Mueller Testimony

A lot of people interpreted the Mueller testimony as Mueller being senile and forgetful.

Did not look like that to me. He was “forgetful” under hostile cross examination:

Looked to me that he was repeatedly caught lying to congress. He was not forgetful, he was changing his story in midstream.

Looked to me that he is used to an environment where lying is mandatory, crimethought forbidden, so you can lie easily and comfortably and no problems ensue, everyone lies to each other and to themselves, everyone is supposed to lie, and was caught like a deer in the headlights when he was required to interact with those so shockingly discourteous as to follow different rules.

When Nunes issues his opening statement Mueller looked to me like a criminal listening to the prosecutor make his opening statement, then, part way through the prosecutor’s indictment, realize that the prosecutor has not yet found the good stuff, and he stands a good chance of beating the rap. Mueller is worried, but he not as worried as he would be if Nunes had the goods on him.

74 Responses to “Mueller Testimony”

  1. The Cominator says:

    He was lying about fusion GPS for sure but Scott Adams said otherwise his senility seemed genuine to him and Scott Adams is almost always right.

  2. jim says:

    Scott Adams is always right except when crimestop gets in the way.

    Whenever Mueller “forgets”- which is to say, whenever Mueller gets caught lying, he then stops talking and keeps saying that he cannot answer that.

    And, Mueller listening to Nunes was listening to learn if Nunes had the goods on Mueller. There is something hot that Mueller knows and which has him rattled, but which Nunes is as yet unaware of.

    • The Cominator says:

      I don’t think Scott Adams suffers from crimestop at all, he was among the very 1st Trump supporters and it was he who convinced me that Trump was both serious and had a very very good chance of winning (it took me a couple of months after his announcement). Scott Adams tries to save those on the left who can be saved from insanity because he adopts the manner of an enlightened centrist (Styx the very odd youtuber is the same way and he is also nearly always right) and sometimes that sounds like crimestop but its an act… I don’t think there is any flaw in his reality filter… its probably the best I’ve ever seen. Hes like a real life oracle.

      Thus if Scott Adams tells me someone really is crazy/senile etc. I need overwhelming evidence to believe the other way. Mueller was certainly lying about certain things (Fusion GPS being one) but I think his early stage dementia is genuine.

      As I’ve said before Trump is winning partially because his opponents are stupid, the Cathedral big shots used to be intelligent and semi-sane people but the leftist selection and promotion process favors the stupid and the insane (as well as mostly excluding white and asian males now) so it becomes stupider and more bluepilled over time. Most of their smart bigshots have died recently… Schumer and Soros are among the last of the smart but evil ones left. If the people in charge of framing Nixon had been running the op to frame Trump they probably would have got him, but unlike the people who set Nixon up these people are idiots.

      Trump and his people are just too smart for his enemies to beat. He’ll be king in all but name by late 2021.

      • Not Tom says:

        Scott Adams is very good at making equivocating statements that can later be interpreted as predictions, or dismissed as idle speculation. He even once wrote a blog post about it, in which he was comparing climate models to stock-picking scams, and there was a part where he admitted that he was doing something similar with his political predictions. Or rather, “admitted” it in the same trademark way that could be written off as a joke or trolling later on.

        The man definitely has some insight, but he’s been resting on his laurels for an awful long time after “predicting” the Trump victory, which Styx and Ann Coulter also predicted. But what’s he done lately, and how much of it is original?

        • The Cominator says:

          Scott Adams is very good at making equivocating statements that can later be interpreted as predictions

          Yes he does in fact they both Scott and Styx employ psychological tricks. Their predictive abilities are still far better then anyone else in the Lugenpresse. Jim is the best man on the internet for political philosophy (certainly among those who are active now) but Scott Adams and Styx are the best for news analysis and Scott is particularly the best at reading people… and when he says YES Mueller really is at least slightly demented I need a lot to go against Scott. Scott Adams isn’t saying that Mueller isn’t lying (in fact he said very explicitly he was lying about Fusion GPS)… hes just saying the dementia is real.

          There is no value listening to Coulter… shes a shrill childless harpy who is controversial (as Styx says) to sell books and for attention, she blackpills in a dishonest way and is basically with the enemy now.

          • jim says:

            When Mueller forgot the answers to Democrat questions, yes, real dementia. But mostly Mueller was forgetting the answers to Republican questions. That is not dementia, that is guilt.

            And I am pretty good at reading people – when he was listening to Nunes that was a guilty man waiting to see if Nunes was onto him – and Nunes was not. Maybe Barr is on the chase, but if so, did not have the good stuff in time for Mueller to be cross examined on it.

            • The Cominator says:

              Not saying he wasn’t lying he could be as you and this Breitbart article says (in fact we know from his past he’s a dirty cop).

              https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/25/nolte-robert-mueller-isnt-senile-he-was-a-dirty-cop-forced-to-take-the-witness-stand/

              But just saying at the same time he was senile… probably made a lot of mistakes.

              I think Barr and Nunes DO have the goods on him but it serves Trump better for him to look like a demented fool then a dirty cop.

              If hes a dirty cop well dirty cops can be gotten to with blackmail info on their dirty deeds, and whos to say Trump didn’t get to him if he can be gotten to and causing the Democrats to say the whole investigation needs a do-over. Its better for now for Trump if Mueller just looks like a moron… its better if it comes out that hes dirty later…

              • jim says:

                Dead on.

                Read’s Mueller’s body language, his stalling, his lying, his running out the clock, exactly as I read it.

                Maybe Mueller is getting senile, but he is not so senile that he has forgotten how to run out the clock during cross examination.

                Mueller had evidence destroyed. That is obstruction of justice. That is consciousness of guilt. Someone on his team had Bre Payton murdered for knowing too much. If Mueller did not himself have Bre Payton murdered, he has a pretty good idea who had her murdered and was likely part of his team’s discussions that she was a problem that needed to be solved.

            • When Mueller refused to answer Democrat questions, that’s fear of Trump if I ever saw it. It made me very optimistic.

              If Trump really did get to him, he would be spilling the beans on the Steele Dossier, on Clinton, on Obama’s spying, or at least setting the stage for them.

              I saw someone who is unsure which way the winds are blowing, unsure whether he will be executed by the Cathedral or by Trump, so he pretends to not know what is in his own report, tries to keep his hands clean for either contingency. Which means Trump is fighting and might win, but victory is not assured yet.

              But Trump certainly wanted Mueller to testify, his protests to the contrary are reverse psychology, making the Left smell blood and go in for the kill, which they did, and were confused and dismayed when Mueller refused to incriminate Trump.

          • jim says:

            On the basis of your recommendation, I engaged in a styx marathon.

            Lots of good stuff – tends to have brilliant insights in the first five minutes of his videos, tend to run out of good stuff half way through.

            But Styx suffers from one huge central error – he misses the forest for the trees. If you want the latest news on the trees, he is your man. So, at the start of the video, I hear lots of entertaining facts about the trees, towards the end of the video, when he is running short of goodies, I am mostly thinking – “Hey, dumbass, there is a forest right there. Can’t you see the $@&*#! forest right in front of your nose?

            That led him to drink the neocon Kool-Aid on North Korea. He gets sucked in by the mob, because he cannot see what moves the mob. If you respect his views too much, you are going to be infected by the madness and self destructive evil of the mob.

            Styx notices leftists out lefting each other, but fails to ask why. As for example in his video on Bernie Sanders, he reports on leftists out lefting each other, as if it is simply an inexplicable phenomenon like the weather. He gets infected by evil and stupid memes because he does not see the demons, does not see the forces that cause memes that are contrary to truth and to survival to flourish, and thus tends to grant such memes far too much credulity.

            He thinks a bunch of legislators in Washington run the world, and a bunch of big corporate CEOs run the economy, that the neocons get us into stupid unending wars for some capitalist/jewish reason. If that was true, Bezos would get laid. Styx is full of hot facts about the latest news of what the minute hand on your watch is doing, but does not notice whether it is afternoon or morning.

            Styx sees what Trump is doing, when the Democrats and the news media cannot see it, sees that Trump is playing threedee chess while the democrats and the media are playing checkers. And he can see what big business is doing, what Pelosi is doing, what all those entities are doing. And he sees this in lots of detail, often more detail than is necessary for understanding. But he misattributes causality, and fails to see the forces animating collective action, which forces Trump does see.

            Styx’s Bernie Sanders video is a good example of missing the forest for the trees, as is his video on Trump picking a fight with the Gang of Four.

            • The Cominator says:

              Styx is major league bluepilled on some things but news predictions are still awesome. Weird motherfucker though and I say that as one myself.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                You couldn’t see the beautiful utility of hiding the truth in data tables when it comes to academic papers. Your read will always be suspect. Scott Adams is a smart fella, but Scott Adams also jumped on the ICO train, so he is either semi-retarded our conniving.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I said you couldn’t change Orthodoxy by hiding the truth in data tables and saying the opposite.

                • jim says:

                  You cannot change orthodoxy when you are out of power, because orthodoxy is what power says that it is.

                  What you can do however, is ensure that the smart people quietly laugh at orthodoxy when door is closed and the curtains are drawn, which is what is now happening to orthodoxy on global warming, transexuality, homosexuality, extinctions, and an ever growing pile of similar topics

                  When we are orthodoxy, we will make sure that the smart people do not have cause to laugh at us when they close their doors and draw their curtains. Orthodoxy will stick to what is demonstrably true or unfalsifiable, and people who try to add doctrines will be scrutinized for heresy and holiness spiraling. Peer Review will be a criminal offense, for that way madness lies. Peer Reviewers will always conclude that they are even holier than the current orthodoxy, holier than King, Archbishop, and Grand Inquisitor.

            • alf says:

              We’re talking about Styxhexenhammer666? His style is fun. But his memes are off.

              Scott Adams is just a generally smart guy. Nothing near an oracle or anything, just a smart guy.

              • Not Tom says:

                Styx is very good at interpreting the news one or two layers further down than Cathedral sources. He has some understanding of rhetoric, for example referring to old media as “legacy”. He’s also great at reading the crowd, knowing which way the winds are blowing, and he didn’t fall for the gay little entryists in his comments trying to turn his channel into round-the-clock jewhate. Like Jim says, it’s totally worth watching the first 5 minutes or so of most of his videos – but kind of a waste of time to watch them all the way through unless you want it as background noise.

                He’s a libertarian, thus not just blue-pilled, but libertine. He’s genuinely not disgusted by sexual perversion and isn’t going to pretend to be. He won’t touch issues of race, blaming Venezuelan and Central American poverty on “socialism”. When he tries to get above that 2 or 3 layers of abstraction and attempt to explain why things are the way they are, he falls flat. He can’t abstract any higher than “moral panic” or “public health crisis”. Which is still quite a bit higher than the average tradcon can deal with, but not nearly enough to make archbishop, if you know what I mean.

                I like to skim his content for 10-15 minutes max, simply as a news source, to find out if I missed anything important. He and Tim Pool are probably my two main sources. Neither of them are philosophers, but it is nice to have a few sources who report the news without the insane Cathedral spin. I just take everything they say with a grain of salt, as I would any journalists, which is what they are.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Venezuelan and Central American poverty have more to do with socialism then race, by saying Styx is wrong here you are also saying Jim is wrong. Venezuela also wasn’t particularly poor before socialism.

                • jim says:

                  It is a bit of both race and socialism, as for example Mexico is not all that socialist, but is still poor.

                  Venezuela,on the other hand, which sits on a lake of oil and a mountain of gold, and was wealthy before socialism, is a mighty clear case of socialism causing poverty.

                  Some black countries with very low average IQ are quite prosperous because they allow a foreign elite to run the economy, and the largely black government leaves them alone – thus capitalism reduces the impact of race. This, however is an unstable arrangement, and in such countries, the impact of race is visible in every farm and every business – if the farms are feeding the people, it is because whites own the land, if the businesses are functional, it is because Chinese run them.

                  If overemphasize race, you fail to notice the economic failure of nazism and communism. Why was China very poor before and rich now? Why is North Korea poor and South Korea rich? Why are people fleeing Venezuela now and were not fleeing Venezuela before?

                  It is entirely accurate to say that the Venezuela crisis is socialism. Brazil’s troubles, on the other hand, are substantially race. Brazilian socialism is now being fixed. It is going to make a huge difference, is already making a huge difference, but Brazil will still be Brazil.

                • Not Tom says:

                  A more accurate characterization of my critique would be that Central American socialism is in large part a racial/ethnic phenomenon, which is why the more of them we import, the more socialism we get.

                  Of course socialism makes them poor, but Venezuelanism is making them socialist, and by denying or ignoring that, Styx indirectly advances the “as long as they come here legally” melting-pot nonsense. Maybe America helped push socialism onto them, but if so, then unlike with Europe, we didn’t have to push very hard.

                  This is what I mean by only going two or three levels deep. He’ll look at the proximate causes, but very rarely try to find the root cause.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “A more accurate characterization of my critique would be that Central American socialism is in large part a racial/ethnic phenomenon, which is why the more of them we import, the more socialism we get.”

                  I would say that generally yes more prone to socialism (not the progressive kind which blacks and hispanics do not much like but the old fashioned Marxists loot and take stuff kind) but we have to be careful. Irish and Swedes are very prone to progressive socialism and the kind of Europeans Latin America actually has (Castilians) are prone to it too.

                  Also some of the Democrats appeal to them when they come here is the Cathedral’s “hail fellow oppressed outgroup” pitch.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Also some of the Democrats appeal to them when they come here is the Cathedral’s “hail fellow oppressed outgroup” pitch.

                  Yes, but they fall for it, whereas European-descended peoples fall for it at a much lower rate. People voted for Castro and Maduro, they didn’t take power by force.

                  A lot of societies did well under European colonial government that can’t really hack it under self-government. The average IQ in most of central America is low 80s. When you ask low-80s to vote, they vote for free stuff. That’s just how it is.

                  Russia was socialist, and became not-socialist. China was socialist, and is in the process of becoming not-socialist. Latin/Central American countries generally cannot become not-socialist without a Pinochet. Most likely, neither can we anymore, and that’s partly because of demographic changes.

                  I’m certainly not trying to make everything about race or claim it’s the only issue, what I’m saying is that Styx won’t touch it at all. He won’t touch race, won’t touch sex, won’t touch IQ, won’t touch anything biological in origin. To him, people are endlessly mutable, can be persuaded into anything, and things like socialism and wokeness just happen in a vacuum. That’s why he’s good for current events but not for philosophy.

      • Eli says:

        I like Scott Adams, watch him frequently, but he’s extremely blue-pilled on women. Huge minus in my book.

        • The Cominator says:

          A guy who wants to be mainstream could not of course discuss the WQ in the detail we do here.

          Moldbug didn’t address it at all. Scott Adams does not address it much and when he does its with humor and yes he does not want to be a patriarch but hes probably not so bluepilled in his personal life.

          https://i.ibb.co/7X547HK/download-13.jpg

          • jim says:

            Dilbert lives in the blue pill universe. The women are irritating, but their irritating conduct is mysterious, arbitrary, and inexplicable, does not reflect sexual desire or sexual misconduct.

            You will not see a female Dilbert character diving under someone’s desk, and then charging him with sexual misconduct. You will not see the bad conduct of females as a manifestation of shit tests and sexual desire.

            • I think the idea is that in the Dilbert universe every man is an extremely unattractive nerd. Even pointy hair boss is a gamma male. The type who simply do not deserve shit tests and suchlike. These things happen higher up the sociosexual ladder.

              • alf says:

                You can argue that the Dilbert universe is purple pill. The women are not depicted as angels. https://i.imgur.com/V2rhsvE.jpg

                But the women are also not depicted as systemically undermining the work environment, which they do. So definitely not red pilled.

                • Eli says:

                  I’m an outlier: never been into Dilbert. Discovered Scott Adams after Trump got elected. My assessment is based purely on his daily “Real Coffee with Scott Adams” as well as autobiography in his books. No friend of the Taliban he is, and that’s precisely *because* of the female issue. Just one example.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’d say mostly blue-pilled, or even black-pilled. There is lots of truth in Dilbert as to how women treat betas and nerds poorly, but many more falsehoods on positive attraction.

                  He inked strips on women being uncontrollably attracted to any men with jobs during a recession, being repulsed by clear instances of Dilbert passing shit tests with snappy comebacks, and showing attraction to mere anti-social and insecure “jerks” as opposed to the more properly-understood physically-aggressive and dominating “jerks”. Also, he makes Alice the most highly-competent engineer, with her only flaws being the male trait of violent aggression, and Dilbert’s mom a loving and caring single mom with no makeshift dads around. I can’t remember any instances of accurately-represented shit tests or even particularly feminine-acting females. In the world of Dilbert, women basically act like men.

                  I like the strip because it lampoons corporate bureaucracy and most of us will be very familiar with some of the character archetypes, but as a commentary on women it’s trash.

                • jim says:

                  > I can’t remember any instances of accurately-represented shit tests or even particularly feminine-acting females. In the world of Dilbert, women basically act like men.

                  Failure to see what is in front of his nose. Crimestop.

                  As I have said before many times, I see one reality in the workplace, while everyone around me sees a very different reality. Either they are crazy and hallucinating badly, or I am crazy and hallucinating badly – but the statistics on sexual harassment complaints and on the success or failure of ventures only make sense if I am seeing reality and they are hallucinating badly.

                  As I said before, it is like one of these horror movies where one character sees monsters, and the others do not, and you do not know who is hallucinating until someone gets eaten.

                  And the women of Dilbert are the women that other people are hallucinating. As with your examples of gold diggers, Alice the hyper masculine engineer, and Dilbert’s mother the virtuous single mum. Real single mums, all of them, as near to all of them as make no difference, resemble Molyneux’s mother. Women should not be allowed to raise children on their own, unless, as with widows, their singleness is no fault of their own. The trouble with a single mum who is single by choice is that her choice usually reflects the fact that she inwardly feels the father of her child is low value and disposable, therefore his child is low value and disposable.

                • @Jim and I am seeing a third kind of reality. All the women who work around me are older, fatter or both, their sexual instincts seem to be entirely shut down. Some married with kids, some single, makes no difference. They simply act as working drones. Really NPC droids programmed for work. No chitchat, no shit tests, no flirting, no dangerous behavior calling for control, no hypermasculine engineers either, no virtuous single moms, no gold diggers no nothing at all. Just soulless working drones.

                  Something similar for the men around me. No locking horns, no locker room talk etc. etc.

                  Female and male behavior are two subsets of human, personal behavior. They here behave impersonally and non-humanly, like robots. They call it “being professional”.

                  Could it be such a huge cultural difference across the ocean? Now I am in Austria, but when I was working in the UK and did a project at a company, a manager woman came over from America to participate in it. One could tell the difference between her and the British or European women a mile away and not just because of the better hair. But because she behaved in a personal way like a normal human who has things like desires, desire for career or sex or something, who talks as human to human and not as project role to project role. She seemed to be very sexually driven and while I don’t remember shit tests – it was like 12 years ago – probably there were.

                • jim says:

                  Maybe. You are there, and I am not there.

                  But I see people right in front of me hallucinate a blue pilled reality that is absolutely contrary to what is happening right in front of us, so I don’t trust other people’s reports of what is in front of their noses.

                  Men and woman are so very different, and there is such pressure to pretend that they are not different, that I do not grant a whole lot of credence to reports that men and woman are not different. Maybe you are seeing what is in front of you – but it just happens that what you see in front of you just happens to be what you are told in no uncertain terms you had damned well better see in front of you or else.

                  Next time you are in a meeting, count the number of times a man interrupts or speaks over the boss, and the number of times a woman interrupts or speaks over the boss.

                  Don’t count only unhelpful or hostile or disrespectful interruptions, because whenever a high status person interrupts a low status person, as for example a black interrupts a white,, or a woman interrupts a man, or a gay interrupts a straight, we always tend to delusively perceive it as helpful, friendly and respectful, even though it never is. Count the the total number of interruptions, including supposedly helpful, friendly, and supportive interrupting and speaking over.

                  Let us see if, on objective measures of behavior, female behavior is similar to male behavior. In a totalitarian environment of ideological control, you cannot trust your own perceptions. It is very difficult to resist gaslighting and delusion. When you are under extreme pressure, your mind plays tricks. Don’t tell me male and female behavior in the workplace looks similar to you. We are apt to see what we are damned well told to see. Give me a count: “Interrupted by a woman, so many times, interrupted by a man, so many times”. Any time you think you hear a helpful, friendly, and supportive interruption, or one person talking over another in a helpful, friendly and supportive manner, you are probably suffering delusion and being gaslighted.

                  It is hard to see what is in front of your nose, if there is a thought crime happening in front of your nose.

                • jim says:

                  > I am seeing a third kind of reality.

                  It is not a third kind. Men and women being similar and interchangeable is official reality. It is politically and socially acceptable for you to see what you are seeing.

                  Therefore, might be a politically induced hallucination.

                  To test whether this is a politically induced hallucination, count interruptions and people speaking over other people, including supposedly polite, supposedly helpful, and supposedly supportive interruptions. If the number of interruptions is different for different sexes, shit testing is going on.

                • >Maybe you are seeing what is in front of you – but it just happens that what you see in front of you just happens to be what you are told in no uncertain terms you had damned well better see in front of you or else.

                  Could be. I think the bluepillization of modern men happened in two distinct phases. The first and fairly old one was the “chivalrous gentleman” who does not see female bad behavior when it happens in front of his eyes. The second was modern feminism, where men were trained to hallucinate seeing female good behavior – being equally good in engineering and similar bullshit – when it was not there at all.

                  I am certainly free from the second one, but not so sure I am entirely free of the first one. It is old, therefore “conservative” and “traditional”. It might go as far back as “courtly love” or even the Catholic Virgin Mary cult, which tends to supply every mother with a halo of sainthood, boys grow up adoring their mother and not notice her own bad behavior, and then see other women from that angle. Seeing one’s own mother’s bad behavior is definitely a real and difficult hurdle to overcome in redpillization.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The first and fairly old one was the “chivalrous gentleman” who does not see female bad behavior when it happens in front of his eyes.

                  Perfect example of this that I recently happened upon on twitter:

                  https://twitter.com/CovfefeAnon/status/1156257658099445760

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Just so I’m not thought of as stealth self-promoting – that’s my twitter I meant that I happened upon the video.

                • Not Tom says:

                  There is a certain female I have worked with – obviously cannot get into too much detail here – who is periodically called upon to speak in front of a group, of which I am a part. At first I listened to the words, and simply found these talks tedious and annoying and time-wasting. Then one day I realized I was ignoring the words and listening only to intonation (constant up-talking, awkward tempo) and observing body language (superficially confident, but failing to conceal a lot of nervous tics and shifty eyes), and realized the whole damn thing is just an ongoing shit test, which of course none of us are allowed to pass. She doesn’t want to be there, doesn’t like the responsibility, and is saying ridiculous things in ridiculous ways in a desperate bid to have a male take control. She would, of course, deny this if asked directly, but would just as certainly be happy and relieved if it happened.

                  This wasn’t some novel interpretation triggered by reading a blog post, or anything like that; it’s just really, incredibly obvious what’s going on when one ignores the words and the social expectations and observes the display as one would observe an episode on the Discovery channel. Once you see it, you can’t un-see it.

                  I am not nearly as physically perceptive as Jim seems to be, but what I’ve observed leads me to believe his view is the correct one. As another example, I have on occasion (rare occasion) aggressively physically confronted women at work, and never heard any complaint afterward, not even an indirect complaint e.g. during an annual review. When I have had to deal with a complaint, it has always been either from a white knight who saw the encounter, or from a woman to whom I tried to confront more politely. Dominance displays do not bother them; attempts at logical arguments make them furious.

                  You can maintain the blue-pill view if you just shut up and bury your head in busywork, but as soon as you have to start dealing with more complex social interactions and institutional politics, nothing makes any sense until you adopt the red-pill frame.

                • jim says:

                  > Dominance displays do not bother them; attempts at logical arguments make them furious.

                  Exactly so.

                  Interactions with women make more sense if you mentally turn off the sound.

              • The Cominator says:

                I think the idea is that in the Dilbert universe every man is an extremely unattractive nerd.

                Yes the Dilbert office seems to lack the type of men that women find attractive, though I suppose if Wally were better looking his not giving a shit about the office hierarchy or anything his boss or human resources says might be found attractive. Thus Alice doesn’t shit test Dilbert or any of the rest of them she is just pretty consistently a total bitch to them.

          • Eli says:

            Yes, the hot girlfriend.

            The problem (in my book) is that she isn’t making babies for him. She looks good and young, but already past 30. (But she’s definitely a catch, if it turns that it’s anything more that a few years of “girlfriend.”) Scott Adams had other women and was married once. He caught his ex-wife cheating on him, ended up divorcing.

            He is now more famous, post-Trump election. Naturally, there are women who want a celebrity. The fact that he is successful in that department is a testament to his good taste, ability to conduct himself socially, and fame. And as Amazon’s and Facebook’s founders illustrate, fame and success alone aren’t a guarantee of hot young women.

            I’m not going to go into the whole “alpha/not-alpha” thing. I don’t care. What I care about is that he is pro-female choice (“they have more skin in the game, so I’d let them be the ones who choose”) and female liberties. That makes him like Jordan Peterson, in my book. Not a true ally, per Jim. However, unlike Peterson (who, beyond being impressive as an interviewee in a hostile setting, isn’t that interesting to me, because I’ve gone through my own deep thinking about matters of spirituality in my teens and 20s), I like Scott more, because I like the positive, funny vibe that he radiates.

            But again, not truly on my side.

            If you think about it, the whole Trumpian “look how good the female employment situation looks under my presidency” and “Ivanka this and Ivanka that” puts Trump himself squarely in the purple-pill category (maybe not for himself, but certainly for others). Therefore, he isn’t going to solve the female liberties issue. But I don’t know who or what would.

            • Eli says:

              Some useful links into what contributed into and reflects Scott Adams’s views and own, personal stances:

              https://m.whosdatedwho.com/dating/scott-adams-and-shelly-miles (Married a 37 year old divorced mother of two. Took care of her children, then she ended fucking him up.)

              https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201409/dilbert-creator-discovers-single-life-and-writes-new-rules (His solipsistic attitude to the world and his own failures are reflected in his attitude towards even the possibility traditional marriage)

              And of course his personal theology is that we live in an emulation, something I strongly disagree with.

              • The Cominator says:

                He doesn’t really want kids, you could perhaps argue that he was somewhat naturally nerdy and low T (I’m the former myself). I don’t think this reflects a lack of understanding though. I was a fan long before the Trump election so I’m biased.

                The woman question will be solved (though as I keep telling you probably not quite as radically as Jim wants it solved) when the problem of kinglessness is solved. A king will not need to worry about female voters he’ll have to worry that men will string him up if he fucks up badly enough… so will favor men at the expense of women.

                • BC says:

                  >He doesn’t really want kids, you could perhaps argue that he was somewhat naturally nerdy and low T (I’m the former myself). I don’t think this reflects a lack of understanding though. I was a fan long before the Trump election so I’m biased.

                  He does indeed want kids. Every man does.

              • >And of course his personal theology is that we live in an emulation, something I strongly disagree with.

                IMHO it is not possible to agree or disagree with it. We don’t have anything to compare our entire universe with. We don’t know how an emulated and a real universe differs. The universe is just everything we know and everything is just everything. It is simply not a well-formed thought to say everything is blue, everything is beautiful, everything is real or everything is unreal.

            • alf says:

              Yeah good take.

        • Cyril says:

          What’s interesting is he once name dropped Heartiste on one of his old periscopes.

          So clearly knows about the WQ but can’t endorse it publicly (for obvious reasons), but also doesn’t live it privately. He can’t possibly be much more than purple pill at best.

          His gf is a e-thot who has two kids from a previous relationship. Despite that, does anybody believe she would give Aged Adams the time of day if he wasn’t rich and (somewhat) famous?

          • The Cominator says:

            The Western female hive mind is so crazy now that we see other billionaire celebrities have no end of trouble (Elon Musk may be somewhat of a phony but still if this were the 1950s women would be lined up around the block to suck his cock if they could… now he has trouble keeping a girlfiend)… so while I’m sure she would not be with him if he weren’t a celebrity Scott Adams is doing better then most old celebrities.

            And this is given that he is naturally nerdy and probably naturally somewhat low T.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Cominator

              StarProphet Elon Musk (Peace Be Upon Him) has six boys (one died), that’s a nice patriarchal family size.

              • The Cominator says:

                Didn’t know he had kids as I’ve never heard them mentioned… good to know.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Fuck. I cannot fathom the agony of losing a child. I have newfound respect for the StarProphet (Peace Be Upon Him).

                • alf says:

                  Not gonna deny it’s horrible to lose your child.

                  But he does not really seem like a patriarchal rolemodel. All five sons are born as a twin or triplet, which implies IVF. Which implies bad family planning.

                  I read his wife was about thirty when they started trying. Which in modern world is pretty average, but seems pretty late to me.

                  And of course he couldn’t keep her around – she divorced while the kids were still young.

                  Which is not to say Elon is not very awesome at a lot of stuff, just that blue pill gonna blue pill.

          • Eli says:

            Whoa. Didn’t know that about his *current*girlfriend. Disappointing even further.

          • One learns from Heartiste that women lust for alphas. One can still believe things like women will still formally break up with their boyfriends before they fuck an alpha instead of cheating, one can still believe all shit tests are innocent little games and not often something very destructive, and many such things. One can learn that women lust for alphas and still have no idea of the real depth of the WQ.

            It is sort of comparable to believing Charles Murray that racial IQ differences are real vs. seeing up close the whole shitshow of Rhodesia-turned-Zimbabwe.

            Indeed I had a phase when I thought like that. It seems the Art of Manliness blog believes something like that, too.

  3. Mr.P says:

    Spot on, Jim (not that you need my saying I see precisely what you see).

  4. TBeholder says:

    So, was he writhing because he anticipated return fire, or did he pretend to be a moron too hard and it hurt his head?

    Either way, The People’s Cube is having fun:
    http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/mueller-swan-song-dazed-and-confused-t20748.html#226060

  5. Dave says:

    If it’s a crime to lie to the FBI, and the FBI will surely find something I “lied” about in a five-hour interview, why should I ever talk to the FBI about anything? I’d demand a lawyer, ask the lawyer what’s going on, and listen silently. A man’s worst enemy is his own mouth.

    • jim says:

      Suppose the FBI suspects Joe of doing something bad, perhaps for good reason, perhaps because the FBI is evil and insane, and projects their own crimes onto anyone they dislike.

      Then they might grab his housekeeper who is an immigrant, and discover she recently transferred some money back to her home country. And they will ask a bunch of questions about her immigration status, and on finding she has a work visa, ask her a bunch of questions about how she got it, and if she does not answer those questions, she gets charged with being an illegal immigrant and threatened with deportation, and they ask her a bunch of questions about the money she sent to her family in her home country, and if she does not answer those questions, she gets charged with money laundering, tax evasion, failure to report stuff, and so forth.

      And if she does answer those questions she gets charged with lying to the FBI, because they asked her the same question one hundred times in a hundred different ways, and the hundredth time she gave what was arguably a different answer.

      Either way, she then gets offered a reduced sentence if she cooperates in getting the man whose house she is cleaning convicted.

      All the Mueller charges are stuff like that – for example one guy was charged with renting an apartment he owned. Supposedly the rental agreement was discrepant with the mortgage agreement, or discrepant with something he told his daughter, or something incomprehensibly trivial and obscure along those lines. Anything you do, or fail to do, is grounds for arguing that a bunch of laws and regulations apply, and you then have to prove your action or lack of action is consistent with one hundred and one laws and regulations that no one has ever heard of, and in the unlikely event that everything you did conformed to one hundred and one laws that no one has ever heard of, in the course of proving that everything you did or failed to do conformed to all these laws, you undoubtedly “lied” to the FBI.

      • Dave says:

        Illegal immigrants are now a protected class, and most housekeepers know nothing about their bosses’ business activities.

        You’re implying that unless I know of crimes committed by someone more important than myself to whom I feel no loyalty, anything I say to the FBI will only dig my hole deeper.

        • jim says:

          The FBI put the heat on a whole pile of people who were unlikely to know anything about Trump’s supposed contacts with the Russians, and many of them were charged with the crimes that I suggested the housekeeper would be charged with if she failed to talk to FBI: Incomprehensible legalistic trivialities concerning borrowing, renting, lending, moving a person between one country or another, or moving money between one country or another. And the ones that were not charged with incomprehensible legalistic trivialities were charged with lying to the FBI about incomprehensible legalistic trivialities.

        • The Cominator says:

          Illegal immigrants are now a protected class, and most housekeepers know nothing about their bosses’ business activities.

          Under normal circumstances but not when the kwaps want to really nail someone for a serious crime and they think an illegal has something on the target they will as a standard matter threaten deportation and other things if they don’t get whatever they want and offer to clear up the immigration status (like they will offer a blatant illegal a green card although the promise is not always honored) if they get what they want.

          This is also not new, John Dillinger had a “girlfriend” who was supposedly an on and off prostitute the FBI busted her madam for immigration and made the standard offer to the madam so she helped the FBI find Dillinger and then lure him into the trap where he was killed (they fucked her over and she got deported anyway).

      • Not Tom says:

        That’s something remarkable about Trump, though – that in 3 years of non-stop investigation, they couldn’t come up with a single one of these trivial crimes to pin directly on him.

        Either Trump was impossibly brilliant at navigating the legal code and somehow managed to follow every law, including the laws that conflict with the other laws, or he made sure to delegate absolutely everything to subordinates and be out golfing whenever any important decisions were being made.

        It’s almost like the old comedy stereotype of corporate CEOs; all decisions are personnel decisions and there’s a firewall between the CEO and any actual operations or information.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

      The first casualty in a heterogenous polity, is trust even between homogenous elements.

  6. […] discusses the Mueller Testimony. I don’t think Mueller is senile (at least to the extent he portrayed). He was evasive and […]

  7. Zach says:

    This was my prediction before it happened:

    Mueller Prediction:

    Mueller has an aid now to help him answer questions. Have I not said this peon is stupid? He can’t give answers. He doesn’t know the answers. And if he knows the answers has been studying Weissman’s report day and night to get the gist of it. He will go off script in very rare strategic places to give the idiot ideology enough press to cause harm for a week or so. All planned in advance. Of course I could be wrong, something more demented and evil could be lurking in their strategy.

    Hoping:
    Republicans drag that mother fucker through the dirt and embarrass his dumb ass and does not let him ask his aid anything for any reason.

    The left wants theater, give them theater. Destroy them, no rules, no standards, gut the pig.
    ———

    Mueller is dumb. He now sounds almost exactly the same to me as he did from videos long ago when I did a deep dive. He’s a monumental moron. Putting abject retarded priests on pedestals (pop) is what the idiot ideology has always done and always will do. Obama is dumb. Mueller is crazy dumb. Comey is a little bit better but not much – also dumb.

    I can tolerate stupid. But I almost go into a seething frothing at the mouth rage when the idiot ideology worships at the stupid altar every minute of every day without batting an eyelid. Good god…

  8. Zach says:

    On occasion Stephen McIntyre analyzes normie politics and does a pretty good job. Twitter is his new climate/political audit outlet. Here is one small thread on Mueller for example:

    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1154612973631094785

    He has also proven (somewhere on his feed) that it was illegal of Mueller to even be in his position because of conflict of interest with Comey. I already knew this but I see a lack of detail in the reactionosphere because theater isn’t of any interest to them, and the law will not be followed anyway. I still find it somewhat enjoyable to dive into certain acts of the play quite like bozo-boy does.

    He is fighting the good fight. He can do effortlessly with two hands behind his back what nobody can do in the entire legacy media toilet.

    A good place to just browse form time to time for reactionaries to have a small arsenal on theater politics.

  9. Zach says:

    I did not catch this until this was pointed out to me by SM:

    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1154473343300591617

  10. lalit says:

    It looks like Mueller did not even write his own report. Someone else wrote it for him. And he did not even bother to read it. He keeps saying he can’t get into it when asked any question when the answer to it is right there in that report he is supposed to have written. Great job trapping him by that congressman in the first video

  11. Frederick Algernon says:

    OG Comment:

    Here is a thread focusing on the second video. Jim’s analysis seems on point, but in an effort to really unpack the “interaction” (focusing specifically on the unconscious/conscious cues from Mueller), i’m interested in hearing more specific reads, should others be interested.

    Does Mueller seem like a guilty party waiting for the hammer to fall?

    If so, does that change?

    If so, when?

    Does Mueller end up seeming more comfortable that the hammer is either non-existent or no longer present?

    00:35 – – Mueller nervously looks to Nunes’ right and back quickly. His bearing is tentative.
    00:55 – – Mueller seems to settle in upon hearing “Fusion GPS” and “DNC,” a marked change from his tense posture when Nunes invokes “2016” and “hoax.”
    01:20 – – The mention of “State Department” seems to rub Mueller a bit raw. Notice, to, Pappa Grey Hair over Muller’s left shoulder.
    01:49 – – The mention of “leaks” seems to make Mueller uncomfortable.
    02:25 – – A firm poker face from Mueller when Nunes hints at the potentially fraudulent invocation of a “special council.”
    02:55 – – Restrained anger at the mention of the two FBI agents’ texts. Though Mueller stonewalls later in the hearing when questioned about these two’s inclusion in the investigation, it seemed clear to me that he knows it was a mistake.
    03:13 – – Anxiety at the invocation of “Joseph Miffson.” This would later be made more clear, though Mueller did a stellar job at stonewalling in this area as well.
    03:58 – – Mueller and his two bros behind him, while dropping numerous potential tells, still seem at this point to be sitting on weak aces, wondering if Nunes has a boat and is just slow rolling them.
    04:00 – – Baldy lets a tell slip when Nunes says “no collusion,” but this isn’t a hard tell; it could just be a difference of opinion. Notice Pappa Grey Hair craning his neck to keep his eyes on the foe. This is something all nervous men do if they think there is a potential predator present.
    04:13 – – The mention of AG Barr seems to not sit well with Pappa Grey Hair. Mueller has been kind of stuck in a “corner lean,” almost like he is trying to see around the bend.
    05:18 – – Pappa GH has stopped making overt attempts to keep a visual. Baldy has restrained scoffs poorly, and Mueller seems to be less uncomfortable.
    05:49 – – In this moment and slightly before, both Baldy and Pappa GH have lost their laser focus on Nunes. Mueller still seems a bit anxious, but it could be because things are moving towards the Q&A section.
    06:12 – – Mueller seems bemused. A few seconds back, Schiff scoffs at Nunes’ profound statement about expectations of a president Clinton.
    TAIL – – As soon as Schiff starts talking, Mueller goes back into “Plinkett Fog,” his feigned (IMO) senility.

    This is my read. I may have missed some stuff, maybe a lot. There is a danger in trying to read body language and facial expressions, but i do believe there is some value to it.

  12. Mandos says:

    Well, the DOJ just declined to prosecute James Comey for the leaks of classified information, because Comey has been clever enough to do it in a way that leaves a bit of room for plausible deniability, that will be successfully exploited by his lawyers in case it goes to court.

    So Barr and the Trump administration are not moving forward with prosecuting, because they lack faith in their ability to successfully prosecute, because they think they need an ironclad case to win, otherwise they will lose, and all of this very strongly suggests that they are not in power, and that the presidency and its permanent elements still is.

    On another front, China’s attitude towards the latest developments of the trade war front mostly suggests a wait-and-see approach, and a degree of confidence that Trump is merely an temporary unwelcome episode that will quickly be solved upon the next election so that the looting can resume.

Leave a Reply