very reactionary opinions of the Church Fathers rather than to hurl insults at the Savior.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Nikolay, you are wrong. Go to any post from 2015-2016: nothing but anti-Christian venom. Here’s a random example from a random thread I picked up randomly:

                  “daily reminder that christcuck heaven is this retard-tier utopia where no one has to work unless they want to or unless they have holy word commanded by g-d”

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/democracy-explained/#comment-1393886

                  Jim is right, though. Trolls and jesters have their uses. As long as you keep in mind that they are what they are.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Just one last random example from a random thread, in case you don’t believe me when I tell you that his argument *was* that authentic Christianity is communism-in-disguise.

                  “the purpose of these gotcha questions is to end the perennial debates of what a pro-White Christianity would look like. Once you kick the apostle “no refugee or European, no cis or trans, no adult or pedophile, but all are one in Christ” Paul and Rabbi Yeshua “blessed are the refugees, they shall inherit Europe” bar Yahweh out of the canon, and the book of Galatians, and the books of Genesis and Exodus that glorify Jews and jewing, and all of the rest of the irrelevant and harmful Old Testament, and a bunch of other New Testament books like the ones where Jesus talks about taxing the rich to pay for AIDS drugs so vile parasites can use their bodies as petri dishes to evolve drug-resistant vile parasites, what‘s left to Christianity?

                  I get it. Christianity seems pro-natal, anti-degeneracy, and the proggers hate it most of the time. But the Red Party seems anti-tax, anti-transfer payments to support the creation and preservation of subhuman garbage, anti-politically correct regulation, and the proggers hate it all the time. Yet no one here is stupid enough to want it, as opposed to a Generic American Party built around Trump, pretending not to have heard of Lincoln, and keeping some congressmen.

                  I lost interest in Christianity at some point in between the time a White couple posted to /r/cucktholicism that they had a 25% chance of serious birth defect and the answer was abortion and fertility treatment haram, fertility a gift of God, a soul is a soul, so get cucked.

                  The first question, do niggers have souls, is designed to make would-be pro-White Christians admit that their metaphysical commitment requires them to believe that niggers, which torture kittens for fun, are more human than gorillas, which pet and love kittens.

                  The second question forces “pro-White” “Christians” to admit to having a bestiality impregnation fetish, and an actual desire to see half-human abominations born, which is incredibly cruel. It also forces them to admit that their answer to a White woman with an abomination inside her is ‘mixed race babies are cute’.

                  The third question forces cucks to admit that cucktianity is basically one world Kum-bay-ya, my lord, that both Jesus and Paul are basically socialists, that any exception to trans acceptance is unprincipled and the moral arc of the universe bends towards dildos, well, either that, or they have to write a 5000 word essay about why that’s a misinterpretation. Incidentally, does anyone here remember the days when, when someone dropped the n-bomb on /b/, it was followed by several 5000 word essays about why no one should say the word? Then they were 500 words, then 50 words, then NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER.

                  Cucks get nothing, not even what they thought they were bargaining for.

                  The fourth question is intended to force cucks to openly precommit themselves to accepting niggers as spiritual leaders.

                  The last question is supposed to be a give away, but some cuck on /v/niggers piously claimed that he didn’t know.

                  Another of the worst aspects of cucktianity is the way cucks keep getting good feels about kikes from reading the Bible, at which point they let the kikes back in the country, where their great grandfathers had kicked them out. But, these five questions are about immediate issues.

                  There is no such thing as pro-White Christianity in a world where any dirt nigger can swim the strait of gibraltar and then use his Samsung Galaxy S6 to livestream any attempt to prevent him from signing up for free housing and doing sex on White women. To demonstrate, post the five questions, then reply to any answer but an unqualified yes (except for the last one) with accusations of heresy, and any answer but an unqualified no with accusations of cuckold fetishism.”

                  https://blog.jim.com/war/arab-spring-2/#comment-1127855

                  My point in all this is that if you have a very long track record of being cringey as fuck, *you* should consider that your current views aren’t any less cringey. That way, if you ever seek to cease being a troll, a jester, or a lolcow, and to start being a serious participant, you will re-examine those mental twists that made you cringey previously, so you can overcome them. Which will improve the quality of the discussion.

                • jim says:

                  Cuckstianity is bad, and Christianity has obvious potential to become cucked. Cuckstain heresies are arguably legitimate, and need to be silenced by coercion, not debate.

                  But the typical abortion is not a Down syndrome child. The typical abortion is a woman shit testing her husband. The anti abortion movement is horribly cucked, because unwilling to confront the wickedness of women.

                  The New and Old Testament unambiguously grants both husband and wife the right to sexual gratification. With twentieth technology, this doctrine needs to be clarified to grant both husband and wife the right to reproductive sex, plus a paternal right to kill his children under unusual and extreme circumstances and with maternal consent.

                  Trollish criticisms of Christianity have their place, because Roman Catholicism has been cucked since Pope Gregory’s schism.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Christianity was on the whole very hostile to leftism until at least the late 1800s (Cromwell suppressed some early leftist Christian sects but they were not the norm) though even before it subverted it did have sympathy in some quarters for abolitionism.

                  In order to subvert it leftists did the “how do we do fellow Christians” thing and did it so well that by Nietzche’s time he is denouncing Christianity as basically a Theistic form of communism.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Trollish criticisms of Christianity have their place, because Roman Catholicism has been cucked since Pope Gregory’s schism.

                  Definitely. The irony here is that this discussion started by Peppermint telling the Wotanist troll that his trollish criticisms of Christianity — *exactly identical to those made by Peppermint himself* — mark him out as a Jewish faggot entryist. Surreal stuff.

                • peppermint says:

                  Life’s gonna suck when you grow up
                  When you grow up
                  When you grow up
                  Life’s gonna suck when you grow up
                  It already sucks right now

                  sings Dr. Demento. And hey, he was right.

                  (I interpreted him as meaning I would have to work. As for life sucking, his attitude arranged for that)

                • peppermint says:

                  Let me put this in language you can understand.

                  Me peppermint say Jesus good.

                  Priest guy in temple say men who say Jesus good like it when other man fuck temporarily attached woman friend.

                  It hurt me peppermint feelings when ppl say me peppermint want share woman friend.

                  Me peppermint think priest guy not even like Jesus.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You made specific trollish criticisms of Christianity. Pretending that “actually I always liked Jesus” is implausible; in the very thread quoted above, you wrote:

                  “» Nazirite (conspicuously holy) rabbi Yeshua denounces right-wing entryism in the form of using one’s money and power to make displays of holiness

                  » Yeshua furthermore saves a woman from punishment for adultery, commuting her sentence to ‘go and sin no more’, since women can be expected to do the right thing without any threat of punishment

                  » Yeshua furthermore defined adultery for men to be looking at another woman. Men are threatened with sexual harassment lawsuits for looking at women and in Sweden men who don’t cross their legs on public transit are threatened with prosecution

                  » Yeshua tells the most famous anti-racist #truestory of all time, about the Good Samaritan. Good nigger Bill Cosby rapes tens of White women, while other White women are robbed, raped, or murdered by niggers they try to play the Good Samaritan and help

                  » Yeshua proves his holiness by getting himself killed

                  » 2000 years later, Internet reactionaries consider using the sayings of Yeshua to avert the signalarity

                  » hell is forever”

                  https://blog.jim.com/war/arab-spring-2/#comment-1129561

                  These are valid criticisms, maybe, but you can’t pretend them away by making it about you and your Friends-With-Benefits or whatever. (Or is it a metaphor for Western Civilization?) You were hardcore anti-Christian, and anti-Jesus, and anti-Paul. You should come clean about that, and before you remove the speck out of TJG’s eye… you know.

                  You never liked Jesus, and I have a feeling that right now you only pretend to be Catholic to score some moot signalling points; in a few short years you’ll probably go back to “But what about the soullessness of niggers and kikes tho.”

                • peppermint says:

                  do you agree with the hermeneutics underpinning those criticisms?

                • jim says:

                  The cuckstain and churchianity interpretations of Christianity are unambiguous heresy against the community of saints and the apostolic Church.

                  It is a defensible interpretation of the words of Jesus only because Jesus was confronting a holiness spiral, and was correctly trolling it for its false pretensions of holiness.

                  Analogously, when Jesus tells us that:

                  2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

                  3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

                  this is obviously ironic, for it is outrageously impious to sit in Moses’ seat, Jesus and his followers conspicuously failed to observe and do whatever the scribes and the Pharisees bid, and he proceeds to give some good reasons for not doing whatever the scribes and the Pharisees bid.

                  “Sit in Moses’ seat” is irony, sarcasm, and trolling. Similarly, when I refer to the “remarkable holiness of Pol Pot”, and “William Wilberforce and his community of saints”, then if we get a future Orthodox Episcopalian Church of the Holy American Empire, with Alf as Archbishop and me as Grand Inquisitor, then when in later generations it starts pushing the Holy American Emperor around, they will probably grab my words and use them to justify preaching William Wilberforce’s supererogation and Pol Pot’s communism.

                  That the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat was an accurate and devastating Sadducee criticism of the scribes and the Pharisees. Expelling the money changers from the temple was an accurate and devastating criticism of the Sadducees. When Rome sacked the temple, it was revealed that the Sadducees had accumulated an entirely unreasonable and inappropriate amount of wealth.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “Christianity is the worst religion – except for all the others that have been tried.”

                  That is all.

                • Koanic says:

                  > The New and Old Testament unambiguously grants both husband and wife the right to sexual gratification. With twentieth technology, this doctrine needs to be clarified to grant both husband and wife the right to reproductive sex,

                  Absolutely. That is what was intended, as the Old Testament makes clear. It was assumed that women wanted children and occasionally the patriarchs would unjustly deny them. Artificially reversing that dynamic via massive state intervention is still injustice.

                  > plus a paternal right to kill his children under unusual and extreme circumstances and with maternal consent.

                  Are you talking about abortion? I would imagine that this would be a private family affair, with some medical board oversight of the ethics of the doctors providing the service, TBD by the locality.

                  If you’re talking about post-natal filicide, the Law specifies the method – the parents testify against the son, and then the congregation stones him. There is always slavery as an option, as well.

                • jim says:

                  There is no real difference between killing a baby at four months before birth and four months after birth. On those 4D ultrasounds (three d images plus motion) they look and act much the same.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, post-natal infanticide before the child has been presented to Jehovah is still within the same private realm as abortion. However, killing a son who is nearly grown must involve the congregation. The Bible gives the parents this power, and also to sell into slavery. Honor thy parents is good advice.

                • DesperatelySeekingJewApproval says:

                  Here’s your Kike infiltrator trying to trick us:

                  Philippians 3:3 “For it is we [Christcucks] who are the Circumcision.”

                  You’re welcome, faggot.

                • jim says:

                  Philippians 3:3 calls Jews “dogs”

                  1 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!
                  3 For we are the circumcision

                  That is a Christianity that is its own tribe, no one else’s tribe, no oneway ingrouping.

                  That is a Christianity that outgroups those that outgroup it and ingroups those that ingroup itself.

                • peppermint says:

                  d sj a, listen to this song https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P_MCp_-uwVo and think about whether your strategy can lead to less kids growing up with virtue signaling single mothers

                  also this song https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQsqBqxoR4 and think about whether it’s possible for a woman to inspire a man without an implicit offer of marriage

                  some day, if you’re smart enough, you’ll understand why /pol/ did what it did, consciously or not. until then, murk loar.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >if you’re smart enough, you’ll understand why /pol/ did what it did, consciously or not.

                  Gay.

                  /Pol/ and Anglin had a real chance to move past muh lampshades in around 2014 or so, and start doing Jimianity. They did not do that, became irrelevant, hence we’re here. Weev is one kike who really should get gassed.

              • Koanic says:

                > Read Matthew 19:11. Self-castrated men is what Rabbi Jesus wanted for followers.

                You’re lying. Jesus doesn’t say that. He says marriage is permament, which is the opposite of advocating celibacy.

                His disciples advocate celibacy rather than risk getting stuck with a bitch. He answers that high standards are not for everyone.

                Then he OBSERVES that SOME men live celibately for God. Which is true. John the Baptist had no wife. But Peter did.

                The extreme world-denying aspect of “follow me” applied when Jesus was wandering around homeless. Christians are not called to wifelessness today, any more than they are called to homelessness.

                • jim says:

                  > [Jesus] answers that high standards are not for everyone.

                  This is the reverse of preaching superogation. Whosover preaches superogation is a heretic and is following the footsteps of the pharisees, is engaged in heresy against Christianity, as the pharisees were engaged in heresy against First Temple Judaism.

                  The restoration failed after over two centuries of success, because the government allowed William Wilberforce and his “saints” to get away with preaching supererogation. He had sworn to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, which was a requirement to be allowed in state and quasi state jobs. The articles forbid preaching supererogation, but he was allowed to keep his job.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Church: nobody is good enough, oh but don’t supererogate. They usually forget to actually say the second part.

                • Koanic says:

                  I don’t know a lot about Wilberforce, but that sounds right, Jim. We also get the anti-slavery doctrine from Wilberforce. I suspect that an investigation of the man would reveal him to be a thorough scam, and a deep influence on Churchianity, a modern anti-saint like “Dr.” Martin Luther King, da big pimp. The former leads to the latter leads to Obama, lightbringing Commie faggot.

                • BLESSED ARE THE BARREN says:

                  Don’t project your dishonesty onto me, just because you’re embarrassed at what a Rabbi you worship said about self-castration:

                  There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

                • Koanic says:

                  Ah, I see. You are damned by your inability to read figurative language. I am always encouraged to see Heaven has standards. A big beautiful wall that reads: No tards.

                • BLESSED ARE THE BARREN says:

                  Gotta love how ‘tards toss embarrassing passages in the “figurative” bin, and save only the passages they prefer for literal “interpretation.” Clever!

                • Koanic says:

                  This is a trick frequently Jesus used to drive away people he didn’t want to save. Here he mentions appendage severing; not the only time. Elsewhere, cannibalism.

                  You think you have found a disqualification of Christianity, when in reality you are the disqualified.

                • DesperatelySeekingJewApproval says:

                  Qualified by a Kike? LOL Who cares what a Jew thinks? No white man ever needed a Jew to save him from anything.

                • Koanic says:

                  Calling Jesus a kike is like calling the Portuguese of Columbus’ day niggers because Portuguese now are miscegenated with sub-Saharans.

                  But that is the level of stupidity we can expect of you.

                • WE WUZ KANGS AND QUANS says:

                  Are you one of those “Christian Identity”-types who insist that ancient Jews were all white, and that therefore Jesus was a white man rather than a Semitic Jew?

                  Or is it that ancient Jews were different than modern Ashkenazim, so it’s more appropriate to call them “sandniggers” than “kikes”?

                  LOL.

                • jim says:

                  Aryans conquered the area during the Bronze age, which Egypt being on the periphery of their domain, the land of the two rivers being Aryan central. So Abraham originates from a location that was, at the time, all Aryan.

                  At the start of neolithic, brown eyed middle eastern grain farmers, who were not exactly white, conquered what is now Europe, displacing and exterminating the blue eyed local hunter gatherers, who were not exactly white either.

                  In what is now Russia, probably a bit north of the Caspian, the former hunter gatherers became cattle herders, and the former grain farmers found the climate too harsh for grain, so they met as approximately equal. The former hunter gatherers specialized in magic, priesthood, and raiding, the former grain farmers specialized in large scale organized warfare. They fought a series of wars, and when they made peace from time to time, exchanged hostages, producing a hybrid race. From these hybrids, the white race evolved, developed bronze and wagons, and conquered what is now Europe during the early bronze age. Then, in the late bronze age, the purer whites from the same area, the Aryans, horse herders from the land near the Caspian sea, developed chariots, and conquered just about everywhere.

                  The word “Iran” comes from the word Aryan, so at that time, where Abraham came from was as white as you could find.

                  Egypt is brownish, always has been, because white people keep conquering it, and black people keep coming down the Nile. Abraham came from the other direction, so probably white.

                • Koanic says:

                  There is a subtle racial dynamic to Jesus’ conflict with the Jewish elite. I suspect it was whiter Christians vs kiker proto-kikes. Certainly there was an element of mixed Edomites vs purebred Israelites, which implies whiter vs darker.

                  We see the fruit, the children of those who rejected Christ, in the modern kike. But this level of cancer took 2,000 years to evolve. Just as it took the same amount of time for Christian America to span the globe, harness the sun and reach for the stars.

                  According to Revelations, the memetic and genetic arms race will only intensify from here. I am looking forward to doing my part.

                • AYYO - HOL UP says:

                  >But this level of cancer took 2,000 years to evolve. Just as it took the same amount of time for Christian America to span the globe, harness the sun and reach for the stars.
                  >Christian America
                  >2,000 years

                  ???

                  What timeline is this?

                • jim says:

                  Christian America is the heir of Charles the Second, who inherited the civilization founded by Charles the Hammer.

                • pdimov says:

                  The timeline in which Wernher von Braun was an American Christian, I suppose.

                • DesperatelySeekingJewApproval says:

                  What do you call a Jewish Rabbi who is wildly popular in the Synagogues? (Luke 4:15 ) Not a kike? LOL “WE WORSHIP what we do know, for salvation is from THE JEWS.” (John 4:22) Go ahead and deny again that you’re a craven Jew-worshiper, Kuntic.

                • Koanic says:

                  It’s no wonder you spergs can’t understand the Bible. You think all those “40 years” were exact to the minute? Your cavils are irrelevant to the context.

                  I expected some Jewish supremacist to jump in and claim the atom bomb for kikedom, despite that they couldn’t have done anything without the framework of Christian civilization to parasitize. But nope, just a coupla Euro-tards shooting holes in their own boat deck.

                • Koanic says:

                  I do worship Jesus Christ, who is in one sense a Jew. Those who disbelieve his divinity, and also disbelieve the account which has him fathered by a Roman soldier, and believe he actually existed, would probably believe he is a Jew, depending on where they stood on the Galilee question.

                  However, your accusation of Jew worship is a lie, since you conflate modern Judaism with Jesus, two things which are genetically and religiously distinct.

                  As to the cravenness, you will find out when the armies of the Host wipe you scum off the planet as a man scours char from a pan.

                • Koanic says:

                  We can simplify thusly:

                  If Jesus was not the Messiah, then he was no Jew either, for the Jews deny Joseph sired him, the atheists deny his historicity, and the Communists abhor his teachings. At most he was a fictional half-Roman teaching anti-Jewish hate speech.

                  However, if Jesus is the Messiah, then he decides who is Jewish and who is not, and he has said that the Synagogue of Satan is not Jewish. Thus Christians do not worship kikes, but kikes are made to worship Christians, and beg them for their lives – as they have done.

                  Only by the miracle of Schroedinger’s Stupidity can the Jesus of the Alt-Retard’s imagination be both not Messiah and yet fully kike. One must marvel at their faith in their faculties, against evidence even Thomas couldn’t doubt.

                  When one of them ventures to comment on scripture, it is always Jesus’ first miracle in reverse – converting wine to piss.

              • Anonymous says:

                If you were smart enough, you would realize that the coalition of troofers, Muslims, Hitlerists, white knights, and females (who pretend to be male white knights) who constitute the /pol/ack base have poisoned your brain, and would be trying to disinfect yourself by understanding why Jim says what he says.

                Secretly, however, you think that “Jim is telling me to drop the /pol/ bit because Jim himself is a Bible-loving boomer,” but you don’t have the guts to actually write that. So now you kvetch and kvetch and kvetch about boomers (as before you kvetched about “christcucks”), hoping that Jim will finally get the clue and become a /pol/ack like yourself.

                It will never happen, because you are to his left — on all issues — not to his right. Your weltanschauung stopped being edgy in 2007. Grow up, punk.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There are “based” people on /pol (and /pol doesn’t like Muslims or women) but you are right about troofers and Hitlerites.

                • Anonymous says:

                  To be fair, /pol/ probably has fewer white knights (and females pretending to be male white knights) today than it had throughout most of its operation, but their presence is still conspicuous enough.

                  As for Muslims, ask yourself whence the fanatical pro-Palestine / anti-Israel posts. It’s not “fellow white males” posting all that crap, but Muslims, primarily Turks and Arabs. Sometimes I suspect that a lot of Internet nazism is really intended to serve as a long-term anti-Israel psyop run by the deep state, and I think Jim concurs. On the grassroots level, though, it’s the hajjis.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The left wing glow in the darks have been employing Muslims since the 80s so I wouldn’t be surprised if they pay a bunch of them to conduct “how do we do fellow white anti-semite” psyops.

                • jim says:

                  If you were an actual Nazi or an actual white nationalist, what would you think about moving the embassy to Jerusalem?

                  Anyone who is indignant about moving the embassy to Jerusalem is no white nationalist. It is Muslim Jihadis and Internationalist Globalists who don’t want the embassy in Jerusalem.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The reason the Jews hate the goyim isn’t that the goyim call them “dogs” and so on, though doubtless there are times when that happens, sometimes with good reason sometimes not.

                  The reason the Jews hate the goyim is that no matter how deeply they entrench themselves as the permanent ruling class, the people who run every society, every cultural organ, every vital industry, every advisory body, the truth is the goyim don’t really give a shit where the capital of Israel is, or even whether it’s Israel or Palestine. To us the Middle East’s problems are just more crap we don’t have time to give a damn about.

                  The Jews hate that about us.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Orthodox Jews and Likud Israelis don’t like non jews because ethnocentric but they don’t hate white people any more then they hate anyone else and the Orthodox voted for Trump.

                  Reform Jews who are basically progressives hate whites because the progressive religion hates whites.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t tell anyone to drop the /pol bit. Because we are out of power, we need trolls and jesters for memetic warfare, and when we are in power we will continue to need them to protect us from hubris.

                  I do call out trolls and jesters to our left – Peppermint imputes improbable virtue to girls, and thus participates in the elevation of female status that has resulted in us reproducing below replacement.

                  Repeating once again: Puberty sets in earlier in girls than in boys. Sexual desire in boys sets in at or very near to puberty. The variance in the age at which sexual desire sets in females is very large, much larger than in boys, often setting in well after fertile age, but more often setting in well before fertile age and well before puberty. Most commonly, sexual desire in females sets in well before they have the curves to do something about it. It is therefore far more common for Lolita to sneak into Jeremy Meek’s bed while he is drunk and asleep, and ride him to a happy awakening, followed by a big surprise, than for Humbert Humbert to sneak into Lolita’s bed while she is asleep.

                  We should not take trolls and jesters too seriously. And when we are in power, we will forbid sacrilege and lese mageste. People who engage in sacrilege or lege mageste will be punished in ways that render them low status, rather than getting martyrdom. We should not give trolls and jesters status now, and even less should we give them status when we are in power. If low status, sacrilege and lese mageste is not a problem, but you have to make sure that anyone who engages in it gets low status.

                • peppermint says:

                  I believe that women are naturally good, not because they’re people, but because they exist

                • jim says:

                  Huh?

                  Original sin, sin of Eve, and all that.

                  We have a pile of wisdom literature from earlier eras, from the Book of Proverbs to Shakespeare and Canterbury tales, telling us that women are naturally wicked.

                  And the society that tells me that women are naturally good denies what I see in front of my eyes. No one else seems to see what I see right in front of me, which caused me to doubt my sanity, but the statistics seems to fit what I see in front of my face, and are inconsistent with what everyone else says they see happening.

                  All businesses with women in power fail, as near to all of them as makes no difference, personal observation confirmed by venture capital statistics. All workplace complaints of sexual harassment, as near to all of them as make no difference, are the result of women aggressing against men, personal observation confirmed by the fact that women are overwhelmingly more likely to complain about sexual harassment if they outnumber men in their workplace. You supposedly sexually harassed a woman if you failed her shit test. Neal DeGrasse Tyson gets accused of sexual harassment, and I do not, so you get more sexual harassment charges when women are so hard up that the shit test weak and frightened men.

                  All rape accusations and all rape convictions are false, as near to all of them as makes no difference, confirmed by the frantic and unsuccessful search for poster girls. Actual rapes frequently happen, but seldom lead to rape accusations or rape convictions. True rape accusations are far more likely to be retracted and the chick leaves the cop shop with the rapist than false rape accusations.

                  Wife beating complaints are kind of true, in that women who complain about wife beating frequently did get beaten, but the search for poster girls is unsuccessful, because any particular specific case of wife beating is likely to lead you to conclude that some women need to be beaten.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Women are not naturally good, but I will say they are not naturally as evil as they are our current age.

                  Women naturally conform more. They are programmed to conform to be evil and selfish in the modern era.

                  In Nazi Germany the women were sort of programmed to believe in Nazism but also really programmed to be loyal and good wives.

                  So the Gentile wives of Jews who were to be deported in Berlin stood outside in the cold for days demanding their husbands (who being Jewish in Nazi Germany didn’t do a lot for their social status, and these women were probably high on the gold digger scale in the Weimar period because it wasn’t that common to marry outside your religion in Germany) be released, and they even refused to disperse when threatened with arrest and machine gun fire. If there is one tale of the holocaust we SHOULD emphasize post restoration it should be the fanatical loyalty of the Rosenstrasse wives.

                • jim says:

                  Agreed. In a society where women were expected to be good, they would be a lot better.

                  But also, in a society where men were allowed to be more manly, and expected to be more manly, women would also be a lot better.

                • jim says:

                  The good women in your example were good because subject to the authority of a good man.

                • peppermint says:

                  Cominator, you missed the point. I said women are naturally good, which is next to meaningless if I don’t qualify it, and you replied by qualifying your position and ceding holiness.

                  We need to make it so when people think women are naturally good, it reminds them of women’s qualities.

                • jim says:

                  We need to make it so that people think that women are naturally bad unless under the authority of a good man.

                  Which is the simple truth.

                • peppermint says:

                  when did it become popular to give girls names like chastity, faith and honor, anyway?

                • peppermint says:

                  Considering how various White mythologies contain good-aligned action goddesses who don’t need no man, Jim is probably right about evil unless authority.

                • The Cominator says:

                  They were not really under the authority of their husband as the Nazi state encouraged gentile women of Jewish husbands to divorce them and get their social status back. But very few of them did (I think it was about 7%). And because the Jewish husbands after divorce were then subject to the same dire fates as other jews not married to gentiles this actually placed them at the mercy of their wives.

                  Now if American women were in this situation I’d think 95% of them would leave and none of them would have stood out in the cold without food for days or faced down machine guns pointed at them.

                  So obviously these women had a much much different mentality the question is what changed.

                  The overall memetic emphasis of Nazi propaganda of what a good woman was (in German tradition pre 1945 as well) was loyal to her husband, emphasized above politics. Women were raised to be above all loyal and selfless in Germany and Nazi propaganda doubly emphasized that this is what a good woman was.

                  So how to change the female mentality back to selfless loyalty to their close in-group… can it be done quickly or is the current generation lost?

                • StoneMan says:

                  You can’t make a housewife out of a ho, Cominator. Even niggers have figured that out.

                • jim says:

                  You cannot make a housewife out of a ho in our current environment, because she will see you as weak compared to numerous pimps she has been with. However late eighteenth, early nineteenth century Australia had swift and total success in making ho’s into wives. When the elite shotgun married them off, they reacted as if abducted from the weaker tribe into the stronger tribe, and completely internalized the values of the stronger tribe – which required and expected respectable female behavior.

                • Koanic says:

                  Plenty of housewives become hoes, and vice versa. You can’t make a housewife in the Weimerican ghetto, though. Because to do that you’d have to kill all the cucks first. The bright side of Civil War 2.0 is that those faggy idiots will line up to die in droves for their false Goddess. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch. Here’s hoping they WMD each other back to stone age patriarchy!

                • StoneMan says:

                  I’m happy to be wrong on this. Fair point, Jim.

                • peppermint says:

                  Cominator, a beta encouraging but never attempting to force divorce provokes loyalty as a shit test.

                  You still give up your frame. You should believe what you say you believe, or fake it better.

                  Most tumblrinas are going to be housewives of chantards.

                • peppermint says:

                  if I say train engines are good, do you think of how they seem to know the right way by instinct?

                • Anonymous says:

                  You don’t get what I told you about /pol/ being blue pilled about the WQ.

                  Meme warfare must center on preventing White Genocide and dysgenic breeding. White Genocide means whites failing to reproduce due to a hostile cultural environment. The way to do that is to create and popularize a WELTANSCHAUUNG that is conducive to reproduction of high IQ whites. Look at all the incels all over the place. Are they reproducing? Will they reproduce? Heck, you’re not an incel, yet you are still childless – like Cuckian Recidivist.

                  As long as you focus on the wrong things, you won’t be able to prevent White Genocide and dysgenic breeding. Even Neoreaction and old-school Trad Reaction are — at least potentially — way better at persuading HIGH IQ WHITES to reproduce than chan retardation. But these aren’t popular ideologies, *because* chan retardation directs all the mental energy of meme warriors to silly issues. I’m sick and tired of what the Millennial Generation is doing to meme warfare. You wasted our last opportunity to save civilization by becoming wilfully retarded.

                  To Hell with you and your Crap-Anschauung.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “Anonymous, you are exaggerating.”

                  O RLY? Check the catalog of 8/pol/ right now:

                  https://8ch.net/pol/catalog.html

                  The ratio of good topics to shit-tier topics is about 1:20.

                  So much… wasted potential…

                • peppermint says:

                  Cominotaur: women are great, some are remarkably loyal
                  Students: > some women are loyal
                  > mine shows no actual signs
                  > i’m doing something wrong
                  Grandstudents: > Teacher sucks with women, but grandteacher says they’re loyal
                  Great-grandstudents: > anyone who denies women are loyal denies Jimism, hates women, and doesn’t want to let women make the decision for themselves not to smoke my pole
                  Great-great-grandstudents move Cominotaur’s grave under the sewage treatment plant.

                  /b/ taught us how to use meme arrows

                • peppermint says:

                  (Vominator, im going to continue making fun of you until you can hear ‘women are good’ without cucking. Jim’s slogan is also a good choice)

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Cominotaur: women are great, some are remarkably loyal”

                  Not what I am saying, none our loyal in our current society at least not to that degree.

                  But it appears that in some other societies that some women were indeed loyal, fanatically so. Even when their own best interests probably dictated they should not be.

                  Its impossible to imagine an American wife standing outside in the cold for days outside a secret police headquarters demanding their (low status) be released and refusing to disperse when they had machine guns pointed at them. I can’t imagine any American woman doing that. But these German women did do that.

                  It wasn’t that their husbands had real authority over them, because they were at the mercy of their wives. Its that American women are programmed to be selfish cunts from a young age and German women were programmed to be the opposite.

                  Female nature is many things, but it is a great deal more programmable then male nature is my main point. The question is after a lifetime of feminist programming how easy is it to reprogram them.

                • jim says:

                  > Female nature is many things, but it is a great deal more programmable then male nature is my main point. The question is after a lifetime of feminist programming how easy is it to reprogram them.

                  Women are adapted to abduction and elopement from one tribe to another. Upon being abducted into a new tribe, they will shit test the new tribe severely, and the women of the old tribe, acting collectively, will collectively shit test the new tribe. If the high status males of the new tribe, acting as a disciplined and cohesive group, pass the shit test, group passing against group testing, the women undergo Stockholm syndrome and internalize the values of the new tribe – which in early nineteenth century Australia were higher class male expectations of female conduct. But they did not exactly jump at the chance of becoming upper class wives instead of lower class whores. First they individually and collectively shit tested the authorities, which shit test the authorities passed with flying colors using methods that the Victorians found disturbing.

                  Please keep in mind however that the shit test is likely to be of a nature that passing it is massively illegal by the values of the old tribe, and the grossest possible act of war.

                  Having joined the Jewish tribe, the women in your story found themselves called back to the old tribe, and therefore shit tested the old tribe. In the ancestral environment they would have been swiftly added to some Nazi’s harem, and were subconsciously disappointed when the Nazi party failed the shit test by not sending them to rape camp.

                  This model implies that you could elope a woman from the feminist tribe, and large numbers of white women are eloping to conservative Islam, but they are eloping to a tribe where their boyfriends receive decisive and overwhelming backing from their kinfolk and mosque.

                  If you elope a woman from the feminist tribe, you had better have a home tribe that is credibly willing to act illegally, (Hell’s Angels, conservative Islam) because the feminist’s tribe’s shit tests will be state backed shit tests. Old type Church of Latter Day Saints generally locate their places in the back of beyond and locate a friendly sheriff.

                  The good Aryan wives of German Jews were shit testing the authorities by collectively displaying virtue, in exactly the same way as the lower class hos of early nineteenth century Australia shit tested the authorities by collectively displaying vice.

                • peppermint says:

                  Do you know what loyalty feels like? Growing up in Boston, surronded by people looking to trip you into heresy over a platitude and unwilling to think about ideas, with every White male competing with you for women by trying to figure out how to exclude you, maybe not.

                  Look at how Jim replied, quickly, late at night, as an old man, without doing any drugs, first conciliatory, while building, not losing, his frame, then setting a slogan people will whisper for ten thousand years, that makes every action girl since the dawn of storytelling look ridiculous.

                  In a sense, I’m like a woman here, I believe that my future depends on you being able to pass my shit tests. Do you feel that as loyalty?

                  Why is a dog loyal? Why is a man loyal?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Having joined the Jewish tribe, the women in your story found themselves called back to the old tribe, and therefore shit tested the old tribe. In the ancestral environment they would have been swiftly added to some Nazi’s harem, and were subconsciously disappointed when the Nazi party failed the shit test by not sending them to rape camp.”

                  Waiting outside in the cold for days without supplies and not dispersing under threat of machine gun fire seems a hell of a shit test.

                  I just can’t see any American woman doing it ever even as a shit test.

                • jim says:

                  The German wives of Jews affirmed the values of their adopted tribe to the authorities of the Nazi tribe as a shit test, and the convict women affirmed the values of their criminal tribe to the authorities of the Australian penal colony. The women affirming their ho values got harsher treatment than the women affirming their orthodox Jewish values.

                  Feminist baristas have typically acquired a hundred thousand dollars in college debt for worthless college degrees as a shit test. If you had a time machine, kidnapped a bunch of feminist baristas and sent them back in time to late eighteenth century early nineteenth century Australia, they would give the authorities one hell of a feminist shit test. Which the Australian authorities would have passed with flying colors.

                  If the German wives of Jews had been sent to rape camp, would have promptly become good Nazis.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Outgrouping /pol/ is low energy.

                  You wouldn’t even be here if it weren’t for anonymous kyrgyzstani fingerpainting enthusiast boards fertilizing the ground of being with their shitpostings; Making The Discourse Safe For Perennialism.

                  Or perhaps rather, you’re here precisely because of it’s effectiveness?

                  There are any number of good genuine posters round here that quite possibly have different opinions about this or that issue, quite possibly have different opinions from J. Random Poster on an image board elsewhere (who himself quite possible has different opinions from other J. Random Poster on the same board itself as well); they do not however spend their time or preoccupy themselves with explicitly mentioning and enumerating the manifold sins (in his perspective) of his nextdoor neighbors in the group he is in, because A. that’s a more feminine mode of discourse, and B. it’s low energy and kills the energy of groups. If or when there are disagreements about something, it is the *something* itself that is the topic. Different modes are more or less appropriate in different contexts, and that is how you conduct yourself better in the context of a more closely related group of peoples.

                  “Hail fellow reactionaries, i too am a reactionary. Now take a look here at all these people who happen to be close neighbors that you ought to outgroup so you can squabble amongst each other…”

  18. alf says:

    > What makes you think that your “Restoration” will actually ever happen?

    faith.

    • glosoli says:

      Faith in a (((moldbug)))-concocted dream, currently peddled by a fat guy who likes to pretend he’s a gangsta to get in the pants of various sluts, whilst eagerly awaiting his dream of escaping to another planet on the back of globalist capitalism?

      Keep that faith alf, see where it gets you in the decades ahead. Jehovah watches the usual culprits scheming, He will only suffer so much nonsense, then He’ll take action. I would argue that action is underway in certain nations already.

      • jim says:

        You do not worship Jehovah. You worship Gaia.

        I am no longer fat, and good luck with finding the unicorn imagined by peddlers of the blue pill.

        All women misbehave because all women are looking for male authority and not finding it, because their innate instincts for assessing male status have not changed much since we looked like gorillas. When one gives them what they are looking for, or an imitation of what they are looking for that is good enough for them to suspend disbelief, they behave tolerably well. If you want a wife, she will be a wife, if you want a whore, the same girl will turn tricks. This, however, requires that one behaves disturbingly badly, something Heartiste enthusiastically tells us but Dalrock is reluctant to acknowledge.

    • peppermint says:

      Social atomization has progressed from Fred and Barney to Homer and Ned to not expecting to be on a first name basis with the neighbors, but socially atomized pioneers built this country with hope, faith, and charity.

      I’ve never been more convinced that we can do this. I love you all (in a decade, no homo will sound creepy and sordid)

  19. name says:

    “No one has been able to publish such fiction for two centuries.”

    This applies to the mainstream.
    In reality, EVERY serious work of art written/coded/filmed in the last two centuries shows life as it is, even with regards to biologically-connotated “love”.

    Surely of it’s people with a reputation and who want to stay in the business, they have to tell their story in roundabout ways. But they do tell the story as it is, if they are artists and not “artists”.
    And surely, such real art is not what the public wants, because they can’t stand the realism, and they are bound to miss anything expressed not loudly.

    • peppermint says:

      There’s a reason men of character prefer Japanese cartoons and Jetsons, The and early Simpsons, The to live action sitcoms in which miserable childless city perverts grouse at each other incessantly to the laugh track.

      There hasn’t been a decent live action TV series since the good ones were canceled in I think I read the 70s, before I was born, when the networks decided to take their responsibility to democracy seriously.

      • The Cominator says:

        Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia is hilarious and worth watching as far as live action comedies go…

        But they are clearly all psychopaths to some degree or another and not supposed to be role models for anyone.

    • jim says:

      Not seeing it.

      The mating dance is never realistically depicted.

      Not seeing women get negged since the early nineteenth century. Not seeing men get shit tested since the eighteenth.

      • The Cominator says:

        The Empire Strikes Back actually showed a lot of interplay between constant shit testing early on and badboy alpha game.

        • jim says:

          Seeing the badboy alpha. Not seeing the shit tests. Give me a scene. Better still, give me a you tube fragment.

          she is “feisty”. Feisty is not a shit test. It is what feminists rationalize their shit tests as being.

          The essence of a shit test is that it the reverse of a compliance test. With a compliance test, you tell a girl to jump through hoops for your approval, and if she complies, you approve. With a shit test, the girl tells you to jump through hoops or she will disapprove, and if you jump through hoops, she disapproves anyway.

          She accuses him of being a rogue, and he agrees, but that is hardly a shit test, since he is projecting bad boy. Her accusation supports his frame, rather than challenging it. Now if she accused him of being unsuccessful at being a bad boy, that would be a shit test, which he would fail if he responded by pointing at the Millenium Falcon, and pass by telling her he is a homeless bum.

          And he never negs her. In real life he would neg her brutally.

          • The Cominator says:

            She was a total bitch to Han throughout Empire almost until the moment she made out with him.

          • The Cominator says:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3DXMVZiVpc

            This scene is a good one.

            • jim says:

              Being a bitch is not a shit test. Being a bitch is “feisty”.

              He (accurately) accuses her of following him around like a lost puppy. He shit tests her. Appropriate behavior would be to neg her (accuse her of being homeless, refer to her as an ex princess), or compliance test her (“make me a coffee, black, no sugar”)

              When she says “I don’t know where you get your delusions, laser brain” she is failing his shit test by revealing it strikes home. If had been a guy trying to pass a females shit test, the correct reply would have been “Don’t you wish”. Her complicated and implausible excuse for following him around like a lost puppy would have been a total fail had she been a male and he been a female.

              And if she accused him of giving up independent roguery because not very good at it, or asked him to hold her handbag, make her a drink, or somesuch, that would be a shit test.

              “Feisty” is feminist role inversion.

              Then he boasts about their kiss. Beta.

              “Feisty” is friction and conflict, and negs and shit tests are friction and conflict, but “Feisty” is friction and conflict with the roles reversed, or at best symmetric.

      • Nikolai says:

        Lady Chatterley’s lover was published early 20th century. Been a while since I’ve read it, but it definitely depicted negging, probably depicted shit tests.

  20. name says:

    Let me also add that

    1) It’s not SJWs, but career-hungry “journalists” who quickly form a consensus around every matter and draw lines parting the allowed from the non-allowed.
    The rest mechanically follows (and in fact you will find the indoctrinated hold totallyinconsistent stands from a matter to another: they just recite what they see their figures of authority proclaim).

    2) 21th century “alpha males” have become smart enough to, for the most part, see the cat-toy devices, see the cat-toy for what it is worth, and opt out soon as the risk exceeds the possible rewards.
    I realize some may be sorry to see less fatal confrontations of aggressive domineering males take place, but aggressive domineering males are getting smarter than anybody else, and pretty much everyone is figuring a cat-toy is just like any other cat toy, no purpose to obsessing over one.

    Of course a wide majority of men will have to become far more mature and cat toy wise, before they change their behavior properly, thus altering the mating marjet conditions in a way that compel females to return to decency and heal from the most unhinged narcissism.
    Maybe it won’t even happen.

    • The Cominator says:

      “1) It’s not SJWs, but career-hungry “journalists” who quickly form a consensus around every matter and draw lines parting the allowed from the non-allowed.”

      The journalists don’t originate orders they merely signal them in transmittal from higher command (and if you think journalists themselves originate orders you need to reread Moldbug).

      You ever see the segment where Colbert told his audience that they were wrong to be happy about Trump firing Comey. That was an order Colbert got, he was merely transmitting it.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNoP8cmuFU0

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      “2) 21th century “alpha males” have become smart enough to, for the most part, see the cat-toy devices, see the cat-toy for what it is worth, and opt out soon as the risk exceeds the possible rewards.”

      I believe this is explained by our society becoming polygynous (and/or ghettogynous).

      First of all, a male is better off investing surplus resources not in an existing wife but in one more wife. So females will get the minimum wage, so to speak, and instead subsist on societal largesse.

      Second, females will invest the minimum possible to attract suitors or more permanent husbands. We can see this in them looking and behaving increasingly oddly and unattractively. Signals of short-term mating opportunities as well as unsuitability for long-term family building.

  21. Zach says:

    Someone buy the dude with the funny long usernames a beer!

  22. peppermint says:

    they made fun of skinner for being celibate in the 90s and now smithers being gay for burns is just weird and creepy instead of also a little funny

    • peppermint says:

      wow, funny names dude, you knew blame boomers and no gays fit togethet. There’s a reason Boomer attitudes are so different from ours. Yes, it’s important to give them credit where credit is due.

      • GOATSE DID NOTHING WRONG says:

        It’s okay to admit that your spam-tier oeuvre — albeit quite amusing at times — contains lots of nonsense, and that your attempts to defend that voluminous nonsense have resulted in le ebin PWNage.

  23. peppermint says:

    Once upon a time there was the Christian principality of X. Some zhids walked up, asked for an arrangement where they had access to the gymnasium and their own schools, and then there were Xers and juden. The Xers went to the New World and then there were Xers, juden, and aborigines, and maybe the inscrutable East Asian bringing the wisdom of Confucius and the Buddha in a melodious dialect.

    By the time Millennials showed up, there were everyone but Xers since talking about Xer identity was somehow intrinsically hateful.

  24. Zach says:

    So did Kate run for the hills and skip town? Did she ever present an example?

    ROFL-stomped!

  25. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    In order to have well functioning systems, people need to be responsible for things. Which is to say, people can know who to blame for things going boink.

    In a well functioning system where people know who to blame for things going boink, in those odd times where things might go boink, ignorant mundanes with vanishingly short future horizons can be snookered by unscrupulous social climbers into dissolving the whole edifice altogether, thus creating vacuums for the unscrupulous social climbers to advance in the chaos, where they might not have amounted to much otherwise.

    Thus, just as a finely chiseled statue or minutely circuited mainframe is much more entropically stable as a pile of rubble or solid mass of slag respectively, we arrive at more chaos-invariant forms of governance where noone appears to be responsible for anything and the most successful forms of power are those which can occult themselves and appear powerless.

    Dysfunctional systems can persist because noone can really find anyone to blame for things going boink.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Dysfunctional systems can persist because noone can really find anyone to blame for things going boink.”

      This is the fundamental principle of “Democracy” in a large state.

      It is of course in reality an oligarchy but theoretically the oligarchy is not in charge and its sometimes hard to identify who the true members of the oligarchy are.

  26. peppermint says:

    Father Bergoglio on gaylords who want to be priests: “The ministry or the consecrated life is not his place.”

    People have places again.

    If he can keep that up, or reveal that he pulled the hello fellow progressives I am also a progresssive trick (which doesn’t work because progressives ditch you immediately when you step out of line and then don’t get demoralized by how quickly they throw each other away), I’ll have to start calling him His Holiness.

    • jim says:

      They will not kick him out, because they figure he is lying.

      If he kicks out the Lavender Mafia, then they will ditch him and go back to attacking the Church for pedophilia.

      When last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church were doubling down on investigating the married laity for pedophilia, while piously overlooking the gay mafia, much as Mueller doubled down on looking for white male heterosexual racist terrorists, while ignoring Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorism. They want to find a married white man with some connection to the Church, who works for the Church in some capacity, who inappropriately touched a choirgirl, so that they can scream to the heavens that it is not gay priest problem. The Roman Catholic Church is looking very very hard for white male heterosexual married poster boy, and not finding one.

    • Koanic says:

      The place of faggots is under a pile of rocks the size of softballs.

      For faggots who want to be priests, or are priests, I would imagine sterner measures are required. The daughter of a priest who plays the whore in her father’s house is burned at her father’s door. Presumably a faggot priest should be burned in his robes.

    • The Cominator says:

      Francis has destroyed the Vatican’s soft power by being so openly pozzed so given that the Vatican has long been an enemy he has been good for us.

      I hope he is Pope forever.

  27. Zach says:

    Sicario is a movie that dealt with a woman realistically.

    And this was pretty intense:

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

  28. Neurotoxin says:

    “every story other than action girl overfullfills collective 1786929’s rice production quota and marries the tractor is now forbidden.”

    “When he crashes a party and discovers the ravishing freshman Jurietto, with the help of his best friend Merukyushio, he must defeat the held-back otaku Tirubato at Dance Dance Revolution, while keeping his grades up and avoiding getting expelled.”

    LOL, fantastic. What was this, Open Mic Night at Jim’s blog?

Leave a Reply