It is a wall

The wall begins by executive order under President Trump’s inherent authority to defend Americans from enemies foreign and domestic:

Invaders flying enemy flags advance on the Great Wall of Trump, chanting “The people united will never be defeated”:

Invaders storm the wall:

273 Responses to “It is a wall”

  1. Joe says:

    It is a wall.

  2. Andre says:

    Walls don’t matter. Men that are ready, willing and able to use lethal force matter. The border could be defended by a series of towers each manned by one guy with a sniper rifle and a mounted machine gun. Or drones. Or a mine field. Or genetically engineered aligators. Or whatever technology of war you like best. The problem is that those patroling the border are just there to greet new arrivals and maybe point a finger and say “no no, bad, you go back now”. There was this video by Rebel Media of illegal migrants crossing into Canada. It was hilarious. The guys took a cab and then walked to a particular spot with his luggage. A border guard would come and say “you can’t cross here, it’s illegal. Go to the official border crossing or I’ll have to arrest you.” The migrant would then say “ok, arrest me here”. How can you defend your home if you are not allowed to kill an intruder? If the people inside your own home are fighting to bring him in? You can’t. Trump couldn’t call for an airstrike on the caravan because the caravan doesn’t matter, because the enemy is already inside the walls. America can only be saved if it is purged. You don’t need a wall. It will only get in the way of the millions that should be running to Mexico in terror from the fate that awaits them if they don’t.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHwnaYrk0k

    • jim says:

      A wall not only makes it a lot easier to defend a border, it more importantly adds inherent authority to those defending it. If someone just strolls across an open border, and some man tries to stop him, the man trying to stop him looks arrogant, intrusive and meddling. If someone tries to storm a wall, he looks like the invader that he is, and it is a whole lot easier to just shoot him. That is why I have a symbolic wall on one part of my primary home, the part that faces the private road. (On the other side I have substantial wall, on the rear I have a cliff that can only be scaled by one path that is not obvious, easy, nor safe, and on the fourth side a wall that is a bit more than symbolic.)

      Of course none of that matters if judges forbid defending the wall and Trump obeys the judges. But I rather think that judges have already forbidden defending the wall, and the wall is nonetheless being defended, though so far only by tear gas and pepper spray. The judges are clear that people who say the magic word “asylum” are then free to go where they please, do what they please, and no one may interfere with them, but there nonetheless seems to be some rather forceful interference going on.

      • Andre says:

        “and the wall is nonetheless being defended, though so far only by tear gas and pepper spray.”

        You don’t disperse criminals. Let me know when Trump proves himself worthy of the title of God Emperor.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          I’m having a hard time believing you are this much of a simpleton. Are you perchance European?

          • Andre says:

            “History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.”

          • Andre says:

            I’m completely aware that Trump can’t really do more. If he gave the order to machine gun everyone, the soldiers would flinch. And they would be right to flinch. It is time for young men in America to burn the flag and follow real leaders defending a real civilization. Build a wall around your city and enforce white sharia. Anything less and you lose.

            • Solon of the East says:

              Aaaaaand you lost me.

              You’re right that the true metric of Trump’s efficacy is his willingness to use necessary violence, but white sharia? Go back to LARPing.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                Gee, I wonder who could be behind this post.

                (A female)

              • Andre says:

                I’m not trying to win you, I’m trying to help you win. If you refuse to do what must be done, it does not particularly bother me, other men will not. If it takes ISIS to restore some semblance of civilization to America, then that is what it will take. And the country will be filled with statues, not of Trump, but of bin Laden.

              • Dave says:

                Men of action need not concern themselves with the opinions of women. If they lose, it will not be because women took up arms against them, and if they win, women will come over to their side en masse because women love winners.

        • peppermint says:

          These aren’t criminals, they’re invaders. Dispersing invaders is worthwhile.

          • Andre says:

            It’s the same thing. Good luck with that strategy, you’ll need it.

            • peppermint says:

              If you injure and disperse criminals, they will continue to cause trouble for you. These invaders are causing more trouble for Mexico.

      • Andre says:

        Here is the problem Jim. Trump knows he would not survive politically if there was a massacre. Give the news media images of dead bodies and boom, he has to either step down or turn into a dictator. Because America is too degenerate. The wall is a symbol of that degeneracy, a symbol of this notion that there is a nice way to do politics and your political opinions are kind of like what sort of ice cream you like best, something private, to be respected no matter what they are. I see this in “the right” all the time, their need to hide into this fantasy universe of democracy and human rights, except they are the true believers, not those leftist “regressives”. They want to go back just like 10 years, maybe 20, and hide there forever. They want to pull a Le Penn and Make France Safe For Single Moms Again. That’s not going to work. Trump has to start talking straight with young men and forget everything else. He would do better to tell young male migrants “you manage to climb that wall, you’re in the army, welcome brother”… except the army itself is fucked, so he would have to actually form a completely separate branch in order to form a truly cohesive, loyal force. He has to actually raise his legions or he is doomed. America as it exists today has no chance of surviving, at all. It’s not the judges that matter it’s the people they represent.

        • jim says:

          The wall means that invaders can no longer infiltrate across the border one at a time and say:

          “Hey, I am just an undocumented traveler.”

          They have to organize in masses and break down the wall, looking and acting like invaders when they do so. Sooner or later a group of invaders is going to kill someone defending the wall, and then the game is on.

          • ronehjr says:

            So is your advice wait until someone on our side is killed before using deadly force? I understand that the theory of 4GW essentially recommends that thinking when faced with non-state actors, as the moral is greater than the lethal.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              It is only a war once the aggressor gets hit back. The aggressor initiates, the defender responds. If there is no defensive action, there is no war.

              • jim says:

                The aggressors got gassed and pepper sprayed. I bet a lot of them got thumped quite hard with police batons. Not a bad start.

                And it is enough to ensure that the next invasion attempt is even more obviously warlike, violent, and hostile. The wall alters the optics in our favor and to the invader disfavor.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Breaking and entering looks a whole lot worse than shoplifting.

        • peppermint says:

          20 years ago was a compromise between evil Boomers and stupid Boomers, with unironic unitarians, a debate on the left about whether sodomites should be given a bizarre mockery of marriage (the Blessed Sacrament for sodomites being a foregone conclusion), international womon solodoroto, the media and academia firmly in control of what people think cool people think. This cat been in a bag and is gonna keel a mufuguh befo he go back nigga

        • Ron says:

          “Trump Knows he would not survive politically if there were a massacre “

          Exactly wrong.

          Any political revolt after a massacre, would be an attempted coup not a legitimate expression of political disagreement.

          Thought experiment: it’s the Obama administration and about 50,000 right wing Cubans want to move into the US and vote republican for eternity. What would happen if Obama had them machine gunned at the border for an illegal entry attempt? Answer: Nothing.

          That both the right and left would be silent would be because machine gunning mass numbers of people illegally trying to enter your country is, while probable overreach, also legal. Especially if said migrants are armed and expressing violent intent

          The Left would revolt for the simple reason that if they don’t itnis game over for them. If the right avoids this confrontation then it’s game over for the right bc the warrior class will assume Trump is just more of the same.

          A sticky situation. Requires equal amounts testosterone, willpower, clear thinking and care.

          It is only illegal if we live in a Leftist oligarchy. Hence, a massacre would lead to an attempted revolt by the Left

          The right would understand and more importantly they would fight back ASSUMING THEY HAVE A MAN WORTH BACKING.

          • The Cominator says:

            There are unfortunately quite a deal of cuck center right Republicans who don’t understand what needs to be done and won’t back Trump fully.

            Almost the entirety of Mormon voters for instance falls into this category.

          • Andre says:

            > Exactly wrong.

            Is it really?

            > Thought experiment: it’s the Obama administration and about 50,000 right wing Cubans want to move into the US and vote republican for eternity. What would happen if Obama had them machine gunned at the border for an illegal entry attempt? Answer: Nothing.

            I believe that’s the wrong answer but even if it is the right answer, you don’t seem to realize there is a difference between the right and the left and in how each views the world, and that the reason nothing would happen is because of the moral weakness in the right.

            > Any political revolt after a massacre, would be an attempted coup not a legitimate expression of political disagreement.

            As some dude once said, a house divided cannot stand. It must become all one thing or all the other. The “democrats” know they must purge the country of all dissent, of all the “nazis”, to the point of openly calling for genocide. The republicans are still asleep, believing in this dream of a union and the pretty version of democracy and pluralism and respect for the other side’s opinions. This means the republicans will be destroyed. Doesn’t matter that they are the ones with the guns, they aren’t willing to use them because they do not recognize the other side as the enemy, they refuse to truly believe in such a thing. They will fight this low attrition war, constantly backing down from any real fight until they are overwhelmed. Of course, the democrats do not have a viable civilizational model, which means they will destroy themselves. It is only a matter of time before SOMEONE stands up to them. But that someone does not seem to be Trump, or even the more radical parts of the american right. Wake the fuck up.

            “Our first task therefore is to try to grasp what the concept of the enemy really means. The enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the enemy always hates us for a reason, it is his reason and not ours. He does not hate us for our faults any more than for our virtues. He sees a different world from ours, and in the world he sees, we are his enemy. This is hard for us to comprehend, but we must if we are to grasp what the concept of the enemy means. (…) This is how mankind has always thought of the enemy — as the one who, if you do not kill him first, will sooner or later kill you.”

        • Mike says:

          Trump (so far) has survived not giving a shit about a dead Washington Post journalist from Saudi Arabia. If he can survive that, who knows what he can survive in regards to (((human rights abuses))). A few roughly turned back migrants may not look so bad after all.

      • Greg says:

        Romulus killed Remus for hopping over his unfinished wall, declaring the same punishment for any man who would overtop his barrier.

        They weren’t pussies, the Romans.

  3. Contaminated NEET says:

    It’s a sad little piecemeal fence. A few bails of wire don’t change that. Just admit that you were wrong about your wall prediction, Jim. Nobody bats 1000 – not even you. There is not going to be a wall until things get much, much worse and we come out on the other side. Trump is the best we can expect (better, really), but he has neither the balls nor the power to build a wall. We’ll see what comes next: it’s unlikely to be good, but you never know.

    • The Cominator says:

      “It’s a sad little piecemeal fence.”

      The migrants storming it were turned back.

      You are blackpilling but Trump’s winning never stops!

    • peppermint says:

      r u fo rill nigga a nigga got impaled on those balls of wire nigga

      Migrants to Europe go on boats and sink off the coast to get rescued and Turkey has migrant camps set up. Unlike that Camp of the Saints sitch, migrants have a hard time crossing a land border with a wall, and Mexico doesn’t have the facilities to encamp this army indefinitely, and building migrant camps now would be an obviously hostile move.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        Generalissimo, forgive me, but it’s still not a wall. This is a cope.

        • peppermint says:

          Some day we’ll get the gore pic of the impaled migrant to make a fail.jpg out of.

          You’ll be blackpilling that it isn’t a wall when the migrants drive a truck bomb up to it or a large group armed with gas masks, night vision goggles, body armor and wire cutters spend an hour looking like poor migrants looking for a job.

    • jim says:

      If it was “a sad little piecemeal fence” they would go around it.

      It is thirty feet tall and topped with barbed wire at the most critical points, it is eight feet tall and made barbed wire at important points, and it is a low tangle of barbed wire anywhere that invaders can easily get to.

      Yes, needs more work, a lot more work, and needs to be longer, a lot longer, but fact is, it is hard to go around it and hard to go through it.

      • J says:

        Against all the blogging about America having lost its balls, here we have a clear example of the President saying I want a wall, and the wall is there. And to the idiot that says that the soldiers will refuse to shoot: never happened such thing.

        • Karl says:

          Soldiers refusing to shoot has happened in medieval times, usual reason was them not being paid. Othere cases involved treason by a high ranking officer, e.g. Dukas in the battle of Mazikert.

    • 170-miles of barbed wire fence is pretty good compared to nothing at all. no one realistically expected a 2000-mile wall.

  4. Contaminated NEET says:

    >The migrants storming it were turned back.

    That’s genuinely good, if true. But it doesn’t make reinforcing a tiny section of a pathetic fence that predated Trump’s presidency with wire equivalent to building a wall along the entire border. The latter is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Thankfully, everyone is perennially shocked at how quickly the future becomes unforeseeable.

    • jim says:

      In the first photo in the sequence, it does not look like they are merely reinforcing an existing wall.

      And there are a lot of similar photos where it is obvious that they are building new wall.

      Trump tells his enemies he is merely doing one thing, and tells his friends that he is doing a much bigger thing. Looks like he is doing the much bigger thing.

      Trump is notoriously elastic about the truth even to his friends, and when he speaks to his enemies, you know he lies.

      If he says one thing to his friends, and a different thing to his enemies, you there is a good chance that what he says to his friends is the truth. And the attempted storming of the great wall of Trump (for it looks mighty great to me) tells us he is telling the truth to us on this matter.

      He tells his enemies it is just a chicken coop, and his friends it a big beautiful barbed wire entanglement. Sure looks like a big beautiful barbed wire entanglement.

  5. Andre says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNn5TZu6R8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfGJLhEqj0s

    “A city is well-fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick.”

    America has no real men because no real man would fight to defend what America is today, and there is no vision for a righteous future America. It has a mercenary army of women and cowards. The american military is filled with literal cucks. It has whores in positions of authority. Its leadership will destroy any man under its command for the sake of his wife. You can’t compensate for the lack of men with concrete.

    • jim says:

      Sure did not look as if the men defending the wall laid down their arms.

      Rather, those attacking laid down arms in the hope of appearing to be victims – but hard to look like a victim when you are breaking through a wall with armed men behind it.

  6. vxxc says:

    The wire is triple strand concertina and that’s a lot more than before – and that’s new.

    As are the heavily armed and armored men behind it.

    As are the rubber bullets and tear gas.

    As is the President re-affirming the use of lethal force in self defense.

    And they closed the San Ysdro crossing. Costs $$ – and mexico more than us.

    As is the Mexicans actually kicking the shit out of the migrants who are costing them a large amount of lost profits legal and illegal.

    Your commentators here Jim will be satisfied with nothing less than nuking mexico and restoring the antebellum south across all 50 states – and they’d still bitch.

    There’s progress and a way to do things – Trump NEVER jumps in blind with both feet – and then there’s God-Emperor LARPING.

    I’ll take Trump. More than we’ve ever seen.

    The Wall of course is LARP without Congress and it didn’t happen – cuz GOP are cucks. Dems are traitors.

    So we use men and concertina for the time being – that and making Mexico pay for not stopping the caravan.

    PS- Trump actually can’t pull off martial law unless they actively try and overthrow him – then he can.

    Blogging is LARP-ing…politics is the art of the possible.
    Today we saw that much more is possible.

  7. Mister Grumpus says:

    It could be real or false flag, doesn’t even matter, but the first Mexican-looking hombre that gets YouTube’d pulling out a gun and shooting at Private Bobby and hoo wee it’s a new world.

  8. glosoli says:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-26/tepper-competition-dying-taking-capitalism-it

    Who cares, when space, the final frontier, awaits the chosen ones.

    Tepper’s mistake is that capitalism is doing what it always does, the evil ones covet everything, the whole world and its peoples. Only one thing will stop them (no, not Nrx, they love all of of that shit), but Jehovah.

    And you’ll have a ringside seat these next 20 years before God nukes us make to some sense.

  9. Frederick Algernon says:

    I’m going to set up a GoFundMe to get CR, Glosoli, and Andre to do an eternal round table discussion moderated by Glenfilthie. Top 3 donors get to submit a discussion topic and attendance will be the only form of punishment for ne’er-do-wells after the Restoration.

  10. BC says:

    So GM CEO Mary Barra is tanking her own company and her workers in the hope of hurting Trump in 2020. Man they’re burning everything to the ground to ensure victory. Will anything be left by 2030?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      She also is a member of the Disney Board of directors. Given the direction of that company (dying horribly) I’m going to say they are going to trash everything through incompetence is not just active malice.

      • jim says:

        Active malice. It is absolutely obvious that she hates the customers and wants to harm them.

        This is completely normal behavior for females in power – it is their reaction of visceral disgust towards betas. She is in power, so all the male customers are betas, all the shareholders are betas, all the executives are betas, so she wants to kill them as she would want to kill a rat or a cockroach.

        A woman in power who is subject to a strong husband generally does not get this reaction, but these days very few women in power have strong husbands, so they all act like this, setting the business on fire.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Every large corporation currently active in America is doing the same thing, either by harming the balance sheet (mostly through debt) or by harming the consumer-base in more subtle ways.
          The idea that the record companies are entertaining the wishes of the mass of public music consumers at this point is completely absurd. I’m in the UK and even here every song has a Mexican theme.
          The exact same thing’s true for clothing, food, and yes electronics. The idea that your Smart-Toilet device is spying and ratting on you *under duress* is the lamest of all lame excuses.

          The ruling class in America includes more than simply academics, journalists, high ranking bureaucrats and public sector unions. It also includes people like this obnoxious slag, and she’s doing what she’s doing for more than merely sexual nature reasons. This is a targeted attack against Trump and against the people of Flyover Country.

          It IS malicious but it’s very far from sexual acting out. It’s warfare of the EXACT same variety as anything coming out of academia.

          • jim says:

            Nuts

            If capitalists have ceased to pursue profit, and plainly they have ceased to pursue profit, they are being coerced.

            Compare Disney Duck tales – some of the best reactionary entertainment issued in recent years, with the exuberantly masculine, capitalistic and patriarchal Scrooge McDuck, and a host of enthusiastically free market characters, with Han Soyboy, a Star Wars Cuck. Who else was willing to give villain roles to females, and to cartoon characters representing nonwhites?

            Something changed. And if capitalists are no longer pursuing profit, which obviously they used to do and are no longer doing, they are being coerced. And Kate is exhibit A about who is coercing them and why. You put a woman in a position of power over your assets only when someone is quite literally holding a gun to your head.

            Han Soyboy, a Star Wars cucking, makes the proposition that we are ruled by capitalists absurd, and does not fit too well with the idea that we are ruled by Jews. Makes it quite obvious, we are ruled by priests. Similarly, women in the boardroom.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*Deleted*]

              • jim says:

                Deleted for spammy repetition. You purport to be arguing why Cultural Marxist Class theory is true, but in fact you are arguing from the assumption that Capitalism consists of rule by capitalists is self evidently true, and that the reactionary theory of priestly rule – that a capitalist pissed away a billion dollars of his own money because a minor female academic told him to – is self evidently absurd.

                If you actually present evidence for Marxist Class theory, instead of repeating Marx’s rhetorical tricks I will allow it through. But you never do that, and Marx never did that. Instead he did what you do, argue by assuming he was right, rather than providing evidence that he was right, and by attributing his most absurd beliefs (the labor theory of value) to his most hated enemies. Which is you telling us what we supposedly believe, and what anyone you delusively imagine is one of our leaders supposedly believe. Similarly, the Troofers tell us what we see when we look at the photos and videos, and it is not what we see. We don’t see molten steel, we don’t see thermite, for it would be blindingly bright and clearly visible, and we don’t see the buildings going down in free fall, in particular and especially, we see World Trade Center building seven falling like a tree notched by the axe man, not going down in free fall, and we see a commercial airliner shaped and sized hole in the Pentagon where the plane went in.

                And similarly, when capitalists piss away a billion dollars of their own money empowering women, we see priests ruling, not capitalists ruling.

                Explain this, rather than circularly assuming Marxist Class Theory, do what no Marxist has done, instead of doing what every Marxist starting with Marx has always done, and I will allow it through. Not allowing Cultural Marxist boiler plate through, because we get it all the time, have heard it all before, time after time after time.

                Marxism was rebutted over a hundred years ago. Marxists ignore the rebuttal, and attribute their own beliefs to their enemies, as if they had won the debate instead of losing it. Not retreading the same century old debate, over and over. Capitalist have never ruled, except they were aristocratic warrior capitalists, as in Venice. We are always ruled by warriors or priests.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              By the way, last time I looked (((Bob Iger))) was a member of the same tribe as you, and I’m not talking about the Celts.

              • Joe says:

                What tribe are you, CR?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  English of Saxon ancestry.

                  My allegiance will always be with the people of East Anglia and the people of Saxony, the tribes of Benjamin Britten / Ralph Vaughan Williams and Moritz Horn / Robert Schumann respectively.

                  I’m with the people of Chemnitz, Leipzig, Ipswich and Norwich.

                • jim says:

                  And yet, oddly, your shibboleths are of urban academia.

                • Joe says:

                  That is interesting. I too am a fan of Ralph Vaughan Williams.

                  What do you think is the significance of his piece Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis?

          • The Cominator says:

            “Every large corporation currently active in America is doing the same thing, either by harming the balance sheet (mostly through debt) or by harming the consumer-base in more subtle ways.
            The idea that the record companies are entertaining the wishes of the mass of public music consumers at this point is completely absurd. I’m in the UK and even here every song has a Mexican theme.”

            CR that they are all not pursuing profit and instead pursuing an agenda shows that our views are correct. Capitalists don’t like losing money.

            As for this GM woman while women in power without husbands are often crazy she was doing kind of the right things with GM until Obama talked to her recently and then she closed plants in Trump country.

            Obviously done not because of subconscious hatred of Beta males or something but because the Democrats told her to do it to hurt Trump.

          • alf says:

            What you’re saying is completely devoid of reality. You are torturing words to make them mean what you want them to mean.

            “companies harm the balance sheet.”

            You’ve made this argument — capitalists bad, cause people to be poor by making them buy stuff. This argument can always be applied to crush capitalists, inevitably leads to socialism.

          • alf says:

            All aboard the CR logic train…

            capitalists create debt –>
            eradicate debt by eradicating capitalists –>
            socialism –>
            debt for unfathomable reasons doesn’t disappear –>
            eradicate debt by eradicating money –>
            communism

            • pdimov says:

              All explained in his bestselling tetralogy

              Why we won’t become Venezuela
              Why we aren’t becoming Venezuela
              Why we haven’t become Venezuela
              Why there’s nothing wrong with being Venezuela

          • vxxc says:

            The Campus marched logically enough into real life…where it’s not doing nearly as well.

            Malice Oblige is the motive, Gramschi’s march into reality the method.

            Again take note – not doing so well.

  11. moldbug. says:

    Trump has until 2020 to seize power via Schmittian state of exception; if he chooses not to Color Revolution will reign.

    • jim says:

      I would say he has until 2026, which date you will notice is two years longer than he can legally remain president. Even if he goes full Duterte or full Augustine, Duterte has not yet seized power, and Augustus took about twelve years after he had been named imperator and had supposedly seized power to actually seize power.

      Trump needs to control the FBI to the extent that it actually starts investigating his enemies the way it is investigating his friends. And then, with the FBI in his pocket, all the rest becomes feasible. Right now he cannot even purge the white house press corps, which remains hostile to the point of madness.

      • moldbug. says:

        That is fair.

        I agree with your FBI analysis. Are you taking 2024 to be Trump’s Battle of Actium? 2024-26 the Cathedral fully self-tanking into Spanish Civil War?

        • jim says:

          Prediction is difficult, especially about the future, and prediction gets more difficult as we approach the singularity, not predicting specific events, just I don’t think anyone will be paying a whole lot of attention to the constitution by 2024. Actual large scale organized shooting ensues some time after the collapse of constitutionality becomes obvious.

          The collapse of constitutionality started with the regulatory federal state under J Edgar Hoover, has been collapsing ever since, particularly with Mueller’s FBI and Obama reinventing himself as born in Hawaii. Without a constitution, shooting starts eventually.

          • Name says:

            In your opinion, if a large scale organized shooting war starts in the US, what are the sides? Who is shooting at whom?

            • jim says:

              Regular soldiers will be shooting at regular soldiers, as in the English civil war and the Roman Social wars.

              • Name says:

                Ok, but what makes the regular soldiers pick one side or the other? What is their reason(s) for fighting? Does it break down geographically, ideologically, racially…?

                • jim says:

                  If you are a soldier, you do what your bros in your platoon do, which is generally what the officers tell them their unit is doing.

                  When Sulla fought Marius, he had his rank soldiers infiltrate the enemy, and recruit their bros, which generally succeeded, because Sulla was a warrior, Marius was a priest, and priest values were getting up his troops noses, even though Marius was on the side of their social class, and Sulla was on the side of optimates. They did not care about populare tribe versus optimate tribe, so much as warrior tribe versus everyone.

                  When Monck fought Lambert, it was pay. Monck had a revenue stream because he controlled the government of Scotland, but the chaos in England meant that Lambert could not pay his troops, so units of Lambert’s troops switched sides for back pay and logistics. Lambert appealed to religion, but religion fails to pay the bills. Monck was massively outnumbered, but had a revenue stream. Lambert had religion, but no reliable revenue stream.

                  During the Russian civil war, the communists had the tax collection and conscription system of the existing government backing them, while the whites had to whip up a new government from scratch, and failed to do so very competently, even though they had overwhelmingly greater support in the army. It was Monck and Lambert all over again, except in Russia the left singularity had the revenue stream, and in England the reaction had the revenue stream, because leftism had self destructed in England.

                  If you want to whip up a new government in a hurry in order to raise revenue, go with William the conqueror style feudalism, but it is always quicker to acquire existing institutions.

                  Clive just plain looted treasure, doing a smash and grab on piles of gold conveniently gathered by existing authorities. Also, his troops ravaged the countryside. Cortez and Pizarro obtained logistic support from existing authorities by a combination of persuasion and intimidation.

                  During the thirty years war, rape and pillage. The troops burned down people’s houses if not paid to go away, and water tortured people if not paid to stop.

                  The army systematically excludes officers who have earned personal loyalty from their men in battle from high rank. If I was in Trump’s shoes, I would directly intervene in the military promotion process to find and promote warriors with a warrior ethos and a core of men personally loyal to them, and then have those men guard key institutions in the mint and any gold reserves that the US has. I would also hold investigations of the banking system, in which financial men personally loyal to Trump, accompanied by muscle men personally loyal to high ranking warrior officers, investigated banking institutions, starting with the banks of the fed, to form the basis of a power grab over existing banks when the shit hits the fan, with Trump being the nexus of loyalty between the finance men and the muscle men. When the shit hits the fan, would appoint my finance men into the fed by executive order, and my financiers would already have office facilities in the headquarters of key banks, supposedly to facilitate their ongoing audit of those banks.

                  The logistics institutions of the army are far left and getting further left. They are also increasingly dysfunctional and being bypassed. Were I in Trump’s shoes, I would encourage and enable, by executive order, my recently promoted high ranking officers to bypass the regular (leftist) logistic institutions of the army with private contractors, who would have private mercs.

                  Notice that when Tony Abbott pulled a Jackson on the Australian high court, he had the asylum seekers deported by air force commandos, and had the camps guarded by mercs, and built and maintained by private contractors, who also employed mercs. For short term action agains the permanent government, he relied on loyalist elements of the military, on warriors, who demonstrated that they were loyal to the merely elected government and willing to ignore the permanent government, even when dressed in judicial robes, but that he went private contractor for long term action indicates that he lacked loyalist elements in the logistic branches, that logistics was loyal to the permanent government, and hostile to the merely elected government.

                  My prescription for a civil war is loyalist financiers in the banks, loyalist officers in the army, and private contractors for logistics. Banks can easily be seized, but not operated, by warriors. Logistics is so cucked as to be difficult to seize, and so decadent as to be not worth seizing. Both Duterte and Tony Abbott bypassed logistics.

                  To plant loyalist financiers in the banking system, hold a wide ranging audit of the events leading to the great minority mortgage meltdown and the bailout which followed it, under the excellent excuse of revealing the causes that led to it, and whether certainly private parties (aka Angelo Mozillo) were improperly favored in the events leading up to it, and other private parties (aka The Goldman Sachs Group) were improperly favored in the ensuing bailout. Further, anyone who is an enemy of Angelo Mozillo and Goldman Sachs is automatically an enemy of the permanent government, so on the excuse of getting people willing to take on these targets, you automatically get loyalists.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Marius had gone mad at this point but Marius had been a badass and very successful warrior for most of his life prior to this.

                  So I ask on what grounds do you say that Marius was a priest? The roman elite had long subordinated priests to warriors by making the upper ranks of the priesthood generally only open to elections by successful warriors (except for the Flamen Dialis which office excluded you from any other powerful position).

                • jim says:

                  Marius left the military and went into left wing politics. When, thirty years later, he returned to commanding armies, he made no effort to win the support of the soldiery (unlike his subordinate, Sulla) and he sucked as a general. Looks to me like leftist suspicion of warriors, and left wing assumption that class and religious origins of soldiers would be the deciding factor, loyalty to the plebeian class and religious identity, rather than loyalty to the warrior identity. Seems to me that his career before returning to being a general, and his behavior when a general, indicates that in his heart he stopped identifying as a warrior with fellow warriors, and wished that warriors did not identify with warriors.

                • The Cominator says:

                  /Ourfag Peter Thiel is predicting the destruction of the Cathedral.

                  https://www.thecollegefix.com/peter-thiel-predicts-reformation-of-higher-education-in-speech-to-student-journalists/

                  So maybe civil war will be averted?

                • jim says:

                  He refers to the reformation, which involved, among other things, the thirty years war and the Sack of Rome.

                  “Universities today are as corrupt as the Catholic Church of 500 years ago,” Thiel said.

                  During his speech, he spoke of an academia that has shut down debate, excommunicated conservative scholars, and insisted a college degree is the only way to “salvation,” that being a good job and solid future.

                  “The reformation is going to happen,” Thiel added, noting it won’t come from within, but from the “outside.”

                  “At some point, if it’s 100 to zero, you start to suspect you’re in North Korea,” he said. He pushed back against that “madness of the crowd.”

                  “Does the unanimity mean you’ve gotten to the truth, or does it mean you’re in a totalitarian state,” Thiel said.

                  “We have this illusion that all sorts of important decisions have been decided,” he said, encouraging the students not to accept that narrative.

                  “The idea that we are on the losing side is a form of psychological warfare,”

                  The reformation came from outside, in part in the form of soldiers who raped every fertile age woman in Rome and tortured every priest in Rome for gold.

                  I hope that our reformation involves a more orderly looting and ravishing, in which the Harvard endowment is confiscated, Harvard real estate converted to more useful purposes, and each Harvard chick becomes the personal property of one particular soldier, instead of being available for general use.

                • BC says:

                  >So I ask on what grounds do you say that Marius was a priest? The roman elite had long subordinated priests to warriors by making the upper ranks of the priesthood generally only open to elections by successful warriors (except for the Flamen Dialis which office excluded you from any other powerful position).

                  We really need a better term than ‘priest’ to describe this. If you talk to normies about priests ruling the US they’re confused because the people called priests and visible organized religion is quite out of power.

                • jim says:

                  > We really need a better term than ‘priest’ to describe this. If you talk to normies about priests ruling the US they’re confused because the people called priests and visible organized religion is quite out of power.

                  Priests started disowning the priestly identity back in the reformation. If you tell the preacher in a protestant Church he is a priest, he will deny it with enormous confidence, absolutely stupendous and extreme confidence. This is part and parcel of the new new new new left disowning any connection with the new new new left, which denies any connection with the new new left.

                  OK, rectification of names. We need a name that is clearly hostile, so that those so described are to be disbelieved when they disown the appellation.

                  The distinctive attribute of being a priest is priesthood, is that they form priesthoods. They are not just people who deal in persuasion and ideas. They are people who deal in persuasion and ideas and organize with each other to ensure that you get the same story from multiple seemingly independent sources.

                  Thus, for example, when Vox Day was purged from Comicsgate, demonetized, and deplatformed, we got a curiously similar story from the supposedly independent and supposedly separate people who were supposedly separately and independently purging, separately and independently demonetizing, and separately and independently deplatforming.

                  That is a priesthood at work. A priesthood is always a conspiracy, and always conspiratorial, but the phrase “conspiracy theory” is rightly derided – partly because it is liberally used to explain away any unwanted evidence, in large part by actually existent conspiracies.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The army systematically excludes officers who have earned personal loyalty from their men in battle from high rank. If I was in Trump’s shoes, I would directly intervene in the military promotion process to find and promote warriors with a warrior ethos and a core of men personally loyal to them, and then have those men guard key institutions in the mint and any gold reserves that the US has. ”

                  Yes yes 1000x yes.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Marius’ first five Consulships were basically military (dealing with both Celtic and Germanic invasion attempts) and 10 years after they ended the “Social War” broke out.

                  Now Marius sucked after the Social War because he probably suffered a stroke during it. But his longest interval away from military command during his life (after initially entering military command) was ten years.

                  Marius was a warrior who was at the end was more mad then leftist. Cicero was a “priest” type, Cato was a priest type, and the Gracchi were more priests types but Marius spent a far higher % of his life in the military then Sulla did. Sulla just wasn’t senile and mad at the time of the Mithridatic War.

                • jim says:

                  From 134BC to 90BC, a period of 44 years, Marius got places by appealing to voters and through politics, and failed to build a loyalist block in the armed forces, even when he had considerable opportunity to do so.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Sack of Rome was technically by the army of his Most Catholic Majesty the Emperor Charles V, that he no doubt had a large number of Lutheran mercenaries in his army only made the sack more brutal but the wars of the reformation came after Charles and the sack of Rome cannot be considered part of the wars of the reformation.

                  The reformation came from Princes who were tired of the Papacy’s Donatism and people who were tired of it leeching money out of Europe. The wars of the Reformation were after Charles V who (not being the fanatic his descendents were and knowing full well why they didn’t like the Papacy much) did not want to fight a major war in Germany especially when he was busy fighting the Turks. Hence Charles V’s response to the reformation was the peace of Augsburg.

                  Luther quipped that God reigned in such a way that the Emperor who wanted to destroy Luther for the Pope instead destroyed the Pope for Luther.

                  But getting back to whether the question of whether the state church can be dismantled without war. I guess the question is how much the prog religion alienates even the elite, there are those who genuinely like mass immigration for the same reason some Southerners genuinely liked the importation of slaves. I can’t believe that any of the elite really like feminism or the other modern aspects of the poz. Feminism was created by the CIA to increase tax revenue and push down wages but nobody except braindead SJWs really likes it especially since its taken on a life and holiness spiral of its own.

                  Yes the DC elite are still fighting Trump but I think this has more to do with the theory (well supported by evidence) developed by both /pol and Roissy independently that any serious real investigation of the Clinton Foundation would implicate 3/4s of DC in high treason.

                  Trump needs to not use anyone who was in DC before he got there.

                • jim says:

                  > The Sack of Rome was technically by the army of his Most Catholic Majesty the Emperor Charles V, that he no doubt had a large number of Lutheran mercenaries in his army only made the sack more brutal but the wars of the reformation came after Charles and the sack of Rome cannot be considered part of the wars of the reformation.

                  Pretty sure that Luther and most of the soldiers sacking Rome would have found this distinction a bit subtle.

                  Loss of faith resulted in Roman Catholic forces double crossing each other, and Roman Catholic armies being short of funds, with the result that they tended to engage in devastating rape and pillage of their own people and their own power base. The Sack of Rome belonged to all three categories – Lutherans sacking Rome because Roman Catholic, unpaid mercenaries sacking Rome because unpaid, and Roman Catholics double crossing each other. It was a manifestation of the loss of cohesion on the Roman Catholic side, rather than hostile action by Lutheran princes, but Lutheran soldiers torturing Roman Catholic priests for gold and ravishing Roman Catholic nuns had religious motivation and external backing.

                  Similarly, the riots now happening in France are right on left, and also left on left, with white identitarians and white commies fighting on the same side against globalist left.

                  Similarly, Lamport was unable to defeat Monck for lack of funds.

                  Similarly, the Russian Army in the last days of the Soviet Union was too busy stealing potatoes to uphold the regime.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Europeans have NEVER had cohesion with each other Catholic or not. Even during the 30 years war France (then basically ruled by Cardinal Richelieu) intervened on the side of the Protestants.

                  Even during the first successful Crusade the armies barely avoided full scale fighting with each other at various points (and small scale fights did break out).

                  Luther did not find the distinction subtle but he found it darkly humorous as I said from his quip.

                • jim says:

                  The reformation was outstandingly bloody even for Europeans. If you don’t want to count the Sack of Rome, the rest of the Reformation had plenty of the same stuff, and the Sack of Rome was, by an interesting coincidence, much the same sort of thing as rest of it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The wars of the COUNTER-reformation were extremely bloody especially the 30 years war. The reformation initially tended to be lead by princes in Northern Europe and it wasn’t initially all that bloody because initially Charles V and the Catholic princes did not want to fight anything like the 30 years war on behalf of the Pope who they generally at best distrusted.

                  So most of the initial causalties were fanatically ultramonatist subjects of princes who decided to embrace Luther like those executed in the aftermath of the “Pilgramage of Grace” rebellion.

                  It of course would have been better if the Reformation followed Luther’s initial inclination and affiliated with the Orthodox (or as they called it the “Greek”) Church which in Luther’s view were free of the heresies of Papal supremacy, clerical celibacy, purgatory, sale of indulgences etc. This was probably impossible with Constantinople in Turkish hands, the Patriarch and Luther if they went through with it would have been accused of being agents of the Sultan intent on dividing Christendom to enable Muslim conquest.

                  Luther was very sensitive on this point and said that in response to the Turkish threat that all Christians including his own should rally around the Catholic Emperor Charles V.

              • vxxc says:

                Jim is essentially correct but probably Hybrid Warfare – meaning a mix of regulars and irregulars. One must include the Veterans.

                As for how it breaks down that depends on interest, geography, and if it’s in play race, etc.

                If race they get many, many soldiers they would not have as the brown military and vets have no choice do they? That gives them logistics – which is very dangerous for our side as gunmen we have, logistics, finance, organization we do not.

                Well tactics win battles but logistics wins wars.

                • Koanic says:

                  It would be stupid to cede all the honorable, masculine browns and blacks to the Leftist enemy.

                  The pure white zone must have a periphery, an expanding zone of influence, a vanguard. That is where the K-selected off-whites should go.

                  I am not pure white, and I have no problem supporting the white cause. I am 1/8 Ashkenazi.

                • jim says:

                  Trump is appealing to black males a lot better than any previous republican. Could do better, at the expense of further pissing off the single white women vote.

                • Koanic says:

                  If only 1/10 black men are worthy of us and support us, then the rewards will be all the sweeter for that tenth. They will get all the slaves and booty (literally) of their worthless untermenschen kin. 10 wives is a good deal.

      • BC says:

        Considering the open voter fraud in 2018, I doubt he’ll be re-elected in 2016 unless the GOP follows suit, which I doubt they will. You were rights about voting no longer mattering, but it’s more situation of who’s manufacturing the votes and if they’ll be arrested for it or not.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        The FBI is pretty much like the Praetorian Guard… but Vespasian didn’t need the Praetorian Guard to seize power, he had most of the Roman Legions on his side after the year of the three Emperors.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        “Trump needs to control the FBI to the extent that it actually starts investigating his enemies the way it is investigating his friends.”

        The FBI just illegally retaliated against a DOJ whistleblower by raiding his house.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVKytWS7MYU&t=188s

  12. peppermint says:

    His Majesty picked a wall prototype capable of stopping a tank so his enemies wouldn’t notice His wall; Q being a baseless conspiracy theory means anyone talking about His Majesty doing something behind the scenes is a frogposter

  13. Oog en Hand says:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/how-free-market-capitalism-wears-away-at-economic-chastity

    “Supporters of free-market economics are begging the question when they invoke the so-called “science of economics.” There is no such thing, nor are there economic laws in the sense in which these people seem to think there are. There are social mores and political constructs that dictate economic attitudes, and these produce patterns that are then abstracted as laws by sociologists. It’s like modern Freudian psychology. You can predict what men will do in a bordello, or what a sexually obsessed novelist like D.H. Lawrence is going to write about, but you cannot construct a theory of human nature on that basis.”

    And it gets better…

    “The common good was not attained more consistently in the Middle Ages merely because life was “simpler back then.” It was attained because Europe was traditionally Catholic in theory and in practice. The whole modern West is, in contrast, liberally Protestant in theory and in practice. This is the real difference that separates Catholic social teaching from all rival theories of social organization and prosperity.”

    The Cathedral IS The Cathedral?!

    • jim says:

      A Roman Catholic who deduces socialism from his religion will fail to deduce that the wife should submit to the husband.

      Nor, when addressing the issue of abortion, will he ever suggest that the father of the child has authority – he will refuse to recognize abortion as what feminists tell us it is: rebellion against men, and a shit test against husbands. Because if he acknowledged that it really is what women tell us it is, he would have to call rebellion against male authority bad.

      When feminists tell us that abortion is a sacrament of rebellion against male authority, they are telling us that they have in mind not the abortion of the get of some alpha male who kicked them out of bed the morning after, but the abortion of some much wanted child of some beta bucks loser, who loves them and took care of them, and they are murdering his child to get revenge on him for not being the alpha male who kicked them out of bed in the morning, and to preserve their capability to bear that alpha male children.

      The anti abortion crowd always think of abortion in the context of some poor abandoned women, but when feminists talk about abortion, that is the opposite of the context that they have in mind. The context that they have in mind is that Mr Beta Bucks invited her into his house and got her with child, invited her into his house in substantial part in order to get her with child, and then they have him thrown out of his house, take his house and murder his child.

      Abortion is a sacrament of rebellion against male authority, because it preserves a woman’s ability to practice serial monogamy, to continue to ditch one man and move on to the next. If a man who want’s a child is allowed to get what he wants, then his fertile age girlfriend is stuck with him, thus he has power over her. Abortion being a rebellion against male authority, as feminists always tell us it is, means murdering the child of some man who loves the feminist and very much wants her child, so that she continue to hope to get a booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

      A Roman Catholic anti abortionist’s paradigmatic aborting female has the alternative of live as a very brave single mother, because some evil man promised her marriage and then vanished on hearing she was pregnant. But the feminist’s paradigmatic aborting female has a beta bucks boyfriend who wants her and wants his child and wants a life together with his girl and his child, while his girl wants a booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

      The paradigmatic aborting woman imagined by Roman Catholic anti abortionists has been abandoned by men. The paradigmatic aborting woman imagined by feminists is rebelling against a man – rebelling against a man who wants a life together with his girl and his child.

      • Koanic says:

        Truth.

        I once participated in an anti-abortion march, as a child. It was a smarmy hippie love parade. You can always tell that crowd because the single women evangelize to men of the other tribe, which is Baal Peor, not Jehovah.

        None of those people were remotely interested in obeying the Old Testament’s commandment to go abroad armed. If they had, they could’ve solved the problem in a jiffy, or rather a fusillade.

    • Half-truths like this are the most dangerous… for it is obvious that laws of economics are not about human nature. They are about the nature of any fucking optimization algorithm ever, which are far simpler than human nature. So Google Maps pathfinding algorithm finds me the cheapest route, where the time of the trip is the cost function, and then an accident on the highway blocks half of it, makes the usable lanes scarcer, which increases the cost (in time) to pass through that highway which makes GM recalculate and find a cheapest route, half the drivers take that, the other half sticks to the route they know, but since fewer drivers are going through the now scarcer lanes the speed does not get much slower and we have a dynamic equilibrium…

      Humans optimized for a lot of variables, politics and social mores impose their own cost (and reward) functions…

      Original Chesterbellocian Distributism was far better than this shit. It was really simple. If a city has fifty shoe stores organized in three competing corporations, it would be better if they were fifty family businesses organized in three competing guilds. Because guilds compete between each other in price and quality and inside the guild in quality, but not price. Corporations compete only between each other, in price and quality, but there is no internal corporation. So the joint-stock corporation, which Jim and Moldbug really like, actually reduces competition, compared to the guild. That was the original, and good idea. “Too much capitalism means too few capitalists, not too many.” Proper Distributism is wanting a shitload of tiny capitalists, not this socialist crap. It is what O’Rourke wrote about Vietnam: every ground floor living room converted into a shop, workshop or restaurant…

      • TheDividualist says:

        typo: no internal competition. Inside the corporation.

      • jim says:

        Reflect on the transistor. Schockley was an example of Ayn Rand’s heroic capitalist, right down to being an asshole, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make it widely available.

        We got Ayn Rand’s heroic capitalist immediately after the we got the for profit joint stock corporation, and it is far from clear we would have got industrialization without them.

        • pdimov says:

          Shockley mobilized Pentagon’s capital, much like Google mobilized CIA capital and continues to do so.

          • jim says:

            The initial market for Shockley’s transistors was the transistor radio, so I doubt he mobilized Pentagon capital. The pentagon is always a lagging adopter of technology, despite all the balleyhoo about its very minor role in defining the internet protocols. The leading edge of technology is usually paid for by porn, advertising, black markets, and transport.

            In feudalism, yes, the leading edge of technology is military, but the Pentagon is the opposite of feudalism.

              • jim says:

                Nothing sponsored by Google should be believed.

                He accurately describes the technology, but I would not take his account of the development of the technology at face value.

                Eight hundred people at Harvard worked on electronic warfare during World War II. Eleven of them moved to Stanford after the war. Big deal. Meanwhile, Hewlett Packard had got started by 1928.

                Pentagon bucks were peripheral to Silicon Valley.

                • pdimov says:

                  I suppose Pentagon and USG, in addition to being peripheral to Silicon Valley and Arpanet, were also peripheral to laying out the undersea cables and launching the GPS satellites.

                  Also, MS bought Skype because they thought it a good investment, and routed all of its traffic through their data centers for entirely technical reasons.

                • jim says:

                  The Pentagon buys into Silicon Valley technology after, usually long after, it has been developed for civilians by civilians on civilian money. Microsoft purchased Skype to spy on us, but Skype was not built by Microsoft, nor originally built to spy on us. It was originally built to send encrypted packets by the most direct possible route between people engaged in a conversation, in order to provide good response time. It was rewritten, in the process becoming laggier, and costlier to operate, to route all packets through spy central. But this is not the Pentagon funding the development of technology. This the Pentagon funding the degradation and stagnation of technology.

                  Similarly, eleven people from Harvard’s eight hundred person electronic warfare division went to Stanford after World War II – because Silicon Valley had been leading in the relevant technologies since 1928.

                  Similarly technological improvement in space capability was stagnant after the first man in the moon, until SpaceX got into it and built a truly re-usable booster. And SpaceX biggest source of revenue for using its re-usable booster is expected to be launching a privately built and operated internet in space. If the Pentagon eventually has better rockets to launch weapons at their enemies, they will have been designed by SpaceX and funded by Starlink, largely so that people can download porn movies.

                  Government, by its nature, is incapable of funding the advancement of technology. What it can do is do what Charles the Second did – make the scientific method high status, and make it possible for people who do advance technology to get rich.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jerry Pournelle and Newt Gingrich (before Trump the only good Republican of prominence) have advocated the proper way to have government fund the advancement of technology, through prize money.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Government, by its nature, is incapable of funding the advancement of technology.

                  Religious belief. In reality, all large-scale technological and infrastructure investments are government-funded, although typically laundered through the private sector for ideological reasons.

                  It is the private sector that is incapable of funding unprofitable things. You can tell if such an investment is legitimately private by the fact that it inevitably goes bankrupt.

                  Government-funded NASA was able to go to space, and then government-funded NASA no longer could, so it had to rely on government-funded Russian rockets until government-funded SpaceX could go to space. It’s not the source of funding that changed, it’s that NASA was diversified to a point it could no longer operate.

                • jim says:

                  Funding the advance of technology is a similar problem to central planning. We have both a theoretical explanation of why it fails to work, and empirical evidence that it fails to work.

                  Government can provide, or fail to provide, conditions where technology advances, but it can no more command technology into being than Venezuela can command bread in the shops.

                  Observe “the secret history of Silicon Valley”. Poster girl principle applies. If electronic counter measures are his poster girl for government sponsoring Silicon valley technology, government was destructive of silicon valley technology The connection between war time funding of Harvard’s Electronic Counter Measures and subsequent silicon valley technology is ludicrously thin. The connection between Hewlett Packard and Harvard’s Electronic Counter Measures is, on the other hand, quite strong. It was not Government technology being transferred to Silicon Valley by eleven wartime government employees moving to Stanford. The government electronic counter measures program was private sector technology developed by Hewlett and Packard being seized by government without adequate compensation.

                  You tell me the government built rockets. No, Werner von Braun built rockets.

                  When the US captured Wernher von Braun it tried to build rockets and failed. It asked him how his rockets were built, it looked at his rockets, and it still failed. When it put him in charge, then it succeeded. And when he died, rocketry stopped advancing until space X.

                  Government funded him to build bigger rockets, probably bigger than the private sector would have or could have. But it funded him because he was already building rockets, as Hewlett Packard had already been building electronic equipment, which work was disrupted, not sponsored, by the wartime electronic counter measures work.

                  German rocketry started with the Verein für Raumschiffahrt (Society for space travel). German rockets were based on VFR work, and American and Russian rockets based on German work. And the Nazis shut down VFR, as the American Government shut down Hewlett Packard.

                  Silicon Valley was not born of the Harvard Group’s Electronic Counter measures, which is the claim made in “The Secret History of Silicon Valley”. If it had been, Silicon Valley would be located in Harvard, where almost every member of the Electronic Counter Measures group was and remained. Rather, the Harvard group’s electronic counter measures were born of seizing what was in Hewlett Packard’s garage, much as the V2 and the space program was born of seizing what was in the garages of VFR members.

                  That Silicon Valley happened where the government stole technology from, (Hewlett Packard’s garage in Palo Alto) not where they stole technology to (Harvard) shows that government did not cause Silicon Valley.

                  Similarly, NASA could not build rockets, except they put a man the Nazis kidnapped from the VFR, and that they kidnapped from the Nazis, in charge.

                • peppermint says:

                  Tumblr just stopped hosting porn because tumblrinas were using it to express their true intimate desires. They only funded porn while they assumed it was progressive media made by progressives to impose progressive values on disoriented young men.

                  Why did they want to go to the moon so much they were willing to leave Africans behind?

                  How much of the moon rocket was designed by George Jetson and his CEO Cosmo Spacely?

                • peppermint says:

                  Presumably, Luna 9 was built by Khruschev, to prove the efficiency of Communist industry, and actually built by Russians, to prove the efficiency of Russian industry. If government is capable of building things directly, it would probably be expected to be visible in the United States of Soviet Russia, which allowed Igor Shafarevich the academic freedom to write a book about socialism in theory and practice in between developing and writing about algebraic geometry.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Every time Potatonigger Patrick opens his mouth to discuss sexuality, nothing but lies comes out.

                  >Tumblr just stopped hosting porn because tumblrinas were using it to express their true intimate desires. They only funded porn while they assumed it was progressive media made by progressives to impose progressive values on disoriented young men.

                  Liar. You know that you are lying. You will continue lying despite knowing full well that you are doing that.

                  Reality:

                  “The decision came a few days after Apple’s iOS store removed the app over child pornography movies, according to TheWrap.”

                  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900045045/tumblr-is-banning-pornography-and-explicit-adult-content-heres-why-its-already-messing-up.html

                  CP is gearing up to be struggle of the century. On the one hand there are people who oppose throwing men in jail for possessing/sharing videos of 17-year-olds having sex with their boyfriends, or 15-year-olds flashing their boobs (that’s what 99% of CP is).

                  On the other hand there are puritans, feminists, and blue pilled white knights like Potatonigger Patrick.

                  Every time you lie about sexuality (translation: every time you discuss sexuality), I’ll be here to PWNE you with facts, information, and logic.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  The FBI and the CIA are full of blue pilled white knights, and cynical Machiavellians who know exactly what they’re doing also, and they will ban everything and throw everyone in prison because of SINISTER PIXELS containing 15-year-olds doing sexy poses for the camera. If you believe that PIXELS can in fact be SINISTER then you may as well be a shill of USG. No, PIXELS cannot ever be SINISTER and imprisoning men for possessing/sharing SINISTER PIXELS is immoral.

                  Fuck you and your lies.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You support Tumblr because BDSM proves a certain point you’re trying to make about how you hold down and choke your girlfriend during sex. Guess what, fag? It is due to the all pervasive SINISTER PIXELS (horny teenagers doing sexy stuff for the camera) that your BDSM fetish will now also be banned. You are worse than CR! CR wants to ban Domino’s because the proletariat needs to be protected from capitalist exploitation, and you agree that all of the internet will be banned to protect the sanctity of pixels from the sinister force of horny teens.

                • peppermint says:

                  > blaming Trump for banning porn
                  > instead of even blaming the faggot Tim Cook
                  > because Tim Cook cares so much about exploitation of 15 year old titties for social media attention he banned devian tart and is on an anti-porn crusade the likes of which would make a 50s heterosexual FBI man blush

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  “WE MUST PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF VICTIMIZED PIXELS BY BANNING EVERYTHING AND THROWING ALL UGGGGHHH MALES IN PRISON.”

                  Yeah – how about “no.”

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You started this purity spiral in 1890 and in the future none of it will remain. Anyone who suggests that the sanctity of pixels needs to be protected from sinister teenagers is a blue pilled white knight.

                • peppermint says:

                  Arguably, we would be in a better place if the Internet had happened ten years earlier and the Tea Party could have forced Newt Gingrich not to cuck. However, porn would probably have been restricted to .xxx or something, whereas that’s happening now in response to progressives realizing that when people repost porn for themselves, they pick the most aesthetic pornographs, which are aesthetic for a reason.

                • peppermint says:

                  > believing what people who openly tell you they’re lying about their motivations tell you about their motivations

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Progressive Left-Wing Feminists like yourself ban porn, including of the sinister pixels variety, because everything men enjoy needs to banned. And only for that reason. Men must not be allowed to enjoy anything and sex itself is a sin, according to Feminists like you.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  They will take away your BDSM for the exact same reason they took away my JBs: they hate men and they hate male sexuality. And my JBs are not any less appealing than your BDSM. In fact, they are more appealing. So much more appealing that men will risk prison for ’em.

                • peppermint says:

                  I’m not sure when I’ve ever expressed a crapanschauung from which that is a sensible deduction. I’m not old enough to have been a sex-negative feminist, I was a sex-positive feminist with a particular interest in ensuring that free men are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, just like you are.

                • jim says:

                  Feminism is not sex positive. Men and woman want to form families. Difficult to do that except that women submit, and that external coercion ensures cooperate/cooperate rather than defect/defect

                  Spinning plates would be great for men, except the girls you’r spinning plates with are practicing serial monogamy, and serial monogamy would be great for women, except the men they are practicing serial monogamy with spin plates. But while external coercion has to bear on bad behavior by both men and woman, that women must submit, that female defection is more serious than male defection, because females bring their bastards home, means that coercion must bear primarily on females.

                  There should be one hundred times as much coercion applied against women as applied against men. “Feminism” means white knights applying coercion against men, which frustrates both men and women because it forces men to fail female shit tests, with the result that most men don’t get laid, and men and women fail to reproduce.

                  We need social pressure on women to honor and obey, and on men to love and cherish, and coercive state pressure on women to obey, and men to cherish.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  What you signal is what you support. Other people ignore your signalling because they don’t want to “feed the troll,” but I am upset about your signalling so refuse to ignore it. You signal support for the FBI’s anti-male tyranny. I’m against that.

                • peppermint says:

                  Can you appreciate the difference between the edgy expression of female desire to submit, and the desire of young sluts to get the attention their somewhat older peers are getting?

                  No, you just want to jerk it to teenagers and wish you could have boned them as a teenager instead of the college men boning them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim historically prized money has worked with technological bottlenecks and it was used in England’s golden era of advancement on some technological problems.

                  Are you for or against the government putting up prize money? I would have the government offer say 40 billion for a much better low cost battery…

                • jim says:

                  Obviously government prize money for technological advance works.

                  Status works better, but prize money is the simplest way of bestowing status.

                • peppermint says:

                  > much better low cost battery

                  40 billion won’t get you that unless you take it directly from Harvard’s endowment. Private industry is already on it with hundreds of billions at stake.

                • jim says:

                  I have high hopes that the zinc bromine battery may make solar power practical, and thus a truly decentralized power system practical.

                  But right now, because of batteries being expensive and regularly failing, people want grid backup, and solar power backed by inadequate batteries puts an intolerable load on the grid, so the government artificially restricts people from connecting to the grid while using batteries, so that it can pretend to be green while not actually being green. It is all fake, because the batteries suck. A battery powered house goes dark, and a battery powered car cannot take me where I want to go.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Can you appreciate the difference between the edgy expression of female desire to submit, and the desire of young sluts to get the attention their somewhat older peers are getting?

                  >No, you just want to jerk it to teenagers and wish you could have boned them as a teenager instead of the college men boning them.

                  Not being a white knight, I couldn’t care less what women want. It is not my intention to give them what they want, any more than it’s Jim’s intention to rape 8-year-olds. Society should not give women what they want, because when it gives women what they want, inter-sexual relations go south.

                  My motivation is eradicating Feminism and the Feminist policy of imprisoning men for normal and healthy male sexuality. That’s the only thing I have in mind here, not my own non-existent porn collection.

                  The current situation is bad for men. It harms our ability to be men, because we need to walk on eggshells lest we look at the wrong image or flirt with the wrong chick, and it are accused of sexual misconduct. That’s the kind of climate that your kind — Anglophone Puritans — have been fostering since your rise to power in the Anglosphere in the late 19th century, later-on abetted by whiny Jews who hate their own masculinity because Jews are naturally feminine.

                  When I see your posts that signal “pedo hysteria is good,” I ask myself: why is Patrick doing that? Does he support the FBI’s quest to hack our everything? Does he hate our freedumbs? Is he really unaware of the facts on the ground? The real answer is that your protective instinct is over-active, and defeats both your logical capacities and your lizard brain. You possess an over-active protective instinct, seeking to rescue teenage damsels in distress by protecting the sanctity of their pixels from the sinister male gaze. God forbid the sinister male gaze glances upon innocent, hapless pixels.

                  “SUCH A HORRIBLE EYE-CRIME MUST NOT BE COMMITTED! ALL THESE WICKED EYE-CRIMINALS WHO DESECRATE AND PROFANE INNOCENT PIXELS WITH THEIR EYE-OLENCE (THAT’S LIKE VIOLENCE, BUT WITH THE EYES) MUST PERISH IN PRISON!” – every blue knight ever

                  It is against the interests of men, of patriarchy, and of civilization that men should live in fear due to normal expressions of their own sexuality and be penalized for their own “unchastity.” Men are chaste enough already, by far too chaste relative to prior epochs, and just look at the abysmal testosterone levels. Need less chastity for men, not more. The Faggot Bureau of Intimidation is only looking to intensify the problem.

                  You are an agecuck. Agecucks never have good intentions in mind. Agecucks always try to sneak Feminism — “Positive,” “Negative,” whatever — through the back door or through the window. Agecucks are traitors to men, and insofar as the civilized races fail to reproduce due — in part — to agecuck policies, agecucks are also traitors to the civilized races. Agecucks are anti-white. You are anti-white, and no matter how many 1488 posts you make, will remain anti-white, because agecuck.

                  White Knights seek to allow female sexual self-expression while forbidding male sexual self-expression and forbidding men from enjoying that which sexually gratifies us. It is the wrong double-standard. The correct double-standard should restrict female unchastity, not male unchastity. I repeat: I have no desire to give women what they want, any more than Jim desires to rape 8-year-olds because 8-year-olds are horny. We are not in the business of gynocentric policies here.

                  Pornography is the documentation of sexuality. Blue Knights (i.e. Blue Pilled White Knights) are against CP because they don’t want young sexuality to be documented, as that documentation disproves their whole worldview. They seek to protect the sanctity of pixels because when everyone can see that young teens are horny and know exactly what they’re doing, no one but the most blue-haired of dykes would support the FBI’s draconian policies.

                  Some years ago, they tried to imprison a 70-year-old man for having sex with his 70-year-old wife, because she had Alzheimer’s or some kind of dementia, thus “could not consent.” This outraged me about as much as I’m outraged when I hear about men going to prison for sexting with 15-year-olds.

                  In a parallel universe, the FBI is busy imprisoning 70-year-old men for sex with their wives, and I call myself “jewish gerontophile” rather than “jewish pedophile.” I am a gerontophile in the exact same way that I am a pedophile: politically. If Anglo Puritans and their Jewish best-friends-forever were telling me that old women are inherently victimized by sex, as they are now telling me that young women are inherently victimized by sex, I would vehemently argue for the legalization of granny-sex, and viking would tell me that I’m only doing that because I want to prey upon weak and hapless old women, being the lecherous sexual predator that I am. Or something.

                  In that parallel universe (which, of course, is impossible, because young women have lots of fertile eggs, while old women have none), you — the little fag who still solipsistically subscribes to “politics as preference” like it’s 2010 — would tell me that granny-sex should be illegal because it’s disgusting, and no white man is into grannies. And then I would have to sperg against you to prove that you are wrong, and that anyway, it doesn’t matter whether or not granny-sex is disgusting, since that should not pertain to its legal status.

                  That’s where state-sponsored harm-based morality leads: the criminalization of normal male sexuality. That’s what I resist, and you support. There are no shades of grey here: it is black and white, clear and cut.

                  Speaking of shades of grey, notice that female sexuality is celebrated by the Feminist mainstream vociferously. It is not “edgy.” There is absolutely nothing edgy about BDSM. It is the opposite of edgy: BDSM is as vanilla as it gets, insofar as its socio-political significance is concerned. Women enjoy being tied, choked, whipped, etc. Who cares? How is it *politically* relevant? Oh, riiiight, to prove that “women want to submit.” Yeah, we’ve known that since forever; I don’t need BDSM pornography to confirm it for me. What kind of blue pilled cucked faggot needs BDSM pornography to know that women enjoy submission? The cringe, lol.

                  I don’t care who’s making you masturbate, the Jews or the Tumblrinas. The only thing that I find *politically relevant* is who gets to spend months or years behind bars, and for what reason. Or: who gets deplatformed by Blue Knight SJWs. That’s what matters. Your preferences are irrelevant, just as my own (real or imagined) pedophilia / hebephilia / ephebophilia / teleiophilia / gerontophilia doesn’t matter. “Politics as preference” is the epitome of Millennial faggotry.

                  One time you wrote that in the future, your generation will be called cucks. Well, here I am calling you a cuck – just not for the reasons you expected. You expected to be called a cuck because Andrew Anglin told you that future generations will all be hardcore 1488ers, more hardcore than even the Millennials. Actually, you are called a cuck for your blue pilled stance about the WQ.

                  Jim has already explained at great length that the pernicious type of porn is always the one that females, not males, are attracted to – Romance Novels (and visual depictions thereof) where women submit to Jeremy Meeks type of alpha male, or even better, to a succession of Jeremy Meeks type of alpha males, who all vie for access to her pussy. It is not the thing men are into (e.g. jailbait) that is harmful, but the thing women are into that is socially disruptive.

                  Female porn, that is porn that females are into, is the problem. By pretending that it’s pornography that men are into that’s the problem, you are denying sex realism.

                  JB, among other niches, is one thing that many men sexually desire, albeit not all men prefer JB to other niches. At any rate, there is nothing unnatural about our healthy male sexual attraction to fertile females. Biology commands us to be attracted to fertile females, and pornography that has fertile females in it naturally appeals to us. Old hags hate it, and Blue Knights hate it, so the coalition of hags and knights has gone all out in its war against the porn we enjoy, hence Tumblr no longer has any porn.

                  “ONLY PERVERTS FAIL TO APPRECIATE THAT 40-YEAR-OLDS ARE WAY SEXIER THAN 14-YEAR-OLDS. YOU ARE A PERVERT, JP. YOU ARE SUCH A PERVERT FOR SAYING THAT FERTILE FEMALES ARE MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN NON-FERTILE FEMALES, OR LESS-FERTILE FEMALES. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT YOUTH IS SEXY?! MEN HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED YOUTH TO BE SEXY. MEN ONLY LOVE ACCOMPLISHED, CREDENTIALED CAREER-WOMEN WHO CAN STRIKE A GREAT CONVERSATION ABOUT WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD BE THE PRESIDENT, ALSO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MIXING WINE AND QUAALUDE AND SO ON.” – your female version, cuckermint

                  You are both a biological deviant and a political puritan. You have never stopped being a Feminist. You still give preference to what females desire over the interests of everyone else. You just have a unique way of doing so. Anti-Feminism means not giving a shit about what they desire; we have more important things to worry about. Thus you decry the banning of BDSM from Tumblr, like a typical female (you are feminine), while not saying a word about what gets men imprisoned. You only care about the sexual interests of females, because you are gynocentric in your weltanschauung.

                  Next, you call JB “attention.” It’s not about attention, you blue pilled faggot, it’s about teenagers have a HIGHER SEX-DRIVE than you have. Teenagers are hornier than you. They think about sex more than you do. They are preoccupied with sex more than you are. CP/JB is merely the documentation of this reality, which you insist on denying. These sluts are horny. They want dick. And they get dick. And they show you how sexy they *for the exact same reason* that women aged 18 or 28 show you how sexy they are. Teenage females are not “children,” but young women. Give them a husband, and they’ll become more-or-less competent housewives. Infantilizing them is at the heart of the blue pill, and paves the way for the Female Imperative to take over.

                  It’s in the interests of society that male sexuality be allowed expression, ideally via marriage, but also through prostitutes, younger or older, meatspace or virtual, as otherwise we get emasculation and low TFR, as indeed is the case all over the West these days.

                  The kind of society that throws men in prison for sinister pixels necessarily has female status higher than male status. The criminalization of sinister pixels is a sign that the matriarchy rules us. AoC is rule by Feminism. Victimization-based morality leads to, and derives from, Feminism. Patriarchy is young marriage, shotgun marriage, and to be particularly edgy, marriage-by-abduction. Marriage-by-abduction is incompatible with the sickening, revolting abomination that is the AoC.

                  Women behave like they were raised by cannibal head hunters or by apes in the jungle, Jim rightly tells us. Giving preference to female desires while criminalizing and banning male desires invariably leads to a collapse of socio-sexual order, as we are currently seeing. You are telling me that ideally, BDSM should be legal while JB should not be legal. Just the opposite: JB should be legal, while BDSM… well, tbh, I couldn’t care less. As far as I’m concerned, all pixels should be rendered non-sinister. Because they are non-sinister.

                  Documentation of female sluttery lowers, to an extent, the status of females, as everyone can see what they are. In contrast, pretending that female sluts are chaste pure angels raises their status. So JB can help lower female status, at least to some extent, while the current situation of “ban everything forever” leads to the elevation of female status, leads to a pedestalization of skanks. Not good. By using the force of the law to pretend that females are chaste pure angels, the FBI tells us that hos are really housewives. No, hos are hos, and female behavior, especially female sexuality, needs to be documented for all to see.

                  Teenage sluts are not “acting out,” they have volcanic sex-drives. THEY NEED SEX. And men need to be aware of that. The Feminist blue pill is the denial of this reality. The Victorians said that women only misbehave because evil men make them misbehave, and that’s what you have been saying also, consistently. Yes, you are anti-sex, you are sex-negative. To be red pilled is to be aware of the volcanic intensity of the female sex drive, which often hits even before puberty, a few years before it, as Jim correctly observes.

                  Men want sexual abundance, and out niches cater to that. The Tumblr BDSM that you support caters to female desires, and it’s very telling and revealing that you are so invested in defending the one type of porn that women, not men, are into. You are feminine and degenerate. Go cross-dress, you girlie-girl. Cut your useless balls off.

                  It’s not just incels who are into JB, but incels are usually the most red pilled about the WQ (they have to be), so it’s no surprise that they want young women for themselves, rather than old women. There is nothing wrong with that. Quite a few commenters here are incels, and it’s not because they are inherently flawed, but because society is inherently flawed. Perhaps you should consider not ad hominem’ing me by suggesting the things that you suggest, as that only earns you new enemies. Or continue doing what you’ve been doing and face the inevitable backlash.

                • jim says:

                  Why are male testosterone levels and sperm production collapsing? Why do men today look girly compared to men of sixty years ago?

                  Two explanations: Literal estrogen in the water supply (or phytoestrogens in food, for example soy based foods), or metaphorical estrogen in the water supply?

                  By metaphorical estrogen, I mean that men are continually frightened, humiliated, and degraded. Defeat lowers your testosterone.

                  To ascertain what is lowering testosterone, use epidemiology. Look for areas where everyone’s testosterone is low. And where social justice warriors rule, for example the public broadcasting system, we see epidemics of abnormally low testosterone, consistent with a spiritual problem, rather than substances in food and water. Similarly, Google has turned girly.

                  I see women walking down the middle of the corridor, and the boss scuttles to one side out of their way. They interrupt him and talk over him to helpfully tell him what he is saying. Of course his testosterone is going to drop, and theirs is going to rise.

                  High testosterone causes obesity in women, and low testosterone causes obesity in men, hence our epidemic of obesity. Partly our epidemic of obesity is caused by the cafetaria diet, that nice food is conveniently available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. But the outcome of treating low testosterone is, on average, massive weight loss, thus the epidemic of low testosterone and low sperm production is an adequate explanation of the obesity epidemic.

                  Testosterone causes minor weight loss without conscious effort, but more importantly, supplies the strength of will necessary for major and intentional weight loss. Weak and frightened men cannot control their eating, and thus are vulnerable to the cafeteria diet. The obesity epidemic is not caused by cafeteria diet by itself, but by the cafeteria diet plus the collapse of masculinity in men and femininity in women. Manly men can control their eating. Defeat, humiliation, degradation and involuntary celibacy makes you fat.

                • peppermint says:

                  The adults are having a discussion about the future of industry. Take your cringy tl;dr beta nonsense at least to a different thread. Denying womens’ desire to submit due to radical induhvidualism is feminism.

                  We would have a nuclear grid with high speed rail and a mars colony by now if we didn’t have to listen to the thousandth essay on why ugly, creepy stuff needs to be tolerated in between pretending not to notice the poor quality work of poor quality people. There’s a reason there’s no lolikon on /b/ anymore and it isn’t m00t is an fbi jew (but he is a cuck lol).

                  Radical induhvidualism invaded industry making each worker an unmanagable snowflake. Endless meetings can’t decide anything, terrible code no one is responsible for, everyone hoarding knowledge as currency and only sharing when they can show that they shared it on paper.

                • pdimov says:

                  >You tell me the government built rockets. No, Werner von Braun built rockets.

                  Not at all. I’m telling you that government provided the capital and resources for Wernher von Braun to build rockets. He did not “mobilize other people’s capital” as in Ayn Rand’s fairy tales. Government mobilized other people’s capital, and gave it to him.

                • BC says:

                  >Not at all. I’m telling you that government provided the capital and resources for Wernher von Braun to build rockets. He did not “mobilize other people’s capital” as in Ayn Rand’s fairy tales. Government mobilized other people’s capital, and gave it to him.

                  The problem with rocket tech and the reason it advanced so much during the war is there’s no civilian use for the tech until the advent of communication satellites and comsats are not valuable enough to fund the development of rocket tech.

                  With computers, governments spent a ton of money building them and they were quickly outclassed by civilian made systems for the public market right after the war.

                  So the government is quite good at driving tech that there’s no demand for in the civilian market when created for military use. But when the tech is duel usage, the private sector is generally better.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Take your cringy tl;dr beta nonsense at least to a different thread.

                  As is typical, you are projecting. I can write 5000 word essays, or short comments; whatever I choose to do, your worldview will be eviscerated thereby. I’ll never go away. I’ve been here since before you, and will be here long after you give up and swallow the red pill. And if that never happens, that’s okay; at least I will have red pilled a thousand more important people than you in the process.

                  >Denying womens’ desire to submit

                  No one has denied that; just the opposite. What I deny is that BDSM on Tumblr is as politically relevant as cuck-fags like you make it out to be. BDSM on Tumblr is not politically relevant. It is vanilla. And the Feminists are all okay with that. You are a Feminist, and so is your girlfriend, and I’m sure you really feel sorry for Tumblr not having BDSM anymore. Since I am not a blue piller, I couldn’t give a fuck about that issue. I worry about those men who are currently in prison for sinister pixels, etc. That’s what destroys society. That’s what should be resisted: the criminalization of male sexuality. Female sexuality doesn’t interest me much.

                  >radical induhvidualism

                  Commie

                  >the thousandth essay on why ugly, creepy stuff needs to be tolerated

                  Men are not imprisoned for “creepy, ugly stuff.” Men are imprisoned for sexy stuff — i.e., sinister pixels — involving hot 13-year-olds or hot 17-year-olds. You find all teenagers creepy, ugly, and “derpy,” because you and your fellow Puritan-Feminists are a low-testosterone, high-estrogen, diseased bunch who only seek to elevate the status of women and punish men for normal male sexuality. In the future, people with your weltanschauung will be known universally as “traitors.”

                  Failure to be attracted to fertile females with secondary sexual characteristics is indeed very creepy.

                  Failure to be attracted to fertile females with boobs, hair on their pussies, wide hips, high waist-to-hip ratios, young mellifluous voices, round asses, and passion-for-sex in their eyes, is indeed very creepy.

                  It is like a homosexual seeing a naked woman and going “ewww.” Going “ewww” about teenagers is creepy. Considering teenagers to be ugly, and supporting the FBI’s war against male sexuality, is what all Feminists do. You are an unapologetic Feminist, and will be eviscerated.

                  Your worldview is a stain on this blog and a stain on humanity, and will be eradicated with the wrath of a thousand blazing suns.

                • Joe says:

                  > everything men enjoy needs to banned. And only for that reason. Men must not be allowed to enjoy anything

                  Exactly. Underrated post. Try walking around a city with a smile on your face and see how long it takes before someone physically attacks you. I lasted two minutes the last time I tried it.

                • pdimov says:

                  >I would have the government offer say 40 billion for a much better low cost battery…

                  A much better low cost battery increases profits and as such the private sector would discover it on its own, without prizes being offered.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, he mobilized the government’s money and personnel and buildings to build rockets. The government should give the rocket guy money to hire personnel and buildings as he needs instead of giving him people vetted by HR and buildings built by CR and assets purchased by the purchasing department, as they market should give the entertainment guy money. Nasa began to suck when the government decided to put mandates on hiring and what types of art you can buy starting with its’ own agencies.

                • pdimov says:

                  “So the government is quite good at driving tech that there’s no demand for in the civilian market when created for military use. But when the tech is duel usage, the private sector is generally better.”

                  Yes. But also, when the development of the technology requires a capital investment that the private sector will not make because the technology is unprofitable in the short, and sometimes in the longer, run if this initial investment is taken into account.

                  Government provides the initial investment, builds the infrastructure, this whole thing is written off as a sunk cost, and the private sector takes over.

                • jim says:

                  > the development of the technology requires a capital investment that the private sector will not make because the technology is unprofitable

                  Observation is inconsistent with this theory. Government supplied capital fails to result in technological progress. The government has been throwing money at rockets for years, but progress stopped when Wernher von Braun retired. How did the government find a Wernher von Braun? The Nazis kidnapped him from the private sector, and the US Government kidnapped him from the Nazis. If the military gets better rockets, their development will have been largely paid for by people downloading porn.

                  Same story with Electronic Counter Measures. During the war, Harvard confiscated Silicon Valley technology to create the Electronic Counter Measures unit, but nonetheless technology continued to be developed in Silicon Valley, not Harvard. When they let Hewlet Packard be, progress resumed back in Silicon Valley, not Harvard.

                  The government threw a shitload of money at electronic counter measures, but that progress happened back where the technology was stolen from, rather than where money was chucked around, suggests that the shitload of money hurled around by government failed to result in technological progress.

                • peppermint says:

                  Remember when after the Fappening everyone was calling each other pedophiles because Unimpresssed McKayla said one of her pics was from before she turned 18?

                  Literally no one cares.

                  Posession of bits being a sufficient crime to lose the ability to encrypt data, that’s a thing to be worried about.

                  And yet everyone hates sickos who molest children and creepers who creep on them.

                  Your posts seem almost calculated to give off a creeper vibe. Real tech libertarians argue for decriminalization. You argue for acceptance on the personally humiliating grounds that you want adolescent men to be having sex – with adolescent women, of course.

                • jim says:

                  The use of the term “sickos who creep on children” is enemy progaganda, since it conflates gays with straights, and because it denies the supply and demand situation.

                  Gays creep on children, because until puberty all boys think sex is disgusting. The supply and demand situation for girls is the complete reverse, because most girls start to get interested in alpha males with adult female pre-selection (Cinderella’s Prince) well before puberty, while most alpha males with adult female preselection are not all that interested in girls with no boobs and no curves. So gays creep on pre pubertal boys, but pre pubertal girls creep on adult alpha males with adult female pre-selection.

                  The use of the term “children” attributes virtue to females that is seldom found.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jim’s point about prizes is they confer status

                • peppermint says:

                  * acceptance regardless of maturity, since I know you’re going to hook your next tirade there

                • peppermint says:

                  …it doesn’t matter what we think.

                  What did the pioneers think?

                  What did the Australian colonists think?

                  What did the English, Romans and Greeks think?

                  Early marriage of women (post puberty, of course) always permissible, not the usual case. Early marriage of men, when they could support themselves or trick a woman for long enough to get her to drop her panties. City women found quasicriminals more exciting than respectable betas who couldn’t just go to the next city.

                  Now respectability is back in, everyone can feel it.

                • peppermint says:

                  Derp. You’re right about the language.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Literally no one cares.

                  Everyone cares. “Pedo hysteria” is a shibboleth which you very deeply care about, which is why you have unsuccessfully attempted to destroy it by inverting its meaning, much as CR attempts to destroy NRx shibboleths by defining them as communism. You will never destroy our useful shibboleths. They are useful for a reason: they explain a real phenomenon.

                  >And yet everyone hates sickos who molest children and creepers who creep on them.

                  Words such as “sicko,” “chomo,” “molester,” “perv,” “creep,” “creeper,” “kid diddler,” “kid fucker,” “child rapist,” etc., are enemy language. You keep showing off your true colors by using enemy language. This enemy language fails to distinguish between sodomizing 5-year-old boys and possessing the sinister pixels of a 14-year-olds horny sluts. These will never be the same thing, no matter how much you attempt to conflate these two things.

                  >Your posts seem almost calculated to give off a creeper vibe.

                  I don’t know what that is. “Creeper vibe,” lol. Talk like a man, faggot.

                  >You argue for acceptance on the personally humiliating grounds that you want adolescent men to be having sex – with adolescent women, of course.
                  >acceptance regardless of maturity, since I know you’re going to hook your next tirade there

                  You have no idea what “maturity” is, childless deviant. What I call for is the de-criminalization of normal male sexuality, whereas you support the Feminist war against male sexuality.

                  There is nothing humiliating about acknowledging the fact that teenage boys want to bang teenage girls (and vice versa), and do often bang them, though not only teenage boys bang them – older men do too, especially alpha males with female pre-selection. I argue that men should not be punished for sex with teens or for possessing/distributing sinister pixels. But there should be shotgun marriage, though.

                  The stench of your insecurity (which ironically you project onto me, even though you have already admitted that *you* did not bang teenagers when you were one) is strong here, as only a beta-cuck would be worried about someone else *also* being able to enjoy sex in addition to himself. Are you jealous of teenage boys, or something?

                  Of course, you are literally a cuckold, as your girlfriend was taken away from you by a bisexual yoga instructor, and since that day you’ve been convinced that all fags are really “sneaky fuckers.” So that’s another indication that you are not driven by seeking out what’s best for male-female relations, but driven by agonizing feelings of insecurity, which you project onto me (much as CR projects his own proclivities onto Jim), despite it being quite obvious that I’m as confident as one can be in what I’m doing.

                  Jim said that 13-year-old boys aren’t ready for a life of marriage yet, and I accept that. In the very same thread, he also said that 13-year-old girls are well developed enough to be married, and that 17-year-old men are likewise developed enough to be married. So if your objection is, “Boys should marry not at 13, but at 17,” that does nothing to disprove the larger point that I’m making. In fact, it pretty much confirms what I’m saying.

                  No, your real objections is about my “viiiiiiiiiibe,” which is “creeeeeeepy,” in other words you talk like a fag instead of talking like a man.

                  Tl;dr: Jimianity calls for young marriage, shotgun marriage, and if taken to its logical conclusion, if taken to the edge, marriage-by-abduction. All that is incompatible with your blue pilled worldview.

                  I argue for making the world safe for Jimianity, just as neocons argue that the world should be made safe for democracy. 🙂 That is my true slogan: “Make The World Safe For Jimianity.”

                  >What did the pioneers think?

                  The pioneers would drive a spear through your skull for suggesting that men need to be imprisoned for glancing at 17-year-olds.

                • peppermint says:

                  People don’t want to see pictures of actual children having sex.
                  Conflating that with underage mature adults means people can be tricked into supporting ridiculous laws and prosecutions because everyone assumes from the name child porn that it’s actual children. And then Rick and Morty has Morty maybe getting raped and even more disgusting things.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Observation is inconsistent with this theory. If the military gets better rockets, their development will have been largely paid for by people downloading porn.”

                  There’s no observation here, just an assertion. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that I claim that better video compression and better camera sensor technology are not driven by porn, but by spy satellites and drone video feeds. What specific observation proves me wrong?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Pepermint

                  The norm for women among Europeans was to be married off 14 to 16, sometimes slightly younger and rarely slightly older. Men tended to get married more in their early twenties.

                  But the norm for marriage for women was below the current age of consent.

                  Late virgin marriage (beyond 17) tended to be a wealthy people only thing, you basically needed to be able to put your daughter under lock and guard (and the guards had to be paid) to do it.

                  Non-arranged shotgun marriage often occurred with pre-marital pregnancies (which generally ruined a girl’s marriage value with anyone else) but not always with mere loss of virginity (which damaged it but did not always ruin it, it varied from place to place and time to time).

                • peppermint says:

                  > Female porn, that is porn that females are into, is the problem.

                  What kind of porn did the Tumblrinas repost?

                  Was it compatible with their interspersed claims about valuing their autonomy?

                  Did everyone realize out loud at the same time that feminism is a shit test?

                • peppermint says:

                  Late virgin marriage, ok, after or just before the end of high school, unless you’re the kind of guy who goes to college. That’s where we should be headed.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >People don’t want to see pictures of actual children having sex.

                  Right. People also don’t want to see gore, yet the FBI is using CP rather than gore to imprison men for possession and distribution. Also, 99% of CP is teens.

                  Doesn’t matter: “politics as preference” is gay. I don’t care about preferences. I care about what’s healthy for male-female relations, and what healthy for male-female relations is not imprisoning men for sinister pixels of this kind or other, because when men are imprisoned for sinister pixels, whatever their content, that lowers the status of men versus women.

                  >Conflating that with underage mature adults means people can be tricked into supporting ridiculous laws and prosecutions because everyone assumes from the name child porn that it’s actual children.

                  Exactly. 200% so. So stop defending modern CP legislation, as it’s not even about actual children. It has never been about actual children. The people who called JB “CP” are your kind, i.e. Puritan-Feminists. Good thing you finally see what you’ve done.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >What kind of porn did the Tumblrinas repost?

                  Who cares?

                  Men need to advance the interests of our sexuality, not the interests of female sexuality, which is destructive.

                • peppermint says:

                  When I looked like an adolescent I was several times approached by men who tried to get too friendly, made weird inuendoes, and sometimes ended with an explicit request for unnatural sex acts. They’re out there. Everyone knows, everyone hates and ignores.

                  Then they got a bunch of social climbers to pretend to be like them to climb socially.

                  Now everyone’s mad at the other group too.

                  Let them burn together, but child porn is unacceptable in a way gore isn’t, where child is assumed to be defined properly.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >When I looked like an adolescent I was several times approached by men

                  Your age is irrelevant. Faggotry is a problem regardless of age, and once sodomy goes back into the closet, or is thrown off a roof, the scenario you describe will cease to occur. The problem is faggots, not “pedophilia.”

                  >but child porn is unacceptable in a way gore isn’t, where child is assumed to be defined properly.

                  CP used to be legal until a few decades ago, and was very much “acceptable.” Normative values are always and everywhere top-down, never bottom-up. As the purity spiral intensified, suddenly everyone realized that 17-year-old boobs should merit a prison sentence.

                  But anyway, the discussion here is not about the sex itself, which you can argue is a violation of the father’s property rights, but the sinister pixels documenting it. Sinister pixels should not be illegal, and if, for instance, there’s CP of me as a teenager somewhere on the net, fapped to by a bunch of gay pedos, I don’t give the slightest fuck, and it doesn’t matter.

                  Revenge porn should also be legal, btw. The same people telling me that “the sinister pixels are inherently victimizing” in the instance of CP, also advocate for making revenge porn illegal. And for the exact same reason.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Late virgin marriage, ok, after or just before the end of high school, unless you’re the kind of guy who goes to college. That’s where we should be headed.”

                  Peppermint unless you go full Taliban or have private guards you ain’t getting late virgin marriage.

                  Late virgin marriage was never the norm outside of rich people. They need to be married off early generally.

                  I care a lot less about whether they are virgins when they are married off then most people on this site, make it so husbands CAN beat them within some limits and the wives CANT divorce and make it so the father can arrange marriage and things will mostly work out.

                • peppermint says:

                  The correct answer to what porn tumblrinas reposted was bdsm “fetish”, rape “fetish”, impregnation “fetish”, even raceplay, death, guro.

                  By a strange coincidence, those suggest a thing about women that the left was aggressively denying.

                  Meanwhile, there is no lolikon and no adolescent getting molested by a faggot porn on /b/, and that’s a good thing.

                • peppermint says:

                  You’re going to hang your next tirade over the fact I said adolescent instead of young man and thus obviously meant straight shota.

                  But young man doesn’t sound right because old people call middle age people young man.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >By a strange coincidence, those suggest a thing about women that the left was aggressively denying.

                  Maybe. The reality is that all porn was taken off Tumblr because

                  “WHY DON’T YOU GET IT ALREADY, CREEPER?! THE IMAGES AND THE VIDEOS AND THE AUDIOS, IN-THEMSELVES, ARE VICTIMIZING TO THE POOR, POOR 15-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN. EVERY TIME YOU WATCH A TEENAGER SHOVING A DILDO INTO HER PUSSY, SQUIRTING FOUNTAINS ALL OVER HER CAMERA WHILE HER CLITORIS AND HER ANUS PULSATE IN ORGASM, SCREAMING “FUCK ME DADDY! FUCK ME HARDER! I’M CUMMING, OH MY GOD I’M CUMMING!”, YOU ARE REALLY COMMITTING CHILD ABUSE AGAINST THE POOR, INNOCENT CHILD WHO INNOCENTLY UPLOADED THE VIDEO TO THE NET.” – Feminism

                  And that is why no pornography, of any kind, will be allowed on Tumblr.

                • peppermint says:

                  a lot will happen over the next few decades. When it is over, there will continue to be no child porn on /b/ where child porn is correctly defined.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >there will continue to be no child porn on /b/ where child porn is correctly defined.

                  If that is the case, then it will be because the posters themselves — the *authentic* ones, not the assorted government shills, not saggy post-wall envious femanons pretending to be anons (“how do we do fellow natzis, gee, these scantily-clad teenagers sure look too young for my tastes – what are we here, a bunch of perverts??”) — will demand that the administration remove and prohibit that content…

                  …and not because scary threats were issued by this agency or by that agency.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, because /b/tards decided they don’t like it, past tense, over a decade ago, on /b/, when there was a debate about lolikon.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Lol, 2008…

                  Everything that everyone says in the midst of a frothing-at-the-mouth barking mad left-wing holiness spiral is indistinguishable from holiness signalling, each person being holier and purer than the next person, and that applies to anonymous imageboards as well.

                  Let’s see what authentic /b/tards say under a Jimian regime, having grown up their whole lives, or most of their lives, under a Jimian regime. That will count. Till then, as long as people remember life under Puritanism-Feminism, the opinions of all people will be slanted toward excessive holiness.

                • The Cominator says:

                  People on /pol (I’m not an oldfag I went to 4chan in August 2015 to help Trump) wanted CP blocked off because they were worried about the government using it as an entrapment technique and you know it was mostly government agents posting CP.

                  /pol started getting shill raided towards the end of the Republican primaries. Hillary badly miscalculated and thought Trump was an easily beatable nominee so in the early phases of the Republican primary there were very very few shills (the few shills there were Nevertrump people like Rick Wilson and there were a couple threads ) and everyone was for Trump. Right after Trump beat Cruz in the NY primary it was suddenly flooded with shills. It ebbs and flows now. It died down a couple days after the midterms but they came back soon.

                  I don’t know as much about /b.

                • peppermint says:

                  Right. People who say ‘left wing signaling spiral that included saying the word nigger every other nigger’ don’t have any idea what old /b/ was like.

                  Pretending that child molesters are okay and should be celebrated not creepy and only tolerated on good behavior, pretending anything called cp is basically unimpressed mckayla nudes, doesn’t make you anti-faggot, it makes you pro-faggot

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >People who say ‘left wing signaling spiral that included saying the word nigger every other nigger’ don’t have any idea what old /b/ was like.

                  Everyone knows what /b/ was like, and in 2008, I was well into Encyclopedia Dramatica, while you were still a liberal. The more crucial point is that “nigger nigger kike kike” was never particularly edgy, and hardly constitutes a thought-crime. When did the Manosphere bloom? In 2012-2013; till then, it had been virtually impossible to transgress against wimminz. And that has always been the real issue.

                  >Pretending that child molesters are okay and should be celebrated not creepy and only tolerated on good behaviory

                  “Child molesters” don’t exist. Okay, almost…

                  There are faggots, who hit on males of every and any age. Faggots should be dealt with qua faggots – not as “child molesters” (enemy language), and not as “pedophiles.” They are gays, and that’s why they do what they do.

                  And there are men who are attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, aka normal men. Every commenter here is attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, probably including you, though I’m starting to doubt that your testosterone levels are healthy enough to count. Also, it is common enough for high-status men to get hit on by little girls that they themselves do not desire.

                  Yes, technically there is a miniscule minority of “heterosexual pedophiles,” yet curiously enough, whenever vigilantes go looking for them, they are scarcely found. The only things they find are: a) gays; b) normal men who are attracted to females with secondary sexual characteristics, and/or alphas who are hit on by little girls.

                  >pretending anything called cp is basically unimpressed mckayla nudes

                  I don’t pretend anything.

                  I have been saying all along: 99% of CP is horny teens.

                  Technically, there is the other 1% that is baby-rape or similar stuff. I don’t think that men should be imprisoned for possessing/distributing it (baby-rape *itself* is not the same thing as possession/distribution of its documentation), any more than men should be imprisoned for possessing/distributing gore content. For me, baby-rape is almost like gore, but it being 1% of what is called “CP,” it is not relevant to the issue.

                  You won’t invert the ratio between the 99% and the 1%.

                  The 99% that is horny sluts, lustful girls with wet pussies who need sex, is perfectly legitimate and not “creepy.” The 1% that is creepy should be its own category, or subsumed into the category of gore. Right now, men are imprisoned for the 99% that is horny girls, and not for the very rare and unappealing 1% that is baby-rape. As long as CP is 99% horny girls, I’ll call for its absolute legalization. When the 1% that is baby-rape becomes 100% of what is defined as “CP,” then it will be a whole ‘nother situation.

                  >doesn’t make you anti-faggot, it makes you pro-faggot

                  The only consistent pro-faggot here is you. I have already said, and Jim has already said, that faggotry is a separate issue, and that the Gay Problem is not what the Puritan-Feminists complain about when they complain about “pedophilia.” If you want to complain about faggots, complain about faggots, rather than using various terminologies of the enemy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Technically, there is the other 1% that is baby-rape or similar stuff. I don’t think that men should be imprisoned for possessing/distributing it”

                  This is where I disagree with you.

                  Distributing (not mere position too easy to frame people) of obvious pre-pubescent CP should be viewed with all the odeum it is now.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Cuckermint:

                  The thing about arguing with the typical Millennial cuck is that they are convinced that “My idiosyncratic preferences are superior to your idiosyncratic preferences!” is a valid, even compelling argument.

                  Low IQ nonsense.

                  People saying, “Since I am attracted to 14-year-olds, sex with 14-year-olds should be legal, but sex with 13-year-olds, whom I usually don’t dig, should be punishable by death!” (or any variation on that type of argument) are just so tiring.

                  Faggot, it’s not about your preferences or my preferences. It doesn’t matter if I’m a pedophile or a gerontophile. It only starts to matter when your weltanschauung is “politics as preference,” a weltanschauung which I wholly reject, and which in the not-too-distant future will be known as “Millennial faggotry.”

                  Punishing men for our wicked unchastity has destroyed society, will always be destructive to society, therefore should be avoided. Agecucks are traitors, will always be traitors. Anything extremely arbitrary (e.g., “12 bad, 13 good”) is extremely evil, and agecucks are always fixated with arbitrary numbers.

                  https://oogenhand.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/agecuck/

                  I don’t care about preferences. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Jailbait Supremacist or Milf Master-Racer. Society should be structured in a way that is conducive to patriarchy, and real patriarchy cannot co-exist with modern AoC legislation or similar legislation. Punishing men for fucking whores raises the value of whores, raises the value of women versus men, thus destroys patriarchy. Your preferences can go to Hell – we need to restore lost social technology.

                  Cominator:

                  >Distributing (not mere position too easy to frame people) of obvious pre-pubescent CP should be viewed with all the odeum it is now.

                  Viewed with odium? I dunno. Pre-pubescent girls — girls, not boys — are often quite horny and produce their own pornographic video collections, and I see no reason why — again — men should be punished for sharing them; truly, I’m tired of men being penalized for “virtual crimes,” i.e. eye-olence, that stem from female misbehavior.

                  As for the 1% baby-rape cases, I’ve always said: treat it like gore. If you want to hate on people who distribute baby-rape images, hate on people who distribute gore images, of which baby-rape is arguably a subset. Anyway, if you want to call them bad people, no one’s stopping you.

                  I don’t really think it should be illegal, for the reasons stated above. Currently, at any rate, that’s not a burning issue. It’s a very insignificant, basically non-existent issue compared to the vicious, civilization-wide anti-male witch-hunt that is going on, targeting regular men. That needs to be urgently fixed, and then we can discuss what to do about those very rare and very unappealing baby-rape images.

                • peppermint says:

                  A pederast is a man with a fetish for adolescent men, a child molester has a fetish for sexually immature boys and girls. Women between the ages at which they start and finish developing are derpy looking, family men would not tap that, and men who would are kept away instinctively by their family.

                  The word homosexual is an anti-concept designed to protect pederasts and child molesters. There are no heterosexual women in the sense of being attracted to all men. Men are heterosexual in the sense of being attracted to all women. Women are tumblrina-orientation sapiosexual, attracted to men they consider intelligent, which is to say, men they respect.

                  The only people who ever approved of pederasts and child molesters are Jewish entertainers, who used them to disoreint us and insert disgusting things into our tv. I’m thinking of at least two episodes of Rick and Morty. Could go on, except normal people prefer to pretend it didn’t happen and forget about it as quickly as possible.

                  If Jimism is compatible with advocacy for not just decriminalization but acceptance of child molester and pederast porn, then Jimism will not be acceptable to this next generation of family men who are pretending that those Rick and Morty episodes never happened.

                  Pederasts and child molesters will be thrown off roofs. Advocacy for them will be considered sedition.

                • jim says:

                  “Child Molester” and “pederast” is enemy language. “Child Molester” is an anticoncept, since it links things that are very different, and claims they are the same thing.

                  “Child Molester” fails to distinguish between gays and straights, where the difference is most important, and “Pederast” attempts to distinguish between different kinds of gays, where the difference is unimportant.

                  The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

                  The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and if current trends continue will self destruct in a decade, likely less. If you are using concepts that they would find meaningless or evil, you should not assume it is because you are wiser and saner than they were.

                • jim says:

                  > If Jimism is compatible with advocacy for not just decriminalization but acceptance of child molester and pederast porn


                  Kim Kardashian at fourteen, when she became became sexually active.

                  And the reason that most girls do not become sexually active at nine is that they men they hope to pull are kind of busy, and they need curves like Kim’s to pull them. Chances are that the boy she managed to pull had to hit ten year olds with a stick to keep them off. Probably whacked Kim when she was ten because she was bothering him.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Did anyone think that I had chosen to bully you for a month for no reason?

                  Everything you wrote is false, and false in a particularly disingenuous way. You represent the weltanschauung of my enemies and Jim’s enemies, I knew it all along, and this is all the proof I need. I’m not going to spend time debunking all your nonsense; suffice it to say that I’ve been planning for some time to demonstrate unequivocally that you are an entryist, and the result is in.

                  You get the rope, traitor.

                • peppermint says:

                  I’ve been trying to gently warn you off for some time because the last thing Jim needs is this kind of normie-scaring drama, but you seem eager to damn yourself. Of course, I was missing several key words, thanks to men like you, your jewish entertainer overlords, and the academics who gleefully went along with the programme. Having developed the terminology, this discussion can now be terminated and I would prefer if it was also deleted.

                  Normal men do not have fetishes, period, end of discussion.

                  However, traditional marriage will be explained as a kinky new fetish for couples to try out initially.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Fine: when I get home I’ll rebut your blue pilled falsehoods, one by one. In the meanwhile, reflect on the fact that you could have accepted that you wouldn’t win this one, but have chosen to out yourself as an enemy anyway in a futile attempt to force the blue pill on men with more balls than you’ll ever have.

                • peppermint says:

                  Not interested in winning or losing or further debate. You will die alone and only a priest and a gravedigger will attend your funeral (bodies are buried so people don’t have to look at decaying skeletons). Repent or be damned before the Lᴏʀᴅ, not me.

                  Fortunately Jim’s actual insights have been spread far and wide under the meme White Sharia, which as everyone knows shoves pederasts who like to shove pederast porn in people’s faces in the bog.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Lying about my position, i.e. strawmanning, cannot work when everyone can see what that position actually is.

                  I’ve been here long before you, contributed to NRx more than you ever will, using various handles on and off; and I will be here long after you inevitably ragequit. I can tell a pussy when I see one, Patrick boy. You could have accepted that you’re wrong, and moved on; but you chose not to…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [deleted]

                • jim says:

                  Just as you don’t argue for Marxist Class theory, you instead talk as if everyone agreed with such a self evidence truth, including those that just told you it was nonsense, you don’t argue for the blue pill account of the sexuality of young girls, you write as if everyone agreed with such a self evident truth.

                  You won’t get deleted if you actually debate what is under debate, instead of pretending there is a universal consensus that the progressive account is true.

                  We discuss the problem of dealing with female bad behavior. You respond as if the thought of female bad behavior had never occurred to anyone, because everyone knows and agrees that females never behave badly, just as you respond to economic discussion as if everyone knows and agrees that Marxist Class Theory and Marxist Economics is uncontroversially true and universally accepted and agreed.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  How Peppermint got PWNED: the nth edition. (Yes, it’s getting boring, but someone needs to do it)

                  >A pederast is a man with a fetish for adolescent men

                  You are using false terminology. First, pederasty is simply homosexuality. A homosexual is a “pederast” around young males, and a “non-pederast” around older men. Point is, it’s just faggotry – the age is impertinent. Second, I don’t recognize this “fetish” shibboleth. Whose shibboleth is it, again? Oh, right: the Freudians. No thanks. Healthy men want to fuck hot females, non-healthy men, such as homosexuals, want other things. It’s not a “fetish,” it’s the brain wiring going awry.

                  >a child molester has a fetish

                  Again: you are using enemy terminology, this after you’ve been told several times that that’s what it is. The conclusion is that you identify with the enemy’s ideology, which is precisely the point in this exchange. You identify with Feminism. Are you a ladyboy?

                  At any rate, attraction to females with secondary sexual characteristics and indicators of fertility is the very opposite of whatever you mean by “fetish” – it is normal healthy heterosexuality.

                  >for sexually immature boys and girls

                  Nonsense. Jim has already explained that in his “Rectification of Names” post: the homosexual who is into prepubescent boys, who are indeed not mature enough for sex, is not at all similar to the man who had sex with a hot female teenager (not “child”) with curves and boobs, who was mature enough to seduce him into bed and ride him to a climax.

                  They’ve been looking hard enough for men who inappropriately touch little girls. They invariably find homosexuals who bugger prepubescent boys, or alpha males with adult female pre-selection who woke up happily to a big surprise.

                  >Women between the ages at which they start and finish developing are derpy looking

                  Some female teenagers, e.g. 13-year-olds, aren’t particularly hot, but plenty of them are very hot. You should do something about your erectile dysfunction.

                  >family men would not tap that

                  Family men, like Jim and unlike you, are regular men, and regular men would bang every fertile female if they could minus immediate kin; moreover, many men used to *become* family men by acquiring teenage brides, often *after* the sex has already occurred.

                  >and men who would are kept away instinctively by their family.

                  Which cannot work out for long, because fertile women have volcanic sex drives, and would crawl nine miles over broken glass to seduce the closest alpha demon around.

                  >The word homosexual is an anti-concept

                  No, it is a pretty accurate descriptor of those gays who don’t experience boners or any kind of sexual excitation when they see naked women, but do get boners and do feel sexual excitation when they see men.

                  >designed to protect pederasts and child molesters.

                  Repeating enemy terminology time and again won’t make it any more acceptable.

                  >There are no heterosexual women in the sense of being attracted to all men.

                  We are not discussing female sexuality here; this is yet another attempt on your part to distract the conversation to a different topic, this time lesbians and bisexual women. This is not about lesbians and bisexuals. We are talking here about *gay male homosexuals*, whose very biological existence you constantly deny, which is quite weird.

                  >Men are heterosexual in the sense of being attracted to all women.

                  Yes, except for those 2% or so who are homosexuals. (They say it’s 5%, but I don’t believe their propaganda)

                  >Women are tumblrina-orientation sapiosexual, attracted to men they consider intelligent, which is to say, men they respect.

                  Translation: “I am a diseased queer degenerate and my girlfriend is also a diseased queer degenerate, and together we make for a diseased queer degenerate couple; hey wanna listen to my valuable opinions??? xDDD.” Nope.

                  >The only people who ever approved of pederasts and child molesters are Jewish entertainers

                  See, that’s the primary reason I called myself what I called myself: it is inevitable that you’ll start doing the old school “Men from another tribe make the women of my tribe misbehave! Our women are naturally chaste and pure, and would remain chaste and pure were it not for the evil kikes who use mind control rays to corrupt them.” We’ve heard it all before on /pol/ and elsewhere.

                  Nah, your women are not naturally chaste and pure. Far from it. And your stubborn state of denial about that is the definition of the blue pill. It’s Victorianism all over again, and First Wave Feminism all over again. At any rate, excessively worrying about Whorrywood is a waste of time and a distraction. Whorrywood’s Whorrywood.

                  >If Jimism is compatible with advocacy for not just decriminalization but acceptance of child molester and pederast porn

                  Jimianity is perfectly, fully compatible with there being unperturbed online access to self-produced erotic videos featuring horny females with wet pussies who moan in orgasm, which is what 99% of CP is. As for the gay stuff, that simply goes under the “Gay Problem” category, which is a separate topic, and as for the rare and unappealing gore-like content, that similarly goes under the gore category. Jimianity is decidedly *not* compatible with any attempt to protect the sanctity of innocent pixels and innocent decibels.

                  You fail to instinctively internalize the Jimian mindset. Punishing men for sinister pixels is incompatible with, is against the spirit of, the Jimian mindset. The Jimian mindset is that female sexual misbehavior needs to be stopped, whereas male sexuality has been degraded and humiliated enough by sanctimonious joykillers, starting with the Society for the Prevention of Vice and the ever-rising AoC, and should cease being degraded and humiliated.

                  No, men should not be penalized for goddamn pixels. The FBI’s war against male sexuality is historically unprecedented; even during the late 19th century, the AoC — itself an absurd concept — in the US ranged from 7 to 12. In many countries worldwide it didn’t exist at all. And, needless to say, the TFR was high enough (albeit in decline due to reasons explained at length right in this blog), and people got along just fine. But then Puritanism happened… and here we are.

                  >then Jimism will not be acceptable to this next generation of family men

                  You don’t speak for “family men,” degenerate. Furthermore, Jim has already written in “The Optics of Noticing” that what matters is speaking the truth about the real world, as politically incorrect as that truth happens to be, and not sucking up to the cultural hegemony of the blue pill. I know that it hurts you that the cultural hegemony of the blue pill fails to perpetuate itself on this blog, but your opinion is irrelevant.

                  Telling your opponent, “Your views are just NOT ACCEPTABLE,” makes you sound like the SJW you have always been.

                  Imprisoning or emasculating men for eye-olence is incompatible with the Jimian mindset; taking sexual interest in sexual entities belonging to the opposite sex is not perverted. The reason you deny concrete biological reality is that you are a biological deviant – but sadly there are many such cases nowadays. You talk like a fag, and think like one too. Your lizard brain malfunctions.

                  >Pederasts and child molesters will be thrown off roofs.

                  You are using false categories concocted by the enemy, again. At this rate, if that’s all you can come up with, don’t be surprised when your fellow blue-pillers hit the floor. You don’t grasp Reaction 101 because you don’t want to. You keep using misnomers, deliberately, and it’s making the exchange of ideas difficult for everyone; consider giving due respect to reactionary shibboleths.

                  >the last thing Jim needs is this kind of normie-scaring drama

                  The last thing Jim needs is the blue pill. You don’t represent “normal people.” You’re just a tiny little girly cuck who believes very delusional things about the world because he has feminine thought-patterns and feminine emotions. The drama continues because you keep spreading the blue pill, much as CR’s drama will continue as long as he persists in peddling Marxism. Your blue pilled worldview has even fewer fans here than CR’s.

                  >Having developed the terminology, this discussion can now be terminated and I would prefer if it was also deleted.

                  Yes, it pains you that you cannot just “Oy vey, the red pillers know – shut it down,” but that’s life for ya. You’ve been shutting us down since 1890, and now’s the time for a Dark Enlightenment to counter your perennial falsehoods.

                  >Normal men do not have fetishes, period, end of discussion.

                  “Fetish” is an academic Jewish Cultural Marxist shibboleth. Men are attracted to females with secondary sexual characteristics and indicators of fertility, i.e., boobs, curves, wide hips, pubic hair, etc. Failure to be attracted to females who exhibit signs of fertility is aberration. Your sexuality is aberrant and sick.

                  >However, traditional marriage will be explained as a kinky new fetish for couples to try out initially.

                  I don’t know what “kinky fetish” is, because I am not immersed in Cultural Marxism and don’t talk like a flamer. I know that attraction to females who exhibit signs of fertility is perfectly normal and natural, is the definition of healthy heterosexuality, and that men who fail to get a boner when they see a hot young chick are deviants, much as homosexuals are deviants.

                  >Repent or be damned before the Lᴏʀᴅ, not me.

                  I am not the one who committed endless blasphemy all over this blog. Do I need to link, all over again, to your “rich history” of anti-Christian posts, faggot? The damnation is all yours.

                  >Fortunately Jim’s actual insights

                  Jim’s insights are excellent, and the most on-point of all is his “holiness spiral” theory, which explains why people like you behave as they do.

                  >pederasts who like to shove pederast porn in people’s faces

                  Somehow I manage to avoid seeing gay porn everywhere. If you see gay porn everywhere, perhaps you should get your mind out of the vile and filthy gutter.

                • peppermint says:

                  > If you see gay porn everywhere, perhaps you should get your mind out of the vile and filthy gutter.

                  Yes, that’s exactly the next step I outlined. After declaring that Morty never got almost raped in Rick and Morty, and worse, declare that I’m the only one who saw what I saw, or watches gay shows like Rick and Morty.

                  Not this time, jewish pedophile.

                • peppermint says:

                  >> /b/ mods were right to get rid of creepy porn
                  > creepy porn doesn’t exist
                  >> tumblr mods are lying about their motives for killing all the rape, impregnation, wmaf and other raceplay, cuckqueaning, and other tumblrina porn on tumblr
                  > no as they said they were getting rid of creepy porn that never existed there

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Your type of argumentation doesn’t go anywhere. You’re not making sense, you’re not even trying to make sense, and the deeper you dig that hole you’re in, the harder will it be for you to climb out therefrom.

                  Stick to telling jokes about non-sexual issues and people will tolerate your bullshit. Nah, too late. Kill yourself, degenerate.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Not this time

                  Nobody cares about your shows and nobody cares about what you see on the chans. Your contribution to NRx has been to show us what *not* to think about sexuality, in the same way that X’s contribution to NRx has been to show us what not to think about 9/11 and CR’s contribution to NRx has been to to show us what not to think about economics.

                  We owe the 3 of you many thanks indeed.

            • pdimov says:

              For Google, see https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e and observe how literally all Google products just happen to be very useful for intelligence gathering.

              • peppermint says:

                (historical note: in the early 21st century, it was common to distinguish the CIA from the left coast academics, so it’s expected to be a rhetorixal surprise for pdimov to conflate them)

      • jim says:

        In any case, regardless of whether capitalism is a good idea or not, those who are against capitalism tend to be on the side of our enemies, and, in the case of anticapitalist Roman Catholics, also on the side of the enemies of Christianity, family, and moral conduct. As we approach the left singularity, the line up gets simpler, with all the complicated shades of gray turning black and white.

        The man who the day before yesterday wanted gays to not be beaten up, yesterday wanted them to be treated with dignity, today wants your seven year old son to wear a dress and sit on the knee of a transexual, tomorrow will chop your son’s testicles off with a knife, and the day after tomorrow, with a blowtorch.

        The man with a supposedly complicated and nuanced position on capitalism, will also have a complicated and nuanced position on abortion, wifely submission, gay sex, and all the rest, and as we approach the left singularity, his position rapidly becomes less complicated and less nuanced.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          “regardless of whether capitalism is a good idea or not, those who are against capitalism tend to be on the side of our enemies”

          Do you have anyone particular in mind? The only examples I can think of are environmentalists, but with a moment’s thought it’s clear that siding with the environment ought to be a large part OF our side.
          (Actually at this point I should say ‘our’ side.)

          There is, however, an embarrassment of examples of the opposite: people who either speak for, or themselves practice, capitalism but who are emphatically against us. Not just George Soros by any stretch of the imagination. I’m talking about Bill Gates. I’m talking about Mike Ashley. I’m talking about Phillip Green. I’m talking about Alan Sugar.

          I’m even talking about Peter Schiff: “what about the housekeepers! we need our illegals, goyim!”

          • jim says:

            > > “regardless of whether capitalism is a good idea or not, those who are against capitalism tend to be on the side of our enemies”

            > Do you have anyone particular in mind?

            Obviously I was thinking of the supposedly right wing anti capitalist Roman Catholic blogger that was linked to. He was theoretically anti abortion and pro family, but failed to recognize that abortion is part of female rebellion, failed to recognize that families are destroyed by female rebellion not shiftless men, failed to recognize that gays are a threat to children and threat to male cohesion. Theoretically anti abortion, but blames it on evil doctors and men abandoning women, not on women shit testing their husbands and lovers, and preserving their hope of a second booty call from Jeremy Meeks as their eggs start to dry up. He is not even theoretically against gays, or gay priests sodomizing each other and the children of churchgoers, not even theoretically against women practicing serial monogamy.

            But now that you have chimed in, I would add you to the list. The supposedly right wing Roman Catholic blogger is on the side of enemies of the family, including gay priests, women practicing serial monogamy, and women waiting for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks. You are worse, you are on the side of your fellow academics, blaming the white working class, the yellow jackets of the french riots, for the sufferings that academia is inflicting on them. You think they should not have gasoline and cars, and should live in housing projects in the big cities, and the yellow jackets think they should live in the countryside and have cars and gasoline.

            Most yellow jackets, like most capitalists, are on our side. The yellow jackets are rioting because you want to take their cars and fuel away from them, and make them live in small apartments in the big cities where they can be outvoted by the new people. They are rioting in favor of what capitalism has supplied them with, and against your efforts to take it away from them.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [Deleted]

              • jim says:

                Whenever you tell us what other people think, it is usually the opposite of what they think. I am not going to debate with you on what Trump’s economic position really is. Even less am I going to debate with you on what Hillary Clinton’s economic position really is. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the Transpacific Partnership are profoundly, virulently, and passionately hostile to capitalism, and Trump is profoundly supportive of capitalism, and I am just going to censor claims to the contrary without debate or argument.

                If you present an evidence based argument that Obama, the TPP, et al are pro capitalist, rather than glibly claiming it, I will allow it through and debate it, but glibly asserting it and presupposing it is just going to be censored.

                The claim that the Transpacific Partnership etc is capitalism, free trade, and free markets is part of the Marxist theory that capitalism is centrally planned economy where the central planners are evil capitalist overlords.

                Anyone claiming that the Transpacific Partnership etc is capitalism, free trade, and free markets is and was Marxist. And, in particular, Obama is and was Marxist and Alinskyite, and the Transpacific Partnership was Alinksyite Marxism and was, like Catastrophic Antropogenic Global Warmism, aimed at the destruction of capitalism.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its also a very very insidious thing to claim things like the TTP are capitalist in nature. They are designed to appear capitalists but they will have the same lousy economic results as socialism because they are socialistic (the TPP being EU style regulatory socialism rather then outright explicit central planning).

                  So capitalism is to be blamed by the Cathedral when they fail and this will be accepted by the less intelligent and politically aware members of the public, and the solution will be more socialism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I persist only because every time you do THAT, you look like an utter, utter cunt.

                  Anyone with eyes to see can see it is YOU who tells others what they think, responding to claims that Franky&Benny ought to be closed down with “that’s Marxian Class Theory and you want to regulate the economy”.

                  Anyone with eyes to see can see that you are a lying, cheating piece of vermin with an agenda, and anyone with eyes to see can see that your agenda is to stop the goyim from going after the billionaires who lobby government for immigration and poz.

                • jim says:

                  If I allowed half your stuff through, my comments section would be all Marxism all the time, just as if I allowed troofism through, it would be all troofism all the time.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                [deleted]

                • jim says:

                  Present evidence for your claims, not just assertions, and I will allow them through.

                  I say the Trans Pacific Partnership was Marxist ideology and hostility to capitalism, reflected Obama’s Marxism, that it attempted to impose on the world an economy centrally planned by globalists. You say – well, I am not at all clear what you are saying, because what you mean by capitalism is so different from what I mean by capitalism that it is hard to understand you, but you are telling me that the authors of the Trans Pacific Partnership believed in what you consider capitalism to be – that they expressed an ideology, a program.

                  Can you link to a document where they say so, where they actually tell us that their program is intended to give effect to a belief system, and what that belief system is? Don’t tell us what they say. Link us to them saying it.

                  Since it seems obvious to me that the belief system that they were giving effect to was Marxism, I would expect them to be absolutely opaque about their belief system, in which case we could argue deeds not words – the main deed being the creation of hundreds of tonnes of documents with a striking resemblance to the Soviet Central plan, documents that took entirely for granted that it was the business of government to tell people what to do with stuff, in excruciatingly minute detail.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Since you raised the matter of the yellow jackets, let’s examine it.

              “You are worse, you are on the side of your fellow academics, blaming the white working class, the yellow jackets of the french riots, for the sufferings that academia is inflicting on them. You think they should not have gasoline and cars, and should live in housing projects in the big cities, and the yellow jackets think they should live in the countryside and have cars and gasoline.”

              This is slanderous but it’s not entirely wrong.

              The yellow jackets think that, since the economy’s structured in such a way that they have to commute to a place of work, they ought not be punished through the tax code in order to transfer wealth to idiots pretending to care about the environment.

              If you asked one, he’d probably say he’s protesting the unjust tax, and that’s fair enough. It’s not his job to intellectualise or to understand the antecedents of the situation. He’s worth a thousand intellectuals.

              People like me, enemies of capitalism, don’t want the yellow jackets to subsidise the pretend greens in academia. We want the economy NOT to demand of the yellow jackets that they commute to a place of work. We want the economy to serve the yellow jackets, not the other way round, and yes part of that is good for the environment as well: the idea of having long distance commuters burning finite fuels in pursuit of the balance sheets of billionaires is obnoxious to us.
              The economy is not some abstract God to be placed before the people of a nation: it’s a tool to SERVE the people of a nation.

              The yellow jackets should be able to live in the country and work where they live, and where they *choose* to commute to cities, this should be done cheaply – or better, free to them – and in such a way that it doesn’t require anyone to spend hours burning finite fuels for no good reason.

              “Most yellow jackets, like most capitalists, are on our side. The yellow jackets are rioting because you want to take their cars and fuel away from them, and make them live in small apartments in the big cities where they can be outvoted by the new people. They are rioting in favor of what capitalism has supplied them with, and against your efforts to take it away from them.”

              On the contrary it is people exactly like YOU who want to treat human beings as production units.
              The nation is all well and good to people like you, so long as it accords with the interests of the bottom line.

              • jim says:

                But “not commuting to a place of work” in a not very capitalist economy sounds awfully like living in a big urban housing project built in the style of Brasilia or the British housing projects, and I am pretty sure that in the end either those who want the yellow jackets to live in big housing projects are going to kill the yellow jackets, or the yellow jackets are going to kill them.

                Bottom line is that you think you know better than the yellow jackets what they ought to want, and they rather violently disagree.

                What they want is oil, and you think they should not want oil, that them wanting oil is the result of evil mind rays emitted by evil capitalists.

              • peppermint says:

                > We want the economy NOT to demand of the yellow jackets that they commute to a place of work.

                The economy didn’t make the building a ten minute walk from the factory unlivable. You did. It was treason and when you’re put on trial you’ll claim you weren’t smart enough to understand what you were doing, as you now claim we’re not smart enough to understand what you were doing.

              • peppermint says:

                https://youtu.be/nYLiBEgLOYE

                CR, does this remind you of anyone?

              • peppermint says:

                Think about your great grandfather. Who did he hang out with? What did they want out of life?

                Actually that might not even be far back enough. My great grandfather was kind of a sanctimonious traitor, like you.

  14. BC says:

    Jim, what do you think about this?

    The Lincoln Option:
    https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=15705#comments

    • jim says:

      An accurate analysis, the money shot being:

      Trump has taken the advice of his enemies.

      The conspiratorially minded think the “deep state” has something on him so he is being forced to go along with their agenda. That’s an entertaining theory, but the so-called deep-state has shown itself to be all thumbs when trying to pull off the simplest of capers. The real reason behind his failure thus far is Trump, at heart, still believes in old America, a system of laws and rules where eventually the truth rises to the surface. Trump’s “assault” on the swamp is actually a defense of that old dead American ideal.

      Needs to take our advice, because our advice on politics, like our advice on women, is based on clear eyed observation.

      • The Cominator says:

        Trump’s double agent Comey (and I’m fairly convinced that what he is) is testifying soon, I actually would have liked for it to be public.

        He has a more loyal acting AG now (the worst thing he did was keep Sessions around so long and Q enraged me for this reason, Sessions was so obviously a traitor the Awan case proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt that the stealth Jeff crap was crap)… we’ll see what happens. Whenever Comey talks its bad for the Democrats.

    • Neurotoxin says:

      But man, the commenters at that zman post are such a bunch of black-pill defeat-troll little bitches! The worst I’ve ever seen.

  15. vxxc says:

    A Wall and *An Attitude*: NJ AG puts up bars to State Law Enforcement working with ICE, so ICE vows massive raids in NJ.

    The NJ cops will quite cheer the ICE raids.

    ICE wouldn’t do this without a President who backs them.

    https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/state-bars-cops-from-assisting-ice-so-ice-vows-to-launch-massive-raids-dqJaVPR1V0uqQjNayPUT1g/?utm_source=MailChimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=BlueLivesDailyNewsletter

    • Neurotoxin says:

      Wow, that ICE thing is excellent. And you’re right; they wouldn’t do this with a President who wasn’t serious about the immigration issue.

  16. Neurotoxion says:

    Notice the incongruity between the tenor of the comments at the zman post, versus ICE saying to New Jersey, “BOHICA.”

  17. moldbug. says:

    Jim, do you have any new posts in the works?

  18. PBW says:

    What does Handle think of the Flynn endgame? Seems they knew they had jack squat on him and he provided info on the Turkey lobbying and network of assets Erdogan has here as Deep State wants Turkey to lose the sovereignty they’ve been gaining recently.

  19. peppermint says:

    What comes after accepting pedos is “the people who hate pedos are the real pedos”. The normies get confused, give up, and try to ignore the issue while doing their best to protect their own. Social climbers invade the high status pedo identity (status is accrued by shoving evil porn in people’s faces and demanding their acceptance).

    • jewish pedophile says:

      “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

      I understand that it *hurts* you that your lame ass effeminacy is called out for what it is. It’s painful, and emotionally taxing, to be told, “You think like woman, not like a man.” You’ll get over it, one day.

      • peppermint says:

        You either think like a Chinese pussy farmer or something worse.

      • peppermint says:

        Here’s the problem: what you pretend doesn’t exist, I refuse to link to, because then I would be the one shoving it in people’s faces. That’s how the whole homophobes secretly like shoving it in people’s faces exactly like faggots thing started the first time.

        I think we’re smart enough here not to have a farcical rerun.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          I don’t pretend anything. I said: 99% of what is called CP is horny girls with wet pussies panting for a ravishing. Yes, there’s the other 1%, which is a separate topic, no matter how much you try to conflate them.

          You keep talking like a fag, btw. “Homophobes”? I don’t know what that is. Sounds like something a homosexual would come up with.

          • peppermint says:

            The reason you call yourself jewish pedophile is you argue like a jew in favor of ingrouping pedophiles.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              Do I need to list all the Talmudic shticks you’ve unsuccessfully attempted against me? The only one arguing in a disingenuous manner is you.

              I call myself a pedophile in this discussion because I reject the accusation leveled against people like Jim, that they are “pedophiles”; I do it by way of mockery. I’m obviously not a pedophile, Jim is obviously not a pedophile, and “pedophilia” is rectification of names and an anti-concept.

              Your kind out-group normal men, calling them “pedos.” Then out-group us, faggot. Let’s see where that gets you.

            • StoneMan says:

              Men who fuck young women who want to be fucked aren’t child rapists. Womanhood isn’t something that magically happens when you graduate high school or turn 18, and your obtuseness on this issue is bizarre.

              • peppermint says:

                Men who fuck young women are probably college men at parties. Womanhood develops gradually from the time the Westermarck effect stops triggering to some point from 17 to 22.

                Men who seek opportunities to fuck young women are Chinese pussy farmers. Everyone knows it’s easy when you’re competing with high school boys and doesn’t do it because fully developed women are hotter.

                There is the occasional 15 year old who looks fully developed.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  We’ve already been through this. This is spammy repetition, requiring me to reiterate the rebuttal all over again.

                  Women become sexually attractive when they develop secondary sexual characteristics. These SSCs begin to manifest between 11 and 14. Women become *lustful* sometimes before that, around 8 or 9. That’s the “shocking thing” that Jim says, and he is correct.

                  That doesn’t mean that 13-year-olds are as sexy and hot as 23-year-olds. But there are plenty of them who are way hot. They give normal men (“pedophiles”) boners, if their boobs and curves are developed enough, which they often are.

                  Now, as white knights always do, you will go on a Gender Studies-tier tirade about “maturity.” It has already been explained that female teenagers are more mature than male teenagers, and that at 13-year-old they are already well ready — at least in many cases — for sex. Which means that, given their volcanic sex drives, they need to be married off.

                  As for male attraction to them, again: if they have boobs, curves, asses, high (enough) waist-to-hip ratios, pubic hair, etc., they will elicit boners. Men who aren’t girly cuck-faggots *will* play ball. Which is normal and natural – but we want virgin brides, hence young marriage and shotgun marriage.

                  Every time you issue spammy repetitions of the blue pill, I’ll rebut you. We’ve had enough of the blue pill. We get the blue pill from all directions all day long. On Jim’s blog, the red pill should reign supreme.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, women become lustful before they become hot. In fact, some bitter older women write and draw porn of girls at the last age at which they got equal attention.

                  > if they have boobs, curves, asses, high (enough) waist-to-hip ratios, pubic hair, etc., they will elicit boners

                  Incorrect. Women who are “past puberty”, as defined by the Westermarck effect, are capable of eliciting boners, regardless of how plain looking. These characteristics develop slowly at different times.

                  > Men who aren’t girly cuck-faggots *will* play ball.

                  Incorrect. Men who follow the alpha strategy will not give attention to low-quality women. In the hypothetical where a man is alpha enough for her to sneak into his bed, he probably has a good reason not to make her his mistress and then have to support her and her baby, or she would be demanding to be his wife instead.

                  Lords shouldn’t fuck barely nubile peasants when there are hot peasants who want to marry them. Homeowners shouldn’t because they should have peasant wives. Day laborers and quasicriminals are kept away as much as possible by the young woman’s family for precisely this reason.

                • peppermint says:

                  > how do you know how the Westermarck effect triggers

                  I don’t. I only know that there were these two young women I knew who were best friends, one a year behind the other, and while I had been gauging the older one against the other women in the school, when the younger one hit on me I completely ignored it, unable to see her that way.

                  > then how do you know she was hitting on you

                  In the end, she asked me out point blank.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  We are familiar with blue pill doctrine. We are familiar with the tactics white knights use to tell men that they are “perverts,” etc. You are quite unintelligent and uncreative, even by white knight standards.

                  Heterosexual men who possess healthy testosterone levels would bang every fertile female if they could, minus immediate kin. Trying to humiliate them about it is pointless. When there are curves and boobs, men will get horny, experience an erection, and try to get their dicks wet. At first, at age 11 or so, not very horny, not a very strong erection, only somewhat and occasionally. But by age 13, many female teenagers become way hot.

                  Men *do* play ball, even in the crazy current year, even under Puritanism Feminism. Come the restoration, men will *continue* to play ball, but much more within the context of marriage.

                • peppermint says:

                  Where I come from people have a thing called a “wife”, and make no attempt to use any other sexbot for reproducing, much less a sexbot that isn’t fully developed. If they don’t have a “wife”, they are even more cautious around sexbots, since using a sexbot makes it yours, unless it’s known to be a public use sexbot.

                  You’re not going to convince me that the pioneers were #yolo #swaggins Chinese pussy farmers.

                  I move that any N-counts accrued from condom sex be disqualified because that isn’t even sex, it’s mutual masturbation that doesn’t even carry a promise of future sex.

                • jim says:

                  > Where I come from people have a thing called a “wife”,

                  No they don’t. Marriage in the sense that used to be known has been illegal for some time, and most people comply with the law.

                  > and make no attempt to use any other sexbot for reproducing,

                  When spinning plates is legal for men, and serial monogamy legal for women, women will engage in serial monogamy until their eggs start to dry up around thirty or so leaving men with no alternative but spinning plates.

                  If a man is not spinning plates, juggling multiple girls, it is because he cannot. That considerably more girls report having boyfriends than boys report having girlfriends indicates that on average, boys with girlfriends have substantially more than one girlfriend.

                  The war of the sexes is on, and if you unilaterally surrender, you lose.

                • peppermint says:

                  Why do you hide your daughters when the outlaws / day laborers come to town?

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  You are making increasingly bizarre statements here, in addition to the regular mischaracterizations of my own position. I’m not going to respond to every weird argument you put forth. Consider taking the blue pill to “Peppermint Frosted” on WordPress.

                • peppermint says:

                  If you think the attitudes of traditional marriage are bizarre, you need to murk loar, kys, or forever be an outcast.

                  The question that you need to ask is “what would Hank Hill do?”

                  Virgin marriage out of high school used to be a norm, and that norm translated into the “lesbians until graduation” legend about college girls (I have no idea if it was actually a thing, but people thought it might have been a thing, meaning there were social norms according to which it could have been a thing).

                  Teaching middle school girls to put a condom on a banana evolved from teaching high school girls that in a bizarre attempt at preventing teen pregnancy instead of simply marrying the young couple and being done with it, because bluepillers like you who believe in radical individualism believed that the woman’s education was important for radical individualist spiritual reasons.

                  Radical individualism is spiritually dead, but attitudes appropriate to it remain. If we are to restore this country we must confront those attitudes and replace them with traditional attitudes.

                • peppermint says:

                  * could have been expected to be a thing

                  I believe that an unowned sexbot in a room alone with a normal-acting adult will follow its programming, and being sent to college to to sexbot is like having its ownership relinquished.

                • StoneMan says:

                  Instead of demonizing men for their attraction to young women, marry off the young women. Villifying men does not stop teenage girls from banging, policing men does not stop teenage girls from banging, attributing innocence to teenage girls does not stop teenage girls from banging.

                  How is it possible for someone to spend years on Jim’s blog and still not get this?

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >If you think the attitudes of traditional marriage are bizarre

                  I think that you are the last person here to know a damn thing about traditional marriage. I’d rather listen to any commenter here about traditional marriage, even to Glenfilthy, than to you.

                  >bluepillers like you who believe in radical individualism believed that the woman’s education was important

                  I’m the one who wrote that post about abolishing the Prussian School System. You know that.

                  Your chicanery is a thing to behold.

                  Do you honestly think that after telling lie after lie about your interlocutor’s position here, anyone will be able to take you seriously ever again? You jumped the shark two threads ago, and by doubling down on the Talmudism, you won’t convince the audience that your position is correct – just the opposite.

                • peppermint says:

                  …and now we’re back to the beginning.

                  Post puberty females are capable of eliciting erections and only radical induhvidualists trying to explain why sex with them should not be performed under the rubric that consensual sex is good attempt to deny it.

                  Between puberty and full development a woman is markedly less hot than she may become.

                  Therefore it is in the alpha’s interests not to choose before full development.

                  Time to abandon radical induhvidualism yourself instead of arguing as if I’m arguing from that perspective.

                • peppermint says:

                  If you are paying the same amount either way, would you buy a rocket on the ground or one already in space?

                • StoneMan says:

                  Rockets don’t launch themselves. Teenage girls do.

                • peppermint says:

                  I mean, I grew up expecting to spin plates and spun plates. How do we get from here to where we want to be?

                  Unilateral, individual surrender is mgtow and useless.
                  Unilateral, collective surrender means our best women go to the muds whose peacocking is government-backed.
                  Fighting this war by spinning plates means each White man wants to be surrounded by muds so any crockery he comes across is his. This socially isolates left-leaning men.

                  However,

                  The alt-right is the best of White men
                  The best of White men deserve the best of sexbots
                  Sexbots are attracted to men with solid friends

                  We need to develop institutions of White solidarity on the terms that other White mens’ property is off limits, to make spinning plates for fun a.k.a. whoring what you do to outgroup women, and sabotage thottery and encourage reproduction wherever possible.

                  Once we develop the will to develop those institutions, there are still places where the old culture remains partly intact, and we are all born with the old culture’s aesthetic sense.

                  It hasn’t been 20 years since it was normal (how usual, I don’t have data, but it was considered normal either way) for women to go through high school without having sex. Many did in their last year and the ones who snagged a college man bragged endlessly.

                • jim says:

                  > We need to develop institutions of White solidarity on the terms that other White mens’ property is off limit

                  They will just bang blacks.

                  Imposing a property right in our women on our fellow white males is meaningless absent the will to impose our property right in women on our women.

                  It is like Peta telling the farmer “Oh no, we totally support you fencing in every cattle rustler everywhere and every wolf every where – we just oppose you fencing in your cattle.

                  We have already gone a thousand times too far in attempting to restrict male bad behavior, which is causing testosterone to plummet. This just makes women work harder to find bad males, and increases the rewards for bad behavior among the remaining bad males.

                  What you are saying is like telling the farmer “don’t build a chicken coop. Instead you should make the entire world safe for wandering chickens.”

                  When eight year old girls are allowed to attend an Ariana Grande concert unaccompanied, it is insane to worry about “pedophiles”. Most of them are there to get nailed, and those that are not are being told from the stage that this is a really good idea and that whoring is a high status and well remunerated profession. They will find someone to nail them, probably a black Muslim, since in practice blacks males and brown male Muslims are not subject to the restrictions applied to white males, and Muslims tend to have adult female preselection. Worry about eight year old girls out of control. If you are lucky, instead of finding a brown male Muslim, they will find a white Hell’s angel ice dealer and gang leader. Don’t let your girlfriend take a trip out of town unaccompanied, and don’t let your eight year old daughter attend an Ariana Grande concert unaccompanied. If you have been to any major international tourist hangout, you will know what tourist chicks do when out of sight of friends and family. And if there are not enough affluent young handsome white male tourists, they will make do with what they can get. There are male sex tourism centers, and female sex tourism centers. Less bars, more beach parties. Eight year old girls should not be attending an Ariana Grande concert unaccompanied by older male relatives in authority over them, and white girls should not be doing tourism unaccompanied by a male in authority over them.

                • peppermint says:

                  Heimbach is of course not the first leader whose subordinate’s wife offered herself to him. We need to make sure our groups don’t get collapsed by thottery.

                • Joe says:

                  peppermint writes:

                  Quack quack quack.

                  Quack quack quack quack.

                  Quack quack quack.

                  Quack quack quack quack.

                  Quack quack quack.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Therefore it is in the alpha’s interests not to choose before full development.

                  Stalin was by far more alpha than you, and fucked women aged 13-16.

                  It’s in the interest of society that white knights will hang, and that their worldview — which is always on the lookout for pretexts to punish men for female misbehavior — be discredited.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Also,

                  >Therefore it is in the alpha’s interests not to choose before full development.

                  Faggot. Do you realize that women grow up? That 15-year-olds, after a few years (specifically: 5 years) become 20-year-olds? Has the idea occurred to you, or do you only think about the immediate one night stand, like a nigger?

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, Stalin was more alpha than me.

                  Which means that because sometimes it’s possible for certain men to extract sex with virtually no attention given, every man should make every attempt to steal anything that isn’t nailed down.

                  Earlier you promoted the use of condoms to facilitate boning as many chicks as possible and/or early “marriage” (betrothal!) for men.

                  What if we told the sexbots that use condoms religiously that they’re progressive nuns and women remain virgins until they get microchimerism?

                • jim says:

                  > Which means that because sometimes it’s possible for certain men to extract sex with virtually no attention given, every man should make every attempt to steal anything that isn’t nailed down.

                  Your television set it not going to crawl nine miles over broken glass looking for someone who can steal it.

                  We focus obsessively on male misconduct, with repression against male misconduct reaching insane levels, because we are not allowed to do anything about female misconduct.

                  If your are not allowed to restrain your wife without being arrested, nor your daughter without her being abducted by disgusting sexual perverts from child protective services, then they don’t belong to you, and it is open season on them.

                  If a farmer does not have a fence around his cattle, if he is not allowed to have a fence around his cattle, then he does not own those cattle, and when I find his cows wandering on my land, they are mine.

                  Of course, if farmers are not allowed to put a fence around their cattle and their crops, pretty soon we are going to have a mysterious shortage of food, just as we now have a mysterious shortage of children and intact families.

                • peppermint says:

                  The fact that they become 19-22 means you can ignore them and choose a 19-22 that you know for sure what she’s going to look like at 19-22, and bonus, she’s ready at day one, instead of you being responsible for her and her not being ready to do anything for you.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  I never promoted condoms. I said that historically, contraception — without specifying which kind of contraception — has always been available in one form or other.

                  When there are signs of fertility, men (who aren’t deviants) *will* play ball. Jimianity proposes to regulate that via early marriage. Seems like the best solution, which only white knights like you resist.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  13-year-olds are often enough ready to go since day 0.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Also, Stacies usually remain Stacies throughout their lives, from 12 until the wall at 35.

                • peppermint says:

                  > but by that logic you’re cucking out by not picking a random 19 year old hottie right now

                  Yes, I’m a hypocrite and a cuck.

                • peppermint says:

                  > 13-year-olds are often enough ready to go since day 0

                  Do you remember the contrast between the 8th grade girls and the substitute teachers? Do you recognize that contrast is your hindbrain evaluating their relative fertility, and implying to you that a 13 year old should be a low priority target for insemination?

                • jim says:

                  1. Not all thirteen year old girls are low priority targets for insemination. Any young female with substantial boobs is ovulating, therefore any female with substantial boobs is likely to be at least somewhat fertile, even though maximum fertility is generally around twenty four, and near maximum fertility is not generally achieved till sixteen or seventeen – hence sixteen and seventeen year olds are generally quite close to their maximum hotness, even though not quite there yet.

                  2. When you were fourteen, you hungered to inseminate anything fertile now, partially fertile now, or looking like she was likely to become fertile in the near future, and if you remember things differently, you are deluded.

                  3. Looks do not entirely track current fertility – they track expected future fertility. Thus women hit the wall while still fertile, but when they have only time for about one child left, thus white women hit the wall at thirty, shortly before fertility collapses, and conversely, chicks start getting hot when they are about to be fertile, before they are actually fertile. When a woman is in her early thirties you are happy to have her spend the night, and in the evening she looked hot, but the morning after, apt to throw her out in the hope of a replacement with a longer shelf life, a replacement whose use-by date is further off. The morning after, you get the reverse of wife goggles. In the morning the thirty two year old woman looks forty five, and you think “I banged that!”. You kick her out swiftly, and only send her a follow up text as precaution against rape charges. The younger the chick, the hotter she looks the morning after. That is your penis telling you “That one was near her use by date, but this one is a keeper!”.

                • peppermint says:

                  You keep saying men will play ball, as if the only things in the universe are the man and the nubiles. That is why I keep calling you a radical induhvidualist and a single-playing Chinese pussy farmer.

                  One reason we can’t punish men for playing ball is punishing a lord for what a quasicriminal can get away with means the quasicriminal is the lord now. Another reason is it’s easier to lock up what is valuable than everything that isn’t.

                  For the same radical induhvidualist reason that it implied condom on a banana class, that implies to you contraception.

                  Do you understand that radical induhvidualism is dead?

                • peppermint says:

                  How can people recognize that Trump or Christ is king when the closest thing to a king they’ve ever heard of is a dictator with lots of secret police and maybe a utopian ideology?

                  How can people who grew up with marriages collapsing all around them expecting to spin plates as seen on TV figure out what the terms are to a normal marriage?

                  Restoring nationalism was the easy part.

                • peppermint says:

                  I remember the girls gradually getting more attractive than the teachers in high school, all the boys are interested in the girls.

                  Late in high school, one of the boys said he was a homosexual, so, being as he was a homosexual so it wasn’t cheating on their boyfriends, he got two of the girls to watch him demonstrate what the penis does. I don’t know if they actually blew him.

                  Stuff like that is why social climbers pretended to be gay.

                • jim says:

                  > I remember the girls gradually getting more attractive than the teachers in high school

                  Yes, sure, but they were getting mighty attractive mighty soon – as soon as puberty hit you. By and large the teachers were hotter, but some girls considerably younger than yourself were still hot.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >You keep saying men will play ball

                  Because they will, they always have, and even in the crazy current year of barking mad leftism, *they do*. The question then is how to regulate that pro-socially, and the answer to that question is “young marriage, and shotgun marriage.”

                  >Do you understand that radical induhvidualism is dead?

                  I understand that anything that isn’t the blue pill is “radical individualism” for you, in the exact same way and for the exact same reason that commies call non-communism “radical individualism” and nazis call non-nazism “radical individualism.”

                • jim says:

                  > > You keep saying men will play ball

                  > Because they will, they always have

                  Yes

                  Male misconduct is not a problem, in part because repression against male misconduct has reached insane levels, and is escalating to hyperinsane levels, as a displacement activity against everyone’s subconscious and vehemently denied awareness of female misconduct, a level of denial that has become mass insanity. This lunatic level of repression, repression of awareness of what is in front of everyone’s face, and repression of male sexuality, is depressing every male’s testosterone levels and sperm production, though if you consciously recognize it and consciously reject it, this reduces the impact on your testosterone levels a bit.

              • peppermint says:

                What is the word for “Japanese cartoon involving sex acts between sexually mature males and females, where the females may not be culturally ‘of age'”? Trick question, cartoons can only be sexually mature or not. That’s just normal hentai, lolikon is sexually immature females.

                No one even pretended to be outraged over unimpressed mckayla’s under 18 nudes in The Fappening.

      • peppermint says:

        > “think like woman, not like a man”
        > what is the latin meaning of virtue
        > what would honor virtutis premium, or virtutis premium suum est, mean to pre-Christian and post-Christian Romans
        > do women find virtue sexy? if so, in what meaning?

Leave a Reply