Rectification of names: Science

Vox Day attempts to rectify names related to science.

Derb snears at this as if the rapidly changing official newspeak was a valid means of communication, indeed the only possible valid means of communication.

Our rulers are systematically changing the meaning of words in order to obliterate reality and make it difficult for people to think, creating words that link unlike things together, make distinctions without real difference, obliterating the meanings of old words that make meaningful distinctions, and giving old words new nonsense meanings, meanings intended to make males, whites, and straights weak, frightened, and ashamed.

For example “pedophile” links together men who find ten year old boys attractive, men who find ten year old girls attractive, men whom ten year old girls find attractive (since girls can never do anything wrong, except some evil male makes them do it) and men who find fifteen year old girls with delicious breasts, bouncy buttocks, slim waists, broad hips, and fully functioning reproductive systems attractive. These are different populations. Men who find ten year old boys sexually attractive are also apt to find manly adult men sexually attractive, and are not likely to find ten year old girls attractive. Men who find ten year old girls sexually attractive are unlikely to find ten year old boys attractive, and highly unlikely to find manly adult men sexually attractive. Men whom ten year old girls find attractive are almost always preselected by an adult female demonstrating their extreme alpha characteristics (Cinderella is all about preselection) so are unlikely to be paying much attention to the misbehaving ten year old girl. And, of course, all straight males are pedophiles, because all straight males are sexually attracted to fifteen year old girls with delicious breasts, bouncy buttocks, and slim waists. Which is of course the whole point and purpose of the word “pedophile”: to normalize gays, excuse female bad behavior, and demonize straights.

To see the use of the word to normalize gay sex between a middle aged man and a ten year old schoolboy, while making sex between a fifteen year old girl and a nineteen year old male sexually deviant, observe the “anti bullying” campaign. If you worry about a middle aged male hugging cross dressing schoolboy, you are a “bully”. If you are not worried about a thirty year old male hugging fifteen year old girl, you are a “pedophile”.

Vox Day attempts to deal with the problem of leftists killing science, gutting the body, and wearing its carcass as a skin suit, by introducing some new words:

Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession

However, we already have well established words for all of these, in particular and most importantly the established phrase “the scientific method”, which from the restoration to World War II was defined and enforced by the Royal Society.

Unfortunately, after World War II Harvard introduced a new process, “peer review” wherein official “scientists” meet behind closed doors, decide the official truth on the basis of secret evidence that they refuse to reveal to the public, and then make sure that anything that gets published is in accord with the “consensus”, a procedure revealed in the Climategate files. Peer review is in practice a conspiracy against the public by people trying to give themselves powerful positions in the official state religion.

The trouble with consensus, is that if someone tells you, in place of actual evidence, that X is the consensus, then chances are that all the people who believe in X are also taking the consensus as evidence. This is a positive feedback loop, similar to the squeal which occurs when you hold the microphone too close a loudspeaker. When you hold the microphone too close to a loudspeaker you get meaningless noise, and the scientific consensus is meaningless noise. Anything peer reviewed should be read with the same suspicion and incredulity as when one reads articles by believers on the lives of their saints, for much the same reasons.

The knowledge base that Vox Day refers to are the experiments and observations, but these are increasingly being contaminated by peer reviewed material. If you read The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet (a thorough study of how the scientific consensus of fat developed and changed) you will discover that peer reviewed material is like a barrel of wine to which a bucket of sewage has been added. Her account of the Mediterranean diet is a particularly entertaining depiction of the manufacture of consensus and the subsequent development of peer reviewed evidence for that consensus. After reading that, I stopped using vegetable oil.  And if you consume peer reviewed material, you are getting a mixture of facts and sewage.

However, thanks to powerful articles by Feynman and Galileo, the old meaning of “scientific method” is not lost beyond recovery, and we should not abandon it for Vox Day’s new word “scientody”.

Where old words with old meanings still have some life in them, we should defend and restore the old words and old meanings, rather than coining new words.

When the restoration comes, we may well need a new word in place of “marriage” but “scientific method” is not so far gone that we need Vox Day’s “scientody”.

Whenever necessary, we need to explain that climate skeptics are actually practicing the scientific method, while the climategate files reveal that “scientists” have absolutely no interest in whether the world is warming or cooling, or whether humans are causing climate change or not.  They are looking for ammunition, not truth.

As for the scientific profession, it is increasingly priestly.  If you practice the old style scientific method, you are going to find it difficult to get published.  Indeed, if you are affiliated with an institution, you will need to get the permission of numerous bureaucracies and bureaucrats to do the experiment you are interested in, and you will not even be allowed to do the experiment if it touches on anything political – and these days all sorts of things that you never imagined to be political, will, to your surprise, and in defiance of all logic, turn out to have been politicized.

Tags: ,

355 Responses to “Rectification of names: Science”

  1. Glenfilthie says:

    The problem ol’ Voxxie has, is that he’s a childish dork that alienates pretty much everyone over the age of 15 that refuses to worship him. He does everything he accuses others of – he lies, he doubles down, he’s a gamma male and writes crappy science fiction and calls himself the dark lord. Nobody with any real authority or integrity will take him seriously. I realized that when he goes off about immunization and when he attacked Gab for not censoring people he’s slagged. You can’t slag immunology as quack science and then crap on warble gloamers and retain any credibility.

    It’s unfortunate that his personality is so unstable because he can do superlative work. He’s his own worst enemy. I’ll take you, the Z Man, or Derb over Voxxie any day. I question whether he is mature and stable enough for a position among the Alt Right because his antics often reflect poorly on the rest of them. If the Alt Right is going to succeed it is going to have to dispense with marginal public personalities like him.

    • Garr says:

      “You can’t slag immunology as quack science and then crap on warble gloamers and retain any credibility.” — this may be the greatest sentence ever written. What’s a “warble gloamer”?

    • Cavalier says:

      Q: What is text on a screen useful for?

      A: Honing one’s ability to think.

      Not: Accumulating a cult following of useful people in the real world.

      Not: Manufacturing a political movement.

      Not: “””Attacking””” an imagined adversary, other text on other screens.

    • TBeholder says:

      There’s difference between “immunization” and “immunology”. In much the same way as there’s difference between “building monuments to the Chief And Teacher” and “material science”.

  2. jim says:

    His critique of science deserved a better rejection than Derb gave it. Derb’s response was that the existing words are fine, so we should not make up new words.

    No, the existing words are not fine. The left has killed science, gutted the corpse, and is wearing the body as a skin suit. The solution, however, is to restore the old meanings of the old words, not to coin new words.

    Further, he is a damned good science fiction writer. I have read “Throne of bones”, “a magic broken”, and “Summa Elvetica”. They are good. Though his view of women is contaminated by progressive thought. Lad in distress gets rescued by action girl.

    At least he does not have his action girl beating up males, but even so, his understanding of female sexuality is flawed. Not as badly as Heinlein’s though. Women want to be seized and conquered. Preferably by someone who is bad to the bone.

    • Koanic says:

      Action girl was an elfess with magic, right?

      That’s not human nature.

      • glosoli says:

        The Gab episode revealed that spacebunny wears the pants in that household. She’s his magical elfess boss.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Iirc he has only one kid despite being all about saving the white race.

          • Zach says:

            I think trying to pump out tons of children to save the white race is very low on quality things to do. There are a lot of better ways. Efficient ways.

            But I’m biased, I have one son, and refused to have more. I don’t want a daughter for example. I don’t want that retarded job of protecting her from men and the world.

            When I found out I had a son, I was very relieved and don’t want to risk it again. Females are the sex of almost zero accomplishments, and I don’t find the task of lording over them to be fun, as there are very few things to look forward to in them.

            As to this topic, I think Vox is okay. His recent posts about Z blog was just over the top. So he still is a little girl at times. I’m curious to know what others think about Vox’s objections to Z’s commentary about Derbyshire’s talk. Talking about your IQ is a bit strange. I see him bringing that shit up a lot. But he seems to know Sam Harris is a complete dolt, so that’s always good to see.

            His attempt for new words wasn’t necessary, and it confuses much more than it clarifies.

            I find Z to be a fun listen, and read. He’s more to my taste of man, than the hobbit.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              I like Z, but as far as alt-right blogs are concerned, mansizedtarget and kakistocracy offer better commentary than him.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Your life story aside I dont see how any race can be preserved with 1 child per couple. We could argue 4 vs 12.

            • TTAAC says:

              That has to rank as one of the most foolish comments I’ve ever read. Zach, you really don’t need to post every autistic thought that pops into your mind on this blog.

            • You apply the normal authoritarian method of raising daughters combined with taking them to church. When they are sixteen you hand them to nazi friends to be impregnated, leading to ten grandsons. Teach the grandsons to prepare for war as you do with your sons. What is so complicated? If your daughter disobeys, beat her up

              • peppermint says:

                God plus no rules equals God calls you to the vocation of lesbianism. Good luck finding a church that doesn’t have a a million words of encouragement to then LGBTP community, this happened often enough back in the 90s when it was still ok for churches to call gay sex intrinsically disordered.

                Do women need to feel the presence of the G-man looking over their shoulders? From what I’ve seen, it just makes them more politically correct and no less slutty.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Jim would say that, rather than taking them into church, it is more crucial to take them out of “education.”

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Need arranged marriage which is antithetical to liberalism, and to lower female status relative to male status, so that fathers will be incentivized to give off their daughters in marriage.

                Zach is a dumbass because he thinks that he needs to protect his hypothetical daughter from the evil men who lurk outside, rather than finding her a suitable husband who will own her; in fact he should be protecting his son from teenage loneliness and sexlessness and lovelessness and their resultant degeneracy by finding a wife for him, but don’t listen to me, I’m just an MRA who’ve swallowed too many red pills

            • StoneMan says:

              “I recognize the existential crisis that people of European descent are undergoing but I would prefer not to have more than 1 child because girls are a hassle.”

              Male solipsism on display. Take note, folks. Slightly less severe than female solipsism, but still profoundly selfish. Turns out Lefties are right folks, women are born in male bodies after all.

              Zach; if these “better more efficient things” you are doing do not include “reducing the number of non-whites in/coming to white countries” or “causing other white people to have more offspring” then you are simply hamstering.

              • Zach says:

                Oh, but it does include reducing the vermon. I hope all white families have at least 15 kids – and, if I could, I’d put all non-white immigration at zero percent.

                Unfortunately hoping goes nowhere. Thus I probably see some very strange times indeed headed our way.

        • peppermint says:

          His wife’s nickname is what we need to know about him. He knows that he has a problem and he’s trying. If only more Xirs were like him; Boomers are incorrugible and simply need to be treated like horses.

    • Super Boomer says:

      Prof. Bruce Charlton has this all pretty well covered:

      http://thestoryofscience.blogspot.com/

    • Glenfilthie says:

      Agree. I don’t think Derb put a lot of effort into it because he doesn’t consider the man worth the time. Vox is being met with smirks and derisive laughter from the older men, and perhaps he shouldn’t; he is still very young and has punched far above his weight considering the societal forces he is up against. He needs to mature, perhaps.
      Agree also about Heinlein- I couldn’t wrap my head around his version of female sexuality at all.

    • Hank Rearden says:

      And Heinlein assumed blacks could run an advanced civilization in Farnham’s Freehold. In reality, six schools in Baltimore “do not have a single student proficient in the state tested subjects of math and English.” [Fox 45] Sheeeit.

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        He was probably thinking Liberia level competence. Farnham’s Freehold was published in 1964; Liberia had Doe’s coup in 1980 followed by two civil wars which look like they killed about 1 in 6 people; it is currently 50% poorer then it was in 1980.

        So you can build a functioning civilization with mulattoes, but the rest of the blacks will eventually murder them all.

        • jim says:

          Ethiopia being a good example – their elites are, or were, descended from Solomon and did not think of themselves as black.

    • Rape says:

      >At least he does not have his action girl beating up males, but even so, his understanding of female sexuality is flawed. Not as badly as Heinlein’s though. Women want to be seized and conquered. Preferably by someone who is bad to the bone.

      But VD does understand that about women. He demonstrates it in the blog Alpha Game Plan.

  3. Your Wife's Son says:

    Having thought about it for 5 minutes, I have concluded that VD’s actual contribution to the alt-right is slim.

    Imagine a world without Jim, or Heartiste, or Anglin, or Moldbug, or even Pman. It’s a pretty different world, in terms of its memes at any rate, isn’t it? Among other things: Jim gave us the holiness spiral, Heartiste promulgated the alpha/beta dichotomy, Anglin re-invented meme warfare, Moldbug restored monarchism, and Pman is a decent e-community organizer.

    Imagine a world without VD. Everything’s the same. Sure, he’s a good blogger. He came up with some catchphrases. Whatever. He’s a solidly middlebrow thinker.

    Where’s his impact?

    • Zoodles says:

      Vox has his problems.

      But he is doing something that others should emulate: he is creating alternatives. If we are to ever truly win, we must do more than critique, we have to make alternatives.

      He thought wikipedia was biased..so he created an alternative to Wikipedia. he hated the route SF was taking, so he created a business to publish his own sort of SF. He thought Marvel and DC were converged he is creating his own line of comics.

      For all his flaws, he has the right strategy.

      • RickSean says:

        Better to have legs than brains.

      • pdimov says:

        The faith in the market is strong with us. When the existing services have leftist biases, we’ll just create our own and outcompete, right?

        I’ve my doubts on whether this is the right strategy. We’re losing Twitter so we’ll create Gab, like Twitter, but free. The problem is that we already had something like Twitter but free, it was called Twitter, and we no longer have it. Not clear why we should expect a different result the second time around.

        • Herodian says:

          I think ZMan made some good insights into this that other alt-right personalities have not touched on so much.. and that is the importance of a “positive” mission or identity.

          We need to be creating institutions based what/who we are instead of what we are not. Too much of what is going on is predicated on “Not leftist” or “Not SJW”, which I think will ultimately be too vague.

          Of course, this can create fragmentation and tribal competition, but that should be seen as a feature and not a bug.

    • S.J., Esquire says:

      Hilarious and absurd comments (I literally LOL’d at Glenfilthie pompously deciding that VD is not invited to the alt-Right as if VD would give a rat’s ass), when VD has many, many times the readership of this blog (for instance) and is doing very important yeoman’s work in *translating* alt-Right concepts into a popular understanding.

      Do you know what VD is? He’s *inspiring*. He’s *charismatic*, a leader, and he quickens other men to embrace and act on their charisma, their leadership, and their God-given right to Be Men. If you think the alt-Right is going to get off the ground by discussing theory on obscure and sometimes creepy blogs like this one, give your head a shake.

      As noted, VD’s fantasy is actually near top-notch. Show me anyone else in the alt-Right sphere who has written a popular book for lay victims of Leftism about how to take the fight to the SJW, and win. Bueller? Any of you commenters have a book forthcoming?

      It may be true that VD has gamma tendencies that he projects. So? We all have failings. Jim is a sexually perverted madman; VD has gamma tendencies. God uses the weak things to shame the strong. My three favourite blogs are this one, VD, and Bruce Charlton, partly because each of them complements the others’ strengths and failings.

      • glosoli says:

        It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Vox and Moldbug and Land (and others of that ilk) are all intelligence agents.
        Provocateurs, Vox is just like his pal Milo, a homosexual Jewish person.

        As is customary at major turning points in history, the elite, the money-men, they know what is coming, they start to foment the trouble nationally and internationally to hide the economic malaise.

        I wouldn’t trust Vox as far as I can throw him.

        But I think Jim is 100% authentic, because he writes stuff that is truly right-wing, and he’s not selling t-shirts and books and podcasts (which is always a dead giveaway for a jooboy spook, they always want your shekels).

        • peppermint says:

          Mike Enoch was doxed, his choices are mooch off his friends and thereby taint them with association or sell podcasts.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            Mike Enoch can scream his guts out on stage next to David Duke and Richard Spencer all day every day, yet he won’t make a career out of his WNism unless he’s a fed, which I don’t think he is.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            See, Matthew Heimbach has “FBI” written all over him, which is why you won’t see any financial obstacles down his way. But Enoch, if kike Marantz’s account is accurate, seems to be more of a genuine autiste type than a plant.

            (Indeed, during the doxing on /pol/ I had gone digging for his old writings; my conclusion was that Enoch is clearly motivated by ideology rather than by greed)

            I am of course referring to this article, which you have likely read, but which the rest of the commenters may not have:

            https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/birth-of-a-white-supremacist

            • Herodian says:

              The FBI take with Heimbach is certainly an interesting one that I hadn’t considered before. It’s pretty obvious the Cathedral hates the Orthodox Church and has for a long time.

        • jim says:

          Fair enough to call him Dox Day, because of his misconduct and disloyalty in relation to Gab.

          But Dox Gay? What indications are there that he is Jewish or he is gay?

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            He’s not Jewish or gay.

            However, one of his major flaws is that he always gets caught up in egotistical signalling games, because his self-promotion and brand marketing guide his every step; and listening to his debates with Grindr Greg and with Anglin, it occurred to me that he isn’t a highbrow thinker whatsoever, yet he pretends to be one, and rather boastfully at that. He’s a marketer through and through.

            I see him the same way I see Cernovich and gayjew Milo, only 10 or 15 IQ points more intelligent. Since I’m looking for long term influence, not short term stunts and mischiefs, these people’s output bores me; but you and your commenters find VD’s assorted endeavors to be valuable, so, y’know, suum cuique.

            I do want clarify, though, that the examples of you, Roissy, Anglin, Yarvin, and Pleasureman were an attempt to convey the significance of permanent paradigm shifts; you’re all individuals who, for better or worse, have irreversibly altered the manner in which we all think about political or sociological matters on a meta level. VD just doesn’t make the cut.

            He’s a good blogger, in the same way that 28Sherman was a good blogger. And his activism is something that you and many of your commenters seem to cherish, so there’s that. But he has no bottom line to him, other than selling his own brand. Which I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about.

          • Will says:

            Names should cut reality at the joints. Vox is probably not actually a homosexual, but the way he conducts himself is pretty gay.

            -Filing suits against Gab shows that he is petty, thin-skinned and values his own self-aggrandizement greater than creating viable alternatives for the movement he claims to belong to. Which is incredibly gay.

            -He calls himself ‘supreme dark lord’ and ‘evil lord of evil’ which (if one is over the age of 15) is really gay.

            -He has a history of countersignalling alt-righters for being racialists. You, Jim, countersignal those who think jews control the entire the world, but don’t deny that jews are over-represented among elites because you value truth above all else. Vox countersignals people who notice that there seems to be a lot of jews working for left wing media outlets and he does so because he values book sales and doesn’t want to be associated with low status beliefs. Calling yourself alt-right and then criticizing racialism is one of the gayest things I can think of.

            Hence it is fair and proper to refer to him as Dox Gay

            • Alrenous says:

              https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/84171-critics-who-treat-adult-as-a-term-of-approval-instead

              Critics who treat ‘adult’ as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Nope, Alrenous. One can also call oneself “General Butt Naked,” which to me sounds more impressive than “Supreme Dark Lord,” and less tone deaf. VD is tone deaf, and not in a good way.

              • peppermint says:

                herp derp guess we’re back to everything I really need to know I learned in kindergarten, chicken soup for the soul, and stories about how one child said something that adults told him to

                • Will says:

                  Yeah honestly, that comment looks like something a high school future catlady would share on facebook, surprised someone like Alrenous would use that quote.

                  There are certain actions that are socially acceptable at a young age that become undignified at an older age. We distinguish between these actions with terms like ‘adult’ and ‘childish’ and ‘maturity’. It’s not as though these things are arbitrary social constructs. It’s unbecoming of someone trying to present himself as a serious commentator to call himself ‘the evil lord of evil’.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  “The evil lord of evil” would be way better than “supreme dark lord,” because it contains self-awareness; it’s self deprecating. It’s like the difference between calling yourself “big boss” versus “big boss (for you).” VD has a problem with name-picking, it seems.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  It’s like the difference between calling yourself jew613 and calling yourself jew1488. Things are funny when they stand out to you in a subtle but definite way.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              It is good that Vox sells his books, and better when he sells more books.

              He should ease up on trying to be a thought leader. If he just wants to look important – which is also a marketing imperative alongside personal narcissism – his direct actions do that better.

        • pdimov says:

          “(which is always a dead giveaway for a jooboy spook, they always want your shekels)”

          Spooks actually don’t need your shekels, they are on a payroll. Wanting shekels is a mimicry in their case.

          • pdimov says:

            As an example see the “fake news” sites that were supposedly done for the ad revenues.

            So, a dead giveaway for a spook would not be that he wants your shekels, it would be that his shekel numbers don’t quite add up.

            • glosoli says:

              True.

              Would another giveaway be the relocation to a land far away, and a convincing backstory of a father imprisoned on principle by the evil state. Too good to be true.

              • pdimov says:

                VD doesn’t fit the profile of an intelligence asset for me, but what do I know.

                • glosoli says:

                  You think John Lennon said ‘ We’re more popular than Jesus’ off the cuff?

                  Go check Miles W Mathis’s papers, you’ll be surprised.

                • peppermint says:

                  John Lennon and Vox Day shaped pop culture

                  John Lennon was a CIAnigger or a patsy paid in high quality pussy to preach bugmanism.

                  Therefore Vox Day is a CIAnigger or a patsy paid in living modestly in exile to preach an odd version of Christianity that some CIAnigger thinks ultimately affirms the CIA agenda.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  It seems more likely that Vox decided to be a Christian to sell books to right wing Americans 15 years ago. Even 5 years ago yiu could not sell books to right wing Americans without Christianity.

                  Now it is a liability but if he dumps it he will look stupid.

                • peppermint says:

                  We’ll never know, even when he eventually gives up on Christianity. I think he chooses it because he wants to be fully Native American and fully Western as Jesus is flesh and cracker, and finds it convenient politically to make that claim. Some day the people who are 25% this or 6% that will need to accept their fallen nature and seek absolution for their bloodline through the merciful cleansing of genetic modification of gametes.

      • Herodian says:

        If one is giving themselves to translate alt-right commentary, then rule #1 should be not inventing new terminology or using weird terminology almost nobody uses.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          Yeah, he has a real problem with this shit. I have said this before, but to repeat: VD made up a sexual market hierarchy using Greek alphabet letters such as gamma, delta, and sigma, in addition to (not even instead of) alpha, beta, and omega. And, as I have argued, it’s wholly unnecessary and retarded.

          Why is the “virgin vs. chad” meme so pertinent? Because you really only need two categories, as Roissy (whom I dislike for being Satan’s minion, but appreciate for the intellectual integrity) uses them: alpha and beta. Alpha and beta are chad and virgin. That’s it. Binary thinking, yes, but once you see it as a spectrum, and these categories as representing two extremes of it – really, no need for additional categories.

          6 Greek letters that make you sound like an actual virgin wizardchanner even when you aren’t. “Oh, so you’re an Epsilon, huh? But I’m a Zeta, so therefore, kind sir, I am the supreme gentleman in between the two of us, and you shall submit to my will. Ta ta!” It is sad that VD’s fanboys gobble it all up.

          Neologisms are something that autists are fond of. But come on, dude – does *everything* have to be “weird terminologies that nobody uses”? According to VD, yes. It’s plain silly.

          • Herodian says:

            Yeah, I still have no idea what a gamma is…at least in how it differs from a beta

            Ideas spread more effectively when they are communicated in simplistic, recognizable terms. Pretty sure I could read his #8 to a persuadable normie and his face would scrunch up thinking “Huh?!? Scientody??”

            I don’t think VD is so much an autist, but he does seem to have a sort of napoleon or narcissistic issue.

            • jim says:

              Vox Day is a great popularizer, but suffers from delusions that he is an intellectual. He read other blogs doing intellectual stuff, and thinks “I can do that too”.

              No Vox, you cannot. Your strengths are elsewhere.

            • peppermint says:

              He’s a writer. He believes that there’s one alpha, one or two betas, and a gamma to screw everything up, with deltas in the background and an omega for comic relief.

              The rest of the world uses alpha to mean the socially doninant mating strategy, marriage, and beta to refer to all manner of faggotry.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >He believes that there’s one alpha, one or two betas, and a gamma to screw everything up, with deltas in the background and an omega for comic relief.

                Yeah, let’s pretend that he came up with this notion all on his own, with no input from BNW.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                His weirdness really shows in that he uses Huxley’s dystopian class hierarchy as a general blueprint for his theory of the real world’s sociosexual hierarchy – basically maintaining the same degree of rigidity as in the novel. Far out, m8.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Exactly that.

                Chad / virgin works well for most stuff.

                Alpha / beta / delta / gamma / omega / sigma works well for other stuff which tends to not be as common.

                Imagine writing a novel where every guy was just chad or virgin. It would actually be hilarious to do as a joke but something deeper is needed if you don’t want to write a meme.

              • ilkarnal says:

                Marriage? Makes you alpha? LOL

                You CAN be alpha and married, sure. By no means does it MAKE you alpha.

                Beta as in beta-bucks means a man who is not socially dominant. A lot of thought in the manosphere goes into making a beta who has a problem in a marriage more alpha, so his wife stops treating him like a sad sack of shit. You aren’t alpha because you got married.

                The problem is a lot of insecure faggots can’t handle being called ‘beta’ and like to use ‘alpha’ to just mean ‘good.’ Leading to nonsense like claiming some white collar beta bucks schlep is ‘alpha’ while a drug dealer is ‘beta.’ There’s no coherence around this, just insecurity. You cannot divorce ‘alpha’ from DOMINANCE. Being married is not dominance. Having a well-paying job is not dominance. Dominance, is dominance, and typically lower class people have a much healthier helping. That’s at the root of a lot of problems.

                • peppermint says:

                  If we define marriage as dominating a woman and getting her to give herself to you unreservedly, beta bux marriages, open marriages, financial and ideological coersion into cumming on, and so forth, are not marriage, and new marriages have been rare for longer than I’ve been alive.

                  The alpha doesn’t just want sex. The alpha wants no one else to touch his woman and feels sick every time he thinks about his woman ever having touched anyone else. Today alphas are mocked as insecure, but the fact that we are alphas is a point other races respect about us.

          • jim says:

            If you need six letters from the Greek alphabet to describe the sociosexual hierarchy, you are probably a virgin or close to it.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Exactly. Need two concepts: “behavior that gets me laid” and “behavior that does not get me laid.” All the rest is sophism.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              And when you get them in the wrong order, you are not even a very impressive virgin.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Hey, the order is irrelevant. As an Omicron Male and an internationally renowned Dungeon Master, I take liberty to “fuck the system” (it’s not like I’m fucking anything else) and make up my own order, which only I know about but which I angrily demand everyone else subscribe to, because I always come out on top in it (It’s not like I come on top of anything else).

                *strokes neckbeard extravagantly*

                /comedy

            • Dave says:

              I always thought three was enough. “Alpha” for the guys girls want to fuck, “Beta” for the guys the girls’ grandmothers want them to marry, and “Omega” for guys that girls and grandmothers agree are unlovable oxygen-wasters.

              • j says:

                In the old barrio we knew only of two kinds: those who fuck, and those who are fucked. In the original:

                La vida es una cebolla,
                el que no coje, se deja.

                Extract your conclusions.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        No false airs of superiority here, chief. I’m just saying that he’s too childish to speak to anyone over the age of 16. He went off on Gab and was told to FOAD. Now he’s going off on Z and probably Derb and he’ll be told to FOAD again. The Alt or Dissident right are going to be forced to leave him behind and it’s his own fault. He’s making himself a liability to the movement at a time that it needs unity.

        The leaders and speakers for the Alt Right will be thinkers – Vox is a performance artist. I suspect he will always remain popular with the kids but for the rest of us that work, pay bills and have responsibioities – I think he’s about to implode the way Yabbadabbadopolis and Cernovich have. Unlike them, I will say this for Voxxie – he has a fascinating combination of talents and liabilities. He’s destroying his own brand – I suspect he has personal problems at home or maybe business isn’t going as well as he had hoped.

    • S.J., Esquire says:

      For a long long time, what turned me off about VD’s blog were his commenters, who in the main are awful, low-SMV toads. But at some point I realized, well, maybe that is the average state of Men in our society, and ergo that who we are trying to reach, and if VD is reaching (and INSPIRING) them, then godspeed.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        (which is always a dead giveaway for a jooboy spook, they always want your shekels).

        This is why WN types are so helpless and useless. You have a man that is creating explicitly right-wing platforms for you and all you can think to say is, “Prairie Jew ebook merchant!” You suck Hitler’s dick, you hate anyone who wants to be paid for creating something of value, you shit all over everything you touch, and you produce no people of value. You are nothing but a bunch of low-class, rent-seeking communists

        I had an argument on another blog over how much WNs have sacrificed, and he came up with idiots like Bob Matthews and Dylan Roof, as well as Saint Brevik. Brevik I will grant him, because he knew the real enemy; the White leftist elite. The other two are idiots and did no good, and just contributed to the perception of White nationalists as dangerous morons.

        None of you have emulated Brevik. You are so busy blaming JOOOOS! for everything that you cannot conceive of replicating the success Brevik had. Not to mention that it would take years to see results and you are too high time preference to stick to one thing for long enough to see it through. Flitting from one TRU CAUSE! to another every couple of years.

        The Shadowed Knight

        • glosoli says:

          I hope you enjoyed your rant.
          Which ignored my suspicions about the veracity of VD and his ilk.
          And assumed I’m a WN.
          Well played.
          Now, have a lie down.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Your suspicions are ridiculous, because they assume a level of capability and foresight that the elite is clearly lacking. Anyone who thinks the elite is that coherent or competent is a fool. The left can’t meme, so they sure as fuck cannot manipulate society.

            Assuming you are a WN, well, if it looks like a WN, smells like a WN, and writes like an autistic communist with brain damage, it is a WN.

            The Shadowed Knight

            • glosoli says:

              I just re-read both comments that lead you to conclude I’m a WN, and there’s literally nothing in them in that regard at all.

              So, I deduce you’re either very stupid, or a paid troll, or (((something else))).

              As for my suspicions, one only has to study history to know that the financiers always (yes, always) have both sides covered. They play right against left (they invented left/right for that purpose). It’s all about money, for them.

              Read Miles Mathis’s research if you are curious, but don’t criticise me when you’re speaking in ignorance.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                What a weird exchange. Clearly, Glosoli is a Christian conservative, not a White Nationalist; however, TSK is totally justified in responding to his bizarre suggestion — it is a suggestion rather than a statement, to be fair — that “Vox and Moldbug and Land (and others of that ilk) are all intelligence agents.”

                Look Glosoli, there’s a reason we call them CIA-niggers. Intelligence agents are not really super intelligent. They are dangerous, in that they can get you vanned/suicided/accidented/natural-caused. And yes, the agencies recruit among academicians and other longhairs. I’ve suggested in the past that their disinfo departments are full of historians, scientists, and professional authors. Impressive, no doubt.

                But if, say, you lock all the people I mentioned above — Jim, Roissy, Anglin, Yarvin, and Pleasureman — in the same room, telling them to put aside their disagreements, and to devise a plan to abolish the Deep State or the Cathedral or ZOG or whatever you want to call this “entity,” I am pretty sure that they could come up with something that Five Eyes, CIA, SVR RF, MSS, and Mossad could not anticipate. Give them a year or so of planning. Be paranoid, but don’t be delusional – the spooks are merely humans, they breathe the same air that we do. If it bleeds, it can die.

                Let me just give you two principles, taken from cultural Marxism and original Marxism respectively:

                “Diversity is strength.”

                “Quantity becomes quality.”

                We can do it. We can beat them at their own game. Or die trying. 🙂

                • glosoli says:

                  It’s glosoli, not Glosoli.

                  You’re wrong. Your thoughts are highly superficial if you think *intelligence* means the CIA etc.

                  No, *intelligence* means that that pretty much everything you think you know about today, and about history, is a fiction, crafted by those in real power.

                  I have no interest in attempting to convince anyone, and I’ve already mentioned Miles W Mathis’s research, read it, ignore it, up to you.

                  Those with real power know we’re entering a credit bubble bursting period, much like the 30s and the 70s. They know it will result in a rise of populism and a swing to the right. So, once again, they’re there already, presenting you with the appropriate leader. It was Hitler/Stalin/Churchill in the 30s, and it’s Trump, Xi and Putin this time. All of them mere puppets, bought and paid for.

                  The only entity that ever beats these people is God, when he resets the world and wipes 99.99% of us out. It can’t come soon enough.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >everything you think you know about today, and about history, is a fiction

                  Come on. I’m willing to accept that some “grand narratives” about history, such as e.g the chronology of Europe’s Christianization, are fake history fabricated by Church elders and so on. I’ve read a book that suggested that “Christendom” had been in reality still very, very Pagan up until quite late. If you tell me that the official historical account of early middle-ages Europe is a hoax, okay, you may have a case.

                  Once you cross the Rubicon into Atlantis/Pyramids/[insert ancient cult from antiquity] territory, I’m out.

                  >The only entity that ever beats these people is God, when he resets the world and wipes 99.99% of us out. It can’t come soon enough.

                  Don’t take this as an insult, just honest rumination, but I’m still undecided about whether people like you are the solution or the problem.

                • glosoli says:

                  You are clearly not stupid.
                  So, go and read some of Miles W Mathis’s papers.
                  The Hitler papers are good.
                  Mussolini too.
                  The Lennon paper is a cracker.
                  The JFK one too (although I disagree with his conclusions).

                  Once you’ve read them, if you have an open mind, you can’t fail but to realise that nothing is as it seems, and hasn’t been for at least 500 years.

                  I never mentioned pyramids/Atlantis, I’m looking only at relatively modern history.

                  People like me are neither the solution nor the problem. The world is a battleground between God and satan, it will run its course. We all have to decide how we live our lives. The point of it all. What matters. I was blessed to discover the truth last year at age 49. If others read my comments and pick up a bible (KJV) we might yet save Western Christendom from a total collapse, but we’ll probably need faithful men to die for that, whilst killing evil men. We’ll see.

              • pdimov says:

                “It’s all about money, for them.”

                I don’t think so.

                Unless you have a theory how flooding Europe with third worlders would make the financiers richer.

                • glosoli says:

                  ‘Unless you have a theory how flooding Europe with third worlders would make the financiers richer.’

                  It’s not a theory, it’s happening.
                  Lower IQ = lower wages.
                  Destruction of Christianity = destruction of families, usury, porn, depression, all of which leads to more demand for stuff (medicines, colleges, bank credit, housing, cars).
                  Everything they do is designed to increase their profits, they skim something off all of humanity’s collective misery and sin.

                • peppermint says:

                  Oh come off it. There is financial reason to replace current janitors with spics and current testers with curry and sand niggers. That is the limit to the foresight of funanciers. Kikes want to destroy Whites, and cheerfully use this fact and push it further than would make strict funancial sense. You could say they’re bullish about enterprises that look like they could harm Whites.

                • glosoli says:

                  Once again peppermint, your ignorance and bias flow throw your comment.

                  If you were to read God’s Laws and statutes, and compare with the mess we have today, you would see why the financiers have been working against God’s laws/statutes since before Christ’s time. God’s rules are intrinsically fair, restrict usury and excess price gouging, and value the family above all material things. And women have little value, other than as wives and mothers.

                  So, you can protest as much as you like, but, as is often the case, you have NOTHING to back up your blather, whereas I state unequivocal truths.

                  So, suck it up atheistcuck.

                • peppermint says:

                  Q: does lobbying the government to allow you to hire mud “people” instead of native-born humans for menial tasks make financial sense in the short run
                  A: yes
                  Q: does that mean the elites have no agenda and are merely pursuing profit
                  A: no
                  Q: does that mean the elites are being led by Satan to destroy us via their avarice
                  A: no. The reason they are so cheerful about this course of action is that they hate us
                  Q: does that mean their sin is wrath
                  A: no. It isn’t even a sin for Jews to want to destroy Whites, and the Whites involved are driven first by pride in their ideology and envy of the aithenticity it prevents them from having and only secondarily by wrath and avarice

                • pdimov says:

                  “Q: does lobbying the government to allow you to hire mud “people” instead of native-born humans for menial tasks make financial sense in the short run”

                  Not in Europe. The “refugees” don’t work, won’t work, can’t work. Zero productive output, significant costs even if you don’t consider crime.

                  “They” are not in this for the money.

                • glosoli says:

                  Do you have any clue how to properly conduct debate?

                  The way it should work is:

                  A. glosoli writes some things, a theory that financiers are fighting against Christendom to increase their profits. Examples are provided to prove the point.

                  B. peppermint should then refute those points with some facts.

                  C. glosoli would then provide further evidence or an additional explanation if need be.

                  D. Eventually, one side may concede that the other has a fair point.

                  You prefer to ignore my points altogether, and then state ‘because they hate us’ with no evidence. Do you delight in displaying your lack of intelligence and integrity?

                  Summary: you’re a lightweight, not worthy of debate. In future I will talk past you, if I bother to even acknowledge you at all.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >Not to mention that it would take years to see results and you are too high time preference to stick to one thing for long enough to see it through.

          Are you sure?

          (2023 – wait for it)

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I may disagree with some of your ideas, YWSon, but you are clearly firing on more intellectual cylinders than most others I read. If you have it in you to see whatever you have planned to completion, then good on you.

            The Shadowed Knight

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Thanks.

              I am going to commit, or be able to commit, a false flag psychological operation on the internet 5 years into the future. You will not instantly understand what exactly I did or recognize that it’s my work; however, if I succeed, you *will* hear about it.

              Can’t share the actual details, obviously. Even writing this cryptic comment was a bad idea.

        • peppermint says:

          Breivik’s success can not be replicated in the US or in any other country. Right now, we’re winning by showing how the enemy fails by not only his standards but the standards of all White men. However, we must go past accusing him of cynically permitting his lieutenants to rape women and children. We must accuse him of having the normal tendency to forgive those who share his values, and of having values that directly lead to raping women and children.

          Up until now, attacks on liberal values have been from an implicitly or explicitly christcucked position, and could be responded to by noting that mainline atheism is the direct values descendant of mainline protestantism. Making that defense explicit in those terms, thereby rejecting the accusation that anyone attacking liberal values must want some form of theocracy, is a huga advance.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I suspect you could pull a Brevik in America, but the problem is that it would have to be a major attack, or the impact would be regional. You either have to bomb Harvard and Yale with a massive quantity of explosives, or find the local InDoc centers for the left, which only harms that area. The first is hard to pull off, and the second is not as effective, because they are rootless bugmen and will move to fill in areas.

            Brevik was most effective because he culled the next generation of the ruling class for his entire country. He could do that because he was operating in the context of a geographically limited space. A similar event would be harder to do in America, because most of it occurs in colleges, and they are geographically distant. Brevik’s tactics were a reflection of his strategy and his environment. Take his strategy-culling the ruling class before they are established-and adapt it to the environment in America.

            An effective American Brevik would either have to be a mastermind with a talent for explosives and forensics to avoid getting caught, or he could simply join an antifa group and spread left-wing chaos on campus. Imagine burning down parts of Harvard in the name of social justice and having the left thank you for the privilege. Organize a series of riots like the ones at Mizzou at colleges across the country, and enjoy the decline in enrollment.

            The Shadowed Knight

            • peppermint says:

              A nuke in the Kennedy School of Government would mostly have psychological impact. I disagree with the Bomb Brothers about their second target, but they wanted to hit internationally regarded symbols of America and MIT is better known as a source of American dominance, because it should be a source of American dominance while Harvard should be irrelevant. Ultimately, whether or not we flatten the campus or even execute a single professor, the existence of our race will not be secured until Harvard is irrelevant.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Brevik attacked the real enemy of Whites in Norway by cutting off their supply of elites. He did that by killing a lot of them when they were were at a training camp. That worked because of where he was.

                My suggestion is to cut off the supply of elites by cutting of the flow into the American training camps. You would need to kill thousands to make a real dent in the left, and they would merely step up recruitment. By instead making it so toxic that people avoid the most prestigious leftist institutions, you achieve a similar aim.

                They will be pressed for people, and the ones they do have will be the type to survive in a madly leftist environment-people without a sense of proportionality or context, people who can be expected to push harder than they should and hurt themselves. Accelerationism applied directly to leftists, so that their leadership is as out of touch and raving mad as humanly possible.

                The Shadowed Knight

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >That worked because of where he was.

                  I’m not well informed about the state of affairs in Norway – has leftism been curbed by Breivik’s attack?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Not curbed, but last I heard, the liberal elite in Norway was hurting for bodies. Brevik killed the next generation of leftist leadership. The current generation was pretty much untouched, but they are having a hard time replacing them. As people get promoted and move up or age out and retire, the people that were supposed to replace them are rotting in the dirt.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • Dave says:

                  Colin Kaepernick killed the mighty NFL by exposing a natural fault line: That its mostly-black players and its mostly-white fans hold deeply incompatible beliefs about what the American flag and anthem represent.

                  Are there similar cracks in the Harvard edifice that we could exploit? Post signs saying “It’s OK to be white”? Convince them to invest their entire endowment in green energy and African penny stocks? Accuse their white male professors of sexual harassment (seed a few fake stories, encouraging dozens of “real” accusers to come forward)? Demand that all white male students be required to attend Chinese-style struggle-sessions three times a week?

                • Joe says:

                  Dave – those are kind of brilliant ideas.

    • Joe says:

      VD is a very active advocate for Alt Right positions. He actually does stuff, doesn’t just talk about it. I’m not familiar with all of the things he’s done but I believe Infogalactic is his thing, and the Alt-Hero comic series he’s starting. He’s written the “SJWs Always Lie” book and followup, which is a big success….plus he has new content on his blog several times a day. The guy is a dynamo and fully dedicated to white survival. It’s true he does get into beefs with people sometimes, and some of them might be unnecessary, but that’s picking nits. The guy deserves a lot of credit for taking actual real-life action where almost everyone else just writes anonymously (like you and me).

      • EH says:

        All true and to his just fame, but other times he tries to convince his Vile Faceless Minions that Anglin is a leftie. Or throws a tantrum over GAB not censoring insults against him. Or goes off on some spergy theology trip. Or blatantly yet limply insults some of his best commenters. It’s all part of the package and more than worth the price of admission.

      • glosoli says:

        Joe, did you read my response to your question re Jesus on the older thread?

        • Joe says:

          I hadn’t seen it but just read it now. I understand the powerful effect such experiences can have, and respect the impact yours had on you. I have had several myself, and they were not “Christian” or God-the-Father sorts of experiences, so my understanding of your experience is that the deeper psychological aspects of your belief systems led you to experience the awareness of our spiritual existence in terms of Christian symbolism. My experiences have been that we are higher beings incarnating here over and over again until such time as there is nothing left for us to learn here. And that at the highest level we are all one gigantic, all-encompassing consciousness which we call God, and which experiences itself through material reality and all of the various seemingly separate forms of life on earth and in the universe. (Hard to explain such things in only a few sentences.)
          So I respect and believe the profoundness of your experiences and I don’t expect to change your mind any more than you would change mine, since we both had very personal vivid experiences that no one else could understand. But I still don’t buy the idea that there was literally a Garden of Eden and a Fall, etc. I think those stories are representations of deep truths about the universe, as interpreted by Bronze-Age men having deep spiritual experiences themselves and passing them down as stories which were compiled in the Bible. Same with Jesus.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            ” But I still don’t buy the idea that there was literally a Garden of Eden and a Fall, etc.”

            Strip out the supernatural elements and you have a story about how life was good and easy and we threw it away through are own actions and started farming.

            It is hard to sort out between mythology that happened and got elaborated and distorted and stories to teach a lesson, but this looks like the former.

          • glosoli says:

            I’m unsure of the Eden story. It may be non-literal. But there was a point where God endowed men with souls. And I believe there were fallen angels around who immediately sought to turn us away from God.

            I am in the process of reading the bible, and there’s too much deep truth in there for it to be anything other than God-inspired.

            An example I discovered just this week: the jubilee, every 49 years debt are written off. Then I looked at the 1929 crash into ’32. Add 49 years takes you to the 1978-82 period. Add another 49 years take you to 2027-2031. I haven’t worked backwards yet, but I’m sure it’ll work with other debt crises.

            And Jesus was full of deep truths about humanity and God, even ignoring the resurrection, no human could possibly be that wise and perfect.

            • peppermint says:

              “endowed with souls” is retard-tier retardation that could only be snuck in at God’s funeral. No serious person has ever taked that seriously, before or after his death.

              • glosoli says:

                Your rhetorical efforts become weaker at every attempt.

                To see a puny human tilt at God is sad, very sad.

                I wonder if you ever even consider your own soul? And where it originated? And the point of having self-awareness? And the point of life?

                Or are you just a machine, or an animal, like a dog?

                • glosoli says:

                  atheistcuck: *crickets*.

                • peppermint says:

                  Aristotle and Aquinas would have thought of theistic evolution towards souls as possible and being handed a soul as a prize for completing evolution to be retarded.

                  * it cheapens God’s role from cosmically setting everything in motion to playing referee, instead implying an inappropriate teleology to evolution while at the same time denying Gods role as ultimate cause
                  * it rejects original sin, since granting a soul is a gift from God, instead it raises the question of whether God made a mistake in giving humanity souls when He did
                  * no matter how many times people say they believe in evolution and dualistic souls, what they actually believe is that it’s creepy and wrong for a being shaped like a human – say, a jew – not to behave like a human

                • glosoli says:

                  Ignores my questions, has no answer.

                  Attempts to link evolution to the issue of souls, once again demonstrating idiocy and incoherence.

                  Sad.

                • peppermint says:

                  > guys by endowed with souls I meant life was breathed into clay like in Genesis and not what is normally meant by endowed with souls under the usual metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, therefore my comment wasn’t directly responded to, therefore none of my comments were directly responding to, therefore I stand unchallenged in my assertion that the avarice of financiers leads rationally to White replacement

                • glosoli says:

                  Gibberishbot.

                • peppermint says:

                  Maybe I am am autistic bot citing Scholastics while rejecting points they would have considered normative underpinnings of their world view. You’re a mainline christcuck with no difference with mainline atheists other than directing magical thinking at dualistic souls instead of transsexualism, to the extent that is meaningful. The fact that your philosophy is the inevitable projection of Christian values into a godless world means Christianity can’t be a solution. We need rules, not spiritualism.

                  Christmas is when you take what’s left in your bank account after the year and give people stuff and set up lights and trees, and your participation is how much you give and how pretty your lights and trees are. Christmas is not let’s eschew materialism and sanctimony on each other while freezing in the dark.

                • glosoli says:

                  Those bots looking for rules should read the bible, rather than spouting nonsense. It’s got rules a’plenty.

                  And they are all just and good. Unlike rules to allow men into female bathrooms. Or laws allowing no-fault divorce.

                  Bevause they’re from God, not weak stupid men.

                • alf says:

                  > I wonder if you ever even consider your own soul?

                  I did, kind of like how I considered if I had superpowers or if I could do the kamehamea.

                • peppermint says:

                  …thus, mainline christcucks use the Ten Commandments as a metonym for traditional morality, prooftext what they feel into jew fables, believe in dualism and divorce, and reject Christian philosophy they’ve barely heard of in favor of their favorite Early Church praxis.

                  Then their children, disgusted with the prooftexting and not seeing anything in the Ten Commandments, become mainline atheists, using dualism to justify faggotry.

                  Biblical fundamentalism was a reaction to mainline christcuckoldry, but since the Bible must be interpreted in a world view, merely saying that divorce and gay marriage are forbidden does nothing to the underlying world view that such things are possible but may be forbidden as a discipline.

                • peppermint says:

                  (the reason divorce does not exist is that women can’t move on from having sex. This has nothing to do with microchimerism, since women imprint on men they use condoms with. A man becomes (one of) a woman’s husband(s) when he has sex with her and when he impregnates her, and a woman can’t ever move on from a miscarriage or a baby either. Alphas, being most White men, feel sick when the think of their woman being knocked up by let alone touched by another man. Feminists, being told to pretend they can move on, say that they can, and all women naturally don’t tell their current man about past partners, which is another gender imbalance feminists pretend to care about to signal values and sexual availability)

                • glosoli says:

                  For those interested, there is far more to God’s laws than simply the ten commandments, this for example:

                  ‘An example I discovered just this week: the jubilee, every 49 years debt are written off. Then I looked at the 1929 crash into ’32. Add 49 years takes you to the 1978-82 period. Add another 49 years take you to 2027-2031. I haven’t worked backwards yet, but I’m sure it’ll work with other debt crises.’

                  Read Leviticus, or show your ignorance, up to you.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Your schizo reasoning is odd but you must be talented in some kind of way, like Brian Wilson.

                • peppermint says:

                  instead of being a goddamn puritan virtue signaling about eschewing frippery and reading worthless jew books, read -> http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ <- until you understand that christianity isn't secularism with comic book superpower aliens

                • glosoli says:

                  I don’t think I’m a Puritan.
                  I’m with Jim on the ownership of women, with polygamy too.
                  I just take my lead from the bible, which isn’t really Puritan, it’s just right, and true and just, and encourages us all to go forth and multiply and to subdue the earth. Hallelujah to that.

                  @YourWifesSons,

                  It’s not my reasoning, I simply spotted that we have debt collapses (either through inflation or defaults or both) at 49 year intervals, and I went back as far as 1730 in my research to confirm the pattern. I think it’s literally amazing that Jehovah knew that debt had to be forgiven every 49 years, if it still existed at that point. He knew there were inherent problems with over-indebtedness, so He laid down a law to take care of it. Mankind has mostly ignored that law, financiers especially hate it. But God strikes down debt anyway, when it’s the time. God is brilliant.

                • peppermint says:

                  Sola Scriptura is a protestant slogan that reached its logical conclusion in Calvinism.

                  If there is no tradition, choices need to be made on the grounds of revelation and faith, meaning holiness spirals and prooftexting. Thus your endless citations of certain sentences of the OT.

                  One of the holiness spirals is that every action must be directed towards, as you say, the goals. Which is true, but the way actions are directed towards the goals are sometimes mysterious.

                  Sports provide young men with the competition they need. Men who don’t have an opportunity to compete become faggots. GenZ can compete in vidya in a way that catladies never expected.

                  Mainline protestantism evolved into mainline atheism for a reason that you’re not going to escape by affirming God’s existence and prooftexting.

                  If you would be a Christian, you should at least be a Christian in the tradition of Aquinas, instead of Emerson or Kellogg or Welch.

                • glosoli says:

                  There you go again.
                  I don’t ascribe to sola scriptura, frequently seeking views from other Christians.
                  *Tradition* is Catholic BS, not interested.

                  Holiness spirals, if done according to Scripture only, are an excellent thing. God makes everything crystal clear (no need for Popes, or confessionals or purgatory). God limits the holiness at the right level.

                  I’ve said all I want to say about sports versus computer games.

                • peppermint says:

                  > I don’t [sub]scribe to sola scriptura
                  > God makes everything crystal clear (no need for Popes, or confessionals or purgatory). God limits the holiness at the right level.

                  learn what words mean

                • glosoli says:

                  I don’t subscribe to the strict interpretation of sola scriptura.

                  For those new to faith, there is a need to be discipled.

                  God does provide perfect clarity in the bible, but those newly reborn need instruction. God instructed Moses and Abraham, Jesus instructed His followers, Paul instructed his disciples. That approach is all part of God making things crystal clear. It doesn’t include confessing one’s sins to a man, or worshiping false idols, as the Catholics do.

                  I hope you understand what I mean.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Eden

                  Probably, the fruit was wheat.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >For those new to faith, there is a need to be discipled.

                  In other words, tradition.

                  http://thefutureprimaeval.net/why-methodists-dont-go-to-heaven/
                  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

                  P.s. all bibles must be study bibles, fully marginalized with party approved ideologically correct notes, contextualization, and interpretations; that possessing ‘unadorned’ bibles would be tantamount to announcing your usurpation of ecclesial authority and pretension of privileged understanding of the voice of god.

                  The invention of the printing press disastrously sprung the bible from the wiser control of the church, allowing any old (((personages))) to torture the texts willy nilly to fit this or that rationalization, something which normies who value the magic totem(s) of the nation are largely powerless against, and which high calculation low imagination spergmatics take almost entirely at face value, being vulnerable to treating such loopy logical constructs entirely serious, thus unmooring them from the stressful uncertainty they face trying to grapple with being, in turn blissfully cocooning into the simple logical certainty of the construct (which they will then pursue with full stridency, and damn the torpedoes of reality, as Hegel, known illusionomancer, famously observed).

                  The solution obviously, is if your good books have escaped the magisterium, then you put the magisterium into the books.

                • jim says:

                  Judaism continually accretes new beliefs and practices, while continually loopholing old beliefs and practices, until nothing remains of old beliefs and practices but the loopholes, the exception swallowing the rule. But sola scriptura results in every man being his own prophet, which is worse. Instead of the community innovating, everyone innovates.

                  The solution is to assume that long lived and large forms of Christianity have been generally correct – though not necessarily in every minute detail. Human speculations about the nature of the trinity are transparently silly. And it is similarly impossible to have a logically consistent position on baptism, confession, and all that. Christ was baptized, symbolizing the necessity for continuity, but the thief by his side to whom he granted forgiveness was not. That they deviated from each other in various minor ways, that Christ himself deviated from himself in various minor ways, gives us permission to deviate from them in various minor ways, but not in ways that would horrify and outrage them.

                  Or, as an atheist who thinks Christianity useful might say, long lived and large versions of Christianity represent the will of Gnon, in that they survived the winnowing of time.

                • glosoli says:

                  From the first linked article:

                  ‘it’s the community of all Christians including those who died before and the spirits of Christians in purgatory or Heaven.’

                  Purgatory? Where did that idea come from?

                  Also: ‘real sola scriptura looks a lot more like pre-Vatican II Catholicism than modern Protestantism.’

                  Hmm, interesting, tell me more please.

                  ‘But sola scriptura results in every man being his own prophet, which is worse.’

                  I disagree.

                  The RCs tradition very early turned to idolatry (the cross) and Mary worship, and eventually resulted in buying your way out of purgatory and other such nonsense. And that trend continues today.

                  http://www.antiochian.org/node/18634

                  One has to recognise that the Church was captured by Rome for political purposes very early on. satan was very quick in perverting the truth.

                  So, I stand by my original comment: let the Holy Spirit guide you through your reading of the bible and understanding of your faith. God will give you mentors, God will guide your path.

                  In return, we need to stick by His laws, despite our salvation.

                • jim says:

                  The holy spirit should be understood as guiding the church collectively, not individually. Individuals are apt to engage in theological innovation and go off the rails, especially on issues beyond human comprehension such as baptism and the trinity.

                • jim says:

                  Cross is not idolatory. Idolatory is to substitute human made art as an object of worship. Does not exist much any more, since art is so easily reproduced, people are no longer awed by it. Idolatory continues in state religions, as for example “Thoughts of chairman mao”.

                • jim says:

                  This frame leads to excessive separation of Church and State, which is a fine frame if you are using the Church to overthrow the King, as in the Puritan revolution, but it seems to me that the best ages of faith are those that created the Cathedrals, and the Cathedrals are manifestation of the unity of Church and State.

                  We call Harvard and the institutions it owns, such as the Judiciary, “The Cathedral” to emphasize its religious nature and that it unifies Church and state, but we know it is a shit religion, because it produces shit architecture, whereas the actual Cathedrals were magnificent architecture.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >From the first linked article:

                  >‘it’s the community of all Christians including those who died before and the spirits of Christians in purgatory or Heaven.’

                  >Purgatory? Where did that idea come from?

                  So this is what crimestop looks like in real time; i had almost forgotten.

      • peppermint says:

        Infogalactic is a serious thing, someone needed to make that kind of long-term move. Castalia House is serious. Nuking the scifi community is serious work, and AltHero promises to be his most important project.

        His attempt at destroying Gab by doing what liberals had not yet done gives him the nickname Dox Gay and means he shouldn’t be trusted outside of his purview.

        We’re so used to being played against each other that we don’t trust other right-wing groups. Now it’s the left’s turn to be played against each other and our turn to ignore or do limited kayfabe infighting. Because for once, all the right-wingers agree about our end goal: restoring the age where Roy Moore dated a 17 year old for three months with her mother’s permission and kissed her twice. The Boomers grew up in that environment and destroyed it. It is incredibly frustrating that we can’t simply kill them and things will be okay as their parents should have.

        • Joe says:

          Speaking of infighting, could you give it a rest on the boomer hate? You’re reading and commenting on a boomer’s blog. You’re so relentless on it that I’ve come to think that while you seem like a smart guy, you have some real emotional issues. Get the fuck over it already. We’re on the same team.

          • peppermint says:

            Q: why are we in this situation
            A: because Boomers chose to have more partners than Casanova or even Zeus, then mine the younger generations for more, when they could have had marriages, and all they had to give up was the future of their people and their children’s marriages. They chose to have Apu and the Mexican in the bee suit to look up to them, secure in the knowledge that Apu’s sixteen kids weren’t going to cause trouble for them, only for their children.
            Q: so how can we cut our losses and make something decent and human for ourselves?
            A: WAIT A DAMN MINUTE YOUNGSTER YOU’RE NOT BEING RACIST ARE YOU MARTIN LUTHER KING HAD A DREAM ALSO WOMEN NEED TO BE TREATED WITH RESPECT THAT MEANS NOT MARRYING THEM BUT JUST FUCKING THEM WITH A CONDOM A FEW TIMES AFTER A NIGHT OF DELIVERED PIZZA AND CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY AND GAYS JUST WANT TO DO STUFF WITH CONSENTING CHILDREN IN THE PRIVACY OF THE WOMEN’S ROOM

            • peppermint says:

              Boomers fundamentally refuse to understand that it’s not the 80s anymore and that America had world-historic prosperity from the 50s to the 70s. They truly believe that they had hard childhoods and worked for everything they have. In short, they are blinded by their privilege. Listening to them discuss politics as if it’s Reagan, HW and Mondale instead of Trump, Jeb and Hillary is infuriating.

              When people talk about Millennials, everyone knows they mean normies, who are garbage men who can barely afford rent but have had sex with more women than the horniest Greek god. These people do not understand that the reason they don’t want a wife and a family is that they don’t feel financially secure, and consequently they end up voting for the party that likes meaningless sex and more government provided stuff not knowing that the stuff is paid for by their dying parents and given to their replacements.

              But when I talk about Boomers, the Boomers genuinely don’t think there’s anything wrong with them as a generation, despite ridiculous divorces. Millennials at least understand that something is wrong.

              • Herodian says:

                They’ll be dead soon.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                You speak with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, P-Mint. Consider the world they were born in: horse drawn milk carts. Polio. Intermittent electrical. Outdoor plumbing. By the tim they hit their teens, electricity eliminated all the chores of the housewife, who was previously occupied 24/7/365 with her chores. With nothing to do, women started going nuts. The pill came along. Jet planes. Mass production. Computers. Mass education. Rampant divorce…they couldn’t keep up and they and their kids were washed away in the fallout and tertiary problems that stemmed from that. None of us would have done much better.

                • Joe says:

                  “None of us would have done much better.” Yes.
                  I’m a late boomer and have been concerned about non-white immigration since 1990 when it first started to be talked about that whites could become a minority. I was furious at the Ted Kennedy generation before mine for the 1965 immigration act and the 1986 amnesty without which we would not have any of these problems. But they were doing what seemed like the right thing at the time. You could probably find a reason to blame the generation before their’s too, or the generation before them. The root problem is not a particular generation, but the ideology that led white people to abandon race realism and throw open the gates. That is not a boomer thing, it’s a leftism thing.
                  I understand the anger by younger whites towards older whites. I understand thinking “why didn’t you wake up and do something”. The waking up is happening right now, and in the last ten or so years. We/they didn’t wake up sooner because it’s human nature to ignore things while you can.
                  And if you can blame boomers for not waking up back when whites were still 80%-90% of the population, what do you say to young white men joining Antifa and actively working to wipe out the white race? What’s their excuse for ignorance? They can see clearly what happens to whites when in the minority and yet they fanatically work to dispossess whites entirely. See, it’s not a generation thing, it’s an ideology thing. Blame the ideology.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “Consider the world they were born in: horse drawn milk carts. Polio. Intermittent electrical. Outdoor plumbing.”

                  What planet are you from? All boomers were born after 1945. After atomic energy and penicillin. Perhaps you’re thinking of their grandparents, the “Greatest Generation”. Even my parents, from the “Silent Generation” had indoor plumbing and electricity when they were born.

              • Will says:

                I’m with you on the boomer question. Talking to them, you’d think they live on a different planet and their capacity for critical thinking is virtually non-existent and their unable to grasp higher concepts.

                However I must disagree with “These people do not understand that the reason they don’t want a wife and a family is that they don’t feel financially secure”

                The reason Millennials don’t want a wife and kids is because of our broken gender dynamics. If we had a functioning patriarchy, every man regardless of wealth would dream of getting married and having 10 kids. But women are equal and fathers aren’t respected and no one wants to take up the responsibility of raising children so millenials just watch netflix all day. There are countless people who have the means to support a family but never marry because their nihilistic urbanite bugmen. Wealth has little to do with it, but it does serve as a good excuse for when your bommer parents ask you why you haven’t settled down yet.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Talking to them, you’d think they live on a different planet…”

                  That’s just how it is with people, this is not some characteristic unique to a particular generation. When the brain finishes development, the mental outlook is fixed for life. They do live on a different planet.

                • peppermint says:

                  It’s not an excuse, it’s an effect. High school and college girlfriends are taken way less seriously than post-college girlfriends, and women are taken way less seriously prior to starting a career. I watched this literally happen to the people I know.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              I love you, Peppermint.

            • Hank Rearden says:

              And the boomercucks luvs’em some “muh greatest ally,” to whom they owe much shekel.

              They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. (((Romans 15:27 NIV)))

              “OWE IT TO THE JEWS”

              Ever wonder why you can’t afford to get married, buy a house, and raise a family?

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      What he is doing is actively creating and patronising alternative culture. That is valuable. He isn’t the field marshal he imagines himself to be though.

    • jim says:

      Popularizing our ideas to the masses.

    • The SF awards takeover was well done. Even GRRM was pissed. He claims he also had an impact in gamergate, which after the SF awards takeover I am prone to believe to be true. So you can label him a successful pop-culture-warrior. The problem is I don’t give half a shit about pop culture, I consider challenging leftist takeover of pop culture much like wrestling with pigs in the mud, you get dirty and pigs just enjoy it and you probably won’t get any better through it.

      For me SF is a classical genre, written by dead white males, something that does not happen in the present or I don’t feel a reason to care. I read them as I read Shakespeare, not in a present sense. This does not prevent me enjoying and respecting it at all, in fact, knowing they withstood some test of time and not last years bestsellers is a plus.

      BTW Jim if you think Vox and Heinlein are wrong about women, just wait until you discover John Ringo. March to the Sea, March Upcountry, March to the Stars etc. The infuriating thing is that there is not much good military SF out there, of course Pournelle, but Ringo is a close second and who is third? It is a tiny genre. And Ringo gets really everything right about military SF except women. He even gets that part really hard part right in We Few that if a Prince is formed by such a brutal experience he is likely to get tyrannical and his wife can actually play a dampener, calmer role, because one thing a good woman surely can do right is to comfort her man, make him take things easier, less stressed, less angry, more compassionate, that is a real and worthy role of the wives of rules. The only thing he absolutely fucks up is that the future wife of the Prince used to be some kind of hardass elite marine… infuriating.

      • peppermint says:

        Right-wing scifi is Starship Troopers is cuckservatism. Mainstream scifi is Robot Novels is a mixture of logic puzzles, ridiculous feminist sex, and robots standing in for the long-maligned nigger of incredible moral and intellectual fortitude.

      • Cavalier says:

        The thing he fucked up was that the prince was an ubermensch in combat and a complete pansy in women. His castaway crush finally had to rape him because his stones were so small.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        >So you can label him a successful pop-culture-warrior. The problem is I don’t give half a shit about pop culture, I consider challenging leftist takeover of pop culture much like wrestling with pigs in the mud, you get dirty and pigs just enjoy it and you probably won’t get any better through it.

        We see eye to eye about this issue. MPC and specially /pol/ have their priorities upside down, chasing irrelevant pop-cult distractions and still thinking that “SJWs” are an interesting adversary and that “exposing liberal hypocrisy” and “trolling journalists” is the same thing as “winning,” while the deep state and the real Cathedral are running the show unimpeded.

        • Cavalier says:

          “The Cathedral” is the idea that journalists/media and/or professors/universities run the show. It’s basically “religion first”.

          If there is a “Deep State”, and it’s running the show, then “the Cathedral” as an explanation of world-sovereignty is a dead letter.

          That isn’t to say that there isn’t a Cathedral, and that it isn’t running a show, only that any person or organization of people that curtsies to the media or to the universities is or is placing itself downstream of that power, and subject to its whimsy.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            The “deep state” (which is a lame name) sends orders to troops and ambassadors, but doesn’t know why, and outsources that to the academia-media complex, which doesn’t know much about what its instructions are doing, and neither of them have any leadership that can provide coordination.

            • Cavalier says:

              Consider affirmative action. Does anyone know if the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. have the proper numbers of blacks, mexicans, gays, trannies, women, and suchlike?

              If a news outlet tried to tattle on the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. for not having the proper numbers of blacks, mexicans, gays, trannies, women, etc., would that organization be able to do so without repercussion? If it came to be known that the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. did not, what would happen? Who would enforce it? How?

              I don’t know how any of this stuff works. I just suspect that when the media don’t have any penetration into a particular area, that there’s a reason. The universities still do, for obvious reasons, but when considering how seriously government agents take ideology, my instinct is: not very.

              • peppermint says:

                Are the FBI and CIA exempt from AA? The NSA’s math community might be.

                Googling for fbi racial quotas, I find that agents were whining about it in 1991.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Even if Ceasar cannot cut the legionaries’ pay, it does not mean legionaries decide whether or not to invade Germania.

    • John Morris says:

      I wasn’t following it super close at the time, but didn’t Vox have a big hand in GamerGate? No GamerGate, no Alt-Right. GamerGate was the bloody trophy that proved the Left could actually be beaten, and once everyone saw that politics became a different game. It was “Behold the God who bleeds!”

      Before it was all NRx Moldbuggery, just lots of theory with no definite plan to do anything in the current world because “it is impossible” so wait for irrationality of the modern world to finally go Kaboom and have plans to rebuild with patchworks… or build the Antiversity, whatever that was supposed to be.

      Do agree Vox needs to be less erratic and feuding with the rest of the Right. And not refer to his IQ more than once per day.

      • pdimov says:

        “I wasn’t following it super close at the time, but didn’t Vox have a big hand in GamerGate?”

        No. He tried to attach himself to it, without much success.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Allow me to counter-signal: GamerGate was a non-event. The dissident right has some of its roots in the Manosphere, which had come into being in 2008 or so, and grew wildly up until 2013 with hundreds of popular blogs and true memetic potency; the GamerGate issue, on the other hand, was an episode of much noise by everyone involved and lots of self promotion by people trying to co-opt it, but ultimately ended up as a nothingburger devoid of long lasting effects.

        People who say that GamerGate radicalized them are like people who say that Obama 2008 or Obama 2012 or Trayvon 2012 radicalized them: can only see the big picture when slapped across the face. Not a sign of intelligence. The point is sensing where the wind is blowing in advance.

        • It’s actually worse. Gaming is a loser thing. To the extent I do game, is the I admit it is because I see no other worthy avenues of action – gaming happens when work, family/wife, learning, lifting, politics all got their due and there is still time to kill. It’s like masturbating. You can masturbate if there is nothing else to do and you don’t have to reserve your T / sperm for a woman for example because you are single. Christian views aside, why not.

          The big problem is when you identify with being a masturbator. It is an incredibly loser thing. Instead of masturbation being a thing you do instead of more worthy things, in lieau of them, while working towards them / waiting for them, identifying with it is incredibly loser.

          And that is the same with gaming. A man can game like a man can masturbate. Every time he does so he should feel something in his life needs improvement – he should not have time to kill by so ignoble means, if he has time to kill at all he should be able to find better ways.

          So it is a vice. Against yourself. And that is okay, we are allowed to have vices (glances on his cigarette in the ashtray). But we do not identify with them.

          The basic minimal duty we owe ourselves is to identify with our better self. Even if a man will never ever ever amount to anything more than a fat pizza junkie gamer who dies at 46 as a virgin, at the very least he should never identify with it, he should identify with that better part of himself that loathes it.

          And this is why the label “gamer” sucks ass. And this is why it is incredibly loser to be radicalized by GG. Lots of other ways to be slapped accross the face with progressivism…

          • peppermint says:

            Gaming is a vice? RPGs are vices no different from reading trash literature and far better than watching TV and movies made by rapist jews. Competitive gaming is a sport. Occasional masturbation or inebriation are not vices either, neither is music, or hitting on cute girls when you’re single and trying to show off by wasting gas driving around.

            Puritanism, however, is a vice. It is called scrupulosity, and rooted in pride, though eventually it becomes rooted in envy after missing out.

            • glosoli says:

              Interesting.

              He does it in most comments: ignores the thrust of the commenter’s point, makes other (nonsensical) point, ends up on another track altogether stating incoherent nonsense, basically his opinion, often factually incorrect.

              Sad, and weird.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Glosoli –

                You’re too short for this ride. That was directly responsive – you failing to understand that is your flaw.

                • glosoli says:

                  ‘Too short for this ride’.

                  Hello Vox, welcome to Jim’s blog.

                  Heh, you gave yourself away so quickly with this Voxian phrase.

                  Do please go away.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Speaking as Scott Alexander’s evil twin, your problem glosoli is that your brain lets its top-down predictions completely override its bottom-up data stream, resulting in “Moldbug is an agent” and “Johnson is VD,” obvious non-starters.

                  Or you’re just trolling, in which case, hats off to you.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m betting you still haven’t read Miles W Mathis’s papers on the history of intelligence.

                  I make no statements from ignorance, as far as possible.

                  Both the examples you mention are grounded in reality.

                  The financiers have played with democracy for about as long as possible, they know it’s time to move to another set-up, more autocratic and nominally right-wing, so why is it a surprise that (((Yarvin))) appears ahead of a rise in populism?
                  (((Hitler))) was the same, if you read about his rise to power at MWM, you caan’t but conclude it was all orchestrated by the elite, the same elite who bailed out Churchill’s finances. But I do grow bored of telling you to do your own research. If you don’t, then assume you just know less than I do.

                  Johnson may not be Vox himself, but he’s a Vox fanboy, and that’s the reason he had a pop at me, defending his thought-leader by attacking me. Amusingly, he was so stupid as to give himself away immediately.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >if you read about his rise to power at MWM, you caan’t but conclude it was all orchestrated by the elite, the same elite who bailed out Churchill’s finances

                  What, pit one nation against another, let them duke it out and exhaust themselves, and exploit the result? No…

                  What, bail out Churchill and then place him as PM? No…

                  What, play Hitler like a fiddle? No…

                  What, FDR and Patton both croak right after the war is won? No…

                  What, the powerful might learn to appreciate an ideology legitimating and expanding their power? Tell me it ain’t so.

                • glosoli says:

                  Sadly it all appears to be so.

          • alf says:

            Gaming is nice, especially with friends. Of course all things in moderation.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      His niche in the modern Right is to show the errors of libertarianism in ways that libertarians can’t ignore.
      His comments on the international division of labour / comparative advantage are extremely adroit.

      See the problem for a right-libertarian encountering the alt.right is that claims of “classical liberals were Whigs – you Hoppean ancaps are just leftists” don’t come across as serious.
      VD adds the needed meat. Once a right-libertarian already opposed to open borders listens for five minutes to the reasons why labour mobility and even capital mobility in the current year make protectionism something other than a stupid backward fallacy, there’s really no going back.

      The picture fits perfectly: Moldbug tells us that what’s wrong with the modern world is not that there’s governments at all, but that they’re inept because there’s no clarity of command; Jim tells us that the prevailing Zeitgeist is SO badly disconnected from reality and human nature that everything from science to sex is badly broken; VD tells us why we can forget about the market solving it all once the government’s out of the way…. throw in some common sense decency and solidarity of the Millennial Woes variety and some calls for backbone and action instead of whining, Social Matter style, and we have a coherent and satisfying vision.

      VD might not be as original as Jim or Ryan Landry but he’s crucially imporant for overcoming the impulse among Rightists that state intervention in the economy is always and everywhere bad in and of itself therefore we need to let labour and capital move around and if it wrecks the world so be it……….

      Quite an important component.

      I expect the reason some alt.righters see no value in it is they just never had those libertarian prejudices in the first place. This is where Chris Cantwell et al come in: we have to purge outright Leftism, otherwise the BEST we’ll ever get is Hitler. Not good.

      • >I expect the reason some alt.righters see no value in it is they just never had those libertarian prejudices in the first place.

        Let’s be honest: a large part of those prejudices is being autistic. I don’t mean it the bad way. I am kinda autistic. I can understand that type of programmer approach “just slide the specifications and the money in under the door and don’t talk to me” has its appeal.

        Another large part of that is being American. Rugged individualism, Clint Eastwood, frontier… I don’t know that very well as I am not American.

        For me the hilarious part is that while both being autistic and being American leads to those libertarian prejudices, in reality Americans are the least autistic of all people. You have store greeters! Who not only say hello but even smile and somehow make it look honest and totally not creepy! That is 100% anti-autistic. In Vienna customers and cashiers pretty much have learned to communicate with grunts while not looking at each other. We are the autists, not you.

        This… is seriously interesting and hard to track down. My guesstimate is that perhaps in the US, besides there is a long national history for rugged individualism, autists have a special reason to be libertarian: getting things via political means is an extroverted game for status and prestige and they hate it. The market deals better with autists, just wave a $100 bill around and people will ask how can they help you. I think what we have over here is that apparently we have divorced big government from status and prestige games. It is really more like a nanny by now.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I don’t really buy the whole ‘autism’ thing.

          Ricardian international division of labour is superficially extremely plausible, coherent and natural.
          I remember seeing a talk at the Mises Institute a long time ago by some Australian posh Indian woman. She explained the international division of labour in great detail: how German expertise in chemicals means they get to sell to the entire world in those areas and nobody can enter the market to compete with them because they’d have to pay for the capital equipment and expertise up front so it just doesn’t happen.

          Looking at that in 2017, it makes no sense. Just ship the machinery to whatever market’s currently ’emerging’ and where jobs are highly technical, just use supranational arrangements to directly ship the labour in on a consultancy basis and use slaves for the rest.

          With easy movement of technology around the world and easy movement of skilled labour around the world, the international division of labour turns into a race to the bottom.

          As economic rightists, libertarians have heard “race to the bottom” type arguments from whining liberals all their lives. It cuts no mustard so they carry on with the Bob Murphy model of the world longer than they would if they had persuasive arguments to help them overcome that barrier.

          Vox Day is very very good at communicating those ideas.

          Moldbug is too but because he’s so subtle, he never explicitly takes a ‘policy position’ on this stuff: he just hints and skirts around it. That’s deliberate: as a reactionary he doesn’t WANT to claim to have a say in policy packages. That’s the correct attitude, but it won’t necessarily cut through libertarian prejudices.

          In the end, faced with the right arguments, a libertarian who cares about reality will end up having to concede Trump-style protectionism, but there’s a lot of work to do first and VD’s very useful for that.

  4. Alrenous says:

    Vox is pissed that Derb’s rhetoric is better than his, and Derb makes it look natural. Neither have proven to my satisfaction any commitment to actual science.

    Why Vox thought ‘scientody’ is a good word, and not AAA-grade autism, I don’t know.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_toddy?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toad?

  5. Hank Rearden says:

    Good observation, Jim. In Megan Kelly Today’s world, a single man hugging a fully-developed and fertile 15 year old woman is OMG horror of horrors, but degenerate butt sex is the best thing since sliced bread. I pray every morning now for Kim Kong to launch an EMP attack and wipe out 80% of the population. Every morning I wake up to plentiful electricity and running water is a disappointment.

  6. A common mistake that people make is binary thinking. The scientific method results in a refinement of truth based upon observation. Newton stated that force = mass x acceleration. This equation does not fit well for particles at velocities near light speed. Newton was wrong! Science is wrong! Nope. We just refine the model.

    Curt Doolittle has written a lot about the concept of testimonial truth. One can absolutely state that a mathematical proof is true since all of the conditions for the proof have been defined. Real world science depends upon observation. The conditions upon which we determine what is true depend upon the accuracy of these observations. Science today is administered by a priesthood. The priesthood are not willing to be accountable. They will testify their findings except to each other.

    Curt likes to say that the twentieth century was the age of lies and pseudoscience. If race realism is a better explanatory model than the blank slate, how can any scientist claim that the blank slate model is at all valid?

  7. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    The capture and rape of science is the blackest pill of them all, worse even than white genocide.

    Well, I’ve come to trust you Jim, so the irony of treating you like a ‘scientific consensus’ aside, I’m going to take a chance of having yet another eye-opening experience and give the book a try. I say this as a high carb low fat mostly-vegan who’s lost four stone by eating as many bites as possible per day for the calories. I very much doubt I could be satisfied with a high fat diet, and would probably find it hard to keep the weight off, but reality is reality is reality so this strong Jim-approved case needs to be read.

    With regards the wider picture, again this is a humungous black pill. This path leads to utter abject barbarism: ultimately what happened to space travel will happen to ordinary travel….and computers….and electric toasters…….. and the IQ<90 population of 2060 won't be able to put Humpty together again.

    • Hank Rearden says:

      Space travel got Detroited; Apollo was shut down because NASA couldn’t find a nigger smart enough to navigate in space. Paul Kersey documents the Detroitization of space in his book “Whitey on the Moon: Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 – 1972.” The US Navy too is dying, unable now to steer its boats in shipping lanes without wrecking. Even our electric toasters, as you mention, are in peril:

      “So every appliance is fried. Glass everywhere from blown out light bulbs. We are talking thousands of dollars.”
      From Superpower to Incompetence
      Paul Craig Roberts • November 8, 2017

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Space travel is useless, and that’s the main reason we aren’t doing it. The Space Shuttle was a technically more difficult and complicated – although in many ways inferior – solution to the problem than liquid rockets like Saturn V. It was canceled without real replacement because it was expensive and useless.

        • Stephen W says:

          There are some useful things in space, communication satellites, weather satellites, GPS satellites, mapping satellites, spy satellites. Although none of these involve putting people in space. But if we can start Asteroid mining that could put a dent in the price of rare minerals.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Space is useless if you’re stuck on a planet.

          Therefore, turn the planet into space.

          #deonstructallgravitywells

        • Hank Rearden says:

          Sailing boats in is “useless.” “Expensive and useless” even. What’s your point? That white men shouldn’t explore unless it has some utilitarian payoff in the next immediate moment? You sound like a woman or a Negro. Don’t feel bad, if you don’t have the nature that appreciates exploration for the sake of itself, discovering new information, you’re in good company.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            >have the nature that appreciates exploration for the sake of itself, discovering new information

            You should thank the Jews for not having any of that anymore. Aryan science would have taken human civilization to space. Instead, Jewish science gave us the smart(ass)phone.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Anglo liberalism (very broadly defined) defeated continental falangism, but then also entailed the half century of stagnation and declined we’ve had the pleasure of finding ourselves in presently.

              Many tech-coms/ai boosters happen to be anglo; i think though we ought earnestly assess as to whether the anglo phylum has really in actuality been a net drag on the whole singularitan telos. Wouldn’t that be an ironic knapsack to unpack. (It goes without saying of course that the khazars are all that and more wrt drogue-shooting the space colonies)

              What was that saying in french? ‘He complains about the dish he ordered’.

  8. Zach says:

    I went the fat approach as well, as it keeps me full for longer. So I did that stupid butter coffee shit, and it worked. Didn’t eat a single thing until 2pm or so, every day. Here’s an interesting talk he did:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuj6nxCDBZ0

    And the intro on his website:

    Unbiased Science and the Engineering Approach.

    Most people are aware of the Hans Christian Andersen classic story detailing how the Emperor was fooled into believing he was wearing a suit of finery, although the truth was rather different. Once the supposed reality was adopted by his eminence, those in relatively powerful positions shrank from challenging it in spite of the contrary evidence, afraid to show dissent and thus doomed to fall in line with the orthodoxy. Most importantly the pretense fed upon itself over time and became even more entrenched, as the fear of challenging it becomes greater with the numbers implicated. Ultimately a mere child collapses the delusion.

    As I began to study the last few decades of medical trials and experiments I noticed parallels with this insightful parable. The flawed hypotheses put forward from VERY weak data in the 1960’s became extraordinarily entrenched, and similarly developed their own momentum, building castles in the air that were defended by legions of academic acolytes. Sadly, most of the experiments undertaken were biased heavily towards firming up the existing hypotheses – there was clearly no room for challenge. Contrary evidence that emerged was dismissed, and any morsel supportive of the status quo was enthusiastically published and promoted. This was an egregious breach of the scientific method (which ought to strive towards exploring exceptions in order to strengthen the rule), and in short was very, very bad engineering.

    I refer primarily to the “diet-heart” hypothesis, which proposed that dietary Saturated Fat elevated Blood Cholesterol, and the latter drove heart disease mortality like nothing else. The evidence at the time was loose correlation, certainly not causation, and seems almost laughably naïve in retrospect. However, the tenaciousness of this flawed hypothesis has turned out to be no laughing matter, condemning millions to the misery of Obesity, Type II Diabetes and an extraordinary range of Inflammatory diseases. The factors that conspired to perpetuate the flawed hypotheses were many: academic and research community hubris, political forces, economic imperatives, profiteering from the Food and Pharmaceutical Industries, and the groupthink psychologythat underpins the worsening “Diabesity” epidemic.

    After 25 years in technical/management positions with a personal specialty in complex problem solving, I have been inspired to counterbalance the Emperor’s Entourage, and bring an engineering-style approach to the current situation.

    Ivor Cummins BE(Chem) CEng MIEI

    • Zach says:

      Good god (always doing at least two or three things at once), I’m talking about Ivor Cummins, and his talk on youtube about cholesterol being a useless metric. It was the first I’ve ever heard that, but I don’t do a lot of food research, as low carb, moderate fat, some fasting, and lots of steak has served me well, and didn’t need to look further.

      • jim says:

        High fat and periodic fasting here. I no longer resemble Jabba the Hut. Max one hundred grams carbs, max one hundred grams and twenty grams protein, min sixty grams protein, rest saturated fat, except on fast days which are of course zero everything except water and lots of black coffee.

        • glosoli says:

          So how much fat do you eat on average Jim?
          And how do you get that fat, is it butter or cheese?
          I’m considering keto, never fasted.
          Then again, I’m 6 feet and weigh 65kg, so I need to gain, not lose.

    • Zach says:

      And this story was pretty cool. I can’t remember it, but this kid had a brain issue, and was about to die, and I think he stopped all treatment and started eating insects, and doing his own research into ketogenic diets, and he’s still alive. He had months to live or something? I could be misremembering though.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f5e9GbXvIk

    • Zach says:

      My research dictates that fasting is the best for the body, but ketogenic diets are a nice alternative for peeps that can’t or won’t fast 2 to 3 days a week. Or for those that do a lot of hard exercise. Eventually your body will adapt, and create a new setpoint, and then it becomes much easier to not eat. Veggies, steak, fats and low carb, and your good to go. Last post about this. (room explodes in applause)

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Some very interesting perspectives. I’ll mostly defer to your greater experience and expertise, but a few little residual details:

        Firstly I entirely agree with you about veggies, but aren’t they high carb? (I’m not trying to pretend neutrality: I’m a high carb low fat guy for the very mundane reason that I’m a pig and I like to eat a lot – HCLF means I can eat a lot and lose weight, one example being a huge plate of potatoes and beans.)

        Secondly I expect weight has a lot to do with health outcomes. Diet is interesting and no doubt there are some fascinating findings, but ultimately walking round with a body morphology radically different to anything seen in the ancestral environment is a logical candidate for maladaptive force.

        Thirdly, while the ‘scientific’ literature has indeed demonised fat, outcomes have fallen into two categories, not just one:

        i) food products in shops have exploited the ‘reduced fat’ strategy, producing products that look like familiar choices but are in fact filled with excess sugar and water – very far from healthy and satisfying foods

        ii) restaurant (and take-away) meals have continued down the tried&tested route of adding as much fat, salt and sugar as possible to maximise flavour – also very far from healthy

        So while the ‘reduced fat’ movement shares in the blame, the picture as a whole is complicated by high fat junk food. Moreover, ‘reduced fat’ and ‘low fat’ aren’t the same thing.
        A meal of fresh fruit and vegetables is low fat, whereas a meat pie with 30% less fat is just adulterated and fraudulent. It’s a difference that makes a difference: one’s been doctored to fool the buyer; the other’s low in fat because it’s made from fruit and vegetables.

  9. Your Wife's Son says:

    An idea that you have proposed is more relevant than ever: the idea of the “unprincipled exception.”

    What you’re seeing right now with the raging, unhinged, lunatic pedo-hysteria all over the place is unprincipled exceptions being removed by true believers or by other interested parties.

    It used to be that, even while the AOC was raised to 16 by puritans and feminists, people didn’t really give a shit if you fucked a physically and mentally mature 14-year-old. They treated it as the victimless “crime” that it is.

    Now, someone — the CIA? the professors? you decide — is bent on removing every single unprincipled exception from being. So, I want to thank you, Jim, for explaining the “unprincipled exception” idea as lucidly as you did.

    • TBeholder says:

      Rather obviously, as far as these creatures are concerned, consent of the participants has less priority than consent of Big Brother.
      Which is what makes possible in their minds situations like two parties being both guilty of “raping” each other.
      As usual, they are not complex at all, what hinders understanding is unnecessary anthropomorphism.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Right. Two running themes on this blog are that “consent does not make sex good, nor does lack of consent make it bad,” and that sexual attraction to fertile age women is not perverse (and usually they ask for it). Then again, it’s clear that Jim, Peppermint, myself, and most of the regulars are not exactly neurotypical.

        We are not psychopaths — at least I am not — but we do have the warrior gene. (You can easily verify it as well as other things on Promethease for 5$ if you have your raw DNA from 23andme, for instance; you can also browse the raw DNA directly. But enough with the shilling) I don’t think it’s a bad thing. We don’t have smaller amygdalae than usual; I believe my right amygdala must be quite large. Our mirror neurons function property. And yet… we’re different.

        Normiism is a bad ideology.

        • pdimov says:

          Doesn’t really take a warrior gene to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

          And yet,

          “If he actually laid hands on a 14 year old as a grown man then he’s a degenerate and I presume a criminal without knowing Alabama’s age of consent at the time.”

          – porter14159

          Didn’t expect that from him.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            I had this exact sentence of Porter’s in mind when I wrote my comment.

            Toning down my own LARP, I’m not actually so sure that all of what we’re seeing is organized from above. “Moral panics” are something that certain populations are organically prone to, and they seem to primarily occur among those populations.

            Obviously, it’s not the French. While they have their own blue-pilled sex laws, they are not generally insane about it, and they can be reasoned with about the matter; for instance:

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

            and

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

            “What is emerging is a new penal system, a new legislative system whose function is not so much to punish offenses against these general laws concerning decency, as to protect populations and parts of populations regarded as particularly vulnerable. Therefore, there would be on one side the fragile population, and on the other side the “dangerous population.”” – Foucault was 100% correct in his analysis here, that’s exactly what happened in actual fact.

            Likewise, it’s not the Germans who do the panics. While I’m saddened by the massive brothelization of Germany, it being an ill-boding symptom of German marital sterility, nevertheless, the Germans’ overall attitude seems to be rooted in genuine altruism, much like their environmentalism, rather than in poz for poz’s sake:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4101376/Sex-prostitutes-paid-Government-needs-sexual-assistance-afford-hooker-German-Green-Party-plans.html

            What about the Slavs? Seem reluctant to throw men in jail for possessing “sinister” files on their devices:

            http://chartsbin.com/view/q4y

            Japs? Ummm:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HErf4OELzYk

            Conclusion: moral panics are a distinctly Anglo thing. Which is all the more upsetting, given Anglo superiority.

            :/

            • jim says:

              Moral panics are a holiness spiral thing, and anglos have had an ever holier state religion since 1820.

              • pdimov says:

                Not sure you have cause and effect correct here.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The-Power-That-Cannot-Be-Named killed the statue-toppling a few months ago just as it killed feminism in 1932/1933.

                • jim says:

                  Good point. I failed to notice. Charlottesville was a victory?

                  Yes, Charlottesville was a victory!

                • Cavalier says:

                  Feminism resumed a generation and a half later.

                  Statue-toppling will resume well within a generation and a half.

                  The point of the hiatus on feminism in 1932/1933 is that someone decided to begin mobilization, at least culturally, as early as that date. Who did it? How did they impose their will? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know that there are answers.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Actually, forget what I said about the warrior gene – I have confused MAOA with warrior/worrier in the COMT gene.

        My MAOA is rs909525(A;A), which is perfectly normal: “people with this SNP usually also have either the 4 or 5 repeat (non-Warrior) version of MAOA which makes them less aggressive and less anti-social.”

        My rs4680 is G;G:

        “Warrior. Val, less exploratory, higher COMT enzymatic activity, therefore lower dopamine levels; higher pain threshold, better stress resiliency, albeit with a modest reduction in executive cognition performance under most conditions.”

        Sorry for the navel gazing.

  10. TBeholder says:

    > As for the scientific profession,

    There’s a Soviet term, good one for a change: “scientific staff”. It was born of “pray for emboldening, I’ll guide it myself” thing, but it makes sense. It’s just another industry for most part. All these lab workers supposedly do something useful enough to pay them for that, they need to be qualified, and hopefully will push whichever science on a little, but no one is kidding anyone that every single one of them is Galileo. Scientific staff, no more, no less.

  11. Dan Kurt says:

    Please fix the link “Climategate files” in the essay Rectification of names: Science.

    Thanks.

    Dan Kurt

    • jim says:

      The link works for me. It is a bittorrent link. Maybe you do not have a bittorrent client, or maybe your browser is not configured to handle bittorrent links by passing them to your bittorrent client.

    • jim says:

      Changed the link to point to Bishop Hill’s analysis of climategate, rather than to the climategate files themselves.

  12. Barnie says:

    People who have never published in a scientific journal or participated in the peer review process should avoid commenting on things they don’t understand. Peer review is like jury duty. It’s basically doing the work of an editor and doing it for no money and very little recognition. Most science is not politicized and if you were going to find ideological manipulation you should be looking at the awarding of grants rather than peer review. The peer review hot take harms the credibility of rightists.

    • jim says:

      Reading the Climategate files, it is apparent how peer review works from the inside. This was confirmed by “The big fat secret

      Plus the general reaction among scientists when the Climategate files spilled the dirt on peer review “Oh, that is perfectly normal, what is the big deal?”

      Peer Review is a hostile conspiracy against the public to insert your memes into the official belief system.

      Don’t tell me peer review is just unpaid editing. Peer review is destroying your enemies and manufacturing truth.

      Plus, that is simply human nature. If you form a consensus behind closed doors on the basis of secret evidence, and then get to impose that consensus on other people, that is power, and you are going to use that power not to discover truth, but to drive your enemies before you and hear the lamentations of their women.

      You cannot have it both ways. If peer review is just unpaid editing, then the Global Warming scientists need to go to jail. If peer review after the fashion of Climategate is perfectly normal, then scientists are priests in labcoats, and peer review is synods forming holy doctrine of the state religion.

      If most science is not politicized, most scientists would have been surprised and alarmed by the Climategate files and “The big fat secret

      Notice that Russian psychotropic drugs appear to come from a different universe to American psychotropic drugs. It is like Roman Catholic synods disagreeing on some theological issues with Greek Orthodox synods. People ridiculed the Nazis for talking about Aryan science and Jewish science, but lo and behold, as Moscow breaks away from the Cathedral, we are getting Cathedral science and Russian science.

      • Barnie says:

        Vox has resentment issues. He’s a dabbler so he likes to conceive of real science as the work of independent dabblers. Why don’t you poll your readers to see how many have published (vs having their work supressed) under the peer review system. They know that (climategate not withstanding) Vox is wrong on this and has no idea what he’s talking about and neither do you.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=peer+review&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpeer%20review%3B%2Cc0

          According to Barnie, there were no scientists before the Cathedral took power in WWII. Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin never existed in Barnie’s world

          • Barnie says:

            No, it’s your claim that science ended after WWII, I make no similar claim about science prior to WWII. Politics may keep America from landing a man on the moon for a number of reasons but scientific progress marches on in materials science and aeronautics as well as in medicine and a thousand other fields and it’s all published in peer reviewed journals that you don’t read because it’s not as satisfying as a bias confirming circle jerk.

              • jim says:

                It was absolutely inevitable that the peer review system would turn out the way it has turned out. Constructing a consensus behind closed doors on the basis of secret evidence, and then imposing that consensus on other people, is power, is secretive and unaccountable power. It was inherently improbable that people would apply such power in the pursuit of truth.

                The scientific method, as explained by Galileo and Feynman, is to attack consensus. As Feynman said: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. Peer review is consensus and the superior status of officially designated experts.

                As the Royal Society used to say, back when it had power and Harvard did not have power “Take no man’s word for it”. Peer review is taking the word of anonymous official experts speaking behind closed doors.

                • pdimov says:

                  On one hand, the peer review process works reasonably well according to what my friends, who’ve been on both sides of it, tell me.

                  On the other, it’s not a coincidence that crimethink is without fail met with calls for peer-reviewed studies, with a deliberate emphasis on peer-reviewed; and it’s not a coincidence that Medical Hypotheses was killed and there aren’t any others employing the alternative process of editorial review.

                • jim says:

                  In the case of Global Warming. saturated fats, and speciation in warm blooded kinds, obviously did not work reasonably well. People who get published have to say it works reasonably well, because to say otherwise would admit to telling lies in order to seek status and social approval.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Wikipedia does not chart the history of peer review.

                  (Which is suspicious.)

                  Do you know of any good and concise account?

                • jim says:

                  No.

                  Peer review was introduced furtively. Harvard remade science and turned it arse over tit, while denying that anything was being changed. The history of peer review is like the history of Stalin’s purges, with events being deleted from the history books, rather than added to them.

            • jim says:

              Engineering continued to progress, though it got a whole lot slower after 1972.

              It is not apparent that science continued to progress after World War II. High energy physics is epicycle fitting. They can always find another epicycle. Biological advances are driven by advances in DNA technology, which does indeed continue to advance, but most other fields are stagnant. We are still patterning integrated circuits with 193 nanometer lasers, and squeezing just a little bit more out of this technology. Cars and planes are slowly getting crappier.

              • peppermint says:

                The very notion that a PhD is a qualification led to PhDs being inappropriately granted in physics to clowns who refuse to understand basic things like quantum mechanics, on top of being granted to jewish and other well-connected idiots, and before them, to retard-tier psychologists and philosophers. The ultimate result of credentialing intellectuals can only be speaking credentials to arguments, which is why Socrates refused to accept money for teaching.

                Since the Internet makes education free to anyone who wants it, we have a world-historic opportunity to fix that mistake. Greek philosophers wanted to use math as an IQ test to get rid of midwits. Today we use the fact that it takes significant intelligence and autism to truly act like a normalfag with normalfags while seriously grappling with virtually any idea. In the future, we’ll probably need to return to some form of IQ and results testing, which would be needed if our future government is partly republican.

                • glosoli says:

                  Hmm, here it is again.
                  Maybe it’s a bot?
                  Seems fairly random stuff spewing from the screen.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  That’s just what the financiers want you to think Glosoli – think! Who benefits from you thinking peppermint is a bot?

                • glosoli says:

                  Your humour attempts are similar to Vox’s (i.e. unfunny).

                  Weird, and sad.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  You think Generalissimo Peppermint is joking? This is why his ascent to power is inevitable.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Hate to be excessively contrarian, but I have to say this Peppermint quote is Jim-quality stuff:

                  “The ultimate result of credentialing intellectuals can only be speaking credentials to arguments”

            • R7 Rocket says:

              Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin never published anything under (((((((( the peer review system )))))))) because that system didn’t exist when they lived. Your snooty and virtue signaling statement “Why don’t you poll your readers to see how many have published (vs having their work supressed) under the peer review system.” would’ve failed Darwin, Newton, Pascal, Archimedes and numerous other great scientists in history.

              • Barnie says:

                Those men were picking low hanging fruit. That fruit has all been picked. Peer review in one of many different ways we deal with increasing complexity through subspecialization. If you wanted to think seriously about this read Joseph Tainter or this http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
                Jim doesn’t even know what peer review is or how it works and his assertions about it are ignorant and unserious.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  It’s true, jim thinks the most corrupt field is generally representative. In most fields peer review is just a semi-corrupt method for rationing money and jobs (i.e. money and status).

                • jim says:

                  The corruption of science in Global Warming and saturated fats became obvious because they want to sacrifice billions of people for their beliefs, vastly more than the Aztecs or the worshippers of Moloch sacrificed. In areas where human sacrifice is not an issue, you are unlikely to notice corruption.

                  Therefore you should not assume that Global Warming and diet are most corrupt. Because they get scrutiny, likely they are the least corrupt.

                • jim says:

                  Reading “Fat Science”, and reading the Climategate files, it is apparent that peer review is power to make people suffer and to destroy your enemies. Who does not want power and the destruction of one’s enemies? Being a theologian of the state religion is a lot more fun that being an old type scientist.

                  Peer review presupposes that the consensus is true. And much of the time it is true. But if the consensus is true, we don’t need research.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf

                  A single survey of a small slice of science but we have:
                  1 in 5 willing to screw over conservatives in peer review
                  1 in 3 willing to screw over conservatives in hiring

                  Call Jim ignorant and unserious as much as you like, the field is packed with people willing to subvert the system just for the opportunity to hurt other people. It isn’t clear why you think this will reliably lead to truth.

                • peppermint says:

                  If all the low hanging fruit has been picked, why is it now considered good to sexually mutilate pre-pubescent children?

                  Why are all women, young and old, rich and poor, given dietand exercise advice designed to kill them or at least leave them fat and tired?

                  Why are there “known to cause cancer” labels on everything rich people buy?

                  Why does education only get worse despite increasing funding and testing, even for rich kids?

                  There is clearly a market for stuff that will work, and there have never been more scientists to ensure that this demand is not satisfied.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Why are there “known to cause cancer” labels on everything rich people buy?

                  I don’t know; why?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >The corruption of science in Global Warming and saturated fats became obvious because they want to sacrifice billions of people for their beliefs, vastly more than the Aztecs or the worshippers of Moloch sacrificed. In areas where human sacrifice is not an issue, you are unlikely to notice corruption.

                  Other corruptions include statins, blood thinners, corticosteroids, glasses, LASIK, shampoo, insoles, and BPX and phthalates and xenoestrogens in fucking everything.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                “Science advances one funeral at a time”

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “Politics may keep America from landing a man on the moon for a number of reasons but scientific progress marches on in materials science and aeronautics as well as in medicine and a thousand other fields and it’s all published in peer reviewed journals”

              …and 47 of 53 key papers in cancer research fail to replicate.

              https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a

              Don’t worry though – I’m sure they just happened to check up on a particularly spotty field and that everything is fine.

              “Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried to confirm published findings related to that work. Fifty-three papers were deemed ‘landmark’ studies (see ‘Reproducibility of research findings’). It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases.”

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Why does this happen? Junior people need papers and cites to get jobs. Senior people need their junior people to get jobs to build their networks. The most senior people are going to retire soon. No one cares that much if any of it is true. Even if it gets proven false it is still a paper on your record and the hiring committee can’t tell the difference and won’t check. It only becomes a problem if it blows up into a media scandal.

        • jim says:

          No one who regularly and repeatedly gets published under the peer review system is a genuine scientist. Genuine scientists practice the scientific method, and people who practice the scientific method are unlikely to pass peer review. As Feynman and Galileo explained, the scientific method is inherently anti consensus – you go looking for the data that the consensus does not want to see.

  13. peppermint says:

    While we’re on th subject of rectification of names, the Framers would have considered causing mass immigration for the purpose of reducing the political power of natives of several States to be making war on them. The argument that it would be ex post facto to apply the law as it was intended when it was written relies not on the living document interpretation of ex post facto, which the left rejected when they accused Roy Moore of doing things that were neither illegal nor considered immoral at the time, but on a living document interpretation frozen in the 2010s.

    • glosoli says:

      Fascinating. A true spergy bot. It’s alive.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        What the heck, man, Peppe is a solid commenter, and I’d endorse him for global dictator (inb4 “antichrist”), if only to see as many people as possible having to check themselves before they wreck themselves.

        • glosoli says:

          Heh, he thinks computer games are a sport.

          Spergs, they’re all alike.

          Sad.

          • peppermint says:

            A sport is a limited competition men and boys engage in to rank themselves and test and hone their abilities. 18 year old young men in particular need sports, if you’ve ever known one. They don’t just want to win, they want to know how good they are.

            In meatspace, these young men get signed up for unfair competitons they are supposed to lose to niggers while their single mom is worried about them every time they come home sore. They can only compete fairly in a place the ((child psychologists)) never thought to control.

            Vox Day explains repeatedly that losing at sports and being humbled before God and man is the cure for gammas and hints that it’s also the cure for atheists. Men who play esports are more confident and less depressed than men who play ARPGs and PvE MMOs, because they know exactly how good they are and how they are improving.

            But solipsisms like nominalism and liberalism can’t be cured by giving them a fair competition that they lose until they take something outside of themselves seriously, because they simply add those rules to their world view and continue. The only cure is to show them that the world doesn’t follow any rules they would like and they have to live in it anyway. They must be not just humbled but humiliated. Beatings would work.

            The problem with Boomers is that no one ever told them no when they didn’t deserve it. When the Boomers retire and find out that they’re not in charge and no one cares about them, at long last they’ll discover the importance of objective truth and stop lying to themselves imagining it makes a difference what they think. When GenXirs have to be in charge instead of keeping their heads down in the uncomfortable world the Boomers left, they’ll be forced to understand what the world is really like. When Millennials stop being 20 and 30 and it stops being cute to act like a child with no family, the may either retreat further into fantasy or emerge into the real world. GenZ was never allowed to lie to themselves.

            • glosoli says:

              A sport (I’d wager) is something you never tried *in real life*, preferring the dark basement and your joystick.
              (I didn’t read the bot-generated stuff).

              Sad.

              • pdimov says:

                There isn’t much difference between competitive computer gaming and competitive driving.

                And p-mint’s observations are very astute, by the way.

                • glosoli says:

                  There’s a huge difference.

                  I would only just concede that driving is a sport, maybe I wouldn’t concede it. A mechanical device does most of the work.

                  His comments may be astute, but they’re spergy, irrelevant, and long-winded. Like a broken record.
                  He needs to learn how to avoid unloading his every thought on every comment. Or not, it’s easy for me to ignore them.

              • peppermint says:

                Why are you forced to conclude I don’t go outside? Do you want me to believe that esports are different from ball sports or running because you’re not sure yourself?

                The irony of esports is that they allowed young people to have a fair competition and the older people approved because they thought they were keeping the children away from winning or losing.

                The surface meaning of To Kill a Mockingbird is rednecks rape their own daughters and try to blame long-suffering niggers of amazing moral fortitude. But only a White supremacist gets caught up on that meaning. The actual meaning is that it’s sinful to compete because wins or losses are given by God.

                • glosoli says:

                  Do you believe that trannie men are real men?
                  In the same way, simulated sports are like real sports.
                  I.e. Not at all.

                • peppermint says:

                  In elementary school, the entire school would be randomly assigned to one of three teams and compete in various sporting events, and the winning team would be announced at the end of the day. Prior to this being removed for being too competitive, year after year, the principal would rig the score tallies so everyone would win.

                  I was signed up for little league. There was never any competition in benchmarks like running across the field, no one ever yelled at me for not caring, and in the end everyone brought home a participation trophy to forget about.

                  In middle school, when my team lost an intellectual competition, I was left literally shaking. In high school, as a freshman up against upperclassniggers, I never had a chance, so I didn’t care about competing at track.

                  When high school girls would express interest, I would respond politely, but never try to do anything because I didn’t know how to be perfect and couldn’t imagine trying without knowing how to be perfect.

                  When I started playing esports, I told myself that the other players had been at it for longer and had better computers so I shouldn’t expect to win. Then I started thinking about how I was playing and how to play better.

                  Today’s 16 year old boys have worse experiences in school, but they have esports to provide them with the competition they need.

                  The difference between a tranny and a woman is the woman wants what she wants and the tranny wants you to believe he’s a woman as if your acknowledgement will change anything. Passing off rigged games as sports and forcing kids to say they acknowledge their victory or defeat or draw and participation trophy is tranny sports.

                • glosoli says:

                  You have a real problem in answering direct questions don’t you?

                  Are you afraid that you will have to admit you were wrong about something? I mean, even the spergiest of spergs normally attempt some sort of answer to a direct question. Not you.

                  God blessed me with an open mind and a good measure of humility. Hence after 49 years as an atheist, within one month of pondering if there was a God, He showed up.

                  Please try to be normal and stick to the meat of the point, rather than randomly sperg about irrelevant stuff.

                  I would suggest that computer games are more like chess (a game) than a sport. The clue is perhaps in the name ‘computer game’. No real skill needed, no physical strength or agility, just moving a cursor. Boring, unsatisfying and sad.

                  Thanks.

                • pdimov says:

                  Competitive computer games are somewhere between chess (which is officially recognized as Olympic sport) and “real” sports. In addition to (mental) skill – which chess requires – they also require quick reaction time and good eye-hand coordination.

                  The best StarCraft players are approximately ten times as fast as you would be were you to learn to play. First place on the 2017 WCS Global Finals was $280,000.

                • peppermint says:

                  If you’re interested in team sports, there are a few popular team FPS, CSGO, Overwatch, and I guess Team Fortress. Team esports do have a problem in the US that’s solved in Korea with internet cafes. Hackysack and tossing frisbees in mixed company are games with limited sport potential that are therefore associated with faggot hippies.

                  My parents and teachers told me that learning to play as a team is the defining aspect of sports. The boomers had a real problem with putting the cart in front of the horse.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  A sport is a physical activity that can conceivably get you laid if you win at it in front of an audience. Starcraft might be a sport in South Korea. Chess has only ever been a game anywhere.

                • peppermint says:

                  By that metric, Super Smash Bros is a sport, despite its skill ceiling.

                  What’s important about sports is saving men’s souls from the poz, esports did that for my cousin.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Funny that this is happening in a “rectification of names” thread. There are perfectly reasonable definitions of “sport” that would include esports, and perfectly reasonable definitions that would exclude them. Of course, only one definition should hold sway for all parties; it’s an issue for a Grand Inquisitor.

                • glosoli says:

                  ‘Competitive computer games are somewhere between chess (which is officially recognized as Olympic sport) and “real” sports.’

                  And soon you will see trannie men winning Olympic golds in female events. So, if you want to base your argument on the decisions of the Olympic organisers (SJWs all of them) go right ahead.

                  But don’t expect to be taken seriously by me.

                • pdimov says:

                  Your “computer games are trannies” analogy is to real analogies what trannies are to real men.

                • glosoli says:

                  I look forward to seeing you win gold in the Olympic hopscotch event in due course.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >what trannies are to real men.

                  You meant “what trannies are to real women.” They are, in the majority of cases, real men.

                • glosoli says:

                  He might have been being super witty, as it was me upthread that first mentioned ‘trannies and real men’, when I meant real women.

                  If he spotted that therefore trannies and real men were the same, and that my analogy re sports/pc games was flawed, then that’s well played.

                  But I think he just made the same mistake I did.
                  Heh, what a waste of time.

                • pdimov says:

                  “But I think he just made the same mistake I did.”

                  I admit to that.

                  More seriously, it’s true that by the definition “gets you laid” (which more formally is expressed as “is high status”) computer games and chess aren’t particularly sporty. It’s also true that there was a conscious (and failed) attempt to brand computer games “e-sports” with the obvious intent to make them more popular (and higher status, I suppose.) “Cyberathletes” was particularly laughable.

                  I think that it’s also true that your disdain for computer games is equal parts perception of their low status and equal parts ignorance.

                  And I suspect it’s also true that the disciplines you consider most sporty are – in America – very black.

                  As for chess, I was wrong that it’s an Olympic sport – it isn’t. There’s a chess Olympiad, recognized by IOC, but chess is not an Olympic sport. So there’s that.

                  It’s not true that making chess a sport advances the cause of social justice, as most oppressed classes can’t play worth a damn. Ashkenazi Jews are very good at it though. So there’s that too.

                  Chess has historically been low status in America.

                  “In accord with the prevailing sentiment of the time, Morphy esteemed chess only as an amateur activity, considering the game unworthy of pursuit as a serious occupation. Chess professionals were viewed in the same light as professional gamblers.”

                  I don’t think that Europe shared this sentiment. And Go is high status in Asia, for instance. But it’s not a sport.

                  So there’s that.

                • jim says:

                  What women perceive as high status is rather capricious and unpredictable. It is a fashion thing. If television featured hot chicks running after chess champions, pretty soon you would get an enthusiastic female audience at chess matches. But Warcraft players are correctly perceived as fat losers.

                • pdimov says:

                  It’s not entirely arbitrary. Sports having high status is probably a remnant of warriors having high status. Most team sports represent small-scale wars (in a highly stylized manner).

                • pdimov says:

                  “Warcraft players are correctly perceived as fat losers.”

                  Probably referring to World of Warcraft (the MMORPG) as nobody plays Warcraft (the RTS) anymore.

                  Starcraft players aren’t fat.

                  https://www.twitch.tv/starcraft/videos/all

                  They are mostly Korean though. There are three TV channels in Korea dedicated to Starcraft and a number of professional teams.

                • peppermint says:

                  Warriors have high status in the animal kingdom. Soccer players are less dangerous than baseball players who have arm strength and can throw baseballs at you, csgo players would only be dangerous with guns if they took it up as a hobby, warcraft players are herbivores.

                • pdimov says:

                  Team discipline and coordination (Aryan) >> individual strength and dexterity (animal kingdom) though.

                • glosoli says:

                  Most watched Olympic event of the London 2012 games?

                  No way anyone will guess it correctly. Feel free to google it though.

                  Real sports give an opportunity to display physical prowess, skill, character (accepting defeat gracefully), and general fitness (to provide for one’s family). I’ve always gone for individual sports myself, fits with my introverted INTP personality. Sports also do build one’s mental strength and ability to improve in life. E.g. age 25, I was unable to get a ball hit with a 9-iron airborne at the driving range, but age 36 I shot 3 under par on a proper course. Very satisfying. I will apply that process to my spiritual goals: saving my country.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Most watched Olympic event of the London 2012 games?”

                  If it wasn’t beach volleyball, it should have been.

                  So your real sport of choice is golf then, if I read that correctly? And it’s a real sport because it displays your general fitness, your ability to provide. Golf skills are indeed indispensable in providing.

                  It’s not because golf is high status. Not at all. No, it’s entirely because of its intrinsic characteristics, which are as really sportful as they can be.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Golf is mind-numbing to watch but pleasant to do.

                • pdimov says:

                  The more salient characteristic of golf in this context is that it’s something old people can play and be good at.

                  And, our differences on what is a sport notwithstanding, one very workable heuristic is that if old people can be good at it, it’s not a sport.

                  (Also, if females can be good at it, it’s not a sport.)

                • Cavalier says:

                  Old people can be good at swimming. Sport? Women can be good at archery, skating, swimming, running. Sports?

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure women cannot be good at archery, swimming, or running. And when women get involved in skating, it becomes dancing, which is not a sport.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  ” And when women get involved in skating, it becomes dancing, which is not a sport.”

                  Depends on your definition of “sport” and it’s purpose. Dancing appears to qualify under the only two definitions I can think of off the top of my head.

                  1: A physical competition meant to entertain.

                  2: A physical performance or competition meant to display one’s reproductive potential.

                • jim says:

                  Dancing, there are no real winners or loses, the scoring of the judges being completely arbitrary, capricious, and unpersuasive.

                  Chicks don’t do stuff will real winners and losers, because the leking system is that the winning male gets all the chicks. Sports, you win or you lose.

                • glosoli says:

                  The most watched Olympic sport event in 2012 was the men’s badminton final, won by the top guy from China, Lin Dan. Badminton is my other sport, plaued since I was a lad. If you’ve never watched pro badminton, check out some rallies on youtube, very energetic, powerful, tough and skillful.

                  The ability to provide from sports like golf are clear. The tour golfers make millions each year, if they’re any good, and they can get lots of women too if they wish. Even I won £30 this year bagging another trophy (it all adds up). But no women.

                  The fitness aspect is important in all physical sports, and in life. How may obese folk play any sports? Fitness allows you to do more and to provide for your family, and also will give you longevity. None of this applies to PC games.

                • glosoli says:

                  Female golfers are not very good at it.

                  The best females fail against the men. Michelle Wie tried it a while back, she got nowhere.

                  Old people can be good at many sports if they retain their fitness. Go check out Gary Player’s fitness regime.

                  I read that 95% of the world’s golfers who have a handicap fail to get a handicap below 18, meaning they are poor golfers. I would estimate that only 10% of the world’s golfers even bother to get a handicap. Most don’t try to get better, or try and fail. It’s why sports is a good character builder, and a good facet to present to a women too. If it was as easy as fiddling with a joystick in your armchair, everyone would be doing it.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Badminton is my other sport…”

                  Yeah, I already got the idea. Sports you play are real sports, things you don’t play aren’t. Also, golf and badminton are hard and build character, Starcraft and chess aren’t and don’t, and everyone can do them, from their mother’s dark basement, using a joystick. You can’t, but only because you’ve trouble not falling asleep, otherwise you’d have been top notch with a few weeks of training.

                  Badminton, for God’s sake. You base your superiority complex on badminton, of all things.

                • Cavalier says:

                  My definition of “good” is “clearly skilled amateur”, not “best in the world”. Maybe, I don’t know, 99th percentile – one in one hundred. Obviously best-in-world women lose to best-in-world men… in everything. But that isn’t the point. It’s that in some sports there is a lot of overlap between male and female ability, even at reasonably high levels. Skilled women are nearly as good as skilled men at swimming, archery, skating, running, and some other things, esp. long-distance swimming and running for some reason.

                  I’m fit and in good physical condition, and a good female marathon runner would beat me every time; I detest ever running more than a quarter-mile.

                  I guess I just don’t care about the gender war stuff.

                • jim says:

                  > in some sports there is a lot of overlap between male and female ability, even at reasonably high levels. Skilled women are nearly as good as skilled men at swimming, archery, skating, running, and some other things, esp. long-distance swimming and running for some reason.

                  I don’t think so.

                  I’m fit and in good physical condition, and a good female marathon runner would beat me every time; I detest ever running more than a quarter-mile.

                  You detest running. And I detest lengthy running, running only in very short bursts. If you regularly went for lengthy runs, then you would beat a good female marathon runner. In general, if a man likes a sport and regularly plays it, he will beat a woman who likes the sport and regularly plays it, without much overlap between sportsmen and sportswomen.

                  Women can do archery only if the rules are set so that it requires no physical strength – which is yet another example of women ruining everything – well women obviously don’t ruin homes, kitchens, and childraising, but if you let them into the male sphere, they will reliably ruin it.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Skilled women are nearly as good as skilled men at swimming, archery, skating, running, and some other things, esp. long-distance swimming and running for some reason.”

                  True, there are sports in which women aren’t embarrassingly worse.

                  http://www.dailywire.com/news/6072/australias-national-womens-soccer-team-lose-7-0-amanda-prestigiacomo

                  You’re right that marathon records are fairly close, 2:00 vs 2:15.

                  Marathon swimming (10km) is even closer, 1:50 vs 1:57 (London 2012 gold).

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Enjoyable to watch, and she’s a winner.

                  https://youtu.be/LdexkdpkIgk

                • jim says:

                  Wins running against girls.

                • glosoli says:

                  @pdm

                  ‘Yeah, I already got the idea. Sports you play are real sports, things you don’t play aren’t. Also, golf and badminton are hard and build character, Starcraft and chess aren’t and don’t, and everyone can do them, from their mother’s dark basement, using a joystick. You can’t, but only because you’ve trouble not falling asleep, otherwise you’d have been top notch with a few weeks of training.

                  Badminton, for God’s sake. You base your superiority complex on badminton, of all things.’

                  You’re putting words into my mouth, and only some of them are correct. I enjoy badminton, I merely mentioned its popularity in China, and it is a physically demanding sport. But I don’t rank it any higher than tennis, or athletics, or most other sports, and neither does most of the Western world, as it attracts few players and little money. I play it because I got into it as a child, by chance.

                  I used to play some PC games when I was a teenager, none of them were difficult after a while. They soon became boring. I’ve tried nintendo’s sports with friends, just a pointless facsimile of real sports.

                  Whilst I don’t have any superiority complex, I suspect that deep down you know, as we all do, that gamers are losers.

                • pdimov says:

                  I know that gamers are associated with loserness, but I don’t know that deep down, as I’m not American.

                  I know that a nerd/jock stereotypical divide is supposed to exist. I also know that before computer gaming, nerds were supposedly chess players. But I don’t know whether that’s true, or an (((invention))).

                  When I was young, if you wanted to play soccer competitively, you went to your local sports club, and if you wanted to play chess competitively, you went to your local sports club.

                  (And when you were young, if you wanted to play a computer game competitively, I suppose you should have went to your local arcade and played Street Fighter against other people. I doubt that this would’ve become boring after a while. Although I see that SF has been released in 87, too late for you, perhaps.)

                • pdimov says:

                  In a homogeneous white population, there’s actually a strong positive correlation between being good at a real sport and being good at chess/Starcraft/driving quickly on a curved road. Winners win at everything, losers suck at everything (consequently retreat to solitary or non-competitive activities).

                  The stereotypical chess playing nerd/American football playing jock divide is, however, exactly what one would expect to arise in a mixed white/Jewish population.

                • peppermint says:

                  glosoli is posturing about gamers being losers. Boomers and Xirs accepted the Hollywood kike neuroticism and divide-and-conquer division of our race into nerds, who are supposed to sympathize with kikes, and jocks, who are supposed to sympathize with niggers. Millennials who are interested in hating sportsball to be a nerd are tryhards. All Millennials respect excellence in vidya and know the difference between girl and loser games, single player difficult games, and esports.

                  “Geek culture going mainstream” was when the internet lost its capital I and vidya became shared cultural context. It happened at a particular time after which my dad started reciting the slogan women are the real gamers, because they spend so much time playing candy crush and scrabble. Hunnie pop is actually aimed at women.

                  Difficult single player games have a place like running. People who play team sports call runners granola eaters but run as a benchmark and for training, in the same way that lol/dota/csgo/ow players play osu for training. I’m not sure what competitive game uses the same skills as a game like Cuphead, I guess it’s for people who used to play side-scrollers and want a challenge.

                  Anyway lol and dota take too much memorization even to start out. Csgo and ow, you push w to walk forward, move the mouse to turn, and left click to remove enemies from the game. Glosoli should have 4000 mmr in no time.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  —————————————
                  Cloudswrest says:
                  Enjoyable to watch, and she’s a winner.
                  https://youtu.be/LdexkdpkIgk
                  —————————————
                  jim says:
                  Wins running against girls.
                  —————————————

                  Indeed. And horses win running against horses and greyhounds win running against greyhounds. The real perversion happens when you have trannies competing against girls. Here’s an a anecdote from years ago by Yggdrasil concerning Chris Evert playing against a tranny.

                  http://whitenationalism.com/cwar/orange.htm

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  By the way, I had a heck of a time finding that old link above using Google. In fact, I was not able to find it at all with Google, despite multiple accurate search keywords. Then I tried Bing and found it right away. Why am I not surprised.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  It is egotistically pleasing to think that [people you don’t like] or [people who like what you don’t like] inevitably ‘grow up’ to [being like yourself]; implicitly dimunuting [people you don’t like] as a mere ‘phase’ that some foolish benighted folk who simply don’t know any better might go through.

                  That any other contrary positions don’t have any truly essential foundation undergirding themselves, such that they are ultimately incommensurate, incompatible, and intractable; that they are rather simply ‘deviations’ or ‘devolutions’ from their own, which stands at the pinnacle of enlightenment, if only people [such as themselves] would have the sense to see it.

                  Perhaps the meta answer is that the necessity of national conflict ironically is, itself, the unifying monad all wise men of all nations may drawn towards.

              • Daniel Chieh says:

                His insights have value to me. What’s your obsession with him?

            • Zach says:

              Having been a stud, and excellent at every sport minus baseball, I play games now sorta competitively. I remember that first day I fired up Quake 3, got absolutely clobbered. I was amazed how good someone could actually be at that game. So I didn’t accept the result of being that bad. And so I got better. And so that weird journey started…

              Essentially the game is about timing multiple items to the second, having beast-mode aim, and being hard to read, so one can set traps.

              All the sports I grew up playing are just poorly designed piles of trash. So I basically stopped watching them. Football, Wrestling, Basketball etc…. Now I watch MMA mostly, and some video games. It’s a bizarre combination for sure. Vox Day might be onto something…

  14. John Q Public says:

    The words are totally unimportant compared to the concepts. The Z Man and Derb are just flat out wrong here.

  15. Your Wife's Son says:

    Andrew Anglin: “Hey, I think that’s not cool calling people pedos. I am still confused about what your issue is. I deleted that post, because it had gotten too weird. Think about why you are getting so angry, because I can’t tell.”

    [Random Faggot]: “Look Andre, I was talking to Tribal Trash and he was showing his true colors. He deleted his words because he knew how he sounded and that I was and am right. Andre, check yourself here, I had a 2 hour talk with Lewka yesterday and let me tell you: your undies are showing. I was pointing that out to you…”

    AA: “I am still really confused. You think that being attracted to a girl with huge boobs makes someone a pedo? I thought the girl was hot, honestly. But… I am confused as to your position.”

    RF: “First of all, she was 12.”

    AA: “I said: “she is beautiful.” I don’t know how old she was. I know she had huge boobs and
    was post pubescent, meaning it isn’t “pedophile” regardless of some pc bullshit.”

    RF: “The whole conversation was sick, that girl was a child; she is naked because she lives in a society that has not educated her to be shameful yet, as ours. She didn’t ask for her pic to be up on a place as sick as fuckbook for you and another fool pushing 30 to get your rocks off. I may not be a wordy person, Andre, but I see more than most. I see you. You can delete my posts, my words, and me… as long as my voice runs around in your head a while, I think I can make you see Tribal Trash is a sick, sick, sick human – look at his wall his pics, he is insane, don’t spend too much time Dre in your god complex in the jungle, it gets to you … I am well-travelled, seen it all, and your shoe has had many feet in them… Nuff said, good day father Anglin.”

    AA: “Yeah, I don’t have any shame of being attracted to a jungle girl with huge boobs. I think if someone didn’t think she was hot, there that is the pervert. But whatever. Do what you will…”

    RF: “She’s a kid!!! Be shamed. Oh my god, where is your mother and father, you are no better than that priest over there – it is who you will become.”

  16. Your Wife's Son says:

    Andrew Anglin:

    “The fact that we exist within an artificial society does not change our natural biology, or the biological make-up of our psychology. As relationship dynamics in the western world and its colonial protectorates continue to break down, I believe it is worthy endeavor to review the traditional marriage patterns, sexual dynamics and gender roles within natural societies. Though these topics are deep and wide, I will here simply share some brief thoughts on some of the various changes which has caused the state of our relationships to devolve into the mess that we find now; in the future, I will try to tackle these issues in a more round-about and in-depth manner.

    Firstly, the basis of sexuality has been undermined by the creation of restrictive and harmful social norms which have been established in order to support the artificial society. For instance, modern use of the term “pedophile” is ridiculous. The word means “a person who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children”, not someone who has sex with girls under the age of 18 (or whatever arbitrary number is attached to the “statute of limitations” in whichever country). I would imagine that most men are aware that girls become physically appealing as soon as their bodies begin to develop sexually, whether this happens at the age of 13 or 17. Once a girl’s body begins to show signs of fertility – that is, the growth of breasts, increased width of the hips and increased fat stored in the buttocks, she naturally becomes sexually appealing to a man. This is not mental illness, it is a natural drive.

    Pedophilia – the attraction to girls who are not yet sexually mature – is a mental illness, as the purpose of sexual attraction, in the natural world, is at its core reproduction and a propagation of the species. As such, engaging in or desiring to engage in any type of sex that does not fall within those parameters should be classified as a mental illness.

    I am of course not saying that I think it is “okay” for older men to pursue young teenage girls. This type of situation can very often be exploitative, for the obvious reason that the older man is more emotionally developed and capable of detaching himself in a way that the girl is not. However, there are many types of exploitation that do not follow this model; it is simply more common for an inter-generational relationship to be exploitative. In a natural situation, where people cared for one another as members of a family care for one another, the concept of exploitation would have been entirely foreign, as the entire society was geared toward what was best for the collective. In such a case, a younger girl marrying an older man would be something determined by the group to be in everyone’s best interests, and there would be nothing fundamentally wrong about such a situation.”

    • glosoli says:

      He’s correct, nice share.

    • j says:

      “…the attraction to girls who are not yet sexually mature – is a mental illness…” because, your argue, it is not conducive to reproduction. Have you never heard of ten year old pregnant girls and giving birth to healthy babies? It happens. Also near menopausal grandmothers get – sometimes – pregnant. The physiological cost for the male is near zero. I don’t think it is mental disease, as rape is not.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Okay, I don’t fully agree with what he has written; the point is that he used to be very sensible about this issue back in the day, while today he wouldn’t write such things, albeit he probably still thinks the same way he used to think. Doesn’t want to upset his readers.

        He was not and is not 100% redpilled, but goddamn he’s a genius. Do share this Atlantic article with your Israeli friends; would be interesting to hear their perspective on this man:

        https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/

      • peppermint says:

        > “…the attraction to girls who are not yet sexually mature
        > ten year old pregnant girls and giving birth to healthy babies

        An alpha wouldn’t touch a woman until he could be sure she would be able to have a healthy baby and remain healthy herself, because the alpha wants the woman to belong to him for the rest of his life and to raise the baby. A non-alpha might take a chance fucking a sexually mature child if he could be reasonably sure he won’t be burdened by taking care of mother and child, so, a rock star or other celebrity from out of town, a nigger, a criminal, a politician. Jews, of course, like abusing White girls to demonstrate their power to themselves.

        • jim says:

          Boobs indicate fertility. Normal guys are attracted to girls with boobs.

          Some girls get boobs at a very young age.

        • StringsOfCoins says:

          I appreciate your posts peppermint but you are a low value male and should try to remember that before you comment about women. As basically 90% of the commenters here should. You all give yourself away quickly. And you only impress each other.

          • peppermint says:

            regardless of my smv, an alpha doesn’t donate to the sperm bank because he’s creeped out at the thought of his kid not being under his protection

            • peppermint says:

              Am I just arguing for a definition of alpha that would make me an alpha come the revolootion? Psycho Sacco says he’ll fuck anything that moves. Did leftism begin by telling soldiers not to marry conquered mud women thereby reducing their status to no more than professionals?

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            It’s important to remember that the sexual market is about as distorted as the stock market.
            Being maladapted to this sexual market is not identical to being maladapted to a healthy sexual market. Some people would be low value in both, but the association isn’t perfect.

  17. […] And Jim covers a little dust-up betwixt Vox Day and John Derbyshire and how it plays into the rectification of names. […]

  18. Dan says:

    In Australia we recently had a Royal Commission investigate sexual abuse in public institutions, especially the church. Turns out 90% of the victims were boys, the vast majority of these being post-pubescent.

    However, the entire story is sold as yet more examples of ‘patriarchal, predatory and pedophilic men’. The elephant in the room of course is that sexually aggressive heterosexual men don’t hunt for 12 yr old boys. It’s nothing more than gay men, a truth that neither side will ever admit.

  19. Anon says:

    >Vox Day and Pleasureman have irreversibly altered the manner in which we all think about political or sociological matters on a meta level.

    No, they didn’t. They’re literally whos with an extremely over-inflated sense of their contributions, if they even contributed anything at all. Which seems to be par for the course when it comes to alt-right e-celebs: petty squabbling, narcissism, hypocrites, and people trying to sell you shit. You can add Cernovich, Milo, and all the YouTubers to this list as well. Hell Pleasureman doesn’t even have any children.

    All hail the Supreme Dork Lord Vox Day:

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51sBJsfqKpL._SY346_.jpg

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      Can you read? I said:

      “I do want clarify, though, that the examples of you, Roissy, Anglin, Yarvin, and Pleasureman were an attempt to convey the significance of permanent paradigm shifts; you’re all individuals who, for better or worse, have irreversibly altered the manner in which we all think about political or sociological matters on a meta level. VD just doesn’t make the cut.”

      VD is specifically the individual I use as a foil here. We’re in agreement about him, and about the rest of them e-celebs.

      As for Pleasureman, I’m undecided about the extent of his influence. He is clearly brilliant, but I think that he doesn’t have a coherent worldview; he is a nihilist LARPing as an arch-conservative, mostly out of boredom. However, his sense of humor, back when it was not rigidly “right wing,” could be surpassed only by Anglin’s. Anyway, his long term contribution lies in making MPC into a stable internet community, with their own peculiar memes and a weltanschauung.

      But yeah, it’s a shit-tier weltanschauung. Hence, I qualified my statement with “for better OR WORSE.” I know what an MPCer would say about any given issue, and the MPCer would be wrong many of the times. So, I guess you’re kinda right.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      You know what the best insult you can hurl at MPC is? Tell them that they are as relevant as StormFront. I’d rather read MPC than StormFront, but — and excuse me for going “full Peppermint” — both of those communities are a bunch of low-T boomers and gen-Xers (and virgins) whose worldview derives from all kinds of romantic notions that younger and healthier people are, fortunately, desensitized against. SF is feminist. MPC is puritan. Both have grey hair, but little wisdom.

      (it’s funny because MPC hates SF, but it’s not just trolling on my part to say that they share many things in common. They really do, objectively speaking)

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Like many groups when MPC criticizes the left they’re always right. When they criticize the right they almost always miss the point.

        Libertarians are that way as well but they are ideology blinded and have a very hard time even seeing the right.

        • peppermint says:

          Jim should be working at an institution that reports to the king. Instead universities filled with popular professors rule, and dissent is heard from popular dissidents.

      • Anon says:

        Narcissism of small differences I suppose. But it is outstanding how many truly useless individuals there are waiting in the wings to co-opt something like alt-right / NRx for financial purposes or simply to massage their own egos (I don’t see Jim or Spandrell trying to sell people things or running a Patreon). Not a new phenomenon by any means, and definitely not exclusive to alt-right / NRx.

  20. peppermint says:

    Aquinas was wrong about animals lacking pride and envy. Pride and envy aren’t spiritual sins, they’re social sins. How does a peacock feel seeing another with a better tail? What do you call it when a dog tries to fight a bigger dog over something they both want?

    Lust is a beta tranny salmon cutting it too close jacking off on an egg pile an alpha is fighting over. Gluttony is a horse eating too much grass and having full stomachs when encountering something better. Sloth is a squirrel worrying too much about his injuries and the scents and sounds to go outside. Avarice is the squirrel getting caught by a hawk because he went out for another acorn. Wrath is a zebra chasing a cheetah all the way to the water and getting bitten by a crocodile.

    What was wrong with Christianity is that the sins were broken off from behavioral tendencies and scrupulosity made people try or pretend to try to feel no sexual desire to avoid lust and a total lack of self worth to avoid pride and complete pacifism to avoid wrath. And the reason sins could be broken from tendencies is we were supposed to be civilized men between animals and invisible angels.

    I have a hard time thinking of any other animal that does scrupulosity quite like the Aryan.

    • glosoli says:

      I agree that these sins are social sins. God gave the commandments to help us live together in tribes, in a good way. If we don’t stick to His rules, we become worse than animals (as we can’t plead ignorance can we?).

      Christianity has taken a wrong turn I feel, as God was all for much sex within marriage. He even encouraged women to have sex when they really weren’t that bothered, to keep their husbands happy. Pride is best avoided, and the way to do that is to accept that whatever you are blessed with, is thanks to God alone.

      Yeah, pacifism has become a problem, and people confuse ‘meek’ with ‘weak’. In fact, the word meek doesn’t really fit well:

      ‘Cognate: 4239 praýs (also listed as 4239a/praupathia in NAS dictionary) – meek. See 4236 (praótēs).

      This difficult-to-translate root (pra-) means more than “meek.” Biblical meekness is not weakness but rather refers to exercising God’s strength under His control – i.e. demonstrating power without undue harshness.

      [The English term “meek” often lacks this blend – i.e. of gentleness (reserve) and strength.]’

      We Christians should not be afraid to exercise our strength under God’s control, and I suspect we will in due course.

      • Hank Rearden says:

        Christianity was the wrong turn.

        Jesus preached castrating yourself (Matthew 19.11-12), hatred of your own blood and soil (Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:27-30), white-knighted for skanks (John 8:4-11), condemned high-T males for thought-crimes (Mark 9:47), and banned normal heterosexual male-female relations in his perverted utopia, in favor of angelic androgyny (Matt. 22:30). When he did attend a wedding reception, he had to be a damn show-off and bring attention to himself instead of the new couple (John 2:1-11). What a faggot.

        Oh right, he was a faggot, and carried on with his Beloved in public like a pederastic San Francisco flamer (John 13:23-25). To be sure:
        google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&q=jesus+john+beloved
        google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&q=zeus+ganymede

        Go on, explain to me how every mature male you observe with a young male nestled in his bossom is a faggot, except the magical Rabbi you worship.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          Clearly, you have not read the “Jews Only” hypothesis.

          http://www.renegadetribune.com/jesus-christianity-jews/

          • Hank Rearden says:

            I have read it. The Hellenized Jew, St. Paul, disagreed with “Jews Only” Matthew 15.21-28), and shifted it to “Jews First.” (Romans 1:16)

            P.S. That isn’t the only area in which St. Paul and the Jesus character vehemently disagreed. More here:

            Paul’s Contradictions of Jesus
            jesuswordsonly.com/books/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Paul changed it from “Jews Only” to “Jews First,” then to “Gentiles First,” and his instructions were rather practical, e.g:

              “22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

              (Ephesians 5:22-24)

              “3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

              (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

              If Jews were more like Apostle Paul than like Alinsky Saul, you wouldn’t even be browsing /pol/.

        • glosoli says:

          Jesus did not preach castrating yourself, he recognised that some men live for God and don’t need a woman. An early acknowledgement that MGTOW is a viable lifestyle.

          He preached that we should love our family less than we love God, not hate them: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=781

          ( I assume you know of the commandment, there are only 10, to honour your parents. It comes with a nice promise too, it was so important to God to value and look after your parents).

          I could go through the other (usual) weak efforts you mentioned to distort the messages Jesus gave, but frankly, it’s of little use. Those who seek the truth can easily see your ignorance, bias, and hatred of God.

          (((google))) will not be your saviour, rather it will lead you to hell. Repent of your envy and hatred, turn away from the satanic brainwashing you have suffered. May God help you.

          • Hank Rearden says:

            No honest White man needs a Magic Rabbi or a Jewish Jehovah to “save” him from anything. May Gott (God, Gotin, Godin, Odin, Wotan, Woden) help you to remember his name the day after Tues’ Day, cuck.

            • glosoli says:

              Explains why everything is just so perfect these days.
              Humanism, positivism, progessivism, paganism, it’s all producing such beauty, love, joy and peace.

              Who’s the cuck?

              • Hank Rearden says:

                As John Gray also notes, liberal humanist values are merely a “hollowed-out version of a theistic myth.”

                Fundamentalists like you and progressives both believe the same horseshit: that a black man can be saved with word magic, either by religion or education.

                P.S. Who’s the cuck? Jesus’ daddy. Funny how you can’t get past the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament without glorifying cuckoldry.

                “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant.” -Matthew 1:18

                • glosoli says:

                  How many of your children have you sacrificed to Moloch?

                  Surely at least one, to be a proper pagan?

                  A poor imitation of Jehovah’s sacrifice to be sure, as He was resurrected. But Moloch needs your child’s blood, so I’m sure you’ve done your duty. Good man.

  21. JN says:

    Glosoli,
    If you play League of Legends and get Gold status in ranked on the NA server as a 49-year-old, I’ll give you $1000.

  22. Zach says:

    PD says:

    “The best StarCraft players are approximately ten times as fast as you would be were you to learn to play. First place on the 2017 WCS Global Finals was $280,000.”

    SC is too prone for asian ass kicking in that it was basically (in hindsight) designed for their skills. It’s also too much of an interface game. I’ve seen that some styles of games will be dominated by asians, such as SC where people are clicking around at 300+ apm with diminishing returns. But their strength in decision making is not better than whites. So a game such as Quake, or Dota 2 will not be dominated by said asians. Not a skill ceiling thing, but a style thing.

    Quake or Quakeworld was the first esport, officially. And it’s still one of the best. Awwww jeah! Dems fightin’ words!

    I don’t know how the rest of the world would compete vs asians in GO, because nobody else plays the game in large enough numbers. I remember firing up PandaNet one day and playing GO for the first time… I went 0-10, then 2-18, and that was pissing me right the fuck off. Back then I bought Many Faces of GO for like $100 bucks and practiced before I dared show up on that fucking thing again. Eventually, I got pretty good and bought a fancy board, and clobber people from time to time locally, but PandaNet will humble the fuck out of you.

    As they say “Cool story brah!”

  23. Your Wife's Son says:

    I am euphoric. Anglin almost went “full YWS” here (actually taking a screenshot of an article I often refer to):

    https://dailystormer.hk/notes-on-the-state-of-the-daily-shoah-featuring-andre-wanglin/

    I say “almost,” because he still believes in some female education. Someone needs to redpill him about total abolition of the schools.

    That said, Jim, you have to admit to one thing: you were wrong about the guy. He’s the real deal.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      “After the first half of the show we talked about a bunch of different stuff, including the accusations against Roy Moore, at which point I ranted about the difference between pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent girls) and not pedophilia (attraction to post-pubescent girls), including the sexual nature of a 14-year-old girl and the fact that the standard age of marriage for girls all throughout history before the last century was whenever she menstruated which tends to be about 12.

      I enjoy what the kids call “rustling jimmies” – forcing people to think about things that make them uncomfortable due to their social programming. And talking about how pubescent girls should be married off to men in their thirties does that in the way that saying the word “nigger” used to do that but doesn’t anymore. It’s deeply funny to me that you can still be wow just wowed by Nazis when you talk about the historical age of marriage.

      But there is something more important here.

      Everyone has this protective instinct about women, which is clearly extremely destructive at this point in history, and we need to be rid of it.

      We also need to figure out a way to get these whores under control. And those two things are tied together. The behavior of women is objectively abominable, and yet they are able to get away with it because of the same protective instinct that makes men uncomfortable when Anglin starts ranting about “if she can bleed she can breed.”

      No, we don’t need to actually marry off pubescent girls. But we do need to discuss what the hell we are doing. All throughout history, girls would be having sex shortly after they first menstruated – with a man she was married off to. Currently, girls are having sex shortly after they first menstruate – the average age a girl in America loses her virginity is 13-15ish (they lie so we don’t know exactly the average, but I’m going to guess it’s 14). Except currently, instead of doing it with husbands who are honor-bound to care for them, they are doing it with whomever, then doing it with however many dozens or hundreds of other whomevers until they are thirty, at which point when they’re looks are gone and their pussy as been shot out by an untold number of cocks, they try to snag a beta provider.

      There was a brief period, first among the upper classes beginning in the 19th century and then as wealth spread among the general population in the first half of the 20th century, when girls didn’t have sex at puberty and instead waited until their late teens to get married and have sex. Apparently, people who are against thottery and also against marrying off 14-year-old girls want to go back to that exact sweet-spot in history.

      And I agree that this is probably correct. We live longer now and we have much, much lower infant mortality rates, meaning we don’t have to have as many kids, so blowing 3-4 years of prime fertility on female education is probably the best move.

      Yes, that sounds cucky and I feel a little bit cucky writing it, but there is some truth to the idea that because we can educate women to a certain degree, there is no reason not to do it. It can be beneficial. It can help her with raising kids. And it is just a fact that once a woman gets pregnant, she is on a totally different train than before she got pregnant, and she’s not really going to be seeking to educate herself.

      However, it is important to understand that what we are doing is explicitly sacrificing fertile years of a woman’s life in order to educate her, rather than going along with this “OMG THAT’S TOO YOUNG” feminist hysteria which substitutes logic for emotion. And we need to figure out a way to make that work again as it did in that brief historical period during the 19th and 20th centuries.

      We’re not going to figure that out by pretending that women are not whores, or that they do not become sexual beings at the same time men do – when they go through puberty. Denying the fact that they were typically married off at this age largely because society knew that if they weren’t married off at that age they would be fucking someone they weren’t married to doesn’t help anything. Calling me a pervert for saying this fact of reality doesn’t help anything anymore than calling me a racist for saying black people can’t go to university and become computer scientists helps anything.”

      • Joe says:

        I’ve evolved over time to be very skeptical about women in positions of leadership or in traditionally male occupations, and I still largely am. But not long ago I had to have some very delicate surgery done on my eye by a female surgeon and she had fantastic skills. For three and half hours she very expertly did some extremely close and delicate surgical work and the results were beyond my expectations. I would recommend her to anyone.
        That made me reconsider my belief that women should all be home making babies. It would be a loss to society if that woman (who has children, too) never had developed that surgical skill.
        My position now is that women should not be prevented from pursuing something like that, but they should absolutely not be given any kind of favoritism or any breaks. If they can hack it in straight-up competition, fine. If they need special consideration for delicate feelings, “feeling safe”, etc, forget it.
        I think women may have some particular talents for that very fine, patient surgery work because they seem to have similar abilities to do very fine needlework. But when it comes to something like police work, firefighting, soldiers, leaders of government – forget it. The female nature was not evolved for that and even when you find that occasional exception to the rule, she is almost never going to fit into the organization without disrupting it by simply being a woman among men.

        • jim says:

          Obviously women have the potential to be great surgeons. But a woman who has the potential to be a great surgeon also has the potential to bear great surgeons. Allowing women to exercise greatness in male spheres is dysgenic. Let them do it after they have borne children.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            > But a woman who has the potential to be a
            > great surgeon also has the potential to bear
            > great surgeons.

            Very well put. A real keeper this one.

          • vxcc2014 says:

            The women I work with now all have children, trad fam and are grounded and better techs for it [telecom/WAN/Extranet].

            Basically a private ISP for corporations and demanding client base of financials [HFT makes them utterly manic about TIME/latency, everything].

            The scariest technically tech we have: yep woman grounded, trad fam, works from home as techs can do that. Notes intimidating. Fortunately she’s also a professional, nice person but very businesslike as well.

            That’s only possible because SHE’S HAD THE KIDS IN A STABLE TRADFAM ENVIRONMENT.

            Over time – more than a decade – I’ve seen the rest become stable, professional, no catty office games and better technically cuz KIDS IN STABLE MARRIAGE TRADFAM.

            Oh TRADFAM God is Catholic or High Caste Hindu.

            See God works. Catholic TRADFAM is a formula and it works.
            Who GAF if God exists or we can prove him? IT WORKS.

            Now do I want to take women even grounded to my other job: War?
            Hell NO.

            And BTW the sensible or even flaky women in MIL [and guess what teh fam life of sensible is yep yes yeah again see above] the MIL women don’t WANT INFANTRY, ETC.

            the DOD kunce civilians do…

  24. Mister Grumpus says:

    (Weev is saying that Don Junior is in legitimately and truly big trouble over using that “guessed” password. Your angle on that please.)

  25. […] Anglin: pedophile, psychopath, degenerate, Hollywood […]

Leave a Reply