The General Flynn Affair

From the beginning, it has been obvious that the FBI and the Democrats sincerely believed they had the goods on Trump, that he was guilty of something or other, had to be guilty of something or other, even though they were never clear in their own minds of exactly what. And from the beginning, it has been obvious that the FBI and the Democrats did not have the goods on Trump, because anything that they deluded themselves that they had, they leaked ten times over to the press in ten different versions, and it was all nuts.

It was always obvious that all this stuff was self delusion, wishful thinking, and motivated reasoning, usually reasoning so highly motivated as to be Trump derangement syndrome. It was obvious from the beginning that they were evil plotters who could not get their evil plot together because driven mad by Trump.

General Flynn hired defense lawyers that were completely in the pocket of Trumps enemies, completely in the pocket of Mueller, completely in the pocket of those prosecuting him. He pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which is the universal all purpose charge of which anyone who talks the FBI is guilty. If they ask you questions for eighty hours, you are bound to say something that that plausibly can be interpreted as contradicting something else, so anyone who talks the FBI for long enough is guilty of lying to the FBI. He then got a plea deal in which this terrible crime would be excused, because he was such a cooperative witness.  They talk to you until you say something that can plausibly be argued contradicts something else you said, then they demand you tell them what they want to hear.  This is a closed loop that leads to madness, because it is guaranteed to produce confirmation of delusions.

Which plea deal makes sense only if the FBI and the Democrats believed he had the goods on Trump and he had agreed to give them the goods on Trump. And also makes sense only if he believed that the presidency, the traitors, had the power, and the mere president did not have the power. And similarly, hiring “defense” lawyers that were completely in the pocket of Mueller and the prosecution lawyers only makes sense if the presidency, the traitors, have the power, and the mere president does not have the power.

His lawyers were radical leftist traitors attempting to overthrow the elected government of the United States, the prosecutors were radical leftist traitors attempting to overthrow the elected government of the United States, and Mueller is a radical leftist traitor attempting attempting to overthrow the government of the United States with a long history of abusing the power of the FBI to persecute real and imagined rightists, while turning a blind eye to the crimes of leftists. There was no daylight between Flynn’s defense team, and Mueller’s prosecution team, they were all in each other’s pockets, they were all one big happy family. And it only makes sense for them to be all one big happy family if they were all after Trump, they all believed Flynn had the goods on Trump, and they all believed that Flynn had given them the goods on Trump.

The Mueller investigation consisted of going after everyone connected to Trump, concocting crimes for them, and demanding that they sing on Trump to be excused these crimes. And, often enough, when put under sufficient pressure, they did sing on Trump but the tales they came up with never had any substance, always wild assed speculation, bare faced lies, sheer nonsense, or just hints that pointed Mueller’s team to go after someone else, anyone else. Trouble with putting people under pressure is if you apply too much pressure, they are going to tell you what you want to hear, but it is not necessarily going to be anything likely to stand up in court.

Eventually, belatedly, very belatedly, the light dawned, that Flynn had not given them the goods on Trump, that he did not have the goods on Trump. This had always been obvious to me from the transparent insanity of all the leaks telling us that Flynn had the goods on Trump, but it had not been obvious to all the transparently insane people leaking how Flynn’s testimony nailed Trump.

So the defenseprosecution team, defense and prosecution being a single team that was after Trump, not Flynn, decided that Flynn had broken his plea deal, and they would hang him out to dry. Whereupon Flynn, to Trump’s delight, fired his “defense” lawyers, who were trying to lock him up and throw away the key, being driven mad with rage by the failure of Flynn to nail Trump. Flynn then got a Trumpist defense lawyer who was, and is, determined to expose the crimes of the Mueller investigation and nail Mueller’s hide to the wall. Flynn’s choice of defense lawyer only makes sense if the president has the power, and the presidency, the traitors, do not have the power.

So this looks like a creeping coup, and a creeping countercoup, with Trump countercoup successful. Going after Flynn is an act of pointless self destructive vindictiveness, an act of madness. They just want to lash out and hurt people for no sane reason. Punishing Flynn does not help them – it just makes it more obvious that the investigation of Trump was criminal, and used criminal methods. And if their attempt to punish Flynn fails, as it looks like it will fail, it also makes it more obvious that they lost, that they are defeated, that they are out of power. If they can punish Flynn, they are still in power. If they cannot, not in power. And now, whether they are in power or not is about to be put to the test. If they cannot punish Flynn, no one will fear them any more, and if no one fears them any more, everything falls apart for the traitors.

299 Responses to “The General Flynn Affair”

  1. Frederick Algernon says:

    It feels like we are approaching a point where we can start building premises and conclusions.

    “If Flynn gets punished, the traitors have power.”

    “If the courts illegally oppose new asylum rules, the traitors have power.”

    “If the traitors have power, Trump will ______.”

    “If the traitors not have power, Trump will _____.”

    There should be plenty more from more intelligent people. We should build these logical structures as expansively as possible in an effort to attempt rough prediction of a basic chronology.

    In tandem, we must address the State Religion Question, tolerating no rabbit trails or unnecessary (for the moment) diversions. Details are of course important, but it is my opinion that we are getting lost in the weeds with the expansive theoretical discussions about Ronny, Ritchie, and Rachel. These are important topics to be discussed, but they do not seem to be bringing us closer to selecting a State Religion.

    Finally, we need to build a viable model of what a coup-complete New Government would look like. This can’t be a hand-wavy few sentences about warriors v. priests, rather a literal handbook of things like “USDA will now be non-existent/folded into BLM/etc.” An actual roadmap of what happens to which bureaucracies. No need to explain why in the handbook, that is a different document.

    I do think it is time to start formalizing documents, but this is predicated on the ability to build some kind of rough predictive model of chronology.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “An actual roadmap of what happens to which bureaucracies. ”

      To rule you need
      Military
      Secret Police
      Spies
      Tax Collection
      Census

      Everyone else gets fired and every other program gets tossed.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Without agreeing or disagreeing, here is how I would transpose/elaborate your submission:

        The key components of the Nrx formal structure are [your list]. These will be derived from extant departments in the following way:

        Military : [list which specific pieces of DoD that will be retained*]
        Secret Police: [list which specific pieces of DoJ that will be retained]
        Spies : [list which specific pieces of IC that will be retained]
        Tax Collection : [list which specific pieces of IRS that will be retained]
        Census : [list which specific pieces of CB that will be retained]

        The purpose of the exercise is to make a substantive working document for outlining the end goals of the path to power. It doesn’t need to be normie, but it does need to be shibboleth free, to an extent, as its purpose is not to signal memes to an ingroup, rather be a collection of concepts to be reviewed, critiqued, expanded, and converted into policy.

        *I am a classical Yarvinist in that I firmly believe all former leaders and leadership caste must be given mandatory retirement. That being understood, I am also of the conviction that forcing every member of every department/agency to hit the road would only serve to build a rebellion. I see little utility in creating existential threats or expanding extant ones.

        Another point, one lost on many in the reactosphere, is that mandatory retirement is also for the transitional power structure, AKA the restorationists. Only the king ascendant gets to survive that purge.

        • jim says:

          Can’t replace the entire ruling elite lock, stock and barrel.

          What you do is have everyone reapply for their old jobs. Havel’s Greengrocer gets his old job back, or a very similar job with a new job title. The true believer in the Immanent Eschaton gets relocated to thought reform camp in Alaska, or declines to reapply for his old job lest he be relocated to thought reform camp in Alaska.

          How can you detect true believers?

          It is surprisingly easy. You ask them “will you conform?”

          And they, of course, are going to say “yes”

          And then you ask them what they are going to conform to. The true believer will be unable to say our shibboleths without brain shutdown, while Havel’s Greengrocer will glibly recite our shibboleths and scarcely notice that the shibboleths he is now reciting have changed.

          • The Cominator says:

            Can’t replace the entire ruling elite lock, stock and barrel.

            Why not? Everyone without special technical skills can be replaced lock stock and barrel. Have the shitlib functionaries shot and their property confiscated their wife sold as a concubine and give their job to a Trump supporter.

            This not only wipes out the enemy memeplex and terrifies any remnants who have gone unnoticed but allows for spoils for your followers.

            • jim says:

              Nuts.

              A great deal of the government is useless or destructive and we are simply dumping that part of the ruling elite, not replacing them, but we need spies, military officers, tax collectors, and suchlike. not so easy to replace them. We are even going to need some tenured academics, though the enormously swollen academia is going to bulldozed in an operation resembling the dissolution of the monasteries. We are even going to need some diplomats, but yes, probably need a total replacement of the hostile and imperial state department from top to bottom. The State Department is the Anti American Empire. Every single state department employee is a hostile traitor, but we want the existing police and military sticking around, lock stock and barrel.

              The spies need to be purged, but we want to keep the vast majority of the existing spies and the existing tax collectors. Getting loyal spies is infamously tricky, but the catechism and shibboleths will be somewhat effective.

              The military has a sort of counter state department, that will replace the existing state department, and similarly the military has a counter NASA that will replace the existing NASA. ITAR is just going to be dumped unceremoniously.

              • The Cominator says:

                I’m only talking about the shitlibs within the elite.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Every* elite is a shitlib, because shitlibs are the elite. It is very rare for someone to be an outsider elite, not because it is impossible, rather there are only so many spots on any given team.

                  You can’t have a functioning hockey team consisting of all Wayne Gretzkys, likewise you can’t have an elite of all-one-thing. Certain positions (think goalie in hockey) require very few spots on the team (most pro teams have 2, sometimes 3), while other positions have much higher mandatory minimums (2 defensive players per line, minimum 2 lines given the average ice time per line is 1.5-2 minutes). And Gretzky was neither; he couldn’t perform well in either roles.

                  The elite of the US is in a state of chaos. Too many people all playing the same position while their sons are off getting meme degrees and their daughters are off cavorting with worthless DJs in Cancun. But, if a team is being managed shitty, short term survival says the easiest way to survive is be shitty. Get new managers, kick out the worst of the bunch, and watch how quickly a dying franchise becomes a playoff regular.

                  The rules of the game dictate the constraints of the team(s) playing the game. One must understand the game being played to build the optimal team. Whatever the case, if you wipe out a whole team, players, trainers, and managers, your only option is to buy a completely new team.

                  If what i have written is true, your position can only be interpreted as A) throw down the oppressors, you have naught to lose but your chains or B) Hail, compañeros reaccionarios, necesitamos desesperadamente un mejor liderazgo, y creo que sé dónde mirar…

                • TBeholder says:

                  It’s always back to the classics.

                  [spits] Death Devil can’t play to save their lives amigo
                  Yeah agreed
                  Well, then I don’t agree. I think they can play.
                  They just need a new manager.

                  Or it’s not going to shine anyway, but the problems add up — when a group is obviously mismanaged, there’s not much of will to put an effort into it, so the performance is half-assed for lackluster. Replacing the manager will make it, with some luck, adequate for lackluster.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m suggesting we helicopter ride the true believers and in at least every department relevant to a coup replace the normie and npc ones with reliable Trump supporters. People with special technical skills can be spared but its a mistake to spare the others.

                  The right (except for Suharto, the answer to 1917 is 1965) is generally far far too merciful with leftists and then they come back, lets not make that mistake.

                  I guess not being a former leftist like many here I just don’t have any sympathy with them… mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. If we spare them we will regret it, they would not have spared us.

                • TBeholder says:

                  Are there true believers? Maybe some dinosaurs and trigglypuffs, but they are more of vile pets.
                  For one, obviously nobody believes in the cow-fart apocalypse, starting with those who preach it. Remember, #GreensGoByAir.
                  Those who prosper in that environment are hypocrites and chameleons. Thus, the moment they’ll believe Trump won, they will “always have been secret Trumpists”, turn around and point fingers at their colleagues too slow to catch where the new winds blow; those are mostly disgusting, but harmless when not mustered by someone more competent — it’s the very same sort who fail to keep up with holiness spiral and become “new conservatives”.
                  Then the chameleons will replace slogans and portraits, but otherwise proceed to play the old game as much as possible. And berate everyone who doesn’t fake enough of enthusiasm in the New Whatever.
                  We can be quite certain about this, since that’s exactly what happened on ⅩⅩ Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And then once more later, with some of the same people, for a good measure. And that’s on sharp turns.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hoppe is very very close to a neoreactionary and Hoppean libertarians are very close to neoreactionaries so is their view on “physical removal” wrong?

                  Ideas based on “free shit” and bioleninism are so naturally appealing to some that I do not think we can tolerate people who advocate them and as such if not killed they must at least be exiled… either way physically removed from society.

                • jim says:

                  What is Hoppe’s position on dealing with individuals and cohesive tribes that are keen on free shit and bioleninism?

                • The Cominator says:

                  With individuals it is that they should be “physically removed” from society.

                  Cohesive tribes are where Hoppe is still wrong he can’t propose an actual workable way to deal with them and not lose his Misesian card (that would be proposing a state capable of forming an army) and thus be declared an evil fascist heretic by the cathedral, he has however endorsed monarchy as preferable to Democracy.

                • jim says:

                  Trouble with anarcho capitalism is it denies that we should be cohesive, and denies that our enemies are cohesive, or that their cohesion is morally significant.

                  It is a very good theory economically, but you are apt to get eaten by bad guys.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  @commenator

                  Firstly, i was playing rough by suggesting you were extolling the virtues of the dominant Mexican Chaddo for keks. I was also tongue and cheek about you advocating leftist proletarian worship, but your subsequent comments have the ring of Leninism in terms of “get them before they get us” which is indecipherable from “kill his cows for being successful” in both optics and effect.

                  It is childish bullshit to assume that one will be able to purge evil and instate a perfect good. That is utopianism, which is marxism, which is entryism, which is wrong. Being sympathetic to losers because they lost is also wrong for the very same reasons.

                  I advocate a forced removal (or, more elegant, a re-application process for all positions in retained portions of old USG) for everyone GS11 or higher, or thereabouts. Under that level, your firing janitors and drivers and security guards.

                  You are advocating an inverted holiness spiral as a solution to a holiness spiral. You claim to be super objective and inoculated against obvious bad ideas, so can you clarify how inverted leftist purity competition is a good idea?

                • The Cominator says:

                  @Jim that is why I’m an NRx and not ancap. Power abhors a vacuum and humans don’t do anarchy Deadwood was the closest thing humans have ever got to ancapism but Deadwood had the unique situation of the US government protecting Deadwood’s lack of government (until it didn’t).

                  But Hoppe is very close to us and I agree with him that we can’t have any tolerance towards leftists at all and they must be “physically removed”. Now maybe that can mean exile but we can’t have commies, feminists, progressives or Muslims (except certain types of Sufis) living among us at all IMHO.

                  @FA I’m not a utopian I just think why take a chance? It wouldn’t be a holiness spiral, holiness spirals depend on leftism’s dislike for clear unambiguous hierarchies. “The Final Helicopter Ride of Leftism” would not be an ever more absurd series of witchcraft trials driven from below it would be based on a single order from above.

                  The only country that has ever truly rid itself of an entrenched leftist problem for good really was Indonesia and Indonesia followed my advice on killing EVERY suspected leftist. Now they still have a Muslim problem but their commie problem is gone. The answer to 1917 is 1965.

                • Not Tom says:

                  NPCs are NPCs. They don’t have agency.

                  The true leftists are leftist academics, as they made a conscious choice to go into left-wing fields, do left-wing research and hang out with Marxists. Nobody is pressuring you into being a social studies professor or head of international mass migration NGO. Thus, most if not all of them will be helicoptered.

                  But, those low-level Facebook engineers? IRS bureaucrats? TSA officials? They do what they’re told to do, and believe what they’re told to believe. Even a lot of low-level reporters are like this (though not so much the blue-check “pundits” and high-level editors – they also made a conscious choice).

                  We shouldn’t show the slightest bit of mercy to unrepentant leftists, but those who accept the new catechism and are able to perform it accurately are generally going to be fine. That’s how the Inquisition works. Maybe you’ll have some weak believers, but with every single subject upholding the catechism, heretics will be easy to track down and remove.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  @ Commenator

                  I guess I’m just stuck on your use of the term “all.” Unless a -cide is given clear and absolute limits prior to its beginning, it has a way of becoming a self sustaining mechanism. Another potential issue that could push a necessary purge to a “perfect as enemy of good” witch hunt is external meddling. If a destabilized period carried on in the US for longer than ~72 hours, there would be so many international entryists into the kerfuffle that there may be ample, logical reasons to continue a purge for increasingly vague reasons.

                  If you can accept that my issue with your assertion is in the niggling details and not the high level motivations, i can absolutely get on board with your cold demand for a total solution. Hell, that is what i want too. I’ve just grown leery of absolute statements containing “all” or “never” when it leaves the realm of the hypothetical.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Okay lets say after the restoration there are three kinds of people

                  Category 1 – True believers in progressivism and other leftists ideologies

                  Category 2 – NPCs and centrists

                  Category 3 – Ourguys

                  As far as the males go… The first category goes on the helicopter. Some exemptions for very very rare technical skills excepted.

                  As far as category 2 it should be asked how far they went conforming to progressivism. If they only did the bare minimum they should still be replaced with /ourguys if in government but no helicopter. If they went far beyond what was required and acted to further leftism to enhance their status and such they should be treated as category 1.

                  Ourguys are to get the jobs and property of category 1’s.

                • BC says:

                  >As far as the males go… The first category goes on the helicopter. Some exemptions for very very rare technical skills excepted.

                  Recall that Sula and Franco tried and failed stop the leftist wave with it. I think Jim’s right that the correct way to handle the left is religion and status control.

                • jim says:

                  You should use violence as necessary to control status and religion – not instead of controlling status and religion. Guns are not sufficient to rule. Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion more powerful than ideas. We have to make enemy ideas low status, rather than make enemies dead. Hence my recommendation that priests who preach heresy should be beaten through the streets the way the Russians whipped pussy riot.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You should use violence as necessary to control status and religion – not instead of controlling status and religion. Guns are not sufficient to rule. Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion more powerful than ideas. We have to make enemy ideas low status, rather than make enemies dead.

                  Our side doesn’t have a faith though and its hard to magically make one we only have a common we only have common hatred of the existing one… and I’m not sure how we establish one. Having a large bloc of Southern Baptists who are reliably far right isn’t good enough (and the rest of the evangelicals can only be characterizes as reliably cuck right).

                  I know that hatred of the ruling faith has reached such levels we can probably win through sheer common hatred (and the insanity of the other side) of the enemy… but not having a faith the only way to keep the old progressive one from coming back is to wipe out all its adherents.

                  Asking why we should kill them is the wrong way to look at it anyway, the correct question with leftists is why should we let them live?

                  In fact making the war against leftism a sort of holy war of ruthless extermination may be a good way to build the faith… thou shalt not suffer a leftist to live, wipe them out deus vult!

                • jim says:

                  Our side doesn’t have a faith though and its hard to magically make one we only have a common we only have common hatred of the existing one… and I’m not sure how we establish one

                  We do have a faith:

                  Red pill interpreted as morally exemplary and in accordance with the will of God. Not interpreted as women are wicked, but as women are virtuous, and are frustrated because our society by failing their shit tests, denies them the opportunity to be virtuous. Christ as the the Logos. Game theory and evolutionary theory as aspects of the Logos.

                  Crucifixes have not cast out demons and set vampires on fire for two centuries, but our shibboleths set fed shills on fire! They have mystical magic meme power – recall Angela Merkel shrinking from the German flag.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not interpreted as women are wicked, but as women are virtuous

                  Putting “women are virtuous” (even if in drastically different societies they can be as a lot of women are perfectly nice selfless people very young, before years of cathedral brainwashing turns them into cunts) anywhere near the state religion is very dangerous. I’m surprised to hear it from you.

                  “Women are virtuous” in the state religion even if we meant something else by it will lead to a not getting the joke problem down the road.

                  Now of course the mind control rays our faith and media exerts will of course strive to make women pleasant happy helpful and virtuous. In particular I would (since normies are so conditioned to holocaust movies anyway) make a holocaust movie showing the selfless heroism of the gentile wives of the Rossenstrasse jews. But the official creed should never say women are virtuous.

                • jim says:

                  “Women are virtuous” in the state religion even if we meant something else by it will lead to a not getting the joke problem down the road.

                  I have always said that women want to be owned, and men want to own women. This is a virtuous desire. The problem is that both women and men are told it is not virtuous.

                  Now obviously both men and women tend to prowl in their different ways for their different purposes, and that is not virtuous at all, and it is dangerous if we let people deny that. But the point is to give women scope for their virtuous desires, and deny them scope for their wicked desires – which requires acknowledgment of both their virtuous and their wicked desires.

                  So, “women are virtuous” is wrong, because women, like men, have both virtuous and wicked desires, albeit their virtuous and wicked desires are complementary to men’s, rather than the same as men’s.. But that women have a large potential for virtue is true. It is a potential that our society denies them by failing their shit tests.

                  The common factor of all the various brands of reaction is the Dark Enlightenment. Gnon and the Logos are the assertion that the Dark Enlightenment is not merely factually true, but morally right. That is a faith if ever there was.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think what our propaganda/religion etc. should tell women (and men about women) is basically the truth. That while per se sexual desire is not evil (I don’t want to moralfag or encourage frigidity, reverence for lifetime virginity etc) the sexual choices of women tend to be wired in such a way to encourage evil. Hence why their sexual choices got taken away.

                  That they have ancient instincts which like to see men fight over them, which are aroused by violence and cruelty (even if other parts of their mind don’t like violence and cruelty), which will make them tend to behave in destructive and self destructive ways if they feel like they are not under a mans protection and control, for they feel a man who cannot exert some degree of control cannot effectively protect them either and they feel most effectively controlled by dark triad type men. That having large amounts of feral women around encourages men to either become criminals or give up and become MGTOWs and soyboys.

                  And that when the law gave women nuclear level legal weapons to potentially employ in shit test only the very evil and the very impulsive men could pass them.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, but the converse of that is that if we deny women nuclear explosive shit tests, women will, in substantial part, behave well.

                  Part of that is defining rape to be sex (or spending sixty seconds behind with a man behind a closed door) without the consent of parent or guardian.

                  Defining rape on the basis of female consent is problematic – see the thread on the paki rapes in Rotherham, because female consent is opaque, and is more opaque to the women themselves than to anyone else. Either the pakis never abducted girls in a gunny sack, or, more likely, the girls only complained when they were not abducted in a gunny sack.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I think what our propaganda/religion etc. should tell women (and men about women) is basically the truth. That while per se sexual desire is not evil (I don’t want to moralfag or encourage frigidity, reverence for lifetime virginity etc) the sexual choices of women tend to be wired in such a way to encourage evil. Hence why their sexual choices got taken away.

                  Religion has to define good and evil, virtue and vice, otherwise it’s not a religion, just a bag of observations. Every religion makes moral claims, even the far eastern ones.

                  More importantly, negative identities are unstable, and a cohesive religion needs a positive identity. Labeling women inherently evil probably isn’t the way to create positive identity. Shit-testing is not inherently good or evil, but men being prohibited from passing them is evil. Women do act virtuous most of the time when they are owned by a man, especially a man they feel is high status.

                  If a hundred million dogs were allowed to roam free without owners, and furthermore we were strictly prohibited from disciplining them and they were systemically rewarded by the state and priesthood for canine aggression, then we’d come to believe that dogs are evil too, but not actually evil, just feral.

                  Limiting female sexual choice isn’t about punishing women for evil, it’s what they ultimately want for themselves, and their virtue improves by leaps and bounds when they get what they want.

                  We’ve touched on this before – you can’t let anger and hatred of The Other be your only defining in-group characteristic, otherwise your ingroup will infight because it lacks identity or mutual trust. Jim has literally titled posts “the faith” and dedicated other posts to explaining the positive principles like throne, altar, freehold, family and property. That is the faith, not being anti-SJW.

                • Randy Marsh says:

                  Legend has it Adam was made knowing God, but it’s a constant problem that one generation can be saved and the next, it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Blessed are the poor in spirit.

                  The problem us the sorry pal and maybe they had a point attitude, we need to believe that we’re not just necessary but also proper.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “More importantly, negative identities are unstable”

                  Positive identities are more unstable. Furthermore we are not yet in power. Need to be in power to build a large scale positive identity, reaction 101 culture is downstream of power.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Positive identities are more unstable… Need to be in power to build a large scale positive identity

                  Asserted without evidence. Both are in error. Negative identities are far more unstable than positive – no successful tribe is based solely on the claim of being “not X”, and identities can and do form and spread without official power, just cannot be enforced without power.

                  I respect 99% of your comments, but in this matter you are dead wrong. Reaction is a positive identity, it makes positive claims both physical and metaphysical, and repetitious attempts to frame it as a negative identity of unthinking prog-haters would only serve to erode its memetic sovereignty if people took them seriously.

                  You’re a man. Control your emotions.

                • The Cominator says:

                  NRx is a positive identity but the many groups that comprise the intellectually lesser factions of the right are not. We must maintain our memetic sovereignty sure but we also need to remember that we have zero chance of winning on our. The broad force of the right as it exists is a negative coalition against the progressive left.

                  Furthermore the most troublesome and unreliable of theoretically right wing groups (perpetually peace seeking cuckservatives, your Ben Shapiros and Rich Lowrys) are all too eager to forget they are against something on the grounds that they are some positive “real conservative” identity.

                  The Flight 93 election article was about how the enemies of the insane progressive left were a negative identity.

                  Thus for now a negative identity is a far far more useful organizing principle…

                • The Cominator says:

                  Perhaps we can discuss this further (the political right and negative vs positive identities as an organizing principle) rather then getting derailed again in boring talk about the Paki’s sluts because NT keeps insisting that they were good girls who dindu nuffin and spams four posts at a time to this effect.

              • S.J., Esquire says:

                ***ITAR is just going to be dumped unceremoniously.***

                SWEET!, yelled the Canadians

      • jim says:

        Exactly so. Arguably, once upon a time you needed the post office, but now we have Amazon and Fedex. Patent office was a disaster from the beginning. It worked better when it was openly and officially corrupt and openly and officially handed out monopolies as favors to the well connected.

        Cops should be local, and you don’t need cops in places where your elite hangs out, because they do their own policing. If you have eugenic fertility, you probably have excess elite, so they wind up hanging out everywhere.

        • Mike says:

          What, if any, would the government’s role be regarding intellectual property? Like copyright for example? I know Disney pretty much gets sweetheart deals regarding Mickey Mouse and all the rest. Maybe if that were reformed there’d be less incentive for producers of movies to keep putting out the same crap from the same tired franchises? I know we all just can’t wait to see the next comic book movie.

          Back to patents though, I was always indoctrinated into believing that this existed so that people would be more motivated to invent things precisely because it gave them a temporary monopoly over whatever new thing they made. In practice it just gets abused by assholes who flood the office with all kinds of crap patent applications that they can later use to harrass companies that actually try to make something. And the Chinese don’t respect it anyways.

          R&D is expensive though. Shouldn’t there be some mechanism in place where a company or individual will feel secure in investing their time and money into developing useful things without having to worry about everyone else just latching onto it having contributed nothing to developing it themselves?

          • jim says:

            First mover advantage. When you develop something in house, takes a while to leak out of house. You want to get into the business of supporting Sqlite3? Good luck with that.

            Observe that Shockley literally wrote the book on transistors, and in principle everything you need to build a transistor is in those books, or indeed in the research work of his academic colleagues, but in actual practice, every transistor everywhere is built by someone who worked under the authority of someone who worked under the authority of someone who worked under the authority of Shockley.

            Enforceable apprenticeship would work a lot better than patents. You have your young apprentices work on the new technology, and they are not allowed to leave till their term of apprenticeship is up – you can damn well chain them in the basement.

            • First mover and trademark/brand. Trademark enforcement is OK as it just means not allowing lying to customers. The clothing industry has trademark, which is the opposite of copyright. Copyright means you cannot copy a GSK medicine under your own brand name. Trademark means you can copy an Armani jeans, but has to be under your own brand name and don’t write Armani on it. The result is that one aspect of poverty is perfectly solved: nobody, nowhere on the planet goes cold anymore for the lack of clothes or shoes.

              Trademark works but requires some governmental enforcement. Back then Chinese companies tried to ship fake Adidas and Reebok shoes here. European customs officers destroyed them. Then they renamed them Adiaas and Recbok. European customs officers were like “Nice try, lol.” and destroyed them. Eventually learned that selling cheap crap is allowed, lying is not.

              Trademark matters because people prefer something that works over something that might work. Surely everybody reading it has a Leatherman tool or Victorinox knife somewhere. After a cheap no-brand suitcase literally fell apart on me in Oxford, I did what everybody does and bought a Samsonite. Then I met my future wife, told her the story and she was laughing because she did the same exact thing in Le Havre. So what we clearly don’t want is trademark falsification, like writing Samsomite on some cheap crap.

              • The Cominator says:

                Theoretically have trademarks in some things but in practice designer clothing shoes and god forbid high end women’s handbags… The few police we have should never be so idle that there is a moment to spare catching people who counterfeit those. Expensive clothing should also be theoretically restricted by sumptuary laws.

                Copyright should be creators lifetime only and no more then 30 years.

                Should the patent system for actually useful things be entirely abolished?

                • jim says:

                  > Should the patent system for actually useful things be entirely abolished?

                  I have seldom seen a patent for anything actually useful, and have never seen a patent for anything useful result in the inventor making money off it.

                  Nearly all patents are for things that have prior art, often prior art dating back centuries, or the are patents for things unknown – the patent is not for a specific solution to a problem, but against the possibility of someone else finding a solution for that problem.

                  And when a patent patents a genuinely new idea, which almost never happens, it just does not make money. People look at your technology, say “legal minefield” and do not want to touch it.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I don’t believe it’s possible to have a centrally-managed patent system for “actually useful” patents, for the same reason it’s not possible to have a central farming system for “actually useful” food. In other words, only a market can decide which patents are useful, and if you have a functioning market, then you don’t really need a patent system.

                  There are far more instances of patent trolls outright abusing the system with absurdly generic common-sense “inventions” than there are legitimate inventors benefiting from the system. And in practice, there isn’t really any way to tell whether someone actually copied a patent or just came up with the same idea. Even for highly complex inventions, the latter happens quite often.

        • cloudswrest says:

          I have never believed that the patent office can legitimately evaluated all the applications for prior art, novelty, etc. Except for anything obvious they must just evaluate patent applications for “t”s crossed, and “i”s dotted. Since patents are public I think they should crowd source patent rejections and the first person who can reject a patent, with legitimate references, is rewarded a part of the application fee.

    • eternal anglo says:

      Perhaps what we need is a Jacomist Annotated Bible. A website with the complete text of the Bible, accompanied by extensive, topic-tagged and inter-hyperlinked footnotes, (the actual text and content of which would largely be copied and pasted from blog.jim.com), explaining in clear, explicit and scientific-worldview friendly language the reactionary lessons that can be drawn from Scripture, and why heretical lessons cannot be drawn. For example, there would be annotations explaining ‘tuirn the other cheek’ and ‘walk the extra mile’ as exhortations not to universalist pacifist altruism but to facilitate the building of cooperate-cooperate equilibrium in a world of imperfect information. The verses on Christian marriage would have extensive annotation.

      Such a ‘Guaranteed Leftism-Free! BTFOs 99.9% of all Entryists!’ Christian resource would be extremely useful to any Priest in the future who wishes to preach real, reactionary Christianity, without having to himself untangle hundreds of years of Satanism, Gnosticism, the bluepill and progressivism.

      As an aside, isn’t Heresy pretty much the same thing as Entryism? Is heresy:apostasy::entryism:honest disagreement?

      • Dave says:

        No way, the Bible is 800,000 words. Glossing and hyperlinking it to correctly explain how each verse supports the Jimian worldview would take a hundred lifetimes. Better to go the Catholic route and just tell people what the Bible says. We could call it the Catechism of Jim, which I hope Jim is working on in his spare time.

        Keep it short and to the point. Never write e.g. “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, just cut to the chase and write “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The first part was supposed to argue for the second, but it just gives shysters a claim that “well-regulated Militia” means the National Guard. You could go Koranic and add, “Any Judge who rules contrary to this eternal law has forfeited his or her life; whosoever kills or maims this Judge has committed no crime.”

        Dalrock has many examples of a Churchian taking one Bible verse out of context, expounding on how it supports abortion/feminism/homosex/whatever, and other theologians waste years refuting it. Better to just burn heretics at the stake.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          I don’t trust Catholic methodology because Catholics lose to protestants in the Game of Tones every time. More to the point, “believe because we say so” only works on a population wherein their survival and thriving is obviously a byproduct of the ruling caste and has been so for all living memory. To get to that point, you need a few generations of organic believers of all castes.

          So, a potential middle ground:

          Isolate the portions of the bible that hit hardest in terms of target market (modern evangelicals’ favorite pieces, progressives favorite gotcha quotations, and the like) and Neo-link them with Jimian annotation.

          Also, agree on the brevity aspect.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            You have a point.

            There are portions of the Bible not particularly prone to evil interpretation, while others feature rather prominently in the writings of our enemies. (By the way, EA’s idea should apply to at least some of the Apocryphal writings as well, because – why not? Or should we stick to the Protestant Canon and ignore the Deutercanonical texts? And any Mormons in the crowd tonight?) As you say, since there are different types of entryism, different Biblical sections are used by the various groups: People like glosoli usually twist Genesis to support Gaia worship, whereas typical Progs usually abuse the Synoptics; a gender-bender is likely to use Galatians 3:28, but won’t find much use in Deuteronomy 22:5.

            I’d suggest just starting right about now. If the Bible is Canonical to the Reactionary State Religion, then let’s start with bringing up the problematic (in terms of entryism) sections and how they should be interpreted in light of Jimism.

            Let’s start:

            [Prog:]

            The parable of the good Samaritan tells us that military age male Sub-Saharan coal-black Jihadi Muslim rapeugees ecstatically or apoplectically screraming for Christian male infidel blood and fertile-age white pussy are welcome. Luke 10:37 explicitly says so, you shitlords.

            [Jim:]

            So the good Samaritan is the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves.

            Which implies that the Levite and the priest were not the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves, let alone all the other Samaritans.

            Since the protagonist of the story was from Jerusalem, the levite and the priest were geographically his neighbors, but, being no good, did not deserve to be treated as neighbors. The Samaritan was not geographically his neighbor, but did deserve to be treated as a neighbor. The word “Neighbor” implies that geography and ethnicity matters, but not to the extent of overriding human decency.

            Notice that wine is mildly antiseptic, and prevents wounds from becoming infected, while oil protects the exposed living flesh that is trying to form scar tissue to cover the wound. Jesus is not only commending good behavior, but also reminding his audience to follow the best medical practice of the day.

            So you are not required to love the Levite, the priest, and all the other Samaritans. Just that good Samaritan. And, given the conspicuous propensity of the Staving Children of Africa to behave badly towards white people, and indeed badly to any African who is not close kin, you can refrain from loving them also. You are required to show generosity and forgiveness that moves us from defect/defect equilibrium to cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, but not actually required to be a doormat to be walked on. You are not required, or even permitted, to be a cuckold. If you love the priest after he passed by on the other side, you are undermining, rather than supporting, a high trust equilibrium. Further, if someone claims to love the priest after he crossed to the other side, and the social justice warrior who threw him to the wolves without worrying about his innocence or guilt, he is claiming to be holier than Jesus, and if I had my way, we would crucify him and see if he rises again. Holiness spirals are dangerous, and need to be forcefully discouraged.

            This can be a very useful project, and those of us autistic enough to have memorized both the Bible and Jim’s blog can really make it work.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              This is an interesting project.

              Maybe my DOA idea for a Machine Meme Recognizer could be rejiggered to be a Jimian translator…

      • shaman says:

        Excellent idea. I actually had a similar idea of going over the sections of the Bible that deal specifically with sexuality and explaining them in light of modern Red-Pill knowledge, but your idea of a fully Reactionary Bible with lessons about all the relevant themes is obviously superior.

        Exegesis should probably be phrased in Jim’s direct “kill niggers” writing style, rather than in Moldbug’s verbose or in Land’s obscurantist manner, because — while the Bible itself can be seen as high literature — its exposition needs indeed to be in substantial part science-oriented, and as you once suggested, real social scientific matters should be written in Jim’s no-nonsense writing style.

        Is heresy:apostasy::entryism:honest disagreement?

        Heh, I’d put it more like:

        heresy:apostasy::entryism:(rage)quitting

        The religious equivalent of “honest disagreement” might really be any theological dispute that doesn’t involve key doctrinal issues. In practice, there tends to be some grey area between that and true heresy, and entryists always exploit that grey area to insert themselves in. To solve that problem, need a supreme religious authority — an ultimate religious arbiter — to tell which disputes are in good faith and in accordance with the faith, versus heretical dissent.

        (Nick Land voice: “The inevitability, not to say desirability, of self-propellant fragmentation…”)

      • shaman says:

        (Actually, you suggested that Land’s style may be useful for social science, and indeed it is so, but I think we can agree that the Bible in particular is no (maniacal-)laughing matter, hence copying verbatim from blog.jim.com rather than taking inspiration from Land’s inhuman autism)

        • Dave says:

          The Catechism should be a declaration of the principles of Jimianity, wherein everything is said once, in plain language, without proof, as though dictated by God, with separate chapters on women, domestic politics, foreign politics, science, economics, religion, etc. The core text should not take more than an hour to read, so twelve to fifteen thousand words, not including footnotes. Footnotes may contain proofs, anecdotes, and links to Jim’s blog and other sources, but all essential points need to be in the core text.

          Jim should host the unfinished text here, refining it as he likes for as long as he lives. Others may assist, but Jim’s authority over the text is absolute. Upon his passing, the latest version becomes our sacred scripture.

          • Dave says:

            I should add that “What is the ideal religion for a just, prosperous, and fecund society?” and “How do we convince people to follow this religion?” are two entirely separate problems. Saying “no one will believe that” is like a Creationist claiming that evolution is bunk because it doesn’t explain how life arose from non-life. You can correctly describe how something works without having any idea how it came into being.

            • The Cominator says:

              Getting people to truly believe is indeed tricky.

              The ideal existing state religion would be Orthodox (ABSOLUTELY NOT CATHOLIC, we want straight priest and the king to appoint the high priest no foreign pope) Christianity but it has too small a base in the US to go right away. Its absolutely reactionary in its political outlook and is properly Caesaropapist by nature. I’d like in the long term to convert all Catholic Churches in the US to Orthodox Churches (I would declare the papacy a hostile foreign power that it was treason to contact without permission of the Imperial government immediately).

              Also the biggest religious group that is closest to our side is Southern Baptists right now it certainly wouldn’t work to declare them all dissenters immediately…

            • R7 Rocket says:

              The “Sol Invictus” problem.

            • Stan Marsh says:

              This is what people already believe at some level, we make fun of evangelicals all day but there are still evangelical churches that expel divorced women. The cuck churches are dying. The path to an official religion is probably an ecumenical society that bans blasphemers from putting Christian symbols on their buildings and ends up assigning overseers for the independent congregations in an area.

              • Randy Marsh says:

                Derp, Randy is the guy who gets drunk, punches people and repeats whatever slogans he’s heard most recently. Stan is his kid by Sharon the sweet knitting lady.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            EA seeks to solve the problem of priests interpreting the Bible in a Satanic way; you seek a Catechism independent of the Bible. Both ideas are meritorious: EA wants to set Christianity straight, whereas your idea is closer to writing a divinely-inspired Jimist manifesto. Both projects would be worthwhile.

  2. […] Jim discusses The General Flynn Affair. In […]

  3. BC says:

    A bit of good news:

    https://www.readingeagle.com/news/article/reading-mayor-blocks-raising-of-pride-flag

    Reading mayor blocks raising of pride flag, calling it an emblem of a ‘political movement’

    City Council and the LGBTQ community were set to raise the flag at City Hall to recognize the city’s pride celebration.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      holy shit those comments tho

      • BC says:

        What are you talking about? Comments were pretty decent. First real push-back I’ve seen against the progressive flag.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Harry Stouffer writes:

          “well the people of reading ate up the WALLYbulruand so did the paper people mayor its was just words to become mayor and it worked now he will be gone and back to being a senior dj look out if this person ever paid the money he owes people he be broke his whole life all he wanted to do it control people and in the end he failed at that also but he does have some true friends in life ben franklin,us grant,thomas jefferson but not much more why even in the game of love he was a loser and as for the flag well now you know the rest of the story” (copy pasted in original form)

          Amy Berger writes:

          “This was a grandstand play by Scott. There was every expectation that the flag would be raised; canceling that at the last minute is a trumpian move if ever there was one. Does anyone remember President Obama’s White House virtually bathed in the rainbow? This backward slide may please some people at the expense of the feelings and convictions of a few, but it only makes Reading look like a stodgy, bigoted small town.” (original form)

          …and there are more like that. On the flip side:

          Sean OSamman writes:

          “I’m no fan of Mayor Scott but why does anyone think their group has a “right” to fly their flag from City Hall? I think he made the right call.”

          Anthony Gonzales:

          “He definitely made the right call they should be government flags not some made-up flag fly them at your house on your property not a city hall where everybody is entitled to their opinion thank you take care….”

          And crypto-shitlord Barry Drey wins topkekment with:

          “Many are offended by having that life style jammed down their throat. ( No pun intended. ) And remember, Obama made it political. Just how tall would all flag poles need to be to fly all the flags people feel they have a right to display? Would soon look like a used car lot.
          They want that flag flown, you buy your own flagpole and keep it on private property.”

          I apologize if my millenial patois makes every comment seem derisive and negative. I was genuinely amused by the spectrum of responses and am also pretty sure it is maximum boomer saturation level. I wasn’t trying to say they were cringy or stupid.

  4. Karl says:

    “Trouble with putting people under pressure is if you apply too much pressure, they are going to tell you what you want to hear, but it is not necessarily going to be anything likely to stand up in court.”

    That very much depends on the court. Where leftists have taken power, courts usually agree to anything the prosecution wants. That the prosecution never brought any charges to court, suggests that the courts are not reliably controlled by the presidency. This is somewhat surprising as the presidency never had problems finding a court to declare any of Trump’s projects unconstitutional, e.g. immigration ban for People from some Muslim countries or wall builing.

    Why didn’t they charge Trump in some lefty court with a hand picked jury? Of course, an appeal court would later overrule any guilty decision of that court, but it would still be a propaganda victory. My guess is they considered that option but truly believed they would soon find better material that would give them a chance even in an appeal court.

    But now that they have nothing better, and know they won’t get anyting better? What is holding them back? Don’t they even control one tiny court anywhere in the US? That is hard to believe.

    • jim says:

      > Why didn’t they charge Trump in some lefty court with a hand picked jury?

      Trump claims, plausibly, that an attempt to charge him without impeachment would be a coup, and he would and could legitimately meet that with large scale deadly violence, which position Sessions equivocated on, but Barr completely endorses. This was sort of debated, in doubletalk, on the left, and they kind of concluded that Trump probably would resist with large scale deadly violence any attempt to convict him in some two bit court and would succeed in doing so.

      Initially this was kicked around by the left as a possibility, and I believed they might well try it on, but they have been backing off from it.

      Now, however, a lot of lefties are proposing to charge everyone around Trump on state charges in New York State or California state. Others have made the state rights argument that charging Trump in a federal court would be a coup, but charging him in a state court would not be a coup.

      But flat out arresting Trump seems to be off the table.

      • Karl says:

        Charging everyone close to Trump in a state court would basically be the same strategy they have been pursuing so far. There really isn’t much difference between being the target of a criminal investigation and being charged in court.

        Trump was unable (or unwilling ) to prevent investigations of people close to him. Preventing them from being charged in a state court would be even harder.

        So I expect that is will be the next escalation step in politics by unusual means.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Maybe that is is his intention/desire? The best military victories usually involve the eventual winner falling back in “disarray,” breaking ranks, or retreating decisively, causing the eventual loser to overextend and be demolished (Cannae springs to mind but their are many others). To be clear, i’m not saying that is what he is doing, but it wouldn’t be a huge surprise to me if that is precisely what he is doing.

  5. TBeholder says:

    Punishing Flynn does not help them – it just makes it more obvious that the investigation of Trump was criminal, and used criminal methods. And if their attempt to punish Flynn fails, as it looks like it will fail, it also makes it more obvious that they lost, that they are defeated, that they are out of power. If they can punish Flynn, they are still in power. If they cannot, not in power.

    That’s the point, obviously.
    1. “Double down, we can escalate further” is simply too ingrained.
    2. They still believe they can. As usual, a serious (rather than posturing and bluffing) escalation happens because both sides believe they can win at this point, otherwise one would try to retreat or negotiate the terms of surrender.

  6. Mister Grumpus says:

    Someone give me odds on Flynn getting his old job back and replacing Bolton.

  7. Sounds like they are trying a method, a method similar in its psychological effects to torture, that used to work on suspects, also on witnesses now. And realizing while works on suspects, it does not work on witnesses, because with suspects, all you need is to incriminate themselves, even if the story they come up with is random bullshit, so you can just intimidate them into cooperation. But with witnesses, you need, if not the truth, at least coherent lies. No contradiction with themselves and each other. And witnesses with sufficiently scared or tired minds are not good at at that.

    Note: a reactionary state, having secure power, will not need to manufacture excuses if they want to hang someone. Therefore, only true information will be useful, untrue information for the purpose of incriminating self or others, not. Therefore, torture and psychological pressure will not be used, as it rarely results in true information. It hardly even results in coherent lies. For getting true information, what works is either technological methods, drugs, brain scans, or some kind of a deal that gets canceled if the information turns to be untrue.

  8. Reziac says:

    The way I heard it, Flynn caved because they threatened to prosecute his son on some trivial but ugly charge. I don’t know if this is true and am too lazy to look it up, but it sounds like how their Floating-Turd Coup would do things.

    • BC says:

      That’s how they got Cohen to make up is phony campaign fiance crime. They threaten to lock his wife up for co-signing on a loan.

      • Reziac says:

        “…phony campaign _fiance_ crime. They threaten to lock his _wife_ up…”

        Best typo ever. 🙂

        Yeah, I expect if only we knew, there’s a fair bit of this going on.

  9. The Cominator says:

    https://nypost.com/2019/07/18/ilhan-omars-life-in-imminent-danger-after-send-her-back-chant-dems/

    In other political news.

    Far more so then the other 3 bimbos jihad barbie is a problem for the Democrats. Even American NPCs kind of hate Muslims here mug being a public face for the party is a disaster.

    I interpret this story to mean she is going to get whacked soon and that they will frame a Trump supporter (or dupe some dimwitted stormfaggish Trump supporter into doing it).

    • jim says:

      Perhaps, but I think you are over interpreting events. I interpret this as the usual no friends to the right, no enemies to the left. Nancy Pelosi unconditionally supports Jihad Barbie. Jihad Barbie unconditionally condemns Nancy Pelosi.

      Jihad Barbie could go around impaling white children on skewers, roasting them over hot coals, and eating them, and they would announce that due to evil racists her life was in imminent danger. She could roast Nancy Pelosis family over hot coals and eat them and Nancy Pelosi would go on saying stuff like this.

      • BC says:

        She could roast Nancy Pelosis family over hot coals and eat them and Nancy Pelosi would go on saying stuff like this.

        People have a hard time believing this could happen. It just seems so insane. And yet it happened in the Soviet Union over and over again.

      • The Cominator says:

        Well jihad barbie (and the rest of the squad) definitely does want to roast Nancy Pelosi and her family over hot coals (that is one of their few admirable traits) but Nancy has attacked them called them nuts etc.

        So I get the sense that while Nancy Pelosi is quite fine with all other whites being roasted over hot coals she is not such a fanatical leftist that when confronted with superior holiness she wants to be roasted over those coal themselves and in her sense of self preservation she also realizes that jihad barbie is a liability.

        So I think something happens to jihad barbie…

        • Not Tom says:

          Recent events suggest that Democratic party discipline is breaking down. No one is in power, or at best there is a power struggle going on between the old guard and woke nouvelle-gauches, with around 60/40 split if the recent impeachment vote is any indication, and the outcome of said power struggle is still unknown.

          The point is: they couldn’t risk it. Disappearing Ilhan Omar or AOC would spark an internal civil war. They could fool the friendly media with a cheesy frame-up, but within the party, someone would squeal, and the woke coalition would find out what really happened. The party would tear itself apart.

          Can’t risk it, and per Jim, probably don’t want to anyway.

          • The Cominator says:

            I don’t think they will disappear Ilhan Omar, I think they will arrange for her to be shot by a “deranged Trump supporter and neo-nazi”.

            • Not Tom says:

              I addressed that already. They may be able to fool the normies, but they won’t fool the woke coalition, the squad, or their constituencies. They won’t risk it.

              • The Cominator says:

                Nobody would squeal. Nobody squealed about Scalia, Seth Rich, or Vince Foster or others. The radical left would be all too eager to accept that it was because Orange Man bad.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I don’t know why you think those are comparable. Scalia was their enemy, Seth Rich was a low-level turncoat staffer, and whatever happened to Vince Foster was 15 years ago.

                  The squad are the new face of the party. They represent the “Justice Democrats” and some rather wealthy and powerful interests. And they’re inside the fortress, not fleeing from it or watching from across the moat. “Squeal” doesn’t mean leak to Tucker, it means whispering in the ear of AOC’s chief of whatever about what happened to her bestie Omar.

                  Remember, the moderate left protects the far left, but the far left does not like or trust the moderate left.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The deep state and democrat financiers for now our with the establishment Democrats who after all want to only kill and impoverish ordinary democrats but not them and they are horrified at jihad Barbie will scare normie voters off.

        • jim says:

          > Nancy has attacked them called them nuts etc.

          And promptly got toasted for it and fell into line. You mostly heard about it because of the outrage.

      • Omar is just another Trump card now. says:

        Omar’s fate is out of Pelosi’s hands at this point. What was a win-win situation for Trump last week now has outcomes more like Big Win, Massive Win, and Colossal Crushing Of Enemies.

        In the past 48 hours, a crowdfunded journalist named David Steinberg (see his recent twitter posts) has reconstructed and doxxed the full details of her immigration and marriage scams, circulated the proof widely online, and this news just made it onto the Tucker Carlson program on Fox = millions of views. Omar faces a serious risk of jail or deportation the minute the feds take an interest in this information, and will be forced out of office if the Minnesota media decide to investigate rather than protect her.

        As a result, Omar is now in a (very) unstable equilibrium with too many directions from which a modest applied force can topple her. Her only way out is to immediately, yesterday, create forged documentation in Somalia retroactively proving that she was always a member of the Omar family. Even that could leave her in limbo as it is well known she has close family connections to the Somali prime minister.

        The USG cancelled family reunification for Somali refugees years ago, because 87 percent of cases audited were based on fraudulent claims of family to reunite with. This raises the the interesting possibility that one of Trump’s faction will push on the Omar immigration fraud during 2020 election season as Exhibit A for increased scrutiny of asylum claims or for reducing the number granted (even to zero, as Steven Miller and General Kelly have both advocated). Certainly Omar is the poster child for Trump’s 2016 campaign statements that the US should “only admit people who love us”.

        Lots of fun coming up as Trump squeezes everything he can out of a miraculous windfall that fell into his lap. It doesn’t look to me like anyone in government had the full, weaponizable goods on Omar until now and tipped off Steinberg. Rather, Steinberg found ways of open-source doxxing what Omar’s enemies in the Somali community were telling him in private and this can get the feds involved.

        • jim says:

          Miraculous windfalls have a strange habit of regularly falling into Trump’s lap. Whenever his enemies announce he is doing something stupid and self destructive, and helpfully explain to him what he should be doing, then by strange coincidence a miraculous windfall falls into his lap.

          Odd that.

          It may be that Trump did not have wind of this till just now, but I would like to know when David Steinberg got wind of it.

          • The Cominator says:

            The traitor Sessions is gone and the Barr tab is due.

            The SDNY re-initiated the Epstein case hoping Barr would role over on technicalities he did not except to refer the Accosta deal probe to the white house itself meaning that Trumps inner circle has direct access to all the Epstein kompromat. So all the sudden Trump will be getting his way on many many more things.

          • Omar is just another Trump card now. says:

            I think that has been true for other stories, including the curiously well-timed investigation of Omar in MN, but the latest breakthrough looks like a case of bottom-up detective work rather than sources in the extended USG (or Trumpworld).

            Steinberg (and Laura Loomer) have been piecing the story together for a couple of years. Some of the key facts have been well-known (without doxx) to Somalis in Minnesota, and the general suspicion of all things Omar has spread in MN. Somalis who physically fear Omar’s minions in the USA and back home, are realizing as a result of Trump’s overt and covert actions (tweets this week and state investigations a couple of weeks ago), that Omar has less power and protection than they thought. So now more of them are willing to speak up and a web search tells them that Steinberg and Loomer are the only reporters continuously covering this, and Loomer is a woman and a loon, so it’s Steinberg who suddenly starts getting new anonymous tips, and digs to confirm them on social media. He explains how some of the tips worked in his latest piece; it doesn’t sound like some spook looking up Omar in an NSA database and passing the result to a reporter.

            • jim says:

              Politics in Somalia is played for keeps. If you have family in Somalia, Omar has the necessary connections to have them murdered, and chances are that has something to do with her rise to power on a powerbase of Somali rapeugees in the US.

              The president of Somalia (not that the Somalian government controls a whole lot) is a US citizen under a false name who purchased the presidency using bribe money probably supplied by US ngos, aka the State Department, and is mighty cosy with Omar. So Jihad Barbie is probably the State Department in drag.

              The reason she, and the president of Somalia, is purportedly pro jihad is that she is playing the Muslim identity card, but, being state department patsies, are vulnerable to genuine Muslims to her right. Not that genuine Muslims are our allies, but the state department is their enemy, and our enemy.

              Or maybe they really are pro jihad – notice the state department was arming and funding Jihadis bent on ethnic cleansing of Syrian Christians and genocide of Syrian Alawites, and that the notoriously genocidal Al-Shabaab jihadi group seems to support the State Department candidate for Somali Prime minister.

              Jihad barbie is cosy with the Somali prime minister. Jihad Barbie has nice things to say about the notoriously genocidal jihadi group Al-Shabaab, who deem most of the the Somali population deserving of death for being insufficiently Islamic. The Somali prime minister seems to be cozy with Jihad Barbie, with Al-Shabaab, and with the US State Department.

              The left seems to be allying with the Jihadis, much as the Populares, who wanted a fairer and more equal Rome and fairer and more equal Roman Empire, allied with the Samnites, who wanted to kill every Roman male and knock down the walls of Rome, to make war upon the Roman equestrian class. I think they are worried about conservative Muslims allying with conservative Christians, but Muslims hate us all indiscriminately, so such an alliance would be of little value to us.

              • BC says:

                I think they are worried about conservative Muslims allying with conservative Christians, but Muslims hate us all indiscriminately, so such an alliance would be of little value to us.

                I see leftist talk about this quite a bit, but it’s rejected out of hand as insane by everyone on the right. Islam wants us dead just as much as the left and they want our women as 2ed wives after they get done killing us.

                I did some research into Islamic conversion a few years ago to see how male converts did under Islam and the results were not pretty: They were refused Muslim brides and their genetic line would die out. There’s no benefit for any male to convert to Islam unless you already have a family. Islam would rapidly take over the entire west if they could bring themselves to promises wives and patriarchy to western men, but they’d propagate their civilization via murdering the men and taking the women and they’re not about to change.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                There’s a whole article here on Omar’s muscle in Minnesota and Somalia. Also, her brother-in-law was recently an assistant to the Somali prime minister (was made assistant after Omar supported the PM’s candidacy).

                http://alphanewsmn.com/a-community-forced-into-silence/

                Looking for earlier references to “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi”, I found and archived this 2016 discussion, in which not only does Omar’s real name surface, but two young Somalis claiming to be her cousins support her Somali opponent in the MN 2016 primary, on the grounds that Omar is a “glorified SJW”. They want Real Sharia Barbie not State Dept Jihad Barbie.

                http://archive.is/S4vzY

              • Omar is just another Trump card now. says:

                More windfalls for Trump. The following indicates, among other juicy things, that Omar is specifically an Al-Jazeera Trojan Barbie funded by Qatar.

                http://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1154426961646649345

                A meta windfall is that in the wake of Steinberg’s article there has been a flurry of left-media articles denouncing the “conspiracy theory” about Omar (Vox, Mother Jones, Media Matters, etc). This is good and would be great if it continues into the major MSM organs before the volcano erupts. The media matters article is a timeline of dozens of Omar marriage stories since 2016, with hilariously monotonous NPC repetition of the word “conspiracy theory”. From the list of articles there, looks like things were stuck at version 1.0 of the brother-marriage story, then Loomer and Steinberg did more research in 2018-9 but no killer breakthrough, and then the current version 2.0 from Steinberg that has unleashed the genie. The 3.0 Qatari thing will be much larger than that, if the universalist Imam goes through with his threat to reveal everything.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              The breakthrough was very recent, i.e., the proof that “Ilhan Omar” is actually Ilhan Nur Said Elmi. That was the missing link in all the previous marriage fraud stories and explains why she did it. Having immigrated under a false identity she could not get her no-longer-refugee brother into the USA as her brother. So a marriage was necessary.

              Steinberg presumable wrote the article the minute he had proof, and must have been researching it frantically once he got the tip from Somalis.

              • jim says:

                Not recent: I see news reports that Ilhan Omar is really Ihlan Nur Said Elmi dated August 2018, thus this is suddenly coming to awareness as a result of Trump calling her out – thus Trump presumably knew it when he called her out, likely read these news reports months before calling her out, therefore knew what would ensue, knew that a chant would ensue “send her back”, knew that she was here by immigration fraud and abuse of the asylum system.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  I’ve searched and cannot find anyone (before Steinberg this week) saying that “Ilhan Omar” is a false identity. That fakery is not the important legal issue for Omar, who came to the US as a child, nor all that important in actually proving the marriage fraud, but it is the bombshell headline that Fox News has run with now that the story is out.

                  The brother-marriage story appeared in August 2016 and reports from that time pinned down more than enough facts to shift the burden of disproof to Omar in the mind of any sane reader. Most of the essential conclusions of Steinberg’s current story were already present in some rather good 2016 articles by Preya Samsunder of AlphaNews MN, who appears to have been an intern or apprentice of some sort at that site during college, then quit journalism to work for the Republican party.

                  http://alphanewsmn.com/investigation-suggests-omar-married-brother/

                  “The last three words in this Facebook post identify Omar as Ilhan Nur Said. …. Our [MN Somali] source tells Alpha News that they are not sure why Omar goes by Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.”

                  Laura Loomer in February 2019 cited that article as part of an expose on Omar, naming her as Ilhan Nur Said, but did not conclude that Omar is a name assumed for an immigration fraud.

                  Tucker Carlson advises Trump and was hammering Omar relentlessly in the weeks before Trump’s tweets. He showed no sign of awareness of Steinberg’s stuff until Steinberg reported it, at which point he began publicizing it. Trump would have certainly known (from the 2016 reporting) that the brother-marriage story is either true or that Omar has some equally bad reason for not being able to refute it, so he knew he could troll the media with that in his usual way. If Trump had specific intelligence on this equivalent to what Steinberg just revealed, I suspect it would have been funneled in some way to Carlson and the Fox investigators would do the rest.

                  So (unless you have a link to the 2018 article that might change the chronology) it looks to me like either Steinberg suddenly got a tip from Somalis after Trump tweeted, or the tweet situation made Steinberg do an express write-up of whatever he had discovered since his last article.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      First “Abortion Barbie” and now “Jihad Barbie”! That’s all I needed.

  10. klovni says:

    President Donald Trump is an awful “racist,” maybe the worst hate-filled bigot to ever act as a kosher figurehead for international finance. Just look at his appalling White supremacist behavior: endless slavish obedience to the jew, 100 billion shekels down the negro chasm, calling for more non-White immigration and, lest you forget, saying rude things on the electronic version of a graffiti wall.

    The unpleasant fact that his hate scribbling was factually correct doesn’t reduce the enormity of this Thought Crime (why would it?). We all know recent Invaders from the worst available failed states are better Americans than you. Which is not to say the hopelessly backwards all against all they fled so they could loot a terminally ill West isn’t really nice, too. If you don’t believe me, just ask a recently murdered journalist.

    Breaking news! “A journalist traveled to Ilhan Omar’s homeland of Somalia to challenge stereotypes and prove the country was “beautiful,” only to end up being killed by terrorists.”

    Not a single “stereotype” was challenged on that day. Some malformed primitives did something and the fraud news living fossil won’t be returning.

    Look at me. I’m the journalist now.

    • The Cominator says:

      I wish entryists would stop coming here and posing as stormnaggers. They never fool a single person here.

      • Not Tom says:

        The capitalization of “White” is a dead giveaway.

        But this may be something else. It doesn’t look like a human wrote it, or even a very intelligent bot; it reads as the output of some primitive Markov chain generator using text from wignat message boards.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          I think it’s satire.

          • Not Tom says:

            Seems too weird and rambling to be satire. Or maybe it’s bad satire. Good satire normally has a direction to it, a gradual realization or suspicion of being strung along, usually some kind of climax or punchline. I honestly think it’s machine-generated text.

        • The Cominator says:

          I don’t want to start criticizing writing styles too much here… because when I write long posts the output is often garbled in at least one place. I’m used to an editing function elsewhere.

          But anyone who says any variation on “Trump is a jew” is an enemy leftist, every fucking time. Trump never said he was going to be anti-Israel so you know that anyone bitching about Trump in regards to Israel is a fake trying to exploit the emotions of people with residual WN 1.0 sentiment.

  11. klovni says:

    Auditions for “The Little Mermaid” gone wrong. (See the viral video of feral groids fighting at Disneyland)

    Here we see the profound ugliness of a rapidly dying nation: the obesity, the thuggery, the alien genetic material, the open sewer created by decades of being ruled over by jewish pedophiles.

    It’s hard to pick any one highlight from this amazing footage, but my choice would be around the 20 second mark where two feral groids square up like they’re going to fight a one hundred round bare-knuckle fight and then one of the dangerous inferiors promptly tees off on “dat hoe” for no readily apparent reason. These are our equals. The 100 billion shekels extorted from working Whites this year is going to fix this appalling pathology, you just have to be patient.

    News article: “A fight was caught on video on July 6 at Mickey’s Toontown at Disneyland in Anaheim, California. The fight, which according to Anaheim Police was between members of the same family, started as a verbal dispute before escalating into an all-out brawl.”

    Visit kosher Disneyland to see the talking rat, shkotzim. Witness an insane negro all against all, with the mule of the world getting the worst of it. Stick around long enough and you might glimpse useless la-teen-oh security and a weak and bloated White Last Man.

    News article: “As the brawl escalates, the man in the white shirt punches the woman with the man in the pink shirt as she tries to break up the fight. ”

    …and I’m proud to be an American, where at least I pay a fee…

    The fight calms down briefly as they attend to the older woman before the man in pink slaps the woman who started the fight, sending her to the ground, apparently injured.

    The content of their character. These creatures are definitely human.

    • Dave says:

      “Here we see the profound ugliness of a rapidly dying nation: the obesity, the thuggery, the alien genetic material, the open sewer created by decades of being ruled over by jewish pedophiles.”

      More like decades of not being ruled over by Darwin. Natural selection says a man must kill something, grow something, or die of hunger. The modern welfare state abolishes natural selection and replaces it with female sexual selection. Not surprising that after a few generations of “my womb, my choice”, we are evolving into violent imbeciles obsessed with sex and bling.

  12. 2019 is boring says:

    Off-topic, but we must be able to cogently explicate why Reaction is opposed to homosexuality. For that purpose, I have compiled a list of 26 different arguments against homosexuality, sorted in no particular order; the reason for having so many is that, even if you don’t buy into every single one of them, you should at least see the reasoning behind some of them. Presumably, most readers are already familiar with any combination of these, but a full picture is better than a partial one.

    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 sleeve. 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 faggotry to seek refuge from it, psychologically or physically. Can you imagine straight men parading around giant sex toys and so on?

    2. Perversity: It’s extremely common for homosexuals to possess plethoras of aberrant fetishes, 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 death. Gays host scat parties in which the participants shit diarrhea and vomit on each other; they are fond of various sexual gratification toys that most normal people want nothing to do with; 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.

    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” (more like death style). One can say that this is understandable and sympathize with it, but why exactly is it in society’s interest to abandon its own healthy ways to cater to the deviant desires of sexual minorities? Homosexuals never cease trying to converge everyone and everything to their death style, hence why they insinuate themselves into sundry political movements and undermine the dominant, pro-social morality therein in order to 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.

    4. Incongruence With Sex Roles: I’ve always considered that to be the most important problem. Homosexuals generally don’t conform to natural sex roles, because faggots are effete and dykes are masculine; consequently, they have long been the most vociferous and ardent advocates for turning all social institutions — and, indeed, society itself — into “sexually neutral” domains. They champion the entry of women into the workforce and oppose patriarchy and patriarchal marriage for that reason; they support coed education and coed workplaces; they want women to have authority over men; simply put, homosexuals and Feminists share the same goals, and needless to say, there’s great overlap between these two categories. This is a truly simple notion, yet surprisingly very few people seem to grasp it: Effete men want to be allowed to do whatever women traditionally do, and masculine women likewise want to be allowed to do everything men traditionally do, thus gays and lesbians are deeply embedded in Feminism, particularly the “classical” Feminism of giving women “equal rights.” This can’t be otherwise, and as reactionaries, we must view homosexuals as an integral ingredient of the Feminist poison.

    5. Chesterton’s Fence: Almost all functional societies either look down on homosexuality, or altogether strictly prohibit it, executing the offenders. I’m no expert on ancient Greece, and perhaps those guys could coexist with pederasty; but all the societies whose social technologies we seek to emulate view homosexuality unfavorably, to say the least. Likewise, all successful religions — with the notable exception of, well, Progressivism — prohibit sodomy. This can’t be a “pure coincidence,” can it? Those societies that manage to reproduce most fruitfully invariably restrict gay activity. If nothing else, this alone should tell you that tolerance of homosexuality is apt to spell trouble, and those preaching tolerance for gays would do well to investigate why homosexuality has been denounced in the first place. That’s the bare minimum if they are to adhere to the Chesterton’s Fence principle.

    6. Diseases: Gay sex is atrociously unhealthy, and moreover, the typically gay promiscuity — triple digit notch counts are par for the course among them — vastly exacerbates the spread of venereal diseases. STDs, particularly the serious ones such as AIDS, are essentially a homosexual phenomenon, though it’s also shared by other degenerates and subhumans. Gays, whose sexuality is undiscriminating and impulsive, and who are prone to heavy drug use (they do condom-less “chemsex” orgies with complete strangers), are the petri dishes of humanity, carrying assorted manifestations of GNON’s wrath. Like rats, wherever they go, disease follows; thus homosexuals, especially when unrestricted, are a public hazard. Furthermore, through their normalization of queer practices (cunnilingus, anilingus, etc.) among normal people, and through bisexuality, the gays have managed to infect some members of regular society with their abominable filth, which infection is useful for the gays, as it allows them to scare-monger society about the diseases that they themselves spread! Then they ask us taxpayers to invest resources into solving their sicknesses. By the way, gays, knowing full well that they’re disease-ridden, steadfastly sought to receive the “right” to donate blood, and achieved it. Think of the implications.

    7. Infertility Normalization: Homosexuals usually have little to no children. While that in itself is excellent, the omnipresent celebration of the LGBT alphabet soup has resulted in a normalization of singlehood and childlessness; it’s no longer possible to say in polite society that reproduction is good and lack of reproduction is bad, because, among other things, of “homophobic overtones.” Whenever we critique low TFR, we critique a condition that is part and parcel of the gay death style, one that incessant propaganda, particularly aimed at young women and nerds, propaganda often produced by actual fags, has successfully transmitted to the entire society. By being loud, proud, and childless, and by attaining high status in society, the gays have turned childlessness into a “legitimate life choice,” indeed, as many leftists will tell you, a preferable choice than breeding. Homosexuality marches shoulder-to-shoulder with anti-natalism.

    8. Obnoxity: Homos are incredibly annoying. Everything about their behavior and mannerisms is upsetting. Gays predate on straight men constantly; they are offensively extroverted (gays) and aggressive (lesbians); their manner of speech is disgusting; their body movements are always exaggerated, ostentatious, and sexually non-conforming; they always manufacture more drama than they are worth. Their character’s virtues-vices ratio is horrible, as they possess more vices than one can count, and little to no virtues. Everything about them signals “Bad News.” They are also extremely petty and politically domineering, hence their going specifically after nice Christian bakeries and forcing them at the government’s gunpoint to “Bake the cake.”

    9. Lack of Pair-Bonding: It is normal for humans to pair bond. This is another aspect of basic human decency which is conspicuously absent in faggots: They switch life (death) partners without the tiniest bit of attachment to anyone who came before. It’s just a “mood,” you see? Every day, nay – every hour, can bring someone new to take the place of the previous “sex mate.” Gays are never “couples” after the heterosexual model: They are always inexclusive friends-with-benefits looking for a novel sexual sensation. Deep affection and amorous loyalty are altogether foreign to their mentality. This has ramifications for normal society, as gays — especially during the Baby Boomer generation — have contributed their part to normalizing divorce, swinging, and promiscuity.

    10. Disinhibition: Again, they just can’t help themselves: They constantly sexually harass normal people, and have absolutely no control over their own aberrant inclinations. Their behavior is wholly impulsive and high time-preference; they are unable to refuse drugs, unable to refuse condom-less sex with AIDS-positive strangers, and usually unable to plan anything ahead – they “live for the moment,” and as one would expect, die young. Some take pity on them, but since they choose to wallow in their own debauchery, I don’t see them as deserving of a merciful attitude – their life is ugly, because they make it ugly, as their ability to resist temptations is none. They are entirely controlled by Satan.

    11. Cultural Marxism: This is naturally a favorite topic among the alt-right and Kevin MacDonald’s acolytes, and while reaction is not the alt-right, here specifically the alt-right is totally correct; that the Frankfurt School Cultural Marxists and the like-minded Freudians have pioneered and disseminated advocacy for homosexuality and various bizarre sexual behaviors is undoubtedly true. This may not be “the hottest take ever,” but it’s good to bear in mind the intellectual and cultural sources of many modern pro-deviance memes, as these early 20th century Cultural Marxist culprits — and their ideological (not necessarily ethnic) successors in both Harvard and Hollywood — have certainly done their fair share to plunge Western Civilization deeper into the bottomless abyss.

    12. Bad Aesthetics: Homosexuality is viscerally repulsive. Knowing that the dude right next to you engages in anal sex with men is vomit-inducing. Beauty is truth, and evolution has instilled in us natural aversion to the unhealthy; we can tell ugliness and vileness when we witness them, and instinctively know to back away and stay away. Those whose instincts don’t tell them to avoid homosexuals have something wrong with their brain-wiring and/or brain-structure. By tolerating gays around, society makes itself disgusting. While this alone may not be, and may not register as, a sufficient argument to ban the gays, it does point us to a valid field of inquiry: Why does homosexuality intensely trigger our healthy disgust reflex? Of course, beyond it being a dead-end reproductive strategy, it’s also a recipe for quick premature death from disease; it’s also eerie, like seeing mutants, androids, or cadavers, alerting us that something is terribly wrong. Can’t be a coincidence.

    13. Leftism: Homosexuals are naturally prone to leftist politics, as leftism is, by no means exclusively but in substantial part, a project to normalize the abnormal for this or that reason; being abnormal themselves, homosexuals are automatically inclined to support general left-wing causes, be it race-denialism, socialism, Feminism, and really any form of artificial egalitarianism or war by the unsuccessful against the successful. Notice how homos constantly blame everyone else for their afflictions, instead of examining their own behavior; so no surprise they’re in a coalition with like-minded anti-civilizational forces against civilization. Gays are pro-black, pro-brown, and ironically enough, they are often pro-Muslim.

    14. Objectively Aberrant: I mean, is there really a need to explain that? Homosexuality is a natural dead-end. If a man is attracted to other men, and is not attracted to women, he is not very likely — to use an understatement — to pass his genes forwards. It’s an evolutionary death sentence, basically. It’s pretty much self-evident: Heterosexuality leads to reproduction, homosexuality does not, and reproduction is biologically vital. Gays can only ever be a minority within a population, because any species that would allow homosexuality to be prevalent, not to say common, couldn’t last long, at least not in its gay-friendly condition; and because natural selection works to keep homosexuality in check, radically selecting against it within the population. The evolutionary telos of sexuality is reproduction, which means that homosexuality is by definition aberrant. This should be obvious.

    15. Slippery Slope: That is not a hypothetical process, but actual reality that cannot be dismissed as a mere “fallacy”; the fact of the matter is that “acceptance” of the gays has led to Gay Marriage, normalization of “sex change” disfigurement, Drag Queen Story Hour, and so on. Once sodomy is tolerated, a Pandora’s Box from Tartarus full of Hell-spawn is opened, and other perversities follow suit. For example, cuckoldry, which cuckolds now call “polyamory.” Presumably, one reason that some people support faggotry is because they themselves are perverted in some or other way, and by clamoring for homosexuality to be normalize, they seek to thereby open the door for their own perversity, whatever it is. Precisely what happened with the World War Tranny.

    16. Signalling Hazard: Jim’s favorite. It’s just no longer possible for men to hang out with each other, especially in intimacy, without the lingering suspicion that something of the “poop-dick” variety must be going on. The gays destroyed men’s friendships. It used to be possible for men to walk together down the street and even invite each other for sleepover without anyone having the faintest suspicion that anal sex is involved. To have successful cooperation, we have to be able to meaningfully bond with each other, but meaningful bonding is absolutely impossible when signalling “I love you bro” translates to “I want to fuck your ass.” Without gays in society, we would be able to express legit affection and signal brotherly loyalty to each other, and without the negging need to perpetually explain that we are “no homo.”

    17. Confusion: Just generally, having gays around creates endless confusion about what is sexually normal and what isn’t. People are being bombarded with all kids of nonsense about “orientation” and “gender identity” and so on, and some are lost in the confusion and can’t sort out what is going on. We seek to usher in clarity: People need to know what is expected of them and where they are hierarchically stationed. Homosexuals disrupt clarity, bringing turmoil and vagueness into both day-to-day life and into the political scene. Being neither fish nor fowl, being sexually inverted, they’ve intentionally proceeded to insert “queerness” into manifold aspects of life, from clothing to school curricula to 56 different sexual identifications on Facebook to whatever else. We now need to set things straight, if you pardon the pun.

    18. Preference Politics: The homosexuals have made it impossible to discuss sexuality in a logical way, because sexual politics have been marred by “preference politics”: The idea that your political objectives correspond to, and merely boil down to advocacy for, your personal sexual proclivities. Thus, when I say “Attraction to 13-year-old chicks with boobs is part of normal healthy male sexuality,” most readers automatically assume that I have a “fetish for jailbait,” and will call me “hebephile” or “ephebophile” for it; I will then have to spend ages explaining that my own preferences (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with it, because I absolutely don’t engage in Preference Politics, just as Jim absolutely doesn’t engage in Preference Politics when he points out that 9-year-old girls are often horny. Since gays are all about preference politics, politics in service of a specific sexual preference, people assume that all discussions of sexuality must likewise necessarily revolve around preference politics. Yes, it is frustrating to be unable to say “It’s normal for men to be aroused by 13-year-olds” without people assuming that I, personally, have a specific fetish for 13-year-olds, and am saying what I’m saying solely due to my own personal fetish. That “This person is engaging in preference politics” is now most people’s null hypothesis is the result of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and so on similar perverts forcing themselves on normal society.

    19. Hypersexuality: Gays are hypersexual, and invest tremendous efforts acquiring more and more sexual experiences, to the exclusion of other pursuits. Their excessive lust leads them, and whoever is politically influenced by them, to prioritize gay sex above e.g. scientific-technological advancement and cultural creation. The faggot’s quest to attain ever greater sexual pleasure takes precedence over whatever else he wants to do, so often they end up doing nothing else but cruising for sex. Individually, that’s self-destructive; on the political level, it results in gay parasitism, e.g., gays using our tax money to subsidize gayness, instead of other things. By and large, homosexuals are not “also gay,” but rather, are “gay above all else.”

    20. Biological Leninism: Another reason that the homos support left-wing causes is because of Biological Leninism: Since their status under normal circumstances is low indeed, gays attach themselves to and promote whatever political faction that promises to artificially raise their status. They are natural members of the left-wing coalition, and are status-invested in maintaining the Cathedral, for without the Cathedral’s elevation of the gays, they would rapidly lose their social prestige. They may not rank as highly as transsexuals and abortionists on the Progressive Totem Pole, but under any healthy system they’d be absolute pariahs, or dead, so they side with the Cathedral. Moreover, they need a Cathedral to normalize homosexuality through “point deer, make horse,” i.e., by collectively and unanimously pretending that homosexuals are totally normal. Without the Cathedral, people will once again notice that the deer is not in fact a horse – that gays are not anything remotely normal.

    21: Pedo-Hysteria: Hysteria about “pedophiles” is in large part a consequence of Gay Liberation, as many homosexuals have a distinct preference for prepubescent boys. The current witch hunts against “pedophiles,” which result in multitudes of normal heterosexual men getting sent to the slammer for bogus sex-crimes, is facilitated by both the presence of homosexuality in the social atmosphere (leading to the invention of the “pedophilia” anti-concept) and by actual homosexual predation on boys who are often prepubescent. Pedo-hysteria doesn’t allow us to notice that Humbert Humbert doesn’t creep into the bedrooms of 9-year-olds, but that it’s the other way around. Furthermore, LGBT politics are fundamentally hostile to male sexuality and to heterosexuality in general, because inherent to LGBT politics is a re-definition of normalcy to exclude old-fashioned socially acceptable — aka “heteronormal,” aka “oppressive and marginalizing” — mating habits (“pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender”) and include deviance.

    22. Priests vs. Warriors: Homosexuals give power to the leftist priesthood (and in turn are supported by the leftist priesthood), because acceptance of homosexuality rests on rule-by-priests. A society ruled by warriors does not tolerate faggotry and male effeminacy, so faggots are naturally inimical to warrior rule and to warriors; they feel much more comfortable when society is ruled by priests, and are adept at playing holiness signalling games. (To paraphrase Robert Conquest’s Second Law: Any Priesthood not explicitly anti-homosexual sooner or later becomes homosexual) Rule by warriors will definitely incentivize and accelerate the finding of a solution to the Gay Problem.

    23. 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 power. 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 ruler to uncover the gay cliques and to eliminate them.

    24. Cosmopolitanism: Homosexuals are atomized individuals not invested in the prosperity of their tribe; generally leaving no descendants behind them, being genetic dead-ends, they freely associate with members of other tribes, and form alliances based on homosexuality, rather than on ethnicity, or geography, or religion. They are outsiders and outcasts within their own societies and among their own ethnicities, so they tend to ally themselves with other outsiders and outcasts, and with any global power promising to advance their agenda, perceiving their in-group to include fellow gays and perverts, and to exclude most everyone else.

    25: Consent Culture: In order to attain sexual liberty, the LGBT crowd had to sign off on Feminist morality, i.e. “consenting adults” morality. Hence their enthusiastic embrace of whatever the latest installment of Feminist dogma is, without which they would be condemned as “rapists” by the Feminist system. If only as a lip service, homosexuals, trannies, etc., parrot whatever is expected of them, so they can be members in good standing of the Sexually Oppressed Class. They themselves benefit from Consent Culture, because it allows them to do as they please (“consenting adults”) while preventing evil privileged heterosexual men from forming stable families with young women. Thus, all homosexuals regardless of political affiliation, as near to all of them as makes no difference, adhere to the Consent Culture Feminist dogma.

    26. Suicidal Ideation: Gays are not only apt to self-destruct, a quintessential feature of their psyches; they also flaunt their self-destructive proclivities before everyone else, seeking — and, through propaganda in the media and in the entertainment industry, succeeding — to normalize suicidality. They are sick, morbid people, and they spread their morbidity around; misery doth love company. By making suicidal ideation “cool,” they have wreaked damage to whoever absorbed that idea and became depressed, dysfunctional as a result. By inflicting their suicidal ideation and self-destructive modes of thinking and behavior on the rest of society, they have further reduced the fertility of all those malleable to be influenced by fashion, which is now determined by gays. The TFR, and overall happiness and satisfaction in life, suffer under the homosexuals’ cultural domination; gays aggravate civilization’s downward spiral.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      This is very interesting — a lot to think about and discuss. Good job. I hope it doesn’t get lost — maybe you can develop each point into a chapter or something.

    • jim says:

      I am going to promote this excellent comment to a post – but I need to do a post on marriage first.

      Then I will promote this comment to a post. Doing the gay post first is failing their shit test.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      I wonder what would happen if somebody sent your 26 Feces Theses to Dan Savage and asked for a genuine, point-by-point response. He claims to be a normalized homo (synthetic family and same saggy asshole every night). Most likely he’d just ignore, but could you imagine him tripping over himself trying to explain away the cold logic contained herein? Good work.

    • Ron says:

      Gays parade their faggotry bc it is a dominance display. Testing to see if daddy is watching. And if not, they can take daddy’s place

      But they are all insecure, mentally ill. Which means they cannot handle the concept of power. Also they know they don’t deserve to be in power, they are simply arrogant selfish opportunists. Ergo, they must repeatedly demonstrate their power to reassure themselves.

      It’s supposed to be offensive. If you aren’t offended they will ramp it up. Until either you or they are dead.

    • Mike says:

      Number 23 feels a little weak to me, at least compared to the others. The list as a whole hits like a damn freight train though, incredible.

  13. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    “They talk to you until you say something that can plausibly be argued contradicts something else you said, then they demand you tell them what they want to hear. This is a closed loop that leads to madness, because it is guaranteed to produce confirmation of delusions.”

    After the way I was treated last time, I’m not going to let this one pass.

    This blogger is a bad actor. He’s not genuinely still on the Trump Train in July 2019 – he’s careful never to actually claim that he is. He may say things that make you *think* he’s telling you to trust the plan (such as the previous article) but in fact he can always plausibly deny it. Indeed he’ll probably cite misrepresentation of his views as the reason why it’s so important that rubbish like this comment has to be censored for the good of the public health of his fellow reactionaries….. which is exactly what he just described the FBI doing.

    The thing is, all this garbage about Flynn performs the same role for the reactionary community as the “Trump told the Squad to go home” performs for other segments of the public: it keeps your eyes away from what’s going on with Epstein.

    I’ll go further: it’s being done for the exact same reason, and no fellow critics of this blog, not because the blogger, like Epstein, is a ‘paedophile’ – and yes I used that word from the censor-list and yes EVERY FUCKING BODY knows what it means.
    No, it’s because he simply does not want you to look at the Epstein case. Jimmy Savile sure, Epstein no no no far more important things to worry about.

    Trump would rather be called a racist for a few days than have people ask why he’s been friends with that guy for such a long time; the Luggenpresse would rather push Nancy Pelosi into a corner than ask why, of the Squad, Ilhan Omar is especially hated by people who are allowed to hate, in the ways in which they’re allowed to hate; and this blog would rather come off as Qa-fuckin-nonce than have you ask why this particular guy was doing what he was doing, why he got away with it for so very long and cui bloody bono as per usual.

    I see you, ‘mate’: you’re about as Scottish as the Duke of Edinburgh.

    • jim says:

      > This blogger is a bad actor. He’s not genuinely still on the Trump Train in July 2019 – he’s careful never to actually claim that he is.

      Nuts. I am totally on the Trump train, and say so with great regularity. Anyone who opposes Trump is our enemy, and is usually a fed telling us that Trump is a Jewish pedophile.

      We are still on flight 93, and flight 93 is still flying straight into the ground, but Trump is fighting the hijackers in the cockpit, and now looks like he is winning.

      Trump is building the wall, Mexico is paying for it. Trump just fixed the Asylum loophole by executive order. His 2020 campaign will consist of victory laps along the wall, the announcement that illegal immigration is fixed, or is well on the way to being fixed. Illegal immigration being fixed, he will campaign on legal immigration – a merit based system for legal immigration that will bring in Republican voters to work and pay taxes, instead of Democratic Party voters to live on crime and welfare.

      Epstein is in trouble not because of his connection with young fertile age women, but, as I have said, for the same reason as General Flynn is in trouble: because the left has the fantastic delusion that Epstein has something on Trump. They are nuts, and you are nuts. Their is no reason, except in the fantastic hothouse insanity of the left, to think that Epstein has the goods on Trump. It is the same transparently insane Trump Derangement Syndrome as led them to continue to believe that General Flynn has the goods on Trump, no matter how obvious it became that he did not. That you share this madness shows the circles you move in.

      No one is genuinely bothered by Epstein having sex with fertile age women. No one is genuinely bothered by any male having sex with fertile age women, except old women that get jealous. They are lashing out in rage at Epstein, as they lashed out in rage at General Flynn – because he does not have what they want.

      It is the same as a black man invades a white man’s house, and sadistically murders the inhabitants, because he is looking for some particular goodie, and it is not there. As we approach the left singularity, leftists will act, are acting, more and more like underclass low IQ ghetto blacks. Fortunately, like low IQ ghetto blacks, you will mostly kill each other. You think Epstein has the goods on Trump and is holding out? You will find your supervisor thinks you have the goods on me and you are holding out.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        “No one is genuinely bothered by Epstein having sex with fertile age women”

        — True, if you mean with regard to the well-being of the girls (as opposed to the rights of their fathers, which is another issue), because he doesn’t seem to have been cruel to them and they probably felt like princesses in fairyland.

        But the Rotherham pimps were cruel to their girls, and that’s why Tommy Robinson was so angry about it, angry enough to be in prison now.

        This seems to me to be an important, useful, and meaningful distinction — being non-cruel vs. cruel — much more obviously so than the consensual/nonconsensual distinction.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Deleted for telling us what Friendly Fred said. Your version of his position is the flat direct opposite of what he quite plainly and straightforwardly said, and even if you were giving an accurate rendition of what he said, why does he need you to explain what he is saying?

      • Steve Johnson says:

        No one is genuinely bothered by Epstein having sex with fertile age women. No one is genuinely bothered by any male having sex with fertile age women, except old women that get jealous.

        I don’t know – to me it looks like the blue pilled trad-cons are pretty sincerely angry about Epstein.

        • jim says:

          Observed behavior in actual life – regular males are fine with it, cops are embarrassed to enforce the law, and fail to do so very effectively.

          It is all entirely synthetic outrage – they are actually angry at female misconduct, but displace their rage onto imaginary bad guys causing female misconduct. If not seeing female misconduct, if she seems to be sticking with you and you with her, no problem. They are not really pissed with Epstein. They are pissed with their thirteen year old daughters hawking their asses on Facebook, but cannot intervene because that would be rape, mansplaining, and domestic violence.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            *deleted*

            • jim says:

              Deleted, as usual, for telling us what we think.

              We already know what we think, and are disinclined to accept your account of what we think. Why don’t you tell us what you think?

            • jim says:

              Deleted, as usual, for telling us what we think.

              We already know what we think, and are disinclined to accept your account of what we think. Why don’t you tell us what you think?

        • Not Tom says:

          It’s similar to the anger that blue-pilled men have for cads who are constantly getting laid despite “treating women badly”. It starts out as a vague emotion – envy being a significant part – then morphs into irritation at the girls for not making better choices, then crimestop kicks in (and a bit of reality – knowing the girls will never make better choices) and the feeling is rationalized away as evil bad men.

          I’d dissent from Jim somewhat and claim that it’s not exactly synthetic, it’s real outrage but it is negative transference. The outrage is impotent rage at being unable to do what the “evil” men get away with which isn’t actually evil at all. The feeling is real, but the rationalization causes it to be expressed as nonsense.

          • jim says:

            > I’d dissent from Jim somewhat and claim that it’s not exactly synthetic, it’s real outrage but it is negative transference.

            Real outrage against the male in situations where the female behavior should provoke outrage.

            In situations where the female behavior should not provoke outrage, they mysteriously do not get outraged.

            • Not Tom says:

              Sounds about right. Most outrageous female misbehavior in descending order: Rotherham gangs > Jeffrey Epstein > David Lee Roth > Hugh Hefner > Donald Trump/Bill Clinton. Same order as collective male outrage against the men.

          • There’s probably a lot more resentment and envy towards the cad in that emotion. Not because he “treats women badly” but precisely because he gets laid and the bluepill does not.

            The bluepill’s blue balls are a fact of physiology and probably play a much bigger part in the anger than the irritation at the ill-behaved woman.

            • Not Tom says:

              It is negative transference. Take the cad out of the equation, and she still will not have sex with bluepill man, and bluepill’s rage over this situation is proportional to blueness of balls. The same rage exists whether or not cad is in the picture, thus we can conclude that cad is not primarily responsible for bluepill rage.

              Reducing everything to jealousy is missing the point. Jealousy would target the man nailing his hot wife every night over the cad who occasionally manages to nail a few hot women every so often. But the hot wife is in a civilized relationship, whereas the feral sluts cruising for alpha are not. The difference is the women, not the men.

              • You’re assuming the bluepill understands that the women would not fuck him even absent the alpha. What he sees while stewing in resentment is the cad having and him not having.

                A good analogy here would be a poor man resenting a rich man for being wealthy. The poor guy probably doesn’t understand that he’d be poor even if the rich guy didn’t exist and that the rich guy didn’t steal the wealth from him.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “You think Epstein has the goods on Trump and is holding out? You will find your supervisor thinks you have the goods on me and you are holding out.”

        Ice cold.

    • The Cominator says:

      You lie communist revolutionary.

      Jim has been fanatically loyal to Trump and a consistent opponent of liars and blackpillers.

      Spandrell was going through a phase where he was very anti-Trump.

      Epstein is in trouble not because of his connection with young fertile age women, but, as I have said, for the same reason as General Flynn is in trouble: because the left has the fantastic delusion that Epstein has something on Trump. They are nuts, and you are nuts.

      Epstein’s case was reopened for that reason because the SDNY thought they could get Barr to roll over on a technicality and then use Epstein to compose on Trump. But now that Barr in fact refused to roll over Epstein is in trouble because Barr and Trump knows Epstein DOES FOR REAL have lots of kompromat on Trump’s enemies and even on his fairweather friends.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        You lie communist revolutionary.

        Jim has been fanatically loyal to Trump and a consistent opponent of liars and blackpillers.

        It’s just Communist Revolutionary’s usual style of argument from false consensus.

        Stated – You’re hiding that you’re pro-Trump
        Conclusion – because you’re a Jew shill
        *Unstated* – everyone is now ashamed to support Trump because Trump’s been exposed as a Jew puppet

        He’s arguing past the sale as he usually does.

        • jim says:

          > *Unstated* – everyone is now ashamed to support Trump because Trump’s been exposed as a Jew puppet

          Exactly so.

          Instead of telling us Trump is a Jew Puppet he tells us that we say Trump is a Jew Puppet, and instead of telling us that we say that Trump is a Jew puppet, he assumes we already agree, everyone already agrees, that Trump is a Jew puppet, tries to get us to think past the sale. And because he assumes that we already agree, he is never going to argue with us about it, because to argue about it would be to acknowledge that the sale had not been made.

          Carlylean Restorationist stubbornly assumes the sale, and if you indignantly tell him “No sale”, he stubbornly ignores your response, as in our our long running debate on whether capitalism is ancient, ordained by God, and came under savage terrorist attack by the enlightenment, destroying the economy of revolutionary France as the enlightenment has destroyed the economy of endless countries ever since, and murdered millions ever since, or the other way around.

          We supposedly already agree that Trump is a huge disappointment and an orange Jewish pedophile, hence my supposed need to hide my enthusiastic support for Trump, because supposedly if it was obvious that I enthusiastically support Trump, it would supposedly be obvious that I also am a Jewish pedophile.

          He will absolutely never acknowledge that there is any debate, framing me as agreeing that the Enlightenment invented capitalism, and that I am therefore therefore supporting the enlightenment, and therefore supporting Jews. He just flatly refuses to engage in the discussion that I endlessly ask him to engage in. He will not respond to my evidence and argument that capitalism is ancient and that the Enlightenment was a terrorist attack on capitalism, because he will never deign to notice that I claim that the Enlightenment was a terrorist attack on capitalism and on the economy of revolutionary France. He assumes that he has already made the sale that the Enlightenment was the introduction of capitalism, and that therefore since we oppose the enlightenment, we should oppose capitalism, but for some mysterious, illogical, and never explained reason, fail to do so.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Deleted for once again assuming the sale. If there are reasons why we should hate Trump, it is your job to tell us what they are rather than telling us we already know what they are.

            No, I don’t know of any such reasons. You will have to tell me what they are.

            No, we don’t think that Trump is a “Jew shill”

            If you want to persuade us that Trump is a Jew shill, going to have to tell us what it is that makes him a Jew shill, rather than telling us we already know and agree.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      And Communist Revolutionary fails the RedPill on women test yet again!

      And so does the FBI and SDNY (Epstein’s dirty slutty whores is a perfect RedPill test).

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Deleted, as usual, for telling us what we think. In this case for telling us that we agree that Trump is an orange Jewish pedophile and that the blue pill account of female nature is true and morally right.

    • The Cominator says:

      and this blog would rather come off as Qa-fuckin-nonce than have you ask why this particular guy was doing what he was doing, why he got away with it for so very long and cui bloody bono as per usual.

      Epstein got away with it because he was a glownagger running a honeytrap either for someone in the CIA (possibly Brennan) or possibly for the Mueller FBI.

      We even have public evidence of this, Acosta (Trump’s former labor secretary who signed the Epstein deal not the CNN asshole) said he was ordered not to pursue the case and give the sweetheart deal because he was told Epstein was an intelligence asset.

      • jim says:

        From which we can conclude that if Epstein had the goods on Trump, would have given them to Mueller, and Epstein is in trouble because they refuse to believe he does not have the goods.

        Epstein was in the business of accumulating blackmail material for Hillary and Obama to use. The left devours the left.

        • Karl says:

          Why do you assume that the left is going after Epstein? Isn’t it possible that Trumpists are going after Epstein to get something to attack other leftists?

          • The Cominator says:

            I’ve posted this basic sequence of events more then once.

            1. Mueller case falls on its ass leftists want something else they can get a special prosecutor and tar Trump with.

            2. Leftists within the SDNY open a case against Epstein theoretically for older charges then the ones he plead on. The idea was that Barr would have to roll over some technicality that one law firm he worked for represented Epstein on some case way in the past.

            3. Barr pretends like he will roll over but does not.

            4. Barr and the White House have all of Epstein the glownagger’s kompromat now.

          • jim says:

            State charges, not federal charges. Therefore, left is going after the Epstein, having deluded themselves he has the goods on Trump, as they deluded themselves Flynn had the goods on Trump.

            • The Cominator says:

              Jim no it is federal but it is the leftist SDNY but their problem is Barr did not recuse himself.

    • alf says:

      You’re such a rat CR. Such a nibbly little rat.

      Don’t worry, no hate from me. But man are you a small squeeky rat.

  14. R7 Rocket says:

    OT:

    YEAR ONE July 20th, 1 ATB (1969 AD on the old calendar)

    On this Holy Day, Blessed Saint Armstrong and Blessed Saint Aldrin were the first humans to step foot on another world, Luna.

    • Dave says:

      The Stonewall Riots three weeks earlier were a much more accurate foreshadowing of life in 21st-century America.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        If Soros makes Starship/Superheavy illegal perhaps. But if StarProphet Elon Musk defeats Soros…

  15. 2019 is boring says:

    Friendly Fred, I don’t know if the gays really deserve so many chapters dedicated to the problems posed by them. As Jim says, we need to have an official marriage post first. That said, there are 4 more points to consider, rounding it off to a 30-points-list.

    27. Sexual Relativism: This is a useful concept when examining the Gay Problem. The Sexual Relativist agenda tells us that sexual morality is not determined by Nature or by Nature’s God, but is altogether socially constructed, according to ever changing cultural norms; it tells us that sexual propriety is essentially “fluid and flexible,” and that consequently, homosexuality is not any less deserving of acceptance than heterosexuality. Indeed, in light of Sexual Relativism, all sexual proclivities may be valid, or alternatively, may be invalid – everything’s determined by culture. If a given society decides that bestiality and necrophilia are valid, while heterosexual sex with fertile females is invalid, then that’s not any less proper than any other state of affairs. Thus, homosexual and pro-homosexual activists tell us that gayness, or queerness, or whatever their preferred preference is, is not in any way fundamentally inferior to normal sexuality. The gays are undermining our naturalistic worldview to promote social constructionist theory.

    28. Liberal Marriage: This is a crucial point. We seek to restore young arranged marriage (among other things); whereas, the homosexuals and their leftist supporters will viciously fight tooth and nail against anything like that, because “What if someone is gay?” In a society in which everyone is assumed straight, gays being either all dead or hiding deep in the closet (or not born in the first place), there is no such problem; but when gays are tolerated and accepted, and their presence is constantly celebrated, then any attempt to restore arranged marriage will be met with fierce opposition and cries of “Not everyone is heterosexual! Therefore, you oppressive bigots need to allow people to voluntarily choose their sex-mates, and only upon reaching fully mature adulthood!” – thus, modern Liberal Marriage. Gays are heavily invested in sexual liberalism, in allowing all adults to consent to sex with all other adults, and to withdraw consent to sex at their most frivolous whim, hence rampant divorce and defect-defect equilibrium. Liberal Marriage is absolutely incompatible with the reactionary program to make real young patriarchal marriage legal and easily attainable again. Gays are agents of sexual liberalism, and misbehaving women like them for that reason.

    29. Parenthood: Whenever homosexuals are allowed, they inevitably argue, “We are normal, just like everyone else. We should be allowed to have kids.” And when they do get children, what happens? For one, the children grow up in utter confusion about what normalcy is and what it isn’t, leading to dysfunction later in life as they try to make sense of the world. Secondly, state and society face endless weird, absurd, Clown World dilemmas in dealing with homosexual “families,” e.g. when homosexuals fight over custody over children donated by sperm or egg. Thirdly, the traditional family unit itself is wholly unraveled as the door is now opened for whatever bizarre sort of household one can imagine: “Hey bigot, why can’t transsexuals be parents too? I’ll let you know, douche, that my single mother has already transitioned to a single father!” and so on and so forth. And fourthly, allowing sex freaks to raise children is prone to result in sexual abuse, whether it’s diddling by faggot “parents,” or anti-testosterone hormonal torture by dyke “parents,” or growing up in a whorehouse attended by fetishists of every shade, hue, and color.

    30. Political Correctness: Allowing gays around stifles our ability to communicate through reactionary shibboleths, as gays invariably institute a reign of terror under which all pro-reproduction notions unflattering and uncomfortable for Fag Acceptance are erased from public discourse; they can’t stand our liberty to call them out on the destructiveness of their behavior, so they always rush to prevent us from speaking our minds. Tolerance for homosexuality and free speech cannot be reconciled, as homosexuals are deeply offended by sexual normalcy, and never miss an opportunity to penalize and bring down whoever speaks with disfavor about anything homosexuality-related. Gays are always among the first to call for restrictions on right-wingers’ speech. Even ostensibly pro free speech gays, are only so up to a certain point; they cannot tolerate reactionary thought crimes, because our thought crimes effectively render homosexuality altogether illegitimate – we not only intend to do away with it completely, but also have the capacity to engage in effective meme warfare to carry out our program. Faggots want to disrupt and disallow our meme-coordination for that reason.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      With some fleshing out and formatting + copious footnotes, what you have here is a timely, exhaustive, and very necessary book. Have you ever encountered this book?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_the_Ball_(book)

      I will buy it eventually and probably read it. For non-clickers, it is a book from 1989 that purportedly lays out the Gay Agenda for normalization and eventual canonization of gays in American society. It would be one of the many scholarly and otherwise references that could flesh out your piece into what i believe would be a very powerful tool.

      I think i’m going to keep harping on this Official Documents meme; i think it is time we set down our collective notes on paper. Maybe i’m just old fashioned, but i do believe it is important.

      Hypothetically, what is standing between you and turning this into a small book?

      • jim says:

        > Hypothetically, what is standing between you and turning this into a small book?

        Gays are boring, disgusting, ugly, dirty, and love attention far too much. As Jews love another book that is all about Jews, gays would love another book that is all about gays.

        I want a society in which we are unaware that gays exist, in which they are not continuously inflicted on our notice.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Hmm. I see your point. I still think it would be an excellent primer on Why We Want What We Want, which should be a collection of brief, no-nonsense, yet complete readers on the reactionary program.

          I’ve shared with you enough for you to surmise why i want such a set of primers.

          Accepting your (as usual) brusque and correct reason for not yet pressing on because i feel i have a worthwhile point, can you see the value in having a codified explanation of this aspect of The Program? And it shouldn’t only be for Gays. There should be one for Jews*, one for Women, one for each of the main categories of Question(s). A concise reader that plainly states What Is, with comprehensive footnotes detailing Why It Is.

          *This blog comments section has done more to measure my approach to the JQ than anything else i have encountered. Who knew JimBlog could deradicalize a young white male lol.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Should you not also have the Sodomnomicon for inquisitors to use as a reference. If you plan on showing girls fucking dogs to priests to cure them of any blue pill inclination, you also need to show them the same sort of thing on queers to annihilate any sympathy for their perversions as well. No need to publish it, but I would think that there is a need to keep it locked away just in case. “BREAK IN CASE OF QUEERS”

          • jim says:

            I want everyone to pretend that gays do not exist, and if anyone disturbs the pretense, we at first ignore him, but if he is difficult to ignore, we throw him off a high building, killing him a way that is not only terrifying, but, more importantly, lowers his status thereby rendering him and his death insignificant and rendering him retroactively ignorable.

            • Not Tom says:

              I don’t know; the Old Testament saw fit to dedicate space to the problem of homosexuality. Not a lot of it, but some.

              If we compare the Reactionary Testament to an instruction manual, then I’d be in favor of sodomy and pederasty being part of a slim “troubleshooting” section that most people don’t read and perhaps is not even included in the normie abridged version, maybe only the priests themselves have access to it.

              Once people really do forget that homosexuality is even a thing, say 150 years from now, we’re going to need a reference for the very confused prince who discovers the secret gay bathhouse and doesn’t quite understand what he’s seeing and why it needs to be immediately burned to the ground and all patrons publicly thrown off the tallest building.

              • jim says:

                The Bible is a big book, and devotes about the right amount of space to the issue. Which is not a lot.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Alright, I see. All you need to know is that if a man lies with another man, those men need to die. Anything beyond that is ceding the frame of the discussion to their terms, giving them the advantage.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think homosexual “practice” should generally be referred to as “the perversion”.

                  The gay identity is probably more an issue then the perversion itself disgusting as it may be.

                  Putin’s government did not quite outlaw the perversion, but it did criminalize the gay identity.

                • jim says:

                  That is interesting.

                  I was enormously impressed by the Russian handling of Pussy Riot, treating them exactly as one would treat feral dogs raiding the garbage, chasing the chickens, and shitting on the sidewalk.

                  How did Putin handle the gay identity?

                • The Cominator says:

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law

                  Basically you can be gay in private but acting like a fag in public risks you running afoul of the law.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            Interesting and useful idea, but gay sex is by far more disgusting than girls fucking dogs. When one browses a porn site, for instance, one can easily tolerate some weird perversions in the background, but gay sex is not one of these perversions – it destroys the experience completely. That’s why successful porn sites always enable the viewer to filter out homosexuality, specifically.

            The Cathedral is preventing us from knowing what girls are like, throwing men in prison even for possession of erotic videos of the 16-year-old chicks that they fornicate with, but spares no effort exposing us to gays; perhaps the leftists, whose disgust reflex is greatly diminished, think that constant exposure will desensitize us into tolerance for gays. Of course, since those of us with a healthy disgust reflex will always be viscerally disgusted by it, constant exposure makes us all the more disgusted, so the leftist plan is counterproductive to the leftists’ purposes.

            (By the way, anyone telling us “I can tolerate gay sex on the screen, but cannot tolerate young chicks on the screen,” will be curb stomped and subsequently thrown into the ocean)

            I agree that some documentation of gay behavior should remain hidden away somewhere at the Reactionary Sins and Vices Archive, “just in case.” But I don’t think that it should be required material. We need to investigate what causes homosexuality, bisexuality, and so forth, and to eliminate that.

        • I’ve come to believe that even assigning buggery an identity, even for the purposes of criminalizing and persecuting it, is failing the shit test and moreover ingroups the perverse.

          For my purposes now, “gays” don’t exist. There’s no such thing as a “homosexual”. Criminalizing the act of buggery without assigning it to a larger category of “homosexuality” isolates the perverse from forming a sacred identity.

          If you talk about “the gays”, men who have a perverse desire to fuck and be fucked by other men think “there’s people like me out there, my perversion -means something- about me”. But if you frame it as outlawing a perverse behavior that ruins male friendships and cooperation, potential buggers grow up thinking that they’re normal men with a perverse desire that needs to be kept under wraps, and the rest of us don’t notice that gays exist.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            What you suggest makes perfect sense in a society that has already solved its Gay Problem, by whatever means. But in order to “get from here to there,” need to address the problem that right now exists, need to recognize that gays (or, to use the traditional designation, sodomites) do currently exist, and that they need to cease existing.

            Your approach is definitely suitable to a post-Restoration society. Right now, however, we do need a Reaction 101 on the Gay Problem, addressing the current existence of gays and the problems created by them. Though I agree with Jim that Reaction 101 on Marriage is by far more vital, and should precede the post about homosexuality.

        • From a genetic standpoint, homosexuality seems to correlate with mutant load and therefore the biggest risk factor is advanced parental age. Since gays don’t reproduce, it stems almost exclusively from de novo mutations linked to the imperfect meiotic process of aging sexual cells.
          A patriarchal social order should encourage marriage and reproduction at a young age, minimizing the risk of such mutations. The lion’s share of the Homo Question will be solved with a patriarchal social order.
          Any stragglers can be aborted if caught pre-birth, or thrown from the roof if caught after birth.

          • Not Tom says:

            I presume you have some evidence for your biological claim, given that homosexuality clearly existed and was a problem in Old Testament days when the average life expectancy was about 35 and infant mortality was above 30%.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Seconded.

              I am leery of sharing my thoughts on the gays specifically because i am not equipped to understand genetic arguments and explanations. I feel capable of addressing issues in terms of lining up sets of questions that i feel need to be answered before I (we) can make categorical statements.

              Is there a gene or set of genes that indicate homosexuality?

              Can gayness be a matter of degrees (as in more gay v. less gay) and if so what is the acceptable (in structural terms) amount for a stable society?

              If gayness is a sickness that is not genetically transferred (i may be saying that wrong), can it be cured? More to the point, should it be cured?

              I was at a Global Studies conference a while back and one of the speakers presented his ongoing study of homosexuality in Pakistan. Being an Islamic Republic that punishes sodomy by law, they self-report as having 0% gays. this is obviously false. This scholar was studying how gays exist in a society that doesn’t tolerate their proclivities or even acknowledge their existence past punitive measures. During the break between speakers i approached him and asked him a question along these lines:

              “Do you think that the West’s adoption of total acceptance of homosexuality (enforced normalization) will lead to an increase in the gay population or a reduction in the gay population?

              I was not that blunt; i had to trot out a few observations, signal my ally status, and a bunch of other niceties that were/are irrelevant, but when i got to the question he was stumped. I postulated that there would be a reduction in ambivalent or opposed societies because their gays would move away. In addition, there would be a short term but possibly dramatic rise in “sympathetic” countries if there was a status bump attached to being gay, but in the long run it would decline dramatically. My reason for this assertion is that the presence of gays (this is under the assumption that persons are born gay, which is my default until shown otherwise) in any measurable numbers in any given society exist due to the necessity of homosexuals to pass as straight, with the requisite wives and children needed to live the lie. I do not believe in Lesbianism, so it is not relevant to my frame. He said it was an interesting thought and we parted ways.

              • jim says:

                > Is there a gene or set of genes that indicate homosexuality?

                Probably not. It has low heritability.

                >Can gayness be a matter of degrees (as in more gay v. less gay) and if so what is the acceptable (in structural terms) amount for a stable society?

                No. In a society where gayness is forcefully repressed, then it becomes acceptable for men to express affection to other men physically, and sometimes one wonders if so and so is a little too keen on expressing affection physically, but even in such a society, not a matter of degree, because in such a society there is a presumption that they don’t whip their dicks out and use them on each other, and that if they do whip their dicks out, something is terribly wrong and they need to be thrown from a tall building. One might suspect, from excessive displays of physical affection in public, that they are whipping their dicks out in private, but if so, it is a deep dark secret.

                > If gayness is a sickness that is not genetically transferred (i may be saying that wrong), can it be cured? More to the point, should it be cured?

                Gays have a low survival rate, generally dying of disease, suicide, or murder while causing immense damage to everyone around them. Of course it should be cured, or better, prevented.

                The question is: Is it a gay germ, transmitted from adults to children, or is it abnormal maternal hormones in utero, or something of both?

                That identical twins do not have a high concordance rate for homosexuality runs against the “born like that” hypothesis, and inclines me to favor the gay germ theory, transmitted from adults to children, primarily through sex, but also through physical contact.

                The concordance rate for identical twins is substantially higher than for fraternal twins, being around fifty percent as against twenty percent, or eleven percent as against five percent, depending on whose studies you believe – but all these percentages argue against the “born like that” hypothesis.

                If absolutely zero gays were born like that, the explanation for the higher concordance for identical twins might well be that people with certain physical or behavioral characteristics are more attractive to, or more vulnerable to, adults spreading the gay germ to children.

                If, on the other hand a lot of gays “born like that”, hard to explain a merely fifty percent concordance rate for identical twins, let along eleven percent. Has to be something post birth.

                Given the low heritability, twenty percent concordance for fraternal twins indicates that the in utero environment has some impact, consistent with the progesterone conjecture – but the impact cannot be not huge and decisive.

                • jim says:

                  > they self-report as having 0% gays. this is obviously false.

                  There is substantial and compelling evidence that some primitive societies have absolutely zero gays. They don’t repress them. They have never heard of them. The idea seems weird and silly to them. Others have lots of gays.

                  Something environmental is causing homosexuality, and that something varies radically between one society and the next. So it is possible, and entirely probable, that they have absolutely zero homosexuality. This is consistent with the gay germ hypothesis. If the environment is unfavorable to the gay germ, it vanishes totally.

                  Homosexuality is unstable, with spontaneous recovery being common. This also argues against the “born like that” hypothesis. It is more like catching a cold. You are likely to get better. Maybe we should try chicken soup (served by hot nurses). Chicken soup seems to cure most things, particularly when served by chicks.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  My skepticism of the 0% claim is in relation to Pakistan and, by extension Iran and Bangladesh and any other Islamic republic that has a globalized economy. Your point about archaic cultures stands and is correct from my interpretation.

                • jim says:

                  Whatever is causing homosexuality, I doubt it is the globalized economy.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The low concordance rate for homosexuality does not necessarily imply the lack of a genetic basis. That’s an inverse fallacy: high concordance is evidence for significant genetic basis but low concordance does not prove significant environmental basis.

                  Sickle cell anemia is the canonical example of an adaptation that is mostly negative, but can have fitness advantage in some environments. But we can also think of this as being analogous to IQ; a population with average IQ of 95 will still basically function OK, most of the time, but will produce quite a lot more retards than an equivalent-sized population with average 100.

                  Until we have evidence that proves otherwise, I don’t think binary thinking is the answer. Given the inconclusiveness of existing evidence based mainly on single-variable analysis, it’s likely to have a multivariate cause: many genes, some mutations, some environmental triggers, and a wide range of symptoms in which homosexuality only appears at the extremes.

                  Twin studies are great, but GWAS are better and GWAS are showing a possible genetic basis. The pathogen hypothesis, in the other hand, is implausible; high morbidity and esoteric mode of transmission make it difficult to imagine how such a pathogen could evolve, and moreover, if we use fitness as an argument against a gay gene then the same argument actually also applies in favor of an immunity-to-gay gene.

                  I don’t see why it’s important in a reactionary memeplex to prove that homosexuality is not inborn, because reaction doesn’t consider inborn traits to be exempt from scrutiny. It doesn’t matter if sodomites were born that way, they still have to keep it in the closet, just like women have to marry their first lover even if they were born to trade up.

                • Low or nonexistent heritability does not disprove genetic origins, if we are dealing with mutant genes. Homosexuality could very much begin in daddy’s balls when mistakes are made during the meiotic copying process.

                  Something environmental is causing homosexuality, and that something varies radically between one society and the next.

                  Something environmental might be targeting genetic homosexuals and discouraging their proliferation (early marriage and childbearing reducing number of mutants in a society), which makes the very few remaining ones less likely to behave in a homosexual manner. As the old saying goes, it takes two to poopdick.

                • info says:

                  There is evidence of homosexual molestation in childhood and youth especially he that is in the process of puberty which would result in homosexual inclination.

                  George Takei was turned into a sodomite by a sodomite camp counselor as far as I know.

            • Homosexuality correlates with left-handedness, a known symptom of high mutational load.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10900997

              http://www.mygenes.co.nz/lefthand.html

              Additionally, having children at an early age doesn’t completely eliminate, merely reduce the probability of de novo mutations. With large numbers, a few will always slip past the goalie of low probability.

              • Not Tom says:

                Thinnest of thin gruel – one meta showing low-to-moderate correlation and proposing hypothetical explanations (no testing) and another entirely speculative piece.

                Correlations highlight areas that might be worthy of further research – they don’t justify jumping to conclusions. There might be something there, but the evidence so far is not even close to supporting your “mutational load” conclusion.

                • Yeah, more research is needed. Unfortunately, Cathedral orthodoxy is so unstinting in this area that even dissident researchers suffer from severe crimestop and so nobody looks into these things.

                  But as a general rule of thumb, if it strongly correlates with left-handedness, facial asymmetry, autism or allergies, and cannot be explained otherwise, it’s probably due to mutational load.

                • pdimov says:

                  Mutational load also correlates negatively with IQ and height. Does this hold for homosexuals? I’m not sure.

                  It holds for pedophiles, according to Razib Khan:

                  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/04/why-are-taller-people-more-intelligent/#.XTsl0hp7kfw

                  (last paragraph)

                • Not Tom says:

                  As far as I know – and it’s possible I’m ignorant of certain studies – “mutational load” is alt-right pseudoscience that’s meant to sound like the better-known actual science of “genetic load” – the mass of genetic material most people have that doesn’t really do anything useful.

                  Many mutations are harmful, some are beneficial, most have basically no effect at all. The absolute number of mutations doesn’t tell you anything very interesting about an individual. If the concept is to have any value, it needs to be narrowed down to categories of mutations that matter and to actually be tested as a hypothesis, because right now it’s tautological and unfalsifiable. Cathedral suppression isn’t really an excuse – there is tons of research going on, you just have to ignore the “I’m really a faithful progressive, honestly” boilerplate and look at the actual data.

                • jim says:

                  > there is tons of research going on, you just have to ignore the “I’m really a faithful progressive, honestly” boilerplate and look at the actual data.

                  Most papers start out pious and end pious, and they put any thoughtcrimes in tables, on the theory that progressives cannot read numbers

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Most papers start out pious and end pious, and they put any thoughtcrimes in tables, on the theory that progressives cannot read numbers”

                  Unless a paper shows a very very novel discovery this is not a good way to impart information.

                  Going through tables and charts is boring, and takes real concentration and only specialists in the field will generally do so. Most people will not notice any scientific research into the causes of homosexuality if the abstract says the opposite (ie this paper says homos are all born that way period) and all the real information that says the opposite is buried in the raw data.

                • Not Tom says:

                  “Most papers start out pious and end pious, and they put any thoughtcrimes in tables, on the theory that progressives cannot read numbers”

                  Unless a paper shows a very very novel discovery this is not a good way to impart information.

                  That’s exactly why they do it – to maintain plausible deniability. When some heretic infers the correct conclusion from the tables and is tactless enough to announce not only what it means, but where they found it, the researcher can go “huh, that’s interesting, I certainly never noticed that anomaly and definitely wouldn’t draw the same conclusions that Mr. Badthink here is drawing”.

                  Scientists are natural heretics, but the good ones have adapted by becoming experts at cloaking their research. Under reactionary rule, we should hope that scientists do not need to obfuscate, because we would rather form policy around the truth than bend the truth to conform to policy; but if we ever do see large numbers of scientists hiding unfavorable conclusions in the most boring sections, we’ll know that we screwed up somewhere and managed to incorporate untruth into the faith.

      • 2019 is boring says:

        I heaven’t read books about homosexuality, as the topic is not very urgent in my view – Western Civilization is collapsing because of the Blue Pill on Women, while gays are a relatively minor concern. Preoccupation with it also triggers one’s disgust reflex, though that can be overcome with enough willpower.

        The reasoning behind writing the 30 points list is Conservatives’ embarrassing failure on that front. When a Progressive troll asks the typical Conservative or the occasional Alt-Righter, “What do you have against gay people?”, the interlocutor often mumbles some 2 or 3 half-baked reasons, and then goes silent. And I don’t want the Reactionary response to boil down to “Well, Leviticus and Paul prohibited it, so… I guess that’s that.” That’s awfully insufficient. Rather, a good lawyer and a good propagandist are able to conjure plenty of supportive arguments, so that even if most of them are dismissed by the audience, at least something will stick; thus, even if two thirds of the list are not particularly convincing to you, you’re still left with 10 compelling arguments. (To be sure, I think they’re all good)

        I agree about the Official Documents idea. We need to have a Reactionary Library, so that come the Restoration, the Priesthood will have enough resources to use in formulating its doctrine.

        I don’t know when (if at all) the Restoration will happen, but I am pretty damn certain that, just as most people here are former leftists, the Priesthood of the Restoration era will be composed primarily of former leftists. Leftists are usually pro-gay, and often remain so even after they switch ideological camps. How do you convince former leftists to support the elimination of homosexuality? Mere Bible-thumping has not worked, has been failing for as long as the Christian right has been resorting exclusively to that strategy. Need to not repeat the mistakes of those who evidently failed.

        In the future, it will probably — and hopefully — be possible to prevent homosexuals from being born. That will raise the question: “Why do you want to prevent them from being born?” I think that we’ve produced enough no-nonsense intellectual explanations why preventing them from being born in the first place will be excellent indeed.

        Of course, this is not to say that we won’t do Bible-thumping ourselves. Rather, this list is inspired by EA’s idea to explain the Bible in light of Jim’s blog and thereby to filter out Satanic infiltrators. Thus when Leviticus 18:22 says: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” (and in 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for it,) with affirmation in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Judges, Romans, and 1 Timothy, we should be able to have enough footnotes and annotations to make clear that this law is not some random “desert tribesmen” bunkum, but makes total sense from the Reactionary point of view. That the Bible mentioned sodomy and sodomites several different times, and twice in the context of collective destruction (Genesis, Judges), tells us that this is not an unimportant issue.

        The context in Leviticus 18 and 20 leaves no doubt that it’s a grave matter of collective life and death, e.g. Leviticus 18 tells us:

        20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her.
        21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
        22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
        23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
        24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
        25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomited out her inhabitants.

        The Bible tells us that the Indian and Iranian solution of turning sodomites into a “third sex,” of forcing them into being transsexual prostitutes, is simply not good enough. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 prohibits sodomite prostitution, and Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing, and by extension anything else that causes males to appear female or vice versa. If these issues did not exist at the time, the Bible would not mention them. The Bible prescribes elimination, and in light of what we know today, that position makes the most sense: We need to live in a society without faggots.

        There is no need to write a whole book about it, just as we don’t need a whole book about the gender-benders. We just need to be able to explain the Reactionary position in a way that logical, rational, scientific-minded ex-leftists will be able to comprehend and agree with.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          Gays are not a minor concern. Separate from all the problems associated with homosexuality, having identifiable gays-as-a-group is like having a second population similar to Jews (in size, per capita wealth, leftism, etc) with more of the problems and none of the benefits. I actually suspect that a lot of what seem to be JQ problems in our times originate as GQ, with G’s pushing J’s (and women) further left in places where there are lots of both. But this is obscured because the Gay Question almost exclusively concerns questions of sex, marriage, religion or the like instead of Gays as a subgroup independent of their sexual behavior.

          (sorry for stupid username, i had been planning to only make a couple of Omar-related posts but felt it important to answer the above.)

          • 2019 is boring says:

            Sure, they are not a minor concern in general; only minor relative to the burning astronomical Woman Problem. (Chronologically at least, the Woman Question became catastrophically acute in the 19th century with Puritanism, while the Gay Question is solidly the result of 20th century Cultural Marxism) In other words: The Gay Question is like a massive outbreak of cholera; the Woman Question is like nuclear holocaust.

            Also agree that gays greatly intensify the negative aspects of both the Jewish and Woman Questions.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              I know this is pedantic, but the GQ is the nuclear problem and the WQ is the recurring biological problem. Cholera springs from poor practices, widespread ignorance, and warped common knowledge. Nuclear Holocaust occurs (theoretically) when a very small, powerful thing is applied specifically by an actor to gain the upper hand but inevitably leads to a chain reaction that ruins every good thing in life. Cholera will always be a threat; nuclear holocaust us a risk due to certain actors.

              I don’t disagree at all, either. Well worded. I’m looking forward to the WQ post. I just thought your 26+4 were the best argument for a gayfree Society I’d encountered and I was wondering what I would have to do in terms of editing to share it with a few of my professors. The biggest issues were the word “faggot” and the lack of sources, but those could both be fixed fairly easily.

              Regardless, I take your point not wanting to give homos more attention than they already get.

              • jim says:

                Gays appeared at the same time as women got emancipated, so there is a connection, but I think the connection is not that gays emancipated women, but rather if gays see you failing women’s shit tests, they will shit test you, and if women see you failing gay shit tests, they will escalate their shit tests. But women’s shit tests matter, while gay shit tests are merely obnoxious.

              • 2019 is boring says:

                Try this:

                https://www.docdroid.net/1UYk6eA/reactionary-anti-homosexual-manifesto.doc

                All references to this specific blog have been scrubbed; “fag,” “dyke,” “tranny,” etc., have all been replaced with less inflammatory words.

                No resources, though. You can convert from pedophile (PDF file) and add some of your own, if you have any.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Just saw this. Working on it now.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Just to be clear:

                  I’m doing minor prose/grammar edits as well as putting in footnote markers where i think there should be a citation, an example, or an explanation. Within the footnote i will describe such. This is a temporary step, obviously, because they, for the most part, won’t actually be references.

                  I am keeping an unchanged copy of what you originally posted, both what you shared and what i saved when you first posted it. I have no loyalty to my changes, so i wont be offended by a revert. I hope my changes do not offend your sensibilities or malign your original intent.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Okay, here is a quick pass that added where footnotes *should* go (IMO) as well as some grammatical/prosaic changes.

                  https://www.docdroid.net/ZOj3YTt/reactionary-anti-homosexual-manifesto-edit01.doc

                  I am a bit anxious as to whether some of my changes may be misunderstood or deemed too much in terms of watering down. I will not be offended in the slightest if it is deemed trash and i deserve a flogging, i only ask that you qualify why i deserve a beating so that i can learn from any potential mistakes.

                  Similarly, others may see what i have done with the footnotes and fairly accurately point out that i have basically just said “someone needs to do a lot of work here through point 40.” I am not saying i wont be contributing to the references, but i am saying i am doing a lot of writing and reading for class so it will be a very slow grind. I hope my “requests” in the document are sufficiently clear and, as usual, i am not married to the idea of their necessity. Basically, i simulated a range of my professors responses, where they would quibble or what they’d want validated. I think i covered much of what should be added. I would very much appreciate any contributions in this regard.

                  Finally, i made an attempt at an intro to the document:

                  https://www.docdroid.net/VL5nL6P/rhm-intro.pdf

                  This is a work in progress, potentially a shambolic clusterfuck that is DOA. Criticism is desired.

                • jim says:

                  No watering down obvious to me.

                  I am troubled by the length and verbosity:

                  For example I would compress point thirty as follows:

                  If gays are free to speak, straights are not free to speak. Courtship of in hero movies targeted at straight males reflects gay courtship, not the way heterosexuals interact. Political speech is strangled and silent. Straight weddings are gay.

                  One cannot in practice have freedom of speech on such matters, because people care too much. If we don’t beat them up for expressing gayness, they will beat us up for expressing straightness. “A love that dare not speak its name” very swiftly turned into “bake that gay wedding cake, bigot!”

                  Have not read the entire document. Maybe when I read more of it, I will start to whine about watering down.

                  Needs more evidence, both the “studies have shown” type evidence, but also less concrete forms of evidence, like the queer master of ceremonies at a straight wedding. Oft times “studies” fail to show what is damned well slapping you in the face and screaming at you with spittle flying. Needs more evidence, but fewer words.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  On verbosity:
                  I’m torn. One can hide a lot of red pills, in academia anyways, by using lots of jargon and superfluous verbiage. On the other hand, this may be a project better suited to brevity. I guess it depends on the target audience.

                  On Evidence:
                  I agree. I tried to reflect that in my footnote descriptions. A picture of a child being dressed in drag while gays throw money at it will say more than any document ever could. i think it best if we use a cornucopia of supporting evidence.

                • jim says:

                  We don’t want to hide the red pill – we already have the Dork Enlightenment, the Dark Web, and conservatism incorporated. Hiding the red pill is apt to result it becoming so well hidden as to entirely disappear, as happened with Socialist Matter and conservatism incorporated.

                  Hiding your power level works when your side is in power and backed by the state, hence the constant cry of the left that we are excluding gays, etc, when every heterosexual wedding is a gay wedding, and whites and straights are being marginalized and excluded. Out of power, have to assert our identity, or we are going along with the Dork Enlightenment project of causing whites, heterosexuals, and so forth to disappear socially, preparatory to exterminating us physically.

        • Not Tom says:

          I’ve been thinking more about Official Documents. What will this look like, what form would it take? Is the Holy Book going to be a physical book, like the old and new testaments, that the new priests keep in their nightstands, or is that too old-fashioned, perishable and subvertible? There are thousands of blog posts and comment threads, which are probably useful to preserve in some way so that future readers can understand the nuances, but it’s all too much to include in the “canon”.

          Wikis almost sound like a good solution, except I’ve never actually seen one that didn’t eventually degenerate into frivolity and obsolescence; edit wars and editorial control also seem to be unsolvable problems in that form.

          I’m curious as to what people think. If we could choose any real or imaginable combination of media, distribution, editorial process/hierarchy, infrastructure, etc., what would it look like?

          • Setarcos says:

            If people are unconcerned by creepy old “hedge fund Jew” Epstein fucking their teen daughters, should they be unconcerned by his concomitant blackmail operation and luciferian temple?

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            I’ve thought about this a lot in terms of the actual media itself. In my younger years, when I thought writing SciFi was my calling, I wanted my books to have a cover that was made of LCDs like a solar calculator. On it would live a little six pixel creature. When you held the book, he’d crawl around where your fingers were. I had other ideas for simulating “life.” But I have no technical acumen and, what is more, books are dying out and I’m pretty sure no investor would get behind adding tomagachis to the bottom line.

            …but if we are doing a limited run of 100 Wholly Books, I wonder what it would cost to marry EInk with burn proof, scratch proof 3M (I think they’re called polycarbon?) plates. The plates would contain Jim’s words and the EInk page would be the catalog of footnotes, which in turn would be comprised of passages, sayings, or full blog posts of the Lesser Saints of Reaction.

            I think it would be best to have a device like this flashed once and only once, never to be connected again. So solar or touchstone recharging?

            One might even be able to do a micro type etching on the plates that are meant to be projected instead of read traditionally.

            …wacky bullshit most like.

            When I said Official Documents I was thinking paperback primers self published on Amazon. Jim’s could be a hardcover with gold leaf and illustrations (that would be really fucking cool, actually), but some of the other things that are more granular in nature could be just paperback readers.

            For my part, I’d really like to work on the Transitional Roadmap, and I envisioned that as a kind of flowchart + reference guide + index.

            • Not Tom says:

              I was thinking more about the organization and structure – not that physical presentation isn’t important, but it seems like the thing to think about once you’ve already decided on content and distribution. This is not a collectible item, it’s a code of laws.

              There’s a lot of information and discussion out there, on blogs and in ebooks and so on, but most people don’t really respond to information and discussion, that’s why the testaments are some combination of actual historical narrative and metaphorical narrative fiction, and are assembled with some purpose and sense of continuity.

              I’m not saying we aren’t doing an effective job of spreading the faith; we are, but at some point the faith needs to become law, and law requires a moral foundation, and a moral foundation requires a canon. Some of us here can identify entryists and subversives, people who claim to be of the faith but actually spread heresy and lies, but that does not scale across time and space; if it did, we would not have needed the testaments. Of course, back then, a lot of people couldn’t even read or write; today, anyone could fork the RT and insert their own heresy and lies, so I believe the canon also requires authority and authentication.

              I believe we need a reference, so that when some wormtongue inevitably manages to trip up a neophyte priest, he can simply look the question up in the RT to figure out how to respond, and then have the dissenter shipped to Siberia if he continues his heresy. The idea of a literal hardcover tome is not without its appeal, but being able to look it up in 10 seconds on a smartphone seems more appropriate for a modern religion.

              How do we move from a vague “reading list”, which would take many years to get through and contain many contradictory opinions, to a canonical source that the average person could read over a few weeks or months and come away with at least a glimmer of understanding? Or is this one of those instances where I’m thinking way too far ahead, and it’s counterproductive and dangerous to be worrying about it at all until the coup is complete? I’m open to that possibility.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I think we both jumped a few steps. Here follows what I think is the best method. I’m not married to it.

                We need two conventions; a Way We Do It as well as a meeting of the minds.

                How we do it: one wholly canonical text. This is the koan collection, the quotables, the last rites, the mantras. All good priests will have a Gilt copy on their night stand. Every student will be board of its ever-presence. One book for one people of one faith and one purpose. If Jim is not the author, he should be the template. This is a stickier wicket than it seems; the citation, the prose, the layout, all BY NECESSITY must be uniform. In this way, all follow up has a guide, a style guide really, for how to cross reference. Think of it as a textual shibboleth. Any astute observer should see the reminiscence of The Hadith. In this way, canon is established. Thus, all shamanic primers are in essence a collection of footnotes expounding upon the precepts contained therein.

                The Convention is a whole ‘nother deal. This is where we hash out the niggling details. We have a body of work as a base. We have to cull the best of it to find the Core. All the “great” Conventions in Western history had the same task (Nicea, Bretton Woods, Seneca, Philadelphia) as well they had the same type of goal. The key difference here is that the attendants are (should be) those that can get there, as opposed to those sent. Some of the topics are obvious; WQ, GQ, JQ. Others are more subtle (bureaucracy, taxation, warfare, thoughtcrime). All of it must be tabled and discussed in turn.

                The goal should be One Book (the Wholly Book) and the subsequent primers.

                Notes on form.
                My premature concept of an (nearly) indestructible book spring from an idea I had long ago, back when I was a leftist. The US had invaded Afghanistan and was about to move into Iraq. Some girl I was trying to fuck had a sticker on her guitar case that said “Books Not Bombs.” It got me thinking: how would you go about making an indestructible book and which books would you make? The second question is irrelevant, though the answers I came up with foreshadowed my eventual redpilling. The concept is more valuable. There’s a book from the ’50s called On The Beach (it was made into a movie, I believe). It tells about a world slowly succumbing to the fallout of cobalt bombs ( a ’50s meme). A minor plotpoint is about scientists taking the most important tomes and etching them on glass plates, pressing them between glass blocks, then burying them in a mine. Memes aside, glass is the one “synthetic” substance we know lasts “forever.” Porting that concept forward, whatever medium we pick should last. In terms of centuries at minimum.

                … regardless, I’m less inclined to futz about with JS and HTML because I’m not certain the internet, much less a redundant power grid, is a future proof certainty.

                Thoughts?

              • The Cominator says:

                The faith should inspire and guide the law, the should absolutely not be the unchanging law. That is the problem with Islam. Warrior kings should rule and sometimes their laws will differ from the faith (though hopefully not too much) priests should advise them and take delegated priestly tasks.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I half agree. The OT made heavy use of parables, little pieces of history or perhaps revisionism (think stylized accounts of the Rotherham gangs or the Duke Lacrosse hoax, set in fictional towns) in order to strongly hint at but not quite dictate the law. But in many instances, actually dictated the law. And OT law lasted a long time.

                  By contrast, the NT was far less prescriptive and more symbolic, and has been victim to many more heretical interpretations – not just by abuse of translation and missing context, but straight-up reframing of the entire text. The OT became obsolete, led to legalism and holiness spirals, but the NT led to Calvinism and Puritanism, and rather quickly.

                  We can’t usurp warrior rule, but we also can’t leave too many exploitable loopholes for heretics. I think there will be times when the canon has to say, “no, really, this part isn’t up for debate, you absolutely can’t allow this and should kill or exile anyone who says you can”.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I like the parable approach, but i grew up reading the bible so i could be biased in that regard. Still, the way you portrayed it (fictional town, stylized story) is appealing to me. I can imagine reading them to my son.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The inflexible commandments for rulers…

                  Thou shalt not try to create false equalities.

                  Thou shalt not allow women to divorce their husbands or elevate women over men. A queen is acceptable if no good alternatives exist but women may hold no other state offices…

                  Republics are anathema but should thou have one thou shalt not let the poor and stupid vote, nor shall women be allowed to vote.

                  Thou shalt not run a command economy except in case of total war.

            • Bob says:

              >burn proof, scratch proof 3M plates

              Joseph Smith – Call your office.

          • jim says:

            Wikis are endlessly mutable, and eventually fall into the charge of some asshole who mutates them into crap. You get bitrot.

            One solution is to have signed views of the data – A particular person gets the data to look the way he wants it to look, and if you think that guy is more admirable and important, you see his view of the data, rather than someone else’s view.

    • Dave says:

      Jewish historians regard the Old Testament as a radical document for its time, specifically in its prohibition of all non-marital and non-procreative sexual activities. Most societies in 1000BC tolerated pederasty as a behavioral sink for men and boys whose low social status afforded them little chance of marriage. We see remnants of this “bacha bazi” today in the “stans” of the former Persian Empire, despite centuries of Islamic efforts to stamp it out.

      Omega males will always be with us. Will our future Jimian overclass be as aggressive as the Taliban in punishing them for having sex with each other? Or will it be content to dismiss them as congenital losers who can’t get pussy?

      • The Cominator says:

        Brothels.

        • Dave says:

          Brothels are too expensive. Someone remarked that Russia has prostitutes only in tourist areas because poor Russians can’t afford them and rich Russians don’t need them.

          • shaman says:

            When the average young man can get an obedient young wife easily, and divorce is rare, prostitutes tend to be quite cheap. Russia is on the right path (hence Cathedral anti-Putin vitriol), but far from an ideal country. I doubt that prostitutes in Timor Leste are expensive.

            • The Cominator says:

              Technically illegal in Russia. Hopefully won’t be in our state.

            • Dave says:

              Not expensive for you, but quite expensive for a guy earning the median wage in East Timor.

              • shaman says:

                I meant for the locals. Since that is a Catholic country with a relatively high TFR (5.5), my assumption is its prostitutes don’t charge much, because they aren’t in demand, in contrast to countries chock full of celibacy and divorce.

                • Dave says:

                  Patriarchy = more good wives = more satisfied husbands (less demand) but also fewer hookers (less supply). So the effect on price is not obvious.

              • Dave says:

                Jim, how many hours does the average man have to work to afford the average hooker, in places not frequented by foreign sex tourists?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Apparently the equivalent of 60 bucks in Germany where its legal.

                • jim says:

                  No idea.

                • Javier says:

                  A licensed and legal prostitute in vegas will cost you $500 minimum, $1000 if you want one decent looking.

                  Meanwhile in my small midwestern suburb you could find a 19 year old on craigslist who would suck your dick for $50. It’s all about the location.

                • jim says:

                  The more prostitution looks like prostitution, the more it costs, and the worse the service, making the cost of prostitution difficult to define.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not explicitly legal in Vegas it is legal in parts of rural Nevada unaware of price. When it was legal in RI strip clubs it was not expensive…

                • jim says:

                  Brothels are a really bad environment in which to get laid, because brothels empower women and disempower men. You don’t want to be one of all those horny guys at the sausage fest. A brothel is a shit test, and if you show up, you have already failed the shit test.

                  You will only get acceptable results at a brothel if it looks like, and to some extent genuinely is, a place for dancing and drinking where it looks like, and to some extent genuinely is, random chicks showing up to socialize, rather than brothel staff in brothel costumes following work rules. If they are interacting with you in accordance with work procedures and work regulations, then you are beta.

                • Dave says:

                  Like the way women avoid all “singles night” events because they can’t blow guys off with the “I’m seeing someone” excuse. She’s not cruising for dick, just hanging out with her friends!

        • Don’t use your name online says:

          Brothels are unowned women. Why are there women running around free? Do we let chickens run free? Do we let cows run free? Which causes more harm to society: a feral out of control woman such as the hordes of feral uncontrolled women who brought in hordes of savage Muslim rapists to Europe in the vague hope they will control them or some stupid chickens?

          Women are under the guardianship of the father or husband. There are no “whores” in this environment for the simple reason we will kill any father that whores his daughter out, and all the other women are owned by male masters, otherwise known as “husbands”.

          The reason we are on this mess is bc we allowed degenerate faggots like Dewey (of decimal system fame) to convince us to give chickens a seat at the table. When what we should have done was execute him via slow and extremely public eviceration.

          • The Cominator says:

            You are moralfagging and not advocating reaction. Non-puritan Christendom always had whores.

            We will have excess women (allowing de jure polygamy is a horrible horrible idea though maybe for the Isaac Newton’s of the world) and generally I think we should force them into prostitution so that they are then owned by the brothel and still serve a purpose for men.

            • jim says:

              Brothels tend to not work in men’s favor. They work in women’s favor. Women always top from the bottom.

              Been there, done that, did not work. We have to stop women from playing alpha male A against alpha male B, and a brothel, in practice, is drama central. The more openly a place is a brothel, the more it is openly organized as a brothel, the worse the results you will get when you go there looking for some pussy. It is a trap. It is set up to look as if it is easy to get what you want, pay cash, get pussy, no drama, no complications, no problems, but you don’t get what you want. A brothel is a scam – looks like there is loads of easy uncomplicated pussy there, and in a sense there certainly is, but it turns out that women come with drama and complications attached, that a brothel is not the porno paradise it seems to be. Women top from the bottom, and what looks like a paradise for men, turns out to be a paradise for women.

              The problem is not stopping men from going to brothels. I don’t want to stop men from going to brothels. I want to stop women from staffing brothels. It is a good deal for women in the short run and a bad deal for men. A brothel is women partying their hottest and most fertile years away, for which they are punished by winding up as childless cat ladies. A brothel is not party central for men. It is party central for women, and our big problem is women partying their youth, their beauty, and their fertility away.

              Been there, done that, was not fun. A brothel is women taking advantage of the fact that blood is apt to run from a man’s brain to his dick. A brothel is women manipulating men to men’s disadvantage. A brothel is not men having fun, but women behaving badly.

              • The Cominator says:

                Discouraging women who aren’t married by a certain age from going violates actual reaction. Before the progressive movement almost every small town (in non puritan areas) had a brothel and your wife knew she had competition.. and maybe its not your wifes fault but shes old and unfuckable and you have money… Christendom did NOTHING to discourage prostitution (except during syphilis outbreaks) and we shouldn’t either.

                Preventing women from going (after the father’s deadline to get the girl married off) makes it hard for men to go.

                In sexual matters we should stick to actual Anglo reaction and not deviate from it, Where we should deviate is feminists progressives and moralfags (dissenters) should suffer lethal violence.

              • info says:

                There is good reason why whoredom was seen as a negative in the old testament as you have shown.

                Whats funny is that now we have sex dolls the whores are actually mad about it.

      • shaman says:

        I don’t see sexually frustrated incels, be they young or old, resorting to gay sex. Outside prison, straight men almost never have sex with other men, at least not voluntarily (man-on-man anal rape doesn’t count), especially now that porn and sex toys are abundant. You are referring to a problem that is almost entirely mythological, as close to mythological as makes no difference.

        Also, there won’t be sexual frustration under the future Jimian State, for reasons explicated at length elsewhere, and which no doubt will be explicated further in the Reaction 101 on Marriage post, so again, I don’t see the issue.

        • Dave says:

          “Outside prison, straight men almost never have sex with other men”

          If you have sex with men outside prison you are, by definition, not a straight man. Nor are you a “sexually frustrated incel” because gay sex is super easy to get.

          “there won’t be sexual frustration under the future Jimian State”

          Soldiers and taxpayers will be sexually satisfied, and leftists will be dead. That still leaves cripples and imbeciles to deal with.

          • shaman says:

            If you have sex with men outside prison you are, by definition, not a straight man.

            Exactly my point; the problem of “men who cannot get laid with women resorting to anal sex with other men” is fictional and non-existent even today, and will be all the more so fictional and non-existent when involuntary celibacy becomes rare or disappears completely.

            That still leaves cripples and imbeciles to deal with.

            I would hope that science finds solutions to these. Yes, prostitutes can be hired to treat cripples and ‘tards in the meanwhile, but we want to be able to cure paralysis, restore organs, and augment intelligence. All these things are well within our reach, but we need a Restoration to prevent civilization from soon collapsing under the leftist singularity. If we can avert the collapse and retain modern technology and science, these problems will be solved.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Keep talking like that and you’ll make an optimist of me.

              • shaman says:

                “If you will it, it is no dream; and if you do not will it, a dream it is and a dream it will stay.”

            • Dave says:

              Are you saying that instead of killing niggers, we’ll give them brain upgrades that make them behave like humans? Or would it just make them more competent criminals? See MH’s comment below.

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                Isn’t the winning strategy ‘uplift smart (aka highly white ones), turn into servitors the bottom.

              • Not Tom says:

                If we have the technology to augment intelligence, we’ll have the much simpler technology to limit aggression. Personally, I’d give them a choice: consent to having their cognitive-behavioral traits technologically alerted, or live au naturel in a lower-functioning ethnostate.

                If we can uplift, then why shouldn’t we? We’re race realists, not race determinists.

            • Zach says:

              Shaman are the majority of pedos (medical definition) made or born? And what brings you to that conclusion?

              • Zach says:

                “Made” is the wrong word. Is it a learned behavior – a fetish etc.?

              • Not Tom says:

                Do you mean pederasts? Or are you referring to the anti-concept describing a category that does not exist?

                • Zach says:

                  It won’t make a difference here, the answer should be the same. Pick one. Did you have an opinion on this? I’m all ears. I’ve hit a dead end trying to find an answer which would give me high confidence.

                  If you prefer pederastomania – cool beans. Let’s have it.

                • Zach says:

                  Okay looking into pederasty I think I see why you were asking. Pederasts are fags, fags are born fags, case closed.

                  Is that accurate?

                  I must be digging in some weird fucked up new-age schoolastic shit then. Pederasty wasn’t even mentioned. This is why I come here to ask this question.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m not shaman, but the general consensus among many of us is that pederasty is an extreme case of the perversion known as homosexuality, which is in no way related to the completely normal attraction of heterosexual males to fertile-age females.

                  So the answer to whether or not pederasts are made or born is the same as the answer to whether or not fags are made or born.

                • Dave says:

                  One psychologist visited chomos in prison and ran a battery of tests on them. He discovered that they had low IQs, and the lower their IQs, the lower the ages of the children they had been convicted of molesting.

                  Another data point is when local police do a pedo-roundup — one of them pretends to be an 11-year-old girl looking for sex, let’s meet downtown, etc. The mugshot gallery always looks like a gaggle of retards whose mothers drank paint thinner while pregnant.

                  So lots of pedophiles diddle children because they are children, mentally, but with the bodies and sex drives of adults. Like this guy:

                  https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/chi-paris_for_monapr06-story.html

          • The Cominator says:

            “If you have sex with men outside prison you are, by definition, not a straight man. ”

            If you voluntarily have sex with men you aren’t a straight man prison or no… I guess in the hypothetical scenario if you were offered unrealistic amounts of money or some other outrageous reward exceptions could be made but none otherwise.

            • Dave says:

              “Straight men don’t have gay sex” is a definition of the word “straight”, not a statement about objective reality. Do straight men ever get sick of dealing with women and turn gay? My mother’s best friend’s son did around age 50, after ending a childless marriage to an anorexic woman. Roosh thinks this is a real phenomenon:

              https://www.rooshv.com/american-men-who-choose-homosexuality

              • The Cominator says:

                My mother’s best friend’s son did around age 50, after ending a childless marriage to an anorexic woman. Roosh thinks this is a real phenomenon:

                Being tired of women should make you a butt pirate, he was probably always a fag.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Should NOT make you a butt pirate…

                • Dave says:

                  Problem with that theory is that it’s unfalsifiable. Any straight person could be a fag who hasn’t realized it yet.

              • Not Tom says:

                Men will fuck cows, goats, apple pies and old socks if nothing else is available. Eliminate inceldom and “opportunistic sodomy” becomes a non-issue. You’re trying to insert a wedge here, and it’s not going to work.

                No, we aren’t carving out exceptions for the perversion. No, not even for men who claim they were desperate or burned by too many women. There’s no way to be sure they’re telling the truth, and even if they are telling the truth, about a third of the 30 points still apply.

              • shaman says:

                Straight men would rather masturbate their whole lives than have gay sex. Plenty of men go years upon years without any sexual activity, yet never once turn to homosexuality. Those who engage in gay sex are deviants, are either homosexuals or bisexuals or queers or whatever they call themselves. Without the reign of Political Correctness, we would be allowed to scientifically investigate what causes this deviance, so that we could neutralize it – preventing deviants from being born in the first place.

                • Friendly Fred says:

                  A low-status, lonely heterosexual man might seek solace in deep friendship with a feminine man, a deep friendship for which the price is the regular performance of sex-acts resembling those that he would have performed upon a woman, had his life proceeded along a happier trajectory.

                  Of course, this would probably turn out to be a living nightmare for him, but it might happen.

                • Randy Marsh says:

                  …the heck?

                • Randy Marsh says:

                  The actual theory is, men with weak or absent fathers get taken advantage of by Harvey Milk. Therapy for sodomites means helping them discover how to be properly masculine. Only Christians actually care about sodomites, though. The left just wants to use them to posit alternatives to the life plan in which a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to a woman who becomes the mother of his children and he cherishes her until the end of their days.

                • shaman says:

                  Homosexuality (or “pre-homosexuality”) is evident among toddlers aged a few months old. Boys who’d grow up to suck cock play like typical girls, rather than playing like typical boys. The condition is inborn.

                  At this point, low-IQ conservatards will chime in with their demonic “Nurture > Nature” nonsense, and say that if only you do X and Y and Z, the boy who plays like typical a girl will magically not grow up to suck cock. It’s a miracle! (Next up: “Pray the Gay Away”)

                  Yeah, no, you don’t have control over people’s hindbrains – and your inability to grasp that you have no control over people’s hindbrains is why your theory-of-mind always fails. You are repeating Freud’s and Marcuse’s Cultural Marxist lies whenever you regurgitate this “Nurture > Nature” nonsense; and giving Cultural Marxism a pseudo-Christian spin makes it more Satanic, not less, because you are abusing Christianity to spread lies about the human condition, which is precisely what Satan does.

                  The hindbrain is not controlled by you (as painful as it is for you to wrap your head around that), it is not controlled by television, and it is not controlled by any “adults.” The hindbrain is millions of years of evolution imperiously dictating the most elementary instincts, such as sexuality. Even ultra rigid electroshock therapy cannot replace a deviant hindbrain with a normal one, as enjoyable as the idea is.

                  There is debate whether it’s because of genes, or because of conditions in the womb. Jim says that male homosexuality among humans resembles that of sheep. To know for sure, we need to investigate it, rather than pretending — with, as usual, exactly zero evidence — that Nurture will defeat Nature this time around.

                • jim says:

                  > Homosexuality (or “pre-homosexuality”) is evident among toddlers aged a few months old. Boys who’d grow up to suck cock play like typical girls, rather than playing like typical boys. The condition is inborn

                  Probably, but I would like to see the evidence. Keep in mind that any researcher who finds that homosexuality is inborn is going to be richly rewarded, and any researcher who finds that it is the result of being sodomized by gays before puberty will lose tenure and not be published.

                  That said, I find it quite plausible that male homosexuality is caused by abnormal maternal hormones during pregnancy. It may well be inborn. Just I have not seen any evidence that I find persuasive.

                  I would also like to see some studies on sheep, since it seems likely that gay in sheep is the same disease as gay in humans, and it is a lot easier to experiment on sheep. It is going to be way easier to whack some female sheep with doses of hormones during pregnancy.

                • shaman says:

                  By the way peppermint, if both parents can demonstrate to the judge that their 5-year-old child stubbornly engages in behaviors typical of the other sex, and the judge is convinced that this is indeed the case, then that 5-year-old child should have his skull bashed with rocks by everyone in the city, until death.

                  The wicked (homosexuals definitely being wicked, of course) will be physically removed, in accordance with Biblical rules. You’re not going to spread your Luciferian “Nurture will defeat Nature!” here. No, stones to the head will do the job. Deviant hindbrains will be dead hindbrains.

                  Jim:

                  Being sodomized by older gays can perhaps turn a normal child into a bisexual, someone who is sexually aroused by both sexes. But why would he be turned off by women as a result, i.e. become homosexual?

                  I agree with your point about the incentive in academia to find the politically correct answer rather than the politically incorrect one, but I just don’t see how gay anal rape can biologically prevent a regular non-effete boy from later on having a boner in the sight of big beautiful boobs. Sexuality is strictly determined by the ancient lizard brain, which is simply not malleable to be turned off or “reversed” with a switch. It’s a millions-years-old volcanic force within the oldest part of the brain.

                • shaman says:

                  Infiltration 101, Satanic Gnosticism edition:

                  Therapy for sodomites means helping them discover how to be properly masculine. Only Christians actually care about sodomites, though.

                  You are not a Christian, Patrick, and have never been one. Up until 2016, you had been obsessively spamming Jim’s blog with endless anti-male Blue Pilled lies and incessant anti-Christian revolting blasphemy. Now you seem to have switched tactics to heresy, lies under the guise of religion. Your lies are Satanic, because they involve deception about human nature, and they are Gnostic, because you pretend that Nurture trumps Nature, which is a meme of distinctly Gnostic origin.

                  The Biblical “therapy” for sodomites is death. The Biblical “therapy” for the wicked is death. Christians care not the slightest about the Earthly lives of sodomites, but about their souls; and the only way to redeem the souls of sodomites is by sending them as rapidly as possible back to their Creator, as the OT commands and the NT confirms.

                  You are effeminate, your writing is girly, and I suspect that you have bisexual proclivities, because why else would you stubbornly insist that all men are apt to engage in homosexuality if given the chance? No, straight men are not apt to engage in homosexuality; if you have such execution-meriting proclivities, and if you have already acted on them, if you have already sucked a dick or spread your stinking ass for somebody’s cock, do the world a favor and swallow a bullet.

                  The Christian “therapy” for sodomites is death, to redeem their souls. In their Earthly bodies, they have a sick, diseased, deviant, sinful hindbrain. In Heaven, they won’t have such a sinful hindbrain; it shall be removed, and they will sin no more.

                  The Christian “therapy” for sodomites is death. Take your recent Satanic Gnosticism elsewhere, perhaps back to that bathhouse you came from.

                • shaman says:

                  Funny how this Satanicuck, peppermint, who thinks that his pathetic lack of attraction for hot nubile teenagers makes him a “better man” than all of us here (no, you’re just a low-T faggot), who has sincerely admitted that he would always condescend over men with twice as much testosterone as he has, whose posts read like estrogen_poisoning.txt, and who — simultaneously — makes endless excuses for bi-curious soy-shake-drinking limp-dicks like himself, has the chutzpah to preach anything at all about what Christianity is, despite his long and easily provable history of calling Yahweh a “Volcano Demon” and derogatorily referring to Jesus Christ as “(((Rabbi Yeshua)))” and so forth.

                  No, faggot, you are a demon from Hell yourself, you lie every time you write anything about anything, you wouldn’t recognize real Christianity even if it fell on you like a ton of bricks, and your equally effeminate friends are a bunch of transexualized and transracialized mama-boys of soy, who couldn’t even keep their girls or get them pregnant, because they are FAGS.

                  No matter what handle you choose, no matter what Email you use, your high-pitched semen-swallower writing style is unmistakable.

                  You are not better than anyone here, and your friends (whom you keep bringing up, as if anyone here gives a shit) are not better than anyone here. Just a bunch of sexually confused, estrogen-poisoned, cat ladies in male bodies who probably have man-boobs and impotence. You will be reconciled with your Creator when you return to Him. Stop sucking cocks literally or metaphorically, stop spreading Satanism and Gnosticism and calling them Christianity, start writing like a man and not like a girly fag, and positively consider the idea that you and your “kind” will always forever be low status, and deserve nothing better.

                  You are a demon who needs to be exorcised out of here.

                  Away, Satan! Back to the Lake of Fire whence you emerged! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

                • Randy Marsh says:

                  I was responding to FF’s notion of queerness, not that normal men don’t do that. Yes, the chemicals in the water to make the frogs gay is the other theory, and these theories aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, if people were so simple it wouldn’t have been possible to create these problems. I’ve never seen a tranny child in the wild but I knew a kid who didn’t understand gender pronouns when he was a toddler and grew up normal.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  If I recall correctly Gregory Cochran points out that homosexuality has very low heritability (~11%), but aversion to homosexuality high heritability (>50%). This would point to something environmental, likely transmissible.

                • shaman says:

                  Shut up, demon. You never had anything to contribute to this issue but confusion and lies (similarly to the WP), just as you are doing right now by mischaracterizing both Jim’s and my own positions as, respectively, “gay frogs” and “child trannies,” and lecturing us how your theory must have merit because people are “complicated” (and yet, you have no evidence to back it, or even a casual explanation for it that successfully passes the giggle test). Jim has a plausible explanation for homosexuality’s etiology which ought to be investigated; you have boring 20th century memes, which are demonic like you.

                  You can find girly male toddlers who like to play like girls of their own age rather than like boys of their own age, who later grow up to suck dick. The effete boy from kindergarten who always played with princesses and so on? He has AIDS now. You cannot find a young heterosexual who has magically lost all attraction to women without being castrated or something similar.

                • shaman says:

                  (Addressed to faggotmint, aka cuckermint, aka Satanmint)

                • shaman says:

                  If I recall correctly Gregory Cochran points out that homosexuality has very low heritability (~11%), but aversion to homosexuality high heritability (>50%). This would point to something environmental, likely transmissible.

                  Yes, this seems to align with Jim’s hypothesis that it’s similar to gay sheep, and with the observation that it’s an inborn condition – the question is not whether or not they are “born like that,” but why. I still have not ruled out the possibility that genes are implicated, though. Perhaps a de novo mutation?

                • Javier says:

                  It’s not that complicated. How do kids become Goth? Are they born Goth?

                  No, they become Goth from hanging out with other Goth kids.

                • shaman says:

                  The reason 20th century conservatives came up with this meme is that they had no testicular fortitude to say, “Yes, they are born like that – and they need to be removed.”

                  We do have the balls to say.

                  It’s not that faggots don’t predate on boys; of course they do. But that does not magically reverse people’s lizard brains.

                  Explain why sodomites aren’t attracted to women.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  If I recall correctly Gregory Cochran points out that homosexuality has very low heritability (~11%), but aversion to homosexuality high heritability (>50%). This would point to something environmental, likely transmissible.

                  Yes, this seems to align with Jim’s hypothesis that it’s similar to gay sheep, and with the observation that it’s an inborn condition – the question is not whether or not they are “born like that,” but why. I still have not ruled out the possibility that genes are implicated, though. Perhaps a de novo mutation?

                  I took from Cochran’s post (long ago) that high heritability of “aversion to homosexuality” would point to some sort of pathogen being the cause.
                  I believe he used some time ago a similar argument to posit that stomach ulcers were caused by a pathogen, before H.Pylori was discovered to cause them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Environment-induced homosexuality has been demonstrated in animals. Many pathologies that are normally biological in origin can be environmentally-induced; consider prolonged exposure to lead or mercury, or Hashimoto’s disease being somehow related to being around jet fuel. We can say that the perversion is largely inborn, without the doctrinaire insistence that it is exclusively inborn.

                  But we should be clear about what this means; men don’t just “turn” gay for no reason, or because they get “tired of women”. If adult men with no prior history of perversion suddenly become sodomites, or trannies, then it means there’s some severe negative stimulus causing that transformation, which must be identified and eliminated post-haste.

                  Persistent, mass-scale inceldom is actually a plausible contributing factor. In some species of fish, for example, it’s been shown to be an adaptive trait: while the alphas still get the most attention from females, the betas who engage in homosexual activity get more female attention than the ones who don’t. I’m not going to automatically extrapolate that to humans, but on the other hand, who hasn’t heard of “fruit flies” or “fag hags”?

                  If a behavior is adaptive, even if only adaptive in some degenerate edge cases (male-skewed sex ratio, feral/obese women, etc.) then nature will create more of it. Thus it’s very important to minimize or eliminate those edge cases if we don’t want the adaptation to occur.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The thing is not too much research has been done into the biological or enviromental triggers for homosexuality.

                  In the West which has a big gay problem research into the subject is of course forbidden because homosexuality and trannyism is considered sacred by the Cathedral.

                  In the east they don’t have much of a problem with out of control fags and although Asian countries aren’t per se under the Cathedral’s sway they don’t want to invite outright hostility they don’t have to from the US deep state (which is still under Cathedral control). They saw what happened with the Cathedral wanting to nuke Russia after Putin banned the gay identity in Russia… and decided they don’t want to risk it. So no research in the East either.

                  Aparteid South Africa was doing some research but of course it stopped immediately when the ANC government was installed.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  @Commenator can you point me in the direction of said South African research?

                  Research on gays is vexing; so much noise due to enforced taboos. One has to find intersectional (a sadly maligned term)data in ostensibly fluff studies to obtain worthwhile information. The consistent trend of obfuscating mediocre work with excessively prosaic abstracts might be a useful tactic for actually valuable research on gayness…

                • The Cominator says:

                  I doubt you can find the actual research data found by the South African program anywhere on the internet… And this is a highly biased cathedral take but at least it acknowledges the research existed.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aversion_Project

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                Childless “marriage” to an anorexic (extra points if a waifu) already screams lack of interest in women. Then the hormone levels changed around age 50 and he made it official in a world that promotes such defections.

                There are also a fair number of high IQ male autists who convince themselves of bizarre delusions and energetically act on them. In middle age when the hormones go haywire that can include the idea that they are gay (or are “female on the inside” and need a sex change). Not fundamentally different from seeing the light and starting up blogs devoted to 9/11 truth or moon landing denial, or converting to Islam.

        • Javier says:

          > I don’t see sexually frustrated incels, be they young or old, resorting to gay sex.

          I’ve definitely seen it. The assumption that sexuality is intrinsic and immutable is not backed by reality. It’s like coffee or beer, most people don’t like it the first or second time they have it, but if you try it a dozen times you develop a taste for it.

          The concept of being “born gay” is leftist propaganda to make it permissible to groom children with homosexuality. Don’t fall for it.

          • shaman says:

            No, you are repeating a 20th century conservative meme, that makes as much sense as all the other 20th century conservative memes.

            Explain why sodomites aren’t attracted to women.

            • Javier says:

              Who says they’re not? Have you never heard of a Fag Hag? You are picturing gays as Hollywood shows them to you, not the real world.

              When surveyed, around 2% of men say they are gay. When surveyed 10 years later, 98% of that 2% say they are now straight (and 100% of women who said they were lesbian report being straight).

              That’s crazy turnover. How could such an overwhelming number give up something they were “born” with? Even in our ultra-permissible society, where there is every incentive to homo it up all the time? The answer is obviously that they weren’t, homosexuality is an identity choice that people wear for a time and then give up.

              By saying kids are “born gay,” you make it acceptable to propagandize them in order that their homosexuality be “discovered,” because letting a gay kid grow up straight is considered a grave crime. Yet this process itself is meant to increase the number of gays.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Can you source those stats?

                • Javier says:

                  Perhaps. It’s been awhile and studies which are against the common narrative have a way of being memory-holed.

                • MyGayDadRapedMe69 says:

                  He couldn’t find a source, because it’s nonsense.

                  If one doesn’t have the balls to say: “It doesn’t ultimately matter if they were ‘born that way’ or ‘made that way’ – what actually matters is that they all be physically removed, preferably by being dropped off rooftops in front of an amused audience,” then one also wouldn’t have the balls to put women in their damn place, helicopter leftist professors, drown bastards in a sack, and curb stop niggers, spics, and dunes.

              • The Cominator says:

                “The perversion” at least as far as men may be innate or at least somewhat innate. The gay identity is generally not innate. Its obnoxious signalling.

                Lesbianism is on the other hand almost never innate, most women are just far more elastic in their sexual preferences. And as much as some men find lipstick lesbians stimulating sometimes… there are so many now and it distorts the sex ratio, it cannot be allowed for the same reasons nunneries cannot be allowed.

            • Very many of them if not most are attracted to women, but fucking another man entails grabbing his cock in a dark nightclub and picking up a woman usually takes effort.

              I think the most plausible theory on male same-sex attraction is as the result of a virus that causes damage to the few neurons responsible for sexual targeting if you catch it during childhood. Easiest way to catch it is to be fucked in the ass by an older man, obviously, but pederasty only accounts for about half of men who claim the gay identity.

              If not due to an environmental factor, if intrinsic and immutable, I’d like an explanation for the far higher rates of pederasty in certain ancient cultures. No pederasty in Greece until the 600’s BC, by the 400’s every man of note had a butt boy. Way I see it, tends to spread like a disease when tolerated, so occam’s razor says it is a disease.

              • Not Tom says:

                The most plausible explanation to me, which is showing up in some pending-publication abstracts, is a combination of polygenic traits (like IQ) and environmental triggers, with genes coding for homosexuality also coding for male attractiveness and female sex drive. That’s why the genes survive – they have an adaptive function, but in rare cases (likely related to environmental triggers) can become maladaptive.

                Most biological traits are like this. There’s a pretty wide range of normality, with very disturbing extremes.

  16. MH says:

    News article: “As a gunshot shattered the back window of a mother’s car, she turned and saw her 3-year-old daughter fall in the backseat.”

    comment: It’s time for my new favorite sub-genre of semitic fraud news: stories of appalling negro behavior presented in a comically stilted fashion to create the fragile illusion that the worthless creatures behind the insane pathology are actually human. These monsters are full of individual agency and the capacity for self-reflection, just like you. They easily connect current actions to future outcomes. It blasted a 3 year old pickaninny for no reason. The mule of the world endures the tragedy of lower welfare payments in the future.

    News article: “She ordered the three other children in the backseat to get on the rear floorboards.”

    comment: “Gett yo mudda fuddin nigga azz awn demm floo-bows.” We’re one doomed and wasteful program away from fixing these animals. We’re going to turn these dangerous inferiors into cut-rate Whites via the miracle of kosher fiat currency. You just have to believe hard enough.

    News article: “Those frantic moments are detailed in a criminal complaint issued Wednesday charging Antonio D. Bratcher, 39, with first-degree reckless homicide in the death of 3-year-old Brooklyn Harris, who was shot in the head Saturday in what police at the time called an apparent road rage incident. Brooklyn was pronounced dead at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin.”

    comment: Imagine all the proud nobility and silent dignity of a “Little Rascals” short, but with real mayhem, blood and death.

    News article: “The adult friend of Brooklyn’s mother identified Bratcher as the shooter in a photo lineup, according to the complaint.”

    Comment: Datt wann wit dee brow ridd an dee muzzle, datt bee duh nikka. That lineup must have looked like a speculative drawing from the early pages of a textbook on human evolution. These are your equals. Race doesn’t exist and it’s just “skin color” and also jews are g*d’s chosen and Whites are evil and need to die.

    News article: “Bratcher has not been legally allowed to own or possess guns since 1998 when he was convicted and sentenced to prison for two armed robberies at JJ’s Diner and a George Webb restaurant.”

    comment: I know, I was surprised, too. Somehow, strong “gun control” laws failed to keep a weapon out of the paw of this vile evolutionary dead-end. We need a lot more of these laws, obviously. At least make law-abiding Whites disarm, right? You need to be completely defenseless; this will make you safe.

    News article: The complaint charges Bratcher with fleeing or eluding an officer after the shooting, in a chase reaching speeds of more than 70 mph and going through multiple stop signs.

    Comment: Driving while black.

    News article: Bratcher’s SUV crashed and tipped over in the 1600 block of North 26th Street, according to the complaint. A witness saw him leave the vehicle and flee on foot.

    Comment: The Jesse Owens act. 100 billion shekels for the African American doesn’t buy as much as it used to, I guess.

    News article: “The SUV was registered to Bratcher’s girlfriend, according to a search warrant. Officers found multiple documents and pieces of mail with Bratcher’s name on them, the complaint says. Bratcher’s right palm print was found on the driver’s door of the SUV. The vehicle matched the description provided by victims in the case.”

    Physical evidence, the most “racist” thing you’ll ever encounter.

    News article: “While initial reports of the shooting described it as an act of road rage, the criminal complaint issued Wednesday does not detail a motive.”

    comment: While initially we pretended this 60 I.Q. shit creature had some sort of thought process, we’ve now admitted it almost certainly didn’t.

    News article: “Bratcher faces up to 65 years in the Wisconsin prison system for the reckless homicide charge. He can receive up to 12 years and 6 months prison time, as well as a fine of up to $25,000 for each of the reckless endangerment charges. His alleged use of a dangerous weapon in those charges can add up to five years for each charge.”

    comment: The “races” justice system. Whites are getting lesser sentences for the exact same crimes! No really, you’re expected to believe this. The jew will destroy your careerism if you don’t, so I suggest you meekly comply with this humiliating delusion.

    Full story: Antonio Bratcher charged with killing 3-year-old girl, endangering safety of other children in vehicle during shooting

    https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2019/07/17/milwaukee-murder-man-charged-killing-3-year-old-girl/1756936001/

    • Not Tom says:

      So what’s your point? It’s approximately the 7 millionth episode of negro-on-negro violence in a heavily negro city with negro police force. Didn’t realize Jim’s blog was actually the Colin Flaherty fan club.

      Oh but check out my hot take that it’s really the fault of Uncle Shlomo and by the way, did you know Jews invented fiat currency? Truefact!

  17. Friendly Fred says:

    To whom it may concern: Note that if YOU initiate an email-exchange with someone TWICE and you then, after an apparently amiable exchange of emails that involves the transmission of such personal information as is normally transmitted during amiable exchanges, for a SECOND time close the email-account that you used in order to initiate and for a brief time continue the exchange, your behavior will be regarded not only as insulting but also as potentially threatening.

    YOU ARE SAFE, BECAUSE I AM AN HONORABLE PERSON. But I regard this as a very serious matter, and you should know that almost everyone will so regard it. Your behavior is the sort of thing that makes it impossible for people who are interested in the sorts of topics that are discussed on this blog to maintain the kinds of normal relationships with one another that the development of political thought has throughout history required; this sort of behavior keeps “reactionary” discussion at the level of childish playground-pretense.

  18. Is BDSM inherently gay? That’s an interesting idea but I think too hasty a judgement. For instance, I don’t have a gay bone in me, my but I do enjoy spanking women. Men spanking and doing other “sadistic” things to women was the main theme of Victorian BDSM erotica literature, from Nell in Bridewell to The Way Of A Man With A Maid. Damsels-in-distress stories were thinly veiled BDSM erotica in the fifties and sixties, the kind of booklets that featured Nazis whipping women on the cover. Women in prison movies, from Jesse Franco’s movies (Bamboo House of Dolls and others) to recently Amy Hesketh’s Maleficarum and other movies, brutal but excellent. Femdom and gay BDSM happened too, but the primary kind at least in popular culture was maledom, femsub. I.e. the normal one.

    The best of this genre was hands down Pauline Reage’s The Story of O. Which gave the name to Roissy. Nobody suspected that Reage, a very modest looking woman, dreamed about being tied up and whipped by men. Many women do. And many men enjoy doing it to them. And it is not gay.

    Perhaps, there are kinds of BDSM that are gay. Those that do not tie into these classical master punishing a slave things, but do weird stuff with various medical devices and suchlike to the genitals. That is rather disgusting.

    I would not “give” the BDSM genre to gays. It is too good for that.

Leave a Reply