Politics played for keeps.

The progressives are signaling that if you are white and male very bad things are going to happen to you. The cuckservatives are starting to signal that if you are a Trump supporter, then when term limits remove Trump, or the next massively rigged election removes Trump, very bad things are going to happen to you. The cuckservatives hope that if they signal hard enough, it is only going to be white male Trump supporters.

Out of one side of their mouths cuckservatives say that it is absurd to suggest that progressives are proposing the extermination or expulsion of white males, and out of the other side of their mouths they say that if you are a Trump supporter, come the end of the Trump era, you are going to pay.

This is not necessarily a good way of removing Trump. Not in 2020, and not in 2024. In the impeachment vote, every Republican voted party line, which is an extraordinary and startling turn around. This is a vote that signals a hope that Democrats will never be allowed to return to power, and an expectation that such a return may well be prevented.

The Republicans, faced with increasingly dire threats from the enemy have united behind Trump. With the threat in front of them that from henceforth politics is going to played for keepsies, they are going with keeping. And Trumpism is increasingly moving to the position “screw the constitution, if we are ever removed from power, the constitution is dead anyway. Lets grab on to power and hang on for our dear lives.”

White males and white Christians cannot continue to win elections, and cannot afford to lose them.

What, you may ask, does Trump expect?

What they don’t know is that we hang it up in five years, or nine years, or thirteen years (pause for cheering) maybe seventeen years …

Well, what is it that the Democrats don’t know? Trump is a very good public speaker. He is not in the habit of losing the thread of his own words.

So either he is going senile, or what they don’t know is that he is preparing a self coup against their color revolution.

The great betrayal is over. America is not for sale. We are more determined than ever to drain the swamp … A lot of bad things happened, and a lot of bad things are going to be revealed.

If the people that sold out America face charges for quid pro quo, not a whole lot of Democrats in the 2020 election. Biden makes a really bad deal for the US, and his son walks away with a truckload of Chinese money. Seems that there have been a whole lot of mysteriously bad deals.

Trump deploys rhetoric that is preparation for an election, and also preparation for civil war.

They want to obliterate the rule of law, drive out faith from the public square, silence you online, confiscate your guns … they want to indoctrinate your children, destroy anyone who has traditional values. All you have to do is ask the Covington boys. The far left wants to impose their authoritarian ideology on the nation telling you what to think, what to believe, and how you should live. They want to erase our traditions, our history, our culture, and our heroes. They want to subjugate you and break you to their will.

Deep State and the failed American ruling class believe it is their right to rule over you and redistribue your wealth all over the world. … Past leaders transformed far away nations into chaotic war zones then they demanded that America take unlimimited immigration from those terror afflicted regions. … We did not fight them over there only to invite them over here.

Democrats have waged an unrelenting assault against people of faith.

Free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms. … Faith and family.

Trump is appealing to tribalism to win the forthcoming civil war, but a tribe needs a faith, and the priesthood is in the hands of our enemies. And when he addresses the Covington boys, he condemns the enemy priesthood.

281 Responses to “Politics played for keeps.”

  1. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    SPLC has launched a campaign to remove Stephen Miller, based on a “review of 900 leaked emails” on the day of DACA case arguments at Supreme Court. This is supposed to take out Miller but it will play very, very well with Trump’s base and reinforce their confidence in Trump (if he keeps Miller in place).

    Apparently Miller had been funneling Steve Sailer and VDare content into Breitbart for several years, including Camp of the Saints references and attacks on the Hart-Celler 1965 immigration act. His emails show him to be every bit the anti-immigration warrior Trump voters had thought, only more so.

    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/11/12/stephen-millers-affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails

  2. The Cominator says:

    We will not have a positive common faith in time for the event. We can perhaps appropriate some slogans from Warhammer 40k…

    My armor is contempt. My shield is disgust. My sword is hatred. In the God-Emperor Trumps name, let no leftist survive deus vult.

    • Not Tom says:

      We will not have a positive common faith in time for the event.

      Not with that attitude, we won’t.

    • jim says:

      > We will not have a positive common faith in time for the event.

      The faith of Gnon includes Marriage 1.0, and that the high death rate among gays and the astonishingly high suicide rate among transsexuals is the wrath Gnon against their evil lifestyle. Pretty sure that as soon as state pressure eases up, the Christians now voting for Trump, which is to say nearly every white Christian, will suddenly discover than Gnon, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit was whom they always worshiped. After all, they are voting for Trump despite the fact that he causes their pastor to melt down.

      • paavo says:

        “…causes their pastor to melt down.”

        Pretty sure Gnon already has them skipping church.

    • DMV GRINGO says:

      “In the God-Emperor Trumps name…”
      Eat a hot round, you cucking faggot.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      > positive common faith in time for the event.

      “The future will look like Hungary, Mexico or South Africa. Choose one.”

  3. paavo says:

    The concept of something as heterogenous as America as a country is incorrect. America is converging with South and Central America — poverty, lack of central governmental authority, high crime, unmaintained border crossings, eugenic fertility from harsh conditions and a lack of welfare/chairty.

    And when America is fully converged with the rest of the Americas, when our enemies are shooting each other in the barrio, playing for keeps won’t be hard.

    We’re in for a new dark ages. Not the Bronze Age Collapse, but the Exploration Age Collapse. 500 years of population expansion, of genetic entropy, in the course of exploration of the of the New World, and now most of the population is retarded.

    The Dark Ages can’t come soon enough. Take out the welfare, take out the chairty, and our enemy will be forced to eat his own tail.

    • Not Tom says:

      A country is just a geographical boundary, there’s no limit to how homogeneous or heterogeneous it can be. Maybe you’re thinking of a nation, which is an entirely different animal.

      I’m not impressed with the blackpill view. Having a strong faith is what will prepare us adequately for the worst, but also requires us to strive for the best.

      • paavo says:

        >A country is just a geographical boundary.

        False.

        >There’s no limit to how…

        False.

        >Blackpill view…

        Not a blackpill view.

        >Strong faith

        Work that your grandchildren may live to have their own.

        I have graduated this blog. I have no way of thanking Jim directly. If you’re a heritage European, I wish you well. Otherwise, accept my indifference.

        • shaman says:

          I have graduated this blog.

          And yet you’re neener-neenering one of your intellectual superiors for no reason.

        • kawaii_kike says:

          Saying that the US is becoming a third world hellscape and that we’re headed for a dark age collapse sounds pretty blackpilled to me. Trump is winning and will most likely continue winning, a dark age collapse after a leftist singularity is a possibility but by no means the most desirable one.

          And why would you only wish well being to heritage Europeans and not all whites?

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          You haven’t graduated anything, you’re just another pretending effeminate narcissistic crypto-leftist who isn’t strong enough to follow, let alone lead. But sure as hell that isn’t stopping your talentless, worthless, inadequate ego to try, because you still think you’re the universe’s center and you really need to try to prove it.

          If you were truly right-wing and if you truly had the skill and were of a legitimate different opinion, you’d start your own thing. But here you are, like a groupie whore, trying to get daddy’s attention playing rebellious. Because you are nothing, because you are capable of nothing, because you’re just another beta loser LARPing Charlemagne in the internet.

          Fuck off faggot.

        • shaman says:

          Not Tom disagreed with your stance, and his disagreement was expressed in good faith, not in bad faith. In response, you sperged out Alrenous-style by playing a smartass and brandishing your (most likely fake) “blog graduation” cred. When people read that abysmally pathetic and pitiable comment of yours, they thought to themselves, “Why is he writing that? Does he think that it’s a good post? Does he consider his output to be valuable? Is that his contribution to this community? What’s the damn deal here, damnit?”

          Oh wow, someone politely and in good faith offered a dissenting view to one of your myriad yawn-inducing, lullaby-tier, and semi-incoherent posts – such an emergency, help, help, hurry up guys, I’m begging you, someone please call an ambulance immediately! Speaking of which: You should sue your brain surgeon for malpractice, because he evidently removed the brain itself and only left the medulloblastoma in. See, if you don’t like being a punching bag, you should ask your gay dads (who did not rape you, because even homosexuals have minimal standards) to teach you how to honor hierarchy and how to not be rude online.

          You think you’re funny – you’re not.
          You think you’re interesting – you’re not.
          You think you’re intelligent – you’re not.

          You think you’re cool – you’re gay.

          Your posts are low energy. I believe it was alt-right bogeyman Herr Sigmund Freud who said something to the effect of “All energy is sexual energy.” Well, he definitely had a point. You need to chug Viagra to overcome your chronic erectile dysfunction, because you simply lack that inner drive to “get it done.” Allow me to further elaborate on your sorry condition:

          You don’t get things done, you’re a slob, you’re a slacker, your girlfriend left you for a man who doesn’t eerily resemble a gerbil in both his physique and comportment, your Peers never bother to Review anything you say because they’ve already bought enough Zolpidem, you’ve botched your dozen or so suicide attempts because “it’s too much effort, bruh,” your wiring is so fucked-up that you’re having generalized tonic-clonic seizures with each and every orgasm, you’re so anatomically deformed that even the local freakshow-circus has rejected you in unspeakable revulsion, and you were ill-conceived from sperm swimming inside of a test-tube (spoiler: your biological father is the clinician in charge, but it’s better that he not know anything that pertains to you, because the utter shame of having such a failure for a son would cause him to permanently depart from civilization to live a nomadic itinerant life in the wilderness, where no one can point at him and say, “Haha, your son is a boring gay rodentomorphic retard”).

          Stop shitting all over the place, Gerbilaavo.

          • Not Tom says:

            Agree on point 1 for sure. Notwithstanding the ensuing pile-on, I thought I was expressing pretty mild disagreement, not the “gtfo shill” that I reserve for the more egregious trolls.

            Also, replying with just “false” is cringe. How is it false? At least the ackshully spergitude has a chance of adding to the conversation.

          • Paavo says:

            #triggered

            • shaman says:

              ↑ As broke as your daughter’s hymen.

              Be creative!

              • RedBible says:

                That’s not normally how I’d go about informing a man the truth about his 6 year old daughter, but I’m not as experienced in these matters.

                But on a more serious note, your creative use of insults/slurs while also communicating well stated points (more so on your longer comments) is what makes them so fun to read. So thanks for all the comments you’ve made.

          • Bilge Pump says:

            I think shaman is the best writer here, if not then definitely the funniest

          • polifugue says:

            Hey Shaman, have you ever thought about starting your own blog? You’re definitely good enough to get a regular audience, always fun to read.

            If not, have you thought about writing a book which condenses your views into a complete accessible package? It doesn’t have to be big, of course, but it could be read alongside Alf’s book.

            • Steamed "Dim Sum" Kike says:

              Well, I already do have a few blogs and other platforms at my disposal, and my writings do indeed proliferate out there, but I’d rather keep these sundry projects compartmentalized, so…

              Perhaps I should produce my own “take” on Jimianity, in the form of a short manifesto. I’m sure that those closely following are already well familiar with my views, but maybe a summary could nevertheless benefit this community – an idea worthy of consideration, for sure.

              Anyway, thanks for the compliments, everyone.

              • alf says:

                Please do I’d read that.

                • shaman says:

                  By the way, I liked your addition of the “bully value” category to my original 4 categories of participant value. For those who don’t recall, I introduced the following scheme:

                  1. Consensus value – those who contribute to group-cohesion by affirming the group’s consensus (least important category);
                  2. Amusement value – those who contribute by delivering the bantz;
                  3. Information value – those who contribute meat to the discussion by bringing up relevant information;
                  4. Insight value – those who contribute insightful comments that provide a deep understanding of the topics discussed (the highest value contribution).

                  And I think that your proposed 5th category is correct: In order to maintain a high quality of discussion, it’s important to filter out the troublemakers. The admin can do that by deletion and censorship, but members can also contribute by relentlessly bullying the miscreants until they give up and leave. Hence,

                  5. Bully value – those who contribute to the community by weeding problematic elements out of it, using the method of cyber bullying.

                  Nice idea!

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  LMK if you go forward with a book project. i’d be happy to edit. The Homo Manifesto is still the piece i think that would be most valuable.

                  This is a pipe dream, but training some algo to spit out books based on selected posts and comments would save a ton of time.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  We may never have an algorithm but I can start grouping notable posts and comments by topic if you think that would help. I think a lot of good discussions get memory holed in hundred comment threads.

                • shaman says:

                  The Homo Manifesto is still the piece i think that would be most valuable.

                  You had a good start on it here.

              • kawaii_kike says:

                It’s funny to think that everyone is just an elaborate shaman alt. Also disappointing to know that’s there’s more writings that I’m missing out on.

          • Poolside at the Decline says:

            “All energy is sexual energy.”
            ————
            “Everything is about sex except sex which is about power”

    • Pooch says:

      Anything involving eugenic fertility seems like a massive white pill to me.

  4. Mark Matis says:

    The putrid stench of tribe longs for the good old days of their Messiahs – Lenin and Stalin – and intend to do whatever it takes to get there.

  5. Trump’s speeches are levelling up all the time. The passages Jim quoted are super-condensed and super-incendiary. Does he write them himself? Are they even written down, or he just makes them up on the spot?

    I can’t wait for the presidential debates.

  6. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    > preparing a self coup against their color revolution.

    This needs to be prepared by others who then recruit Trump when the fait is accompli, as with Pinochet. There is nothing Trump himself can do in DC that is not monitored and leaked by a dozen enemy observers.

    Trump has, or used to have, his own security and intelligence services. Keith Schiller, David Packer / National Enquirer, Roy Cohn, Giuliani and his contacts at NYPD, probably others we never heard of. Trump’s enemies have worked to disconnect or neutralize those assets, and his Chiefs of Staff control who can meet the President and what information flows to Trump.

    Don Jr can organize things but seems to be occupied with conventional politics, giving speeches and such.

    Erik Prince has the contacts to mobilize support in the armed forces. Maybe over several years it’s possible, preferably if he started in 2016, but in time for the color revolution of 2020?

    A revolutionary force would have to organize, in large part self-organization (e.g. as impeachment escalates) before consciously coalescing, mobilizing and converging on the capital. I can’t see the organizational impulse coming from Trump himself, he is surrounded by too much inertia even from his supporters. Try imagining Jared and Ivanka as auto-coup leaders to see how absurd a revolt from inside would be. To the extent Trump has a major security service in his favor it is the wonky and unarmed NSA. The actual military is too divided to be of direct use on any relevant time scale.

    Of course, the conventional logic of things starts to break down as things destabilize.

    The path that avoids war is the Steve Bannon dream, where Trump wins a 2020 landslide with a Republican majority in Congress, and spends his second term dismantling the FDR era foundations of the civil service, shrinking the Federal government, and packing the judiciary with rightists. It seems optimistic to happen in a year; I guess it depends on how astonishing (or not) the public will find the results of the Barr-Durham investigations.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      sorry, omitted the key words:

      “A revolutionary force would have to organize” *far from Washington DC*

      before converging etc.

      • jim says:

        Revolutions in the streets are always fake. A revolutionary force is not going to succeed except as cover for elite factions.

        The usual process terminating a leftist singularity is that the radicals just get too scary, and the radicals in power realize that they are about to be supplanted by even crazier radicals, as holier than thou Cromwell realized he was threatened by holier than Jesus radicals pushing what we would recognize as nineteenth and twentieth century communism and radical leftism, and therefore gave not very holy at all Monck his own not very holy at all praetorian guard.

        Cromwell, being subverted by radical puritans that we would recognize as commies and hippies, quietly allied rightwards with Monck, who quietly supported throne and altar, a quiet but massive defection from Puritanism.

        Pelosi et all are increasing uncomfortable with the radicals, which is rapidly moving to a program of killing whitey and destroying western civilization. They have signed up with the radicals, because Trump in his Ukraine phone call indicated he was going to drain the swamp, and the swamp would rather burn America to the ground than be drained.

        Trump is looking for a deal in which he drains part of the swamp, part of the swamp quietly signs on with Trumpism, and America does not get burned to the ground. He has to break the holiness spiral, as Cromwell and Monck did.

        There will likely be violence in the streets, as in Bolivia, but the violence is just going to be a cover for insider shenanigans, as in Bolivia.

        A deal that breaks the holiness spiral means that lefter than thou suddenly ceases to be perceived as guaranteeing safety and power. The low level priests are grabbing power and wealth from established people – the corporate convergence, and the left wing take over of open source organization’s names and mailing lists, which is swiftly followed by the purge of anyone capable of maintaining and improving the open source software. The counter revolution will have happened when it suddenly becomes safe to expel these takeover artists from Disney, Marvel, and Netflix, or these organizations die and are replaced, and it will be preceded by purging the radicals from Democratic party and Harvard.

        If the left is going to be purged, have to be purged at the center of their coercive power, the FBI, the equivalent of Cromwell giving Monck his praetorians, the center of their political power, which is the Democratic party, the equivalent of Cromwell’s rightward defection, shutting down the hippies and the commies, and has to be a purge of Harvard, the equivalent of the Charles the Second’s religious conformity.

        • BC says:

          >Trump is looking for a deal in which he drains part of the swamp, part of the swamp quietly signs on with Trumpism, and America does not get burned to the ground. He has to break the holiness spiral, as Cromwell and Monck did.

          I’d been wondering why Trump was so open about going after Biden. Rudy was giving interviews about back in May. I’m not convinced the swamp or any part of it agreement capable but Trump must view this is the best way forward.

  7. m bb says:

    9, 13, 17 = I M Q

  8. My No. 1 problem with Trump: why the heck did he fire Bannon? Bannon has at least some bits of reactionary-ish theoretical understanding, he was the closest thing to a potential “high priest” on his staff.

    • ten says:

      Hot potato with weird optics to the trump base, and Bannon very likely wanted to control things in directions the trump team didn’t. Fx force the issue with china.

      The basal trump optics are “we are the sane people, the normal people, and our enemies are freaks on the loose” while Bannon optics are “I am a very fringe person with very strong opinions very strongly diverging from what you think america is about”.

      I think Trump did the right thing – perhaps it was even 4d. Give the left some name of the “alternative right” actually getting a big position so they can go insane about that, then fire him, purpose served.

    • The Cominator says:

      Bannon 100% deserved to be fired, he talked with a CNN guy without authorization… For hours.

      • Ron says:

        That was the trick. You cant help but slip up in that time frame. The first time was a test run. He doesnt want to become too obvious bc then he is revealed as the plant that he is.

        So his hope was to not be fired, then two or three conversations later he “accidentally” lets something out. Or lets say the nature of the convo leads to directions that undermine the president. The mere fact of having a bigmouthed fool on staff makes one look incompetent and with these stakes a perception of incompetence will drive away any sane allies and supporters

        You nailed it. That was the trick.

  9. >So either he is going senile

    Well, compared to 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpMJx0-HyOM this speech sounds kind of “slurred”, a less clear pronounciation, it could be senility but could it also be that he is trying to use the Kentucky accent, to connect with the voters there?

  10. Cloudswrest says:

    A quick page formatting comment.

    The video image attached to this article overlaps with the commenters list on the home page. Thought it might just be my tablet at first, but I see the same issue on a PC with other browsers, included Chrome and Dissenter.

  11. Bob says:

    Off topic, I suppose, but here we go.

    What’s the likelihood of the wq filtering out feds/shills in person, with no HR to read a transcript? I suppose it’s still effective, but I do know a muh constitution type who can pass the wq with ease. The jq is easy to fake, in my opinion, but I don’t know about bq.

    Any tips on noticing, “Hello, fellow reactionary” in real life?

    • shaman says:

      If you’re trying to sniff out True Believers, the WQ is incredibly effective: A shill will sweat, fidget, gaze at his shoes, look around nervously, stammer, stutter, pale, and blush as you two delve deeper and deeper into the topic. Not only is he in crimestop mode – like an Orthodox Jew, he has even erected many “fences around the law” (intentional mental blocks) to prevent even the remotest chance of thoughtcrime entering into his mind from materializing.

      But many shills are amoral cynical hypocrites, who in private will freely admit that, yes, indeed: Men are men, women are women, a steak is a steak, and a salad is a salad. Your run-of-the-mill Constitutard probably doesn’t froth at the mouth at the notion of healthy heterosexuality, albeit he’ll pay lip service to the Party Line, because the brainwashing runs deep and the social stigma is paralyzing – Orwell called it Duckspeak, i.e., the speaker won’t actually comprehend what it is that flows out of his mouth when loudly telling you that “NO MEANS NO!”, but when quietly zooming in to a finer resolution, you’ll find that he’s not nearly as blue-pilled as he confidently asserts he is.

      • anonymous says:

        >a steak is a steak, and a salad is a salad.

        You’ve got enough compliments for today shaman, but I must say that this line can be *really* good at getting under shitlibs’ skin and making them look ridiculous. Someone should make a meme out of it and spam it on Twitter. So simple, so subversive.

        Liberal: if we bring Somalis to America, they will become Americans.
        Shitlord: a steak is a steak, and a salad is a salad.

        Liberal: gays can get married just like straight people.
        Shitlord: a steak is a steak, and a salad is a salad.

        Liberal: i identify as genderbenderqueer and my pronouns are –
        Shitlord: a steak is a steak, and a salad is a salad.

        The possibilities are endless. Are they going to answer that a steak is not a steak, and a salad is not a salad? Lol

    • jim says:

      You cannot detect HR, if there is no HR, but you can detect the policeman inside. You can detect protective stupidity.

  12. alf says:

    In time, entryists learn the right responses – they adapt. For instance, even though commenter Allah is an entryist, he answered the wq pretty well, because he has learned he has to answer the question well if he wants to be taken seriously here.

    So, on here, I don’t attach much value to the wq.

    BUT, offline, the wq is of course splendid. Not failproof, but splendid. Very hard to fake, especially when you are both around women.

    Generally, no filter question is failproof. Everything can be hacked. Imo the trick is to recognize WHEN someone is hacking. I have no experience with feds, but with normal people I find it relatively easy. As Jim says: you can usually tell pretty quickly if people are evil.

    And I wouldn’t necessarily say I label people ‘evil’. More like: this woman has a stick up her ass, this guy tells you whatever you want to hear and will screw you over if you give him a chance, or that guy is an honest man.

    • jim says:

      “Allah”s ip address is in Turkey, and his responses on the woman question were totally in character for a Turk, reasonably red pilled.

      But his responses on the issue of priestly power were off. He tells us priestly types do not matter, as if it was completely obvious, but the mullahs gave Kemal Atatürk a really hard time, and Erdogan came to power against the military largely through the influence of the mullahs. To deny priestly power is out of character for a regular Mohammedan and a regular Turk. Mohammed uniting a fractious and quarrelsome mob of bandits through their supposed shared descent from Ishmael is a perfect example of priestly power, and priestly power is mighty visible in Turkey and Iran.

      I don’t know what is going on in Turkey well enough to say what is going on here, There is something about him that is not on the up and up, but it is a different thing to the troofers and rest of the “hail fellow right winger crowd. Not what he purports to be, but what he is I do not know. Could be an “immoderate” Muslim, which is to say an actual Muslim, passing as a “moderate” to his Cathedral handlers, and a nationalist to Turkish nationalists – a triple cross, of which there is a great deal when then Cathedral attempts to operate in Muslim lands.

      • Allah says:

        He tells us priestly types do not matter,

        I do recall refusing to discuss Turkish politics with you after your total train wreck of an answer some time ago, but that’s about it. Where did I say this?

        • jim says:

          Your words are slippery and shifty. Bored with trying to pin you down. Maybe you did not say the priesthood was unimportant – seldom very clear what you are saying.

          • Allah says:

            That wasn’t a rhetorical question. I might have said something like that, I don’t remember. Not going with what you think I said.

            You should be the last person to accuse others of being shifty. You refuse to believe I could mean what I actually say, make up your interpretation, then conclude that I am inconsistent because your own interpretation ends up being inconsistent.

            • ten says:

              awww is it unfair? are people mean to you? must you now murder everyone around you in impotent rage while crying about the grave injustices you have been subjected to?

              come on boy, spread those tears around, it is water to the garden.

              • Allah says:

                I am not your coworker.

                • savantissimo says:

                  Suspect you ork somebody’s cows, though.

                • Allah says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  savantissimo’s insult allowed, Allah’s generic insult deleted, because I find racial, religious, and ethnic slurs entertaining and on topic, and because insults specific to the character and identity of the person being insulted are less boring than generic all purpose insults.

                  Also, one sided deletion due to capricious and arbitrary bias.

                • Allah says:

                  Why are you so biased against me? Why do they persecute me so?

                • jim says:

                  Uh, because you declare yourself an enemy.

                  When dealing with Muslims, Christians ran out of cheeks mighty quickly.

                • Allah says:

                  Well yes, but that’s just petty.

                • jim says:

                  After the restoration, Christendom will employ means considerably less petty. The French in 1830, under the last Bourbon King, quieted Islam for one hundred and thirty years.

                • Allah says:

                  Restoration? Is that something like the resurrection?

                • jim says:

                  Charles the Second. The Restoration gave us the science, the Industrial Revolution, and Empire.

                  The restoration followed the Puritan left singularity. Today, we have another puritan left singularity, and intend another restoration.

                  The scientific method was high status and seen as prosocial from 1663 to 1944. These days, any scientist so deluded as to take the scientific method seriously is apt to lose tenure.

                  The for profit joint stock corporation was high status and seen as prosocial from 1660 to the early twentieth century. These days white male CEOs are the only people you are allowed to depict as despicable villains, and the state is strangling the corporate form through HR and Sarbanes-Oxley.

          • Not Tom says:

            I think Aidan’s guess was probably closest: Western-educated Turkish university student who enjoys larping as a jihadist in the same way that white socialists larp as literal nazis.

            Doesn’t really matter much if the larping is for employment or just for fun. Achmed here will strap on a suicide vest on the same day that Jim tells us to respeck whamen.

            • Allah says:

              Compared to FBI agent or NGO. What was that? How am I larping as a jihadist?

              • jim says:

                You have, among other things, told us you intend to exterminate us.

                You might well be merely someone who likes to strike inconsistent and incoherent poses on the internet, and whenever called on one pose, indignantly invoke another other pose.

                You might be a paid entryist, employed primarily to enter not against us, but against Erdogan’s faction in Turkey. I tend to suspect paid and supervised entryists everywhere, because paid and supervised entryists are everywhere, but you are not running the standard scripts on us, so I am coming around to the opinion that the incoherence of your poses is just normal incoherence, rather than a result of the mechanical application of an NPC script.

                • Allah says:

                  What am I saying that is inconsistent? Being against the West does not make me a jihadist. You have not heard what I have to say against the opposition in Turkey. Quick to judge, thinking you’ve seen it all.

                • jim says:

                  That is just your argument that there is no such thing as Dar al Islam, each trouble spot is just result of minorities being victimized, nothing to do with their Islamic identity, but somehow these ethnic conflicts just happen to be happening on the borders of Dar al Islam.

                  You are not merely against the west – we also oppose the (anti)American Hegemony, which does no end of evil things because it rules through carpetbaggers rather than settlers. You are on the side of Dar al Islam against the west.

                  You guys blew up a mall in which I had shopped from time to time. That was no local ethnic conflict. The guys that blew up that mall remember the battle of Tours as if it was yesterday, and think about Charles the Hammer as if he was part of the Trump family.

                • Allah says:

                  Still haven’t demonstrated my inconsistency.

                  I’ve given two arguments both of which you ignored: One, that we’ve been fighting most of our neighbors even before we were Muslim, I even mentioned the Orkhon inscriptions as a decidedly pre-Islamic nationalist anti-Chinese example. Two, that the Chinese are similarly assimilationist towards their non-Muslim minorities. Difference being their non-Muslim minorities fold much more easily.

                  Delete that post for telling me what I think. That is not what I think. Muslims are not my guys. I am not an ummahist, let alone a Muslim. I’ve said this multiple times. We are attacked by commie separatists your guys support all the time, yet I will not put this on you.

                  You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Sometimes you say you’ll leave us(us being Turks, not Muslims, to reiterate) alone if only we could just disarm. Other times you say you’ll go right back to conquering and colonizing as soon as the lefties stop holding you back.

                  They do not remember the battle of Tours like it was yesterday, that’s just another one of your dramatic quotes, starting to think you’re messing with me. Their idea of Islamic conquests is a bunch of heroic buddies going on an adventure. Their issue is not battle of Tours or Charles the Hammer. Their issue is Abu Ghraib. You can scoff and sneer at that all you want, but that’s what they think.

                  Also, I notice you do not let my comments through if they include a word that sounds like “rezurrekshyn”. Why is that? Having doubts?

                • jim says:

                  You contradict your own argument in the same comment as you make it.

                  You yourself say “Abu Graib”, and then you say “Chinese minority”, you yourself see it as one big war that has been going on for over a thousand years in the same comment as you deny that it is one big war that has been going on for a thousand years.

                  The borders of Islam are bloody, all these conflicts, if you look at them on a map, are one big conflict, and the people blowing up shopping malls think of them as one big conflict that has been going on for a very long time.

                  When the French quelled what they came to call Algeria, they quelled every Muslim everywhere, and ever Muslim everywhere stayed quelled until Dar al Islam regained Algeria. Dar al Islam observably acts as one.

                  > I even mentioned the Orkhon inscriptions as a decidedly pre-Islamic nationalist anti-Chinese example.

                  Empires always have trouble with nationalism. Then the nationalists lose or win, and its over, and things go quiet. With Muslims, it is never over.

                  > Two, that the Chinese are similarly assimilationist towards their non-Muslim minorities.

                  The Chinese are attempting to epcotize their minorities, which is not exactly assimilation, and all the other minorities seem to be fine with epcotization. The Tibetans resent it, but there is no Tibetan terrorist problem.

                  Around the world, epcotizing troublesome minorities seems to work fine, except on the bloody borders of Islam.

                  > Their issue is not battle of Tours or Charles the Hammer. Their issue is Abu Ghraib

                  Does the phrase “tragedy of Andalucia” ring any bells? When you guys talk to each other, you talk of it as one big war, when you talk to us, it is just some pirates, or some terrorists, or an oppressed ethnic minority, but when the last Bourbon King quelled the Barbary pirates, all of Dar al Islam went quiet, revealing that they perceived Christendom defeating Dar al Islam, not the King of France dealing with some pirates that by sheer coincidence happened to be Islamic.

                  When Burma expelled the Rohingya for persistently attempting to carve out an Islamic state in Burma, Obama wanted them because he figured they could be relied on to vote Democrat and kill whitey, but they did not want to go to America, they wanted to go to some country of Dar al Islam, which preference reveals that it was not a conflict between Burmese Buddhists and Burmese Rohingya, but a conflict between Buddhism and Dar al Islam.

                  The guys that blew up that shopping mall that I sometimes shopped in have world wide contacts with similarly minded Muslims, in particular in Saudi Arabia.

                • Allah says:

                  Unresponsive. Many of us Turks see the Uyghurs as our distant kin. I say again, the conflict with China is pre-Islamic.

                  but they did not want to go to America, they wanted to go to some country of Dar al Islam, which preference reveals that it was not a conflict between Burmese Buddhists and Burmese Rohingya, but a conflict between Buddhism and Dar al Islam.

                  Nutmegs. More clash of civilizations nonsense. It is absolutely not out of the ordinary to prefer going to a culturally and religiously similar country.

                  The guys that blew up that shopping mall that I sometimes shopped in have world wide contacts with similarly minded Muslims, in particular in Saudi Arabia.

                  This is probably true. Saudi Arabia could not have existed without Western backing, by the way. Ottomans almost ended them. Such unity!

                • jim says:

                  History, geography, and the rhetoric of our enemies shows that this all one war that has been going on for over a thousand years. Stick all these conflicts on a map, and it is obvious it is all one big conflict and always has been. The infamous bloody borders of Islam have always been bloody.

                  If a country has five percent Muslims it has a crime problem, ten percent Muslims, it has no go areas and conflict that sometimes starts to look a bit like civil war, thirty percent Muslims, low level civil war that sometimes escalates into full on civil war.

                  And that is the way things always have been most places most of the time on the bloody borders of Islam. Where and when there is peace, it is only because of solutions similar to the Chinese solution, the Burmese solution, and the solution applied by the last Bourbon King. Nothing else ever works, and nothing else ever has worked, over all the bloody borders, and over a thousand years of history. Peoples, nations, cultures, empires, and armed religions have endlessly tried lesser solutions for over a thousand years, and never obtained real peace.

                  There have been thousands of these conflicts over the past thousand years, and they are all alike, all part of one big conflict more or less continuous in space (the bloody border of Islam) and more or less continuous in time (Islam persistently makes peace treaties and persistently breaks them)

                  Any time throughout history, any location along the bloody borders of Islam, if someone makes peace by methods short of those used by the French, they do not have peace for very long. Everywhere along the bloody border most of the time, most of the bloody border all the time, there is trouble.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Such unity!

                  That’s a misunderstanding… or a misrepresentation. We’re all well aware that Islam never achieves the promised peace after a conquest, but instead devolves into sectarian conflict.

                  Islam only acts as one where the House of Submission is concerned.

                • “We’re all well aware that Islam never achieves the promised peace after a conquest, but instead devolves into sectarian conflict.”

                  Absolutely. There is this guy in Europe who read the Quran and felt a strong calling and sort of just converted to Islam on his own. And then went to Egypt to actually study it at the university. And he found the following.

                  First, the Egyptian society consists of clans, maybe one or two dozen men in the average clan. Second, when he tells them he is Muslim, they are asking Sunni or Shia, OK, if Sunni, which school of jurisprudence, which sub-school, which sub-sub-sub-subschool, they really want to know if he is a precisely correct Muslim or not, until they arrive to just one Islamic scholar who is, miraculously, their second cousin and is controlled by their clan.

                  I think the whole point of Islam is to try to unify a tribalist society, but it seems tribalism has won after all.

                • “You have not heard what I have to say against the opposition in Turkey.”

                  I assume they are Sorosoids i.e. state.gov, which would not bring them much love around here. The Gulenists looked like a seriously good thing to me, about the only ones able to fix the dysfunctions of Islam by focusing on making money. Looks like they cucked out to state.gov to me but I was not following very closely so I might be wrong.

                • Bilge_pump says:

                  Alright, so I’m a little skeptical about the “paid entryists are everywhere” claim. I know that there are people who get paid to spread political messages online, and that sometimes their identity is secret.

                  I don’t think that they’re nearly as prevalent as people want to make them out to be though. I’ve lurked here for a while, and I don’t think I’ve seen a comments section where someone isn’t accused of being a shill.

                  Where can I find evidence that such people are in abundance?

                • jim says:

                  It is obvious, for example, that Troofers are all on the government payroll, or were before Mueller retired.

                  1. Inability to commit or even acknowledge any though crime you could not commit on your bosses computer where your messaging is scrutinized by Human Resources – always a dead giveaway.

                  2. Obvious script monkey behavior with supposedly different troofers running off the same script, like a third world help line worker mechanically following a script not in his mother’s tongue on an unhelpful help line. I have heard anecdotally that a lot of them are H1B Indians.

                  3. The one piece of evidence that actually supports their theory is that the FBI turned a blind eye to the hijackers, or, as the troofers would say “supposed hijackers”. That is the one area that they will not go near with a ten foot pole. They will condemn US military intelligence in the the fiercest rhetoric, but never an unkind word for the FBI or Mueller.

                  4. When Mueller retired, their operation promptly wound down. They used to spam the you tube comments section by the truckload. Search you tube for 9/11 organized by date. On recent videos, crickets.

                • Bilge Pump says:

                  Had a hard time finding troofer comments on YouTube, even on older videos. Did a bit of digging and found this:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

                  Plenty of troofers there. I can’t tell who’s a shill and who’s not though. Some of the comments are fairly recent.

                  The most high-profile troofer I know of is Ron Unz, who writes a lengthy defense of Trutherism here:

                  http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/

                  I’ve wondered for a while now what his agenda is.

                  ~~~~~~~

                  I’m not a shill and am not here to defend them. Here are some statements no HR catlady would allow me to make, if she had a say in it:

                  Women love sociopath bad boys, and a man’s best bet at getting laid is to either be a sociopath bad boy or be good at convincing women he’s one.

                  The races of men are different, some are intellectually superior to others, all of them tend to have ways of running society (or failing to) that are unique to their race. Jamming them all together will-ye-nil-ye is a terrible idea. Whites being forced to pay for the “education” and “welfare” of retarded niglets in the US is one of the worst things to happen in the history of civilization.

                  I have one opinion that will be controversial here. I am an atheist. I don’t think Christianity will solve any of the problems the US has.

                  You’re going to have to find a way to make “the meek shall inherit the earth” mean something drastically different from what it seems to mean for Christianity to be masculine enough to fix the problems we’re facing.

                • jim says:

                  > I have one opinion that will be controversial here. I am an atheist. I don’t think Christianity will solve any of the problems the US has.

                  > You’re going to have to find a way to make “the meek shall inherit the earth” mean something drastically different from what it seems to mean for Christianity to be masculine enough to fix the problems we’re facing.

                  When we have a social order in which women are assigned by to a male by God and their fathers, and the state religion does not demand that men deny what is in front of their faces and act in a self destructive fashion, meekness will be better rewarded.

                  In the meantime, read my take on the parable of the Good Samaritan.

                  The problem is that aspects of Christianity that are useful to achieving a society of cooperate/cooperate equilibrium have been holiness spiraled into self destructive behaviors. Saint Paul’s instructions on sex, marriage, and women are excellent, but then the Church forces a holiness spiraled meaning on one sentence of his, and then use their interpretation of that one sentence to ditch everything else he said on the topic.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The meek shall inherit the earth should mean that men are strong. Meekness is a trait that became corrupted much in the same way gentleman did. Both mean someone who has the clear means of violence and power but chooses not to use those means at every turn. A meek man is a gentle man, and you cannot be gentle if you are not strong. Gentleness is control of strength so that it does not harm without need.

                  Then weak men who cannot stand up to evil want to be admired despite their weakness and they corrupt the meanings of both words. Weak men claiming to be meek when they could not fight back if they wanted, when they are just cowards. Weak men claiming to be gentlemen because they are well dressed fops being polite because they are afraid and cannot fight.

                  When someone slaps you, you turn the other cheek. If he slaps you again, there are no further cheeks to turn, and you confirmed he is an enemy. Now that the New Testament has been satisfied, time to get Old Testament.

                  The Church needs to get purged. Too many faggots and pussies infest its sacred halls, and the Inquisition, when it comes, will clean them all out. Once the cleansing is complete, we will return Christianity to the values that replaced the old, decadent Roman values, and replace the old, decadent American values.

                • Bob says:

                  >weak men who cannot stand up to evil want to be admired despite their weakness and they corrupt the meanings of both words

                  Do you think getting rid of dueling hastened that? Dueling increased in England after the Restoration, according to Wikipedia, and decreased in the mid 1800s around when the rot set in. It sounds like an effective social technology to confront a wimp and tell him he’s not meek, he’s a coward, you want to fight to prove me wrong?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  I think that you are correct, that dueling was a way to prove that you would fight or kill if pushed. Which is why the social penalties for declining a duel tended to be so feared; you basically outed yourself as an obnoxious coward. At that point, no one needs take you seriously anymore and you end up being the butt of everyone who is not afraid of a fight.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Strongly agree we should bring back dueling, though in most cases it should be with swords to 1st first blood.

    • alf says:

      Above comment was ofc a reply to bob, but I’ll riff a bit more here…

      I think ‘how to filter out feds’ is the wrong question, in the sense that the kind of community we’re building, feds should not be a problem. Feds can only infiltrate low-trust environments, and only insofar they are even competent. We’re building high-trust environment; that’s what the whole cooperation meme is about. Learning to work together, scaling that individual to communities. Generating wave-like momentum.

      You build up that kind of momentum with people you trust. Childhood friends, family, you know, like this guy knows a cousin there and they grew up together and so on. In that environment, a fed simply can’t infiltrate. He’ll stick out like a sore thumb.

      Entryists, on the other hand, are a problem, but only if you don’t know how to deal with them. I think the tradcath entryist takedown is an excellent example of how to deal with that kind of entryist, which I suspect is the most common among nrx circles.

      • Bob says:

        Good points. I was worried about the Malheur Refuge thing where more than half were finking on the rest. I don’t know the details of that story and, like you said, it’s not the kind of thing we do.

        I’m trying to wrap my head around how to describe high-trust environments. I get that if you suppress the buggers, you can have good guy friends without the chaos or stigma the gays make. You can raise your kids because you can discipline them without CPS kidnapping them. You can trust your neighbors because if they fiddle with your marriage, you can kill them. Your kids can roam around town, far away, because the buggers are in the closet. You can leave your car unlocked, because everyone knows it’s yours and will report to you if they see someone else driving it.

        So how does that translate to strangers in your community, or newcomers to your group? I get that Christianity pushes us into the cooperate-cooperate equilibrium of, Don’t kill the stranger and take his stuff before he does the same. Also, you can help strangers because the kooks are locked in the loony-bin and everyone else probably is going to church. But what about enlisting new people in your club?

        • alf says:

          You can raise your kids because you can discipline them without CPS kidnapping them. You can trust your neighbors because if they fiddle with your marriage, you can kill them. Your kids can roam around town, far away, because the buggers are in the closet. You can leave your car unlocked, because everyone knows it’s yours and will report to you if they see someone else driving it.

          This is already a very large community, we are very very far away from that. Don’t think we’ll achieve that in our lifetime.

          I am thinking much smaller scale. Things are crumbling. What kind of stuff are millenials coming up with? Bio-organic fries restaurants where everything is twice as expensive because they have to pay for organic(tm) licenses. It’s not sustainable. Millenials are struggling, zoomers will struggle even more. Can’t trust anyone, because everyone is panickingly holding on to what they still have.

          So we really have to start at the core. Small, no more than ten men. The folk you know for years. Make it run Jimian – people will pick up on it once, for the first time in their life, they feel heard, instead of having to play pretend for the prog circus.

          It’s about building nodes of high-trust communities in a larger low-trust community. So the basic attitude towards strangers would be: ‘I have no reason to trust you.’ And the way to enlist new people is: ‘how long do I know this guy? Do I know his house? His wife? Have I seen his children grow up? Does someone in my group trust this guy? What are his reasons? Do I trust his judgment?’ And so on.

        • jim says:

          > But what about enlisting new people in your club?

          In personal interaction, it is easy to detect evil and malicious people. As I said, I can see the shadow pass over his face, when he does not want to reveal something about himself. I don’t know what he is hiding, but it is something evil. This is relatively easy to detect when the evil person is interacting with someone to whom he intends harm.

          All good people are oppressed by state action that restricts them from protecting their women, their children, and their property, and from performing their business activities. When good people talk about this, they cheerfully reveal their resistance to this oppression. The evil person will not acknowledge this conflict, because he does not acknowledge any conflict, because, being evil, he has an unacknowledged conflict with you.

          And, of course, legal ethics. Legal ethics is that your lawyer’s relationship with judges and with other lawyers is more important than his relationship to you, so he sells you out. If your lawyer does not want to know stuff that could harm you, if he delegates to you jobs that could be problematic with his pals, he is not selling you out. Conversely, if he wants to know all sorts of stuff that might be to your disadvantage, he is planning to sell it to his pals. He needs to know what the other lawyer might know or find out. He does not need to be their fishing expedition.

          And similarly, when you are checking papers that your accountant has prepared for the government. In whose favor is he stretching the truth? If he is, on his own initiative, stretching it in your favor, you know whose side he is on. You should be giving him the unvarnished truth, and he should be applying the varnish. And similarly when you chat with your tenant, find out if your real estate agent is milking both ends. If your real estate agent does not want you to connect with your tenant, has something to hide.

          • alf says:

            Yes well you can detect this, I find I am fairly good at detecting it, but I notice not everyone being good at it.

            In fact, even I do not see a shadow pass. Practice makes perfect?

          • Karl says:

            “Legal ethics is that your lawyer’s relationship with judges and with other lawyers is more important than his relationship to you, so he sells you out.”

            I understand that an attorney’s relationship with judges is improtant. Depending on his field, it might be more important that his relationship to a client, but there are very many courts and some lawyers have a case in a specific court only every few years.

            I doubt that the relationship of an attorney to other attorneys is more important than his relationship to his client. His clients are his customers, he earns a living from them. Other attorneys are simply his competitors. How can he benefit from a good relationship to them?

            Please exlain why you think your above statement to be true.

            • jim says:

              Observed conduct. Also, I have been the beneficiary of this.

              Court cases, including criminal cases, tend, in practice, to be settled informally between the lawyers on the basis of secret evidence, personal connections, and personal pull, before the case goes to court, with the court hearing being a pro forma rubber stamp if it happens at all. A lawyer has is apt to have a smaller group of fellow lawyers whom he needs to keep onside.

              The social dynamic is that they are a priesthood talking to their fellow priests. They do a lot of repeat business with their fellow priests. That the clients of lawyer A are in conflict with the clients of lawyer B does not translate to lawyer A being in conflict with lawyer B, indeed you don’t really want the lawyers to be in conflict, it can run up legal costs. But you don’t want them to be so friendly that they agree to run up legal costs on you, though this is more of a problem for corporations with deep pockets. I don’t have deep pockets, so not so much of a problem for me, but it can get really bad for corporations. A common failure mode of corporate governance is that company’s law firm is on the board, and another company’s law firm is on its board, and the two companies get into a multi year stupendously expensive lawsuit that the CEOs could have settled over drinks.

              Law firms on the board are as dangerous as HR. HR can get its way by manufacturing lawsuits against the company, and by calling in the regulators against the CEO, and the law firm on the board can get its way by manufacturing lawsuits against the company and by being cozy with the judge.

              Lawyers ratting out their clients to the opposing lawyer and thus eventually to the judge for power and influence is as big a problem as HR ratting out the CEO to the regulators for power and influence.

              If you have a lawyer with the right connections, he can make your unambiguously illegal actions magically disappear. He has a friendly chat with the prosecutor in the hallway, and the court hearing gets unscheduled. But he has to pay a price for this mysterious superpower, and often it is his clients who pay the price.

              The reason that tenant law is so grossly favorable to the tenant and grotesquely unfavorable to the landlord is in part because when the case happens, the actual court hearing tends to be, for entirely mysterious reasons, grossly favorable to the landlord and grotesquely unfavorable to the the tenant, regardless of the law and the conduct of the parties.

              America gets high ratings for judicial transparency, but that is just the Cathedral rating itself. The system is opaque and corrupt. You are paying your lawyer for influence, pull, and connections, not for paperwork and oratory. If nobody important wants your ass, you can get out of trouble regardless of conduct, and if you seriously want some one else’s ass, and are willing to pay through the nose, you can get him in a peck of trouble regardless of conduct.

              You have no doubt been watching Trump campaign staff convicted for phony and entirely artificial crimes, while Democrats get away with flagrant crimes that they are entirely public and unworried about. The same dynamic takes place in every obscure magistrate’s court, at every level from the big news events, to the corporations suing corporations, to tenancy disputes, to the domestic quarrel.

              If you have a booty call, and you want to kick her out because you have an actual girlfriend coming, and she does not want to leave, and discovers you have another girl incoming, and you beat her up, and she goes to the cops, the lawyer can make this disappear just as Biden makes the collection of billion dollar bribes disappear. It is the same at every level, great and small, whether collecting billion dollar bribes, or beating up troublesome women of low morals. And that is why your lawyer needs to play ball with the other guy’s lawyers.

              • The Cominator says:

                Now I’ve heard this is true, but what I don’t understand is why it isn’t generally true in divorce law. Even with high priced lawyers (and the women having a bad low priced unconnected lawyer) the man tends to get screwed massively if there isn’t an ironclad prenup (and in some states they don’t respect those).

                • jim says:

                  More divorces, more cash. Divorces are female initiated and hugely lucrative. So both lawyers collude to reward divorcees and punish husbands. In contrast, complaints by difficult women of low morals that they have been mistreated in a booty call are not sources of large revenue. Similarly, tenant complaints, though there is more money there than there is in conflicts arising from booty calls. If, as in rent control states, the lawyer can flat out give away the landlord’s property, then both lawyers collude to screw the landlord, because that is where the assets are, but if there is not an enormous pot of landlord money available, both lawyers instead collude to screw the tenant.

                  There is a big problem with pre-nups, in that it is preparation for a lawsuit in advance, and both lawyers then collude to make sure the lawsuit is likely to happen, and likely to result in most of the estate winding up in their pockets. When I discussed a pre-nup with my lawyer, who is ordinarily on my side, I saw dollar bills light up in his eyes. A pre condition for a pre-nup is that your fiancee gets a consultation with lawyerette, normally an aging single childless harpy, to tell her that breakups are fun, profitable, and will result in her remarrying a six foot three billionaire athlete with a dong the size of a salami.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Maybe. Neither of us have been in a situation of widespread starvation.

                  No, but I have walked past junkies who will do anything for their next fix.

                  What Heartiste terms abundance mentality in men is almost certainly mirrored by scarcity mentality in women. We know that when a woman hits the wall, or is close to hitting the wall, she becomes less choosy and her shit tests become more forgiving – not that either disappear entirely, but they diminish. Likewise, if a woman is going hungry, the hindbrain probably perceives that either there aren’t enough alphas to go around, or the alphas that are around aren’t willing to invest in her. The rationalization hamster has a much easier time labeling any guy willing to invest as a possible alpha.

                  Instilling scarcity mentality in women is half of what patriarchy is. Yeah, maybe there is some guy out there who is more alpha than her husband, but he is not available to her, either because she literally can’t reach him or because the punishment for trying would be too severe. In today’s world, every woman has easy access to an alpha – who will pump and dump her, the addendum being the part which her hindbrain can’t quite comprehend, and which patriarchy makes a non-issue be denying her access or even the idea of access to that guy.

                  Patriarchy induces artificial scarcity mentality, but there can also be real scarcity. It’s just that you won’t find that degree of scarcity anywhere in the modern world. That makes patriarchal systems more important, not less. It’s not a concession to “beta provider game”, it’s an affirmation that women, like all mammals, will make use of whatever they perceive to be available. If Mr. One in Thirty just can’t be found, they’ll settle for Mr. One in Ten, at least until One in Thirty makes an appearance.

                • Game says:

                  @Jim

                  i’ve never heard of “bodyguard game” before. The idea seems brilliant. Could you lay out generally how you used a bodyguard to meet and/or attract women? ie did you have the bodyguard open the girl? Were you cruising clubs, malls, restaurants, or..? You mentioned the bodyguard “kissing your ass”, so there must be a selection process for ones who won’t try to alpha you.

              • The Cominator says:

                Also I think this judicial/priesthood/lawyer corruption and how the system actually works deserves its own thread.

                • There, I Said It says:

                  When the average judge has less testosterone than a 10-year-old girl, and seven times as much estrogen, what do you expect?

                  I non-ironically support replacing all of these effete, autistic, bespectacled bookworm nerds with heavyweight (and heavily-tattooed) wrestlers, boxers, kickboxers, and MMA fighters. At the very least, one should apply mens sana in corpore sano to oneself by demonstrating an ability to take down a normie opponent in battle. We may also consider recruiting actual top soldiers into the position of judges. The current femdomized judicial Nerdocrats literally decide on matters of life and death without ever having been so much as scratched on their soft-pudding barely-breast-milk-weaned babyfaces.

                  If warriors should out-alpha priests, there’s no reason why all of the judges should be priestly types. Right now, these hyper-verbal soy-baby NPC judges, who urgently need to undergo testosterone replacement therapy to come close to normal levels, are so totally disconnected from “What is it like to be a man? What is it like to have functional testicles? What is it like to bang a pussy until the bed breaks down?” that they are simply unable to sympathize with the life experience of normal men, with the unsurprising result being that they side with cunts in an overwhelming majority of cases.

                  The law should be simple, uncomplicated, and the judges should be high-ranking warriors, martial arts champions, professional athletes, and heavy bodybuilders. (Especially the former two categories) Is this a joke? Is this serious? But, you see, just imagine it – just imagine the trial being conducted by men who aren’t catladies with a limp shriveled clitdick and saggy skinnyfat bitch-tits; just imagine, if you can, that it’s Hulk Hogan who is the judge, and not some stereotypical Ashkenasal-voiced “scholar” with severely atrophied limbs who has never had an erection.

                  Yes, it matters. Yes, whether or not the judge has a non-soysastrous (a “soysaster” is a portmanteau of “soy” and “disaster”) T-level and experience with the non-feminized world matters, very much indeed. Men should only be nominated to judges with successful performance in the battlefield or the fighting cage as a preliminary condition. Nerds should be forbidden from serving as judges. Nerds should be locked inside of their own lockers in high-school until they pee and shit and vomit on themselves, and cry for mommy to come and rescue them. Judges should have free access to steroids and a gym, also cocaine.

                  We strongly signal these positions for a reason: When “shy and sensitive” beta nerds rule with the gavel, you get the blue-pill as high status; when real men take hold of the gavel, there’s at least a small chance that the judge will — gasp! — sympathize with you as a man. Ask yourself: Who do you want to hold the gavel when you’re accused of bogus sexual impropriety? “Order in the courtroom!” can only be achieved when the chief alpha in the courtroom is Hulk Hogan.

                • Moshik Afia says:

                  Joke: Fucking prostitutes should be illegal.

                  Woke: Fucking prostitutes should be legal.

                  Bespoke: Fucking prostitutes should be mandatory if you want to preside as a judge.

                  We need all judges to have slapped a ho. If you have never slapped a big-booty ho, you are in no position to tell men that they have behaved improperly towards women. A judge who snorts cocaine from strippers’ asses, wears golden chains all the time, answers to monikers such as “pitbull” and “biceps,” and can break almost everyone in the courtroom like a twig, is infinitely better than a beta virgin faggot blue-piller who RESPECTS YOUR FEELINGS AS A WOMAN AND A HUMAN. Questions such as “when was the last time you had sex?” and “do you even have a gym membership?” and “do you enjoy smacking down dem hos?” are so much more relevant than muh formal credentials. An avid ho-slapper won’t send you to jail for whistling at a perky-boobed phat-assed teenage chick down the street – that, I can tell you.

                  (Yes, I “intersperse” my comments with the occasional humor, but there is a serious notion conveyed here)

                • jim says:

                  Come the reaction, we plan to shut down the supply of prostitutes, not the demand. Whores are dangerously powerful and high status.

                • shaman says:

                  I agree.

                  Trad-Cons tell us that prostitutes are totally powerless. Arrant nonsense. Both Progressives and Reactionaries, in contrast, realize that prostitution is immensely empowering for women – which to Progressives means that women should be sexually liberated to whore it up (and men should pay the price for it), and to Reactionaries means the exact opposite – that whoredom should be shut down by clamping down on those who commit it, i.e., whores themselves.

                  When bluecon trad-dads tell us that women today are weaker than ever before, it’s due to stubborn refusal to embrace the idea that we must restrict the sexual liberty of women. They tell us that women now are weak, because if the opposite is true, that means that we should act to restrain women, which idea bluecon trad-dads do not at all tolerate. Hence, on this point Progs and Reactionaries actually share a similar frame – women today are stronger than ever before. Progs see that as a positive development; we recognize it as the society-destroying catastrophe it is.

                  Anyone telling us “women are weak and getting weaker” is lying through his teeth, or is in deep denial. In fact, they’re powerful and becoming ever more powerful, which Progs consider a good thing, and we consider a bad thing. Whores wield immense power over men, and it’s wildly destructive as society descends to mass male involuntary celibacy, dysfunction, and chaos. Women need to be compelled to be wives.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Pre progressive societies did not do much to interfere with prostitution and i dont think we should either…

                • jim says:

                  Pre progressive societies did a great deal to marry off whores and make sure they honored and obeyed their husbands.

                • info says:

                  @TheContaminator

                  The old testament didn’t say a land becomes filled with wickedness because of whoredom for no good reason.

                • info says:

                  Sex out of wedlock is like fire raging out of control. Burning everyone touched by it. And giving demons portals to oppress and possess.

                  Demons can be passed on by sex in this regard. And felled many men great and small as (Proverbs 5) said. Even Kings were ruined.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  We should just interfere enough to ensure that prostitution is low status and remains low status indefinitely. Prostitution is just another shit test and without actively ensuring that whores stay low status we risk women achieving too much power.

                  If a women suspects that her husband isn’t alpha enough then they will immediately runoff and become whores. There must be controls on prostitution otherwise women won’t marry or will actively sabotage their marriage to become whores. Brothels should be rare, if only to prevent prostitution from becoming a valid career option.

                  How would women become prostitutes in a world without female choice?

                • shaman says:

                  Disinfo:

                  Sex out of wedlock is like fire raging out of control.

                  Enough with the gender-neutral phrasing, moralfaggot.

                  Nobody here actually gives a damn that Cominator busts his nuts inside whores if that’s what he likes – unlike you, he successfully signals that he is a real man with intact survival and reproduction instincts, and while his choice is far from ideal, at least he possesses balls. Do you? Your posts stink of lifelong virginity.

                  What matters to us is that our women are fucking around. The problem is not male misbehavior, and therefore the solution is not the restriction of men. The problem is female misbehavior, hence the solution – restricting women. There is no “equal problem” here; we proudly assert the validity and necessity of a double standard. Cominator can fuck whores all day long, but if he had a twin sister — Cominarette — we would support restraining her and marrying her off to a husband, so that ideally her n-count would remain 1 forever.

                  There is no “equality,” there is no “fairness,” there is indeed a mighty strong and indispensable “double standard,” a steak is a steak and a salad is a salad, men and women aren’t the same and aren’t alike, and so men get to jizz inside women of low morals if that’s what they feel like, while women need to have sex with their husbands, and exclusively with them. Cominator can glaze his spunk all over sluts and skanks; in contrast, Cominarette will be forced to have sex with her husband, and with no one else.

                  You deserve being an omega male virgin, blue-piller.

                • shaman says:

                  In every post of yours, disinfo, you use gender-neutral language when you should use sex-appropriate language. Thus, for example, you tell us about “children” who are abused by “pedophiles,” rather than boys who are abused by gays. You try to sneak in egalitarianism under the guise Reaction all the time.

                  Compare yourself to kawaii_kike. He is actually a black man, who has even supported circumcision for both sexes; and yet, he is nevertheless both saner than you are (you are irredeemably obsessed with Qtardery and constantly spam Qtard links here) and more intelligent than you are. Catch that? A real black African man is smarter than you! His IQ is higher than yours! His brain is more developed than your brain!

                  The entire human race is ashamed of you, disinfo, you lifelong virgin moralfaggot.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Trad-Cons tell us that prostitutes are totally powerless. Arrant nonsense. Both Progressives and Reactionaries, in contrast, realize that prostitution is immensely empowering for women

                  Trad-cons always take the opposite position on the facts so they still (kinda) oppose progressive policies without ever disagreeing with progressive values.

                  It’s why they lose over and over again.

                • YIKES says:

                  So this ‘NRX’ blog is not just a bunch of jews; there are noggers here, too. Yikes!!

                • info says:

                  @shaman

                  “The problem is not male misbehavior, and therefore the solution is not the restriction of men. ”

                  Since both men and women are together were to be executed for sexual crimes. It always takes 2 to tango. Just as it takes 2 to tango in Proverbs 5.

                  Job made a covenant with his eyes so he is not tempted.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  In Old Testament times, no penalty for abducting an unbetrothed virgin. The crime was letting her go afterwards.

                  As for non virgin non wives, no problem. The penalty for having sex with someone else’s wife was of course death, but a non wife non virgin, totally legal, and her consent or lack thereof irrelevant.

                  No penalty for employing a whore – but whores were low status and subject to violence, (did I mention that consent or lack thereof was irrelevant) so were safer if some man took possession of them, in which case if some other man ravished them, death penalty. Ravishing a woman only a crime if an offense against another man’s property rights in that woman.

                  Concubines were legal, but they faced the same problems as whores, in lesser degree. That is, the concubine faced that problem. The man with a concubine did not face that problem.

                  Abducting a very young unbetrothed virgin to be ones wife was legal, but it seems to have been customary for a pre fertile age wife to live apart from her husband until she developed secondary sexual characteristics, which implies social or legal restraints on banging one’s pre fertile age wife, or even on spending time together.

                  For a heterogamous organism, such as humans, these rules are far more sensible and humane than our current rules.

                • info says:

                  @jim

                  Okay. Although I do not know what the original disagreement was about.

                  I mean sex out of wedlock still remains dangerous and destructive.

                  The Strange woman in Proverbs 5 in contrast to the wife of one’s youth which i cite

                  Destroying the man who let himself fall into her clutches by coveting her and then acting on said temptation.

                  And there is no lie about sex outside of the sacred bond of wedlock allowing demons to transfer from the whore to the man who cavorts with her. According to the exorcism testimonies and recorded video evidence that I have come across.

                  Nor did Jesus not say “To look at a woman to covet her is already adultery in one’s heart” referencing the example of (Job 31:1)(Job 31:9).

                  Or this making a correlation between whoredom and wickedness(Leviticus 19:29) by itself.

                • jim says:

                  You are nuts.

                  Old Testament and New Testament are not anti sex. They are anti sex that obscures paternity or denies men the capability to raise their children.

                  Wedlock is not a magic spell. It is an arrangement for ensuring paternal certainty and reproductive cooperation between men and women – divinely ordained in the sense that property and capitalism are divinely ordained.

                  Controls on sex are not there to stop sex. They are there to incentivize cooperation between men and women and disincentivize defection.

                  Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap, so you put guards, controls, and property rights on that which is precious, not that which is cheap.

                • shaman says:

                  Are you capable of saying “There should be different rules for men and women?” You keep dodging the issue, and keep suggesting that the same sexual standards apply equally to both sexes. In the same fashion, you keep using gender-neutral language instead of sex-appropriate language, to obscure the reality that men and women are dissimilar, and straights and gays are dissimilar.

                  All of your comments on this issue have been unresponsive, because you are unwilling to hear our thoughtcrimes. Stop dodging the issue! Address the position “Men and women are different, thus different standards apply to them.” Also address the position “There is no such thing as ‘pedophilia’ – there is molestation of boys by homosexuals.”

                • info says:

                  @shaman

                  “Men and women are different, thus different standards apply to them.”

                  Of course. However I didn’t see how out of wedlock sex isn’t harmful as shown in my comment. Aside from marrying a virgin one had sex with. My comment still remains true.

                  Also address the position “There is no such thing as ‘pedophilia’ – there is molestation of boys by homosexuals.”

                  The latter is correct.

                  But if all sorts of sexual degeneracy exists then it goes in all sort of ways.

                  I don’t see how abnormal attraction to pre-pubescents of the homosexual and non-homosexual variety couldn’t exist. There are various sexual fetishes for example that isn’t healthy and not even procreative.

                  Unless a mechanism exists that prevents that from happening.

                • jim says:

                  > I didn’t see how out of wedlock sex isn’t harmful as shown in my comment.

                  Men and women are different. Different rules are needed. The bible does not use gender neutral langauge. It specifies rules for men, and rules for women.

                  Gender neutral language blames both parties, which in practice means only blaming the man, which in practice means not controlling women. The problem, however is controlling women, not controlling men, eggs being precious and sperm being cheap, maternity known and paternity potentially uncertain. Sexual immorality is never going to result in it being impossible to find the mother of a newborn.

                  Heterogamous organisms require different rules for the two different sexes. Invoking the bible in sexually neutral language is pissing on the bible, for the bible uses gendered language and specifies radically asymmetric rules. Anyone who uses modern progressive gender neutral language in reference to ancient and radically asymmetric rules usually hates biblical sexual morality, and hates the biology and physical reality on which biblical sexual morality is based.

                • jim says:

                  > I don’t see how abnormal attraction to pre-pubescents of the homosexual and non-homosexual variety couldn’t exist. There are various sexual fetishes for example that isn’t healthy and not even procreative.

                  Again gender neutral language presupposes that there is no important difference between straight and gay men in this regard, and no important difference between ten year old boys and ten year old girls, which denies observed reality and human nature.

                  The word “pedophile” denies the problem of controlling the sexual behavior of very young girls, and implies that there is nothing wrong with gays. The word is itself a lie.

                  The lie is denial that the problem is primarily gay attraction to boys and that very young girls are attracted to adult alpha males who have adult female pre-selection. The lie is that it denies that the there are two very different problems – gays, and that female immorality is apt to start disturbingly early.

                  The lie is that the problem is misconduct by straight adult men, when it is not straight adult men that are responsible for either of the two primary problems.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  Why is it framed as restraining women though? I’ve never considered it restraining, to make a woman be both feminine and civilized.

                  Females of most species don’t sleep around like whores, they only fuck the alpha because they truly only want the alpha. It’s not like female gorillas sleep around with hundreds of gorillas, they only get dicked down by the silverback, who is in turn dicking around every female he can get his hands on.

                  So feminine in the sense that we get her the alpha (even if not true alpha, because there aren’t infinite alphas, we build him as the alpha) and civilized in the sense that it’s formalized, because otherwise it’s socially destructive.

                  You wouldn’t say you’re restraining the physical freedom of a fatass you’re getting into shape. We are not “restraining” shit, we are building up. You restrain degeneracy, you do not “restrain” virtue.

                  Whores have become high status and remain whores because masculinity is outlawed. Whores don’t truly want to be whores, women are women so they behave as women, the permanency of the “whore behavior” is a secondary effect of masculinity outlawed.

                  With this behavior they are instinctively setting up the intra-conflict every female of every species puts males through to find out the alpha, but since you’re not allowed to beat the shit out of her and beat the shit out of whoever touches your property, no one gets to “be the alpha”, thus you get permanent whoredom. You get cat ladies with infinity notches, prone to suicide and eternal wine and Prozac, which proves my point that they never truly wanted to be whores and they were never happy with it, they were just following their instinct to find the alpha.

                  Telling her who is her alpha and making it so isn’t restraining her, it’s helping her. Because that’s what will make her happy, as a woman, and allow her to be better, as a woman.

                  Restoration helps everyone, it’s this society that is restraining and wrong, full of drugs, criminals, depression, suicidal people and no purpose to life. In fact, “suicidalism” has become so common and so desirable that suicidal people are seen as brave heroes who dare do what they don’t by many.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Females of most species don’t sleep around like whores, they only fuck the alpha because they truly only want the alpha.”

                  Women fucking around like whores (that was what I was told they were doing in the 1970s and most men were pretty happy with the situation) would literally be less damaging then what most women today do, which is serial monogamy with Jeremy Meeks types (and a few pro-social chads) combined with a very high % larping as lesbians in such a way that the pool of women is reduced.

                  The problem is women are pursuing serial monogamy with a small minority of generally bad criminalesque men combined with large swathes of them mutilating their looks in various ways and not fucking around at all.

                • Pooch says:

                  Very insightful comment by Atavistic Morality. If masculinity is restored and made high status while faggotry is outlawed and made low status, I surmise whoring behavior of the present day women would decline as “finding an alpha” would become much easier. Most men would indeed be alpha instead of the blue pill faggots which you see today.

                • Dave says:

                  In an age of super-STDs that eat all known antibiotics for lunch, men should abstain from extramarital sex for their own benefit. This however is a personal health matter, not a moral position.

                  Q: What was the name of the pill that set off the Sexual Revolution?
                  A: Penicillin. (it cured syphilis)

                • jim says:

                  We don’t, in practice, have super stds. Hiv is a gay problem and a dirty needle problem. Heterosexual transmission is extremely rare, despite hype to the contrary, and in practice only affects women who have sex with gays.

                  Gays have super stds.

                  I have been sexually active all my life, and the only thing I ever got was crabs, which were fixed by insecticidal shampoo.

                • Allah says:

                  You wouldn’t say you’re restraining the physical freedom of a fatass you’re getting into shape. We are not “restraining” shit

                  If I killed the fatty for eating sausages behind my back or never let him go out so he couldn’t indulge himself, I would be restraining him. What’s wrong with restraining women?

                • info says:

                  @jim

                  Notice I refuse to use the word “pedophile” for the very reason stated. As there is proportionately far higher instances of gays manifesting this wickedness.

                  And if seems many gays don’t care about the sex of their victim. Like “Jessica Yaniv” the crossdressing freak.

                  And other cross-dressing rapists.

                • shaman says:

                  The only religions worth their salt are those that effectively work around Briffault’s Law – women need to be prevented from following their hypergamous reproductive and sexual strategy, and they need to be compelled by society into Biblical patriarchal marriage. A supposedly “sexually neutral” religion, such as Progressivism, is necessarily in denial about the hypergamous nature of female sexuality, hence its adherents totally fail to reproduce, as the women under its influence are liberated to pursue “Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks,” vying for a place somewhere on Jeremy Meek’s booty call list, and exploiting incels for resources through prostitution, including camera whoredom. Frivorce, and men being lower status than women (for all that entails), directly result from society failing to curb Briffault’s Law through institutionalized rock-solid patriarchy.

                  NRx is not “Revenge of the Nerds,” nor is it “Jeremy Meeks: the Comeback.” What serves the sexual interests of all men — and, incidentally, the interests of civilization, science, technology, and eugenics — is propertization and redistribution of the means of reproduction, thus husbands being the highest status, and women not having any sexual liberty.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @The Cominator

                  “The problem is women are pursuing serial monogamy with a small minority of generally bad criminalesque men combined with large swathes of them mutilating their looks in various ways and not fucking around at all.”

                  Men in the 70s weren’t actually happy with it, hard to believe, it’s all a big Hollywood propaganda job because those men have become MGTOW. They are the MGTOW movement and the debt-slave divorcees, it’s actually that generation, which means they didn’t like it that much. I judge people by their actions and the consequences, I don’t believe them because it’s not that they’re lying to you, most of the time they believe their own lies. But you’ll know the truth by their actions. Like the cat ladies living in eternal wine and prozac, they’are also very, very “happy”, but living in eternal wine and prozac for a reason. Like heroin addicts are very, very “happy”, but living in heroin and agony.

                  I think you have a valid observation of another phenomena, but college girls are temple prostitutes and no one can deny that.

                  In any case the argument doesn’t change, because serial monogamy is also sleeping around. Serial monogamy is a woman trying to pit man A against man B to see which one is “more alpha”, like in old Wild West movies. If man A allowed to engage in masculine behavior and dominate her and fight off man B, serial monogamy wouldn’t really exist, since it’s a result of constantly failing to prove to be an alpha because masculinity outlawed. In fact, if masculine behavior encouraged and taught to boys, probably the problem wouldn’t even present itself that much.

                  And at the same time, the only reason why criminalesque types as you say have any status is because masculinity outlawed. Criminals are pathetic trash, not dangerous. Special forces are actually dangerous. But if a Navy SEAL met a criminal dog and had a confrontation, he’d have to deescalate and avoid confrontation because masculinity outlawed. The difference is that the criminal, the low IQ dog that he is, is willing to engage in behavior that lands you in jail for no reason, while special forces are high IQ and they know it’s not worth it. But if they were allowed to treat criminal dogs as they earn and deserve, criminality would have the status of a homeless bum. Like a medieval knight spitting on slum trash and treating them like subhumans.

                  A medieval knight is masculinity encouraged, Mr. Prince Charming is a dude who takes pride in bashing skulls with great skill and will bash your skull if you question his honor in any way. In the rules of chivalry written by a 13th century French author I can’t recall right know, it talks about a form of unwritten rule that a knight might duel another knight for his lady, and if he wins he has every right to do with her as he wants including “raping” her. And we all know that in the 13th century criminals were very, very, very low status and hanging from poles, but skull-bashing medieval knights were Prince Charming and centuries after they were still considered Prince Charming. And medieval knights were mostly buddies with intellectuals, not enemies, which made intellectuals high status as well. And it’s also worth mentioning that those intellectuals were hyper chads compared to your average guy today, because masculinity encouraged.

                  @Turkroach

                  “If I killed the fatty for eating sausages behind my back or never let him go out so he couldn’t indulge himself, I would be restraining him. What’s wrong with restraining women?”

                  Like I said, you don’t restrain virtue, you restrain degeneracy. Restraining implies a negative connotation, “forcing” someone to be virtuous is not negative, so you cannot “restrain” women when we are talking about helping them be happy and virtuous.

                  Sure, if you literally micro handle the fatty you’re technically restraining him, but that sounds like weaselly legal (Jewish for your lingo) interpretation to sell a narrative. You’re helping the fatty to live a better quality life and 30 years longer, implying that this is somehow negative is evil.

                  You don’t say you “restrain” children like you were chaining them up when you don’t allow certain behaviors, you say you’re educating them, which is the actual honest representation of your actions and the truth.

                  My opinion is that the “restraining women” meme is influenced by marxist framing, that implies that women want to be men and enjoy being men, even though they end up necking themselves or drowning in wine and prozac. And that we reactionaries are evil, because we are “restraining female sexuality”, when we are doing the opposite, we are allowing women to be women and let them enjoy being women, to be happy and better themselves as women. Because the truth is that women don’t want to sleep around, men are the ones who sleep around, basic biology, what women want is an alpha and to be dominated by an alpha as proven by the facts instead of the obviously false narrative.

                  Women actually can’t tell for shit what an alpha is anyway, best thing you can do for them is to build their husbands as alphas and let them experience that bliss. And women can’t tell for shit what an actual alpha looks like because they are not men, they do not think like men and do not behave as men. But you put 20 men inside a room long enough and you’ll get a clear hierarchy and a full spectrum of expected social behavior or else.

                  I don’t think this is talked about enough, it’s discussed from many perspectives but never plainly enough. Civilizations can endure a lot of things but civilizations cannot endure outlawing masculinity, because men are the ones who build civilization and when they stop being men, they stop building it.

                  Btw, how do you get the quote format here?

                • jim says:

                  > Btw, how do you get the quote format here?

                  <blockquote>&gt; Btw, how do you get the quote format here?</blockquote>

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Restraining women is occasionally a literal necessity, as in you have to physically restrain her, a la the meme of chaining disobedient daughters to a cellar wall until you find them a man. Men restrain those things they want to control, and women are in desperate need of control. If you let men defend themselves against interlopers without restraining women, women are apt to find a whole lot of interlopers against whom their man needs test himself.

                  If you let men freely beat up Jeremy Meeks when he comes sniffing around, Tom’s wife will instead get Bob and Will to fight Tom to see who is the most alpha at the company party. If you want men to cooperate, you have to remove them from competition with one another, and in order to do that you will have to restrain women.

                  Your proto-Victorian argument is that women’s natural nature is that of the housewife, when it clearly is not. Fucking around until some man claims them, then testing him until someone stronger comes along is their default state. Control, restrain, enslave, enthrall; whatever you want to call it, that is what must be done.

                • Oak says:

                  ‘Women actually can’t tell for shit what an alpha is anyway, best thing you can do for them is to build their husbands as alphas and let them experience that bliss. And women can’t tell for shit what an actual alpha looks like because they are not men, they do not think like men and do not behave as men. But you put 20 men inside a room long enough and you’ll get a clear hierarchy and a full spectrum of expected social behavior or else.’

                  When there were skin-in-the-game male spaces, women could delegate decisions about male status to other men, which is the only way it can be effectively determined. Now they have to rely on their own cartoonish understaning of male status which is hilariously easy to hijack.

                  This is why Vox’s male hierarchies are wrong. He bases it on who women want to fuck, not who men want to be led by. These would overlap before feministation. But not anymore.

                  Obviously not all men can have high-status. But that’s the beauty of a monotheistic religion. In obeying a beta, a women can indirectly obey the ultimate alpha.

                • shaman says:

                  Atavistic Morality:

                  My opinion is that the “restraining women” meme is influenced by marxist framing, that implies that women want to be men and enjoy being men, even though they end up necking themselves or drowning in wine and prozac. And that we reactionaries are evil, because we are “restraining female sexuality”, when we are doing the opposite, we are allowing women to be women and let them enjoy being women, to be happy and better themselves as women. Because the truth is that women don’t want to sleep around

                  The notion that women are innately monogamous is absolutely false. Women are inclined to serial monogamy, branch swinging from one Chad to the next until their declining looks can’t afford that anymore (they hit the wall), at which point they “settle down” with a beta to whom they’re not sexually attracted, only to later frivorce-rape his ass and give themselves one last shot with Chad. During their peak fertile years, roughly 15 to 30, the intervals between branch swings can range from every 6 years (normie gals these days) to every other night (raging nymph sluts), but lifelong commitment is not on the menu, unless you damn well restrain women from branch swinging and force them into lifelong patriarchal monogamy against their inborn inclination.

                  As Jim has written a zillion times:

                  Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and need to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.

                  And:

                  Patriarchy is a male plot against women to prevent them from defecting on males, which then gives the male an incentive to look after his women, as a farmer has an incentive to look after his land and his cattle, so we get cooperate cooperate equilibrium.

                  And:

                  One hundred roses monogamy comes from coercively restraining women from bad behavior, which comes from understanding that women are prone to bad behavior. Without external coercion, we tend to get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium.

                  A branch-swinging serially monogamist woman, which is to say a sexually liberated woman, vies to get into Jeremy Meeks’ booty call list, in her never-ending pursuit after Mr. 1-in-30; at the same time, she may opt to sell her pussy IRL or online to exploit involuntarily celibate paypigs, i.e., she engages in whoredom with pathetic losers for financial reasons. This is all expected and unsurprising in light of Briffault’s Law: If she isn’t extracting your seed or your resources or both, she’ll rapidly make herself scarce. If you’re a Chad, she’ll fellate you for fun and thrills; if not, she may still fellate you – in exchange for money. That’s AFBB (Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks) in a nutshell. Women don’t particularly mind doing either of those things, though they prefer being Chad’s 8th temporary concubine in the harem, aka “friends with benefits,” than being completely single.

                  Brothel harlots and camwhores prostitute themselves to unattractive ewww-omega males not because they actually enjoy promiscuous sexual interactions with them, but because squeezing lots of dollars out of a thirsty blue-balled paypig is incredibly easy and profitable, and paypigs abound and increase in the land the more women opt to go ho instead of getting married. It’s a vicious circle: More whores -> more incels -> more whores. To stop the vicious circle, need to prevent women from chasing billionaire vampire pirate Chads with salami-dongs and from using their spare time to financially exploit paypigs. That exactly means restraining them, men plotting against the liberation of women and female sexuality.

                  A typical 26-year-old slut wakes up in the morning with a hangover, masturbates and uploads that to her private porn channel, goes to do some drone-work at the office (as a working woman, she may be entitled to tax deductions), returns home afternoon, does a few live porn sessions with pathetic loser paypigs who never had a girlfriend, then goes to party with Chad and Brad, hoping to secure some sort of commitment from an alpha, though she’ll spread her legs regardless. Having at some point acquired a “sub-par” boyfriend, she’ll cheat on him with Chad every 2 months or so (he’ll have absolutely no idea, thinking she was totally a virgin or “sexually inexperienced” when they first met; in fact, she lost her anal-virginity at 12), then dump him in a nasty drama so she can have greater liberty to convert the existence of her vagina into money, all while chasing Mr. 1-in-30 at night-time parties. This is female sexual liberation, which NRx seeks to restrain by conspiring to impose patriarchal marriage on women against their vociferous protestations, which protestations will be revealed as a shit test if — and only if — the imposition succeeds.

                  Yes, wine and prozac are used to facilitate whoredom, but that’s beside the point; prostitution is the oldest profession, as would be expected from Briffault’s Law, women choosing to effectively covert their sexuality into resources, the ability to successfully convert their sexuality into resources being a trait for which women had been strongly selected for until men plotted to impose patriarchy and chastity on them against their will. We restrain women, imposing chastity on them, coercing them into lifelong patriarchal monogamy in lieu of serial monogamy and paypig-exploitation, or we end up with ever more whores and ever more incels, as nowadays. A camwhore does exactly — nothing more and nothing less than — what natural selection commands her to do, which is converting her sexuality into resources by fucking around (in this case, she doesn’t even need to actually fuck around, as she can easily collect big bucks from the comfort of her solitary room), as females had been doing for millions of years before the advent of patriarchy. We want to restrain that, by making women dependent on husbands and unable to exploit thirsty paypigs. Yes, that means harshly restraining female sexuality, preventing women from branch swinging, unemancipating women, as Jim has explicitly advocated a zillion times all over his blog, using precisely these words and that terminology.

                  Women had been selected for the ability to convert their sexuality into resources, and absent patriarchal coercion and restriction of their sexuality, absent compulsory permanent marriage, absent propertization and redistribution of the means of reproduction, without the King giving his warriors and taxpayers at least one pussy per customer, we end up with many prostitutes and many celibates. We either force women to act against their evolutionary programming by making them stick to a husband and have sex with no one else but him, we either force women to act against their branch swinging AFBB predispositions, or indeed we end up with AFBB, Jeremy Meeks swimming in lots of pussy which he has monopolized, and plenty of lonely paypigs. That means exactly that we deprive women of sexual liberty, restrain their sexual misbehavior, for which they had been strongly selected for for millions of years until men plotted patriarchy and chastity against them.

                  We won’t let women “be themselves” any more than we will let pitbulls outside the dog-fighting ring “be themselves.” I support the decriminalization of dog-fighting, and pitbulls can make a splendid show, but pitbulls should not be allowed to freely roam around town unsupervised, nor should female sexuality be allowed to freely roam around town unsupervised converting itself into money through taking on the oldest profession while chasing Mr. 1-in-30’s sperm loads. Pitbulls should be restrained, forced into the dog-fighting arena where they belong, and women should be sexually restrained, forced into marriage by male patriarchal plot. Marriage is a conspiracy by men against women, without which female sexuality is a pitbull roaming around town.

                • Your biggest fan says:

                  Shaman reaching levels of based & redpilled & god-tier that were hitherto considered impossible.

                  >women had been selected for the ability to convert their sexuality into resources

                  This. A million times this. This is the one thing Conservatives never wrap their heads around, which is why they lost on the wq. They think that wahmen really all dream about being a housewife, so obviously the real problem is men being unchaste. That’s the opposite of how it works.

                  >I support the decriminalization of dog-fighting

                  I lol’d. And agree, it was probably the usual suspects (puritan killjoys) who made it illegal in the first place. Pitbulls should be back in the ring, and wahmen back in the kitchen.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Women don’t dream of being whores either (well SOME do), the real female dream is generally to be the top HAREM girl.

                • shaman says:

                  Women don’t dream of being whores

                  Right, but following what Rollow Tomassi aptly termed “The Feminine Imperative,” i.e., AFBB, they invariably end up being whores, either literally (selling their pussy) or by any other means of squeezing a beta male’s pocket or help for all its worth. Women always convert their sexuality into resources somehow, and if sexually liberated, we get exactly what we have now: Many whores, many incels. Prostitution is not so much a female aspiration, albeit sometimes it really is, as it is an inevitability when women are sexually liberated to pursue their innate sexual strategy.

                  Also, just as women all fantasize about rape, and when you’re fucking one, she wants you to “pretend rape” her, likewise many women fantasize about being whores, which is why making-out prior to sex is all about you explaining and demonstrating to her, non-verbally, indeed pre-verbally, that she is a cheap and dirty whore who is eager to get it rough. They often dress, talk, and signal whoredom for a few different reasons; one of them being that it turns them on, if only subconsciously. (The other reasons are attention and sexual power, of course) Women aren’t nearly as averse to prostitution as most men think. Just reflect on the sheer magnitude of pornography, and then realize that it’s merely the very tip of the sex-for-money iceberg.

                  Thus, need to restrain female sexuality through a rock-solid, societally-enforced patriarchal plot. We want a chick to be your own whore in the sheets, and only your own, rather than the whore of a long succession of alpha males, and a long succession of thirsty beta paypigs. The female lizard brain is way more comfortable with prostitution than most men realize, and at the very least, we must all thank the 3 Rs of the Manosphere — Roissy, Rollo, and Roosh — for explaining to us in language what we perceive non-verbally (and, during seduction, communicate non-verbally to women): That women have a deeply-ingrained whore side, and that this primal whore side is attracted to some traits, and not attracted to others. That’s what the PUAs teach, and as the Dark Enlightenment, we embrace that knowledge.

                  Women don’t dream of being whores – but it’s not as far from that as most men assume. Their revealed preference is to act like it one way or another, exploit the nearest paypig, and if she truly craves your cock, you’re in for some interesting discoveries about human, specifically female, nature. Unowned women are apt to be whores, literally or not so literally, which is socially destructive for reasons explained at length elsewhere, hence the need to deprive them of the liberty to do so, by forcing them to be wives, compelling a chick to be your whore, and only your whore.

                  Women want to be prostitutes, and don’t want to be prostitutes, in the same way they want to be raped, and don’t want to be raped. Their lizard brain and their revealed preference are all for getting raped and being whores (in accordance with AFBB; of course, we’re talking about the female perception of the alpha-beta hierarchy, not ours), but consciously they may not grasp that, hence all the absurdities and contradictions of Feminism, the collective shit test that we failed. Restraining female sexuality by marital coercion is passing the shit test.

                • jim says:

                  > Women always convert their sexuality into resources somehow, and if sexually liberated, we get exactly what we have now: Many whores, many incels.

                  This is the gold digger fallacy. Women are after top dick, not after cash. It is far more effective to buy status than to give her nice things – or even to show indications of willingness and ability to provision her and your offspring.

                  A search for top dick only becomes prostitution because it can involve trying too many dicks, and because it can become a search for top pimp. If women were after gold, we would have fewer incels and more mongers.

                  Bezos cannot get laid.

                  Trump got laid by putting on the Miss World pageant. He paid for an environment where he was on stage as top alpha, and then paid a horde of beautiful women to hang out in an environment where he was top alpha.

                  Every ballet company is funded by men who get hang out as high alpha in an environment full of ballet girls. It is the respectable equivalent of the beauty pageant business. Mothers push their daughters into ballet to put them in an environment where the high alphas are rich men rather than ice dealers and pimps. Ballet companies are wife farms for wealthy men. Their real product is wives, not ballet.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Can confirm these observations.

                • Dave says:

                  We need women to make babies like we once needed horses to pull wagons and niggers to pick cotton. Check out the Biobag; scientists can now grow fetal lambs in a plastic womb. Or use a third-world surrogate like Anthony Stralow did. A man can mother a baby after birth; he just finds such work tedious and boring. It’s also a huge drag on his career, but his cost of living goes way down when he doesn’t have to impress women or pay chilimony to a greedy ex-wife.

                  He must resist temptation to fondle the kids when bored, lonely, and horny, but a man is lucky when all his problems are inside his own head.

                  Success in life is largely genetic, so a woman of high genetic quality can sell her eggs to many willing fathers who could never hope to marry such a woman.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts. A child needs to be raised by a biological father and a biological mother. We may well be able to grow pork in an artificial womb, but to make full humans, the hard part is the mind, and that needs two biological parents.

                • The Cominator says:

                  But stating the problem as a whore problem (feral women yes) I think gives people the wrong idea and reeks of moralizing tradcucks. This is no age of hedonism no matter how much tradcucks want you to think it is.

                  Women in the 1970s through a good portion of the 1980s were by most accounts I’ve heard (I’m going off secondhand accounts from boomers and statistics of what people said their sexual habits were like) whores… supposedly not that picky and not all that monogamous even if they were more likely to be married or be in long term relationships then they were today. That is a whore and they were riding the cock carousel.

                  Women now extremely picky and when they do have men serial monogamous, not whores but status seeking femcels horny for Jeremy Meeks only and outright hateful to other men and a good portion spend large portions of their fertile years larping as lesbians. This is far far worse then a society of whores. They are not so much trying to ride the cock carousel but the cock ladder.

                • jim says:

                  Women were less picky in the 1970s because men were higher status. The low status of men has resulted in a desperate search for (nonexistent) alphas.

                • shaman says:

                  Women don’t dream of being whores either (well SOME do), the real female dream is generally to be the top HAREM girl.

                  Think of it like a switch that, if successfully activated, turns on (if you pardon the pun) the female’s deep-seated promiscuous penchant, and makes one-night-stands and hook-ups in general possible. The reason it “just happens,” the reason why women are apt to exhibit Spring Break in Cancun behavior, is that — like it or not — we are all the descendants of a million prostitutes who sought to acquire both alpha sperm for their progeny (alpha fucks) and resources for their children (beta bucks). To acquire both of those things, they needed to be able to get down-to-fuck on demand, with or without desire.

                  We know that during ovulation in particular, women strongly crave to get impregnated by the most aggressive alpha in the world, and that during the other stages of their menstrual cycle (the menstrual, follicular, and luteal stages), they feel somewhat more comfortable spreading for less attractive men, who may provide them some things other than high-quality top-killer sperm. When ovulating, a chick will especially dig harsh sex from a harsh men, when not ovulating, she’ll obviously still desire to fuck Chad, but she’ll be willing to moderately compromise on the extent of Chadhood in return for resources. If you want to know whether or not your girl is really into you, or is with you because it’s convenient, check out her behavior when she is ovulating.

                  An ovulating woman is likely to massively nuclearly shit test you for alpha traits, and most men are prone to fail. When non-ovulating, her shit tests will be somewhat easier to pass, not because she is hornier, but exactly because she is less horny, digging some things other than just dick, such as the comfort and stability provided by beta bucks. She still craves the D, but it’s less of a monomaniacal fixation than when she is ovulating, hence she is most likely to cuckold her beta husband with Jeremy Meeks when she is ovulating, to get inseminated by his superior seed (as she perceives superiority), and then spend the rest of the menstrual cycle fucking the guy who is paying for her food.

                  Until patriarchy happened, in our ancestral killer ape condition, pretty much all females were whores – every female was willing to fuck for resources (food, shelter, etc.), as those unwilling to fuck for resources would’ve quickly perished and been out-bred by prostitutes, taking their non-whore genes with them to a very early grave indeed.

                  To get a picture of what it must’ve been like, imagine being a very rich man in a matriarchal (or Lekking System) Africa; literally every woman will fuck you on demand, if you give her some much-needed resource. Of course, what really turns them on is the biggest highest-status head-hunting killer around, General Butt Naked, but they’ll all gladly fuck your brains out for food and stuff. Maybe when they are ovulating, will prefer to spend their time exclusively in the company of General Butt Naked, but otherwise, they will wander off to the guy who can give them resources, as Mr. Naked might not be so charitable.

                  Better yet, look at how women behaved during e.g. WW2. Pretty much all women turned into prostitutes, fucking every soldier in town for a small piece of bread, if even that. And I don’t blame them! You’ve read some literature about the war, so perhaps you know what dis shaman nigga be talkin’ about. The switch was activated by the harsh conditions, and the whore inside sprang forth. Here’s Jan Montyn’s account, as quoted by Thomas Goodrich in “Hellstorm”:

                  A mattress on the floor. And that was all. Marika sat down on the mattress, I on the chair. I accepted a cigarette, although I rarely smoked. Where did I come from? she wanted to know. From Holland. Did I have brothers and sisters? Six. She had one brother, but she did not know whether he was still alive. She had fled from Riga, her parents had been killed. She had been here for less than a month. And a question—no, many questions—burned on the tip of my tongue. . . . But at once she gave a barely perceptible shrug of her shoulders, lay down on the mattress, her eyes open, and muttered: “Come.”

                  It was Anna who, shortly after midnight, when the party was at its height, enticed me away, outside, without anyone noticing. Between the carts and across the yard, her fingers on her lip. Into the barn. The door was bolted with a wooden cross bar and she led me into the darkness, her hand squeezing mine confidentially. Up a ladder, and then we crawled through the hay, further and further, to the very back of the barn. There was a hollow in the hay, and a hanging oil lamp, and lo and behold, Karin, too. And Hanna. And another girl, no more than thirteen years old, whom I had not noticed at the party.

                  Not a word was spoken. Everything seemed to have been agreed in advance. Karin and Hanna held me pressed down on my back in the dusty hay, a hand on my mouth. Anna was the one who pulled my trousers down. Anna was the one who crouched on me. And then, Hanna. And then Karin. And then, Anna again. And so it went on, while I, lying helpless on my back, was unable to move. Three pairs of eyes above me, three mouths. Groping hands. Breasts above white lace bodices. Girls’ legs under tucked-up, multicolored skirts. Whose was what? Who was who? While the younger girl watched motionless, wide-eyed. This was her first lesson in love. It was my second.

                  And here’s Werner Adamczyk’s account from the same book:

                  I . . . was just dozing off when the large sliding door opened and a crowd of figures stormed into the barn. I jumped up and grabbed my rifle next to me. “Ivan is not getting me without a shot out of my rifle,”was my instinctive thought. Well, it was an attack, but not by Ivan. It was an attack by the females of that farm. They were falling over us, hugging and kissing every soldier in the barn until they were consumed in what nature calls for. One girl or woman, as fat as an elephant, fell over me. In the dim light of the few bulbs lighting the barn, I could see that she was very ugly….

                  The natural drive for love had overcome them, especially under the conviction that their lives would be over as soon as the Russians arrived here.

                  All Women Are Like That. Patriarchy restrains female sexuality, and when the restraint breaks down, as when a different tribe of killer apes is about to brutally conquer, what Jan and Werner describe here becomes entirely normal and expected, women providing sex to any male, no matter how beta, in exchange for urgently needed resources, and sometimes not even that, as we see here.

                  From the flip side, look at how eagerly European women, living the most comfortable lives imaginable, welcome rapeugees who are going to sell them off naked in chains at the market – that’s the “Alpha Fucks” side of the coin, as the “Beta Bucks” side is sufficiently gratified and provided by Western Civilization. All Women Are Like That. We have all inherited the whore genes from our maternal ancestors, who have been strongly selected for the ability to convert their sexuality into resources, while simultaneously digging the sperm of the toughest head-hunter killer in the world; and a strict patriarchy is required to prevent our women from acting on these whore genes, one in which husbands are the highest status, satisfying hypergamy.

                  If beta, you’ll be wholly invisible to an ovulating woman who needs head-hunter sperm right now – but the thing is, the local gangster is likely to be stony broke and possibly in jail, and unlikely to pay for anything, indeed, the chick is the one who’s paying for him, so when non-ovulating, a chick is more likely to notice you, and allow you some access to her body if that’s what’s needed to open up your pocket. When the local gangster gets out of jail, and she is ovulating, she’ll cuckold you without so much as blinking; otherwise, she might have (somewhat reluctant and unenthusiastic) sex with you, if there’s no one to provide for her. That’s what being a beta provider has always been.

                  When you say that girls from tougher neighborhoods are more likely to be nice to you than spoiled brats, that’s the side of Beta Bucks playing for you – if their material comfort were wholly satisfied, you would be invisible, but since it isn’t, and they know that they need someone to provide for them, they are more open to spreading for you, not because their innate nature is magically different than that of more affluent girls, but because the sex-for-resources genes are activated in them.

                  These girls from tough neighborhoods are just as likely as spoiled princesses to bang Chad’s brains out when they are ovulating, but when non-ovulating, such a girl might notice you, because she is looking for the BB in addition to the AF.

                • jim says:

                  > When you say that girls from tougher neighborhoods are more likely to be nice to you than spoiled brats, that’s the side of Beta Bucks playing for you – if their material comfort were wholly satisfied, you would be invisible, but since it isn’t, and they know that they need someone to provide for them, they are more open to spreading for you, not because their innate nature is magically different than that of more affluent girls, but because the sex-for-resources genes are activated in them.

                  I don’t see this at all. Even when I cruise third world places where the chicks are actually hungry, they will not spread for pizza. They will spend time with me for pizza and if I perform the bad boy who will impregnate and leave, maybe they will spread for me. Rich girls or poor girls, beta provider will not get you laid.

                  You can get away with beta provider game only after you have built attraction with alpha game. Chicks want the alpha with beta provider inside – but not ready to roll out the beta provider too easily. They want a hard cruel alpha with a softie inside, but they don’t want it to be too easy to get at the softie. They want to have to earn it by obedience and service. Any time you show them that you will be beta bucks too easily, it is deadly to your chances. Even if they are actually hungry and very poor indeed, buying status will get you further than buying pizza. Even if they are actually hungry, you cannot afford to show any sign of willingness to stick around and look after them until they have first unilaterally provided a fair bit of sex, obedience, and domestic service.

                  Rich girl, poor girl, all the same. Poor girls are more easily impressed by socioeconomic status, but they are no more willing than rich girls to tolerate premature beta provider game. Does not matter whether you are cruising tourist hot spot or a poverty stricken third world area, women are all the same. Fatherless girls are more likely be interested in older men, and are more responsive to beta provider game, but you still cannot give them beta provider game too easily or too soon. Fatherless girls much the same, whether you find them in an international tourist hot spot or poverty stricken third world.

                  If gold diggers existed, Bezos would get laid. If hungry girls would provide sex for pizza, life would be so much easier.

                • jim says:

                  > women providing sex to any male, no matter how beta, in exchange for urgently needed resources, and sometimes not even that, as we see here.

                  Women do not provide sex in exchange for urgently needed resources, even if the need is urgent indeed. If the situation is actually dangerous, they will provide sex for protection, but this is part of the search for alpha – they are looking for the male who can protect them. And therefore rather like being in danger. Even if you are the man that put them in danger. Especially if you are the man who put them in danger.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Women were less picky in the 1970s because men were higher status. The low status of men has resulted in a desperate search for (nonexistent) alphas.”

                  ABSOLUTELY Jim… but nevertheless the women today are not acting like classic whores… that would be somewhat tolerable… They are acting as something much worse.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “When you say that girls from tougher neighborhoods are more likely to be nice to you than spoiled brats, that’s the side of Beta Bucks playing for you ”

                  Not what I have said… I said FATHERLESS girls (or ones who lost their fathers in early puberty)… there are a lot of other unusual personality profile traits.

                • shaman says:

                  Not what I have said… I said FATHERLESS girls (or ones who lost their fathers in early puberty)… there are a lot of other unusual personality profile traits.

                  Okay, I stand corrected; but the mechanism is probably similar, primal whore genes activated by a sense of material insecurity, whether or not that sense is actually justified.

                  Then again, Jim is right: What primarily interests women is alpha status perception, hence money alone doesn’t get you laid all that very easily. But under harsher conditions than modern life in the West, the ability to provide was valued more highly than it is today, at least for a chick who wasn’t ovulating.

                  When ovulating, gonna face extreme shit tests intended to figure out who the top alpha is, and the odds are stacked against you. Hence the need to make men collectively higher status than women collectively, by far.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  “women today are not acting like classic whores… that would be somewhat tolerable… They are acting as something much worse“

                  Women being whores and women “acting as something much worse” are both driven by the same perverse instincts that make women so much trouble in the first place. Classic whores are only marginally better than the world we have now. Nobody wants to marry a whore. It seems a little nit picky to say “don’t insult my precious whores! Women today are much worse than whores!”

                  If you like whores that’s fine but most men don’t want to marry a whore. The solution to whores and women acting as “something much worse” than whores is still the same and it’s raising male status.

                  And if you’re worried that your wife may get old and and unfuckable one day and that you’ll have to visit a brothel to get your rocks off, then no worries friend, your wife is your property, simply kill her and bridenap a brand new virgin (or a whore, if you prefer).

                • The Cominator says:

                  “When ovulating, gonna face extreme shit tests intended to figure out who the top alpha is, and the odds are stacked against you. Hence the need to make men collectively higher status than women collectively, by far.”

                  I’m in full agreement that this should be done. One way to do it is sumptuary laws. Most nights of the week (and not Halloween week) single women should restricted to say wearing all black and absolutely no jewelry in public. Given the way women are this would powerfully motivate women that being single is not an option.

                  Unescorted single women should be restricted from most public places at night (unless employed in hospitality) as well.

                • shaman says:

                  Such a shame that Heartiste’s original blog was discontinued when he was shoah’d by WordPress; he had so many EvoPsych posts about how the menstrual cycle affects female mate-preferences, neatly and beautifully correlated with AFBB theory.

                  You can still find all that stuff on his new blog, so if you have absolutely no idea why I brought up this issue, look up the subject of ovulation on Heartiste’s site – many resources there. Truly he is one of the greatest pioneers of the Dark Enlightenment, even if isn’t actually Neo-Reactionary himself.

                • shaman says:

                  Just one example, you mention women who LARP as lesbians; unsurprisingly, you’ll find that when ovulating, or more precisely, during the days of their fertile window, these women stop LARPing as lesbians and go to the nearest club to get banged like a drum by masculine manly men. When the fertile period passes, they’ll return to their dyke selves until next month. Women who identify as bisexual report that their sexual preferences change with their menstrual cycle, their sexual attraction strongly leaning towards men and masculine traits particularly during the fertile period, i.e. when it’s time to get impregnated – all of which is perfectly predictable in light of Evolutionary Psychology and “Alpha Fucks + Beta Bucks” theory.

                  So Heartiste cautions that men should closely watch out how their girlfriends behave during ovulation. If she gets super horny for you and wants you to bang the s**t out of her 5 times a day, great, she perceives you as adequately alpha. If she suddenly “turns quiet and distant,” you have a problem.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I think Jim and shaman are both describing two cheeks of the same elephant. All animals, not just humans, demonstrate major behavioral differences when their basic needs are satisfied. Domestic cats show all sorts of affection when they’re hungry or in pain, but – counterintuitively for some – can’t hunt for shit unless they’re well-fed. Male bears that don’t get the right nutrition completely lose their sex drive. And so on.

                  There is always going to be a spectrum of traits, so some women won’t put out for a man who’s too beta just because she missed a meal, and most women won’t put out for omegas ever, even if the alternative is literally death. But the amount of alpha-ness required to pass shit tests varies with the individual woman, her odds of survival without a man, her menstrual cycle, and probably some other environmental factors. That’s why some betas, sometimes, “get lucky”, and then not long afterward tend to get dumped or cucked.

                  None of this suggests that there is ever a time when shit tests don’t happen, or when women actually prefer betas over alphas, which would be absurd. But the idea that women cannot even stomach the idea of ever getting boned by any guy who is not the supreme alpha seems itself to be accepting of the blue-pill idea that women want to be chaste. They do have some higher brain functions and while their sexuality is naturally tuned to chase alpha cock, it’s also quite malleable – they can even have “sex” with other women – and really isn’t a big deal for them to whore themselves out to lesser men if it helps them get by in the short term.

                  That’s not gold-digging at all, just survival. Women may have evolved to identify with conquerors after hundreds of years of war, but if they weren’t able to deal with beta sex once in a while then I don’t think our species could ever have survived the hunter-gatherer days.

                • jim says:

                  > But the idea that women cannot even stomach the idea of ever getting boned by any guy who is not the supreme alpha seems itself to be accepting of the blue-pill idea that women want to be chaste.

                  You don’t need to be the supreme alpha. In a society where women are unemanicipated, nearly every male is alpha enough, and in our society, as women approach the wall, the level of alpha they require drops rapidly. But alpha gets the fucks, and beta pays the bucks. Women, all women, even if they are hungry, cannot tolerate beta, unless some male they perceive as alpha tells them to. Most actual whores are not looking for money, they are looking for pimps. All women are like that.

                  If God and alpha dad tell them to have sex with a beta, or their pimp tells them to have sex with betas, they will do it, and thoroughly enjoy it. But if they are hungry and beta offers them a pizza, not going to do it. If gold diggers existed, Bezos would get laid. If some virtuous educated women from good families perceived status as males perceive status, Feynman would not have needed to learn game and cruise far from academy where he was high status in the male hierarchy.

                  All women are like that. Economic factors do not directly matter, even if they are hungry. The male status hierarchy has little effect unless it results in other people treating you as high status in front of your target. Resources matter if you have already established alpha, and resources enable you to buy status, as for example Trump putting on beauty pageants, me hiring a bodyguard, or the donor to the ballet. But if the donor tried donating directly to the ballet girl, would not get far. He needs the men organizing the ballet to treat him as high status in front of the ballet girls.

                  That you can hire a body guard has no impact on women, though it has impact on men. The bodyguard kissing your ass has impact.

                • Dave says:

                  Two-parent families are superior, no question. I just think that the children of one-parent families are a lot better off when their one parent is a man. Men are better at turning little savages into citizens, and men choose eggs better than women choose sperm.

                  I’ll defend the bailey too and say that surrogacy is the right choice if all the women in your marriage pool are of extremely low quality, physically, mentally, and morally. Dark Triad Game is like calculus or pointer arithmetic — some guys just can’t do it. The mask slips, the nice guy is revealed (or revealed too soon), and another opportunity is blown.

                  Anthony Stralow won’t live to see the return of white patriarchy, but at least this way, his grandchildren might.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If gold diggers existed, Bezos would get laid.

                  Survival isn’t gold-digging.

                  All women are like that, but “that” programming has an exception-handler for basic survival needs. Women who prostitute themselves tend to service a lot of betas, and even some omegas, so obviously they will have sex with betas, just not enthusiastically and not when there are better alternatives. Maybe what they are really looking for is a pimp, sure, but the pimp usually comes after a certain amount of freelance whoring.

                  You’re interpreting what we’re saying as “it’s okay to be beta because if the stars are aligned you’ll stand a chance of getting laid” when we’re saying the exact opposite, that in cases where it may appear that some woman isn’t like that, it’s almost always because of highly unusual and temporary circumstances that will evaporate faster than you can shout “get back here you whore!” Relying on those exceptions at a personal level is obviously insane, like relying on lottery tickets is insane, but the statistical uselessness of buying lottery tickets does not prove the non-existence of the lottery itself, only that you are better off acting as though it doesn’t exist.

                  To claim that no woman will ever have sex with a beta, no matter how desperate, no matter how destitute, no matter what’s going on with menstrual cycle, need to explain how humanity survived past the hunter-gatherer stage. Women didn’t possess any other skills or commodities that would generate investment from cave-dwelling super-apes.

                  “Sex for survival” in women does not logically amplify to “sex for excess” for the same reason that “work for survival” in men does not amplify to “work for excess”. Once survival needs are met, once a certain comfort level is reached, people tend to stop caring so much about acquiring more resources, but a chick who’s literally starving isn’t going to be that picky about which guy she gets her next meal from.

                  Eastern Europeans are poor, but that’s not the same as starving. You want to see something analogous to starving, look at the crack and heroin addicts who cheerfully volunteer to suck off any dude who happens to be passing by. They don’t (often) have pimps, just a lot of desperation.

                  This is not advocacy of any kind – having that degree of poverty affecting any significant number of women pretty much implies collapse of civilization, so it’s not what we want. But it’s not gold-digging either, it’s an entirely different phenomenon.

                  To summarize: “sex > comfort/convenience” is not incompatible with “survival > sex”. I don’t think it’s unhealthy to acknowledge the latter because it still leads to the conclusion that patriarchy is, by a wide margin, the best social arrangement we know of.

                • jim says:

                  > You’re interpreting what we’re saying as “it’s okay to be beta because if the stars are aligned you’ll stand a chance of getting laid” when we’re saying the exact opposite,

                  No I am not. I am telling you are just flat wrong about the nature of women. Beta provider game just does not work, even if they are hungry, at least not until you have first built attraction, which requires withholding beta provider game until they have had sex with you, obeyed you, and served you.

                  Feral female sexuality is really bad, but it simply is not mercenary. It would be less bad if it was mercenary.

                  > To claim that no woman will ever have sex with a beta, no matter how desperate, no matter how destitute, no matter what’s going on with menstrual cycle, need to explain how humanity survived past the hunter-gatherer stage. Women didn’t possess any other skills or commodities that would generate investment from cave-dwelling super-apes.

                  Our transition to human happened when one gang of male killer apes killed another gang of killer apes, took their women, and decided to allot the women to particular warriors. Women did not have much say in it. Killer apes that found they had a property right in females were inclined to feed her. The ones inclined to take care of their property, the more human killer apes, had more descendants. We are descended entirely from peoples that gave women little or no say in it, because peoples that give women a say in it die out.

                  That women find male apes sexually attractive while men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that there has not been a whole lot of female choice happening since we looked like apes.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If there is widespread say starvation provider beta begins to LOOK alpha almost no matter what because in the female hindbrain you can’t be a beta male with widespread famine and death AND be providing otherwise some alpha male should have killed you in a state of nature.

                • jim says:

                  Maybe. Neither of us have been in a situation of widespread starvation. But there was widespread starvation under the Nazi regime, because they screwed up food production, and there was widespread starvation in Japan in the latter days of world war II, and in anecdotes about those times, not seeing reports of any change in the sexual conduct of women. Whereas conquest did produce an obvious change in the sexual conduct of women, with lots of anecdotes about that.

              • Anonymous says:

                Coming from a prole background and hearing about court interactions secondhand from friends, relatives and acquaintances, it doesn’t appear as anything other than this big opaque system to which you should present the smallest attack surface possible in order to live. Very unclear how it really works, and how to turn it to your advantage, so it is fascinating and valuable to hear about how the sausage is actually made. Would you be willing to share more?

                • The Cominator says:

                  The most important thing to keep in mind (and this is actually what is apparently taught in law school) is that there really is no such thing as the law. Its whatever the courts and the lawyers decide it is.

                  Now the illusion approaches hard reality in some instances such as high profile murder cases but for more obscure parts of the anarcho tyrannical legal code… the code means whatever they decide it means.

                • jim says:

                  > Coming from a prole background … it doesn’t appear as anything other than this big opaque system to which you should present the smallest attack surface possible in order to live.

                  If you have a lawyer and an accountant, or, even worse, a HR department, it still looks like this big opaque system to which you should present the smallest attack surface possible in order to live, but the trouble is that if your lawyer, or your accountant, or your HR department presents the largest possible attack surface (supposedly because “legal ethics”) that increases their power over you, so they are apt to defect by increasing your attack surface, particularly if a company’s law firm has a seat on the board.

                  When they maximize your attack surface, they will piously tell you they are minimizing it. When they defect on you, they will double down on announcing that they are not defecting.

                  A company with its law firm on the board, has treason on the board, and company with an overly powerful HR department, has treason in power within the company.

                  The primary job of CEO is not actually running the company, nor even deciding general company strategy, but judging men. A good CEO sticks with the general company strategy that was originally sold to the board and shareholders, and creates a company that runs itself. But evil people within the company will grab hold of the levers of power that the opaque state offers them to grab power within the company, by defecting on the company to the state, with the result that you have accountants and lawyers making decisions outside their competence.

                  Lawyers, HR, and accountants are dangerous because they can defect by increasing your attack surface. Purchasing is only dangerous merely because they are exposed to bribes. It used to be that purchasing was the biggest problem. The competitive advantage of Walmart is that they had an honest purchasing department, and the purchasing departments of all their competitors were corrupt. Lawyers were always a problem, but HR has become by far the largest problem, while accountants are increasingly dangerous, particularly if your business has to comply with Sarbanes Oxley. The reason they could not get anything on Trump is that he avoided Sarbanes Oxley. No one can comply with Sarbanes Oxley, it is designed to make everyone a criminal, and if you go through the motions of complying, you are handing blackmail material to your accountants. Anarcho tyranny is increasing the power of lawyers, accountants, and HR, with the result that the corporate form is increasingly dysfunctional.

        • >I’m trying to wrap my head around how to describe high-trust environments.

          High-trust environments within low-trust environments work by referrals. There is one used car trader I keep buying my cars from – because he is an old friend of my cousins, they spend a lot of time together. He would not risk that friendship for whatever he could gain by selling me a lemon.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          “the kooks are locked in the loony-bin”

          I think the effect of closing the mental hospitals and letting the inhabitants loose is underestimated. Many, many of the historical and current left ‘have mental health issues’ that obviously should disqualify them from all sorts of public positions or public recognition. (Various forms of sexual perversions included, of course, but not only those.)

          “But what about enlisting new people in your club?”

          Require severe kompromat; this appears to be the approach of criminal gangs to neutralize infiltrators. (Also, as we may have realized by now, modern fake politics.) Don’t let the new recruits near the till or the levers of power either.

          • Go Back to USSR says:

            >sup guys
            >let’s institutionalize political dissidents, haha
            >also: “Require severe kompromat”
            >??????
            >everything will work out just fine!

            You’re a 120-IQ midwit and you don’t belong in NRx.

          • shaman says:

            Hey faggot, why don’t we start by institutionalizing 4chaners (and you specifically among them) who claim that if you’re a popular leftist chef in D.C., you must surely 100% totally be selling off little girls to be sexually abused by “adult straight pedophiles”? That’s a pretty schizophrenic claim, isn’t it? Fun fact: If your fellow Qtard federal shills were all locked up forever, there would be far fewer ideologically-inspired mass shootings in the US that kill innocent white kids. So why don’t we lock you up, kookoo?

            And why don’t you put your money where your semen-guzzling cock-sucking mouth is by providing a little bit of kompromat about yourself, hmm? Or do you just expect “fellow reactionaries” to do so? Hey cucklord dumbass, let’s start right now by seeing some “severe kompromat” about one so-called Anonymous 2, shall we?

            Seriously: You have to go back to whatever communist hellhole you crawled out from, where your tactics were the rule.

            • The Cominator says:

              Alefantis and David Brock are and were certainly fags, the Podestas otoh may be among the very very rare true heterosexual pedophiles who like prepubescent girls, its VERY VERY rare but DOES exist. I hate Q and I hate Qtards but I distinguish between Q and Pizzagate (and even between Epstein and pizzagate, Epstein appeared to be a glow in the dark honeypot involving teenage girls).

              The much more reliable FBIanon (almost everything FBIanon said about the US government the Trump campaign and the Clintons turned out to be true much of it before it was public knowledge) told us that we’d find the pizzagate stuff.

              • shaman says:

                Provide evidence that anyone was being sex-trafficked from an underground basement under Comet Ping Pong. Show the evidence, faggot.

                Don’t give us links to pizzagaters, who link to other pizzagaters, who link to other pizzagaters, who link to other pizzagaters, who link to other pizzagaters, who link to other pizzagaters, who link to other pizzagaters, who link to other pizzagaters, who confidently assert that the evidence surely and definitely exists. Show the evidence that sex-trafficking happened inside a tunnel under Coment Ping Pong.

                Podestas otoh may be among the very very rare true heterosexual pedophiles

                Nuts. You have no evidence for that claim, other than 4chan hoaxes. The Podestas may be swine, but you have exactly 0 evidence that they are “heterosexual pedophiles.”

                The pedo-hysterical Pizzaagate hoax had originated on the Facebook Page of Carmen Katz, prior your fake and gay “FBI Anon.”

                Google “Carmen Katz Pizzagate” and you will find enough evidence to prove it, conclusively. After you’re done reading about Carmen Katz’s Facebook Page, where the pedo-hysterical pizzagate hoax had originated, we can discuss why you think that the fake and gay “FBI Anon” was legitimate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Okay lets do this in small steps.

                  1st FBIanon and pizzagate helped Trump win (UNLIKE QANON which told a bunch of idiots to trust the obviously traitor Sessions when they should have been calling their GOP Senators and demanding that they stop protecting their old buddy) if only through use of confirmation bias to imply that she really was pure evil and only through convincing some Bernie bros who hated her but could never vote for Trump that she was involved with this stuff and that they should stay home. So FBIanon and pizzagate were on the side of the angels…

                  I do NOT specifically think that Comet Pizza and Ping Pong was used as a child slave holding pen. I merely think that Alefantis was involved. Hes too influential in D.C. (which holds much of the ruling class) for a single resteraunt owner that suggests that he dabbles in dealing in infromation and blackmail. His instagram snapshots were interesting to say the least.

                  So lets get to hard evidence.

                  1. The Podesta emails obviously had him using codewords in some parts (as they made zero sense if taken literally) some of which resembled the vocabulary of gays who fuck boys.

                  2. Their taste in artwork is the kind of thing gays would like (I guess I would say Podesta is a “bisexual” so he holds to the gay rule… but may molest girls too because hes a bisexual fag).

                  3. The very strange taste in art is shared by Alefantis.

                  4. Clinton Foundation links to Laura Silsby.

                  So is pizzagate proven certainly not, but there is enough to warrant an investigation. And its no so far fetched to believe a shadowy DC ruling class makes people do this crap as a kind of mutual blackmail initiation.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GZFHLAcG8A&list=PLqFQ7R19rpFXNLa9Jp7kAszY2QyblZ7Ck&index=19

                  Ben Swann summed it up pretty well without any sensationalism or claiming proof when there is no proof, AND he got fired for it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  And looking up Carmen Katz pizzagate the 1st result claimed “muh Russia” when I hear muh Russia at this point I stop reading in disgust.

                  Can you link the Carmen Katz reference I should read…

                • shaman says:

                  Okay, I’ve had enough with this retardation.

                  There are perhaps 7 posters here with a functional brain, and 77 without.

                  I ragequit! (For realz)

                • jim says:

                  Please don’t rage quit.

                  You are one of my most valuable commenters.

                  I was away from my blog for a little while, dealing with real life, and found that in my absence mildly deranged commenters had ganged up with seriously deranged commenters against sanity and reality.

                • The Cominator says:

                  See you tomorrow…

                  C’mon Shaman don’t act triggered I’m not arguing for the shitlib Cathedral lie that there are widespread hetero pedofiles.

                  I’m arguing that there is indeed some evidence an evil DC clique uses this kind of shit for shared blackmail.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  I’m arguing that there is indeed some evidence an evil DC clique uses this kind of shit for shared blackmail.

                  Exactly this and for the reasons stated.

                  One specific piece of “art” that one of the Podesta brothers had displayed in his place is sculpture that is an imitation of a photograph Jeffery Dahmer took of a posed corpse of one of his victims. Jeffery Dahmer (of course) was a *homosexual* murderer and molester.

                  Along with evidence along those lines there is an email in that same dump that very suspiciously mentions wet work and contains the GPS coordinates of the ranch where Justice Scalia died.

                • I Routinely Make My *1 Year Old Girlfriend *um And She LOVES It says:

                  I’m not Shaman, but I’ll do my best to deal with this in a way he’d find acceptable.

                  Heterosexual pedophile is an anticoncept. Child marriage, i.e. sexual relations with a girl disturbingly below adrenarche, for example Aisha, is, while not the norm, is completely acceptable by reactionary standards.

                  If the girl is below Aisha’s age, then that person is a homosexual, who uses girls as a poor substitute for boys. For example, in “The Last Closet,” Marion Zimmer Bradley was assaulted by her bugger father, not a “heterosexual pedophile.” As Jim says below, “in so far as it smells of sex, it smells of gay sex.”

                  There is no such thing as “heterosexual pedophile.” If the girl is above and around Aisha’s age, it’s not oft but acceptable heterosexual relations (that should lead to marriage), and if it’s below, it’s a homosexual who is just lacking a boy to sodomize.

                  I don’t have Shaman’s wit, but how much will this take to get? Look up the word “pedophile” on Google NGram, and the word was invented around 1945.

                  Not one Christian had a problem with Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, not even John of Damascus. Because they didn’t care. Because they understood that sometimes girls of Aisha’s age like that sort of thing.

                  Because at the end of the day, a steak is a steak, and a salad is a salad. Men and women are different, and the difference regarding sexuality and age is one of such.

                • info says:

                  @I Routinely Make My *1 Year Old Girlfriend *um And She LOVES It says

                  Actually Muhammad is a closeted Sodomite who put his tongue in a little boy’s mouth:

                  “It is related that Abu Hurayra said, ‘I never saw al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, “Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.” Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, “O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!”’”

                  https://sunnah.com/urn/2211390

                  So no surprise his marriage to Aisha occurred.

                  He is also a cross-dresser:

                  https://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2017/05/mohammad-cross-dressing-homosexual.html

              • jim says:

                > the Podestas otoh may be among the very very rare true heterosexual pedophiles who like prepubescent girls

                The Podestas were certainly up to something funny, but that the something funny was third world little girls is entirely wild assed speculation based on nothing at all.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its not proven but on the other hand its not based on nothing. Their taste in artwork, association with so many gays who are in the business of boy molesting (Dennis Hastert), use of gay boy rapist codewords…

                  It should at least be looked into thoroughly by a real non-Democrat non-DC investigation. As for this Carmen Katz thing I want the proper link because the 1st link mentioned “muh Russia”. I automatically stop listening whenever anyone blames a “Russian disinformation campaign”.

                • jim says:

                  In so far as it smells of sex, it smells of gay sex. And it does not really smell of sex all that much.

                  Now there is certainly something funny with the Podestas, and they are strangely connected with lots of other people who smell funny, and strangely connected with a bunch of gays, but the specific lurid details are all made up. There is absolutely no basis for the story that they were sexually trafficking in third world girls.

                  My wild assed guess is that they were involved in something comparably terrible, but more politically correct.

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              Sorry, my eyes glazed over pretty quickly. I hope you forgive me, but it all boils down to that I just don’t trust you, Shaman. But then, this is merely a blog where you play some spergy yapping gross-out volunteer policeman with odd leanings, so it doesn’t matter that much. You’re not my problem, you’re Jim’s problem, to the extent he considers you one.

              More to the point, should you at some later stage want to become a member of a viable org and perhaps begin denouncing the other members there, consider that the leadership first somehow needs to trust you. You could for example have built trust by being a relative or close childhood friend, but if you’re a street walk-in they will need something more. It’s the way of the world.

              Witness the late lamented alt-right. It basically fell apart because of the poor quality and lack of loyalty of its members, including infiltrators. It couldn’t take the concerted push of the enemy. It would overall be best to avoid that next time.

              • shaman says:

                Witness the late lamented alt-right.

                With which you had identified up until it became unfashionable.

                volunteer policeman

                Bullying faggots is always allowed, and will always be allowed. Cry some more about it.

                consider that the leadership first somehow needs to trust you. You could for example have built trust by being a relative or close childhood friend, but if you’re a street walk-in they will need something more.

                Right. So your immediate and instinctive solution is “Give us severe kompromat,” rather than “Show us your open track record.” You ask us to share our deepest secrets with you, instead of actually showing what we’ve been doing out in the open. You demand — ‘require’ — that people tell you things that can potentially land them in big trouble, instead of e.g. proving and demonstrating their organizational utility, as it’s done in the free market.

                You’re a commie entryist.

                Nobody’s giving you any kompromat here. Why don’t you start by providing it yourself?

              • jim says:

                I trust Shaman, in so far as I trust anyone that I have never met in person.

                His instincts for enemies seem generally sound. He follows the rules. His posts are generally informative and entertaining.

                I have seen him industriously examine the comments from certain commentators panning for inconsistencies that demonstrate that they are lying about stuff. He smells liars, sock puppets, fraudsters, and entryists, and then he does the hard work of examining their output for discrepancies indicative of conscious lying.

                Having detected conscious lying, one is then in a better position to analyze for madness, stupidity, or paid entryism.

              • Not Tom says:

                gross-out volunteer policeman

                I’m rather curious about the “gross-out”. Do conversations about female sexuality make you uncomfortable?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Female sexuality gets pretty nasty pretty quickly. We are all aware of this here, even if we don’t dwell upon that aspect. Women on their own are massively depraved, and tend to more and more depravity until some man comes along and tells them how they are now expected to behave. Shaman tends to poke at that depravity, and even he does not get at the really bad shit that often.

                  Anonymous 2 seems off to me, something about the content and presentation that bothers me, but just because he calls Shaman a gross-out policeman does not mean that he is wrong. That is a role that Shaman plays very well. He flushed out this guy, after all. He works so well precisely because human female sexuality is horrifying and degenerate, and it takes a dedication to the truth to face the depths of female misbehavior that infiltrators and entryist will not or cannot maintain.

          • Follow God's Path or Feel Tesla's Wrath says:

            By the way, when you indignantly tell us that we “Have absolutely no permission to bully off faggots [like e.g. Anon2 himself]!” because, according to your worldview, only The Official Authorities are allowed to engage in such conduct, you once again reveal yourself as the fanatical liberty-allergic crypto-commie you’ve always been. I bet you don’t even grasp that concepts of Gnon and Natural Law. Yeah, we damn right have permission — explicit permission from Jim, in fact — to troll idiotic and utterly boring people like you as much as we desire. I made all your pedo-hysterical schizophrenic friends fuck off this blog, and I wouldn’t mind at all doing that to you. You know you have it coming, fag.

            High entertainment-value insults are always allowed.

            Look, a shill! Why don’t we zap-zap-zap him to cure him of his illness, as evidently he would do to us? It’s only fair and adheres to the Golden Rule.

            Oh, and we’re all waiting for that “severe kompromat” about yourself that you promised to give us by explicitly calling it a “requirement.” Take your time, bitch boy.

  13. The Cominator says:

    I am very secretive myself though because i can’t read people well. Secrecy stems more from paranoia then malice i want to stay a closed book on most things because i dont trust others.

    • jim says:

      It is not secretiveness as such, the shadow is the inappropriate micro reaction, the flicker of expression that is not what it should be. It is hard to see on video.

      When I move the discussion to conflicts with the state, obviously we don’t tell each other, “Hey, I dumped a truckload of asbestos and a prowler into the deep blue sea”, but that we have conflicts with the state when it reaches into our family and property is no secret, even though of course the nature of that conflict is a secret.

      It is not that bad people are secretive, it is that they conceal their secretiveness, they conceal something and conceal that they are concealing it. It is several levels of meta deep.

    • BC says:

      I’m the same Cominator for the same reasons.

  14. TBeholder says:

    Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
    And the leftists didn’t make much of a secret as to what “the worst” can be.
    But also, vast majority of them are bureaucrats and/or hipsters. Are they really eager to fight in a war? No. They mostly want to win via bluff and play with fire without getting burned. But bluffs don’t work now. So they can well procrastinate until it’s too late.

    • Not Tom says:

      They are eager to fight in a one-sided war, where the other side is disarmed and demoralized. And they are already fighting this war, in the institutions, in the media, and sometimes even in the streets.

      Faced with the threat of formal military power – a government crackdown – most of them would immediately surrender in order to escape the helicopter fate, which escape should be denied to any who fail to adopt and uphold the new catechism. But at the moment, there is no such threat, and they will continue to escalate Weimar-style, except worse, because Weimar actually had an active right wing that threatened the communists.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Faced with the threat of formal military power – a government crackdown – most of them would immediately surrender in order to escape the helicopter fate, which escape should be denied to any who fail to adopt and uphold the new catechism.”

        Which is precisely why I argue that at least the priesthood (law, media, social science academia, federal bureaucrats) should not have any opportunity to escape the helicopters except they be the rare Trump supporters or side with us in the war… we will immensely regret not wiping them out.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          You’re sourcing confetti for our victory parades as if we haven’t been losing continuously for the last 70 years. Keeping your morale up is one thing, but living in a fantasy world is something else.

          • jim says:

            We will win. Trees grow mighty tall, but they do not grow to the sky. They grow till they fall over. That which cannot continue, will not.

            History tells us that the left will not stop growing ever lefter. It will not stabilize at some finite level of leftism. It will, in the end, self destruct catastrophically. The only uncertainty being whether it kills us in the process.

          • The Cominator says:

            The left chimps after Trump is reelected in a spectacular way giving Trump absolute power and a free hand. That is how we win.

            • jim says:

              That is one way we could win before things go really pear shaped.

              Worse outcomes are all too possible.

              And even Trump as dictator victory would not in itself see us out of the woods. Leftism will collapse if denied ever leftwards movement, but the collapse of leftism will not guarantee its replacement by something more functional.

              • The Cominator says:

                Im no prophet and i do not know how to manafacture one… But leftism must be exterminated completely and without mercy. There is not much that could be worse.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  And the original sin of envy “must be exterminated completely and without mercy” too. Which will never happen either.

                  Unless and until we all live in a matrix utopia of computer-simulated post-scarcity permanent bliss. And then self-expire out of sheer boredom like at the mouse utopia.

                  So instead, the story goes on, and this isn’t our first Kali Yuga.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You can’t destroy envy, you can’t even destroy murderous and larcenous envy. You can destroy the theory that murderous and larcenous envy will work out well as a model for society. And you do this the Suharto way, half measures will fail.

      • info says:

        They prefer assassination and massacre over true honest battle. The former rightfully often classified as murder and the latter lawful killing in battle.

  15. […] discusses Trump’s rhetoric on Caesarism. Maybe Trump is serious, maybe not, but it sure is fun watching him troll the […]

  16. BC says:

    I’m impressed that Trump continues to pardon warriors from the clutches of the US Military’s injustice system. Now if he’s able to start firing the people doing the prosecuting, we might start having a cohesive military again.

    • jim says:

      That Trump has not yet pardoned his campaign staff for crimes equally bogus suggests that he thinks that in the not very distant future, he is going to need military loyalty more than campaign staff loyalty.

      Meanwhile, the progressives just cannot help themselves – they continue to go after the police and military even though the way the wind blows, it is a very bad idea and rapidly becoming a worse idea.

      At some time in the not very distant future there is likely to be something that looks like a legal arrest warrant for a bunch of democrats, and something that looks like a legal arrest warrant for Trump, his family, his top staff, and a bunch of Republicans. And the question will be which warrant gets served.

      • The Cominator says:

        He should pardon his campaign staff (AND Assange even if Assange is not quite our friend ideologically) … every day that Flynn (who fits both categories) Manafort and Stone twist in the wind he looks weak and like he doesn’t have his people’s back.

      • BC says:

        Politically, it’s considerably less dangerous to pardon people for shooting terrorists. There’s no spin that makes the public sympathetic to the idea of locking up warriors for such. Trump’s campaign staff know that they all get Pardons on November 21st 2020 at the latest. But those pardons are very unlikely to stick if Trump’s not President in 2021+.

        The left doesn’t appear to be taking the idea of civil war very seriously. Not surprising considering that the right has been rolling over for them as long as they can remember. For all their screaming about Trump, they’re not taking him very seriously especially after they used his own DOJ to go after Rudy.

        • jim says:

          > The left doesn’t appear to be taking the idea of civil war very seriously

          The normal thread of color revolution is that the left pulls out a horde of its people who peacefully assemble for the redress of grievances. When this does not work, they gradually drift to greater and greater violence by fewer and fewer people. At some point few dozen black clad masked protesters throw molotov cocktails over the property of persons of an unpopular minority, and eventually over a few persons of an unpopular minority. When this does not work, the US air force drops thirty thousand tonnes of napalm and high explosives over persons and property connected to the government being color revolutioned and to unpopular minorities, and the spontaneous outrage of the oppressed masses is victorious. But the thirty thousand tonnes of high explosives quietly goes down the memory hole, and the left don’t seem to have any recollection of it.

          So I would say it is not so much that they are not taking the prospect of civil war seriously, as that they are doublethinking it. They are, as Barr complained in his recent speech to the Federalist society, vehemently, loudly, and vigorously employing civil war rhetoric. In this sense, they are taking it seriously.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        Speaking of progressives being unable to help themselves…

        Sleepy Joe Biden is angry that President Trump is pardoning military.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1196093459486191616

    • BC says:

      Looks like the Navy leadership has decided to decided to directly challenge Trump:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-trident.html?

      The Navy SEAL at the center of a high-profile war crimes case has been ordered to appear before Navy leaders Wednesday morning, and is expected to be notified that the Navy intends to oust him from the elite commando force, two Navy officials said on Tuesday.

      The move could put the SEAL commander, Rear Adm. Collin Green, in direct conflict with President Trump, who last week cleared the sailor, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, of any judicial punishment in the war crimes case. Military leaders opposed that action as well as Mr. Trump’s pardons of two soldiers involved in other murder cases.

      Sounds like a good opportunity to purge the upper ranks of the Obama Navy.

      • jim says:

        This is a question of the unitary presidency that Barr was talking about. Is the president president, or is everyone in the presidency president?

        If everyone in the presidency is president, then you have anarcho tyranny and mobile banditry, but the presidency has grown so large that it is very difficult to control.

        Doubtless, if Trump asserts that he is the one and only president, that too will be deemed an impeachable offense, but even if Trump had death squads at his call, as Augustus did and Duterte has, he, like Augustus and Duterte, would still find the apparatus of government slipping from his grasp.

        • BC says:

          It’s interesting watching the dems play out “he’s getting weaker all the time”. The testimony isn’t even mildly harmful to Trump, but the headlines get ever more insistent that Trump is losing and growing weaker. The public seems completely disengaged about it, they can’t even fill up comment sections on reddit about with anything other than the paid shills.

          • jim says:

            “Weaker all the time” only makes sense as preparation for removing Trump without the obsolete inconvenience of a senate vote. It does not make sense as election strategy, for though a lie can get around the world before the truth can get its pants on, the truth is getting its pants on. As an election strategy, too soon.

            Of course the tactics of the Democrats do not necessarily have to make sense, since they are caught in a holiness spiral and suffer from Trump derangement syndrome, but if there is any sane strategy behind this, the strategy is color revolution: Remove Trump by color revolution before the election.

            A color revolution starts with a mighty, but peaceful and orderly protest in the streets, followed by increasing violence by fewer and fewer protesters. After it reaches the Molotov cocktail stage, if the evil tyrant is not removed by the spontaneous outrage of the masses, the US air force drops thirty thousand tonnes of napalm and high explosives – which step in the color revolution process disappears down the memory hole – I don’t think the color revolutionists are fully aware of that step in the process, but without the threat of it, I doubt that color revolution is likely to succeed.

            So color revolution in the US is also insane – and similarly Hong Kong. The people demanding the overthrow of the traditional and customary system in Hong Kong don’t seem to be aware that China has achieved air and sea supremacy in the South China sea. In a conflict between the US and China in or near the South China sea, most US airbases in Taiwan and any carriers in the vicinity would likely be destroyed before their planes even got in the air.

            This partly because they are in denial about the thirty thousand tonnes of US Government high explosive phase of color revolution, but when someone raises the issue of armed conflict between the US and China over Hong Kong, they will also deny Chinese supremacy in the South China sea, rather than denying the possibility of armed conflict.

            Color revolutionists believe that color revolution succeeds, and usually succeeds with little bloodshed, by religious conversion to the true faith. And often enough, indeed usually, this is in a sense true. The people around the evil tyrant see that the arc of history inevitably bends towards social justice, the fall of the evil tyrant is therefore inevitable, and they need to sign up with the winning side.

            But without the prospect of thirty thousand tonnes of high explosives falling on their heads, the people around the evil tyrant may be less inclined to believe that the arc of history bends inevitably towards social justice.

            So assuming that the Democrat strategy is color revolution, and it does rather look like that if they have any strategy at all, the arc of history may perform less well than they hope.

            On the other hand, the military defying Trump by railroading military heroes is the color revolution working as intended, so it is not totally insane.

            • The Cominator says:

              “but if there is any sane strategy behind this”

              As far as John Brennan, Mueller and the high level cathedral glowniggers are concerned there might have been originally… and perhaps they still see a certain value in trying to create constant drama because there is a certain part of the population who are very cucked and cowardly who they think they can convince that all the drama and civil strife will stop if Trump goes away…

              But as far as the Democrats themselves… no whatever strategy there is gets lost in the holiness spiral.

              “On the other hand, the military defying Trump by railroading military heroes is the color revolution working as intended, so it is not totally insane.”

              From what I’ve read and heard… Flag officers completely pozzed. Flynn was the last of the non-Cathedral hacks. O-5s and above tend to be somewhat pozzed. Its less politicized below that. Navy tends to have the most shitlibs of all the services though. Combat arms tends to be right wing nutjobs like us including the officers.

              Senior non-coms (and the military doesn’t function without those and the importance of them is I’m told in practice equivalent to very senior officers) throughout the military tend to be right wing nutcases.

            • BC says:

              They added Pence to the list of the people to remove with this mornings testimony. No way in a million years the senate removes Pence, so it’s pretty clear they’re going Color Revolution path.

              • The Cominator says:

                I have long maintained that Pence would neither go along with the coup nor would the left find him all that much more acceptable then Trump. Pence while somewhat establishment GOP represents the Newt Gingrich side of the establishment… not acceptable to the left at all and not really willing to play ball with the uniparty cucks all that much. The main bad thing about them is they will piously echo Cathedral rhetoric about Democracy and human rights and all that crap.

                • jim says:

                  The right hand edge of the Overton window is moving left so fast that Conservatism Incorporated can no longer keep up and at the same time perform its normal function of conserving the latest radical transformation of propriety, family, property, whites and males.

                  There is no room any more for the center mainstream right.

                  The Democrats want politics as normal to return to the way it used to be, while they grab politics as normal by the neck and squeeze, screaming Nazi Hitler Hitler.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Newt Gingrich wing of the party was never willing a uniparty puppet hence why Gingrich and his real loyalists (like Pence) were run out of DC by the Cathedral. Newt Gingrich was advised by Jerry Pournelle at one point, Jerry Pournelle was alt rightish and neoreactionaryish before either existed in their modern form. His Spartans/Empire of Man series is downright Jimian… warriors take power in a time of anarchy from a failing anarcho tyrannical and form a warrior monarchy backed by an official christian state church. Man is United by force but planets are segregated by nationality.

                  I recall an old post where you said Newt Gingrich was an entryist but no he never REALLY was, Newt Gingrich as speaker was a genuine right winger who got forced into a bad impeachment attempt he never supported that they then blamed on him when he never wanted it. He also genuinely supported Trump without saying directly he endorsed Trump.

                • jim says:

                  Entryists are double agents, which means there is no sharp dividing line between an entryist that is a single agent in that he makes a very bad job of entering, for example CR, an entryist that does a good job of entering, and an entryist that does such a good job of entering that he has in fact become a triple agent.

                  Thus entryists need tight supervision by the faithful, but this supervision, done heavily and ham fistedly, can result in poor performance by ones entryists, or mutiny by one’s entryists, and with conservatism incorporated, we are seeing both problems, ham fisted doctrinaire leftism by supposedly true conservatives, and mutiny.

                  So was Newt Gringrich an effective double agent, or a triple agent?

                  Well, if he was our triple agent, what did he accomplish?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Normally I have crystal clear understanding of what you are saying when you write… in this case I do not.

                  My position on Gingrich re entryism is that Gingrich probably has the Cathedral drilled in reverence for the founders and the constitution of the cuck right but knowing that he was friends with Pournelle is open to the thought that the Republic can enter failure mode. He has ZERO sympathy with the Cathedral’s great replacement plans (the Romney people framed Gingrich’s immigration plan in 2012 as open borders but in reality it was the Swiss system wherre someone has to sponsor you AND be responsible for your conduct and the locals have to assess you), social justice plans, war on men plans, war on capitalism plans and for Gingrich and Pournelle they particulary HATE HATE HATE how the Cathedral destroyed science and their anti education system.

                  So Gingrich (and Pence) are somewhat bluepilled on the founders and try to keep rose colored glasses about the Republic and as such pay lip service to all men are created equal… but otherwise opposed to the Cathedral.

                  Neither as President would really be much more acceptable to the Cathedral then Trump, they hate Trump slightly more because Trump gives them more fear since they know Trump doesn’t give a shit about Democracy or the Republic and will blasphemy even the more ancient Cathedral pieties openly whereas Gingrich and Pence will speak reverently of them and then add a “but” on to the end.

                  It makes that faction of the Republicans people we should see as mostly allies…

                • jim says:

                  Did Newt ever have any real expectation that his immigration plan would be implemented in practice in accordance with the way he sold it to the public?

                  On the face of it, not a very realistic expectation.

                  As the Cathedral finds its cuckservative clients ever less useful, it’s ditching them, and they’re signing up with Trump. But the later someone signs up with Trump, the less loyal he is now, and the more loyal he used to be to our enemies.

                  Pence was a cuckservative, but he signed up on the Trump train early. Newt has signed on, but he was late.

                • BC says:

                  My impression of Newt is he saved Welfare in America. It had garnered such a bad rep from the pictures of nogs in the inner city living on the dole and illegal aliens living off it while working. Then Newt turned welfare in tax credits, forever hiding the cost from the public.

                  That’s a typical sort of thing that Conservative Inc does.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Gingrich was with Trump in the early primaries he didn’t endorse explicitly because he was hedging a bit but if you watched him on Hannity it was very clear who he was rooting for. Pence also technically endorsed Cruz because he was told to, but he did it half heartedly.

                  The only disloyal thing he ever did is I think after the 1st debate with Hillary I think (which was not Trump’s best night because Trump foolishly got defensive about private business stuff nobody cared about) Gingrich did say Trump should stop screwing up.

                  I can’t ever recall him saying anyrthing else negative.

                • Ex says:

                  The most prominent thing I remember about Gingrich is that in his 2012 presidential run, he repeatedly and loudly said he wanted a moonbase, and he wanted it by 2020.

                  Looking back at the progressive reporting from the time, the papers said things that probably sound to them like critique but sound to me like sense:

                  > Gingrich proposed doing this without increasing NASA’s budget. Instead, he’d transform the agency’s culture, rely heavily on private industry and leverage American ingenuity. He said he’d use 10 percent of the NASA budget — which would amount to nearly $2 billion a year — to create prizes, incentives for entrepreneurs to achieve spaceflight milestones.

                  Seems there’s some good in that man, if he can reach for the sky and recognize private industry.

              • The Cominator says:

                “My impression of Newt is he saved Welfare in America. ”

                Nah welfare cases don’t generally use the classic welfare program anymore because Newt made it a low paying pain in the ass. Food stamps and falsing claiming disability far more often used.

                • BC says:

                  You have no idea what you’re talking about. Every illegal alien in the country is collecting welfare from tax credits.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I know but I thought the child tax credits came later.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes I just readup on the background of the child tax credits the illegals claim.

                  The initial child tax credits WERE made under Newt BUT they were not “refundable” welfare programs when 1st enacted. It was Dubya and the post Newt Republicans who made them a refundable welfare program.

            • Poochman says:

              Aren’t the “he’s growing weaker” headlines no different from what we’ve seen since Trump has been elected?

              • Not Tom says:

                They’re similar, but have to keep getting louder and more frenetic because Trump’s popularity and hold on power is actually growing. “Mainstream” media is now constantly using language more characteristic of tabloids, like “BOMBSHELL” (literally in all caps).

                Even the cucks are starting to be tuned into the fact that a successful impeachment and removal would start a civil war – or more precisely, turn the existing cold war hot.

                But the left cannot stop the escalation, not only because stopping would diminish their grip on power, but because they’ve been riding the tiger for too long and no longer have any control.

              • jim says:

                They have been working color revolution starting when the tears started flowing at Hillary’s election celebration.

                The color revolution script is “weaker, weaker, weaker, weaker, weaker, falling, falling, failling. HE HAS FALLEN!”

                And when, as is frequently the case, he has not fallen, you then get two entities attempting to exercise a monopoly of legitimate force in the same territory, in other words civil war.

                Of course, without an external power base and the US air force dropping large amounts of high explosive, the “HE HAS FALLEN!” announcement may end with a whimper, rather than a bang. 2020 is too soon for civil war, but the Democrats are walking the path for civil war in 2020. Color Revolution in Hong Kong seems to be ending with a whimper as it becomes obvious that the US air force is not going to come to the rescue.

  17. Why are there suddenly far more than usual comments on old posts?

  18. Anonymous 2 says:

    Coincidentally, I see that AG Barr says Jeffrey Epstein death was result of ‘perfect storm of screw ups’. Whew, I was getting a bit worried there for a while.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/attorney-general-barr-says-jeffrey-epstein-death-was-result-of-perfect-storm-of-screw-ups

  19. TD says:

    Jim, could you do a post with a list of books (or films, essays, etc) that have been instrumental in shaping your worldview? Reflecting on neo-reactionary / dark enlightenment thought, one thing I’ve noticed is there is nothing close to a canon, outside the blogosphere itself. Is there a reason for this?

  20. BC says:

    Looks like it’s coming to a head:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/military-leaders-lobby-trump-not-meddle-seal-case-top-navy-n1089661

    On Thursday, Spencer had responded to Trump, telling the White House that a tweet is not an official order and if the president is ordering the Navy to end the Trident Review Board of Gallagher, he needs to do so in writing, according to five current and two former military officials.

    The outcome this incident is probably 10x more important than the results of the impeachment inquiry.

    • The Cominator says:

      Well the Navy Secretary is denying the whole thing and I distrust “anonymous officials” but the navy is the most pozzed service so maybe its true maybe it isn’t. If there is any truth Trump needs to fire everyone involved.

    • jim says:

      Trump says:

      “The Navy will NOT be taking away Warfighter and Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s Trident Pin. This case was handled very badly from the beginning. Get back to business!”

      Disciplining Eddie Gallagher is part of the color revolution: “Trump is weak, weak, weak, weaker, weaker, weaker. He is falling, falling, falling, falling. HE HAS FALLEN! (And therefore we don’t need to bother with the old fashioned formality of a two thirds vote in the Senate)”

      > The outcome this incident is probably 10x more important than the results of the impeachment inquiry.

      If Eddie Gallagher gets disciplined, likely Trump, his family, and leading Republicans will be imprisoned, and eventually executed. If Eddie Gallagher does not get disciplined, likely leading Democrats will be imprisoned.

      If the military does not obey Trump, then it is full speed ahead to the “HE HAS FALLEN!” announcement. If, on the other hand, the military does obey Trump, then the “HE HAS FALLEN!” announcement is looks like suicide, and the saner Democrats will start looking for an exit.

      • BC says:

        HE HAS FALLEN! (And therefore we don’t need to bother with the old fashioned formality of a two thirds vote in the Senate)”

        Jim, are you seeing leftist agitate for this yet? Most of the discussion I see from leftists centers around ways to arrest or detain enough republican Senators to make it “legal” in the Senate via a 2/3s vote of present Senators. Or would that have the same effect?

        My impression they want some sort of fig leaf to cover their removal of Trump and Pence but I’m not on the same sort of emailing lists as you.

        • jim says:

          Arresting enough Republicans to make it “legal” comes after “HE HAS FALLEN!”.

          You don’t try arresting members of the old government until it looks like you can get away with claiming to be the new government.

          The color revolution script is supposed to lead to a bloodless transition. Of course, enclosed in their bubble, it frequently happens that the “HE HAS FALLEN!” announcement is made when he clearly has not fallen, in which case efforts to arrest members of the government tend to result in them declining to be arrested, rapidly resulting in escalating violence and collapsing legality, and in due course full on civil war, holy war, and race war.

          The color revolution script has frequently been effective in accomplishing bloodless political change. It is also been frequently effective in causing mass murder and genocide, but that seems to vanish down the memory hole, because if they noticed that, would imply that progressives and the US government had been up to no good, and arc of history was mysteriously failing to bend towards justice.

          • The Cominator says:

            Secretary of the Navy has been fired.

            • jim says:

              Great.

              That puts a big spoke in the “weak, weak, weak, weaker, weaker, weaker” narrative.

              If the secretary of the Navy has been fired, then any announcement that “HE HAS FALLEN!” is likely to be ineffectual, and if stubbornly pursued, fatal.

              The impeachment is just a sideshow to the question of who is in charge of the military. They cannot take impeachment all the way through the senate until after they are in a position to arrest large numbers of Republicans, and they cannot arrest large numbers of Republicans so long as the military obeys the president.

              The impeachment plan can only work if they finish up the legalities after removing the president, rather than legally removing him first. It can only work as the follow up to a successful color revolution.

              • BC says:

                Leftists at least on reddit are taking this as a huge loss. No talk of using it to impeach Trump. Lots of talk how this will make the military hate Trump or the military is delusional for supporting Trump, but they’ve lost that assured feeling that the Military would back them when push come to shove that they normally operate under.

                Flawless victory.

                • jim says:

                  The cucks in top military brass were and are after Gallagher because he was a right wing Christian, who believed, as I do, that when you are out of cheeks you can kill the bastards, that the Old Testament is morally prescriptive and the New Testament is morally consistent with it. When war crimes did not work, their reaction was the same as when Mueller found that the Russians were probably the only foreign power that did not interfere in the 2016 US election. They wanted to get him on something, anything, everything. The pursuit of Gallagher was priests getting antsi because they smelled a warrior priest of an enemy religion.

                  The pursuit of Gallagher shows that Christianity still lives, if only as a mustard seed. Did Gallagher commit war crimes? Whether he did or did not, they wanted to get him anyway.

                  Probably not a war criminal, but clearly he is a threat to our officially unofficial state religion, if only because people like him are going to cheerfully put down color revolution with an iron hand.

  21. Frederick Algernon says:

    >tfw you know shaman is a man of his word

    You fucking pizzagate/qanon/conspiracy gabwing alt-faggots ruin everything you touch.

    • The Cominator says:

      Don’t lump me in with qtards pizzagate is not so obviously false as qtardism, Q is enemy propaganda pizzagate otoh helped Trump and there is SOME evidence.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Shut the fuck up. I actually have access to a helicopter and Florida is full of swamps.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Shaman was being unreasonable, and if he gets that butthurt, he can fuck off. We dont need huffy drama queens and he was acting unreasonably drama queenly. Yes, he had a lot of good shit to say, but Cominator–aside for his monomania for murder–has plenty of good shit to say as well, and Podesta stunk.

      Between the creepy pictures of kids, the Jeffrey Dahmer sculpture, and the weird occult shit he was into he should have been flogged to within an inch of his life and then burned at the stake. If shaman’s opposition to pedophilia as an anticoncept was so strong he overlooked all that shit, fuck off. It wouldn’t be surprising in the least to hear that Podesta was buggering little boys at all, given his perverse proclivities. We need to emphasize how twisted and degenerate our elite is if we are going to replace them, and Tony Podesta is one of the best and most public examples of that.

      • The Cominator says:

        Thank you shadowed knight.

        I didn’t want to be the 1st one to say it but Shaman’s reaction to a disagreement was downright hysterical. I like shaman but its not my fault he got triggered by almost nothing.

        I’d be okay with not murdering the shitlibs if someone developed a workable cure to ensure they didn’t come back but to my knowledge Suharto is the only right winger who really ever solved the problem…

        Ironically the other guy who really cured the problem was… Stalin and Stalin did the same thing Suharto did, in 1937 nearly all the leftists true believers were killed.

        • jim says:

          I am tolerant of people being angry, cranky and rude. What I am not tolerant of is people being boring, uninformative, or worst of all, untruthful. Shaman was good at sniffing out deception.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Yes, he was, and I hope he comes back. However, he was getting to be a hammer that sees nails all around him. Calling Epstein’s prostitution pedophilia is obscuring the essential nature and facts of the act. Calling Podesta a pedophile is in accordance with the facts of the purported behaviors, behaviors which stunk to the heavens.

            Shaman was so intent on destroying pedophilia as an anticoncept that he missed that the case of use was in line with reality: a degenerate with degenerate sexuality that is so wrong that he unnerves all normal people who’s path he crosses. He was wrong and he got super butthurt about being wrong, and stormed off in a huff.

            You have said that gay marriage is the only marriage now. Likewise, Podesta has gay sexuality. It does not matter if he only has sex with females, he has a degenerate, unsettling sexuality about him, where it is about displays and sterile and unhealthy. Podesta is gay as GRIDS where it counts.

            • Not Tom says:

              I think shaman’s objection was not to highlighting the degeneracy of the Podestas, which is both blindingly obvious and deeply disturbing, but to the implicit connection of that degeneracy with troofer stupidity around a DC pizza parlor.

              Tony Podesta is real, Spirit Cooking is real, and every normie needs to see the kind of sick shit that these people are into. Pizzagate, on the other hand, was very likely enemy propaganda designed to obscure the Podestas and other WikiLeaks/DNCLeaks material.

              Instead of talking about what actually mattered, the chans and to a lesser extent alt-media were filled with troofer types tugging at invisible threads connecting to incomprehensible conspiracies all hinting at an obsession with young girls (not boys) and culminating in an obviously staged “shooting” at a DC pizza joint, which subsequently discredited all of the grassroots outrage and more-or-less successfully memory-holed the real issue.

              The whole thing screams FBI propaganda to me. Real narrative, “Degenerate elite power players probably connected to widespread pederasty” was successfully transformed into fake and gay narrative, “crazy right-wing nutjob tries to shoot up DC pizza parlor because he thinks the owner likes to diddle 9-year-old girls”. And the reason the fake narrative was so effecting at neutralizing the real narrative is that, per Jim, every dude secretly knows that you’d have be crazy to believe that society has a problem with heterosexual adult men going after pre-pubescent girls, as opposed to homosexual adult men going after pre-pubescent and adolescent boys.

              Maybe shaman went a little too far, but I understand why he got so hot under the collar. The name itself, “pizzagate”, has come to be associated with an endorsement of the fake and gay narrative, not the real narrative. The real narrative was always “spirit cooking”, not pizzagate.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Podestas are basically reactionary poster examples out of the anti-gay handbook.

        Creepy deviant art, admiration for the artistic talents of a gay boy rapist / murderer, links to an obviously blackmail controlled Republican boy rapist, links to a whole network of weird gays (Alefantis’s instagram was seriously screwed up), runs Hillary’s campaign which is infested with the gay mafia, etc.

        Pointing out their weirdness is in no way like the cowards who go after Epstein for “pedophilia” for pimping out 14 year olds (who’d be doing the same thing for free).

        • info says:

          Epstein is nothing compared to Podesta and his torture and rape.

          The depravity of which deserves eternal torment.

  22. Frederick Algernon says:

    So, to honor shaman’s untimely absence, I have decided to continue working on the Reactionary anti-Homosexual Manifesto. If anyone would like to help me with the RHM, it would be greatly appreciated. Respond here and i will give you a task. You can read the first draft here: https://www.docdroid.net/ZOj3YTt/reactionary-anti-homosexual-manifesto-edit01.doc

    Currently, i am appending each point with a bit of descriptive, explanatory text. I assume no one will get involved, but if people actually do (let’s say 2 or more), i will post what i have so far. This is shaman’s hard work and Jim’s brilliance; i’m just trying to format it in a way that can be printed and distributed.

    • BC says:

      >Conspiracy: Gays always conspire, form secret cliques and secret clubs, which gives them leverage over those not in the know; that’s one way in which gays acquire power41. Their conspiratorial behavior makes them dangerous, because in order to govern effectively, the government —which is fundamentally a conspiracy —needs to eliminate other conspiracies that vie for power. Government being a conspiracy, it should be the only conspiracy in place; thus, by having secret societies, the gays undermine the government, and it’s in the interests of the King to uncover the gay cliques and to eliminate them.

      I’d recommending adding something about the Gay Mafia here because they truly do operate as a Mafia including killing people who get in the way, at least in Vatican circles. People relate better to a term like Gay Mafia than cliques or conspiracies, the former feels sort of juvenile since it’s only used about high school stuff these days and the later is a term that’s been rendered low status and people hate to think in those terms today.

      Secondly, describing real gay behavior in detail would be useful. Most people have no idea how gays actual behave thanks to TV.

      I’m a poor writer and wouldn’t be much help on a useful text like this but I must say that I’m already pretty impressed by it. Thank you for carrying it forward.

      I do hope that Shaman returns at some point.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Me too.

        What i really need help with is the Footnotes. I think i have placed most of the ones that are needed, but each of them is just a description of what is needed, not the thing itself. No writing necessary! Just links and/or descriptions.

        Conspiracy is Point 23. I am up to Point 09 with my companion text. I agree with your suggestion and will incorporate it.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      An example of the next draft thus far:

      1. Shamelessness: The behavior of gays is utterly lacking in shame, a trait for which they’ve been singularly infamous from time immemorial; they proudly wear their deviance on their sleeve1. Whereas a normal person doesn’t parade around his sexual proclivities, the gays constantly shove theirs in everyone’s face. When gays are present, the atmosphere itself becomes gay, because they keep broadcasting their gayness in broad daylight. They emit an incessant sexual noise, forcing the rest of us who are naturally averse to homosexuality to seek refuge from it, psychologically or physically2. Can you imagine straight men parading around giant sex toys and so on?

      Shame is a powerful force for establishing norms, habits, and parameters for acceptable conduct. Many schools of thought describe shame as an external limitation forced upon a person to the detriment of them as well as society at large. While there may be some value to this assessment in terms of causing malicious thinking to become repressed and further metastasize into something worse, this is the Fallacy of the Minority. Rather, it is more likely that shame causes most people to amend their habits and proclivities for the better, and it is only fringe representatives that experience shame and turn into something worse. Shame keeps the potentially violent peaceful. Shame keeps the excessively greedy merely tastefully spendthrift. Shame is the seawall that keeps the ocean of impulse at bay.

      2. Perversity: It’s extremely common for homosexuals to possess a plethora of aberrant fetishes3, which, like their “main” deviance, they also seek to normalize. The BDSM world (gimp suits, sexual torture, etc.) is inextricably linked to gays, who pioneered it, and who were embraced by it. They relish dangerous, risky sexual behavior that leads to harm and death4. Gays host scat parties in which the participants excrete diarrhea and vomit on each other; they are fond of various sexual gratification toys that most normal people are repulsed by; they are often sexually attracted to prepubescents, even toddlers (nepiophilia); there is the whole queer “furry” thing; and in all aspects, their sexual behavior is abnormal and depraved, bearing no resemblance to that of most heterosexuals.

      It is trivial for any supporter of homosexuality to employ the “not all gays” defense in response to Point 02. Indeed, it is not hard to find examples of gays that exhibit none of the tendencies listed. The real issue is not the practice itself, but the perception of the practice and what it means. Put another way, of all the gays that could be listed as “non-perverse” (ignoring, by necessity, the baseline perversion of homosexuality itself), how many of them would declaim the practices of their more-perverse co-practitioners? A “normal” gay fully accepts a raging scatological gay, a pedophilic gay, literally any type of gay, as an ally, often to their own detriment in terms of politics. An example of this is the very close association between gay normalizing activists of the 1970s and 1980s with the North American Man Boy Love Association. Further, as gay values and customs become normalized in any society, there is a further push for accepting ever greater levels of deviance as socially acceptable.

      3. Subversion: A fundamental political problem with homosexuals is that they always seek to upend sexual mores and morality to make them as favorable as they can be to their own “lifestyle.” One can say that this is understandable and sympathize with it, but why exactly is it in society’s best interest to abandon its own healthy ways to cater to the deviant desires of sexual ultra-minorities5? Homosexuals never cease trying to converge every possible concept to their lifestyle, hence the near universal tendency insinuate themselves into sundry political movements and undermine the dominant, pro-social morality therein in order to better suit their special agenda. They attempt to turn all political and cultural niches incompatible with homosexuality to “gay friendly” – and, if that doesn’t work, they frantically endeavor to destroy said niches because they are “violent,” “dangerous,” or “backwards.”6

      The tendency of gays to insinuate themselves in other minority movements is self evident. The entirety of the Intersectional Interpretation is the gay agenda made manifest. It is a tactic for telling majorities that they are inherently flawed by being predominant. It also acts as a force multiplier for fringe actors and minority groups. As a tactic, it is almost always successful as it provides a path to power for the nominally powerless.

      The un-numbered sections are italicized and are intended to serve as a bit of expansion on the core Point.

      • Not Tom says:

        I don’t remember the URL and don’t even want to look it up because it’s so deeply disturbing, but there is a gay forum you might be able to find (as in literally a forum for homosexuals) in which they talk about their bug-chasing activities and in particular their intentional attempts to transmit said bugs to heterosexual men through assorted trickery and outright rape.

        Some of the more extreme stories might be apocryphal, or trolls, but if so, no one called them out on it or seemed to notice, which is equally disturbing.

    • kawaii_kike says:

      I’m not very scholarly but I would like to help. Do you only need help with footnotes?

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      Suggested addition.

      TERRAFORMING. Gays cluster and concentrate in particular neighborhoods, universities and professions, which they individually and in concert, reshape to their tastes. Gays in such niches push the local culture leftward and gayward, and exacerbate the destructive tendencies of other leftist factions such as women, Jews, Democrats and Marxists. Thus they function as catalysts and accelerants of social and political entropy.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Good points, all. I will probably include that in a follow up paragraph(s). Feel free to give me a Point Number where you think it should go, otherwise i will add it were i see fit. Thanks.

  23. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    OT whitepill on the Trump anti-immigration front.

    https://www.huffpost.com/highline/article/invisible-wall/

    Inadvertently gives credit to the top lawfare heroes doing God’s work. Closing loopholes, tightening screws. H1B’s cut in half, 46 percent increase in wait time for visas, visa applications down; 70 percent reduction in legal naturalizations! It’s not just Miller, Homan and Cuccinelli. Others named are Francis Cissna (now out) and Gene Hamilton, “terrible sword of Miller”. The article is a refreshing tonic of leftist alarm, if not yet panic.

  24. Steve Johnson says:

    Always on topic for the blog but not of immediate relevance to the post:

    http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2019/11/do-high-income-men-marry-younger-wives.html

    Do higher income men get younger wives? Nope, in fact the highest income men get the least desirable women – those closest in age to themselves.

    Which men *do* marry younger women? Those with 20 or more lifetime sexual partners.

    • BC says:

      Good info, confirms what Jim’s been saying for a while. Gold diggers don’t exist.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Maybe, maybe not. Looks to me like confusing correlation/causation.

        *All else being equal*, more money = higher SMV = more power to obtain a younger (or prettier, smarter, richer, etc) woman.

        On the other hand higher income men put in more hours of work+education, therefore less time on the dating market in which to select partners. High income men have higher IQ, therefore more likely to have fewer partners and stable early marriages, i.e., marry similar-age high school or college sweethearts. Low IQ men who never went to college were meanwhile busy banging high school chicks, and maybe marry some of the ones they impregnate.

        Wealthy men taking models or younger women as 2nd or 3rd wives, or as girlfriends/mistresses, is not a myth. The boss boning the pretty secretary. But if they don’t start out wealthy, then the first wife is a similar-age girl from when they started climbing the ladder.

        • jim says:

          > On the other hand higher income men put in more hours of work+education, therefore less time on the dating market

          Nuts

          I know what the problem is. Been there, done that. The more money you have, the lower your effective status in women’s eyes, because the less you can hurt people and break things.

          The behaviors that get you laid are apt to get you excluded from employment. The behaviors that advance your career are apt to get you excluded from pussy.

    • jim says:

      The higher your income and assets, the more difficult and dangerous to act like the kind of man that women desire. I know this painfully well through much difficult personal experience. Hence my impatience when virgins on the internet tell me it is easy to pass shit tests.

      Thus women perceive the male hierarchy upside down. Come the reaction, we will make it possible and safe for men to act manly, especially men who are high status in the male hierarchy, and we will make the male status hierarchy superficially resemble in the eyes of women the primitive ape status hierarchy that women desire, as a garden resembles our ancestral savanna, in addition to, of course, severely restricting women’s freedom to make bad sexual choices.

    • Dave says:

      Then, seriously, what’s the point of attaining a high income? Unless it’s just a side effect of doing something you love and being really good at it.

      • jim says:

        If you have fuck you money, then it makes cruising for chicks a lot easier. There is a small amount of truth in my persona as a roguish adventurer. The thing is, however, that when faced with a choice between career and chicks, choose chicks. I was the only man who sexually harassed women in the workplace, and I never got into trouble for it. Looks to me that all sexual harassment complaints by fertile age chicks are actually complaints about lack of sexual harassment, or more precisely, men failing shit tests out of fear that passing the shit test would constitute sexual harassment. Wrong! Failing the shit test constitutes sexual harassment.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Raising your income does help, but is inefficient (compared to e.g. improving “game”) and becomes extremely inefficient if your alpha-ness is not roughly commensurate with the higher earnings.

        Women are using the income and status as indicators of how alpha you are, but if direct observation then tells them something much lower, you will be assessed as roughly of that level (in terms of desirability). The outward indicators can still buy some extra leverage in obtaining or maintaining relationships, e.g., a kept woman, but if the woman thinks she can command a higher level of alpha it will ultimately destabilize.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      > Which men *do* marry younger women? Those with 20 or more lifetime sexual partners.

      More sexual partners also means older men. As men get older, the age difference between them and the women they marry increases (with a corresponding decrease in quality). Behavior on dating sites is that women seek slightly older men while all men seek women under 25. Market reality lies somewhere in the middle, with the natural age gap therefore increasing over time.

      Obviously men who can bag more women also have higher SMV and can command younger partners. But it’s not clear which factor, SMV or age, is more important in causing the age differences in the GSS.

  25. […] employers importing H1Bs, and much whining from dot Indian chicks that I talked to the airport. Lately the Dems have acknowledged what is happening and joined in the whining, though it goes against their narrative “weak, weak, weak, weaker, weaker, […]

  26. info says:

    @Jim

    What kind of sexual deviant would you classify Muhammad. Who married a 6 year old girl and consummated when she was 9.

  27. LKPharmacy says:

    Hello very nice website!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing ..
    I’ll bookmark your site and take the feeds also? I am happy to seek out numerous useful
    info here within the post, we want work out
    more strategies on this regard, thank you for sharing.
    . . . . .

Leave a Reply