Chicks dig jerks

This is not going to turn into a game blog. Other men are much better at game than I am. I know, because I have seen them in action. On the other hand, I am not just an average f#@#!g chump. I clearly score more than the average f#@#!g chump, and fat and in my sixties I still score more than the average f#@#!g chump, though back when I was very fat, not so much.

I know a man half my age who was a male model and is a lot richer than I am. Girls stop and turn their heads when he walks through the mall. If he stands still, cute girls appear from nowhere and start conversations with him. But then nothing happens. Money and looks gets your foot in the door, but it does not get you laid. His problem is that he is far too nice.

Now a lot of readers of this blog seem to believe that nice, upper class girls, the girls that come from intact families, go to good universities and have supportive upper class fathers are not like that. Being a nice guy will, they think, get you a nice girl.


The girl who started fucking at nine years old, jumped aboard more cocks than merry go round rides, mostly the cocks of criminals, and is still unmarried at thirty five because she is incapable of bonding with any man, is the girl who whose doting intact family spent a shitload of money getting her a good law degree from a good university. And this is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. It is precisely the girl with the good family and a loving father who is disinclined to have sex with the nice guy. Nice guys have a way better shot with girls whose fathers have died or abandoned them. I have tried nice, and I have tried being an asshole, and nice gets mostly gold diggers and a few fatherless girls.

If you want a nice girl, be the bad man. The only society where nice guys get the girl is the society where the patriarch does not allow any non related males near his daughter except the man he has already decided will marry her. (And in such a society she will agree to marry him, because she wants to climb aboard the first plausibly high status cock that she meets, and her Dad treats him as high status and forces her to treat him as high status.) Ballroom dancing is pretty much a ritual to make the males look high status to the girls, so back in the day the system was a girl had a dance card filled out by her father, and was compelled to dance with everyone on the dance card, and be polite and respectful to him, and forbidden to dance with anyone not on the dance card.

But in a society where you can meet chicks without asking their dad to put you on their ballroom dance card, you need to treat chicks like dirt. And you especially need to treat them like trash if you want chicks from intact families who don’t have a number larger than your own.

One of my commenters told me that if I was dating much younger women, I was dating gold diggers. Yes, I have dated gold diggers, lots of gold diggers. But the trouble with gold diggers is that they want the gold, they don’t want to lay me. If I want to lay women, I get far better luck not giving them any gold, at least not until they have been having sex with me for a while without any indication of fidelity or financial support. I would be happy to date gold diggers if I got laid that way, but I don’t get laid that way – OK, I did get laid by one gold digger, but it was part of a plot to commit paternity fraud. Beta provider game just does not work. I know, because I have tried it extensively. You need a little bit of beta provider game, but it has to be part of asshole game, and you don’t turn on the beta provider game until after asshole game has succeeded. The chick needs to think that by laying you, serving you, and obeying you, then she reveals the soft nice guy inside your harsh exterior. Early niceness will lose the chick. Similarly, when you catch a fish, got to give it a hard jerk to set the hook. You let it run only after it is well and truly hooked. There comes a time in the relationship when you need to give her some beta provider game, or else you will lose her. But if you give her beta provider game too soon, too easily, or too much, you will also lose her, to someone who is a much bigger asshole than you are.

If you want a society where men act well, you need a society where men that act well get laid. Thus for civilization, must have patriarchy, and that patriarchy will be very forcefully resisted by women howling for their demon lover, and has to be very forcefully imposed on those women.

How forcefully? Well, England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians. We need to copy eighteenth century England, eighteenth century Virginia, and early nineteenth century Australia. The Old Testament gave women a legal status similar to that of modern day pets, and eighteenth century England was only marginally more progressive than Old Testament Israel. And to the extent that it was marginally more progressive than old Testament Israel, I would argue that this was a big mistake that led to the disaster we now suffer.

Giving women legal status similar to that of pets would have two effects: It would reward civilized behavior, and it would raise fertility to Timor Leste levels. Now some of my commenters are worried about white fertility. If whites were reproducing at Timor Leste levels, pretty soon we would need to conquer inferior races, take their land, and restrain them from reproducing. Oh the horror. Which reasoning seems scarcely different from the proposition that Europeans should restrain their reproduction so that we can benevolently rescue four billion African refugees over the next forty years.


254 Responses to “Chicks dig jerks”

  1. svcet says:

    I would like to thank you for the efforts you have put in writing
    this blog. I’m hoping to view the same high-grade content from you in the
    future as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities
    has motivated me to get my own, personal blog now 😉

  2. Mr. Roboto says:

    I agree with you Jim, we must return to a patriarchal society but with women gone completely insane and with the goverment supporting all their bad behaiviour plus millions of pussy Beta males, it would be nearly impossible. Do you have any ideas of what to do?

    Can you give an example of this: “England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians”

  3. TBeholder says:

    There’s a much simpler hypothesis: the sons who inherit inclination for not sticking with their mates will therefore spread the mother’s genes wider. []
    But neither explains countermeasures – why the woman’s parents would want to interfere with that? Let alone why the man’s parents would fuss much about his prospective wife.

    Another evolutionary theory is The Psychopath Code (by Pieter Hintjens). The assumption is that the context is simply “H.Sapiens are social animals”, and most further adaptations follow from this as an “arms race” of predation and defense.
    This includes why and when “watchdog in-laws” are an useful adaptation.
    Specifically, if we assume that it’s a defense not against a lecher, but rather against a leech, this explains a lot. For one, lechery is inherently asymmetrical, while leeching generally isn’t.

  4. Mister Grumpus says:

    Not topic related, but in good faith I promise you:

    Jim, if I could make just one (more) topic request, it would be your take on the Tet Offensive. See they’re showing the Ken Burns’ PBS (our government TV station) series “The Vietnam War” mini-series over here, and Tet Offensive and the immediate aftermath (Jan-June 1968) was the most recent episode’s subject. I know you’d be able to shed some light on just what the hell happened, and how and why.

    To review:

    Over many many months, the North Vietnamese infiltrate like motherfuckers and use ~80,000 guys to put on this 60-city super-blowout simultaneous offensive and uprising, all over South Vietnam, including the southern capitol city of Saigon. They even busted into the US embassy for a while.

    But they lost badly. The South Viet army didn’t defect, and the citizens didn’t Rise Up Against the Imperialist Invaders. Tens of thousands dead vs only hundreds on the American side.

    BUT! As it’s told today anyway, immediately afterward, it’s as if most of America all said “fuck it” at the same time. LBJ decides not to run for re-election, Bobby Kennedy runs to exit the war, General Westmoreland is “fired upward” and pulled back to D.C. to be Chief of Staff, etc.

    With only a C-minus NRX education, I can still manage look back on this, notice the incongruity, and ask “wait a minute, just what the hell was THAT?”

    Some kind of sorcery just went down here. Someone had just memed X into not-X, across the entire world.

    It’s as if the Cathedral (or do I mean the Blue Empire?) pulled ITS OWN last-ditch blow-out Tet Offensive too, on the protest/media/status plane, and somehow successfully re-framed a major victory as the sure sign that victory was impossible.

    “Whatever the hell just happened and whoever the hell did it, they did it EXTREMELY well.”

    So anyway. Thinking like a “square” it makes no sense, but to a hip cat like yourself, it probably does makes sense, and I’d love to get your perspective. Surely there’s lessons learned there that apply to current and future events also. Thanks in advance.

    • Alrenous says:

      “Even though the Vietcong were materially defeated in detail, they won the moral victory, says Robert Greene:”
      (With apologies to Isegoria.)

    • jim says:

      Yes, I will post on that soon. What happened in Vietnam is made clear by what happened in Cambodia. The meaning of Tet offensive is revealed by the fall of Cambodia – basically it demonstrates the blue empire’s willingness to go genocidal.

      Vietnam and Cambodia were proxy wars between the blue empire and the red empire.

      See the secret of Anti Americanism.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        OK great. It’s a “teachable moment” for sure because many people are searching on “Tet Offensive” right now because just like me, they saw that same PBS show as I just watched and are wondering “Wait, HUH?”

        You would have been proud of me though for recognizing this at least:

        Once the shooting really started in 1963-64, Ho Chi Minh wasn’t really in charge anymore on the Communist side. Rather, he had been “out-run”/”out-lefted” by another fellow Le Duan. It was Le Duan who made the Tet offensive happen, namely by Purging the more Ho-leaning leadership who were like “Whoa whoa whoa hang on a minute, I ‘got a bad feeling about this.”

        So Le Duan was more comfortable with killing down Vietnamese than Ho was, in order to make a point. And that point, as best as I can make out, was “Do what I want Uncle Sam or the Vietnamese villagers get it.” Human shielding. Civilizational chicken. And “our side” flinched.


        Earlier in the series, before the Tet episode, I’m looking at all that bloodshed and destruction, I had the murky pre-thought realization:

        “FUCK those commies were smart. All those dead Viets, all that treasure of ours, and all of our best (White) guys getting killed or driven crazy, and it cost them what? Some gasoline, AK-47’s, 7-62, and a few anti-aircraft missiles? Would the Chinese or Russians send their best guys to storm up those beaches and scrap through those tunnels? No they wouldn’t. DAMN how they played us — and the everyday Viets too — right from the beginning.”

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Anyway, I can’t wait Jim. There’s a big demographic out here watching this The Vietnam War series right now — it finishes this week — some of whom are Noticing that something funny is going on.

        The iron is hot!

  5. Iviking says:

    If I were king I would have you all in the dungeon.Its a fucking sewer of subversion of everything good down here. No jim 9 year olds are not little secret sluts, that even goes against the reactionary HBD white late out marriage causes morbid altruism theory.It certainly goes against conservation of whats differentiated white people and made us successful. No not because Im a cuck christian country club republican because outside this sewer thats still the norm,and while its not the norm to the same extent in liberal areas and forget what nigger races do they shouldnt even be here.But its mostly the norm despite a 100 year intensive jew campaign to un norm it.Granted what the jews couldn’t propagandize they are making better progress with just cultivating niger culture through forced integration and government seizure of parental rights and the campaign to lower whites incomes with which they can counter this. So while it could be turned around its existential threat.
    All this larping about kings and neocam patches and off world Elysiums is utter utter utter faggotry we will be long dead before anything like that happens.To larp on about that shit for a decade because some clever jew flattered you into thinking you were a breath away from restoration Lords is fucking moronic.
    This is not different its same old same old thing civilizations face, well its different in the sense we have become parasitical hosts for the jews and they conquer a bit differently than your aver empire challenger.But it matter not the answer is still and always will be WAR or DIE.I should say or be enslaved, there’s one thing moldy jew was correct about , the parasitic Matrix jews dont want to entirely kill us just hook us up to their matrix and bleed us infinitem while murdering and humiliating our dissenters in front of us. The elite you wish to win over are half jews and half race traitors who are well paid or hopelessly brainwashed.Its never going to happen, you will be repeatedly led down the garden path your reactionary hearts swelling with anticipation that Davos will pop the question this time, only to have davos say he cant date a nazi and we have to break up.This We are not nazis shtick is never going to work, because you are fucking nazis.a nazi is against jew rule that was true in the 30s and its true now, nazis recognize HBD and reality. Thats all verboten nazis. All you are is another version of conservative whining about the lefts logic being internally inconsistent and not aligning with reality, Guess what they know that its a feature not a bug.War is what civilizations that have the will to survive do.But you all are total faggots I bet not one in a thousand neoreactionaries has ever punched someone in the face.And as a culture we are sick with parasites and the jews inject us with more every day. The reality is critique what you want about the nazis socialism and other faults they at least got the central issue correct, european culture was under attack and the center of the poison was coming from jews. argue all you want about how fertile sectors of white culture was for the jew poison matter not they too must die anyway. They are not going to collapse, there is no where to exit, if there were they wouldn’t let you go,you are their matrix animals.Your monarchy exit neocam larps are RED herring thrown by a jew so you dont do the semsible thing all humans that want to survive do , fight. And no , Im not suggesting you take to the woods with you AKs you havnt any AKs and the woods are full white men with AKs that have been in fights and are just waiting for the signal. Your job neck beards is to blow up the death star or whatever its called Im sure you neckbeards have many neckbeard cultural references. you need to hack into their data com and establish ability to interfere,leak, disrupt, shutdown,corrupt,and pwn for our own use. We know this is possible because leftists have done it to some extent. Infiltrating those leftists might be a place to start.
    You need to build the anti cathedral, we need to build secure and harden our own institutions. Instead of signalling like a faggot that anglin is a vulgar wrecker you should have been able to respond to the jews shutting him and others down with hardened hosting services, banking services, and secure and private communications structure.I have been saying this for a decade, instead you wasted it on fancy websites with neo fascist art and think pieces straight out of the heritage and hoover foundations.You’re not going to out talk a jew, you need to drive him out of your nations body physically.
    But if you had the hardened institutions you could set the table for war. You need to be thinking about how to divide and conquer before hostilities begin.Your god emperor is a fool but hes an idiot savant in as much as he pointed out to people even as dense as your neckbeard selves, The left is at the point where its vulnerable, its had to abandon parts of itself to transition to next levels, while whining to the left itself about its inconsistencies is pointless. It is a good time to turn the tables on the left and divide their supporters, the alt right and others are doing a decent job you could be a lot more useful both by not fighting and by offering well considered thought on strategy those of you who are capable of intelligent thought, for instance one could have predicted making a stand on the confederates in the south was not a good idea when even the left was getting a bit uncomfortable with calling charles murray a nazis and driving off the likes of camille paglia. Berkeley was an ideal setup to take down antifa and ask the nazis nicely to come incognito and play cuckserves.well point is theres some work to be done before killing them and driving them out and it needs to be centrally o ordinated at as sophisticated a level as they have.

    • jim says:

      There is no secret that starting at age nine or ten, girls are romantically interested in older men, and we have a whole entertainment industry catering that interest.

      You assume that their interest is always pure and chaste.

      Societies that are serious about keeping girls virgin begin the heavy handed repression at age nine or so.

      This business about “pedophiles” is just the standard bunkum that Dalrock complains about: That any bad conduct by women is automatically the fault of men.

      No, bad conduct by women is always the fault of women, in the sense that the remedy for bad conduct by women is always supervision and control by male authority, male authority empowered to punish misbehaving women.

      Any society that uses drastic means to control female sexuality also has child marriage, because it needs child marriage as a backup plan when efforts to control female sexuality fail at a very early age.

      We cannot successfully reproduce until marriage is an enforceable contract.

      We cannot make marriage an enforceable contract unless we bring women under control.

      We cannot bring women under control until we stop blaming men for all the bad things women do.

      Which means, like other societies which have a high total fertility rate, we need come down hard and start repressing female sexuality starting at age nine or so, stop girls from howling for their demon lover, and make sure that they only contact males who are willing and able to marry them. And we cannot do that until we stop blaming men for it.

      • Iviking says:

        I guess you’re trolling me, because your assertion anywhere but on this blog and the dark web would elicit a call to you know who. We may have a jew run entertainment industry TRYING to elicit that but it doesnt work except on niggers who are like that anyway. The only girls who are even seriously sexually interested and or possibly active 3-5 year later than that at 13/14 have been abused. As I and other have already explained several times sexual maturity is a process not an event, and its going to be expressed in a range that varies by individuals and races,maybe you can show 5% of thirteen year old girls are actually active consistently through out history of whites.well (and I just made that up as a for instance) then we would say 5% is enough to design our culture to keep secure.
        No the business about pedophiles is not standard bunkem, its both legally and technically a fact:

        ” Historical records show that puberty in girls in the United States and Europe changed dramatically from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. In the first part of the 20th century, the average age at menarche declined by two to three months each decade, falling from about 17 to 13, in both the United States and Europe. However, those changes are largely attributed to better health, nutrition and medical care among children.

        The average age of menstruation hasn’t changed much since the 1970s. Today, the average age of menarche in the United States is 12.6 among white girls, 12.1 for black girls and 12.2 for Mexican-American girls. Although rates vary slightly between countries, European girls, on average, also begin menstruating between the ages of 12 and 13, according to a 2007 report from the Breast Cancer Fund.”

        Your theory is 3-4 years into the biological pedophilia territory and 6-9 into the into the illegal definition.But its even worse you are not going to win anyone over with this even if it were 100% true, racism is nothing compared to this topic.And its so unnecessary and counter productive, youre trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist in a way that will create the problem that doesnt exist. we dont have 9 year old whores jim but if you were to get your crazy idea passed milo – I mean jim, you would create a situation where innocent children were passed around by adult men like in rotherham Oh and they would be pretty fucked up little lolitas after a year or so of that.
        Bad conduct of women is certainly their own reponsibility 9 and 10 year olds are not women by any stretch of the imagination they are are not teenagers not tweenagers theyre practically toddlers.
        WE are not discussing and I am not scolding about say the fact that by 15 and 16 there quite a good percentage of girls that at least look fully formed and may be acting for real or play acting but who can tell like they’re trying to attract, and men are gonna notice and to a point that’s just a fact that we wink about among ourselves. But unless we are really stupid 23 year olds we don’t do more than that wink or half a smirk thing before putting it out of our minds,well because its illegal and its illegal because we decided to make it illegal because of our experience raising children over thousands of years and whats changed in that time. If youre an extraordinarilly gifted and mature 19 year old and want to marry my 16 year old and have the means and character and 100 acres I might consider it, and its legal inmost states if I agree thats reasonable and not unheard of i places like idaho where a young man might by 19 have proved up on the farm or logging operation to the point his dad would bond him for me. But we are talking about very mature kids in places like that kids that from age ten have had firearms, that legally drive at 14, that have worked from the time they could stand, and who every other word out of their mouth is sir. But thats not what youre talking about at all.
        It also has zero to do with the real problems you attempt to conflate. marriage or maybe just child custody has to be at the very least equitable for men.Frankly I dont want a bitch thats not into me but I do want my kids.Those that want both could probably have both by just being able to prevent her from taking the children and demanding support. But as you know I have zero problem with men maintaining authority over their children until they grant them permission to marry, I certainly have said a thousand times women should not be allowed a vote. Fucking 9 year olds has nothing to do with that in fact it goes against my parental authority, its the faggots and jews and feminists that want to have 9 year olds fucking jim. Not reactionary fathers. Pretty sure any truly reactionary system is only giving voice to fathers and if you can get them to allow you to buy their 9 year old well I suggest you dont ask but if a father did that pretty sure its the last thing he would do asnd you as well for that matter- you know why – BECAUSE WE ARE NOT NIGGERS

        • Iviking says:

          It is worth finding out why menarche is coming sooner is it better diet crap in the environment, whatever it is its working against what we are doing culturally,

          what if its some epigenetic (don’t start i know but there some truth to it) reaction to the older women not having children. You can go days in cities without seeing a child, its almost a certainty seeing a child releases some shit in your body, maybe if you don’t see enough children it lowers the age of puberty.

          • jim says:

            I don’t think menarche is coming substantially sooner. I think estimates of menarche in earlier times are false. Breast growth is coming substantially sooner, but that simply a reflection of people being fat. Menarche in middle easterners has been twelve or so since the earliest times.

          • Dave says:

            On average, girls who live with their fathers experience menarche one year later than girls who don’t. This relates to r/K selection; humans select a fast-breeding r- or a slow-breeding K-strategy based on environmental cues. Fathers not sticking around is a sign that the environment is one of resource abundance, therefore an r-strategy is most appropriate.

            It’s very frustrating to be a K-strategist in a swipe-yo-EBT r-environment, and downright lethal to be an r-strategist in a you-no-work-you-no-eat K-environment.

        • jim says:

          even if it were 100% true, racism is nothing compared to this topic.

          Because women can do nothing wrong, and if women do something wrong, it is all the fault of some evil man.

          I repeat. We cannot reproduce until we re-legalize marriage. We cannot re-legalize marriage until we start holding women responsible for their bad behavior and are thus willing to coercively stop them. Only thus can we enforce the marriage contract on both women and men. And a necessary part of holding women responsible for their bad behavior is holding very young girls responsible for their bad behavior so that we can coercively stop them.

          Every society that keeps women under control, starts quite forcefully restraining their sexuality at age nine or ten, and when this fails, shotgun marrying them at age nine or ten.

          That girls are sexless until they reach socially approved ages is part of the doctrine that women can do nothing wrong.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      Pedohysteria is bad for your psyche, viking. You should chill and let me babysit your teenage daughter. 🙂

      • Iviking says:

        she would kick the living shit out of you

        • jim says:

          You are being silly. No woman can kick the living shit out of a man, notwithstanding the holy doctrine you see promoted in every single movie and television show. Even in forms of combat that do not rely on physical strength, like shooting, women are woefully bad.

          • Iviking says:


            Not what I said.

            What I said is that in the great majority of cases of sex between an adult man and a girl with too young to have nice boobs, the sexual aggressor, the one who primarily caused the incident, is the girl, and the girl is going after some man with massive preselection by adult females, thus some man who is not particularly interested in very young girls.

            Sadly Jim not lying

            I wont bother going through and quoting it all from the past several months we have arguedyet again, the above paragraph will do.

            You have just said yet again that when a prepubescent 9 year old girl Or whatever you want to quibble about what “too young to have nice boobs”means, this link says 8-9 and you have used 9 repeatedly.

            That when an adult man has sex with such 9 year old girls “in the vast majority of such cases she is the aggressor the one primarily responsible for the sex”

            Not only is this patently absurd, a toral fucking lie that only a sick pervert believes but its factually legally not possible. Children do not have legal authority to grant consent.All adults know this even teenage boys know this.What you are arguing is that adult men do not have the faculty of self restraint in the face of 9 year old sluts to obey the law obey the biological instincts even animals (except nigger) obey, But that get this ( year old girls do have the intellectual capacity to seduce these men even without the biological triggers women are given to arouse men. year olds all powerful adult men helpless. If you have read Lolita and the criminal reports about pedophiles this is exactly what they think that 9 year olds are seducing them and they are helpless.Obviously you actually believe this enough to destroy yourself on this, being a recovering drunk I have some sympathy for the insanity of addiction though I am very skeptical you or anyone inherited this trait so no doubt someone interfered with you and you chose over time to nurture that rather than reject it. Whatever trust me on this the percentage of men who would give credence to the above paragraph of yours is equal to the amount of pedophiles.Dont convince yourself the commenters on this blog are representative sample of sane humans.I have noticed a lot of new commenters since you started down this track and the saner one have called you on it as well or not parsed what you actually say very well. we all give you a wide margin of error because of your talent and style of writing. You also are appealing to guys rejected and angry at women and conflating legitimate problems with this crap. 9 year olds are not 16 year olds and 16 year olds are still illegal.The reason why men who have sex with 16 year old seductresses get no sympathy is not because people dont understand 16 year olds might already be sexually active or that 16 year olds might not practice their womanly skills on an adult man; everyone gets this jim (about 16 year olds) they get no sympathy because it is expected, and men are expected to be able to be men, as opposed to teenage boys who we usually give a pass on 16 year old girls. Because we think we made the correct call at which age to draw the line and regardless as log as its the line what kind of fucked up criminal cant obey the law, if he cant obey this law what other laws can he not obey. You see the problem Jim? theres plenty of adult women what is so hard about not fucking children? Now some states have recognized that a technically adult male at 18-21 or so is very close in age to a 15-17 year old girl and so despite those men being adults they have come up with formulas and exceptions to the rape laws that would normally apply. It makes some sense but probably weakens a parents power to force marriage which should be a coercive threat to both girl and boy contemplating teen sex. The fact isas we have modernized teen sex becomes much less a good idea yet more likely thus sex ed. All this is reasonable if dumb ass liberals at least trying to address issues. Your rants have nothing to do with this topic or the topic of divorce inequality feminism cock carousels etc though when called on it you attempt to front. But as the above paragraph clearly shows and I have repeatedly got you to clarify, you are in fact talking about 9 year old children seducng helpless adult men.

            Ok well its your blog your reputation, its a sort of free country, I can see youre not backing down and mean exactly what you keep saying, and that enough people here seem god with that so I guess i’ll just take my bourgeois morals down the road while you forge the new Islamic conservatism or whatever you call it. feel free to lock me out I wont be back

            • jim says:

              Not only is this patently absurd, a toral fucking lie that only a sick pervert believes but its factually legally not possible. Children do not have legal authority to grant consent.

              The law may forbid the tides to rise, the law may repeal the law of supply and demand, and the law may define women as incapable of lust, but the tides will still rise, prices will continue to be set (illegally) by supply and demand, and women and girls will continue to behave lustfully.

              When the ruler makes laws that contradict natural law, absurdity ensues.

              The law may say that everything is the fault of men, and nothing is the fault of women, but reality is what it is.

              Female consent is meaningless, regardless of the age of the woman, because women are irrational, and because the decision to have sex is not made consciously and is not under conscious rational control. That does not make women into angels, but into animals. It is a reason for keeping women on leashes, metaphorical and literal, not a reason for letting them go feral.

            • jim says:

              What you are arguing is that adult men do not have the faculty of self restraint in the face of 9 year old sluts to obey the law

              If a girl wants to get laid, she will find someone. If you restrain respectable middle class men, she will find a gang leader and drug dealer, and as a result gangs and drugs will seem cool, lawbreakers will seem cool. You need to control women, not men.

              Focussing on the evil middle aged male pedophile is a distraction. Evil middle aged pedophiles do not get laid. Evil middle aged ice dealers and gang leaders have fresh pussy daily, literally dropping on their lap, some of that fresh pussy a bit on the young side.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          Not if I rape her with a knife. 🙂

          • alf says:

            Is this meant to be funny? I don’t see how it’s funny.

            Funny world that out of all regular commenters here, Peppermint makes most sense.

          • Cavalier says:

            Seek psychological help.

          • Iviking says:

            I take it Im deep inside your head huh? Good faggot. LOLOLOLOLOL

            Girls don’t like you huh? Micro penis? are you really short? Fat? could it be that winning personality? You know I can think of guys Ive known with all those problems that still got laid, so instead of whining on reddit and fourchan about how these bitches dont appreciate a proportionately sized cock on a really small guy with the personality of rumpelstiltskin; maybe you should solve the real problem.
            You have a weak mind, and those girls are in your head just like I am whispering what a worthless little faggot you are and your weak mind just cant help but believe the voices in your head and the girls and the guys they smell the fear the low self worth, the shit and sweat on you. why would they want to have anything to do with you when you wnt nothing to do with you.
            Maybe you should end it. Think about it its only going to get worse as you age your shame will only putrefy. Its bad to be a broke pimply millennial faggot, but at least peole might think youre young and will figure it out, but you know thats not true youre just going to get old on top of all the rest, internally it will get worse too because youll know its not them its you its who you are what you you chose to become and cant even now escape. If you end it now at least you get that tragedy of early suicide thing. I know you are too cowardly to do it yourself but get a nigger or a cop to do it for you. look think about it. Just saying its only going to get worse and become more clearly you not them. go now while you can make a exit that leaves some doubt that maybe maybe you were more than a shitstain in the draws of humanity

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Do you actually want to be in my head? It would take me about 6 months to turn your life to shit *permanently*, but why would you want that? If you had my dox, there would be nothing you could do with it. Well, I have your dox, and I’m a super autistic and super obsessive internet magician.

              But I won’t actually do it, because I have greater projects.

              Just answer this yes/no question: do you *want* to be in my head?

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            My tolerance for male supported female violence is zero, and if you don’t want me to joke about torturing your family to death, grow a sack and threaten me with your own might and not with that of your slut daughter.

            If he said “touch her and I will kill you,” it’d be expected. Saying that a teen slut can beat me calls for a shocking escalation of verbal back and forth.

            Obviously it’s all rhetoric. A genuine threat would be to sink down viking’s real life reputation by sundry “effective” means, but this is totally unwarranted… he’s nobody. Hence family torture jokes would suffice, and Ted Bundy is a great inspiration. 🙂

            Take care.

      • Iviking says:

        which is why her pet name is Viking princess
        BTW its bad form to make personal remarks even online, as men we allow them about each other not family

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >its bad form to make personal remarks even online, as men we allow them about each other not family

          “P-please stop talking about my dear princess.”

          Too late fucktard; shouldn’t have repeatedly mentioned your teen daughter in online conversations about pedophilia.

          Let this be a lesson in… common sense.

          • Iviking says:

            The only person you’re kidding is yourself faggot.

            This is not an internet conversation about pedeiphilia despite your best efforts to drag it down to that level. Its one of the founding reactionary blogs about western culture. As part of that conversation it discusses with NRX adherents and those willing to engage respectfully and intelligently even if critically with nrx thought aspects of social culture critical to the right ordering of society. Gender realism being one of the most common.
            You instead champion pdedophillia under the guys if fighting the cucked father its bullshit youre just some piece of shit the feds are going to imprison one day and well they should.
            I did not involve the rhetorical concept of my daughter except to point out that I have the perspective of a father which obviously most here including jim it seems do not. I also have the perspective of someone who has had hundreds of women, and who has been righter than 95% of reactionaries and alt rightists all the way back to the early 70s forward to today. So while you can attempt to paint me as some born again christian cucked father its clear from every thing I write nothing can be farther from the truth, Im to the right of all of you. I am however not here to score troll points, or shock the bourgeoisie out of their spiritual malaise that ended when I grew up sometime in the 80s, Im here to rebuild western civilization in a sustainable way in the modern world. So larping about Jewrun space colonies and selling off 9 year old girls to faggots like you is really a non starter. If you cant understand why youre simply a fucking moron.

            So while it might get the likes of you off emotionally to sputter ridiculous inanities to sate the impotent rage you feel about being a useless piece of shit who’s never gotten your dick wet in a real girl and lives off your parents to troll the grownups with your outrage porn, while sympathetic o your plight you are getting in the way.

            Pedeophillia come into this discussion because it seems jim is in fact a pediphile and has quite a following of pedphiles in his blog. I have repeatedly tried to give him the space to qualify his writing as bombast, as rhetorical as exaggerated as theoretical, he only keeps lowering the age at which he claims to have personal knowledge of children coming on to him sexually. This is too bad as jim is sort of a one of the founders of reactionary thought but we all have our faults Im a drunk hes a chomo. I wish he wouldn’t involve reaction in his degeneracy, because despite its cucky larping I still have some hope might find its way to some reasonable social thinking.If you pedophiles could even give a good reason to allow your behavior I would listen, but the fact FACT is there is no good reason, there is no such thing as slutty 9 year olds only pedophiles imagine that 9 year olds are flirting with them, there is no market for having sex with 9 year olds except among the pedos, there certainly are no fathers lining up to marry their 9 year olds to pedos and while women should not vote in this theoretical world we are attempting to design its naive to think they will not find a way to have some influence and they too are not going to be on board with your degenerate fantasy. And this is not merely a misunderstanding as I had hoped, Jim and his fellow pedos on here are not mistaking 16 year old girls as possible wives, not even 14 year old wives which I think might be still legal in one state and several countries with parental consent, No you are FIVE FUCKING YEARS SHY OF A 14 YEAR OLD YOU SICK FUCKING DEGENERATES. The only people in the world who practice this sort of shit are fringes of nigger societies. So pretending this is somehow conservative reactionary rebuilding of western civilization is bullshit, its just some loser perverts lusting after children. You know this is true none of you would dare utter a word of this n the real world, you wouldn’t even utter a word of this in the reactionary and alt right blogosphere, no one not the anti human Nick land not the sex addicted heartiste, not the hatefulest of the nazis,or the most theoretical of the far right, would countenance this for a second, and you know it which is why this has been the center of it.

            One of my biggest criticism of NRx is its larpyness its been a decade or more since modbug and nothing concrete to offer as a substitute to cathedral and cuckserves, one of the examples of the dearth of concrete social design was how would NRx patriarchy differ from other forms of historical or cultural patriarchy or would it and why, and how do you get there. The answer here it seems is we are going to copy nigger afghanistan if we can find your 9 year old and capture it we are going to rape it and assert it was a slut that asked for it and you shouldn’t have let it out of your sight. Brilliant I think thats going to work just fine Im sure the american and european volk will jump at the chance to live in that world and the generations brought up in that culture are going to thrive and rule the world as whites ought.
            NOT- your a bunch of sick fucking scumbag morons

            • peppermint says:

              Idea people think that since children already know about sex and sometimes do what would be sex acts with each other if they were adults, they must be sexually mature and need to be married.

              Particularly esotericist idea people even get excited about the idea of child porn the way they get excited about other banned ideas.

              Non-idea people find child porn intrinsically revolting and sexual attention from a child intrinsically embarrassing, make sure their fly is zipped when they interact with children and yell at children for using sexual language that they then laugh about when the children are out of earshot.

              Meanwhile, all Jim is saying is that nine year old girls get super excited about the romantic moments in Disney movies that adults roll their eyes at, and that famous 4chan camwhore isn’t the only 11 year old protothot showing her boobs on the Internet, so that’s the age at which parents need to start making sure their little girls are staying out of trouble. Which is flatly true and everyone instinctively reognizes it even though, due to the SSSM, they have to pretend it’s to preserve their pure sexual innocence.

              • Iviking says:

                No Pep thats not what Jim means I have repeatedly begged him to say he means something theoretical that is being misinterpreted. I and others have severally explained that childrens sexually development is a process that takes many years and that little girls likeing disney princess romances is not evidence of them actually being little whores that want to be fucked. But he will never admit this, instead he lowers the age and amplifies the atrocities he claims are justified.

                You can feign that as i said to the retard, Im a parochial christian cuck, but Im neither, Im more than willing to theoretically entertain subversive ideas if they serve a purpose, Im no prude to deviant humor, and I have no problem with the fact that men are attracted to girls once they have physically matured even if they have not mentally, and though we have decided as a culture to abstain.
                I can and just did right above entertain girls marrying at 16 could be just fine, and though I dont think 14 is a good idea I admit in some barbaric places its legal.

                No one around here has to tell me what the anti male laws are regarding child custody and divorce, I have paid the price of those laws dearly.
                No I’m Not an anti intellectual prude, if anything Im a jaded depraved child of the 60s from NYC, In fact Im so jaded and familiar with the Podesta type that I think a lot of you are romanticizing and being naive, it is in fact the evil it is claimed by the christian type cucks even they are right occasionally. You have just grown up in a depraved world and have no bearing, Jim doesn’t have that excuse.

                While having raised children I don’t see any evidence that children liking disney movies is at all sexual I dont think they have any idea what sex is they do not make a connection between sex and the storyline if anything those story lines are attempting to train them into early sexual awareness and doesn’t really work unless someone interferes with them. And that is but one of a hundred ways we have recently begun to sexualize children way before they need or can really be short of raping them out of innocence. we bombard them with lurid media and politicalization of every form of sexual deviancy, then we educate by fear them about what might happen to them now we have normalized the deviants.we use them for models and buy them grownup costumes because it amuses our jaded appetites to see children dressed sexually, it makes us feel sophisticated. we could write a book and Im sure people have about what we now do. It doesn’t make it right it doesn’t make us sophisticated or clever just deviants. I get it I grew up in it I was one of those types of people, Im not a born again christian Im a recovering drug addict and alcoholic, I have seen it all shit you have no idea even exists and I know where it starts and I know how it ends. and Im telling you.
                But as I said doesnt matter what i think never in a thousand years do jims ideas on this go anywhere but further niggerization its certainly nothing a reactionary or conservative would be interested in

                • Cavalier says:

                  I believe you, but I would like to hear more on this:

                  >In fact Im so jaded and familiar with the Podesta type that I think a lot of you are romanticizing and being naive, it is in fact the evil it is claimed


                  >I have seen it all shit you have no idea even exists and I know where it starts and I know how it ends. and Im telling you.

                  Because I would like more than a wisp of suggestion.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >which is why her pet name is Viking princess

          Is that what she calls herself when she posts home-made amateur porn online?

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          When she hangs out with her “girl friends” she’s actually sucking cock.

          Come at me, you OPSEC-deprived nigger.

          • Iviking says:

            Obviously youre one of those internet superheros, well if hiding behind a keyboard and cursing people out gets you off have at it. Its just it makes you look like the 16 year old moron and a degenerate you are and you obviously want to be sen as an adult,but then again there not really hope youll be taken seriously so have your fun.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              >hiding behind a keyboard

              Again, knowing me won’t help you.

              Tell you what: I’ll add “bringing down viking” somewhere in my busy, busy schedule, and if a few months from now my mild annoyance turns un-mild, you’ll get what you’re asking for.

              That your daughter is a semen-slurping slut is a valid point, because you seem to think that teenage women are all pure angels, and that your own daughter is a particularly chaste special snowflake. In fact she swallows more cock than you’ve taken in alcohol. It’s better that I tell you this now, than you finding it out when she’s pregnant from a nigger or Jeremy Meeks. See, I’m motivated by altruism. Anyway, I’m using you as an example to prove certain points, just as I’ve been using B when he was posting here.

              You better start believing in possibly very ominous internet dramas… you’re in one.

              • Iviking says:

                9 year olds are not teenage girls asshole, you say you dont support male supported violence against women, yet youre in a conflict with me precisely because in fact you are supporting a man who is in fact repeatedly stating that 9 year old girls can not be raped because they are sluts who ask for it. I have cut and pasted his quotes repeatedly and asked for him to reconsider because I used to have respect for the guy.

                You I dont know except inexplicably you seem to have taken my objection to these statements personally and continually mischaracterize what I have said to justify your defense of these obscene ideas. There is nothing even vaguely cuckservative or liberal about anything I have said, like jim you rephrase my actual words with bulshit like I “think all teen girls are pure angels”
                When in fact I was was talking about 9 year old girls not teen girls and never claimed anyone to be a mythical creature that doesnt exist, rather said 9 year old girls are not little sluts except in the minds of chomos, I did at one point admit if chomos were to repeatedly rape a 9 yr old girl she might appear to be a “slutty little lolita”, No where though did I argue that teen girls were angels, some are some are not most are the product of how they were treated, 9 year old girls I feel safe in asserting are pretty uniformly more or less angels. I have said so many times and in so many ways thats feminism and sure if you want white knight ism is extremely destructive and we must change radically. So you cant simply be trolling a libcuck. I doubt you are actually a pedo like jim so my guess is youre simply an ashole thats got caught in a comment war and lost your sense of proportion that you are now making threats. What I find most disturbing actually is that Jim is allowing this to go on which tells me he is in fact a pedo and is angry with me for calling him on it.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Okay, I’m back from “should I invest hours upon hours into destroying him sadistically” to “lol who cares.”

                  Let me explain myself anyway: “male supported female violence” means that you think your dear teenage princess can do no wrong, hence if I babysit her, obviously I’ll molest her against her will (I’m a “big scary pedophile,” after all), and as such, she should beat the shit out of me. To which my reply about raping her with a knife was issued, to tell you that I don’t take kindly to… male supported female violence. The message is: you can believe she — who is a teenager, not 9 y/o — is angelic, but not that she’s invincible. If you think she’s invincible, you’re playing with fire. The other commenters were shocked, but I don’t care – I believe that “the cruelest measures are sometimes the kindest,” and so my brutality is justified, in this particular case. It conveys the point, at any rate.

                  Of course, I don’t rape people with knives, in fact my life details would make the guys here drop their jaws to the floor in disbelief, but y’know – rhetoric.

                  For the record, I don’t think Jim is a real pedo. I think young girls (or one specific girl) have attempted to have sex with him, or with someone else he knows, and he bases his convictions around that. My own experiences confirm his, and no, I didn’t fuck little kids. Note: I’m not saying that the *typical* 9 y/o wants the dick. But there are some interesting cases out there.

                  If you actually care about your family, be more discrete about your biography (and about theirs). You’ve practically shared every last detail of it on this blog – not smart!

                • jim says:


                  Not what I said.

                  What I said is that in the great majority of cases of sex between an adult man and a girl with too young to have nice boobs, the sexual aggressor, the one who primarily caused the incident, is the girl, and the girl is going after some man with massive preselection by adult females, thus some man who is not particularly interested in very young girls.

  6. ron says:

    “But in a society where you can meet chicks without asking their dad to put you on their ballroom dance card, you need to treat chicks like dirt. And you especially need to treat them like trash if you want chicks from intact families who don’t have a number larger than your own.”

    This made me consider something. What if women who are uncontrolled by their fathers, actually ARE dirt? What if that is the actually point? If a man cannot control his daughter and wife, then he is a powerless man. If she comes from a powerless man, then she is a lowlife. It doesn’t mean she can’t trade up, but right at this moment, she actually is garbage.

  7. Truth says:

    Unreal: For the past six months, many of us thought that Trump might be losing his mind. Now we learn that James Comey flat-out lied under oath about wiretapping Trump Tower:

    • jim says:

      I never doubted that Trump was illegally and criminally wire tapped. (It seems that the legal basis was that Manafort was a Russian agent, which obviously he was not)

      Now the question is, can they get away with it. If they can get away with it, then we are already in a security state, one where the spy agencies have the power – which is a natural outcome of the permanent government ignoring the merely temporary government.

  8. Wagner says:

    How did the Queen Caroline thing even happen, Jim? You seem to be saying “look past this one inconsistency and the rest of the theory works”. Victorian England apparently had an internal flaw that provided the conditions for the emergence of feminism, so why go back there? If anything shouldn’t we be using as a definitive model a place and time where that didn’t happen? If we set up the West with the same ideals as Victorian England fifty years before your designated arch poz catastrophe why couldn’t we expect it to go to hell fifty years later?

    I hate the idea as much as you guys but if we want to avoid a relapse into our present gynocracy we should stop pretending that some level of feminism in white women just fell out of the sky one day. Our male ancestors gave feminism to women – they must have, do you think they thought it up on their own? And why did they give it to them? The emerging right has the facade of pining for a tardwife but you know we all just want to dominate and screw left-lib women. Tardwives are boring, they’re like organic sexbots. No thrill. I like when women screw with my head, because with no challenge there’s no reward. Not to mention the challenge itself is one of the few things that make life worth living. Dutiful mormon girls will guarantee a continuation of one’s line but how weak and mentally slow do you have to be to actually be content living with such a moron for 50+ years day after day night after night. Going with the strategy of instilling women with a level of docility fit for a backwards muslim girl is just setting lots of us who like a perpetual adventurous tension with women up to cheat on our wives. We like arguing with women, it’s fun and makes us hard.

    White women aren’t as stupid as the women of the various dirt races. We should be proud of our women, WE trained them well. We just went too far – they’re becoming so free that it’s no fun anymore. We took the gamble of making them freer to give US harder boners but they’ve crossed a line where they’re too much like men (and worse, aren’t men but believe themselves to be).

    Another thing that didn’t fall out of the sky magically one day was the negative aura around “reactionaries”. Our prog ancestors of old were getting depressed from living with complete idiots and having those complete idiots raise their sons and they got the brilliant idea, Hey maybe we should let them read our Ovid one night a week instead of the Bible, maybe then they’ll have something interesting to say for once and lo and behold a spark of consciousness manifested in our organic sexbots and all of a sudden we were bickering with them, pwning them in conversation, then pwning them in the sack and we were a lot happier for it. Women now read de Beauvoir 7 days a week instead of Ovid 1 and that’s why we have problems. Ragheads might like idiots for wives, but I’m not going to ever love an idiot, I’d rather go with the whiskey and whores method than with an idiot, Jim.

    • jim says:

      > How did the Queen Caroline thing even happen, Jim?

      Whigs went into Bush Derangement mode when the Regent refused to allow them to vote him regent, and then into Trump derangement mode when he vetoed a bill to emancipate Catholics (which would have destroyed the Church of England as a state church.

      The are still half insane about him appointing himself Regent by divine right. They have not recovered.

      To destroy the power of the monarchy and the power of the established church, the Whigs launched or greatly escalated a holiness spiral. Which got out of control and continues to this day.

      Whigs argue that aristocrats are being bad to women. Therefore women are saints. Existing doctrine was that a good woman is precious and should be treated well, which is correct when combined with the doctrine that good women are rare, and female sexuality is dangerous, volcanically powerful, and apt to lead to women doing terrible things.

      Whigs were upset by the fact that Regent, on rare occasions, exercised the power of the King to overrule parliament. To get leverage out of the fact that the Regent was treating his no good slut wife extremely badly, escalated the holy doctrine of treating women well, to the even holier doctrine that all women behaved well and doubting this was extremely wicked. So Queen Caroline, being a woman, could not possibly have it coming to her.

      Since all women were supposedly naturally chaste, (even whores were supposedly forced into it by evil men) coercive controls against women were relaxed, immediately resulting in disastrous consequences. But anyone noticing these consequences was deemed to be causing the problem. Kind of like my commenters keep saying I am pedophile for noticing that girls get interested men at a disturbingly young age, and this interest has a strong physical element, except that back then you were not allowed to notice that female interest in men was physical at any age.

      The doctrine that women are holy, and do not dig jerks, was a whig attack on the King. Everyone who believes that quality women are attracted by quality men, or some similar blue pill stuff, also believes that parliament was supreme, and Locke’s doctrines generally accepted after the Glorious Revolution, that Kings have not vetoed a parliamentary bill since the Glorious revolution, and that the Regent was appointed Regent by parliament, or that he was never officially regent. After two hundred years, there is still a noticeable linkage between the Regency blue pill and the women blue pill.

      Supposedly girls have no interest in politically incorrect sex, and supposedly the Regent did not appoint himself Regent by divine right, and supposedly Queen Caroline was not a filthy slut. People who believe in one, are apt to believe in all, because all these blue pills were originally one blue pill coming from one source

    • peppermint says:

      Hey numbnuts, feminism and socialism and pantheistic scientism have been claimed to be the result, and cause, of technological progress for all of recorded history.

      Bible thumping is the consequence, not the cause, of transcendentalism, the doctrine that the particular god of Whites commands Whites to respect the various demons the muss worship and demonstrate that respect by giving White women to muds.

      Unfortunately, American bible thumpers tried to restore puritanism, which meant mutilating boys, while today they try to ban abortion and cuck themselves and their wives by adopting embryonic niglets.

      Ovid has nothing to do with liberals. Liberals hate Ovid for being cissexist and a fucking White male. Liberals want to read abject nonsense.

      • Wagner says:

        Jim you say it’s important to hammer in the same points but I think you’re partially using that as an excuse to stop thinking and to condition others to do so. Peppermint I had a /b/-tard for a best friend in high school, a lot of you channers got frozen into identical thought-patterns that you keep repeating over and over. Ffs it gets annoying, this is one of the only blogs I like to read but still, c’mon.

        Feminism in its moderate form is an evolutionary mechanism to enhance males: women will always like jerks (I’d say it’s more accurate to say they like guys who have better things to do than care about their normally whimsical, frivolous needs) and feminism gives women higher standards for jerks, thereby weeding out the lesser jerks. If we didn’t have women to try to knock us down a peg when we’re not being as committed to our life project as passionately as possible we’d have a lot less incentive to try bolder, nobler, more dangerous things. Look at how terrified of Science muslims are – this is partially to be explained by their terrified females’ inability to stab them in the ribs when it’s warranted. If you’re going to spend 50+ years with a woman you’re going to grow a lot more if you don’t bend her over the knee and spank her for the slightest infraction. The alt-right’s reversion to Islam-esque values is humiliating. “The Muslims are taking over, how do we stop them?!” “Let’s uhh become.. more like them?” If we sent the science-terrified niggers packing we’d have a lot less problems with feminism.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >stab them in the ribs

          No thanks.

        • peppermint says:

          Haha no. You’re the one locked into an ideological cage. Feminism does not increase the quality of jerks women will fuck and the whole idea that women should be subjected to Taylor Swift’s song Fifteen is a horrifying and disgusting dystopia.

          I used to be an occutard once, and I’m still a btard. And I get more pussy than you. You’re a worthless bugman faggot wondering when the women you respect whose advice you take seriously will fuck you, while they’re hitting on me.

          Mudslimes are scared of pantheist scientism, the religion of bugmen like you. YOU are afraid of science in a way that they aren’t: they approve of biology with respect to sex differences in instinctual behavior of adults.

          • Wagner says:

            Your name isn’t Austin, is it? You guys are extremely similar if not. 4chan tends to consist of a wave of smart whites that became disgusted by leftist groupthink only to shamelessly melt into a nu-groupthink. “Bugman bugman bugman” is the hypermillennial’s “racist racist racist”. You guys are a step above the leftists, but is that really a compliment? Your complexes of arrogance are unfounded in light of the fact that you base them off of being smarter than retards. You’re cool P, I guess I’m just saying this because I drifted from my friend over the years and want to say this to him and lost his number a while back. Btards did a great service for this country (I mean this mostly unironically) but those who got too close kind of sold their souls imo.

            Jim says he doesn’t want this to become a game blog but he’s only saying that to reverse the process after it already has become one. There’s a synchronicity involved in the word “game”: fixation on sex, pussy, fucking, all that, is just a game. Your rants against cuckstainityTM over the last couple years have often been funny/insightful but for all Christians got wrong, they got sex right – it’s blasphemous to think of it as getting pussy, fucking hoes; pre-marital sex is degenerate, man. Pump n Dump is one of the purest forms of nihilism, all you guys are doing is (further) ruining girls for their husbands (would you like if other guys did that to your future wife? *meme of black guy with pointer finger on temple*). There really aren’t any excuses for your behavior besides that it gives your self-esteems a spike and we need as many rightists as we can get who are confident in themselves. If you knew it was immoral it would cause self-loathing, my pumpndump mistakes eat into my brain sometimes anyway. Women have an excuse, they’re birdbrains; men on the other hand are just satan’s little helpers–you know the epithet Jim characteristically follows Heartiste’s name with (yet I detect that’s largely ironic and he gleefully propagates such minionhood).

            I do approve of biology with respect to sex differences, it just seems obvious that with the all-pervasiveness of feminism there is something biological about it. In its excessive forms as we see today (bio-cogwomyn voluntarily comboing genes with half-apes) it’s decidedly a degenerate biological process, all I’m trying to say is it’s religious-thinking to claim that there weren’t concrete reasons that led to it. Jim’s Caroline Narrative is helpful but his reasoning and repitition of that reasoning often prompt me to conclude he’s going the ideology rather than the philosophy route. Maybe liberty in an unfree world involves using ideology, he probably knows better than me.

            • StoneMan says:

              >Women have an excuse, they’re birdbrains; men on the other hand are just satan’s little helpers

              Women are wonderful, they only do bad things because bad men make them do bad things. Bad men are satan’s little helpers, women are morally perfect beings.

              “Feminism” is merely the phenomenon of unrestrained female behavior. It occurs when the floodgate of patriarchy is opened. Feminism has a biological component, but there is nothing actually new about the feminism that has occurred in the past two centuries; It’s merely women acting the way women have always acted, except without male restraint.

              Women shit tested the Romans, women shit tested the Vikings, women shit tested cave men, women shit tested the Mongolians. Women shit test. It’s what they do. Democracy is such a profoundly bad idea that once it is instantiated into law, the gate has been opened to all forms of profoundly bad ideas, such as the idea that female behavior doesn’t need to be restrained.

              TL;DR Feminism isn’t new behavior, it’s old behavior without restraint. When an army of men triumphs over another, burns their city to the ground, and rapes their women amidst the embers and blood, you could call that Masculism. It isn’t new male behavior; it’s (temporarily) unrestrained male behavior.

            • peppermint says:

              No, this is Patrick. Also doesn’t the fact that we all come to the same conclusions imply that there’s a force pushing us in that direction, that, since we don’t have gods other than Kek, would have to be the truth?

    • orochijes says:

      This entire post was just one long “I like a woman that challenges me”, except you used “we” any time you should have used “I”.

  9. Iviking says:

    I doubt anything would even mildly shock me given the life I’ve led. No doubt your citing the same stuff the faggots like to cite

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      No. You cite wikipedia – like a lazy faggot. I’ve cited more than a dozen numerous independent sources, like a true scholar.

      • Iviking says:

        your retarded arguments do not rise to a level that deserves more than a wik cite.

        Ok I looked.

        so some neckbeard anime jerkoffs on reddit- lmaorotf- have a deep discussion on being traumatized having walked in on their parents and wonder what it was like in the olden days before video games.
        and link 2 a picture of a cartoon timber frame and wattle and daub house which I suppose I am to imagine parents doing porn for kids.

        Ok I am in fact a parent and in fact spent a lot of my childrens formative years in either NYC small apts or in my log cabin in idaho. heres how it doesnt work. you dont have wild sex in front of your kids.Not even dirty hippies do that. you get creative you pretend to have to get the wash off the line or have to scrub daddy’s back in the tub. you wait till they’re asleep. If they catch you youre usually under the covers and they have no reference so they cant guess like an adult. in fact their minds are just so tiny still they cant even conceive of such a thing if they had the frame to do it from. you can bet in those thatched viking houses there was loft and there were curtains. sure we were less private in the olden days but we were not animals

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          I gave you plenty of sources. The picture is mere illustration, and the reddit debate is but one source among many; and it *is* interesting.

          What you’re doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “lalalalala I can’t hear you” since the material completely nukes your false conceptions about how things went back in the day.

  10. Iviking says:

    If you want women lead men, you can play the games to pretend youre alpha and they will work, but girls will keep testing, when they see you are an alpha among men and as long as youre not one of those alphas that worships women they give up testing you they have nothing to leverage. scoff but some men seem to have this women worship thing but are otherwise alpha males. It can work but they may end up henpecked to some extent.

    Jim theres no 9 year olds having sex ( and yes we noticed the age is getting younger by the month) in anyone’s but pedophiles experience stop saying that

    • jim says:

      It is evident that sexual interest sets in in girls around nine or so, and that they are interested not in boys their own age, or anywhere near their own age, but in older, economically independent males with adult female pre-selection.

      But of course this interest is totally innocent and purely cute. The little angels would never act upon it unless some evil male induces them to do so <sarcasm>

      Blaming adult males for child sex is like blaming “price gougers” for shortages. Demand will find supply. Societies that have effective control of female sexual activity chop off little girl’s clitorises.

      • Iviking says:

        Blaming adult males for child sex is like blaming “price gougers” for shortages. Demand will find supply. Societies that have effective control of female sexual activity chop off little girl’s clitorises.

        LOL ok Humbert

      • Hidden Author says:

        Your rhetoric on this matter is like the psychologists who state that straight people are all repressed homos. In other words, the truth revealed is first and foremost a revelation of the speaker’s own sexual deviation(s)!

        • jim says:

          1. Societies that are serious about keeping girls virgin deploy disturbingly extreme coercion against girls starting at age nine or so.

          2. Sexual desire in very young girls is not secret or repressed at all. Selling romance to very young girls is big business. Disney sells princess movies to little girls, not prince movies to little boys. A couple of years later, about age eleven, they start erecting shrines to music stars.

          • Dave says:

            “starting at age nine or so.”

            Only brown and black people do that today. Mud races have always had a more rabbit-like existence, so their females ripen and rot at younger ages. That’s why girls in Mexico are allowed to marry at age 12 — they’re already in full flower and will be old hags by 25.

            • jim says:

              Not seeing a whole lot of brown and black little girls attending Disney princess movies.

              • Iviking says:

                STFU you have no business at disney movies.
                Jim I posted the stats that even 17 and 18 were the average ages for whites and they were uncomfortable and felt pressured even at that so this is all in your sick little mind jim. The only girls or boys who are sexually active young are from fucked up homes and the only adults that take advantage of tat are monsters-get a grip man

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >stats that even 17 and 18 were the average ages for whites and they were uncomfortable and felt pressured even at that

                  Wikifaggia stats about teen feelings in modern puritan society – yeah, so “convincing.”

                • jim says:

                  While women typically got married well after puberty, marriage well before puberty was not particularly unusual or shocking. Reading between the lines, looks like this was usually shotgun marriage in response to sexual misconduct.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        >the Hebrews

        Females: 12 for “adulthood,” 3 for marriage eligibility.

        Males: 13 for “adulthood,” 9 for marriage eligibility.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Sex according to marriage eligibility, not according to “adulthood.”

      • peppermint says:

        It’s very reasonable for them to start getting interested in men at 9 or 8 (watching Frozen and cheering breathlessly for the romantic scenes is for 8 year old girls) and then only start trying to do something about it at 16.

        Gf’s 16yo little sister just started acting really weird around me as of this week. She was always instinctually showing interest which I politely ignored; now she has what we call hormones but hormones start earlier so it’s actually just instinct development.

        Children role play at lots of things before they’re ready to get serious.

      • jim says:

        > > ”Blaming adult males for child sex is like blaming “price gougers” for shortages. Demand will find supply. Societies that have effective control of female sexual activity chop off little girl’s clitorises.”

        > Or all paedophiles get executed. Which the majority of people are supportive of. And not a shortage of vigilantes may be up for it.

        People don’t in fact react. There is no visceral horror at female children misbehaving sexually with adult men the way there is visceral horror at gay sex or trannies. People’s spontaneous visceral reaction is that it is cute as kittens. Their imaginary outrage at paedophilia is directed at imaginary evil violent men behaving badly to innocent girl children. When they see real girl children behaving badly with innocent men, they smile from ear to ear.

        Little girls are not interested in paedophiles. They very much like preselection by adult females, like Cinderella’s prince. And being hypergamous, they want massive adult female pre selection, which is pretty much the entire Cinderella story. Conversely, men with massive adult female preselection are not all that keen on chicks with no boobs, so what tends to happen is a strikingly one sided courtship.

        While chicks with boobs are normally the pursued, because sperm is cheap, eggs are precious, chicks pre eggs are not precious, and are frequently the pursuer.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      Hey viking, check out my posts above about the living arrangements of Greeks, Romans, and Vikings, as well as many others. The truth will shock you to the marrow of your bones.

    • Robert Brockman says:

      The combination of more calories and whatever estrogens are in the water these days seems to be pushing menarche much earlier compared with 60 years ago, so there may be a biological component.

    • Robert Brockman says:

      You misunderstand the nature of the test. Being a leader of men is great, but far more important (and easier) is just not putting up with bad behavior from girls. One doesn’t have to be a jerk to do this. (I’ve found tickling works rather well.)

      The super-high notch count guys I know couldn’t care less about being an alpha among men

    • Garr says:

      What’s the argument? Jim says “9 year girls are flirty”, Viking says “bad to have sex with 9 year old girls”. How are these two statement incompatible?

      Is the argument about whether 9 year girls want to have actual sex? Well, do 11 year old boys playing war-games want to be in real potentially lethal battles?

      Is the argument about whether it’s okay for a grown-up man to respond to a 9 year girl’s flirtiness by having sex with her? Well, is it okay for a grown-up man to respond to a (typical White) 11 year old boy’s barely noticeable assault (think of a hyper 11 year old lashing out at the gym teacher) by beating the crap out of him?

      Is the argument about whether in some fantasy-society of the future it would be okay for fathers to marry off their 9 year old daughters to grown-up men? Dunno, but I wouldn’t like the father or the other guy very much. That shit’s just weird.

      But a father marrying off his 14 year old daughter to a 16 year old apprentice mechanic seems fine — I see plenty of couples walking to High School in my neighborhood like this; they should be married and living the adult lives for which they’re clearly ready, not sitting in classrooms.

      • peppermint says:

        14 and 16? 14 is too young to reproduce properly and marriage without reproduction is faggotry. She should wait and date until she’s ready.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >She should wait and date until she’s ready.


          >without sex

          Courtship is fancy-pants faggotry made up by puritan snobs with perpetual blue balls. In the future “courtship” will be illegal, or will take no longer than a week, after which there will always be marriage.

          • jim says:

            If a woman is not fucking you after a reasonably short time, she is just not into you.

            If she is into you, and she believes she should not fuck you because she is a good Christian, sex will nonetheless “Just happen”, kind of like the way ice cream mysteriously disappears despite the fact that you are trying to diet.

        • Garr says:

          Yeah, maybe. I don’t know. These are Puerto Rican or Mexican kids. It just seems unkind and pointless to make them sit in High School classrooms. They seem ready to be grownups — couples walking to school hand-in-hand.

          I’m just wondering what the point of contention is, regarding 9 years olds.

          Possibly some people seem to others to be saying, “9 year olds can be sexy-cute” and the others are saying, “it’s bad to see 9 years old as sexy-cute, that’s bad of you, you’re being bad and you’re kind of a bad person,” and the first group of people are, like, “no way, man, I’m not bad, you’re stupid” …

          Is that what people are mad each other about?

          • Dave says:

            There’s another good reason for child marriage unrelated to female (mis)behavior. In patrilocal, Malthusian societies, raising daughters is “watering your neighbor’s garden”. Whenever food is scarce, sons eat first and daughters get what’s left.

            In such places it’s very hard to find a fertile-age female to marry, so instead you adopt a young girl, or even a baby who would otherwise be killed, and keep her as a wife for yourself or one of your sons.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Exactly. Arguably, pedophilia — by which I mean the real thing, not “pedophilia” — persists in the human population because in the ancestral environment it was sometimes adaptive. (Needless to say, that’s confined to young girl pedophilia, not the gay version) It just seems like nature’s way of making sure that small girls will be taken care of – if the pedo kidnaps small girls into his cave, then some years later, when they’re fertile, they will get pregnant by him, passing forward their own — and his — genes.

              • Dave says:

                I still don’t have a theory to explain man-boy love, but it seems to have been (and be) quite popular outside the Judeo-Christian-Progressive world. Jim, do you have any idea why? If it serves as a sink for excess male lust, wouldn’t that select against the men who use it?

                • jim says:

                  Societies that control females, hide them. Man boy love becomes popular for the same reason it does in prisons.

                  Suggested solution: Early marriage.

                • Dave says:

                  So it’s genetically harmless because the men and boys doing it have little chance of reproducing in any case. It’s not like Kandahar is going to give these men cushy government jobs or plots of farmland, nor is any FAANG company ever going to open a campus there, and when you’re the fifth of seven sons, you’re not likely to inherit anything. So you can’t afford a female wife of any age.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Not gonna speak for Jim, but my argument is and has always been that men should not be punished by the state for the sexuality of young girls, and that if a young girl behaves sexually then it’s time to get her married off, and if she actually takes someone’s dick in her pussy then she should be shotgun married to the dude she has fucked.

        All the men who rot in jail for “statutory rape” and for “child porn” should be released immediately; 99% or 100% of sex-crime legislation should be repealed, and instead fathers should be made responsible for the safety of their children, rather than the government. If fathers fail to protect their kids – tough luck.

        My system will force patriarchs to actually be patriarchs. When nobody protects your kids, you have to protect them yourself or face the consequences. This is extremely right-wing, actually. It brings Darwinism back in the game. Gun ownership will skyrocket. It’s also extremely pro-white because white fathers are competent and can protect their kids, while black fathers are usually not.

  11. Glenfilthie says:

    Uh huh.

    A senior man, with everything going in life for him, is humping, pumping and dumping his way through high quality young women by acting like a shit head. Why are you feeding them this shit? I mean – if you were trying to con them or sell them something I could see it… but hell, these are real, young men Jim. Some of them believe you.

    To do what he claims, our geriatric host would need to be slamming Viagra or Cialis by the kg – and then he would still need a crane to help him slam his gullible young hotties. Quality women do not bed older men or jerk boys… gold diggers and tire biters do. And only desperate or batshit crazy Cankles will throw themselves at men they don’t know.

    Fact is that the only way to get a quality girl is to be a quality man. There’s no shortcuts, and no magic tactics or phrases or flirtations that will put them in your bed. Jim’s ‘tactics’ might work well with the trailer park whores or the slutty bubblegummers doing kitten or gender studies in college – but you young fellas should want more than that. You build yourself into a quality man. That means rigour, self discipline and self improvement. Contrary to Jim quality women can come from anywhere, as can tire-biters. Nor is there such thing as free love. There is always a price on that roll in the hay and only a fool will go for it without knowing the terms and conditions.

    Take care of yourselves, boys, and most of all, take care of your women.

    • pdimov says:

      The world you’re describing is equal parts nostalgia and utopia.

    • jim says:

      > Fact is that the only way to get a quality girl is to be a quality man.

      Fact is that quality chicks dig jerks.

      • Garr says:

        quality jerks?

        • jim says:

          Well I am a quality jerk, or at least I think I am quality and I try to pretend to be a sadistic jerk with a hard heart and a notch count in the thousands. But I am pretty sure that the typical lawyer girl who went to a good university and has a loving and wealthy father and mother is bedding Jeremy Meeks, who is a very low quality jerk.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        and geezers that chug Viagra? Pull my other finger Jim, it has bells on it…


        To be honest I wish you were right and I was wrong.

        • Robert Brockman says:

          For the record, the pick-up artists I know emphasize decreasing your personal corruption to as low a level as possible and practicing radical honesty.

    • Robert Brockman says:

      “Quality women do not bed older men or jerk boys… ”

      This is absolutely false. One of my best friends is now married to a hot genius girl 23 years younger and six inches taller than he is. I was seriously dating a genius 19 year old in my late thirties — her parents loved me, and they also loved the 45 year old who married her 21 year old sister who went to Caltech.

      As for jerk boys, anyone who has had more than a few serious conversations with girls should know that many of them have or have had demon lovers they crave, smarties and sweeties are not at all excluded from this.

      Jim’s overall experience is quite believable, I have observed such things directly. I have a few minor quibbles with his interpretation of his data: weight doesn’t matter at all, two of my friends with a notch count of over 1000 were dangerously obese and ended up marrying quite remarkable girls much younger than them. Being self-conscious about one’s weight does cause problems. I disagree with the notion that one *needs* to be a “jerk” in order to attract women, but it is quite certain that being a jerk provides many of the necessary ingredients.


      I know many high quality men who do not do well with women and vice versa. One should become a high quality man because becoming a high quality man is good, not because it leads to more female attention — it doesn’t.

      If one is trying to get a quality girl one is already in the wrong frame. The correct frame is that girls should be demonstrating that they are worthy of your time and affection.

      • Cavalier says:

        >over 1,000

        A new girl every day over a period of 3 years?

        A new girl every half-week over a period of 10 years?

        A new girl every week over a period of 20 years?

        A new girl every week and a half over a period of 30 years?

        A new girl every two weeks over a period of 40 years?

        • jim says:

          > > over 1,000

          > A new girl every day over a period of 3 years?

          Norm for alphas is a new girl every week or so, in which case twenty years gives him over a thousand.

          I have been at it for fifty years, though I very rarely got a new girl every week, and laid off for a while when my kids were young, and when my wife was ill, and though old age has slowed me down one hell of a lot, it has not slowed me down to zero.

          The average man has a notch count of zero, but the average man that a girl is in bed with likely has a notch count over a thousand.

          My own notch count is nowhere remotely near a thousand, but it is high enough that I only have a very rough guess as to what it is.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            You argue that the sexual polarity in n-counts is sharper among men, but AFAIK it’s sharper among women: plenty of women with n-counts close to 0, and some epic sluts with 3 or 4 digit n-counts.

            • jim says:

              That is not my experience.

              I see huge discrepancies in male notch count, while I don’t see huge discrepancies in female notch count.

              And hypergamy and the effectiveness of preselection would tend to predict this. As we get a larger and more anonymous community, the male discrepancies have become more extreme.

              Back before Tinder and Whorebook, it was nothing like so extreme, but now it is getting ridiculous. Maybe back before Tinder and Whorebook, it was female differences in notch count that were bigger.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Somehow we have different experiences. I know some women with notch counts above 100, and one woman with a notch count close to 1,000. I have never met any man who bragged about numbers close to these.

                An alpha man still needs to put some effort. A woman, really any woman, especially one who isn’t very ugly and very fat, can find several new dicks every day if she’s so inclined, with no effort at all. And I know of just such a woman, and on the internet there were some famous cases.

                The average woman, the regular non-slut woman, has some 5-10 dicks in her throughout her life.

                • Robert Brockman says:

                  “An alpha man still needs to put some effort.”

                  Driving a car is incredibly complicated yet we get so good at it that the process becomes almost entirely automated. The “alphas” have girl interaction skills at the same level.

                  Preselection also makes this much easier — girls seem to have a sixth sense for these sorts of things.

        • Robert Brockman says:

          New girl every half-week over 10 years for one, one every half-week for 20 years for the other. Apparently travelling consulting work yields lots of opportunities. They seem quite happy with the girls they eventually wound up with.

        • Iviking says:

          This number is quite possible though I get why it seems so unlikely to the average guy.I got sober in AA and a lot of us are what we call cross addicted,drugs gambling etc. there are several 12 step programs for sex addiction and related ( codependency, love, romance, addiction. And for a while I attended partly out of curiosity partly I was a bit worried I might have qualified.The stories you here would blow your fucking mind.go to a couple hundred meeting and maybe being an addict having half a foot in that club anyway you know for a certainty this is not fabricated in fact this is deep pain behind these confessions. when I got sober at 29, I was able to recall almost 300 different girls. Now considering my personality and addiction patterns were such that i both went long periods with no girlfriends and long periods more or less monogamous, al right the monogamy rarely lasted more than several months but that was long for me, still is with a couple 13 to 29 is 18 year. but i would guess most of that was before 22.there were years in the 70s in NYC where you would go out every night and go home with someone new, I mean practically everyone did, well everyone I knew.Of course I thought everyone was a drunken drug addict then. By 22 or so my drinking was so bad i would try to stop and hole up white knuckling it for a month or two so no girls no thing, then watch out johnys back. Its an empty fucking existence I know that sounds like Gates telling you being rich as croesus is overrated. But what happens is no ones good enough, and while you might theoretically know relationships are not only about sex, after a while you catch her at the wrong angle and this solid 8 or 9 starts looking like a horse and you cant shake it and soon you’re repulsed and you cant keep a relationship going with someone youre physically repulsed by. some guys are madly in love with some ugly chicks they’re happier they get to raise their kids.If you get good enough at manipulating women its like you know they only like you cause youre rich, it ruins it. It doesnt really matter that you are more or less like your projected image its that what does that say about women the woman, and no one is lord Byron all the time we all have our shelly moments.I will say there are good girls, and I have only met one 9 year old like jim describes in my entire life and having been a parent i met a lot of kids, I wouldn’t have believed what this girls was like it being so out of any experience but that my wife at the time asked later if i realized the girl was flirting with me, of course it came out later her dad was a chomo so its not natural whatever jim says. People who have high numbers like that pretty much order their life around finding new girls. its all about well heartiste is a good example what does he do he makes a career out of going to bars and picking up girls. some life.

          • Garr says:

            Did you hang out at Max’s Kansas City and know David Johanssen and Johnny Thunders and all those guys? What’s his name … Syl Sylvain, the lead guitarist? An overweight middleaged woman with whom I was chatting at Trader Joe’s recently claimed way-back-then acquaintance with Sylvain; a woman that my first wife worked with in a Soho dress-shop in the early 90s had known him too — I guess he liked conversing with sort-of-smart girls. (The second woman and her husband died of AIDS a little after that first marriage of mine ended — I guess they got it through needles.)

            (I’m just imagining that everyone who was drunk and drugged out all the time in NYC in the ’70s knew everyone else who was drunk and drugged out all the time in NYC then.)

            • Iviking says:

              I did I also had a job for a while on that flower shop on st marks that was a shoeshine booth off the side of the gemspa on the other side was a hairdresser we all used to do drugs at called heads and tails, Yeah I met a lot of people that became famous or were alleged to already have some claim to fame. It sound stupid to tell those stories and drop names but i met every one you just mentioned at least a few times not to say they were pals but i grew up around the corner well third st I was a bit younger than a lot of them but i didnt have to make it from the suburbs to the big time, I remember I went to xavier freshman year and there were a couple of bars maguires and molly Malones that would serve us at lunch and a few of the teachers would also sneak over and the place was empty but us and them and we would pretend we didnt see each other, point is I was actually getting the year before at an upper eat side joint the kennedy kids hung out at and that was 13 years old,and I doubt anyone in that place was older than 16 shit was crazy back then. before i was 18 I had been a bouncer at both CBGB theatre folk city and the nursery after hours club.oh and trudy heller’s for a few days till i got too drunk and made a scene old served crazy days not many of us survived. I sold swag and ran numbers for johnny maselli for a little while xavier was where all the mobs kids went who I immediately gravitated too, which was why most of us got thrown out after the first year.fucking crazy life,

      • Cavalier says:

        btw, in your experience, where do you come across smarties most?

        • Robert Brockman says:

          Most of the smarties I’ve run into have been undergrads and graduate students at the university I went to — the engineering and science departments haven’t sold out completely and have lower than average POZ. There were even a few pretty engineer girls who were legit (being the daughter of Los Alamos nuclear weapons designers helps.)

          My brief internship at CERN was actually amazing, there were a bunch of summer students who were brilliant, kind, and beautiful. If you have the means, get over to Geneva / Lausanne and meet them!

          Yes, the hindbrains on the smarties respond the same way those of the dumb ones do. Go get one before Jeremy Meeks does!

          • peppermint says:

            》 There were even a few pretty engineer girls who were legit


            the fact that they can be trained to repeat undergrad-tier results, in many cases better than unruly boys, means that teaching undergraduate science isn’t a useful endeavor

            in fact it’s harmful because it makes idiots overestimate themselves and their historical materialist or pantheist utilitarian or pantheist scientism”

            • peppermint says:

              This fugn browser lol.

              Many of the “students” believe in pantheist scientism in which maximizing science and technology is the most important, and our White ancestors were filthy niggers who fucked in the mud next to their kids, but now we know that we need to share technology so filthy niggers can cure cancer with synthetic watermelon. This is the primary religion of young White men.

              It is, of course, called racist by the second permitted religion, historical materialism, according to which History has cursed Whites and since pantheistic scientism isn’t explicitly anti-White it’s not on the right side of History.

              The third religion is pantheistic utilitarianism, which differs from historical materialism only in that it’s racist in that it considers the happiness of Whites to be maybe worth considering, but this difference is only theoretical. Debates between pantheistic utilitarians and historical materialists revolve around White privilege and to what extent Whites are uniquely evil by utilitarian standards.

              It’s important to recognize that when young White men signal these forms of pantheism, they are actually countersignaling historical materialism and making the least cucked argument they are permitted, however, anything other than natural morality is inherently cucked.

            • Robert Brockman says:


              Yes, real engineer girls are rare, and most are fake, but if you look long enough you will find a few. Quoting Heartiste:

              “Engineer (0.00001% of all women)

              If there was ever an occupation created solely for the benefit of a man’s intellectual strengths, engineering is it. So right off the bat you know that any female engineer will be weird. Not necessarily assertively masculine like the female lawyer, but not typically feminine either. Female engineers are the Holy Grail of male nerddom. Every nerdo anime fanboy with Dungeon Master on his resume dreams of meeting and falling in love with a cute nerdgirl WHO IS EXACTLY LIKE HIM so that his autistic social retardation doesn’t get pushed to the breaking point like it would with a normal girl.

              Minus: fornication mysteriously happens in between lengthy dissertations on string theory.

              Plus: she can assume sex positions within a millimeter of spec.”

              • peppermint says:

                No, you faggot, you’re delusional because women can be interior designers or run calculations for someone else and will then be treated like great engineers for doing what a man would be called incompetent for, this happens all the time, and the other thing, actual insight from a woman, never happens and where it looks like it’s happening there’s a man advising her. At CERN, there are of course men advising those women, period. I knew one of those hot CERN babes. She was hot and listened to me talk about undergrad-tier physics and asked interesting questions by listening for what I wasn’t sure about and asking there, because hearing men babble and emotionally manipulating them is what women do, period. And I sincerely hope they ignore the men of CERN and fuck niggers instead, because that is Nature’s just punishment for refusing to understand women, and those men deserve to be dragged out of their classrooms and beaten to death with baseball bats.

                • Robert Brockman says:

                  “actual insight from a woman, never happens and where it looks like it’s happening there’s a man advising her.”

                  “never” is a very strong claim. You are making a claim that is different from the usual IQ distribution arguments, which would suggest that competent girl scientists/engineers are rare but not impossible.

                  The notion that those girls who appear to have real insight are actually getting it from a male adviser would seem to be hard to disprove. What’s interesting is that the collaborative nature of engineering / particle physics could very easily allow people who are good at IQ tests but who lack some other required capability to slip through. How would we test for this?

                  Compare this situation to another field with a gender imbalance: competitive Starcraft. As far as I know there are exactly zero girl competitive pro Starcraft players (Scarlett is a MtF transsexual.) The nature of the challenge is such that the players cannot “cheat” in the way you are suggesting girl “scientists/engineers” do.

                • pdimov says:

                  Similar in chess, except there was one. Judit Polgar.

  12. Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

    Yo I’ve been in a coma since 2007 and this is some HARD HITTING STUFF

    Lol but really tho, keep hammering the point home until everybody gets it

    “Jerk” isn’t really the exact right word. But it’s close enough.

    • jim says:

      Too many people still don’t get it. Point needs to be hammered in hard.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Young people today are having less sex than ever before, because the whole of society and especially the females are in a state of constant sexual anxiety, where sex is perceived as one of the scariest things ever. That’s life under puritanism.

        This is in contrast to the old, very old times when most people couldn’t afford a large house with several rooms, often having the entire family living within the same room, so children almost inevitably heard and saw their parents having sex at night, every night, since the moment they gained sentience and until they left home. This point can’t be stressed enough: “sexual innocence” is a modern puritan myth, “child sexual innocence” is likewise a modern puritan myth, and from a historical perspective, children today are less “sexualized” than ever, which is why, as I said, people today are having less sex than ever.

        If an evil crazy sadistic ruler somehow forced all family members to live in the same room, children would against start hearing and seeing their parents having sex as was the case for the vast majority of people throughout the vast majority of history (and just as slaves had seen their masters having sex right next to them; furthermore, wherever there were animals such as livestock and so on, there was sex out in the open), and then the very pretense so beloved by puritans of “child sexual innocence” will fall down crashing to pieces, and the state of sexual anxiety that the puritans have foisted on society and on women will end within a single generation.

        It was normal for children to see their parents having sex, and it was normal for slaves to see their masters having sex, and it was normal for the whole family to see the animals around having sex, and so “sexual anxiety” was unheard of back in the day. Puritanism can only exist in a materially affluent milieu where a child is effectively (and unnaturally) segregated from direct exposure to sexual intercourse throughout most of his or her young life, with predictable results.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        This is a really important point, and you should hammer it home to viking and to those who think like him. Heck, even if some of the larger houses had a few rooms in them, they didn’t often have doors. But the majority of houses were single-room, which means that the kids *were there* when dad fucked mom. Viking would tell you that it was horrible catastrophic traumatizing child abuse, and cite some faggy statistics from wikipedia or whatever about how people today have sexual anxiety at the “young” age of 18.

        The state of affairs today is the most unnatural ever in history. A return to single-room occupancy would behead, crucify, and drown — all at once — the modern fanatical cult of puritanism. I mean, it’d be difficult to institute such a thing; but when there’s a will, there’s a way. Of course, there are other methods, but this one is like a “cheat code” that gives you automatic victory of the whole game.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        And this is even without going further back in time to prehistory, when there were no houses in the modern sense. There were caves, open fields, and so on – meaning that privacy was non-existent, and so everyone saw everyone else having sex, and children certainly saw up-close their parents fucking, day after day.

        Which state of affairs lasted millions of years, basically. All the faggots whining about “sexualization of children” have no idea what the hell they’re even saying. Society has been de-sexualized very effectively, with the predictable — perhaps intended — result being that people today have less sex than ever before.

        All of human prehistory, people had seen their parents (and not just them) going at it in the caves, in the fields, and wherever prehistoric man had lived; then almost all of human history, people saw their parents going at it in the houses, which were usually single room. These are the facts. This is actually what has occurred, in real life. So much for “muh child sexual innocence, boo hoo evil evil sexualization.”

        The thing about modern puritan society is that like fish in a toxic aquarium, the sheeple can’t even grasp that outside this reality there was, and there can be, a different reality that is altogether dissimilar to the current one. And yet, as the sages of yore would say: “it is what it is, m8.”

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        It’s important to have the correct perspective in mind when discussing any of these issues. And the correct perspective is as I described it.

        “So what you’re saying is that for millions of years, until the last few hundred years, most people worldwide had seen their parents having sex, like, literally every single day, until they left home?”

        Yep, exactly what I am saying.

        “And there was nothing odd about it? It was just normal for everyone involved?”


        It’s hard for people to accept that the way they think the world should work, and the way they’re used to the world working, are not in fact how the world has always worked since time immemorial. Just the opposite, in this case.

        The idea that children had “sexual innocence” is preposterous and false. It’s impossible, and contradicted by all the known facts about everything that has ever happened. This myth is only perpetuated by puritans and the puritan agenda. An example of such a puritan with such an agenda is John Harvey Kellogg, who sought to eradicate masturbation among boys and girls by chopping off their genitalia. Due to Kellogg, all too many Americans have been mutilated like they were illiterate Jews straight outta the desert.

        For the nonsense of “child sexual innocence,” penises were sliced.

        I’m pretty sure that many of us, though perhaps not all of us, have memories from childhood that directly and completely contradict the prevalent puritan narrative about sexual development. Like sexuality in general, these childhood memories have been severely repressed – unsurprisingly, people today have less sex since ever in history. Sexual anxiety predominates the sexuality of young people today, but people are in deep denial about this glaringly obvious and well-documented fact, unwilling to admit that something’s gone awry.

        Nick Land says that reality is always “more redpilled” than any single individual is willing to admit. On this issue, only a scarce few people are honest enough to slaughter the politically correct big fat cow and make use of all its organs. I have just gone ahead and slaughtered it; it’s a thankless job and people call you all kinds of names for performing it, because the redpill ain’t tastin’ like sugar. But truth will win out the day.

        • peppermint says:

          People did have rooms in their houses. They also had barns for their animals. We’re talking about humans, not niggers. People consequently didn’t have to fuck in front of the kids. Within earshot, sure, but the kids didn’t need to see it.

          I heard from a pozthropologist that the Yanomami pemmican niggers would take their women to a secluded place in their rainy jungle to fuck, and presumably hope not to be killed by the next tribe over while doing it. Pozthropologists would gleefully talk nudism and sex in front of others to their female students.

          Pornography works on animals as well as humans, for example, niggers prefer porn showing butts because they are unevolved. Exacty no one wants to deliberately show sex to children, and children instinctually are curious but also avoid it because they aren’t ready biologically.

          Adult and child instincts have a much longer evolutionary history than humans and human adult sexual behavior. Adult sexual behavior evolves quickly because it is key to sexual selection. Transfags of both sexes can get it right to an extent, but they never get the behavior towards children right.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            This is what Eivind Berge told me:

            “I remember history professor R.P. Gildrie making the same point in a lecture when I was in college and taking a course on American history. All generations up to a certain time witnessed their parents having sex, even in American history. I don’t remember exactly which period he was referring to, but am guessing many people were still so poor that whole families had to sleep in the same room in the 1800s. It was mentioned as a curiosity, but yeah, the end of these living arrangements goes a long way to explain how the present age can maintain such an insane phobia against letting children anywhere near sexuality, which is not the natural state at all.”

        • Cavalier says:


          • Your Wife's Son says:

            Okay, but I went googling and it says that, in many countries back in old times, the houses were single room, particularly of commoners and the poor. This is not really up for debate. These are just a few selected quotes:

            “Many Greek families lived all together in apartments with just one room. If they had more than one room, the front or downstairs room was the andron or “men’s room” and the back or upstairs room (or just the rest of the house) was the gynaikion or “women’s room”. When men came over, they hung out in the men’s room, and the women stayed in the back where strangers couldn’t see them.”

            “Most people in the Roman Empire lived with their whole family in one room of a sort of small apartment house. These were built, like many cheap apartment houses in the United States today, around two or three sides of a courtyard, one or two stories high.”

            “If you were just a workman or unemployed, your apartment was not nearly so nice. The poorer people were crowded into one room flats, and had to haul their water in from the local fountain. There would be no bathroom or toilets; they had to use the public bathrooms. They would cook, sleep, and eat in the single room, with sometimes 15 or 20 people in one room. Fires were frequent, as was disease and epidemics.”

            “Plebeians were the working class of Ancient Rome. They typically lived in three-or-four story apartment houses called insulae. The insulae were often crowded where two families would have to share a single room. There were no bathrooms in the apartments, so a pot was often used.”

            “This sketch of a village home in ancient Israel. The commoners house contain only one room for the whole family. They all lived happily on one hard mud floor (2 Samuel 12:3), they would raise the family, and sleeps through the night in this one room.

            If one were to walk through the front door they might see a child lying in a hammock wrapped in swaddling clothes, and a woman seated at her hand-mill. Inside you might also find lamps, stoves, beds, fireplaces, and windows and chimneys. The animals were kept in an enclosed area on a slightly lower level with no roof, the ox, the ass, the goats and other animals. There were stairs leading outside to the roof.

            “Houses of One Room AFTER ISRAEL had been in the land of Canaan many years and had settled down from the nomadic life to the more stable agricultural pursuits, houses began to take the place of tents as places of abode. The average home of the common people was a one-room dwelling . Dr. Thomson thinks that because the poor widow who entertained Elijah had an upper room in her house, it indicates she was not of the poorer class but was in straits only because of the terrible famine.2 (cf. I Kings 17:8-19).” [Manners And Customs of Bible Lands]”

            “Bryson discovered that the discrepancy could be traced back to the Middle Ages. In Medieval Europe, the average house was comprised of a single room — the great hall — with a kitchen and a few other annexed rooms to the side.

            At the time, the private life that Bryson chronicles did not yet exist. Families slept together in the hall, and usually did not even have beds of their own. The term “make a bed,” Bryson says, is derived from the literal practice of making a new bed each night; while some families rolled out cloth pallets to sleep on, many simply heaped a nest of straw in the hall for themselves, and then put a blanket down on top of it.

            “It was a much more fluid and informal arrangement then we are used to now,” Bryson explains.”

            “The smallest ones were simple terraced houses, each with only a single room.”

            “Often peasants lived in their one-room houses with their entire family.”

            “It is interesting to note that even in this very small house, which essentially consists only of one room, the structure still has a recognizable entrance vestibule, courtyard, and a principal room (Figure 4.10).”

            “Poor people’s houses were small and made out of cheap materials. They generally had just one room, made of rammed earth (like mudbrick). The roof was usually made of thatch. These houses were a lot like poor people’s houses in West Asia or Egypt or Greece, India, or Africa.”

            “Each house had independent walls, and comprised a single room, most likely a workshop, or a group of two to three rooms joined by doorways… Hearths are generally nestled into a corner of the one-roomed houses and paved with large pebbles;”

            “In contrast, the home of the Chinese peasant consisted of a one-room structure with a dirt floor.”

            “Those without much money often had only a one room house. This room was used for storage and napping during the day to escape the excessive heat. Inside the room were woven mats made of straw, perhaps a wooden stool or even a wooden bed with string pulled across it. They used long grass and animal hair for the string.”

            “Underneath the house had one room. The whole family lived in one room. It was dark and stuffy, and people mostly just kept their things in there, the way you do with your tent when you go camping. They didn’t spend much time inside the room. But during the hot part of the day, they would nap in their room, out of the sunlight.”

            “Barrack-like group of single roomed tenements were for the poorer classes… Basic house plans ranging from single room tenements to houses with courtyards and up to 12 rooms to great houses with several dozen rooms and several courtyards.”

            “Gupta homes: In the villages and towns, homes were mostly one room huts made of wood or bamboo, with thatched roofs.”

            All these quotes which I have quoted refer to ancient Greece, Rome, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, India, China, and also medieval Europe.

            If an evil insane unhinged absolute-madman ruler somehow forced all families to live in the same room like in the very old days, this mandatory single-room occupancy would be the father and the mother (literally also) of resurgent sexual sanity in the lands under his control. I would support that.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              More evidence I came across:

              “The home itself was typically one room only, but in some cases there would be separate areas for humans and animals, as it was quite common for the Viking to keep animals indoors sometimes. Sometimes the slaves would be kept in separate sections too, and in some of the wealthier homes, there were often more than one room.”

              “Only a few Vikings lived in towns. Most of them lived in the country in Longhouses. The longhouse had usually one large room. The walls were made of wood, in areas where it was plentiful, and the roof was covered with turf.”

              “Viking houses were often one room homes with a cooking fire in the middle. The smoke escaped through a hole in the roof.

              Animals and people lived in the same building. The animals lived in a byre at one end of the house and the people lived at the other.”

              “With just one room for all the family to share with their animals, a longhouse would have been a crowded and smelly place to live. There was no bathroom inside, but the Vikings kept clean by washing in a wooden bucket or beside a stream. Instead of toilets, people used a cesspit, which was a hole outside dug for toilet waste.”

              “The buildings vary greatly in size from the small, single room houses only about 3 x 3.5m (10′ x 11’8″) like those found at West Stow to vast halls like that at Westminster which was 22 x 80m (76′ x 262′).”

              “It will be shown farther on that in large houses there were separate sleeping-rooms. But among the ordinary run of comfortable, well-to-do people, including many of the upper classes, the family commonly lived, ale, and slept in the one principal apartment, as was the case in the houses of the Anglo-Saxons, the English, the Germans, and the Scandinavians of the same period.”

              “Even the largest homes had a small number of bedrooms. One that we saw that was built in the early part of the 19th century had only a large single room for sleeping. Apparently the entire family would sleep in this one room, the parents on the bed and the children on the floor. We were told by the guide that the family who owned this house had 14 children. During the winter time they all slept in the bedroom, which had a fireplace in it.”

              Here is a picture for illustration:


              And look here also:


              I am factually correct.

              • Cavalier says:

                >This debate, probably more than anything else, has had a profound impact and influence on our lives today. For example, in modern times we often consider anything that has to do with sex or sexuality as ‘private’ and something that should occur ‘behind closed doors.’ In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and even the early eighteenth centuries this was not necessarily the case (though it became increasingly so as time progressed). In fact it was not abnormal for a wedding party to watch the couple on their first night, nor was it uncommon for sexual acts to take place in a bar or in public, and witnesses would think very little of it.

                >Again, this was a period where entire families would share the same bed and children were likely to know just how their parents made new siblings. The splitting of the private and public world that happened as a result of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation had an impact on the architecture of the home and the attitudes around sex. Occurring first among the upper classes, who were likely already accustomed to formalized and public marriages. They then began to be adopted by middle and lower classes, slowly at first and then with increasing rapidity until public and private life came to be a cultural standard.

                I am now a committed Progressive.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >I am now a committed Progressive.

                  Funny, because you may just as well say:

                  I am now a committed Reactionary.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Wait… Oh I get your point. But disagree.

                • orochijes says:

                  “In fact it was not abnormal for a wedding party to watch the couple on their first night”

                  All right, I can definitely buy the idea that sex was much less private if everyone had to share a bed and lived in one room, but that bit right there sounds utterly retarded and made up. I’m now far more skeptical of everything else here just because of this one stupid sentence. Lacking “childhood sexual innocence” doesn’t mean everyone was going full Sodom and Gomorrah.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Yeah, ignore all of the different sources because one of them makes a claim you find unlikely to be true. Makes total sense, bro. /sarc



                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  “the couple’s first sexual intercourse, was not witnessed in most of Western Europe.[2]”

                  Meaning that in some places it *was*.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Of course, whether or not society looked like Gomorrah is impertinent to the specific matter of single room occupancy.

              • peppermint says:

                (1) fucking in the mud in front of the children isn’t what our ancestors did, it’s what boomers did
                (2) pantheistic scientism, sexual license, and feminism have claimed to be the result and cause of technological progress for all of recorded history

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  If one room tenements were common, which they evidently were, then kids saw dad fucking mom.

                  Jim argues that TFR has been in decline since King George’s failure to divorce slut Caroline. I don’t dispute that, but my theory is that the TFR decline also set in when most families stopped sleeping on the same bed at night.

                  Starting in the 17th century, people have been “hiding sex from kids” and what are the results, Peppe? Sexual anxiety.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  It’s actually much healthier to see dad fucking mom, than to watch Disney princess movies. The psychological imprinting of the former is conducive to patriarchy and to normal sex roles; the latter is conducive to hypergamy and sluthood.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  It’s not “sexual license” because it’s your own home, and your own wife, and the public has no access to it unless you invite it.

                  In an email exchange I’m having, I’ve been made aware of this gem:

                  “And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.'” (Luke 11:7)

                  That implies a single bed, in accordance with all the other sources I’ve provided here in this thread. Apparently, you’re more progressive and enlightened than all people who lived until the last few hundred years.

                  Indeed, “feminism” stems from the modern notion of sexual privacy for the common folk. Back when whole families slept on the same bed, the notion would have sounded absurd. Feminism is individualism for wimminz, and individualism doesn’t exist when you share a bed with your parents, your siblings, and other relatives. Think about it.

                  Again, I’m referring here to whites. Look up my citations – they refer to all civilized peoples, including Greeks, Romans, Europeans in general, and Vikings. I bet if I go looking up other white nations, I’ll find the exact same thing over and over. So, it’s muh niggers and muh pozzed anthropology. It’s European history.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  *it’s _not_ muh niggers and muh pozzed anthropology

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  It may initially sound like a very “unlikely culprit,” but I think that the transition from one room tenements to multiple room tenements has brought about the plethora of social ills we’re witnessing today, chief among them is the widespread sexual anxiety which is — obviously — directly correlated with low TFR.

                  The whole socio-sexual dynamic is changed. It’s not about some superficial “lifestyle” change; the manner in which sexuality itself is conceived in the public mind has been dramatically altered, clearly for the worse, by the rise of the modern feigned “parental asexuality” whereby kids are made to think their parents are sexless, and by extension, society is sexless. Hence sexual anxiety later on in adulthood.

                  When the illusion of “parental asexuality” is shattered from the get-go, then every boy and every girl know *exactly* what awaits them in the (ideally) not-too-distant future, and it’s healthy and conducive to patriarchy and normal sex roles. The sole downsides are “I do not feel comfortable” and “it could traumatize them,” but the latter is false and the former is irrelevant.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  You know that I believe that faggotry is genetic, but if it’s not genetic, then very likely it’s the result of being made to think that your parents are asexual, so your own sexuality develops in a weird, queer manner instead of normally. When kids see dad fucking mom, they implicitly understand what’s gonna happen to them in the future. When they do not, they are — according to the “faggotry is not genetic” theory — at risk of becoming sexual deviants, perhaps bisexual and so on.

                  It’s a fact that boys want to be like dad and girls want to be like mom. When parents pretend to be sexless, obviously it can’t be any good for the sexual development of their own kids. Kids need role models, and “parental asexuality” is the very opposite of that. It’s a historical anomaly and look what happens today. Madness!

                  I say, bring back single room tenements which are the historical norm for the majority of humanity. So many social ills will be cured overnight. (literally, over the night time)

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Fact is, people today do not see their parents as sexual role models. Also, fact is that people today are childless in their 30s and 40s. These things are connected. When you only learn about “sex” when you’re a teenager, you end up confused, anxious, and prone to deviancy. When you know right-from-the-start what’s going to be your future and what adults are really up to, you mature healthier and so you want to start a family younger, and you end up with a higher TFR.

                  It all makes perfect sense.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Of course, your modern sensibilities are deeply offended by my “primitive” proposition. That’s because modernity is gay.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  If I were so inclined, I’d write a book arguing that all the shit we witness these days is the *direct result* of moving from one room occupancy to multiple room occupancy.

                  Of course, you can counter-argue that the causation goes the other way around: that the poz had come first, and that it’s the poz that brought about this architectural transformation; but the thing is, very affluent people usually could afford multiple rooms, so logically it should be that multiple rooms became the norm as society itself got more affluent.

                  Ergo, affluence –> multiple rooms become the norm –> “privacy” gains mass appeal –> sexual progressivism aka individualist feminism is created.

                  It’s a provocative idea and I’m glad that it has occurred to me. If nothing else, this could be my humble contribution to sociology.

                • jim says:

                  I would argue it is the direct result of the Whig attack on the regent, though it was facilitated by multiple room occupancy and romance literature.

                • peppermint says:

                  Just because it’s healthier to drink soda than soylent doesn’t make soda good for you.

                  Children piously ignore parents having sex, and parents wait until the children aren’t watching. Children are not unaware of sex. They have specific instincts, and adults also have specific instincts towards children.

                  The idea that instincts don’t exist and children only know what they are shown or told leads adults to conclude from children having sexual thoughts that someone else molested them. This is the moral panic you speak of.

                  It is utterly retarded to claim that our ancient ancestors fucked in the mud in front of their children. No human does that, ever, except for bizarre cults.

                  You implicitly agree with the standard social science model when you say that children need to observe healthy sex in order to be able to do it.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  You guys should head on over to Omegle and do some field research on horny Indians. Living in a single room with their parents doesn’t seem to have given them a healthy attitude toward sex, or even an American 8th-grade health class level understanding of it.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >You implicitly agree with the standard social science model when you say that children need to observe healthy sex in order to be able to do it.

                  No, rather, they have grown up hearing and seeing their parents having sex for millions of years, and not just their parents, so by transitioning to multiple room occupancy, the prehistorical and historical state of affairs has been abruptly altered. Chesterton’s Fence applies here. It’s not that kids are blank slates, it’s that throwing millions of years out of the window to pursue “privacy” has cost kids a valuable part of the maturation process.

                  >It is utterly retarded to claim that our ancient ancestors fucked in the mud in front of their children.

                  Single room, usually single bed, for the whole family. You can’t square this circle, Peppe. These are the facts.

                  >Living in a single room with their parents doesn’t seem to have given them a healthy attitude toward sex, or even an American 8th-grade health class level understanding of it.

                  Somehow all the illegal cam girls posted in magical kingdom seem to have private rooms of their own. If American parents knew what their daughters were up to, child marriage wouldn’t seem like such a bad idea to them. And likewise, if these daughters knew first-hand that patriarchal sex lies in their futures, much degeneracy could be avoided.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Of course, horny girls will remain horny no matter how many rooms exist in their homes. But I’ve no doubt that the socio-sexual landcape would be much healthier if patriarchal sexuality were instilled in children since the moment they were born. Individualist feminism would be unfathomable, at any rate, and that would be excellent for TFR.

                • peppermint says:

                  No, adherents to the SSSM think the idea of sex had to have been implanted in nine year old girls, and then argue about techniques by which the parents should control the way that idea is implanted.

                  4chan had an 11 year old camwhore once who legend has it posted full nudes. Her dad later posted a vid in which he invented the cyber police, backtraced it, and consequences will never be the same memes.

                  So we all know that even White 11 year olds are capable of ruining their lives.

                  Legend has it there’s a culture that believes putting a mound of sand behind a baby’s back is how you teach them to sit.

                  The thing about children seeing sex is they ignore it, and I remember not seeing my mom as pretty. Children will talk about sex with each other – me and my friends found a porn magazine when we were ten – but ignore adults and be creeped out if adults try to show them anything.

                  Despite having seen my parents naked, and everyone my age looking up the reproductive system part of the biology book many times before getting any real porn, we were all taught to virtue signal individualistic feminism.

                  The point of Socrates is to virtue signal about what virtues to signal. Being told by your father what virtues to signal about sexuality is far more important than seeing him fuck your mother.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  The sexual impulse is primordial, no argument. Multiple room occupancy makes for an unnatural, artificial environment in which those primordial impulses are developmentally arrested. I’m as a genetic determinist as they get, but you can’t pretend away the role of environment altogether. A lot of “room” (pun intended) for maneuver between SSSA and set-in-stone determinism.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Also, kids don’t stay away from sex.

                • peppermint says:

                  Commies thought surrounding us with commie propaganda would make us commies. Christians worried that surrounding us with porn and FPS would make us degenerates and murderers. The opposite was the case for the first two, the kids who grew up surrounded with porn are the least degenerate.

                  And you think obviously kids need to see sex, even though no one has ever intentionally shown it to kids, and kids only watch when they think no one is looking.

                  I remember being a kid and being curious. I don’t remember avoiding it because I wouldn’t remember avoiding it. I see my gfs’ little prepubescent siblings quietly leave when I make out with them.

                • peppermint says:

                  Usually if kids need something caretakers will instinctively give it to them, like vegetables, or my mom taught me how to read, and my gf’s little brother taught her little sister.

                  This nigger that ran away wrote that its’ master’s wife started teaching it to read, but then its’ master told his wife not to teach it.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >And you think obviously kids need to see sex, even though no one has ever intentionally shown it to kids

                  It’s not intentional. If you only have single room and single bed, that’s what you get. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

                • peppermint says:

                  I have a hard time believing humans ever lived huddled in dark one room thatched roof huts. I could put together a log cabin with a metal axe. Humans have had metal for millennia. You accuse Vikings of having one room houses as if they didn’t have enough woodworking to build ships or enough iron to exract gold.

                  Niggers don’t even need houses because they can sleep outside, and aren’t biologically suited to putting in the effort to build a house.

                  I conjecture that the one room Viking houses were for cold days so everyone could stay near the fire. Anyone who can build ships for the North Sea can build a barn to store animal feed, barrels for salted meat, and damned well could build a house with rooms.

                  Additionally I reject the idea that people used to have to fuck every night. Biweekly is enough when there are a ton of people around and it takes all of ten minutes. It’s not hard to sneak away from the kids for that long.

                  There’s this show on Netflix, Anne with an E, in which degenerate moderns project their constant stress and insecurity, and belief that little girls can do no wrong, onto our ancestors. In it the people have houses with more than one level, but I’m sure Netflix would have preferred to have the old brother and sister who took Anne in fuck in the mud in front of her.

                • jim says:

                  > I have a hard time believing humans ever lived huddled in dark one room thatched roof huts.

                  Visit the third world. Lots of families with hordes of happy healthy children living in one room thatched huts.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >You accuse Vikings of having one room houses as if they didn’t have enough woodworking to build ships or enough iron to exract gold.

                  And yet a simple search in google pics of “viking house” gives results that are 50% definite single room occupancy and the rest ambiguous. The question is not what their capabilities were, but how they chose to use them. Clearly, Vikings were comfortable enough in rather modest buildings.

                  How many rooms here? :


                  or here:


                  or here:


                  >I conjecture that the one room Viking houses were for cold days so everyone could stay near the fire. Anyone who can build ships for the North Sea can build a barn to store animal feed, barrels for salted meat, and damned well could build a house with rooms.

                  >Cold days.
                  >So everyone could stay near the fire.

                  Scandinavia is not, usually, a very warm place. The fire is needed constantly.

                  >Biweekly is enough when there are a ton of people around

                  Sex drive doesn’t diminish because there are other people around. You’re projecting 21st century anxieties and the modern “sense of comfort/privacy” onto the past. Even today there’s plenty of semi-public or not-100%-private sex going on, and it doesn’t always involve niggers.

                  >it takes all of ten minutes. It’s not hard to sneak away from the kids for that long.

                  No evidence that the Vikings, or anyone else pre-1800, were petting-averse premature ejaculators (aka: “let’s get down to business because I need to get some sleep before the big day tomorrow”) or that they ever tried to “sneak away for sex” inside their own homes from their own kids. These are completely modern norms.

                  The evidence for single room occupancy being very prevalent among many populations is overwhelming.

                  Your instinctive response is: “they must have hidden from their own kids inside their own homes,” which is surely what you would’ve tried to do in their place, but I see no reason to think that people back then were particularly concerned about being discovered by their own kids having sex, and the fact that there exists absolutely no literature (that I know of) from the relevant and long period voicing parents’ fears that the children will “discover” them mid action (as you can find today) indicates that they really were not concerned about it at all.

                  When they were “discovered,” they may or may not have lied to their kids about the meaning of their actions, but again, when you live in a single room and even sleep on a single bed with the whole family, there really is no point taking some kind of precautions against “being found out” as the proximity is just too great.

                  Perhaps they had been waiting till the kids fell asleep to do it (fewer possible interruptions), but that’s the extent of it. “Sneaking away” wouldn’t even have crossed their minds.

                • peppermint says:

                  The nudists had a point about nudity rules being culturally determined within reason.

                  Humans did once shower and bathe in sex-segregated or even mixed groups. Bathing culture disappeared because people wondered (this is reasonable) if bathing was spreading the plague, puritanism appeared after the middle ages, presto, the disappearance of mixed bathing implies feminism.

                  Mixed bathing still exists in Scandinavia. No one, anywhere, thinks fucking in front of the kids is a good idea. When adults start making out, kids leave, I know because I’ve seen it happen. Kids are also uncomfortable about seeing it in movies if they think adults are watching them – seen this too, despite all the sex-positivity pushed on everyone – but are curious if they think they’re not being watched.

                  Romans slept in one room apartments in the cities, but they didn’t stay there all day, they had to go bathe and cook or get prepared food elsewhere. Babies sleep a lot and children like to disappear and hang out with their friends. There’s no reason for mom and dad to fuck in front of the children.

                  Peasants have always lived in houses of various construction and it was historically normal to have more than one building.


                  These ancient humans are our ancestors. They were more industrious and comfortable than we are, and they think like us except that they know a lot more about plants and animals and we know more about abtruse things we can’t immediately put together with our bare hands.

                • peppermint says:

                  I’ve never seen a feminist blog post about how natural it is to watch modern pornographic tv with your kid or nephew or little brother, but I have seen greentext stories about awkwardly trying to leave the room during a sex scene while watching tv with adults.

                  If feminism destroyed ancient empires, it couldn’t have happened because of multiple rooms. In fact if multiple rooms triggered feminism we would expect less feminism in cities where people have less space.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >No one, anywhere, thinks fucking in front of the kids is a good idea. When adults start making out, kids leave

                  Right, this is modern culture where there is choice, including choice of entering into and out of “privacy mode.” Not how it went centuries ago in pre-modern society. In Russian there isn’t even a word for privacy, it’s a completely new idea. Only the affluent had some measure of privacy and even that is disputed. No choice!

                  >There’s no reason for mom and dad to fuck in front of the children.

                  The reason is “lack of alternative options,” that is, unless you believe in widespread marital celibacy, which is absurd. It doesn’t even matter how many times a week they fucked – the location of the fucking was the home, and the home had one room in it, shared by the whole family.

                  >Peasants have always lived in houses of various construction and it was historically normal to have more than one building.

                  Peasants usually had only one building, and regardless, the main building used throughout the year was single room. In fact, most peasant houses did not survive for us to examine them, so surely elaborate construction was out of the question.

                  The ancient Egyptians were not “kangs” – they were similar to whites, and no Egyptian peasant had several buildings to live in. The normal houses and tenements were one room, as it was in China, India, and among the poorer Plebians, and among all the others I’ve documented and among those I didn’t document. Just another example would be Celts:

                  “Every house was shared by three generations of a family, including children, their parents, their unmarried aunts and uncles, and their grandparents. … Celtic houses had a single room inside.”

                  “They frequently lived in hillforts protected by bastioned stone walls which surrounded single-room houses, streets and storage pits.”

                  “Archeologists emphasize the modest dimensions of houses: a single room which hardly ever exceeded 15 square metres in the early period.”

                  These were European houses:




                  As I said, every culture I look at, that’s what I find.

                  >In fact if multiple rooms triggered feminism we would expect less feminism in cities where people have less space.

                  You don’t really have single room occupancy in modern WEIRD cities. You also don’t have normal close-knit and fertile family life in WEIRD cities. We’re talking here about a wide-scale transformation that has taken centuries to fully manifest. Multiple room occupancy triggered feminism 250 years ago and especially 200 years ago; modern cities with “less space” have nothing to do with it.

                • peppermint says:

                  Where did they store their corn and sausages and pickled vegetables?

                  Where did they smoke their meat? Surely not in the same building they were trying to live in.

                  The problem here is that you’re assuming that since sawmills and nails led to more precise and larger construction, therefore ancient Aryans must have had one room houses – debatable – and only one building per family, just like today.

                  When we know from recent history that even after sawmills made the farmhouse huge farms continued to have multiple buildings, because you live in an urban society where, now that apartments are big enough for every apartment to have its own kitchen and bathtub, people do save money by using those instead of going to the gym to shower and mcdz for food every day, and you project your way of saving money on your ancestors, because you think they were just like you but poorer i.e. more proletarian and more sexually liberated.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Where did they store their corn and sausages and pickled vegetables?

                  >Where did they smoke their meat? Surely not in the same building they were trying to live in.

                  You’re wrong. See:




                  “When visiting the Vikings in the Longhouse remember to notice the hook over the fireplace and whatever hangs from it. Smoking was an easy way for the Vikings to preserve fish and meat.”

                  >you think they were just like you but poorer i.e. more proletarian and more sexually liberated.

                  I think that whites as well as many non-whites pre modernity didn’t give a fuck about the company of close relatives when they fucked inside their own single room homes.

                  Ironically, the very monotheistic groups like Semitic Jews probably did care about that, but not Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Indian/Chinese/Viking/Celtic pagans and post-pagans (“post pagan” meaning nominally Christian but living about the same way as pre-Christianization).

                  It’s not an issue of “sexual liberation,” but a relative lack of intrusive outside meddling in one’s own household affairs, which intrusive meddling is of Christian and post-Christian aka Puritan origin.

                  As society became “Talmudized” by the usual forces, the list of sex-related taboos (none of which are actually of Biblical origin, in the same way that avoiding cheeseburgers and light switches on sabbath are not Biblical but pharisaic) got longer and longer in a typical holiness spiral, and the move from single room occupancy to multiple room occupancy provided the grounds for making sex in proximity to one’s own family members a taboo.

                  Nobody had known of such a taboo before the intersection of puritanism and multiple room occupancy, just as nobody had known of a taboo against child marriage before the intersection of puritanism and the Prussian school system.

                  That this escalating holiness may be contrary to Jesus’ will is irrelevant; Jesus said nothing about adopting nigger embryos yet you see what’s going on.

                  What you need to understand is that puritanism is Talmudism when whites (Christian or otherwise) engage in it. Jewish Talmudism leads to all kinds of superstitions about food, saturdays, and so on, always escalating in holiness. Puritanism is Talmudic in the sense that puritans keep finding new and novel taboos about certain things, where such taboos were unheard of previously and were not mentioned in the OT or the NT.

                  Jesus said nothing about sex in your own home with your own wife on your own bed, just as he said nothing about marriage at 10 being “oppressive,” nor did he tell you to adopt niggers. My point is not that Jesus was awesome, but that the Talmudic tendency of finding new and revolutionary prohibitions (often while completely discarding old and well established commandments) is not actually exclusive to Jews.

                  Today the puritans tell you that if you have sex with your wife and the baby is present in the same room, the baby will be traumatized and you’re a child abuser. Simultaneously, the puritans are telling you that if the same baby, which is male, exhibits girly behaviors, then you must mutilate him and turn him into a cocksucking tranny. If you refuse to do that, he will be traumatized, and you’re a child abuser.

                  The constant is that they keep coming up with *new* taboos relating to sex, then forcing them on you. The taboo against sex in the same room where the kids sleep is old, so you don’t care about it. The taboos against child marriage, against teenage sex, against “non consensual” sex, and all kinds of enlightenment-era memes are also getting old, and our noticing of it has attracted us to Jim’s blog.

                  If the progs win, 200 years from now the taboo against letting your girly son or tomboy daughter outgrow their phase will also be old. When you say “don’t fucking tell me what to do inside my own home with my own family,” the progs and the cuck conservadads will pounce on you, because — so goes the paradox — there is no place for independent action in modern individualist society. Because they are puritans and your individualism will be taken away from you once you transgress against the Cathedral.

                  So if you have heterosexual sex with your own wife in your own single room home while the kids are close by, you are a “child abuser.” Lots of mumbo-jumbo will be cited by conservadads, catladies, and modern progs to prove that “abuse” has occurred somehow, yet the kids are happy and healthy. The government may take your kids away.

                  And if you refuse to inject your son with hormone blockers if he exhibits sex-atypical behaviors sometimes, likewise you are a “child abuser” and lots of mumbo-jumbo will be cited to explain why the government should take him away from you and give him to a couple of dykes who will penectomize and castrate him. This late phase of puritanism is supported by catladies and modern progs, though conservadads are not fond of it. Well screw them, they invented this monster.

                  Conservadad puritanism is still puritanism, coming up with new, new, NEW taboos is still Talmudic even if the people who do it are Gentiles, and the sexual philosophy of the last 300 years is completely wrong. Multiple room occupancy provided a death blow to sexual sanity by foisting the cult of individualist sex on society which later turned to “feminism” because females are its primary benefactors.

                  A one room house has no “room” for such nonsense. You fuck your wife, the kids get the fucking message, so they marry early and have happy and fertile sex.

                  “Oy vey goyim, heterosexual sex and early marriage are bad for you, hehehehe, why don’t you try sucking a stranger’s dick instead?” Except it’s not actually ratfaced kikes who came up with this shit, but the older culprits, prompted by the transition to multiple room occupancy. Notice, however, that the kikes don’t say anything about this issue. Talmudist Jews support Talmudist (puritan) whites – news at 11. I’m sick of this crap, tbh. Semitism should end, including figurative Semitism.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              If the reddit thread I have linked is correct, and I suggest you look into the information provided therein, then I think we can safely say that my thesis about “privacy” being a precondition for puritanism is correct, and the commenter who very ironically calls himself “viking” should just shut the fuck up about muh sexualization of children. How does it feel when the facts are on one’s side? Feels great!

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              I wonder what Nathan Larson would say about this issue. I suspect he would be on my side, similarly to the facts which are on my side.

            • peppermint says:

              Yeah, no, you’re not going to convince me that showing boners to babies used to be normal. The Greeks would walk around naked and boners were a source of embarrassment. It’s natural to take your woman somewhere no one is looking at you even if they can hear, so natural that nudists and perverts haven’t convinced students to stop sexiling each other in the dorms. Why don’t you go try to get that to happen.

              Children certainly instinctually know what sex is and know to stay out of it because no good can come of their participation.

              Adults instinctually know to not show it to children.

              This where children is defined as sexually immature. Which, as Jim says, comes before marriage age, the age at which people should start having sex.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >showing boners to babies

                I’m not sure what kind of scenario you have in mind here, but when you live in a Longhouse (for example) then the children are going to be aware of you fucking your wife, with their ears and very likely with their eyes also. There’s no way around it – it’s dictated by the architecture, Peppe.

                >The Greeks would walk around naked and boners were a source of embarrassment.

                This is not “walking around.” It’s your own damn home, not the public domain. And besides, most of humanity (meaning whites and civilized non-whites, not the niggers) isn’t ancient Greeks.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            As a matter of fact, even when houses contained more than one room, it was the norm that families slept together. It means that, as said in the quote I gave Peppe from Berge about R.P. Gildrie, the kids were present when dad fucked mom; furthermore, it must have been quite often that they literally slept on the same bed while the coitus has transpired. These facts may be unpleasant for the modern man but they are still facts.

            Of course, perhaps you can use your imagination to imagine that people back in the day were all platonic faggots, and that the dads were friendzoned by the moms or something like that, so no sex has occurred at all. I refuse to indulge in such nonsense. There was sex, and the kids were often literally on the same bed, and yet we’re all here now, aren’t we? Check mate, puritan.

            (last sentence is tongue-in-cheek. Actually everything I write is tongue-in-cheek, but I make good points and people enjoy reading my stuff)

            • Hidden Author says:

              Yes children historically have known of earthy things like sex, poo and other now-taboo subjects. But as early as Aristotle, there is knowledge that to survive a pregnancy it is best for the mother to be 18+. In other words, prevalent child knowledge of sex but not (always) child participation in sex.

              And that’s the thing. This rush to tell kids of sex sounds less like an altruistic act of education and more like recruitment for participation by adults. Which is creepy.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >prevalent child knowledge of sex but not (always) child participation in sex.

                “Participation in sex” was shortly after (if not shortly before) marriage, and we’ve already discussed that issue.

                >This rush to tell kids of sex

                There is no “rush,” though. The historical norm was simply not concealing it, since there’s nothing to conceal, and there was no way to conceal it anyway. “Privacy” simply did not apply inside the homes of the common and the poor people.

                The “boo hoo sexualization” meme falsely assumes that the natural state of the child is unawareness of sex. But for millions of years, children were absolutely aware of sex – again, literally slept on the same bed as their parents as late as the 19th century.

                In other words, today there’s wild deviation from the historical and prehistorical norm. It’s a fact. Without this wild deviation, modern puritanism couldn’t and wouldn’t exist, and people would be having more sex *and liking it*.


                That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, millions of years. Children instinctively know what sex is and to avoid adults, adults instinctively know not to talk about it with children.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  It’s not about talking it with kids. It’s about not being so sensitive about muh privacy when you’re inside your own house which only contains one room.

            • Joseph Nerevar says:

              The parents would have sex in the dark, with the sun/fire put out, typically while the children were asleep. It’s not something children would have not much about other than their parents moving around in the dark

  13. dirkdiggler says:

    Take it up with the fags within neorxn that oppose eugenics iike zippy, educationrealist, and so on.

    It is phenomenal that there is even still disagreement about this, but enemies and weakness that will cannibaiize you to virtue signal exist in our midst.

    • Anony-maus says:

      Those people aren’t proper neorxn, fuck knows who they are. Far as I can tell, they have no reactionary goals whatsoever. They might be anti-immigration. Kay.

    • peppermint says:

      Zippy is an irrelevant cuck and I don’t know educationrealist.

      The Boomercucks are largely irrelevant now, no one respects them as individuals. Now we have Xircucks instead like Dox Gay who want to force christcuckoldry or other ideological nonsense instead of jew-worship the way the Boomercucks did. Xirs think they have a right to social security because they were told that in school, which they remember being tolerable. They think women are mistreated because they regret sleeping around before marrying a woman with a smaller partner count than them and demanding that she do the women’s work at home as well as when she went to the office. They think Whites are privileged because they were able to get a job right out of college.

      While the Boomers will be sold to China for organs and meat, the Xirs we can probably enslave as butlers.

  14. Robert Brockman says:

    “Thus for civilization, must have patriarchy, and that patriarchy will be very forcefully resisted by women howling for their demon lover, and has to be very forcefully imposed on those women.”

    The patriarchy is actually hardly resisted at all by women. What little resistance there is can be easily defeated by treating said resistance as if it was coming from a six year old (which it basically is). The “demon lovers” get things from girls because they are less weak than the typical “nice guy”, but can be displaced by patriarchs with little effort. “Boyfriends” can be displaced with even less effort.

    Something that took me a long time to figure out: don’t waste time having sex with girls who you don’t want to bear your children. It messes up their bonding imprinting and just exposes you to unnecessary risk. It doesn’t actually count as real “practice” for recruiting the mother of your children, and your notch count is irrelevant to your status as a patriarch. Practicing getting girls to sit on Daddy’s lap *does* help, as does practicing getting girls to understand that *they* are the ones being vetted.

    • jim says:

      Women want their demon lovers. They want them a lot.

      • Robert Brockman says:

        Right, because their demon lovers are not wusses and almost everyone else is. This is because the men suffer from POZ, feminism, and internalized low status as a result of all the stuff you’ve been talking about. However, if one pukes up all the POZ, feminism, and internalized low status, suddenly the demon lovers lose much of their competitive advantage.

        Patriarchs have to be sociopathic in that they insist on being patriarchs in the face of tremendous societal pressure to be wusses. Demon lovers are just plain sociopathic, and are therefore not wusses.

        The common factor is not being a wuss — and this can be achieved without being a demon lover. Jim, you should be in a perfect position to field test this for yourself.

        The nice part about this realization is that it means we can rebuild the civilization one family at a time — individual patriarchs really can ovecome the civilizational corruption through force of will, strangely.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          The common factor is not being a wuss

          That isn’t the only common factor mentioned in your post.

          As far as that being the critical common factor you offer zero evidence or even reasonable conjecture.

      • Alrenous says:

        Jim, was it you who said The Red Pill™ was constructed out of a large collection of individual explicit field reports? (Might have gotten that direct from Roissy.) If so, have you read a substantial sample of these reports?

        • jim says:

          Sounds like something I might have said, but other people spent considerably more time reading and replicating field reports than I did.

          Field reports are apt to be unreliable or misleading, because they attempt to express in words a pre-verbal pre-rational reality that is not at all easy to verbalize.

          • Alrenous says:

            Beats empty bloviating though. Can at least wave vaguely at the right details.

            • Robert Brockman says:

              Jim is right that there is much going on that is very difficult to put into words. Practice based on field reports can help fill in the gaps. People who are serious should consider coaching — it’s MUCH cheaper than the divorce attorney or psychiatrist you will need if you don’t get it. Much of what is involved is training your *perception*, which is almost all unconscious.

              NOTE TO FELLOW CHRISTIANS: it’s completely unnecessary to fornicate with girls in order to get the skills needed to attract a wife. All the really difficult stuff is front-loaded, once you are kissing the girl alone then it’s all on you, the man, to show appropriate restraint.

              • Cavalier says:

                Christianity never enforced male sexual fidelity.

                • peppermint says:

                  Do you mean the story that Constantine attached to the previous pantheistic virtue-based morality of Rome, or the more refined soul theory Elect version where Elect prove it by fucking niggers and non-Elect should just go fuck a nigger because they’re going to hell, or monotheistic Jesusism according to which aborting niglets is the unforgivable sin, or the pantheism where the god of the Whites orders Whites to take up the White man’s burden of giving White women to niggers?

                • Cavalier says:

                  The Puritans fucked the savages they conquered less than any other conquering race in the history of human conquest. Compare to literally any contemporary example: the proto-Aussies, who fucked the Tazmanians into nonexistence and every abbo female they got their hands on; the Spanish, who fucked Latin America into the cesspool it is today; the French, some of whom went native in North America, others of whom begat a “popping” Orleans mulatto culture; the Portuguese, who absorbed so many slaves that they have by far the greatest SSAfrican blood in Europe, and some other examples I’m probably forgetting.

                  In contrast, the Puritans and Quakers of New England never formed a “mestizo” caste, their descendants, those of original New English stock, have no detectable Amerindian admixture, and, until the early 20th century, until the (((bolshies))) rose to the fore, were bitching about hyphen-Americans and talking about how abortion and sterilization should be used to purify the American — and world — population.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Morality towards the ingroup has little to do with morality towards outgroups. Christians fucked the savages, which is not the same thing as fornication with the girl next door who belongs to your own community.

  15. Bruce says:

    ” Nice guys have a way better shot with girls whose fathers have died or abandoned them.”

    “I have tried nice, and I have tried being an asshole, and nice gets …… a few fatherless girls.”

    Any guess as to why nice works on fatherless girls?

    FWIW, my experience agrees with what you’re saying about fatherless girls – I think you’re right but I want to know why.

    • Robert Brockman says:

      Girls without a real father may not have received imprinting on what a real patriarch looks like / acts like. Thus they may be fooled by “nice” guys, confusing them with the real thing. Girls with a real father know that the “nice” guy is too weak / submissive to be a real patriarch. Much of this processing is probably subconscious — the last 19 year old I dated said I “smelled” like Daddy.

      Girls with a good father are much easier to deal with because they love Daddy and thus are favorably disposed towards you once you demonstrate patriarchal traits. Demonstrating these traits around the girl’s biological father smooths over that relationship as well, leading to a clean transfer of authority.

      A key realization which makes all this much easier is that we need nothing from girls except children, everything else we can provide for ourselves. This means that it is the *girls* that must prove they are worthy of our time, attention, love, sex, resources, etc. Any amount of neediness around girls shatters any impression that you are a patriarch and screws everything up.

  16. Robert Brockman says:

    I have observed that being the Bad Man is not the *essential* element.
    The essential element is treating hot girls like *girls*. One would not worship or cowtow to a little six year old girl, nor would one put up with misbehavior. “Big little girls” of marriageable age are no different.

    Praise them like Daddy when they are adorable. Scold them like Daddy when they misbehave. Pick them up and put them on Daddy’s lap. Be *patronizing*, like a patriarch. Sex and children with the patriarch is a special gift for only the best and most well behaved adult big little girl. No need for meanness.

    Ignore everything society / culture / girls say about being a patriach. The current climate has created a huge patriarch shortage, with the demand being huge. This shortage is what makes male age, height, appearance all irrelevant.

    Go talk to a (twenty)-six year old girl today and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

  17. Your Wife's Son says:

    Giovanni Dannato wrote a good blogpost that’s relevant to this discussion:

    Great minds think alike.

    • jim says:

      I notice he uses the term “feral women”, a term that is distinctive of this blog, which I use to refer to women not under proper male authority.

      • Bruce says:

        I saw F. Roger Devlin refer to “female sexual ferality” years ago – don’t know who came up with that phrase.

      • Giovanni Dannato says:

        It seemed apt. Come to think of it, your post about men not being protective of women because they have no ownership or personal investment was an inspiration. That thesis rings true.

    • peppermint says:

      It took him until 9/20 after Anglin picked up the White Sharia meme from Psycho Sacco who said he was inspired by Jim? Everyone has known that fir a year.

    • pdimov says:

      I thought that the point of Aryan goddesses in wheat fields was to trigger Jewesses.

  18. Bruce says:

    “England before 1810 or so was fairly successful at keeping women in line, and frequently deployed methods that would make the Taliban blush, methods that horrified the Victorians. We need to copy eighteenth century England, eighteenth century Virginia, and early nineteenth century Australia.”

    Jim, I’m curious how European Catholic countries (let’s say same criteria – pre-1810) did at this. Was Catholicism a better or worse system for accomplishing these things compared to Protestant, Pre-1810 Anglosphere?

    • jim says:

      I don’t know enough about European Catholic countries. I would expect that France hit the skids before revolution, but I am just guessing.

      • Sig Sawyer says:

        In France before the Revolution, noblewomen would dress up as commoners for the chance to meet with Voltaire and Rousseau. This happened because Louis XIV disempowered the local nobility and gave their functions as judges and governers to an educated commoner bureaucracy. The intent being to solidify centralized absolutism and distract potential power competitors with social status games at Versailles.

        In reality, it created a class of intelligentsia who were both higher status than the local lord and business 1789

        • Sig Sawyer says:

          Fucking phones. I meant to write: by 1789, this class had come to see the aristocracy as useless. Which they were. The nobility was now comprised of dandy, rootless men with no stake in their communities and no experience governing. In short, cucks. And they cucked out.

    • Iviking says:

      England isnt that the country with all the queens?

  19. A-Young-Seeker says:

    Hello Jim,

    This is unrelated to your post but could you please compile a reading list for a young fellow who is looking to learn about philosophy and politics from an alternative perspective? I’m a freshman in college and I’ve spent this summer reading Marx, Foucault, Sartre and some other new left french thinkers which were recommended by my sociology professor. Their works are very interesting but I always feel like any thought that might allow even a shred of doubt about their conclusions have been left out and ignored. I’m looking for something to counter this one sidedness and improve my education on these subjects they’re talking about, namely, power relations and the process of normalization. Since you’re one of the best defenders of what is considered normal and strong, I thought I ask you for advice on finding some good books on the subject.

    Thank you in advance

    • jim says:

      Replying at length to Marx and the rest is overkill. They only deserve swift dismissals as evil and crazy.

      Marx reifies “History” as a supernatural force – Marx’s history is in fact the God of Israel. Marxism is a Jewish heresy, “History” is Jehovah, dialectics is talmudism, and the vanguard of proletariat are the Jewish people.

      Marx’s theory of value defines the entrepreneur as creating no value, but in fact without tools and direction, most people cannot effectively create value, and the largest variance in the creation of value is variations in the quality of direction. Remove the entrepreneur, you are going to need the central planning department to provide direction, which Central Planning Department promptly proceeds to strangle itself and everyone else in red tape and ever growing bureaucracy.

      See Ayn Rand for a colorful dramatization on the issue of the creation of value by entrepreneurship.

      Marx reifies classes as individuals, proposes that the capitalist class pursues the interests of the capitalist class, hence “class warfare”. This is a category error. Classes are composed of individuals who pursue their individual interests – thus unions make war on “scab laborers” not on the bosses, the bosses compete bringing down prices of goods and raising the price of labor, etc.

      Sartre correctly and intelligently criticizes Marx’s concept of class, but attempts to sustain the rest of Marxism with too clever by half rationalizations – but the rest of Marxism is just as unsustainable, and his defense is just glib rhetoric, which glib rhetoric has been quite rightly ignored by just about everyone, since Marx already provided better glib rhetoric.

      Existentialism examines the void left by the death of God, without providing any real solution to it, nor any sane guide to what constitutes right action, except that it allows the progressive intellectual to capriciously declare leftism to be virtue – but it equally allows him to declare genocide to be virtue. Existentialism in short is “I don’t believe in God, therefore I can believe anything I like.”

      Foucault was gay. No lengthier dismissal is required, and any lengthier dismissal normalizes gay sex. His belief system is too incoherent and internally inconsistent to meaningfully explain what is wrong with it. To critique Foucault would be like critiquing the ramblings of a drunk. His political beliefs at any given time are best explained by whom he was having sex with at the time, and whom he would have liked to have sex with at that time. His beliefs are best understood as chat while being sodomized. Foucault’s theory was that come the revolution, he should be considered hot.

      • Alrenous says:

        Jim’s philosophical learning is normally bad to terrible, but on Marx is okay. It was indeed immediately obvious that Marx had no argument. I surmise that other Sophists noticed it would play well with the proletariat and popularized it.

        Existentialism doesn’t have an answer because it is intellectually honest. (This is Jim being bad at philosophy again.) Being as yet unable to find a coherent answer, it says so. Jim is slagging proggies who claim existentialism is a complete philosophy. Existentialism is explicitly incomplete. Proggies are liars, full story at 11.

        Sartre claimed to be an existentialist, but he wasn’t a philosopher. Sophist or philosophaster – take your pick. Might as well debate what colour duck he was. Orange, or ultraviolet?

        • jim says:

          Existentialism pretends to have an answer, and admits it has no answer. This is not honest, but incoherent. Sartre on Marxism was a dishonest sack of shit, albeit a lot more honest than Marx. There are more serious flaws in Marxism than its class theory.

          • Alrenous says:

            Technically speaking Nietzsche wasn’t a philosopher either, but at least he was floating sincere hypotheses. That said Nietzsche is mainly an object lesson on the necessity of communicating clearly. His work is lost on your unless you already know what he means – in which case, what’s the point? However, there’s some opposing need to communicate unclearly, due to political persecution from above, and creative misunderstandings from below. Kant normally suffers badly from the latter, despite being ‘impenetrable.’ I’ve solved this by being intentionally repellent. Use of anti-rhetoric. I appear to be no threat and my work has no exploitable social value.

            However, the [use Latin] idea seems better. Have a closed channel specifically for scholarly work, although I favour Greek, as one might expect. Since usage of Greek would restrict my audience to actually zero, anti-rhetoric will have to suffice.

            Return of ten-second nihilism: if nothing matters, there’s no reason not to go to church and worship. “But it’s an illusion!” So what?

            In addition, the divine never justified morality, which means losing it can’t mean losing the justification. The fact many did fall into depravity as a result of losing faith in the divine is a long-form disproof of the ‘noble lie’ idea. Falsehood is always dangerous.

            • peppermint says:

              Whose tl;dr word salad is more annoying, Alrenous or viking?

              • Alrenous says:

                It’s rather annoying that Nietzsche wasn’t a fan of explaining himself. A) it would probably have helped him think much more clearly and B) he was definitely onto something. Several somethings. But a collection of bare assertions does not a philosophy make.

                The whole reason these problems come up is because there is dispute. Anyone with the vaguest critical thinking skills can come up with divers plausible statements for both sides. Or all sides, since there’s more than two unless there’s a [you talk like a fag] in the room who can’t think in complexity beyond binary. That’s not the hard part. The hard part is threshing the wheat from the chaff. The first, the primary, the fundamental, the alpha way of doing this is to check for internal contradictions. However, this requires knowing the logic tree which the final statement is but one leaf of.

                Carlyle does this too, though at least he didn’t pretend to be a philosopher, nor did anyone on his behalf. You made some predictions. They were true. Pretty good. But nobody can copy your method, because you didn’t say what you method was. In the grand scheme of things, especially as the predictions were ignored by anyone with the power to affect the outcome, this is nothing. Now that the predictions are validated, the method would have inevitably gained credence. Perhaps enough, perhaps not. As it wasn’t written down, the answer was changed from ‘perhaps not’ to ‘definitely not.’

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >Whose tl;dr word salad is more annoying, Alrenous or viking?

                Alrenous’, for sure.

                Viking has no punctuation, and his content is often total crap, but at least he comes across as human. Alrenous is basically a bot designed to derail every discussion with autistic screeching that is half irrelevant and half unreadable at all.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Case in point is his comment above mine. Just take a look at this shit. What the fuck is this? Can anyone tell what the “subject” of this text-wall is?


                • Alrenous says:

                  For Heidegger, to exist is to be historical.


                  The interesting part is this claim may well be reparable. Also, an obvious direct approach to dealing with the central problems which define existentialism. Yes, start with ‘existence is X’ and see where it goes.

                  Existential temporality is not a sequence of instants but instead a unified structure in which the “future” (that is, the possibility aimed at in my project) recollects the “past” (that is, what no longer needs to be done, the completed) so as to give meaning to the “present” (that is, the things that take on significance in light of what currently needs doing). To act, therefore, is, in Heidegger’s terms, to “historize” (geschehen), to constitute something like a narrative unity, with beginning, middle, and end

                  Don’t do that though. Goodness. Further, the repaired claim would likely no longer address the problem of existentialism. Something about how humans psychologically deal with sequences of events as a narrative, probably. I’m not that interested in doing it myself, so I’m not going to. If Heidegger wanted a coherent philosophy, he should have put it through the wringer himself. And if he didn’t care that much, why should I? It can remain incoherent.

                  Most philosophies are defined by their dogmas. That is, the Greek dogma, not the modern corruption, which refers to the debate between the skeptics and the dogmatists – and as many have rightly since pointed out, the skeptics had their own dogmas, which, uh, undermines the position.

                  Existentialism is one of the very few which obey the Original Dictum, that of Socrates. Start with admitting ignorance, but yearn for enlightenment. That said, many existentialists have gone even further, to not even knowing exactly what it is they don’t know. Camus is famous for his statement regarding suicide, which is a synecdoche about, basically, Hamlet. “To be or not to be.” Okay, but why is that a problem? Kind of have to know that before you start trying to solve it.

                  And it is a problem. I mean, duh. Read the news. (Don’t actually read the news. Might as well dunk your head in reactor waste water.)

                  Or put it this way; despite the fact that even skeptics can’t avoid their own pet dogmas, nobody has ever been able to justify dogma per se. Truth is commonly defined as ‘justified true belief,’ which is absolutely gut-bustingly funny. There’s begging the question, and then there’s nuclear-powered begging the question. Like, really now.

                  I say nobody, but it’s not quite nobody. It’s me and a couple other terribly obscure thinkers who realized the cogito generalizes. The point of truth is to predict the future, and you need to predict the future because you control your decisions but not their consequences. To have arrangements of qualia that are pleasing to you, you must know their ‘true’ relationships to each other.

                  As Jordan B Peterson has nearly realized, it’s doesn’t actually have to be true-true. Merely true-enough. That rabbit hole goes deep, though. Too deep for the present affordance. Don’t miss the point about the cogito and existentialism though; if you assume the cogito does not generalize, you have a serious, serious existential problem.

                • peppermint says:

                  Because Socrates didn’t say anything, he can’t be wrong, and what he did, discredit democracy forever, was a crucial moment in history.

                  The Stoics took his reasoning and developed a virtue-based moral system grounded in pantheism. Which was later welded to monotheism, which devolved into atomic soul theory and consequentialist utilitarianism, which is pure cuckoldry.

                  In rejection of utilitarianism, some christcucks tried just the Christ without the cuckoldry, becoming proper monotheists. However, Christ was himself a shitlib faggot who abandoned his adoptive father and got himself killed.

                  Existentialism and nihilism remove the monotheistic or pantheistic divinity and the various moral cuckoldry.

                  The next evolution is to return to the natural morality that everyone couldn’t put into words when the Greeks started putting things into words. Natural morality could be seen as complete without an object of worship, but there is always a top moral priority, and natural morality assigns that to the nation and race.

                  Confucius came the closest to putting natural morality into words. Unsurprisingly, the Whites dissatisfied with Western religions who turned to the East largely overlooked Confucianism. Too many people looking for a new religion are looking to feel superior or for license to do what is naturally wrong.

                  Person, family, nation, race; when the smaller does wrong by the larger, both have failed.

                • Ludwig von Neetgenstein says:


                  >To have arrangements of qualia that are pleasing to you, you must know their ‘true’ relationships to each other.

                  Interesting that you demonstrate Peppermint’s point that soul theory leads to utilitarian worship of one’s own butthole.

                  [To clarify, “cogito generalizes” = soul theory] [Btw, “cogito generalizes” argument is a sleight of hand with propositional sequence isomorphic to:

                  (1) Assert A exists
                  (2) Therefore A has identity
                  (3) Therefore ¬(¬A)

                  Which falls apart if you require that A be constructed first. It is similar to Cantor’s faulty reasoning in that when you start using unconstructed (non-operational) names, even if you get your first order logic correct, there’s no guarantee you didn’t end up with garbage (GIGO applies), as Cantor did.]

                  > Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. — Camus

                  This is a red herring.

                  > To be or not to be.

                  This is the pertinent version of the question. It is not a decidable question as Hume observed. Put differently, even if you pretended there’s a correct answer (i.e. transcendent) you would be barred from knowing it (because knowledge is inside causality). Luckily, the ‘why’ (the ‘meaning’, which is undecidable) is irrelevant. Choose to live? Good. Philosophy is for those who chose to live. Choose to die? Good. Get out of the way.

              • alf says:

                thou I had to think about it.

        • peppermint says:

          Existentialism and asserted nihilism are at best an attempt to ignore the philosophy that the individual feels is wrong but can’t be explain. This is a very familiar feeling to any White man under 40.

          Stoic monotheism would have us worship everything, including niggers impregnating our women. Personal monotheism would have us cut ourselves off from the world and tell everyone that abortion of niggers is wrong.
          Personal polytheism is hardly even theism and just sounds larpy.

          Natural morality means the moral decisions that would naturally be expected. Individuals belong to families which belong to nations which belong to races. The smaller is expected to do right by the larger, to not do so is seen as a failure of both.

          To worship x means to accept doing right by x as your top moral priority. It used to be normal for White men to worship our race, that was the true meaning of Christianity in the 19th century, that Puritans, Quakers, and Transcendentalists hated. Racetheism is now returning as young White men are both aware of our Whiteness and reject all other objects of worship.

          • Alrenous says:

            Suppose it is my sense of doing God’s will that makes my life meaningful.


            As values are pre-rational, there is no argument against this per se. However, now that it exists, it must be rationally consistent. What is it about God that makes doing His will meaningful? Ultimately, it must be either wisdom or ownership. Properties hardly exclusive to God. Doing the will of anyone who wiser than thou or owning the thing you’re doing it on must be equally meaningful.

            However, we can clearly see this is not the case. They do not find it meaningful to follow some random superior specimen. It must be a superior nonhuman specimen, more or less. So which is the inconsistency? Is the truth that God’s will is meaningless, or that (a superior) Man’s will is meaningful?

            As an aside, this principle is the bedrock of holier-than-thou cycles. Being either wiser (I Fucking Love Science) or more holy (I can hear God, not you) is considered justification for coercive compulsions. Obvs, being forced to be more meaningful is a good thing.

            I guess I shouldn’t make it an aside. There’s an interesting thing here. Either holiness is real, in which case proggies are in fact trapped in unholiness cycles, or holiness is not real, in which case we can simply prove that God’s will is meaningless, even if it exists. Either way, both modern left and modern right are condemned wholesale. (Almost as if modernism {and post modernism} is bad or something.) Equivalently, the will of a consciousness is the will of a consciousness, regardless of the size of that consciousness. (I will add a caveat relating to ‘free will,’ that is, the ability to conform to contract.)

            But in any case I’ve shown that empirically determining what is meaningful is impossible. The specimens are not consistent. (This is a condemnation of scientists who say science is not philosophy. Not that I should have to mention as much.) Meanwhile, it’s not even worth considering the idea that meaning can be found purely though rationality.

            Duh, do both. Fun fact: tribalism is bad. Unless you live in a literal grassland tribe, I suppose. But I suppose if the discourse regularly elevated above the ‘hmm, duh’ obviousness, the problem would have been solved long ago.

            I may have found a bit of contradiction within myself. The problem is genuinely hard,

            my life becomes meaningful when I “raise myself to the universal” by bringing my immediate (natural) desires and inclinations under the moral law, which represents my “telos” or what I ought to be. In doing so I lose my individuality (since the law holds for all) but my actions become meaningful in the sense of understandable, governed by a norm.

            We can’t call Kirkegaard dumb, but thirty seconds of critical thinking turns this idea into a bloody paste smeared across some square miles. That can’t really be the best he could do, could it? Christ, maybe we should just give up. “There may be meaning, but fuck us if we know what it is.” (Do refer to ten-second nihilism for the consequences of this stance.)

            But on the other hand, the fact remains that critical thinking does demolish such abortions. The discourse apparently has to be constantly reminded that engineers do not expect the first prototype to work. But, at the same time, the prototype has to be built and turned on to find out why it doesn’t work.

            We’re trying to answer the big why without answering the little whys. I mean, are you even trying?

            The rational response, with the preponderance of the evidence, has to be ‘no.’ It would seem everyone is quite convinced they’ve already found meaning, or lack thereof.

            And yet we have these folks who go all to pieces when their non-justifying justification is taken from them by advancing logic. I suppose that’s not really a mystery either, come to think. Rhetoric works and all that. If you bought the justification in the first place, you’re also apt to buy the contradictory justification, when certain epistemically irrelevant factors flip over.

            But I’m decidedly unhappy with that explanation. It’s normally predictive, but in this case, there’s definitely something wrong with it. Something missing? Something missing and a piece of missing contradictory evidence? Hmm, yes, seems that’s it. No idea what’s missing though.

            • peppermint says:

              Philosophy has struggled inder the weight of books for millennia, books have egos and are tl;dr. A book is finished when there’s nothing to add where a meme is finished when there’s nothing to remove. Book readers are dilettante leisure class faggots and writers are worse. The destruction of the middle class has its advantages.

              Natural morality: there is individual, family, nation, and race. When the smaller does wrong by the larger, everyone naturally sees it as a failure of both.

              Worship of x: accepting as top moral priority doing right by x

              Ratheism: worship of my race

              • Cavalier says:

                Book readers are dilettante leisure class faggots and writers are worse. The destruction of the middle class has its advantages.
                >Don’t read books, goy. Reading is for fat cats and faggots and jews. Books don’t contain dangerous ideas and ancient wisdom. :^)


                Truly, our world is post-satire.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Peppe is wrong about racetheism, not because racetheism is itself wrong, but because he subordinates sextheism to racetheism.

                  Peppe is wrong about books, but only insofar as he wants to eliminate valuable books and stuff valuable professors into fake shower rooms, whereas it’s only the worthless books and worthless professors that should be eliminated; there are plenty of excellent books and excellent professors who should continue to exist because they enrich humanity’s intellectual landscape and enhance actual scientific-technological progress, which is a positive thing and possibly the only positive thing.

                • peppermint says:

                  Educate come from ed + duce, ed being the opposite of il, thus education is mandatory, but as a fascist I would prefer that it be forbidden. The good professors are like Good Samaritans, they exist in order to make us feel bad about genocide, but because the educators have made it so everyone only pretends to be middle class, people only pretend to go by feelings.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Educate come from ed + duce, ed being the opposite of il, thus education is mandatory

                  I chortled.

            • Cavalier says:

              Am I just nuts, or is the only philosopher worth reading Charles Darwin? Seriously. If it doesn’t intersect with humans as biological organisms, complex vibrating molecules eating, shitting, fucking, and dying in a thin layer of other complex vibrating molecules hanging on to a small rock hurtling through the blackness of space, what’s the fucking point? “I think, therefore I am.” What claptrap.

              “I exist, therefore existence is good, and more existence is better.” — Yours truly of infinite wisdom

              Colonize the Earth. Colonize the Stars. Colonize the Galaxy.


              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >“I exist, therefore existence is good, and more existence is better.”

                By way of Scott Alexander (because of course):


                “David Benatar (born 1966) is a professor of philosophy and head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in Cape Town, South Africa.[1] He is best known for his advocacy of antinatalism in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, in which he argues that coming into existence is a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings.[2]”

              • Alrenous says:

                You’re not suited for philosophy, but refusing to admit you need to delegate.

                Philosophers rule your mind. You can deny it, but that just makes it easier.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Every Philo-So-FAG who disregards the scientific truth should get the bullet. The others can stay, if they behave. So simple.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I don’t see how that’s possible. I run everything through my Darwinian mind-filter. Everything is subordinate to it. I can entertain alternative “reality structures”, but they don’t stick in the long term. It literally starts from “things exist which continue to exist; things do not exist which do not continue to exist” and goes from there directly into everything as selective sweep. I mean, maybe you could subvert that, but I’m not sure how; it’s more reductive even than any of Descartes’ proofs of the existence of God. Good luck though.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Who did you get the idea from? How did they define the interpretation of ‘exists’? E.g. do you know if emergent properties exist or not? How do you tell the difference?

                  Descartes’ proofs of God weren’t reductive. They were kind of silly. Reductive proofs with the same premises prove there is no God.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Who did you get the idea from?
                  No one. Also, it’s pre-verbal, so don’t try the received language inherited thought thing.

                  >How d[o you] define the interpretation of ‘exists’?
                  Molecules, man, in three-dimensional space. Also pre-verbal. Or maybe it’s a Matrix, but a Matrix simulating molecules. Question my knowledge of the existence of molecules and I’ll question your molecular existence at all.

                  >do you know if emergent properties exist or not?
                  In what context? Life? Life is not irreducibly complex in principle, though we — and possibly, but not necessarily, all derivatives of “life” (i.e. of a process of natural selection) — cannot reduce it, as consciousness is a byproduct of natural selection, and natural selection cannot act on that which it does not “see” (that which does not influence fitness).

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                On a serious note: yeah, you’re right, and I support the Judeo-Masonic-Illuminati plan to establish worldwide dictatorship, because this worldwide dictatorship will force fedoraism (atheism) on all of humanity, and then we could all concentrate on scientific endeavors such as curing aging and colonizing parallel universes, finally detoxed of the mass opiate that is religion.

                Okay, that may not have been a particularly serious (to say nothing of realistic or probable) note.

                But then again, what are you going to do about humanity having its own ideals which are distinct from yours, and its own “facts” which are “alternative” to yours, unwilling to cooperate in the interest of the common good, and choosing instead to engage in petty and ultimately meaningless rivalries?

                In other words: how are you going to get all the fucking white males to cooperate with one another, and then to subjugate all of humanity to their absolute rule?

                Because this is what it comes down to. See, Moldbug hasn’t gone far enough. Scrap muh patchwork. Go full Fnargl-worship. If sovereignty is conserved, and worldwide sovereignty has *already* been achieved, or almost achieved, by USG, then why not take a step further and utilize this oppressive structure for unpozzed goals? Just imagine what could be achieved when the entire world is under the authority of a single monarch, who commands a single military power.

                John “Lenin” Lennon was right, only he didn’t realize that his ideals could be implemented if — and only if! — the whole world is under a global dictatorship. The question is: whose dictatorship? It could be ZOG or it could be Nazis (there are no other options, and thank God for that), and I prefer the latter, because under global Nazism, your wish, Cavalier, of colonizing the galaxy, would come true. You know it, don’t you?

                Right now, the world is ruled by ZOG, and everything is going to shit. The answer to global ZOG democracy ruled by Jews is global Nazi monarchy ruled by a fucking white male possessing a crown, a mantle, and a scepter. Was Hitler “delusional”? On the contrary: he was not “delusional” enough, since he didn’t really want to rule the world like a literal king.

                So, let me propose an edgy new ideology: Global Nazi Monarchy. Give it a thought. I think I’m onto something, here. We want all white males everywhere to cooperate with each other to advance civilization and science, and to rule over all the women in the world, and to rule over all the non-white races in the world. Now, if all white males everywhere cooperated with each other for these goals, shouldn’t they be ruled by a Fuhrer or a King? Seems obvious that they should. Every organization needs someone to keep it organized.

                Wouldn’t he, in fact, be king of the world? Thus, Global Nazi Monarchy. I like the sound of it. Synthesize alt-rightism with NRx, and apply it to the farthest corners of the Earth for maximum effect. What do you get?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >In other words: how are you going to get all the fucking white males to cooperate with one another, and then to subjugate all of humanity to their absolute rule?

                  You don’t become king by herding cats, you become king by imposing your will on your subordinates. You need their loyalty and submission, not their “sovereign permission” and acquiescence. “This is not a democracy any more”, TV man said just before his Hollyjew show turned into complete shit.

                  Also, you don’t need “all the fucking white males”, you just need a predominance of violent force potential.

                  >under global Nazism, your wish, Cavalier, of colonizing the galaxy, would come true

                  You know how the Puritans, Quakers, and second-son Cavaliers left the Old World to colonize the New, and within three hundred years — an historical blink of the eye — had completely eclipsed, and inevitably occupied and effectively subjugated and destroyed, the Old? That’s going to happen with Galactic Colonization. And unlike on our puny little blue marble, where we can today, in the current year, step into a mid-size jet in the New and eight hours or so later step out into the Old, or vice versa, there are no technological solutions to the problem of relativity.

                  Slipping the surly bonds of Sol means offering up the birthplanet of man as a sacrifice.

              • Iviking says:

                Well this idiot thinks the only really objective good / purpose to the universe is to survive to replicate as close a copy of your self as possible.That is the whole of the law. Its literally the only purpose written into the code of all life, every other proceeds from that. All our morals, ideas instincts,etc are simply situationally dependent strategies we enshrined in the cultural software, and the biological hardware. Failing individually or succeeding so well resources exceed need we buy cooperation insurance or hedge with near copies in concentric genetic. complexity.

            • jim says:

              If God is real, he showed up two thousand years ago and denounced competitive displays of superior holiness.

              • Alrenous says:

                If God exists he obviously believes very deeply in free will.

                Case 1: just put a damn fence around the Tree. You’re all-knowing, for Chrissakes, you know saying, “Don’t do it,” isn’t going to work. I’m not all knowing, and even I know that. Or shit, just put the humans in a different garden. Every farmer knows not to keep their livestock in the same pen as stuff they don’t want eaten.

                Case 2: if can show up once, can show up again. Have a giant hand stick out of the clouds, wave, and a thunderous voice say, “Be a Christian, you faggots,” every 20-50 years. And hey look! Worldwide Christianity! It’s amazing what a little evidence can do.

                He must want A) for humans to know of good and evil and B) to decide on what to do about it entirely voluntarily. Not even the tiniest pressure.

                I mean, it’s not working, given that religions are transmitted entirely from parents to children, (changelings aside) but that’s one hardcore commitment.

              • StoneMan says:

                I wish this were a bumper sticker.

      • Grampy_bone says:

        This is the best critique of Foucault I have ever read.

  20. alf says:

    I am pretty good looking and being nice always got me dumped, also by nice girls. Now I am an 18th century gentleman and everyday I am surprised by how well women respond to it.

    When you bang a lot of girls, nice men convince themselves you bang only gold diggers and sluts. Then when you settle with 1 girl who turns out to be pretty and nice they convince themselves you got lucky. Same old rationalisations.

    • Cavalier says:

      >Now I am an 18th century gentleman and everyday I am surprised by how well women respond to it.

      Please, do go on. The more specific the better. I want to giggle with glee at your shitlordian stunts.

      • Space Ghost says:

        Watch the Colin Firth *Pride and Prejudice*. Cultivate that level of aloofness and pure contempt. I know Jim hates Beau Brummell but start wearing proper Regency attire including the cravat.

        • Iviking says:


          well when I was maybe 13/14 in the early 70s I actually did wear a cravat and a lot of velvet and lace shirts and long hair and it worked pretty good I dont think that would work in the last 40 years

      • Will says:

        Seconded. Casual misogyny stories are more fun to read than the same old bar thot field reports.

        • alf says:

          I don’t have such great stories, unfortunately. I am relatively free, but not free enough to go around slapping women and telling them to submit. I can only imply it. Well except with my own girl, who loves me for my cheerful chauvinism.

          Best story I can come up with: was recently talking with a guy I know, devout Catholic. I told him about the leftist singularity we’re heading towards. He doubted it, saying that a woman recently told him that she saw a Wilders speech and thought Hitler was back. I told him the woman needed a slap in the face. Unsurprisingly, he was shocked.

          • Will says:

            Lol, not bad. Usually I say ‘she needs a good caning’ rather than ‘she needs a slap to the face’. A caning is a more severe punishment and it invokes a certain traditional aesthetic.

            Another fun thing to do, whenever a woman in your general vicinity does something dumb say “ugh, how do we let them vote?” More often than not women will smile and laugh, a lot of guys will go into full white knight mode though.

Leave a Reply