The climate scam movement

Trump ignores the climate summit, and dismisses it as dreams and windmills.

“I’m not going to lose that wealth, I’m not going to lose it on dreams, on windmills, which frankly aren’t working too well,”

Greeny heads explode, because the US is supposed to fund the climate scam movement.“Trump views the United States as a busted valise, and he’s a miser hiding his pennies under his pillow.
The hilarious thing about the greenie reaction to Trump standing them up is that it becomes obvious that the goal was a joint declaration of something expensive, the more expensive the better, with the US footing the bill and the greenies skimming the expenditures.

The “International Community” is the state department, and the greenies are largely NGOs, which are also the state department, so the planned meeting would have been the presidency putting pressure on the president to fund activism against the president.

Climate action primarily consists of shaking down energy companies and disrupting the electricity grid. Even if windmills and all that met their promises, which they never do, the effect on CO2 emissions would be absolutely insignificant.

A number of places, notably South Australia have taken drastic action to transfer to renewable – with the result that in practice they have taken radical action to import energy from states using coal power, and their state grids have suffered alarming brownouts and blackouts.

Action to shake down energy companies and disrupt the electricity grid is indeed unstoppable, but the actual effect of all these measures on CO2 emissions has been near zero. Green energy projects do not in practice generate energy. They generate superior holiness. The objective is never to generate electricity from wind, but to generate holiness from wind, and convert holiness into money and political power. The alternative energy projects are never implemented with serious intention to generate substantial amounts of energy. They merely go through the motions of trying to generate energy, and, as the climategate files reveal, Michael Mann merely went through the motions of investigating whether the world was warming or cooling.

Members of the priestly caste that engage in holiness spiraling are always conmen and frauds, whether Saint Jerome arguing for mandatory priestly celibacy, or Michael Mann arguing that western civilization threatens the earth. And when these priests use priestly power to intrude into merchant activities, as when they get involved in large scale solar power and wind farms, the ensuing business activities are always cons and frauds. The real objective is never to generate power, but to shake down the people operating the energy grid, which results in brownouts, blackouts, and high energy prices. The problem is not just that wind power and solar power are intermittent and unreliable, but that the people implementing wind power and solar power are unreliable. The problem is not the technology, though the technology is unsatisfactory, the big problem is the people implementing the technology. Hydro power is intermittent also, because some years it rains and some years it does not, but we never had the problems with hydro power installations that we are now having with big wind farms and big solar power installations. The problem is that they are not even crooked merchants, they are crooked priests who do not understand and do not care about the business and the technology. They want to destroy technology, not implement renewable energy. The technology works, at a price, or rather could be made to work, at a price, but the operators invariably play the holiness card to scam the grid instead. If you do business with crooks, you get burned.

The climate scam movement is a movement to destroy western civilization in order to steal a few bucks from the energy companies.

The hockey stick curve is a multiproxy reconstruction of past climate, and in a multiproxy reconstruction, you are adding apples to oranges, and there is an alarming amount of room even for an honest well intentioned person to add apples and oranges one way, or to add them in a different way. But Mann’s hockey stick graph was not just based on excessive creativity in the course of adding apples to oranges, but on fraud.

How do I know Mann’s Hockey stick was fraud, rather than excessive creativity in adding apples to oranges?

Dr Tim Ball did a similar multi proxy graph based on substantially the same data, but, unlike Mann, showed his work, revealed his data and mathematical methods.

His multiproxy graph, like every singleproxy graph from all over the world that covers the same period with adequate time resolution, shows the medieval climate optium far warmer than the present, and today’s climate changes far smaller than past climate changes.

The discrepancy between his graph, and Mann’s graph, was so severe that he called Mann a fraud. According to Ball, here was simply no way you could add apples to oranges and get Mann’s graph, no matter how creative you were about adding apples to oranges.

So, is Ball a fraud, or is Mann a fraud? One of them has to be a fraud. How do you know that Mann, rather than Tim Ball, is the fraud?

Mann sued Ball for libel. Ball defended his work on the basis of truth, that it was truthful to call Mann a fraud and the hockey stick graph fraudulent, thus turning the libel case into court trial on which version of our climate past was fraudulent.

Mann tried to win the case by dragging it out and running up endless and enormous legal fees, lawfare tactics that revealed he was speaking power to truth. After eight long years of delay and the artificial manufacture of huge legal bills, the court found in favor of Ball, because Mann refused to supply the calculations whereby he supposedly derived the hockey stick graph from the proxies.

155 Responses to “The climate scam movement”

  1. Steve Johnson says:

    results in brownouts, blackouts, and high energy prices. The problem is not just that wind power and solar power are intermittent and unreliable, but that the people implementing wind power and solar power are unreliable. The problem is not the technology, though the technology is unsatisfactory, the big problem is the people implementing the technology. Hydro power is intermittent also, because some years it rains and some years it does not, but we never had the problems with hydro power installations that we are now having with big wind farms and big solar power installations. The problem is that they are not even crooked merchants, they are crooked priests who do not understand and do not care about the business and the technology.

    This is an excellent point that I’ve not seen made before.

    Solar and wind power providers go through a selective filter for political connections, not for ability to generate electricity. It’s unsurprising when their organizations aren’t competent at generating electricity *because that’s not the core function they need to execute to thrive*.

    The Soviets who ran Chernobyl had better incentives – at least there the Party’s claim to power / coordination point was that they provided superior material abundance so beyond the incompetence that slides in due to their bad incentive structure at least someone might *try* to reliably generate electricity. Green power isn’t supposed to demonstrate abundance – in fact abundance is a sin against the Earth – so if it fails then that’s just more holiness that the providers can claim (while skimming wealth off the society they’re burning down).

  2. The Cominator says:

    If you want to ask a greens head to explode try to talk to them about how potentially wonderous it would be for the economy (and how much it would reduce those “evil” fossil fuels) it would be if we permitted widespread building of Thorium breeder reactors.

    If your worried about meltdowns or even the reactors exploding due to massive human incompetence (which is a semi-legitimate worry as human incompetence is limitless even though newer reactors less prone to meltdown) just make the rule that the reactors are buried underground in something like a mine.

    • The Cominator says:

      Damnit this is me rewriting but not proofreading my post… wish this place had an edit function… I meant “If you want to make a greens head explode”…

      Basically you need to explain to them that nuclear is the greenest form of power.

      Thorium + Breeder technology is the best form of nuclear right now and I’m skeptical about fusion being made to work anytime soon, the only practical application humanity has found for fusion is the hydrogen bomb. Fusion in nature occurs only in the cores of stars… given that the core of stars is the only stable form of fusion we really know of doubtful we could create a stable fusion reaction on earth and even if we could probably a very bad idea.

      • Not Tom says:

        I’m no expert in nuclear tech, but aren’t all nuclear bombs based on fission? I don’t think any human has ever been able to generate a stable fusion reaction – which is indeed how stars work.

        • The Cominator says:

          Highest yield bombs are fusion bombs. Its not a stable reaction of course but that isn’t the point.

    • Dave says:

      Reactors can’t be buried underground because they need a sink for the copious heat they generate — a large body of water or a cooling tower. Molten-salt reactors cannot “melt down” because their fuel is already molten. You only need to arrange it so that if fuel leaks out of the reactor vessel, it pools in a shape that does not allow fission to continue. And they don’t require high pressure like light-water reactors do, so there’s little danger of an explosion.

      • jim says:

        You bury the reactor underground, and have a pipe to the cooling tower.

        Molten salt reactors are inherently complex because they necessarily include a waste reprocessing facility – they would be great, but they are not quite working yet, and are apt to be large and expensive if we get them working.

        Small fast breeder liquid sodium cooled reactors are a lower hanging fruit.

        • Dave says:

          There’s a problem, the need for a “waste reprocessing facility”. The usual pattern of industrial development is to invent a process that is inefficient and generates a lot of waste, but over time further innovations increase efficiency and find uses for the waste products. With today’s environmental laws, you must solve all these problems up front before your first plant goes live.

          James Watt could not build a steam engine under today’s laws, which means that there won’t be any James Watts in the future.

        • Reziac says:

          Or use the waste heat wherever heat is needed. Pipe it off to the nearest settlement or facility that needs heat. If much of the heat is lost enroute, so what? isn’t losing it the point?

          • The Cominator says:

            The fact that you use the underground to trap heat and pipe it up to where needed is actually a major efficiency advantage to an underground reactor…

      • The Cominator says:

        As Jim says you can use pipes for heat exchange (to the extent the heat isn’t being converted to electrical energy somehow anyway and that is truly what you should be trying to do with the heat to the extent possible… in fact you may have just highlighted a huge advantage to an underground reactor), there is probably some way that molten salt reactors can be made to explode even if its not plausible.

        Burying the reactors underground should sidestep all the annoying need to otherwise overinspect and all the green nonsense, NIMBYism and other worries about what if something goes wrong (because even if the reactor explodes in a cavern the silicon in the earth will glassify and mostly contain any fallout).

    • info says:

      Waste is 99% wasted nuclear fuel. There is a ways to go yet.

      • The Cominator says:

        Wasted nuclear fuel not a problem with breeder reactors, most of the “waste” can in fact be reused as fuel and the rest of it is radioactively inert. The French don’t have a problem with it.

        • Info says:

          Indeed which is why I bristle when they suggest burial of such waste. Because it a waste of good nuclear fuel.

          If its radioactive it potentially has convertible energy.

          • Dave says:

            Stuff doesn’t disappear when you bury it; you can always dig it up later. No one currently wants to reprocess spent nuclear fuel because it’s messy and complicated to extract all the daughter elements. Why would anyone bother, when freshly-mined uranium costs twenty-five dollars a pound?

  3. Tom Creo says:

    Greetings from South Australia where we endured 16 years of leftist government before finally switching to a spineless, visionless, milquetoast rightist “alternative” that mouths similar inane green energy platitudes. There are a few South Australians like me who long for a nuclear and reinstated coal revolution.

  4. Hammer Fan says:

    Has anyone heard of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). My town just announced this as an “alternative” to the local power utility. Is this the latest greeny scam?

    • Reziac says:

      There’s something similar in Texas, where you pay estimated bills in advance, and your final cost is what the actual wholesale price was at the time. This is usually much cheaper because there’s no markup (evidently make their money on earning interest on what’s paid in advance) but can also cause surprise bills when the wholesale spikes (friend says she usually saves $100/mo, but also got dinged $136 for just four days worth during a spike).

  5. Encelad says:

    I recently noticed an escalation in rethoric. Usually I see greenies asking for more taxes to evil capitalists, but I don’t remember them calling for direct violence. This week, for the first time, I saw in my social media feeds two instances advocating blood: one from a third class celebrity who made into the news by saying that, in order to save the burning rainforest, nationalists should be killed. The second one was a meme depicting “the four ways to fight climate change”: “don’t use the car; eat less meat; recycle; hang the corrupt CEO elite poisoning the planet”. Can’t say if it is a new trend yet, though.

    • jim says:

      Also seeing plenty of calls for the extermination of white males, extermination of Republicans, extermination of Trump voters, and so on and so forth.

      Some of them want to destroy industrial civilization because polluting the earth, some believe that anything that makes white people wealthy must be magically subtracting wealth from brown people. All of them want to kill lots of people for reasons vague, incoherent, and shifting.

      • info says:

        To be fair environmental destruction, pollution and ugly architecture is my big gripes with modern industrial civilization even if I am thankful to everything else it solved.

      • Reziac says:

        “I hate you! I’ll kill you!!” — any thwarted 3 year old

  6. Karl says:

    Do you have a link to Ball’s publication?

  7. – surprisingly decent Berkeley prof saying:

    “A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

    The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.”

    • simplyconnected says:

      […] the abyss of social-justice identity politics […]

      When you read that in MSM you know the whole thing is coming down now.

      Not having followed the issue, I realized something smelled funny when they changed from “global warming” to “climate change”. In fact, someone had to point it out to me because I hadn’t noticed. I suspect most people didn’t register it either.

    • Itchy's Stethoscope says:


      • jim says:

        Deleted for presupposing, instead of arguing, that capitalists rule, and that priestly activities such as climate activism are consumer driven merchant activities, and for assuming everyone agrees with this.

        • Anonymous says:

          @ jim: You have made reference to truck stop strippers and an article that, IIRC, Heartiste wrote about them in comparison to female executives and lawyers on multiple occasions in previous articles. Would you happen to have a link to that article? My apologies that this question is not pertinent to this particular article. I just recently discovered your blog and have been browsing through your past work.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          > …and for assuming everyone agrees with this.

          Can you give some examples or patterns that could help me spot this tactic in action in real time?

          I don’t mean just from this particular fellow, but in general. I know this is important, but I lack confidence in my ability to spot it with the naked eye.

          • jim says:

            “scientific consensus”

            The scientific consensus never is.

            Another one being the uniform agreement, even from supposed libertarians and cuckservatives, that capitalism is recent.

            Libertarians never used to think capitalism was recent until they went social justice, gay marriage, and open borders.

            • Anonymous says:

              I would expand that to other kinds of consensus. I have seen a marked shift recently towards consensus in project management and it is coming from the same people who spend a lot of time worrying about the implications of 62 genders.

            • >Libertarians never used to think capitalism was recent until they went social justice, gay marriage, and open borders.

     von Mises in Human Action, published in 1949, strongly implies it was 200 years old then. In Economic Policy, 1979, he says it clearly:


              “Two hundred years ago, before the advent of capitalism, a man’s social status was fixed from the beginning to the end of his life; he inherited it from his ancestors, and it never changed. If he was born poor, he always remained poor, and if he was born rich-a lord or a duke-he kept his dukedom and the property that went with it for the rest of his life.”

              BTW it is clearly wrong, he seems to borrow the Marxist interpretation of history that capitalism was born in the industrial revolution, somewhere around 1750 and before that it was “feudalism”. This is completely wrong, the feudalism itself was invented by French scholars in the 1500’s when studying a Florentine codex from the 900’s. It was something people in the 1500’s thought about life in 900’s. It was not something they thought about life in the 1500’s.

              But it still demonstrates that it is not true that libertarians did not think capitalism is recent until they went social justice-y.

              Words like “capitalism” are just words. People can interpret them differently. Wyatt Earp, who was somewhat ashamed of being seen as a pistol hero, had registered his occupation at the town office as “capitalist”. I.e. investor. Capitalist was simply another word for an investor. Generally speaking to be an investor something like the joint-stock corporation is necessary. It is an important innovation, and it makes sense to draw a line there and call business and economics afterwards under a different name than before. Since capitalism is a very good term for an economic system characterized by capitalists investing into joint-stock corporations, I think it makes sense to call the private property system which was far far more personal before the joint-stock corporation something else than capitalism.

              • Not Tom says:

                Words like “capitalism” are just words. People can interpret them differently.

                No. Words have meanings, and the rectification of names is an essential part of any restoration.

                Since capitalism is a very good term for an economic system characterized by capitalists investing into joint-stock corporations

                And “war” is a very good term for two uniformed armies stabbing each other with bayonets on a large open battlefield. Does not mean that is the definition of war, or that we need to use some word other than “war” to describe thousands of unarmed invaders rushing a border, or bands of roving street thugs killing and raping in the name of Mohamed. Capiche?

                • The Cominator says:


                  I blame that annoying queer Justin Raimondo almost entirely for this phenomenom. Libertarians before him used to be about deregulating all economic activity, lowering taxes and legalizing hookers and blow.

                  The queer was right in a limited sense in opposing attacking Iraq, but he essentially repeated the Mueller shill talking points constantly all but blaming Israel for 9/11 and NOT Bush’s real masters the Saudis.

                  He also didn’t seem to realize that we had to destroy SOME COUNTRY after something like 9/11 if he were sensible he would have said Saudi Arabia not Iraq…

                  But he became enormously influential and his orientation (being a queer, and not a tolerable self hating queer the way Milo and BAP are) was one way ingrouping hostile outgroups.

                • How does propaganda work? It inflates and conflates concepts to create really wide, poorly defined ones, because they offer the tactical advantage of using them according to the propaganda needs of the day. “Fascist” basically got inflated into “bad” and “democracy” into “good”. That’s because what propaganda really wants is to change your behavior, meaning changing your value judgements. Changing your factual beliefs is just a mean to an end. Thus they conflate and inflate terms until they mostly just mean “good” and “bad”.

                  Which implies that if we want to carve reality at its joints, we usually will have to carve it into more pieces than it is done today. E.g. show how power, might, authority and influence are different things.

                  Sure all those things are war. But that is really a very big chunk of reality? Not very finely carved.

                  Calling invasionary migration “war” is basically counter-propaganda. All propaganda works with value judgements. Counter-propaganda, reactionary propaganda wants to create value judgements based in actual truth. A bunch of people invading your territory to take your women and wealth is dangerous. It is bad for you. It is a value judgement. It is counter-propaganda. It is very useful for making people aware of the danger. But it has no utility beyond that. Once it is accepted that it is bad, calling it war is no longer much useful. Because once you know you are fighting a war, you care about the details, the strategy and tactics. And you deal with invasionary immigration differently than with a combined-arms manouvre.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Which implies that if we want to carve reality at its joints, we usually will have to carve it into more pieces than it is done today.

                  It implies to me that we should stop accepting the propaganda definitions and insist on accurate ones. When there are legitimate anti-concepts like “pedophilia” or “sexism” then we should indeed use more precise words, but capitalism isn’t an anti-concept, precisely because it’s ancient and everyone who is not a Marxist understands what it means.

                  You are advocating never-ending retreat: the Cathedral wages its war on language, and we exhaust all of our energy in trying to invent new language that gets subverted a few months later. Since they can subvert faster than we can invent, we lose by default. Bad strategy.

                • Everybody who isn’t a Marxist understands what capitalism means? While I didn’t take my economic history from Marx, I took from the same source he took it from: Adam Smith. Who looked like a bit of a Whig, so yes, if you can recommend me a better economic historian, please do. Smith is big on the division of labor. The whole Marxist stuff about the old artisanal mode of production vs. the new division of labor was lifted from Smith.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “scientific consensus”

              The scientific consensus never is.

              The very idea of scientific “consensus” is leftist / priestly. “If all the high status people secretly agree on something and all repeat it, it’s true” vs the idea of “scientific evidence” – “what’s true is what you can prove”.

          • The Cominator says:

            Grumpus did you spend any time during the election on the chans… if you did no matter how autistic you are you’re able to spot a shitlib or shill posing as something else with a high degree of accuracy.

            The most reliable indicator is that they hate Trump… no matter what. Leftists (who are demonic) and Cathedral shits hate the name Trump the way demons hate the name of Jesus.

            The woman question is also very good… cannot acknowledge that women are way different and DEFINITELY cannot acknowledge the severe crimethink that matriarcharal civilizations always fail.

            If anyone ever says “we all agree” to almost anything other then women shouldn’t vote and that Trump is awesome they are probably full of shit.

            • jim says:

              They are now wise that saying “we all agree” is a giveaway. Instead, they say the same thing in a less direct fashion.

              But any implicit or explicit argument from supposed consensus … there usually is no such consensus.

              Not everyone who argues from consensus is a shill, but everyone who argues from consensus is arguing in bad faith, and all shills are arguing in bad faith, so all shills argue from supposed consensus. Thus for example, a troofer will seldom say that Building seven fell on its own footprint. Instead he will assume it is obvious and uncontroversial that it fell onto its own footprint, rather than, as the firefighters anticipated, falling onto the square to the south of it.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                The very word “obvious” is a hint but not a full tell that the person is using argument from implied consensus.

                Another is when the speaker indicates that disagreeing with a certain point is a sign of child-like naivete – usually done with “of course everything is controlled by billionaires” (or the MIC or the oil companies or anyone other than the class with no name – the Cathedral).

                • Eh. I do use “obvious” a lot. I just means “obvious to me”. A bit autistic, because what is obvious to me might not be so obvious to others and in fact might be completely wrong, but it is just a handy term to express having high confidence in statement.

                  If anything, it is a red flag for lazy thinking. If something seems immediately obvious, we might neglect putting more work into looking for counter-evidence, trying to falsify it and so on.

  8. Ron says:

    God bless you Jim.

  9. Eli says:

    Btw: Anyone remembers watching “Captain Planet” cartoon as a child? The Gaia propaganda machine was active already in the early 90s. I don’t mind sensitizing young minds about ecological issues and manmade pollution and toxicity (though must compare it against nature’s own, say via volcano eruption), but that show was quite anti-capitalist and actually lying or not telling the full truth.

    • Anonymous says:

      We always used to call it Captain Faggot.

    • R7 Rocket says:


      Captain Pollution was the best character in that show.

      “I’m Captain Polluuuushun!”

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      It had the white teammate as the designated butt monkey on a multi-ethnic team, black Gaia, evil Hitler and an HIV awareness episode. Yeah, leftists going to leftist.

    • Eddie Willers says:

      The Gaia Propaganda Machine was running full tilt even in the mid/late 80s. I recall PSAs on KTTV-LA – Fox TV channel 11 – with multi-racial groups of kids singing about how we should ‘Reduce, re-cycle, re-use; ’till there’s 1,2,3 years of life at the old landfill’ (to the tune of ‘Take Me Out to The Ballgame’)

    • Eli says:

      To humor you all further, I was watching it back in Israel, on an Israeli channel, when it came out, in the original English, with Hebrew subtitles.

      The Lebanese TV channel that we got over the air never showed any of this crap. They had Bible cartoons (stories of Jesus, but also stuff from Old Testament). The words were in English, with subtitles in Arabic, but I still could make out things.

  10. Dave says:

    Google “climate despair”. The climate-change religion is turning into another Jonestown. Liberalism always was a suicide cult; maybe climate change is just a way for liberals to rationalize their self-eliminating behavior.

    • The Cominator says:

      Death-cult yes but suicide cult unfortunately no.

      I wish they would all fucking kill themselves but they only do that if they end up in power (and then they kill everyone else too)… the best case scenario is we have to do it for them in “The Final Helicopter Ride”.

      • Dave says:

        Not having children is suicide, it just takes longer than most other methods.

        • Anonymous says:

          They are having children. I see effeminate, soy-fed creatures all the time in my very progressive city leading children that could quite plausibly be called their own.

          Leftism is a locally advantageous strategy for weak men in a strong society. We need to recognize this so we can fight it.

          Leftism is of course globally suicidal because it weakens that society and renders it liable to invasion. It could almost be thought of as holding society to ransom – “gibmedats or I unleash the horde” – and could then even make sense globally.

          There may be another reason. A weak man may have better reproductive success in the second generation by letting his country, and therefore his daughters, to be conquered and enslaved by men who are much stronger than himself, even at the cost of his sons being killed. Could the effeminate and the cuckold enjoy being conquered just as much as the feminist for this reason?

          • The Cominator says:

            Leftism is not rational for men period unless imposed on them by fear, beta men did better sexually in pre-leftist society…

            As such the problems we have are with regards to leftists.

            1) Throwing them out of power.

            2) Ending social democracy (which will inevitably have them return). This will inevitably see women returned to their place as well… no incentive to pander without social democracy.

            3) Making sure the restoration government doesn’t cuck out and actually goes through with the “Final Helicopter Ride”. People here should realize it needs to be done… catechism of the new state church… thou shalt not suffer a leftist to live.

            • Anonymous says:

              I am trying to make sense of the evil. It would be less scary if there were some sort of logic to it.

              thou shalt not suffer a leftist to live

              I agree with you on this. I believe that after we win we will have enough people who are so hideously mentally scarred by the war that this catechism will be imprinted on society for generations.

            • I AM says:

              The trouble with hunting down leftists is that it’s like hunting down snipes wreckers: everyone is suspect, and the one passable standard of purity is to be more committed to The Cause than the Inquisitor himself, a tautological impossibility. Better to name specific disfavored organizations with specific unfavorable interests.

              • jim says:

                Vigorous repression is apt to produce holiness spirals – as for example the nationalist spiral in pre-war Japan.

                But we are going to need vigorous repression. We don’t want them to stage a comeback as the Puritans/Whigs did in England and the commies did in Chile.

                One solution is to have a clearly defined official standard of what constitutes compliance with the official religion, which is reasonably easy for any reasonable person to genuinely comply with – and kill everyone within smell of power who does not comply with it, and also anyone who holiness spirals beyond it.

                • I AM says:


                • jim says:

                  Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion more powerful than ideas. The history of the last several centuries demonstrates this, and if you don’t agree with our history, you need to produce some visible history not secret invisible conspiracy history.

                • Dave says:

                  When mobs of diversity roam the cities looting, raping, and killing at will, and masses of white liberals flee into rural areas, they should be detained until they pass The Test: On camera, give your real name and a brief biography. Declare that Adolph Hitler is the greatest person who ever lived and throw a few “Heil Hitlers” at his portrait. Then eat a slice of roast nigger, praise the chef, and ask for seconds. You will be graded on enthusiasm, so don’t hold back!

                  Leadership roles should be given to those who have killed the most diversity; they might wear necklaces of severed body parts as proof, as in 1 Samuel 18.

                • The Cominator says:

                  We are not wignats.

                  Hitler should not be used as a litmus test because Hitler is not the greatest person who ever lived because he was a socialist who fucked a lot of things up (despite being genuinely brilliant in some ways).

                  Trump is a better litmus test in contemporary America. You’ll be asked some questions about Trump, biological gender, feminism, diversity and equality.

                • pdimov says:

                  >biological gender

                • Dave says:

                  Hitler and his movement are long dead, so we can assign any meaning to them we want. Hitler is most useful in forcing liberals to do the last thing a liberal would ever do. Also, my practice of killing diversities for holiness has to end when their numbers fall so low that white people start breeding them for sacrifice. What I’m proposing is a joke religion, at the risk of subsequent generations not getting the joke.

                • jim says:

                  Religions based on human sacrifice are demonic, and invariably have bad results for the worshipers.

                  We can efficiently detect leftists by asking them to commit thought crimes – they can easily pass the requirement to commit actual crimes. Thought crimes are a more effective and selective filter.

                • The Cominator says:

                  We should tell the truth not make up “jokes” people won’t get.

                  Remember “All men are created equal” lets not have any crap like that people are supposed to learn.

                  “so we can assign any meaning to them we want. ”

                  We don’t need any progressive style rewriting of history, we want a high trust society where honesty and honest people is genuinely highly valued.

                  Just give up on putting “Hitler did literally nothing wrong” into the state religion. Yes I’ve been on 4chan and I get the joke but not everyone will get the joke and 100 years from now nobody will get the joke.

                • The Cominator says:

                  My reply to Dave is in moderation for some reason…

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Go away, potato goblin. We will have none of your Irish lies here. Gas the micks, race war now.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Hitler is most useful in forcing liberals to do the last thing a liberal would ever do.

                  Hitler is useful for ferreting out Jews, communists, and leftist academics and wignats posing as reactionaries. If you don’t wish to arouse suspicion that you’re in the last group, I would suggest abandoning this line of reasoning post-haste. Reaction is not going to be Hitler-worship, real or ironic.

          • Not Tom says:

            They are having children. I see effeminate, soy-fed creatures all the time in my very progressive city leading children that could quite plausibly be called their own.

            When we say they aren’t having children, we don’t mean that there are exactly 0 births per woman. We mean that they are already breeding below replacement, and the birth rate is continuing to decline.

            Don’t be so literal.

            • Definitely. I was listening to radio in “based Eastern Europe” where supposedly conservative women under a conservative government were hired to make a radio program popularizing having children for women. That days topic was making money on the side while staying home with kids. They went to a fair where handmade products made by mothers were sold. The usual Etsy crap, crocketed purses etc. Interviewed some sellers. “I had my daughter at 33 and I am not planning a second one, we are whole just like this.” “I had my son quite early, at 26, so I am pregnant now at 32 with the second one.” 26 as “quite early”, in a program made by and for supposed conservatives, in a “based” country! That’s a friggin’ disaster. Also note the “I am not planning”, not “we are not planning”.

              One of my big eye-openers were realizing that equality with women is not possible even if it was desirable: every time the man does not lead the relationship they do not stay equal, rather the woman will lead it. I don’t know if it is the essence of shit tests or what, but this keeps happening. If the husband does not decide how many kids they are going to have, they are not going to decide it jointly, rather the woman will. I keep hearing crazy stuff like men being made sleep on the couch when the wife is angry. Even though in an egalitarian relationship it would be obvious that his half of the bed is his and thus he cannot be kicked out from his half. But this egalitarian relationship just does not happen, either the man owns the whole bed or the woman will, somehow nothing in between.

              • I AM says:

                Where does this “egalitarianism” exist in Nature? Birds? Bees? Dolphins? Bonobos? Is Man not a part of Nature; does Nature not beat in the heart of Man? It is an interesting situation indeed should a man proclaim himself absolutely equal to yourself; for a woman it is giggleworthy.

              • Not Tom says:

                I keep hearing crazy stuff like men being made sleep on the couch when the wife is angry.

                I’ve always wondered if this really happens or is just a dumb Hollywood trope. I can think of 3 or 4 ways I might handle such a demand, and acquiescing to it is not one of them. Cuckolding is in the very near future for any man who does.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  For our edification and entertainment, what are a few of these ways?

                • I can think of only one. “Lol, no. Are you crazy?” I never really understood why many interpret passing shit tests as saying something overly complicated like the agree and amplify. I just say “no.” Sometimes “hell no”, sometimes “lol no”, sometimes “of course not” etc. What is the point in trying to be witty?

                • Benjamin Netanyahu says:

                  A more plausible shit test is her moving to the couch and refusing to sleep with you that night, and so you should possess the testicular fortitude to summon her back to bed, possibly by lifting her up like a sack (against her loud protestations) and physically carrying her off there; and to subsequently brutally rape her several times throughout the night, which “painful traumatic experience” of brutal rape will make her anger magically evaporate for a mighty long time.

                • @Benjamin this is perfectly correct in theory. In practice, seriously, do y’all have these levels of testosterone? For me daily sex was something to do at 23, weekly at 32, and at 41 I just prefer sleeping. Am I the outlier there? Yes, I know, daily bingeing on beer and smoking a pack day explains much of that, despite the meat-heavy diet and regular albeit too rare lifting. I don’t think my parents had much sex either after 35, for similar booze and cigs reasons.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  For me daily sex was something to do at 23, weekly at 32, and at 41 I just prefer sleeping. Am I the outlier there?

                  Outlier for our society? Probably not. Is that the drive of a healthy man of your age? No.

                • Not Tom says:

                  For our edification and entertainment, what are a few of these ways?

                  I’m no Jim or Heartiste, I doubt that my imagination is that entertaining. I’d rank these in order of escalation, from “she’s not really serious” (1) to “she’s red-faced and yelling loud enough for neighbors to hear” (5):

                  1 – interpret as kink: “nah, the couch chafes, let’s just do it in the kitchen again”, followed by sex

                  2 – laugh, “that’s a good one”, followed by sex

                  3 – hard stare, verbal warning, followed by rougher sex

                  4 – spanking, followed by carrying her over the shoulder to bedroom and very rough sex (like a few replies above)

                  5 – spanking, followed by ejecting her from the house half-naked, and telling her to find someplace else to sleep and come back when she’s calmed the fuck down.

                  (#5 assumes she’s seriously out of control and might try to kill me in my sleep, though I’ve never actually experienced this situation, and seems like it could only happen after allowing 1-4 to escalate repeatedly)

                  But I’m sure lots of guys here would have 10x better strategies.

                • @Not Tom

                  What is the point of being theatrical? Why wouldn’t a “No. Don’t be stupid.” delivered in a neutral tone while not even looking up from your book suffice? Why do men who are likely more red-pilled and surely higher-T than me still have this bluish idea that you owe your woman to give her your most precious commodity: your attention?

                • Not Tom says:

                  What is the point of being theatrical? Why wouldn’t a “No. Don’t be stupid.” delivered in a neutral tone while not even looking up from your book suffice?

                  For starters, being told to sleep on the couch presupposes an argument of some kind, so you aren’t going to be reading a book. Also, I don’t really see any of those things as theatrical, but if they are, then that’s a feature, because women love drama and theatrics.

                  That aside, marriage is a promise to be sexually available, and the cold-shoulder response comes across (to me at least) as a kind of rejection. She wants dominance, not withdrawal.

                  But hey, you do you. I’m not being prescriptive here. That’s just what I imagine myself doing if such a thing ever happened to me, which it hasn’t.

                • Yeah. It is not actually working too well for me, but I am naturally withdrawn. Thing is, Heartiste and others do recommend being withdrawn for dating, “dread game”, and those rare times I actually pay attention to female coworkers they start flirting precisely because it happens very rarely. But yeah, in a marriage that is not good, I should work on being less withdrawn somehow.

  11. Thors says:

    Climate scam = witch doctors doing rain dance.

    We are not evolving. At all.

    Climate scammery is white coats AKA western witch doctors scamming resources from the tribe to make it rain.

    Lots of fear mongering.Lots of rustle and bustle to freak out the populace. Lots of claims to have magic powers to change the weather.

    Too many shamans problem.

    Only way to smash the primitive appeal is to have a better appeal to the better half of the better people.

    • The Cominator says:

      Its more like the Aztec priests torturing children to death to bring the rain and mass murdering lots of other people to make the sun rise given that the required return to a primitive subsistence economy would kill probably around 90% of the population if really implemented.

    • Slayer of Midwits says:

      Hey Thors,

      Please explain the following statement: “Pedophilia is an anti-concept.”

      • The Cominator says:

        Pedophilia is an anti-concept because sexual attraction to pre-pubescents is almost unknown among heterosexuals, it exists almost exclusively among homosexuals.

        However sexual attraction to post-pubescent teenagers who might not be 18 yet among heterosexual males is not evil and demonic, its normal and biological and throughout history before the late feminist era was perfectly legal.

        • Not Tom says:

          Doesn’t really help if you jump in and answer questions that are clearly intended to test someone else for entryism.

          That being said, I can’t really see the issue with Thors’s post, or why it would have set off anyone’s alarm. Maybe I’m just not my usual perceptive self today.

          • The Cominator says:

            Yeah Thor’s post does not sound like an entryist so I just answered it…

            Taking the name of a Norse diety might indicate that hes a wignat but not enough to label him an entryist yet.

            • Slayer of Midwits says:

              Just making sure that Vxxc, the Brain-damaged Butt-plugged Bitch-titted stain of diarrhea, who passionately asserts that Jim is a “chomo nonce pedophile,” doesn’t stage a weaselly come-back.

        • info says:

          Solid on immigration. But good lord the lumping in of evil/abnormal sex drive with healthy non-sinful sex drives :

          If it involves sexual assault which results in lifelong trauma then of course tough sentences. But the example he cited completely wrong.

          • Benjamin Netanyahu says:

            If it involves sexual assault which results in lifelong trauma then of course tough sentences.

            You’re sneaking presuppositions past the reader, disinfo. Men don’t predate on girls; it’s girls who predate on men. It’s a “traumatic sexual assault” against sleeping and uninterested men.

            Progressivism puts male sexuality under a magnifying glass, while disregarding the disastrous effects of female sexuality. Reaction takes the opposite stance. All non-eunuch men would bang hot 12-year-old chicks in all 3 orifices, but this is not the interesting point; the interesting point is that 8-year-old girls would bang brutal savage men.

            We must stop putting male sexuality under a magnifying glass, and instead, must examine female sexuality under a magnifying glass. A “single” daughter very much desires to be Chad’s concubine from a very young age, which is why her sexuality must be vehemently suppressed.

            • info says:

              @Benjamin Netanyahu

              Discounting depression and suicide ideation that results from real sexual assault. And the ruination of lives.

              Nightmares and so forth

              There are women who cut themselves after being sexually assaulted in their youth.

              Do you actually know people who were sexually assaulted?

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                “Discounting depression and suicide ideation that results from real sexual assault. And the ruination of lives.”

                Women attempt suicide to get attention. If women want to kill themselves they succeed just like men.

                “There are women who cut themselves after being sexually assaulted in their youth.”

                Fertile age females cutting themselves (outside of suicide) dates to the 1980s (not sure about exact time; Jim has a post about how its appearance).

                “Do you actually know people who were sexually assaulted?”

                That depends entirely on the definition which expands or contracts depending on what is politically opportune.

                • Women make fake suicide attempts for attention, but women cut themselves very secretly in the same way they engage in shockingly perverse fetishes very secretly.

                  Women self-harming is akin to a monkey in a cage gnawing on its own body because it’s been deprived of its natural environment.

                  For apes and humans, this is a social environment before all else. Women self-harm when they are not owned; stress and insanity build up in a feral woman until she does something absurdly self-destructive for catharsis or ends up being owned by a man.

                  As Jim said, cutting spread through mimesis, but only because women everywhere heard about it and thought “yes, that sounds good”, because it was already in their nature to do similar things.

                • info says:

                  @Samuel Skinner

                  The type that would be reported to the police and with due process get the man convicted. The definition that existed in the early to mid 20th century.

                • jim says:

                  It is obvious that all complaints of sexual harassment are shit tests, and lead to the man being fired for failing the shit test.

                  We should conclude from this that the same is likely to be true of rapes – that just as all sexual harassment complaints are complaints of lack of sexual harassment, all rape complaints are complaints of lack of rape.

                  Making rape the crime of having sex contrary to the will of the woman is an inherently bad idea, since women’s wills are obscure, and are most obscure to themselves. Rape should be the crime of dating a woman without the permission of the woman’s owner.

                  Reflect on the University of Virginia cases: Thirty something rape complaints, all of them fake. The nature of women is such that we cannot rely on them to complain about bad male sexual behavior. They are always going to complain about behavior that we do not want to suppress, and never going to complain about the behavior that we do want to suppress.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “The type that would be reported to the police and with due process get the man convicted. The definition that existed in the early to mid 20th century.”

                  The most famous rape case in that time period is the Scottsboro Boys. Which is exactly as pozed as modern rape complaints.

              • jim says:

                I know some women who were brutally sexually assaulted – and they were looking for it, and were fine with it.

                Every Disney Princess movie and every romance web comic is all about the chick going into a situation where she is isolated in the power of an alpha male, is all about the chick doing stuff that is unsafe.

                I see the same behavior in real life as I see in Disney princess movies and webcomics, and it leads to the outcomes that one would expect. No trauma ensues.

                Real women don’t complain about rape. They complain about lack of rape – hence the white hot rage about the totally fictitious college fraternity rape crisis, and the total lack of attention to the entirely real rapeugee rape crisis.

                They are not enraged about frats raping them, they are enraged because frats fail the rape shit test, while rapeugees pass it.

            • info says:

              “Progressivism puts male sexuality under a magnifying glass, while disregarding the disastrous effects of female sexuality. Reaction takes the opposite stance. All non-eunuch men would bang hot 12-year-old chicks in all 3 orifices, but this is not the interesting point; the interesting point is that 8-year-old girls would bang brutal savage men.”

              I am actually talking about real rape. Actual brutal acts that mentally scars.

              No one is ever normal after it ever again.

              • jim says:

                I am actually talking about real rape. Actual brutal acts that mentally scars.


                Revealed preference is that women like rape and like rapists. Their resistance is a shit test, and they are only pissed off if the would-be rapist fails the shit test.

                If women did not like rape, they would be making drama about rapeugees, not college fraternities. The problem is that members of college fraternities are apt to fail the shit test.

                In real life I observe unowned women always heading off into situations that expose them to grave risk of rape. You may say you do not see this, but let us look at something we both can see: Disney princess movies and romance webcomics. The protagonist is seldom actually raped, but she always behaves in a way indicative of a cheerfully relaxed attitude to the likelihood of being raped by a strong handsome man.

                • info says:

                  Have you read “the last closet”by the daughter of Marion Zimmer Bradley?

                  I am talking about that kind of evil. Which sexual abuse began when she was 3 years old.

                  This is the kind of sexual assault that I am talking about.

                  And what 8 year olds who experienced sexual assault wouldnt be mentally scarred?

                • jim says:

                  Three year olds really do not like sexual abuse. At the age of eight, however, the attitude of eight or nine year old girls starts getting complicated. At that age they start displaying a marked tendency to head off into dangerous situations.

                • Not Tom says:


                  I started laughing as soon as I got to the bit about a 13 y/o asking “is it wrong to touch me down there”. What a crock! When I was 15, the 13 y/o girls around me were almost all sexually active, at least the ones who could attract post-pubescent boys.

                  One 15 y/o I knew at the time admitted she started masturbating at age 11.

                  How can guys believe this nonsense about post-pubescent girls thinking and acting like pre-pubescent boys? Did none of you actually interact with girls in your teenage years? Even if you weren’t boning them, surely the subject came up once or twice, maybe when they talked about boyfriends?

                  I do know one “rape” “victim” who might say it left her scarred, and she wasn’t normal afterward. Truth is, she was seriously screwed up to begin with, and the rape didn’t change much about her. It’s a convenient all-purpose excuse for girls, seems to immediately cause Western men to go into white knight mode.

                • Anonymous says:


                  mission hospital in Bangladesh

                  They picked a Catholic mission in Bangladesh, a Muslim country. This pretty much makes Jim’s point: this person picked probably the least likely type of person to rape them in the entire country and ignored the hundred million or so Muslims who would actually do it.

                  Lurk moar newfriend.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I watched the start of Frozen. Here is what I noticed.

                  @12:25 – evil capitalist – lol

                  @16:20 – the Princess’s younger sister is literally the first person out of the castle when it is opened after 10 years – “a chance to find true love”
                  @16:45 – kino pings an older guy who is minding his own daughter
                  @17:09 – heads down to the docks, trips over, falls into a boat, but is rescued by a dashing stranger on a horse, face flashes delight before recovering her mask
                  @17:50 – throws a thousand shit tests when prince charming signals slight betaness
                  @18:20 – shit test failed – runs off to the next adventure – prince charming had better lift his game next time

                  @20:30 – shows no sign of alarm at being physically placed into position by the butler

                  @22:45 – dances with prince charming
                  @22:55 – in a corner with prince charming
                  @22:59 – walking outside with prince charming
                  @23:05 – kino ping and ping back
                  @23:15 – completely isolated with prince charming
                  @23:45 – prince charming SOIs with “I would never shut you out” – girl turns on a dime – “Can I say something crazy?”

                  And thereafter the mating dance escalates. Scary stuff.

                • Benjamin Netanyahu says:

                  One 15 y/o I knew at the time admitted she started masturbating at age 11.

                  I guesstimate that some 35% of girls aged 11 masturbate. In fact, many girls masturbate even prior to reaching adrenarche.

                  Reality is tenaciously denied because male sexuality (attraction to females with SSCs) has been re-defined as “pedophilia,” while female harlotry and promiscuity have been sanctified as some of the highest virtues; and whenever one attempts to make a bluepiller so much as see female harlotry and promiscuity — to say nothing of denouncing them — he turns blind as a mole-rat.

                  When police officers pose as 13-year-olds chicks with boobs and seduce random men, often teenagers themselves, all the way to the slammer, it is an acute representation of Modern Monster Morals; however, the thoughtcrime of all thoughtcrimes is the society-wide bluepiller false assumption that teen girls would never, ever, ever voluntarily go out at night to party with strange men while dressed like strippers, in order to score some.

                  In my experience, getting men on the internet to agree, “Yes, hot teens are hot indeed,” is not all that difficult. The infinitely bigger issue, which bluepillers are hopelessly incapable of conceiving, is that girls do in fact go out at night to get banged like drums – aged 12 and 26 alike. (26-year-olds usually score much better, of course) We are drowning in the high and rising waters of turbulent and foaming cuckoldry, literal and figurative; the cucks either don’t care due to being prenatally-lobotomized NPCs, or are twisted beyond measure and irredeemably brainwashed, as to be oblivious to their daughters all being immodest whores whose virginity has a 0% chance of surviving intact till marriage.

                  While I do witness some progress towards sexual realism on the web, unfortunately, it’s still intolerably slow.

                • info says:

                  “Soon thereafter, she began to experience insomnia, depression, and severe anxiety—symptoms of PTSD that would last into early adulthood.”

                  So this is made up as well?

                • jim says:

                  > So this is made up as well?

                  Of thirty something rape complaints at Virginia University, all of them were made up.

                  So, probably made up.

                  Reflect on the suicide of Kathy Forth. She did not kill herself because raped and sexually harassed, but because no longer raped or sexually harassed.

                • info says:

                  This same perpetrator was tried and convicted for molesting a six your old patient and is facing a life sentence for his crime.

                  So the evidence passed muster with due process in regards specifically the result of this crime.

                  So it makes the story more plausible in contrast to the Virginia University false allegations which coincidentally was not reported to the police which would have exposed their lies.

                • jim says:

                  So the evidence passed muster with due process in regards specifically the result of this crime.

                  “Kim James, now 42” reporting on events that supposedly happened when she was twelve.

                  When a court of law convicts someone for stuff that happened decades ago, it is not a court of law, but a holy inquisition on a witch hunt, for there is no way you can reliably know what happened thirty years ago. And if it did happen thirty years ago, why did it not come out thirty years ago?

                  This is a mentally disturbed woman telling us stuff that allegedly happened thirty years ago. If she was so damned shattered by this terrible rape she would have told us this stuff thirty years ago.

                  Looks like he “raped” her over a period of years, and she did not develop these mental disturbances until he stopped “raping” her, or until she became fat and forty and everyone stopped raping her. Or more likely none of it ever happened and when she became fat and forty she started fantasizing about an extremely alpha male she met when she hit puberty.

                  Sounds mighty like Kathy Forth. I bet she is childless. Childless women often break down at menopause, as Kathy Forth did, because hitting menopause childless is a failure at being a woman. Her age and appearance are about right for mental breakdown caused by childlessness.

                • angry dude says:

                  Dems’s srsly sexist. Okay? Racism and rape are anticoncepts, you can find something bad that plausibly fits but Vox Day isn’t the mainstream media and everything you hear from the mainstream is hoax after hoax. There’s a lot of child rape going on on Afghanistan, we should push over the government there and stop it right? No one cares about the bakabhazi victims and no one cares about the boys being chemically castrated in America today.
                  While we’re at it democracy is bad not because it gives the people what they want but because it incentivizes not giving the people what they want. Democracy isn’t really a way for the good guys to gain power either because the people don’t care about each other.
                  The point of that book about those people and their sordid ways is that science fiction in the latter half of the 20th century was run by them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  “Soon thereafter, she began to experience insomnia, depression, and severe anxiety—symptoms of PTSD that would last into early adulthood.”

                  Sounds suspiciously like the mental state of literally every teenage girl I ever met. Replace “PTSD” with “adolescence” and suddenly the whole thing makes sense.

                  But according to progressives, typical female behavior is actually the same as PTSD, and there must somewhere be a man at fault.

                • Oak says:

                  “If women did not like rape, they would be making drama about rapeugees, not college fraternities. The problem is that members of college fraternities are apt to fail the shit test.”

                  This difference in reaction is the strongest argument for your claim.

                  They’re still talking about Brock Turner. The girl he ‘digitally raped’ is publishing a book now.

                  Yet feminists handed out flowers to any brown men they could find after Cologne:



                • alf says:

                  That is actually a really good example.

                  The article that goes with those pics is batshit insane

                  It comes after attacks in Cologne where some 90 women claimed to have been sexually assaulted, and some raped.

                  After the incident, it was widely claimed that the perpetrators were refugees from “the Arab or North African region”.

                  In turn, refugees handed out flowers to women in German cities to show their respect.

                  What? In what world to those three sentences together make sense?

                • alf says:

                  oh wait wait wait, I am being too rash. The refugees handed out flowers, not the women.

                  Still, pretty par for the course. The women accepted the flowers with a smile.

                • Oak says:

                  I can remember videos of smiley girls giving out roses in the very platz where it happened and not being able to compute. I don’t remember refugees doing it too, so not sure how true that is. But yeah it’s batshit:

                  “German women are handing flowers to refugees across the country to protest against violence, in light of the Cologne New Year’s Day attacks.

                  The ‘Flowers for Humanity in Cologne’ campaign took to the streets on Friday and saw close to one hundred women visit the city’s biggest refugee center to present them with roses.”

                  “While condemning the despicable acts of New Year’s Eve, today, hundreds of women here and across the country are choosing to build bridges and overcome fear by reaching out in love.”

                  I think the best example in support of Jim’s claim is actually when some anti-rape protests were organized in Sweden outside metro stations and only men showed up, so feminists counter-protested the anti-rape protests using the slogan ‘not your women’. Huge JimPill right there.

                  Meanwhile Brock Turner is in college textbooks for finger-banging a drunk girl:


                • Anonymous says:

                  I think the best example in support of Jim’s claim is actually when some anti-rape protests were organized in Sweden outside metro stations and only men showed up, so feminists counter-protested the anti-rape protests using the slogan ‘not your women’. Huge JimPill right there.

                  We can neutralize this threat by selectively incorporating into our religion certain useful parts of the Koran.

                • Frontier says:

                  Science supports Jim again; female mice are stressed out and repulsed by the presence of castrated males, trying to get away from them


  12. I AM says:

    The climate shite emanates from the IPCC, which is a branch of the United Nations, which is the “International Community” (so called).

    Taxes form the foundations of governments, and a global carbon tax, with the arm to enforcement, would birth a new government — a One World Government. Critical to the imposition of this tax is the evisceration of the United States sovereignty. The “Green New Deal” represents a radical escalation of this strategy, over and above the tactics most commonly employed (until now); namely, Supply Chain Relocation and Forced Technology Transfer (to China).

    The “Green New Deal” wireheads are fond of saying “we have twelve years until the oceans rise to swallow us all.” Why twelve years? Why not ten? why not twenty? Some questions are better left unanswered.

    • Itchy's Stethoscope says:

      come on man, everyone else ITT is discussing in detail why particular people participate in leftism. Well anyway your nickname suggests support for Defoe’s programme that Cominator posted in favor of upthread to get them to stop
      > Now, if as by their own acknowledgement, the Church of England is a true church, and the difference between them is only in a few modes and accidents, why should we expect that they will suffer… even their own principles won’t bear them out in it, they will certainly comply with the laws and with reason

      • I AM says:

        Some people are motivated by ideology, but most are motivated by greed. Or ambition. Or the accumulation of capital. Whatever you want to call it. So while it’s certainly possible that the IPCC et al. truly is selflessly and disinterestedly concerned about anthropogenic global warming caused by the massive release of carbon dioxide (plant food) into the atmosphere, it’s then quite confusing that they never, ever advocate the proliferation of NUCLEAR.

        Did I mention that ideological interpretations of the world are missing the forest for the trees, where the forest is energy and the tree is the outward form of an energetic construct?

        Power, the rate of the performance of work.

        • jim says:

          > Some people are motivated by ideology, but most are motivated by greed.

          Large scale cooperation requires ideology or, which amounts the same thing, religion: (The ideology of global warming is obviously a religion, similar to, but not based on, the demon worship of the Aztecs, and communism was “the God that Failed”. Communism maps one to one with judaism, dialectics being Talmudism, thinly disguised, “History” being the Jewish God, and the vanguard of the proletariat the Jews.) Of course, people usually find a way of using the ideology to serve their interests, but their faith is apt to be sincere, and the more sincere the more it serves their interests.

          Because collective action requires faith, even if in some sense individual leaders of the faithful are influenced by greed, their collective action, which is what matters, does in fact spring from their faith, and frequently has massively destructive consequences for the faithful.

  13. […] Malcolm on Michael Mann and his inability to prosecute his defamation claim. Mann is Mr. Hockey Stick of the Climate ChangeTM racket, and a major figure in ClimateGate. He sued Dr. Tim Ball after he made some alleged unsubstantiated claims about climate research and AGW. Mann’s claim was likely struck due to no prosecution of the action. Which means, it was SO important to him, he did nothing to advance the litigation for years. Let’s be clear, the costs award was probably only for the application to strike the action, are likely only a proportion of the actual legal costs, and the Court did not comment on the merits of the case. Still, Mann looks like a schmuck and a liar for saying on Facebook that Dr. Ball did not want the case decided on it’s merits, when it was Mann’s delay which led to his case being struck. I was looking for a written decision on this but there may not be one. Mann stated the court exercised its “alleged discretion” in dismissing his case. (It was not an ‘alleged discretion’…see the BC Rules of Court, 22-7(7), for the very real discretion to make such an application.) Mann also has 30 days to appeal the ruling which struck his case. It will be interesting to see if he has the stones. Jim also comments here. […]

  14. I generally stayed out of the climate debate because I could not find a skeptic with sufficient credentials, and I have this conservative thing in me that authority matters. I don’t like quoting bloggers and suchlike on matters of science. Well, I found my now favorite authority, John Christy:

    The best kind of authority. He made a model, it made correct predictions. The models of the alarmists didn’t.

    Trump has put him on the EPA board of advisors this February.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Some very interesting finds in an article on climate.

    The pope has openly acknowledged he worships demons.

    Human beings have caused “a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself,” Pope Francis said Sunday before urging “drastic measures” to fight global warming.

    In his Message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, the pope adopted the apocalyptic language encouraged by climate alarmists to frighten people into taking action.

    “Too many of us act like tyrants with regard to creation,” he declared. “Let us make an effort to change and to adopt more simple and respectful lifestyles!”

    “Now is the time to abandon our dependence on fossil fuels and move, quickly and decisively, towards forms of clean energy and a sustainable and circular economy. Let us also learn to listen to indigenous peoples, whose age-old wisdom can teach us how to live in a better relationship with the environment,” he said.

    We also now have a testable hypothesis for why leftism must always escalate.

    Recent studies have shown that the language of “climate change” and “global warming” do not stir up an emotional reaction in people and so climate alarmists have issued an appeal for the use of more powerful expressions to provoke people to action.

    Last April, a team of advertising consultants from SPARK Neuro released the results of a study suggesting that worn-out expressions such as “climate change” do not frighten people enough, whereas stronger vocabulary such as “climate crisis” and “environmental collapse” produced a significantly stronger emotional response.

    The expression “climate crisis,” for instance, got “a 60 percent greater emotional response from listeners” than “climate change,” the study found.

    The heads of leftism are performers. The masses whom they court are their audience. The audience grows bored after seeing the same trick. Therefore, escalation, at least until stopped by reality.

    So the most holy person is simply the one with the best ratings.

    I believe Jim acknowledges this when he notes that the factions of Palestinians who kill the most Jews attract the most donations.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hypothesis: The cause of leftism is insufficient timely feedback from reality.

      • You are not paying attention. That is Rush Limbaugh level conservatism, damn intellekshuals in their ivory towers just don’t have enough skin in the game!

        One of the novel ideas of reaction is that holiness spirals don’t care about the costs. Sure, in the initial phases they do, try to unload costs to other people. But in the later stages they gonna sacrifice their own kids to Moloch. Whatever it takes.

        Sure, the kind of feedback that not only disincentivizes this but also removes the ability, like the stupid investor who lost his money and is not only discouraged but simply cannot invest anymore, that could work… except that memes evolve like virii. A virus evolves to find the sweet spot between taking all the resources of the host, thus killing him vs. keeping him alive long enough to spread the infection. Memes that were too immediately suicidal got selected against.

        • The Cominator says:

          “You are not paying attention. That is Rush Limbaugh level conservatism, damn intellekshuals in their ivory towers just don’t have enough skin in the game!”

          On the other hand Limbaugh and those who talk about ivory tower intellectuals are not entirely wrong in all cases. Women’s studies professors and such are probably so thoroughly possessed by demons that short of divine intervention they couldn’t be saved.

          However some intellectuals in the softer sciences (psych economics etc.) probably don’t want to sacrifice their own kids to Moloch and probably could be cured by sufficient exposure to leftist reality. However in most cases they would have to live under a hardcore leftist regime for a long time and as such most need to get the helicopter anyway.

    • The Cominator says:

      “The pope has openly acknowledged he worships demons.”

      Francis is honest about it and as such has weakened the Vatican as a subversive political factor. John Paul II worshipped demons too, but he was very very good at hiding it to bluepilled tradcon catholics and as such he could f*** with their vote.

      Even if you had the tradiest of trad popes he would worship demons as the papacy is heretical and demonic in nature and the “trads” within the Vatican believe in the demonic “Fatima” prophecy where the West and Russia must fight each other in a terrible total war in which Russia is destroyed.

      If John Paul II was Pope in 2016 and not Francis Hillary would have won the election. I hope Francis is Pope forever.

  16. Truth says:

    New study:
    Trump has known it was an inside job since 9/11/2001 when he spoke about it on the radio. I expect the bring down to be part of his victory over the deep state. aside from this new study, there is a new lawsuit, and the grand jury hearing evidence so things seem to be moving along
    By the way you previously claimed to not see the evidence attached as exhibits to the lawyers petition to the grand jury. the exhibits are listed and linked here:

    • jim says:

      Your link confidently asserts, as entirely uncontroversial fact “On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly collapsed into its own footprint, falling at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second complete destruction”

      But the rubble pile is not centered on its own footprint, but on the square to the south of it, consistent with the videos showing it not collapsing suddenly at free fall speed, but starting its fall by falling sideways to the south like a tree, and only going into free fall when it was no longer on top of its foundations, and consistent with what fire fighters in the square to the south of it expected and predicted – that fire and terrorist damage to the south side of the building would cause building seven to fall into the square where they were standing.

      Further confident repetitions assuming that flagrant false hoods are uncontroversially and unversally accepted will be silently deleted, but I let this one through, because with Mueller’s retirement, troofer spam has mostly dried up. Before Mueller retired, if I let troofer spam though, this blog would be all troofer, all the time.

    • Anonymous says:

      Who pays you?

  17. Anonymous says:

    The sun god has risen.

    Six Neanderthals who lived in what is now France were eaten by their fellow Neanderthals some 100,000 years ago, according to gruesome evidence of the cannibalistic event discovered by scientists in a cave in the 1990s.

    Now, researchers may have figured out why the Neanderthals, including two children, became victims of cannibalism: global warming.

    Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.

    I wonder how long it will be before they drop the “after they die” part.

  18. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    This is a really dumb take and I wasn’t going to say anything about it, but things are getting bad so I just want to reach out to the readers of this blog.
    We can postpone our differences. You may think the ultra-consumption model’s harmless and sustainable forever – it doesn’t matter, because we have to survive the coming decades first.

    In the long run, we’re going to have to accept the fact that the oil’s only here once and when it’s gone, it’s gone. But that can wait, because we have to survive the coming decades first.

    ‘Climate change’ is just a fake opposition to ultra-consumption. They never actually propose anything real, and all their innovations are fake. Their goal, always, is to use clever accounting tricks to prove that ultra-consumption can go on forever.

    • jim says:


      Their goal is to destroy western civilization so that they can shake down the electricity companies for a few bucks in the process while gaining superior holiness points.

      • I AM says:

        “Western civilization” died with the WASP, who caught a bullet in the World Wars and never recovered. The moral-vacuum/economic-monstrosity which you presumably mean, and for which you have so much affection, is not an indigenous specie.

        • Not Tom says:

          Western civilization is the legacy of Medieval Christian Europe, not one specific offshoot of effete and heretical puritanism.

          • jim says:

            Yes, but it is thoroughly under the thumb of an effete and heretical puritanism. The Cathedrals stand empty, and are being turned into forgotten museums.

          • I AM says:

            And yet, strangely, the epicenter of WASP civilization, the Ivies, were manly and vigorous until the (erstwhile) tenants were literally racially replaced.

            How is this possible? Could it somehow be related to the distinctly non-Anglo physiognomy here on display?

            Surely not. That would be too simple.

            • jim says:

              > And yet, strangely, the epicenter of WASP civilization, the Ivies, were manly and vigorous

              That is a propaganda movie seeking to attract customers, and therefore not indication of what the Ivies were like in 1956

              > until the (erstwhile) tenants were literally racially replaced.

              Emasculation set in sixty years ago. I remember it well. We sang songs and made jokes about it. Racial replacement is very recent.

              Therefore, no connection between race replacement and emasculation.

    • Not Tom says:

      lol, we’re talking about peak oil now?

      Hey CR, the fifties called, they want their headlines back. Also, did you know that the U.S. just bought Alaska? Crazy, but true!

    • Anonymous says:

      incomprehensible jargon intensifies

      How can you speak so much and yet say so little?

    • Dave says:

      When all fossil fuels are gone, humans (not necessarily our descendants, the way we’re going) will generate electricity from uranium and thorium. Some of this electricity will be used to convert limestone to liquid hydrocarbons for internal combustion engines. The CO2 from these will dissolve into the oceans, forming more limestone and closing the cycle. If global warming kills off the coral reefs, today’s corals will migrate to higher latitudes and Red Sea corals, immune to high temperatures, will take their place. Life adapts.

      Known deposits of uranium and thorium could satisfy all the world’s energy needs for millions of years with reactors only slightly more advanced than what we have now.

      The only thing the world is running out of is white liberals, as they contracept themselves out of existence.

    • I AM says:

      Carlylean “The Eternal Boomerang” Restorationist,

      You’re right and you’re wrong. Let’s unpack.

      First: There’s absolutely nothing wrong with high energy utilization provided that the energy is produced in a responsible manner, viz. nuclear.

      Second: There’s absolutely nothing wrong with anti-materialism, and indeed a whole lot right, provided that the materialist value system is replaced with a replacement sufficiently grand, even, dare I say, cosmic, in nature.

      Third: Surviving the coming decades is indeed a very real problem, but the origins of the cataclysms are obscure and have little to do with supposed “ultra-consumption” except incidentally.

      Fourth: The cataclysm of the coming decades may include, but is not limited to E1 HEMP, cosmic impact, genocidal government, supervolcano, nuclear war, and the obsolescence of man as an economic unit. For certain we know that in two decades the demography will find itself in the position of Wile E. Coyote.

      Fifth: Find a hobby.

  19. LOL:

    “Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors.”

    The author isn’t even a anti-climate-change-warrior, just a ship captain who contributes mostly politically neutral maritime news like how some drunk master ran his cargo ship aground near Riga. But apparently real sailors do not buy all this the-world-is-melting stuff at all.

  20. There is also this:

    He helpfully points out that a billion seconds are about 32 years. For me comparison to a river is more intuitive. The Danube is running 1900 m3/s here at Vienna. So for Antarctica to melt at the predicted speed, 153 Danubes should be running off it. And I suppose it is only melting in the warmer days of the year, not year-round? So, like 600 Danubes running off during the summer, on the average, meaning, in 15-16 years? LOL. Repeat it with your local river. 468 Sacramento rivers if year-round or ~1900 if summer only. 734 Hudson rivers or ~3000 if summer-only.

    • edvaark says:

      I thought you were talking about the Danube and the Rhine in whose delta the Germans’ Cajuns live, no one in New York or wherever the Sacramento is cares about those Americans think about the mile-wide Mississippi which periodically floods to five times its normal discharge and the St. Lawrence connecting our freshwater inland seas.
      I’m sure there’s a cultural point somewhere but today is the Day the Towers Fell so let’s all pretend its 2001 and the silly eurotrash is projecting his petty sense of national borders on New Christendom.

Leave a Reply