I am not disowning my fellow alt rightists who happen to be nazis. I am inviting them to become better friends and allies than they already are by discarding their blue pill illusions about women – by becoming even more evil than they already are.
Progs tell me that Andrew Anglin is the leading force for Nazism in the America, and have forced him to flee to Nigeria, where the locals do not see anything odd, evil, surprising, or unusual, about a white advocating for the interests of whites, or the interests of those whites ethnically similar to himself. Doesn’t everyone do that? Nigerians are too busy hating Nigerians who are a different breed of black to themselves to worry about whites.
My problem with Andrew Angelin is that if he is the leading force, progs don’t have much to worry about. This a man who thinks that twelve year old girls would be pure and chaste if it was not for evil males preying upon them.
He tells us that the problems we have with women are due to evil Jewish mind rays. If it was not for those damned Jews, women would never give us such tough shit tests. This is the sort of thinking that led to Hitler having only moderate success in raising the German birthrate.
The trouble with Nazis is that they leftists stuck in the 1930s, while the rest of the left has moved even further left. And the left was mighty bluepilled back in the 1930s.
His truly impressive loli collection suggests to me a man who does not score a whole lot of real life women, though I would guess he does considerably better than Scott Alexander.
[Edit. Photo is fake.
I still say is beliefs about women indicate he has not a whole lot of contact with women, albeit more than the typical male progressive, in that he is on the 1930s blue pill while progressives are on the 2017 blue pill.]
There is a man in urgent need of the red pill.
The trouble with blaming everything on Jews is not that it is unkind to Jews. Unkind to Jews is not my problem. I will let Jews worry about that. The problem with blaming everything on Jews is that it leads to the conclusion that 1930s leftism, leftism before we let the Jews into the left wing club, was just fine. And Andrew Anglin’s truly impressive loli collection is where that thinking gets you.
In fact, things started going bad early in the nineteenth century, when frothing at the mouth biting mad feminism gave us a marriage contract that was enforced on men, but not on women, resulting in the collapse of the family.
And, shortly after that, white man’s burden, with the corresponding attacks on unit cohesion and military discipline, with the result that inferior races started to defeat whites in 1841, and have been defeating us militarily worse and worse ever since.
That is when things went to hell – when marriage was successfully attacked by those holier than thou, when our military was successfully attacked by those holier than thou. Rolling things back to the 1930s is not going to help. We need to roll things back to the 1730s.
Yes, Jews have always been subversive, and they were subversive back in the 1730s also. But I am pretty sure it was not Jews that caused everything except science to turn to shit in the nineteenth century, and it was not Jews that caused science to turn to shit in the twentieth. What happened to science after World War II was plainly the result of Harvard strong arming the Royal Society. Andrew is blaming the flies for the condition of a corpse that has a bullet hole in the head. It is not that I support flies, it is that I oppose being shot in the head.
There is a correlation between flies and corpses, but Nazis have the causation backwards.
…so what do you think about https://www.dailystormer.com/on-fat-bitch-conversion-therapy/
Besides repeatedly asserting that White women are the collective property of White men and having them miscegenate on TV is intentional humiliation of White men (seems every Netflix original needs a nigger fucking a human female sex scene) he recently came out in support of the right of a man to kill an adulturpus wife on the grounds that women are the personal property of men and it’s none of the government’s business https://www.dailystormer.com/ny-army-soldier-charged-with-killing-whore-wife/
yeah well jim pretty much says that every day except he likes to make sure you understand by women he includes children. No ones denying gender HBD but some of your beta asses are really bitter crazy crap
Ok Jim this jew cucking has got to stop Im so little of an anti semite I havnt even read Macdonald and i know the jews were running the lefts for fifty years before the 1930s
Anglim if he collects dolls is a fucking faggot but that doesnt mean shit about the straight up fact that the fundamental foundation of any civilzation is ethno state so only a fucking jew shill is going to deny that and start talking nazi this nazi that, fucking nazi were fucking right about a lot of shit especially that jews had to go. And while they were wrong about socialism the rights thrall to capitalism is pretty cucked too. The capitalists are neither right nor left they will operate for any state and any state that uses them had better keep an eye on them. The sad fucking fact is capitalists have done more damage to western civilization than socialism which cant even exist except in a capitalist frame. now i love capitalism and i hate socialism but I can at least admit that as a rightist im trained to ignore all the harm capitalism does because we are afraid to be seen as socialists so wont subordinate capital to culture, the nazis had this right in a way. They also had another major thing right how to replace the cuck jew infection called christianity with a post modern rationalist quasi religion based on cultural confidence archetypes and a sort of 30s sciency theory it was actually pretty brilliant
“but that doesnt mean shit about the straight up fact that the fundamental foundation of any civilzation is ethno state so only a fucking jew shill is going to deny that and start talking nazi this nazi that, fucking nazi were fucking right about a lot of shit especially that jews had to go.”
Look, we need to focus on the Jews so that people don’t ask questions. Uncomfortable questions. Ones based on the realization white isn’t an ethnicity.
“They also had another major thing right how to replace the cuck jew infection called christianity with a post modern rationalist quasi religion based on cultural confidence archetypes and a sort of 30s sciency theory it was actually pretty brilliant”
Has that ever worked?
I dont think white isnt an identity is a convincing argument, It may not ring well in europe where whites have more granular identities, but even there they have fully grasped how the interests of “white” mutts in the anglosphere are certainly aligned with french italian polish etc identity. I actually think half the whites the most successful in fact being generic europeans in solidarity wiith specific european ethnicities takes much of the danger out of “ethno nationalism” People are going to focus on the jews because unless they suddenly turn white nationalist its going to be really hard not to understand they created the bloodshed that will come if they dont suddenly turn white nationalist.
What i mean is oh yeah jews are the ones who we stupidly trusted and shouldnt have but to get out of this there are two paths one is bloodless right ratchet of increasingly harder deportations untll we are again an ethno state for that the jews must help- not holding breath but its the surest quickest least bloody path and once accomplished kicking them out if still desired much easier.
Other path is pressure builds till civil war because jew led left wont surrender this war nigger races flee in terror while wwe fight. In that scenario its hard to imagine if we win a complete investigation into last 150 years is not going to conclude with jews held largely responsible. seeing as both scenarios put jews at risk unlikely they will allow left surrender.
Has what ever worked replacing christianity yeah just recently it was replaced with a jew update called leftism. Look the new right making the same mistake about how christians make natural conservatives is a huge mistake, christians make natural commie cucks because thats actualy the christian religion, well that and belief in the supernatural which makes it controlable by fast talking jews when its steps out of line. But man has a religious impulse and a new state is better using that than leaving it exploitable. A new right state should basically create a religion that is a sort of antithisis of the leftist religion, where they signal holiness by denigrating trad culture we venerate it, where they denigrate business industry and success we venerate it, where they besmirch the white race and its accomplishments we revere them essentially the anti cathedral it has all the propaganda benefits of leftism but the advantage of being rational and positive and not self destructive it will require much less reinforcement. And my point was nazism was a pretty good attempt if a little campy from our perspective it was in fact an anti weimar jew culture
“I dont think white isnt an identity is a convincing argument, It may not ring well in europe where whites have more granular identities, but even there they have fully grasped how the interests of “white†mutts in the anglosphere are certainly aligned with french italian polish etc identity.”
We had that in the past as Christendom. It didn’t work well. If there is an external threat it will function (on the ‘me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin’ grounds) but if the problem is everything is falling apart, then it will split apart by ethnic group.
“People are going to focus on the jews because unless they suddenly turn white nationalist its going to be really hard not to understand they created the bloodshed that will come if they dont suddenly turn white nationalist. ”
Jews have an incredibly high rate of out-group marriage. How do you show loyalty if you are considered inherently untrustworthy by both sides? Zeal. I expect there to be a time when people are forced to choose and the Jewish community rips itself apart.
“Has what ever worked replacing christianity yeah just recently it was replaced with a jew update called leftism.”
At the risk of sounding like a parody, they are both universalist creeds. What you are asking for is a non-universalist faith. These exist in modern times (Shintoism, Daoism, Hinduism) and appear to be able to function without society destroying holiness spirals or excluding modern science (if you don’t believe in the supernatural aspects, you do the ritual anyway).
The problem is
1) All these are built on tradition
2) Universalism out competes these faiths
Now, universalism isn’t inherently one way- Buddhism seems to have taken steps backwards compared to its origin- but the belief in One True God makes that impossible for the Abrahamic faiths. Catholicism and Orthodoxy went down that path and that was one more complaint the Protestants could level at them.
“And my point was nazism was a pretty good attempt if a little campy from our perspective it was in fact an anti weimar jew culture”
Nazism was great at setting up rituals and pageantry. I have no idea if they could replace Christianity; the explicit attempts to do so have all been left wing (positivism being the least horrific, communism the most). I’m not saying you can’t roll it back- Albania banned all religion- but none of them stuck.
If you’re rolling back, have to roll back to before the re-conquest of Toledo and introduction of Greek texts to a non-resistant population.
Or maybe consider that a civil order that allows a parasite to grow continuously for 900 years has earned its gruesome death. Especially as going pre-Toledo also deprives this order of science.
We got science, technology, and world conquest under Restoration Anglicanism, so Christianity is not irredeemably cucked. Rather it has a chronic propensity to holiness spirals that result in rule by cuckold heretics.
The cuck version of Christianity is not Christianity, but a plausible and frequently recurring heresy.
JIm the christ cucking has also got to stop. Christianity starts as a jew heresy, its not of our people its a desert jew religion and we are a forest people.
next its irrational and we are the people of the scientific method it requires us to emulate jew lawyers to rationalize it to ourselves. This is much much more important to a reactionary movement founded on the restoration of truth.
A second problem with this faerytale aspect is it undermines the state with the claim that the state is rightly subordinated by a higher authority, and THAT is the method by which each man judges the state independently from a subjective but equal footing.
But most importantly its a multicultural commie theology and no matter how many time frustrated kings may have temporarily put a reactionary lipstick on the church its still always at root a commie pig and some wag willways and everywhere come by and wreck the joint by asking what would the commie hippie criminal loving revolutionary jew priest have advised- and we all know the answer is more niggers more welfare more suspicion of authority etc and in order to counter the actual christ you need to be a irational jew lawyer
Maybe youre still a cultural catholic god knows I was forever but its just gotta go
Sure.
But first show me your forest religion.
Crucify him. And keep the body secure for three days to check for rising. If he does not rise, problem solved. Recall how Charles the second dealt with commie hippie criminal loving heretic. Burned her at the stake. That is how you do it.
face palm
Jim, there have got to be some smart people out there who can take re-create some sort of Pan-Euro-Paganism. As Spandrell says, a new religion is needed. Desperately.
If only Julian the Apostate had not launched that massive ill-fated invasion of persia in 362. Damnit! Why Polytheists always be making misteps?
Creating a new religion is straightforward. However, you wouldn’t actually join. You’re expecting to feel some bolt from the blue, “Eureka!” from the true religion, which is what you expect to use to identify it. That’s simply not how it works.
To say that a smart people who have done so much in Science and Technology cannot pull off a forest religion is ……….. T.O.O.
M.U.C.H.
Maybe these so-called Nazis are working on the wrong problem. Perhaps they should look for ways to revive Germanic/Viking/Druidic Paganism instead of spending an inordinate amount of time shaving their heads and brawling at Football (Soccer for the Yanks) matches
Actually, Anglin is significantly more redpilled about women and sexuality than most of the alt-right. If most alt-righters were like Anglin, I’d probably have no reason to complain about the alt-right’s puritanism.
As a matter of fact, I suspect that, in the same way that I LARP as a Nazi to raise certain issues about Jews, MyPostingCareer’s admin — Brian Uecker — is LARPing very hard as a holier-than-thou moralizer in order to denounce the poz. To form a healthy conceptual synthesis, it is often indispensable to counter the initial false thesis with an equally false antithesis. Two wrongs can make a right.
But his followers, and most Nazis, are true-believers.
I think the issue is that Jim is looking at an old article of Anglin; what he cites is 3 years old. Everything I’ve seen on the DS indicates he went from ‘Jews are exploiting our women’ to ‘women are evil and men need to keep them in check and the Jews stopped us from doing that’.
The Daily Stormer is highly reactionary, don’t let the Nazi label fool you. We are talking about people whose policy towards homosexuals is more extreme then Hitlers; concentration camps versus executions.
I like Anglin’s position on women. But his position on Jews is definitely more nazi than reactionary. + he outright identifies as a Hitler-loving nazi right? The problem with nazis remains: they are ethnocentric leftists.
His position on women is blue pill deluded – that women are naturally good, or would be evil men were not making them bad, even though his definition of “good” is mainstream 1930 instead of mainstream 2017.
one of those nazis i read yesterday made the point that rang true that even the most fetishistically nazi of them have almost zero interest in economics that economics is almost completely absent a topic on the WN altright so that the natsoc admiration is really only nat admiration. he admitted they might be in a very slight manner more open to capitalist skepticism though. I think this rang true of all I have ever read on those sites. And i would add i really think the new right would do well to be capitalist skeptic. I dont in ANY WAY mean be socialist I mean to acknowledge capitalism is agnostic not right or left and that it has an can if allowed to do great harm to people and cultures in ways a right state ought to be concerned about.
As to their ethno centrism it may be crude it may be not particularly intelgent at times but it is 100% correct whtes can not afford to live in multicultural states and jews have systematically almost destroyed us and that cant be stopped without pointing out what they have done and how whites can not thrive while more tribal peoples live among them.
Anglin thinks automation and robots make economic questions moot. I’m inclined to agree with that. We will still have an economy with large scale automation and robots, but until we know what flavors of the two we have, we can’t actually plan out what the appropriate response is.
>We are talking about people whose policy towards homosexuals is more extreme then Hitlers; concentration camps versus executions.
On that note, let me quote Hitler about women and sexuality from the Table Talk (yes, the translation is inaccurate; the German version is somewhat, but not at all dramatically, different). Table Talk is rather long, and Hitler has spoken about everything imaginable, including many musings on women. But the part I wish to quote is particularly pertinent to all our recent discussions:
“March 1942, evening
In the eyes of a woman, the finest of dresses at once loses its charm—if she sees another woman wearing one like it. I’ve seen a woman suddenly leave the opera at the sight of a rival who had entered a box wearing the same dress as herself. “What cheek!” she said. “I’m going!”
In the pleasure a woman takes in rigging herself out, there is always an admixture of some trouble-making element, something treacherous—to awaken another woman’s jealousy by displaying something that the latter doesn’t possess. Women have the talent, which is unknown to us males, for giving a kiss to a woman-friend and at the same time piercing her heart with a well-sharpened stiletto. To wish to change women in this respect would be ingenuous: women are what they are. Let’s come to terms with their little weaknesses. And if women really only need satisfactions of that sort to keep them happy, let them not deprive themselves, by any means! For my part, I prefer to see them thus occupied than devoting themselves to metaphysics. There’s no worse disaster than to see them grappling with ideas. In that respect, the point of disaster is reached by women painters, who attach no importance to beauty—when it’s a question of themselves!
Other women are extremely careful of their appearance, but not beyond the moment when they’ve found a husband. They’re obsessed by their outlines; they weigh themselves on exact scales — the least gramme counts! Then you marry them, and they put on weight by the kilo!
Without doubt, when we mock at women’s artifices, they could pay us back by pointing out our own coquetry—our poor, male coquetry. It’s true that we shave, that we get our hair cut; that we, too, try to correct the mistakes of nature!
When I was a child, only actors and priests had shaven faces. At Leonding, the only civilian whose face was beardless was regarded as the most extreme of eccentrics. The beard gives character to some faces, but it’s easier to descry the true personality of a shaven man. By the way, the evolution that has taken place in the sense of sobriety seems to accord with the laws of nature. Hasn’t man gradually, through the ages, cleared away some of his hair?
In the countries where women are more numerous than men, the female has recourse to all kinds of methods to dispossess her rivals. It’s a form of the spirit of conservation, a law of the species. The gentlest woman is transformed into a wild beast when another woman tries to take away her man. The bigger the element of femininity in a woman, the further is this instinct developed. Must one regard this innate savagery as a fault? Is it not rather a virtue?
The state of society in which woman was regarded merely as a slave (as is still the case in certain tribes) would be, if we returned to it, a clear regression for humanity. But it’s not the only possible state. In prehistoric times, matriarchy was certainly a fairly widely spread form of social organization. When all’s said, a people never dies out for lack of men. Let’s remember that after the Thirty Years’ War polygamy was tolerated, so that it was thanks to the illegitimate child that the nation recovered its strength. Such particular situations cannot give rise to a legal regulation—but as long as we have in Germany two and a half million women vowed to celibacy, we shall be forbidden to despise the child born out of wedlock.
Social prejudices are in the process of disappearing. More and more, nature is reclaiming her rights. We’re moving in the proper direction. I’ve much more respect for the woman who has an illegitimate child than for an old maid. I’ve often been told of unmarried women who had children and brought these children up in a truly touching manner. It often happens amongst women servants, notably. The women who have no children finally go off their heads.
It’s somewhat striking to observe that in the majority of peoples the number of women exceeds that of men. What harm is there, then, in every woman’s fulfilling her destiny? I love to see this display of health around me. The opposite thing would make me misanthropic. And I’d become really so, if all I had to look at was the spectacle of the ten thousand so-called elite. Luckily for me, I’ve always retained contacts with the people. Amongst the people, moral health is obligatory. It goes so far that in the country one never reproaches a priest for having a liaison with his servant. People even regard it as a kind of guarantee: the women and girls of the village need not protect themselves. In any case, women of the people are full of understanding; they admit that a young priest can’t sweat his sperm out through his brain.
The hypocrites are to be found amongst the ten-thousand strong elite. That’s where one meets the Puritan who can reproach his neighbor for his adventures, forgetting that he has himself married a divorcee. Everybody should draw from his own experience the reasons to show himself indulgent towards others. Marriage, as it is practiced in bourgeoisie society, is generally a thing against nature. But a meeting between two beings who complete one another, who are made for one another, borders already, in my conception, upon a miracle.
I often think of those women who people the convents— because they haven’t met the man with whom they would have wished to share their lives. With the exception of those who were promised to God by their parents, most of them, in fact, are women cheated by life. Human beings are made to suffer passively. Rare are the beings capable of coming to grips with existence.”
– – –
If you want the speech in German, go to page 266 (154*) here:
http://www.answers.org/apologetics/Adolf-Hitler-Monologe-im-Fuehrerhauptquartier-1941-1944.pdf
At any rate, though Hitler doesn’t use the word Puritaner — Puritan — in the original German — that’s probably something Francois Genoud, whom I admire, made up — his views are clear, and they aren’t exactly alt-right, if you can “read between the lines.”
Seriously. Hitler doesn’t share the views of many of his greatest fans. I guess, based on his fierce opposition to celibacy, his unsurprising acceptance of out-of-wedlock births, and his tolerance of priests having a regular affair with a person (“can’t sweat his sperm out through his brain” – I lol’d), which tolerance he considers a sign of “moral health”, a certain commenter here would argue that Hitler didn’t quite have White Magic. The same, of course, can be said of Mencken and Heinlein.
When I argue that there are puritan whites and non-puritan whites, and that the distinction is not irrelevant, I have tangible observations in mind.
White Sharia Space Marine Rape Gangs unite!
Hol up hol up!
Not wrong in spirit anyway, but I sure thought the loli picture was photoshopped by Anglin himself as a joke.
https://www.dailystormer.com/fake-news-cnn-uses-photoshopped-image-of-andrew-anglin/
I also thought the thing about him living in Lagos Nigeria thing has been a joke also. Or rather as a tool he uses to track “Anglin” and “Lagos” on Google Alerts and see who’s been writing about him lately.
Meanwhile, Andrew is big-upping the White Sharia meme, which very much reminds me of your Marriage Restoration advocacy.
Yeah I also thought Andrew was trolling with the lolis.
Lot of work and money to collect that many lolis. Significant work to even photoshop that many lolis, and they all overlap well, so probably not a photoshop.
Dude you crazy. Anglin posted that loli picture himself.
All you need is a real pic of loli room and photoshop yourself into it. I couldn’t find the original pic, but EdensThaw has.
Yeah, you messed up a little Jim. You don’t shop the room to contain lolis, you shop the pre-existing loli-room to contain yourself.
The main points stand, though. Nazis are virgins regardless of whether Anglin collects lolis or not. Frankly, even if they’ve had sex, they remain metaphorical virgins. See also physiognomy.
This discussion is six months late. White sharia was attributed by Psycho Sacco of The War Room to inspiration from here and Harold Covington, who wrote about the danger of including women in a terrorist organization in his Northwest Novels, countersignaled for several episodes Radio Free Northwest after Anglin picked it up.
What would William Luther Pierce, Revilo Oliver, and George Lincoln Rockwell have thought about White sharia or Covington’s implicit feminism?
Surely American naziism was infested with 90s grrl power feminism, but Jim already fixed it.
In both the original and the Photoshop (whichever is which), Anglin has a face like his dog just died. What’s the story there?
Well he’s not a happy fellow. That’s evident from the podcasts he’s on.
Normally, unhappiness is a sign of low status.
Happy people don’t try to change the hegemonic order.
When the hegemonic order is broken, folk shouldn’t be happy.
I think that photoshop was originally done by the one and only Ben Garrison himself, back when he was in an internet war with the Stormer et al.
There are three flavors of what you see in the Whitosphere of the Net. The Alt-Right AKA used to be TEA Party pro-Israel Judeo- Xtians, neo-nazi fags who just like the uniforms and maybe My Little Pony, and Real White Men who have had enough. The first two are kind of hard to tell apart. A lot of cuckers for Israel are probably fags.
You left out the red pill on women. Left out patriarchy and opposition to female emancipation. Left out PUA understanding of the nature of women.
I would say all that falls under HBD its just science women act like girls and should be accorded the respect to be treated as such.
I will say the WN white knighting is in a way more helpful than teaching millennial cucks to get laid by sluts. Not that heartiste hasnt turned into a preeminent reactionary thinker but hes done that sort of in spite of his juvenile how to pick up girls schtick. The wn-altright do seem to get we are going to have to rebuild a healthy culture and thats going to mean healthy relationships with women and I have to admit these internet youtube altright women are dittzy but they at least are wn and reactionary how many women does reaction have- i know its not a pop quiz but they are building we are talking thats something.
>and that’s going to mean healthy relationships with women
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEYxkdykYys
Also important:
In a recent podcast, Weev pointed out that when it comes to actually catching people’s attention and moving the political needle, only Nazism — even LARPy Trollskyite Nazism — actually accomplishes this IRL.
Borrowing from your own piece here, we first notice the maggots, gross out and rage about those for a while, and THEN we can call down and ask “Hol up. Maggots don’t eat healthy people. How did the guy die in the first place?
There’s a process to this after all.
So you’re not wrong, but your work here doesn’t inspire high school kids to say “nigger” again.
Relevant:
imgur.com/a/lTGJa
I don’t think he’s a virgin.
Looks like Jim got inadvertently trolled by Andrew Anglin.
“This a man who thinks that twelve year old girls would be pure and chaste if it was not for evil males preying upon them.”
Jim your penchant for pedophilic reasoning is increasingly disturbing.
Seek help before you find yourself like Gary Glitter in a Vietnamese prison claiming they corrupted you.
If you blame males for female misbehavior, you conclude that women do not need to be controlled. This approach has been tried, has failed spectacularly, and continues to fail spectacularly.
It is as empirically stupid as the theory that if only whites were not so horribly racist, black majority areas would be perfectly safe.
Dishonest response by moving the goalposts. The control of female behavior can happen without you repeatedly making claims on the “evil” or sexual proclivity of 12 year old girls (which you have done in other blog posts so the trend continues)
On a base level this should cause discomfort amongst normal well adjusted men and women.
The other possibility is in fact you’re simply detached about such matters and lack a healthy disgust response. Another warning sign that you’re what many women would term – a creep.
I enjoy how your commenters are leaping to your defense with the classic dodgy justification that these girls are into puberty so it’s totally not weird. Such neckbeards should have been bullycided in a healthy society instead they post here.
Reality is that the only white people, as far as I know the only people, who have succeeded in controlling female sexual behavior are people who set the age of consent to around ten. (Or nonwhites who employ female genital mutilation.)
And from my experience, that is what you are going to need. Not for all females, but for enough of them to be a substantial problem that simply has to be dealt with firmly.
Maybe we could block andrenarche till menarche with drugs, and block menarche to whatever age we decide to be the age of consent, but with human biology as it is, and unmutilated genitals, there is always going to be a significant number of very young girls fucking, a large enough number of very young girls fucking to substantially undermine family, society, and the sexual social order, and the only solution is to marry them off.
If you want female sexuality under control, and you are not going to change female nature with drugs or surgery, then you are going to have to do what past societies that successfully brought female sexuality under control did.
If you look back in time to times when female sexuality was under control, the age of consent was ten or so, or else they did not give a tinker’s dam about consent.
Early menarche is associated with health problems and all cause mortality:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/the-long-term-risks-of-early-puberty/488834/
It is tied to fatherlessness. And single motherhood
Fatherhood delays puberty and menarche. Render the female more able to bear children without the medical risks and complications of earlier puberty.
And with Father’s screening mates the female will likely be older with a body more robust to keep up with childbearing and nursing.
Well, maybe we should block andrenarche and menarche using drugs and hormones till sixteen. Or eighteen. Or twenty one. But given women as they actually are, the current age of consent necessarily results in a whole lot of lawbreaking, and makes a whole lot of sexually immoral behavior effectively compulsory.
One paragraph later:
C’mon – there’s a clear confound here and I’d be shocked if they engaged in enough crimethink to even try to disentangle it.
>and you are not going to change female nature with drugs or surgery
Neither drugs nor surgery nor shackles in dungeons.
Take what you have, find the minimum to make it adequately functional, do 20% less, and truncate that bottom 20%.
1950 was adequately functional. 1960 was adequately functional. 1970 was not adequately functional.
Age of consent be damned, 12 is too young. It’s creepy and weird. “Sweet 16” was sweet for a reason; it was the age at which girls had their debutante.
Dishonest, ahistorical and still creepy.
Modernity and all its improvements is largely responsible for the reducing of the beginning of puberty so that your claims about young girls in earlier times when control was better exercised do not match up.
If we examine the record of births as well we see that far from young girls it is healthy 18-20 year olds reproducing consistently NOT 12 year old or even 16 year olds.
Marriage or pledging a young daughter was not uncommon but sex was not expected, not was it encouraged. You and your defenders continued attempt to normalize the sexualization of early puberty girls reminds me of the dweebs at highschool who’d hit on the younger girls because they thought it acceptable. It wasn’t and healthy vital men were repulsed by it an remain so.
…so yeah, what do you plan to do about right now, when 12 year olds are having sex? Obviously you don’t think they should be told not to because that’s creepy, so what’s your plan?
Maybe. What is causing falling testosterone and falling sperm count?
Pretty sure it is modernity, and it is not an improvement.
Likely what is causing falling testosterone and falling sperm count is that men have been disempowered. And likely what is causing falling age of puberty is that fathers have been disempowered.
I think it likely that powerlessness, fear, humiliation, and weakness, is causing male testosterone and male sperm counts to fall, while power and contact with unrelated sexually attractive males is causing female puberty to come early.
I think it likely that both falling age of female puberty and falling testosterone are caused in whole or part by society controlling and restraining men, and failing to control and restrain women.
Notice that female age of puberty has fallen, male age of puberty not so much. If the “improvements” of modernity, rather than the degeneracy of modernity, should not male and female puberty be similarly affected?
That we are eating better, and eating more, lowers the age of both male and female puberty. But something is lowering the age of female puberty in particular.
Sociologically, divorce.
Physically, all the literal chemicals. It isn’t just figurative estrogen. Intersex fish don’t get that way by family court or voodoo female status realignment they saw on TV.
Fish do get that way by the equivalent of family court. High status female fish turn into literal males. Defeated and humiliated male fish turn into actual females.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sex+change+fish&qpvt=sex+change+fish&view=detail&mid=59852BC6245D73150D7959852BC6245D73150D79&rvsmid=6A27642AEDEB581081036A27642AEDEB58108103&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP
Researchers did not show the fish emasculation, humiliation, and defeat on television, but they put a bunch of males together with no females, so that most of the males would experience actual defeat.
And, voila. No literal hormones in the water supply, just metaphorical hormones, turned male fish into females.
A. Your link doesn’t support your claim.
B. You’re full of shit.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=intersex+fish
Just one example: http://sfi.mnhn.fr/cybium/numeros/2008/322%20suppl%20ISRPF/06-Gametogenesis%20and%20gamete%20biology/131-Maltret%20P173.pdf
“613 fish were sampled from the reference site and no intersex fish were observed; however, in the Seine River 14% of fish were identfied as being intersex (n = 110). The intersex fish were characterised by the occurrence of oocytes within the testicular tissue. The oocyte development observed inside the testis corresponded to the primary oocyte stage, but no cases of the presence of a female ovarian cavity were noted. Finally, a significant decrease in the male fish ratio (including intersex fish) was observed in the Seine River, corresponding to a sex ratio of 30%, whilst in the reference site 45% of the fish sampled were male.”
There are thousands more.
Yes, thousands more, not one of them supporting the proposition that this is due to literal estrogens in the literal water supply.
Your cites stand vaguely in the vicinity of your claim, rather than actually supporting your claim, while my cites directly and explicitly support my claim.
Maybe intersex fish in one river is due estrogens in the water supply. Maybe fish in one river have more female emancipation than fish in another river. In order to conclude what is causing it, you have to subject one group of fish to realistic levels of humiliation, defeat, degredation, and domination, another group to realistic levels of estrogen in the water supply, and a third group gets pure water and gets their way socially.
>fish humiliation
>fish emancipation
>no such thing as literal estrogenic pollution, goy
You win. There’s no way I can top this.
ought to be easy to determine not all populations have same pressures
Hey Esoteric how about
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html
“In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was “meaningful” if the children were older than seven. Some authorities said consent could take place earlier. Such a marriage would be permanent as long as neither party sought annulment before reaching puberty (12 for girls and 14 for boys) or if they had already consummated the marriage. Even if the husband had technically raped [Anonymous’ note: it’s not “rape”] his wife before she reached puberty, the marriage was regarded as consummated. It was this policy which was carried over into English common law, and although consent was necessary, force and influence or persuasion seemed to have been permissible elements. Similarly Gratian’s ideas about age became part of European civil law.
The age of consent in both English and continental law seemed to be particularly elastic when property was involved or family alliances were at stake. For example in 1564, a three year old named John was married to a two year old named Jane in the Bishop’s Court in Chester, England. Though Shakespeare set his Romeo and Juliet in Verona, the fact that Juliet was thirteen probably reflects the reality in England. Her mother, who was twenty-six, calls her almost an old maid.
The American colonies followed the English tradition but the law could at best be called a guide. For example in Virginia in 1689, Mary Hathaway was only nine when she was married to William Williams. We know of her case only because two years later she sued for divorce, and was released from the covenant she had made because the marriage had not been consummated. Interestingly, historian Holly Brewer, who discovered the case, speculated that if William had raped [Anonymous’ note: again, it’s not “rape”] Mary, she probably would not have been given the divorce. The only reliable data on age at marriage in England in the early modern period comes from Inquisitions Post Mortem which involved only those who died and left property. It appears that the more complete the records, the more likely it is to discover young marriages. Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at age younger than seven, in spite of what Gratian had said, and there are recorded marriages of two and three year olds. The seventeenth-century lawyer Henry Swinburne distinguished between the marriages of those under seven and those between seven and puberty. He wrote that those under seven who had said their vows had to ratify it afterwards by giving kisses and embraces, by lying together, by exchanging gifts or tokens, or by calling each other husband or wife. A contemporary, Philip Stubbes, wrote that in sixteenth-century East Anglia, infants still in swaddling clothes were married. The most influential legal text of the seventeenth century in England, that of Sir Edward Coke, made it clear that the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old.”
Jim, what are your thoughts on Anonymous Conservative’s r/k? Because this just screams ‘rabbit’ to me. Attempt to outgroup, reliance on others to enforce threats and appeals to the majority specifically.
Anonymous conservative stretches theories too far.
Prog voting blocks, in particular blacks, are r selected. Progs are not.
On a base level this should cause discomfort amongst normal well adjusted men and women… Another warning sign that you’re what many women would term – a creep… classic dodgy justification… Such neckbeards
Does it bother you to sound like a woman-worshipping SJW?
Jim is correct.
And Jim doesn’t sound like a pedophile. Read Tom O’Carrol’s “Pedophilia: The Radical Case”. An actual pro-pedophilia book written by an actual pedophile. When you are done, come back here, and say with a straight face that Jim’s reasoning and argument resemble those of the pedo author.
They don’t.
Also, I strongly recommend you read the “feminist” authoress Nancy Friday. Ms. Friday has published the sexual fantasies of a great multitude of women throughout several books. Start with “My Secret Garden” and follow up with “Forbidden Flowers”. You’ll never view women the same way after reading these.
My friends’ little sisters started looking at me differently around 12, so, I assume that’s when girls start having sexual thoughts. I didn’t really notice it happening in middle school because boys go through puberty later. I’m not sure why this would be a surprise
Females with secondary sexual characteristics and attraction to the opposite sex. And have menses approximately 13-15 by the presence of a loving father.Is not a child but a young woman physically.
Children do not have pubic hair and breasts and menstrual cycle and sexual attraction. Nor do they grow beards or have deep voices.
I am not including earlier instances due to medical risks and issues of early puberty and menses which renders it a disorder.
Pedophilia Is Mohammad marrying and raping a 6-9 yo girl.
By your logic every high school crush makes that person a pedophile. Pedophilia properly defined is attraction to the pre-pubescent
See jim’s subsequent comment – he actually lowers the discussion to 10 years old.
Look at your history and see that in the late 1800s it was around 15 years old so 12 year olds of the time were pre-pubesecent and 10 year olds as he mentions were children.
Jim’s dishonest at worst and just ignorant of this at best but by the standards you apply this is pedophilia.
…and why did menarche get pushed earlier? The conjecture everyone secretly believes, including our enemies, and excluding cuckservatives, is weak fathers / fatherlessness.
So when we say we want strong fathers to control their daughters…
…you say it’s creepy and they’re probably locking them up in order to fuck them themselves.
Because you’re not a traditionalist, you’re a cuckservative.
Your IQ level is probably on par with your strength level if you think you’re accurately characterising my position or that your insult is going to rile me.
Hey Esoteric, oh look, here’s what Heartiste believed in 2010:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/hank-moody-chump/
“Which brings me to a larger issue. What the fuck is up with statutory rape? It’s a joke law made up by joke legislators without a scintilla of real world experience with women. Am I supposed to request age identification from every full-bodied young woman who comes onto me? There are 13 year olds out there who look like grown women. At the borderline of 16 to 18 years old, many women could easily pass for mid to late 20s. It is well known by neuroscientists and psychologists studying these things that women mature faster than men. Women’s brains gel into adult-shaped contours sooner. A full breasted and wide-hipped 17 year old hottie who flirts with me knows exactly what she is doing and what she wants. She is no child to be coddled. And yet, I could be thrown in jail if I slept with her assuming she was an older girl, even if it was something we both consensually desired.
This is abject bullshit. The law makes it a necessity to demand age identification with every young woman a man might want to fuck who could conceivably pass for a teenager. This means background checks on women in their 20s. And what about women who lie? They exist, lots of them. Is a statutory rape charge for the man the just response — the *fair* response — to a lying woman who wanted the sex as much as he?
It’s time to end the charade of statutory rape. If the “underage†woman is physically developed, and she consents to the sex, there is no rape charge, period. For chrissakes, there are 14 year olds in parts of the world getting married off and pumping out children of their own.”
Esoteric thinks that all white people until yesterday were “pedophiles”.
https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230
“An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to “ravish” a “maiden within age,” whether with or without her consent. The phrase “within age” was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.
A 1576 law making it a felony to “unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years” was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England’s North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years.
An underage girl did not have to physically struggle and resist to the limit of her capacity in order to convince a court of her lack of consent to a sexual act, as older females did; in other words, the age of consent made it easier to prosecute a man who sexually assaulted an underage girl. However, since the age of consent applied in all circumstances, not just in physical assaults, the law also made it impossible for an underage female to consent to sexual activity. There was one exception: a man’s acts with his wife, to which rape law, and hence the age of consent, did not apply.
In trials, juries were often unwilling to simply enforce the law. Rather than focusing strictly on age, they made judgments about whether the appearance and behavior of a girl fit their notions of a child and a victim. It was not only that relying solely on age seemed arbitrary to them; at least until the end of the 19th century, age had limited salience in other aspects of daily life. Laws and regulations based on age were uncommon until the 19th century, and consequently so was possession of proof of age or even knowledge of a precise date of birth.
Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth. This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty. The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years. The age of consent, which applied to boys as well as girls, was increased to 13 years in 1863.
Like France, many other countries, increased the age of consent to 13 in the 19th century. Nations, such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, that adopted or mirrored the Napoleonic code likewise initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century. In 1875, England raised the age to 13 years; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony. In the U.S., each state determined its own criminal law and age of consent ranged from 10 to 12 years of age. U.S. laws did not change in the wake of England’s shift. Nor did Anglo-American law apply to boys.
Behind the inconsistency of these different laws was the lack of an obvious age to incorporate into law. Although scientists and physicians had established that menstruation and puberty occurred on average around age 14 in Europe at this time, different individuals experienced it at different ages — a fluid situation at odds with the arbitrary line drawn by whatever age was incorporated into law.
At the end of 19th century, moral reformers drew the age of consent into campaigns against prostitution. Revelations of child prostitution were central to those campaigns, a situation that resulted, reformers argued, from men taking advantage of the innocence of girls just over the age of consent. W. T. Stead’s series of articles entitled, “The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon,” published in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, was the most sensational and influential of these exposés.
The outcry it provoked pushed British legislators to raise the age of consent to 16 years, and stirred reformers in the U.S, such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the British Empire, and Europe to push for similar legislation. By 1920, Anglo-American legislators had responded by increasing the age of consent to 16 years, and even as high as 18 years.
While those ages were well beyond the normal age of menstruation, proponents justified them on scientific grounds that psychological maturity came later than physiological maturity. They also argued that the age of consent should be aligned with other benchmarks of development, such as the age at which girls could enter into contracts and hold property rights, typically 21 years. Opponents remained focused on physiological maturity, however, and argued that girls in their teens were sufficiently developed not to need legal protection. Moreover, they argued, by late adolescence girls possessed sufficient understanding about how to use the law to blackmail unwary men.
Historians have argued that increasing the age of consent also gave the law a more pronounced regulatory dimension. In practice, these laws were often used to control the behavior of the working-class girls. Yet reformers at the time saw no distinction between protection and regulation: in making it a crime for girls to decide to have sexual intercourse outside marriage, the law protected them from themselves and from the immature understanding that led them to behaviors reformers considered immoral.”
So as they disempowered fathers, they piously told fathers “Don’t worry, I am from the government and I am here to help you”
Raising the age of consent was part of a package preventing marriage, disempowering fathers and removing them from their families, which conspicuously failed to have the effect of protecting women from themselves.
It is always the left raising the age of consent, and the left is not exactly well known for preventing casual sex. It is, however, well known for preventing marital sex.
Women should not be allowed to consent at any age. They should be under paternal authority, until he transfers authority to fiancee or husband. Giving the state authority over female sexuality is always part of a program removing the authority of father or husband over female sexuality.
And until 1850 or so, the age of consent was ten.
Part of the social technology of controlling female sexuality was the capability to shotgun marry female children who were misbehaving or likey to misbehave, and in particular those that were misbehaving long before puberty. By and large, most heiresses who had lost their fathers at an early age, most female orphans with dowries, or a very large proportion of such heiresses, were married well before puberty. If no dad, need a husband to keep them from fucking around.
Which does not mean that all of them fucked around, but enough of them fucked around to cause serious problems. Why do you think some cultures apply female genital mutilation at age nine or ten?
9 now? Moving ever downwards I see.
Remarkable.
Would you send a 17 y/o husband to jail for “child porn possession” because he privately possesses an erotic video of his 16 y/o wife?
(answer: of course you would, puritan)
Perhaps instead of whining about “sexualization of muh poor children” you should consider how the abolition of schools will lead to the formation of young families, and so fertility will rise?
(answer: of course you will not consider that, puritan)
Sexual female sexual interest in males commonly starts when the girl reaches nine, and she is primarily interested in males that are well and truly adult and have adult female preselection, but male sexual interest in girls commonly starts when the girl reaches twelve. (The tiny minority of males who are actual pedophiles do not count, because, lacking adult female preselection, they are invisible to young girls.) Thus from nine to twelve we see a lot of unreciprocated sexual seduction and aggression by prepubescent females.
You are missing the point.
The point is not weirdos justifying attractions to prepubescent girls (I’ll leave that to Mohammed).
The point is to put a stop to the emancipation spiral that has plagued the West for 200 years. Turn it back. But in order to turn back, must set new boundaries.
While the emancipation shtick is that females are angelic and independent, the experience shows females are dependent and followers of their vaginas, the latter being a logical consequence of menarche.
The point is to restore ownership to where it belongs: with the father and later the husband. By claiming that women are angelic between the ages of 10-15 you give the left room to assume ownership of women between this age so as to ‘protect’ them from their evil fathers. Protection which of course will ever get expanded, until the father one day finds himself being a father in name only.
So how does courtly love fit into this, Jim? From the little I know, it sounds even more blue-pill than the late 20th century. But weren’t those who practiced it high status? How could it be that, hundreds of years before raising age of consent and all later feminism, a nation-forging martial aristocracy could entertain these ideas? A principled separation of sex, marriage, and romantic love, the pedestalization, so extreme that they only seem at home in the current year. It is baffling.
Sure. That is when the rot set in. But courtly love seems to have been largely in romances directed at a largely female audience, rather than actually practiced. Lancelot was high status – fictional romantic interests usually are.
There is a correlation between flies and corpses, but Nazis have the causation backwards.
Truth.
Jim, are you sure the victim of Jewish mind-rays isn’t you? I have noticed that whenever you write about Jews, the quality of your writing suffers. Your grammar and prose shows marked declines, which indicates some sort of mental blockage.
Hey, I don’t blame you. Jews are powerful, and if you shit on Jews then Jews shit back on you and its about a hundred times worse when they do it.
Look at conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. He can talk about powerful groups (like Bilderberg) or powerful individuals all day, but he doesn’t talk about Jews because Jews can seriously harm him if he does. Is it Jewish mind-rays that put the scare into Alex Jones?
It was Joe Sobran that said “a hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you”. Joe would know because they destroyed him. He was a great and talented writer that died a penniless outcast because Jews hated him.
But hey, its all in the fevered goyishe minds, right?
Matt: “Jews are powerful, and if you shit on Jews then Jews shit back on you and its about a hundred times worse when they do it.”
No shit.
(((Their))) willing use of force, money and media slander intimidates any and ALL critics, including dissident politicians, media, journalists and professors. As Alf points out below, even Anglin is forced to use constant trolling as a form of plausible deniability.
W.H.A.T. are you talking about?
Good grief, Jim. This is childish.
The photo is an obvious Photoshop.
Here, you can see the original background photo: https://tineye.com/search/7c9de6ed731afdaf62dd3c5f91b6eeb150202a7e/
Here is the original photo of Anglin that was used for the Photoshop: http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/03/White-Supremacist42468127233.jpg
As for the women stuff…have you read Anglin? What he writes about women is the completely opposite of what you’re saying.
He seems to be more ironically a Nazi than a serious one. He’s taking an extreme position with a wink and a nod to push the culture right.
He seems to be trolling a great deal of the time. Which is funny, but means his shtick is plausible deniability: ironic nazis can project an ironic nazi image on him, unironic nazis project an unironic nazi image on him.
I know you’ve seen this, Jim.
The photo is a fake.
Surely you are intellectually honest enough to note this.
OK. Photo is fake.
I still say is beliefs about women indicate he has not a whole lot of contact with women, albeit more than the typical male progressive, in that he is on the 1930s blue pill rather than 2017 blue pill.
Angling and daily stormer have been promoting White sharia which sounds about exactly like the Jim plan for women
If Nazis are virgins maybe it’s because (((merchant))) interrogators beat, tortured, and crushed the testicles of German defendants at war crimes trials.
On Sept. 25, 1945, Tom Dodd, the second in command on the American prosecution team at Nuremberg, made the following observation:
“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish.”
see
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html
or this:
Institute for Historical Review: The Nuremberg trials
Do the “war crimes” trials prove extermination?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html
Best reply yet this blogger is clearly out of his mind Andrew Anglin is a master troll Jim you’ve been trolled
Andrew Anglin blames shit tests on Jews.
Doubtless Jews are guilty of all sorts of things, but pretty sure they are innocent of causing shit tests. Maybe they have some substantial role in setting up a legal climate where wealthy white males are forced to fail the shit tests, but they are not causing women to shit test men.
How is it possible you didn’t realize how old the article which you are writing about here is?
It’s literally 5 years old.
Anglin has written a million words on feminism since then, and you are responding to this ancient article like it is his current views.
Just bizarre man. I came here because I just noticed hits coming from it to my site (theendofzion.com), where I had posted this article, literally 5 fucking years ago.
I cannot seem to easily find his more recent statements on women. Perhaps you could give me a bunch of helpful links. (The spam filter will auto block you, but if I fail to respond to your links, let me know and i will go fishing in the spam pile.)
Ok, I’ll try and find some later when I have time. I’ll have to think of some good ones, he writes about the women question constantly.
It’s never from the position that Jews are responsible for female misbehavior though, and in fact he countersignals that (though of course the Jews do exacerbate it, as they do with every problem/weakness in our society).
For now check out weev’s classic article on traditional gender roles which was published on Stormer: https://www.dailystormer.com/just-what-are-traditional-gender-roles/
And an FAQ Anglin wrote a couple years back. Not as hardcore as he’s become more recently, but a very good article, one that was quite enlightening to myself. https://www.dailystormer.com/faq-about-feminism-masculinity-and-stormer-dramaquest-2015/
If you’re interested, like I said, I’ll find some more links in a bit. But not if you’re just an Anglin hater generally, as then it’ll be a waste of time. I’m not familiar with you or this site until just now, but you were courteous in your reply anyway.
Reading his FAQ, he starts off using masculine reason against effeminate people whose positions do not derive from reason, and are not really capable of it.
Trump, and Roissy, have explained the meta fallacy here.
He then proceeds to quite accurately describe the nature of women.
He then goes on to say that his view of the nature of women, and what society and the state should do about women, are those of the Nazi state.
Which is to say, 1930s leftism, wherein Hitler attempted to turn the clock back to 1910, with less than total success.
I am arguing for English 1790 sex roles, Anglin is arguing for German 1938 sex roles. Indeed, I argue that 1790 sex roles did not go far enough. We need the Old Testament on rape and adultery. Deuteronomy and Proverbs.
As I said, Nazism is leftism that got left behind by endless movement left. And that is what Anglin says in that FAQ.
In the next article you link to, he moves a lot closer to my position. He now wants the Victorian rules restored. Instead of 1938 Germany, 1860 England.
But Victorian times was when the rot set in.
Here’s another, more recent one, that just came to mind.
https://www.dailystormer.com/brad-pitt-losing-weight-and-his-mind-after-whore-wife-ruins-his-life/
Daily Stormer is filled with tons of articles like this. That one you are referencing is extremely old.
Which article gives its readers the massive and terrible misinformation:
This idea that every man needs to become the alpha male embodiment of masculinity just to get a girlfriend is entirely accurate in a society where ten percent of adult males bang eighty percent of fertile age woman.
This misinformation exonerates women, denies the reality of female misbehavior, and thus denies the necessity of bringing female sexual choice under proper male authority.
Nor is the society in which this regrettable fact is true insane, any more than war is insane. Rather, this is the natural state of society unless one takes complex, fragile, precise, and drastic measures to prevent it from happening, measures that require complex social technology in larger societies, and require substantial will and effort.
The social technology required is simpler in the countryside, trickier in big cities, but the Japanese and the Taiwanese did fine in big cities, until they were forced to emancipate women.
The natural state of society is that families collapse, and peoples that return to this natural state get conquered by peoples who refuse to let it happen.
Women who are not owned by men are unsuccessful at reproducing, and men who do not own women will not fight to defend them. And here we are.
If you want a society where the average male gets the average girlfriend, so that males are motivated to work and fight, you have to ration them out, and ration them out to men willing and able to work and fight, ration them out against their will and in the face of their fierce resistance. Rationing girls at one per customer, with perhaps a some extras from conquering enemies and massacring enemy males, is also known as chastity and monogamy. Which therefore only makes sense as an imposition by men on women, only makes sense as the double standard. Women just do not want chastity and monogamy. It has to be imposed on them against their will for the greater good of men.
It is not that women want to sleep with multiple men in the way that men want to sleep with multiple women, but their unceasing efforts to get the semen of the best possible men results in serial monogamy, and results in most men being left out until a woman is approaching the end of her fertile years.
He then proceeds to argue that:
In suggesting that they should be property, he is entirely correct. But not objects. They should be property like your pet, not property like your filing cabinet. You can kill your pet, but you may not mistreat it.
But the problem is that he is reluctant to state the realities that make such measures necessary. He still has a (rapidly diminishing) residue of 1930s leftism, and is reluctant to say that the Old Testament had it right and here is why it was right.
>men who do not own women will not fight to defend them
What if that’s a identical condition, where men own women by protecting them, and protect them by owning them? I’m serious about this true tautology. When I pray for women, to clarify that they belong to or are invited to my spiritual community, and also tell them what to do with authority they enjoy, they submit to me, naturally. I am reluctant to do this, as a recovering feminist cuck (unloving loser), but I am becoming a man by virtue of patriarchal affection and leadership. It is somewhat pre-verbal, as Jim says, but I’m hyper-verbal, and obedient women accomodate that too. There was a delightful shit test recently, with “oh wow, you know so much about this,” as if I’m a human database, which totally appeals to my nerd-ego, but then she just followed my immediate advice. I never *physically* respected her before that, not realizing I need obedience from this married woman whose husband I admire. It’s like love doesn’t mean anything without authority- anarchy is hatred of God’s dominion and righteous officers, while I want erotic trust.
Speaking of speech, which Jim often rightly reminds me is important, and with regards to what aspies can do for socio-sexual success, I remembered “the book of Pook” (it’s a free pdf online). Pook is also a nickname some black men use, perhaps more artistic ones, just to inform you of the context here, not to wigger out. I translate Pook as “aesthetically valid image.”
The very white Game master Pook, an eccentric sigma (seemingly has no male friends, but great seductive charisma), a modern day Lord Byron with “my soul is sensitive, so you’ll enjoy being my cute concubine” Game, but a considerable voice in the early game-focused manosphere. He helped me not bother with “PUA,” which was already outdated and declasse, but had not been replaced with reasonable charismatica.
“Bitches love poets” – that’s why rappers, who are all bad loud-mouth poets, get laid better then even worse poets, the betas who receptively, codependently, as fanatics of an alpha performer, listen to said rap and memorize it. Of course, rappers chant their lyrics, but it’s mostly bad poetry, not singing. The relational point is that a poet controls his muses, whoever they are, and gets laid with the goddesses of creativity.
That’s pagan mythology, and insults St. Sophia, but people are so sure it’s true, so sure of this neo-gnostic idea that Intelligence gets fucked by Charisma (with analogies to eggs and sperm), that my church still has trouble with patriarchy’s intellectual aspect (knowing why patriarchy is true). These people were raised with the “romance Gospel,” which means “pussy tingles are holy, female desire makes the world go round, etc.” I wonder if they can even hear the word “she-devil” without fainting. Either way, unclean spirits of both sexes are equally bad, and the only teachers of idolatry.
Anglin regularly publishes articles like this one:
https://www.dailystormer.com/an-ad-for-white-girls-to-go-join-isis/
He knows.
Anglin just posted this, possibly as a reply:
https://www.dailystormer.com/understanding-what-real-national-socialist-women-really-want-from-men/
The truth, whatever it is, is going to be shocking beyond current comprehension.
“The trouble with blaming everything on Jews is not that it is unkind to Jews…” I think you’re right. Of course I don’t blame the Jews for everything just getting us in to WWI and WWII, the Federal Reserve, killing Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy. The destruction of Russia, Germany, Spain, England, US and all of Eastern Europe. The opium trade into China. Bringing slaves to America. Bringing in all the people after the 1965 change in immigration laws and all illegal immigration. Destruction of the school system through uncivil rights for Blacks. Mass murder of Whites by Blacks due to uncivil rights laws. Destruction of competence of government employees by uncivil rights laws banning effective testing. Destruction of the culture by mass media. Police committing widespread murder due to Jews training the police. Corruption of the government by bribery and when that doesn’t work blackmail. Destruction of truth through distortion of the education system and mass media. The lowering of morals through pornography and evil behavior in film and TV. The pushing of communism and socialism. The movement of manufacturing to China. Widespread theft of military secrets and subsequent selling of those to the USSR , China and who knows who else. The banking collapse and subsequent bailout. Blowing up our buildings and killing our people on 9-11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. The war in Ukraine. ISIS. The murder of Lebanese and Palestinians. Organ smuggling. Drug smuggling. Lots and lots of business and bank fraud. There’s more but that’s the major ones.
That is perfectly sound if you figure that anglo progressivism was just fine, but communism was too far over the top, but I would argue that something as bad as communism was baked into the cake when the Kadets overthrew the Czar in the name of moderate anglo progressivism and parliamentary democracy.
You are saying that leftism was just fine until those dirty Jews came and spoiled it all.
I don’t think so.
The association between Jews and social decay is like the association between maggots and corpses. Maggots do not kill people.
In practice Jews are servile. To a hilarious degree, “THESE are the folk Nazis are so afraid of?” Always and everywhere they are tools of anyone with the guts to boss them around. Only reason neo-Nazis have issues with them is because their current bosses are ordering them to Jew over the draw stock of neo-Nazism.
Mens rea. Look it up.
If the maggot Jews did not cause the death of the Societal corpses, in your analogy, what fired the death blow? Can social decay not be traced back to the machinations of one racial group and their henchmen?
If so, does this mean that you don’t believe in the Protocols of Zion (for short) and the plans laid out within them–social, academic, military, plans for population control and breeding; or that you don’t believe Freemasonry and Social Engineering ( CIA/feminism/advertising/entertainment/medicine) are effective tools of the Jews? What about the many real quotations from powerful rabbis admitting such megalomaniac plans in arrogance?
What or who is responsible for social/civilizational decay the most? Is it “economics” (Jews) “social ills” (for us, Jews, 1960’s) or “military weakness” (not a problem for us as much as the social ills within our military) or is it “undue charity toward lesser peoples who can’t support themselves” (who pushes for immigration, for Celebrities to adopt?) or is it something else? I fail to see how you cannot trace back the Jews in some way to any issue today. It may be in a roundabout way, and it takes a nuanced mind to know which ones to blame, but my point stands.
Treason. Man is wolf to man, and whites are wolves to whites.
Elite disloyalty. Jews did not stab Germany in the back. Priests stabbed warriors in the back.
By priests I mean priests, professors, judges, and newsmen. By warriors I mean soldiers, particularly officers, excluding logistics, and including cops, rentacops, militiamen, and mercenaries.
This is apparent in the story of the first big colonial defeat, Britain’s 1841 misadventure in Afghanistan, and in the aftermath of the Crimean war.
>Treason.
>Elite disloyalty.
Do the elite exist to serve the people, or do the people exist to serve the elite?
Bad question.
Rather, the priesthood exists to serve the army, by providing legitmacy, moral guidance, and social cohesion. When the priests undermine army officers, pretty soon you get what we have got.
Priests are supposed to supply asabiyyah. That is their number one job in this world. What we have is priests destroying asabiyyah .
The problem is not so much elite disloyalty to the masses, nor a Jewish plot against members of the elite not of their own race, as elite disloyalty to the elite. When the priesthood seeks to destroy the common man and return flyover country to wilderness, their real target is not lumberjacks and coal miners, but military officers. Lumberjacks and coal miners are just collateral damage.
We are always ruled by priests or warriors. When priests get on top, there is military weakness. When they get on top, there is also an incentive and ability to go into a holiness spiral.
Calling for better treatment of the common man is always a power move by priests against warriors, and they do not in fact treat the common man better.
A holiness spiral is a manifestation of public power. That BLM cannot organically get together enough people to cause one decent riot is evidence that in America, in the 21st century, public power is a mirage.
And it’s looking rather like the army exists to serve the “priesthood”, as wage-laborers and salarycucks exist to serve the corporate mother.
The founding principle of the United States is independence of the priesthood from the army.
Here, have an Internet-famous bit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx_wEpbf68sZNjY1OWI2ZTItNjAxMS00MTEwLWI5ZTgtYjk2MzdmNTU5NzJh/view
>Freemasonry and Social Engineering ( CIA/feminism/advertising/entertainment/medicine) are effective tools of the Jews?
Oh, the psy-ops are very effective. But the deep-state, which is organizing the psy-ops, is only a tool of the Jews insofar as the deep-state bends the knee to Harvard (“academia –> bureaucracy –> media”), which state of affairs may well change someday.
Which goes to show not that Jews aren’t a serious enough problem, but that the resilient regime is a serious problem in its own right.
The backbone of the “international community”, which is up to its neck in channeling funds to an endless collection of “NGOs” in every goddamn nook and cranny in the world, that backbone isn’t made of Schlomos and Chaims. Yes, I too have heard of the (((Open Society Foundations))). But Jim gets it right: if the deep-state told Soros to cut it out, he’d cut it out.
Soros is a cape. Fill Soros’ vampiresque body with bullets, still the “international” NGOs remain intact.
The Anglo-American World Order is the matador. Dismantle the Anglo-American World Order, and Soros would instantly be banned from all the countries in the world.
The Commie-Confucians of China and the Pravoslavo-Duginists of Russia aren’t evangelizing in Western culture. It is the Judeo-Puritans of the West who brought the Enlightenment to Russia (big mistake) and Communism to China (ditto), and who today are pushing for the poz in those two rival empires.
>The backbone of the “international communityâ€, which is up to its neck in channeling funds to an endless collection of “NGOs†in every goddamn nook and cranny in the world
You’re getting closer, much closer.
>What about the many real quotations from powerful rabbis admitting such megalomaniac plans in arrogance?
In the current year, no one boasting of power is in power.
We do not have in the English speaking world an acceptable figurehead or leader for Nazism. The fact that people like Anglin and Spencer are thought to be such, or at least the top two names that come to most minds, is perfect evidence that they are laughable plants. They’re meant to be ridiculous. I cannot think of Anglin without thinking of his southeast Asian sex tourism (is there anything more beta? ANYTHING?) and I cannot see Spencer’s name without thinking of that fancy gay-voice of his and of the rumours that he gargles chode in his off time. What also comes to my mind are the whisperings that the MGTOW and Altlite communities seem to be pushing strange, Semitic degeneracies, like traps and butt toys. Personally, I believe this was intended by the opposition. The biggest thing about this movement that bothers the hell out of me at night is a leader for National Socialism that doesn’t induce vomiting. I pray frequently that the next GLR or similar is now coming of age and will one day step up.
1. Involuntary celibacy.
2. Marrying a thirty two year old woman who is reluctantly settling for you after having dropped off the bottom of Jeremy Meeks midnight booty call list as a result of hitting the wall, having spent her hottest and most fertile years banging innumerable men richer than you, handsomer than you, more charismatic than you, and with bigger dicks than you.
>Marrying a thirty two year old woman who is reluctantly settling for you after having dropped off the bottom of Jeremy Meeks midnight booty call list as a result of hitting the wall, having spent her hottest and most fertile years banging innumerable men richer than you, handsomer than you, more charismatic than you, and with bigger dicks than you.
You know, I’ve read this on the Internet, but I’ve never actually seen it happen in Real Life™.
Knew a woman who matured early physically and mentally – always looked and behaved many years older than her true age. She had a blog – wrote about sex (the subject, not personal participation) at 12, probably got fingerbanged at 13, documented a multitude of “all the way” trysts at 14 with men considerably older than herself, 14 being the age when she already looked like a 25 y/o woman, was an even bigger slut between 15 and 17 when she fucked plenty of men in their 30s, got a slightly-famous boyfriend at 17 as could be seen on her Facebook, and at 22 has basically exhausted her appeal.
(Granted, a remarkable outlier – 95% of women aren’t there. But there are some heavy sluts out there — I know them personally — and some of them, though by no means all of them, become sluts upon reaching puberty or shortly thereafter)
So: I know a chick who had fingers fondling her pussy at 13, had lotsa cockas in her pussy at 14, and lost her appeal exactly at the age Jim suggests, after being with a well-connected alpha. Is it exactly what Jim describes? Probably not. But eerily close, I’d say.
I’ve been violently propositioned by multiple such crazy women.
I wonder if you might describe a few such occasions, your relationship to the women in question, and your age at the time.
Such information would be excessively identifying. You are asking people “did your sister cruise a back alley to get gang banged, and then marry some poor sucker at thirty two?”
No, but my mom did. She worked overseas and traveled the world, then at age 31 married a frivorced nice-guy beta with three kids (one his, the others he adopted from two previous guys). She cooked well but grew extremely fat after I was born. She hoarded crap so the house was always a mess. And she never appreciated what a nice-guy blue-pill husband she had.
oh, she appreciated him alright – as a sucker
I would hope that he’s not been violently propositioned by his 30-year-old sister.
I don’t think it’s excessively identifying. I’m looking for something like:
* Office worker from previous job turned 32, hunted me down halfway across the country;
* Cousin went feral, something something;
* Bar slut friend-of-a-friend turned 35, came to my house with a bottle of whiskey, a shotgun, and a broom.
I recently discovered, on Youtube, a TV show called Cops. I watch the video clips and I have no doubt that that stuff happens, but I’ve just never met anybody like that in real life. Maybe this is similar.
Here’s an example not excessively identifying.
I was 25 and a [not fully credentialed] in [my profession]. Meet blonde blue eyed woman at some social event, solid 7. Guessed she was 27 or so. Made a pass at her. Turns out she’s 35, professional with her own business, earned more than me at the time.
She asked for my number. Seemed to want me to take her home the same night. Asked for second date. We bumped into each other in the street, I walked past. She texted me asking if I saw her. Asked her friends I knew through some social event to text me asking what I was doing etc. etc.
Eventually I agreed to go to some event she invited me to. She spent the whole night talking to a doctor who made a pass at her. I wasn’t red pilled at that time but could see where this was going. Didn’t contact her again.
Few months later she turns up on the arm of a colleague of mine. Good and successful guy but stick thin and soft spoken. She spends the whole night trying to talk to me. Offers me a ride home in his car without asking him. I accept. Got out said goodnight.
Few weeks later colleague and I come back from some professional event together. She meets us at the airport. I go about my business. She drags him along (carrying all the bags) following me. Tries to invite me to some event the same night. Say I’m going home. She (they) keeps following me until I go somewhere they can’t take their bags. They go home. I left that job some time later but as far as I know they’re still together. He can probably do better but I know men who’ve done a lot worse.
That was the most extreme example. I’m a moderately but not specularly successful guy with women: this sort of behavior creeps me out. The hallmark is uncharacteristic sexual aggression combined with laughably poorly disguised disloyalty whenever anything even marginally better appears to come along. And they’re always attractive women over 30.
Interesting, thanks.
Without thinking of any particular women, other perhaps than the hot chick that just dumped me, the pattern I see is this:
I am told that the average heterosexual male has six sexual partners in his lifetime. I have no idea how many sexual partners I have had, but it is more than six. And what I see is that I do better than most men, and most of the more attractive women are fucking men who do better than me. From which I conclude that a large proportion of women are fucking a tiny proportion of men, and those men are very busy.
I also observe that all women start fucking not very long after puberty, and a small but significant proportion start fucking before puberty, or aggressively attempting to do so. I conclude therefore, that when a woman marries only when her attractiveness begins to fade, it is not because she was at choir practice
Seen it over and over. Rollo Tomassi makes exactly the same observations, be it in less visual language than Jim. (See his book Preventative Medicine)
Just to be clear, I’ve never seen >Marrying a thirty two year old woman who is reluctantly settling for you after having dropped off the bottom of Jeremy Meeks midnight booty call list
I don’t doubt that it happens, I just haven’t seen it personally. Maybe I don’t know the right people.
You never saw a woman get married as a result of hitting the wall, or you saw it happen all the time but assumed that the reason that she did not get married during her hottest and most fertile years was because she was at choir practice?
This was probably a reasonable assumption up to 1790. After 1830, not so much.
Any girl that gets married after 27 is marrying because her looks are starting to fade. Which implies that before 27, she put her looks to use that she valued more highly than getting married.
My female relatives of that age got married in their early- to mid-twenties. Besides that, I’ve never known any unattached women above perhaps 27, and I don’t know why I would want to start now. Some are married and some are unmarried, but marriage doesn’t mean much anymore so I don’t make much of a distinction. The real difference is in reproduction. The ones without children, as best I can tell, are being strung along by reluctant (long-term) boyfriends/husbands, reluctance I myself share, but not caused by anything to do with the girls but with unpleasant lifestyle and legal ramifications.
Several women I knew in college married men when they were 28 or 34 that they weren’t ever dating to my knowledge.
They just met that special someone, right?
Right.
And he’s lucky to have them.
The men who married early, married muddy.
>I cannot think of Anglin without thinking of his southeast Asian sex tourism
Feminine Imperative in action.
>I cannot see Spencer’s name without thinking of that fancy gay-voice of his and of the rumours that he gargles chode in his off time.
Okay, gotta agree. But I like him, and would like him even if he were confirmed for faggot, because I don’t care about private buttstuff.
>What also comes to my mind are the whisperings that the MGTOW and Altlite communities seem to be pushing strange, Semitic degeneracies, like traps and butt toys.
Nope. Although it’s ironic that MGTOW was actually invented by a homosexual, or perhaps not so much ironic as simply par for the course, but your “whisperings” are made-up.
>a leader for National Socialism that doesn’t induce vomiting
Tbh, Anglin’s problem isn’t that he fucked some nubile sideways vagina back in the day, really, I hope he ravished those Pinay teenage prostitutes (or whatever they were) good and hard. The problem is that he’s a shit orator. He can’t talk – no rhetorical charisma whatsoever. Which brings me to your next point:
>I pray frequently that the next GLR or similar is now coming of age and will one day step up.
Here’s the thing: Anglin isn’t the next Hitler, however, his sheer memetic mass will, by force of gravity, pull into the alt-right the next Hitler. Like Roissy, Anglin has permanently changed the way all of us think about the world. His contribution to the white race’s survival prospects has already been made, and his existence — oratory skills or lack thereof — is truly a heavenly blessing descending during dark times.
[…] – Jim [1] […]