Jim's Blog

The Clinton circle ritually and collectively perform degenerate acts as a sacrament (Podesta’s Spirit Cooking). There are increasing grounds to suspect that they engaged in child sacrifice.

I don’t suppose they would think of it as demon worship, rather they think they are worshiping themselves and their own magical powers, but the connections to child traffickers reveal that it is demon worship. Hillary famously said “It takes a village”, and she has taken a few, or at least she applied State Department power to protect child traffickers that stole a few.

Meanwhile, the State Department some time ago installed Ms. Park Gyun-Hye as the President of South Korea, and was and is confident of her servile obedience, and continues to feel that were she replaced, it would be a bad thing for “the international community”.

But it was recently revealed that Ms. Park Gyun-Hye was the servile and mistreated puppet of a circle of people who claim magical powers and perform magic rituals.

So if she is the puppet of a religious leader, then the religious leader must be the puppet of the State Department, or, more likely, since cohesion usually comes from shared religion and ritual practice, the State Department is controlled by practitioners of the same religion, who meet together to do disgusting stuff like drinking the blood of children, which bonds them together.

The Cathedral is not so much a single conspiracy, as the net entropic consequence of a huge number of conspiracies. It cannot be accurately modeled as a single conscious being. Apple under Jobs was an extension of the will of Jobs, and its actions were explicable as the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of excellence. The American government cannot be modeled as the will of Obama, or the will of a small group capable of meeting around a coffee table and its actions cannot be modeled as the pursuit of anything coherent or sane. But the largest and most cohesive conspiracy will exercise the most power and gain the most privilege, and the largest and most cohesive conspiracy is apt to be the beneficiary of shared religious worship and belief.

Since the Clinton circle is clearly the most powerful conspiracy, we would expect it to be the largest and most cohesive, hence we would expect it to be held together by the glue of shared religious worship and belief – religion and belief that supplies plentiful amounts of blackmail material. It is inherent in the nature of the Cathedral that one is likely to find something like a cult of demon worshipers exercising the most power. You have inner circles, inner circles within inner circles, and natural selection for the meme system most capable of gaining and holding power.

You will notice that the pope and almost every christian authority has backed Hilton to the hilt, knowing that she engages in degenerate acts conducted as a sacrament.

The judge, unreasonably and improperly, set the very high bar of “actual malice”.

Either the jury ignored the judge’s direction, or, more likely, the jury consciously or subconsciously realized that when every single person connected to this case piously agreed that there was a whole lot of rape on campus, they did not actually mean that there was a whole lot of rape type rape on campus, or indeed any rape type rape on campus, that these pious proclamations were intended as a theological truth rather than a literal truth, intended to signify that the speaker feels the pain and traumatization that women are feeling in sexual jungle, not to signify that women were literally being raped.

If we realize that consensual sex is apt to be traumatic for women, maybe we should not be letting women make these decisions. Jackie Coakley was traumatized because Ryan Duffin would not have sex with her twice. The reverse decision, refusing to have sex with the father of one’s children, or refusing to have sex with one’s husband, is apt to be equally disastrous for women.

If two men agree to exchange apples and iron, we should conclude the deal makes both of them better off, that consent is proof that the deal should go through, and lack of consent is proof it should not. With fertile age women possessed by raging hormones, similar reasoning is inapplicable.

Women find jobs and education attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find jobs and education attractive in women. They find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in women.

What men like is primarily youth and fertility, but close second to this is kindness, fidelity, humility, and obedience. “Will this woman”, the man subconsciously thinks, “look after me and my children?”

A woman has all her life to do jobs and education, but limited time to get married and start a family. After thirty, she is not so hot any more, still bangable, but no fun for a long term relationship. She is also running out of eggs. After age thirty she can still have children, but there is a rapidly rising chance that she will not be able to have as large a family as she or her husband might wish. After forty, high chance she will not be able to have any children at all. And after forty, well, there are some men that will bang forty year old women, but most men would prefer whiskey, porn, and whores if a forty year old woman was the only alternative. Old men seldom marry old women. I am pretty old, and infamously indiscriminate about which women I bang (if it goes up, it goes in) but I don’t bang forty year old women, and there is a limit to how many times I will bang a woman in her thirties, unless she is exceptionally good looking for a thirty year old.

If a woman marries a man while she is still young and beautiful, and he is in love, wife goggles come into effect and she seemingly remains the same age forever. I saw my wife as about seventeen all her years until she was dying, but of course, the later a woman marries, the less she is going to benefit from wife goggles.

The worst part of jobs and education is that they suck up time that a woman should use to get married and have a family, but they also tend to mark up a woman’s face.

If a woman goes to college, and does not nail down her future husband in the first year, she is going to wind up banging a long succession of charismatic alpha males, and getting dumped by a long succession of alpha males, resulting in the infamous thousand cock stare, and the thousand cock stare is chillingly ugly.

Highly educated women get married less, get divorced more, and have fewer children than less educated women.

And then she goes to work.

Men need to be needed. Men do not want an independent woman. And being an independent woman hardens a woman’s face.

Women in high socioeconomic status jobs get married less, get divorced more, fuck around more before, during, and after marriage, and have fewer children than woman with low socioeconomic status jobs.

This problem has been made far more severe by affirmative action. I recall a lawyerette in Telstra’s legal department (78% female) boasting about how much affirmative action was in place, and arrogantly, impudently, and aggressively demanding that a whole lot more affirmative action be put in place.

These days, most women’s jobs are affirmative action jobs. Women get jobs on the backs of men because companies are forced to hire woman.

One big problem with affirmative action is that an affirmative action hire is largely fireproof, so if there is any drama between a man hired on his merits, and woman hired for being a woman, the man gets fired. And women love drama. Which makes all the women in the workplace socially superior to the men who are theoretically their equals on the organization, since the men are frightened of the women, frightened that if a woman picks a quarrel with them it will have grave consequences, and often socially superior to their immediate boss. Watch how the poor boss cannot get a word in edgewise.

Yeah, I know feminists say that when a man speaks over a woman, he is being aggressive and shouting her down, but when a woman speaks over a man, she is not interrupting, she is being friendly and helpful – but the boss would have had a much easier time without all that “help”, which resembled the help given by a backseat driver to the driver.

So the women go around with a hard and hostile face, lest any of their male social inferiors should get sexy ideas about them, and that hostile face becomes permanent, so that even when she tries to smile at an alpha male, she is smiling through a permanent hostile condescending sneer that has engraved itself on her face. And that is not what any man needs in a wife. Jobs for women are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, affirmative action jobs where the men carry the woman on their backs, affirmative action jobs make women arrogant and hostile, and arrogance and hostility makes them ugly.

There is a certain amount of truth to the feminist proposition that women never interrupt men, they are just being friendly and helpful – and a great big untruth. And the great big untruth is revealed if the man does not let her interrupt, if he keeps on speaking and raises his voice to be be heard, her face will distort into the face of a witch, a monster, and a toad, she will scream incoherently at the top of her voice and swell with furious rage, that even though her interruption is superficially pleasant and courteous, that it is an interruption is discourteous, a demonstration of arrogance, hostility, and social power, the power of state enforced affirmative action hiring, and this arrogance and discourtesy, and the state power backing it, is suddenly, brutally, and shockingly revealed the instant the interruption is resisted.

Every time a woman interrupts a man, her face gets a tiny bit uglier.

Supposedly thousands of University of Virginia students are raped every month, or possibly every day, by privileged white heterosexual males.

Yet strangely, Associate Dean Nicole Eramo of the University of Virginia has not punished a single privileged white male for actually raping someone.

Therefore, either Dean Nicole Eramo is worse than Hitler, or rape is a massively over reported crime, with the vast majority of rape accusations being false, and the vast majority of rape convictions unjust. Rolling Stone told us that the Dean is worse than Hitler. The Dean is suing them.

Rolling Stone is defending its story, not on the basis that it is true, but that it is truthy, that the Dean really is worse than Hitler.

The Associate Dean is unable to say the glaringly obvious, that rape is massively overreported, that the vast majority of rape accusations and convictions are fraud committed by evil and irresponsible women who need to be severely punished.

Instead, the Dean piously tells us that rape is massively underreported, and explains that, due to pervasive sexism in the system, it is just very difficult to find anyone actually guilty of rape.

But Dean Nicole Eramo, you are, or rather were, in charge of the system. If rape really is massively underreported, then you really are worse than Hitler.

Women cry rape for many reasons, one of them, as for example Jackie Erdeley’s story, to attract sympathetic male attention. But the big underlying reason is that in a world that says that sex is always fine if two adults consent, and never right if one of them does not consent, they have no language to express the thought “I have been banging like a barn door in high wind, and somehow I feel really bad.”