Fat is a reactionary issue

Facebook recently purged a facebook group for advocating healthy eating habits – right wing healthy eating habits – adequate protein, plenty of animal fats and less or no snacking, especially snacking of overly processed foods made from unknown ingredients, which tends to be what snacks are made of.

Leftism being the party of defection, infanticide, sodomy, adultery, effeminacy, and treason, is also the party of vice.  And the most common vices of today are gluttony, sloth, and adultery.

Gluttony, as well as being the most common vice, is a highly visible vice.  And usually indicative of other vices.

A leftist chick in a “long term relationship” is far more likely to be cruising for an upgrade, and apt to go right on cruising long after the wall has made an upgrade improbable, and a leftist, male or female, is far more likely to be fat and weak. Adultery is primarily a female sin, since female sexual misconduct is far more likely to obfuscate paternity and obstruct fatherhood.

Obesity is epidemic in the modern world.  How do you fix it?  The solution to obesity is now well known – well, well known in some circles, but oddly unknown in left wing circles, in the mainstream media (but I repeat myself).  And now unknown on Facebook.

The primary cause of obesity in the modern world is the cafeteria diet, snacking, especially snacking on foods that contain a lot of carbs, vegetable oil, and not much protein.  (And what protein there is tends to be soy.)

The formula for losing weight is fewer meals, approximately one hundred grams of protein per day for a male, which is approximately a pound of meat, and plenty of animal fat, as for example bacon, eggs, cheese, and butter.  You should go about seventeen hours, if socially possible, before breaking fast.  And since dinner is usually socially required, that likely means skipping breakfast.

Too little animal protein makes you weak, less muscled, and impairs healing and body regeneration, but too much protein stresses your kidneys and liver, and if you are eating too much protein, you probably will find you don’t like it. People on very high protein diets get sick, and find it hard to keep meat down.  For most men, one hundred grams of protein per day is about the right amount.

Some white people, and most Asians and middle easterners can handle carbs just fine, but a lot of white people cannot. Cut the carbs. You will find it far easier to control your eating on a very low carb diet, one where you mostly eat low carb vegetables like broccoli roasted with butter, or mushrooms fried in lots of butter, rather than high carb vegetables.  And most fruit is a bit on the high carb side, if you need a very low carb diet to control your appetite.

Don’t eat vegetable oils, except for olive oil, coconut oil, avocado oil, and palm oil.  Nuts are generally OK, even peanuts, but peanut oil not so much.

Our metabolisms are primarily designed to handle saturated fats – the short chain fats generated by our bowels, and our own fat stores.  Animal fat is what we are designed to metabolize as our primary energy source.  Apes consume a lot of fibre which gets metabolized into short chain fats in their large intestine, and our ancestors lived on their own body fat between kills.

Avoid soft drinks, especially zero calorie soft drinks.  It is a mystery to me why zero calorie soft drinks are fattening, but just looking around, you can see that they are.  Maybe they stimulate insulin secretion.  Notice that people in whom insulin secretion is defective (as in type one diabetes) don’t get fat even if they eat a lot, and are apt to lose alarming amounts of weight unless they inject themselves with insulin.  That, however, is just a wild assed guess.

Or maybe it is that sweet drinks cause you to overeat. I drink Mountain Dew with moonshine on social occasions, and Mountain Dew always makes me eat and drink too much.  Likely Coke Zero would have similar effect.  Maybe that is the problem.  That is just another wild assed guess, but looking at fat people’s eating habits, you can see that substituting zero calorie soft drinks for sugary soft drinks is not a solution.  Get your caffeine fix from black coffee or unsweetened tea.

These specific prohibitions don’t matter that much, and do not necessarily apply to everyone, provided you follow the general rule which does apply to everyone:  The main thing that makes people fat in the modern world is continual snacking – the cafeteria diet.  It is snacks, and, for white people carbs, that make you fat.  Don’t do that.  Go for long periods, at least seventeen hours every day, and every now and then forty two hours, where you eat nothing and drink nothing but water and zero calorie tea and coffee. On a forty hour fast, you will lose about two pounds, and a seventy hour fast about five pounds but doing it too often can stress you, resulting in diverse non specific illness.  You should not lose weight too fast over the long term.

If you are trying to lose weight, you need to weigh yourself every morning.  What you do not measure, you will not control.  Scales are cheap.  I have three of them, two of which I use – the two that usually give very similar results.  They lean against the wall facing the sunrise, and I weigh myself at about the time that I watch the sun rise, and record my weight every day.  (I have big problem with lust, gluttony, and wrath, and have managed, with some difficulty, to control gluttony.  My current weight, as of this morning, is four pounds over my ideal weight.)



294 Responses to “Fat is a reactionary issue”

  1. […] main new information in this post is that four years on from my first post in the series, “Fat is a reactionary issue” still at my healthy weight, despite all the fake science saying that all diets work short […]

  2. James says:

    I have multiple questions Jim, to do with practically manipulating prenatal hormones in order to birth the best possible children, and it seems like you are one of the only intelligent people I can find anywhere who is interested in this.

    For girls:

    Following up on this quote of yours, Jim, from the below comments:

    “Check all pregnancies. Spironolactone starting at eight weeks if the fetus is female. Bingo. All women come out feminine.”

    Do you actually recommend this as a course of action, or is this just making the point that a sane society could optimize their children’s hormones prenatally? I am thinking of doing this to ensure my hypothetical daughter will be feminine. Do you have any experience with actually doing this? From research, I can see that spironolactone obviously feminizes boys, and I’ve also read that it can enlarge uteri, breast and ovary size in females, which the paper calls endocrine dysfunction, although may actually be a good thing from what I’ve seen.

    Aside from the general side effects (rashes, dry skin, low blood pressure etc), I can see that for women spironolactone can also cause menstral irregularities, which is slightly worrying, also for the effects it may have on the mother.

    Would you recommend Spironolactone or Dexamethasone for femininizing a girl in utero, as another commenter suggests? Would you just use standard dose sizes, or microdose to minimize side effects?

    Do you think a mother pregnant with a girl should be eating high estrogen foods like soy milk, to maximize prenatal estrogen levels? Or is too much estrogen a bad thing for a girl, à la birth control pills?

    Of course, nowadays real men and hence real boys eat red meat and salt the hell out of it, but I feel like I haven’t found anywhere near as much information on what diet girls should have, especially while growing up. Is soy milk and the like beneficial here too, or should they stick to meat and dairy, and let modern society load them up with extra estrogen?

    For boys:

    I have the dietary side of things fairly under control. Do you recommend dosing a Spironolactone equivalent drug while boys are in utero? Or will this masculinize the mother as well?

    For a mother pregnant with a boy, should she adopt the high meat/dairy diet as much as possible, in order to maximize prenatal testosterone development? I think yes.

    I know you are inclined to getting sons on testosterone early, which may damage the gonads, but the gonads are probably already sufficiently damaged from the modern life. What age would you get sons on testosterone?

    Apologies for the long comment on an old post, but I would really appreciate as much information as you can give me on this very interesting but understudied topic.

  3. Madagascar Moods says:

    Jim, what’s your take on the plant-based fake meat trend? Beyond Burger (BYND) is the most successful IPO in the last decade, with the stock price having soared 7-fold since the already overvalued IPO price of a few weeks ago. These burgers are made of: water, highly processed pea protein isolate, canola oil, and coconut oil. Do these sound healthy? What would the health effects be of eating these patties of solidified vegetable oil instead of meat?

    • Not Jim, but there are no good reasons to it eat it instead of meat. If someone cannot eat meat because of an illness like a gout, then an alternative is doing what the Indian wrestlers do: they drink buckets of milk, eat lots of butter (ghee), and lots of almonds. Dairy is the only real meat alternative.

    • jim says:

      Vegetarians who eat no milk and no eggs always get sick. It does not matter what vitamins they take.

      • Alrenous says:

        One day it will be possible to eat laboratory vitamins plus some starchy slurry, but right now lab vitamins are fraud at least half the time. The minerals are typically okay because your gut acid will dissolve whatever they’re in.

        E.g. a lot of doctors don’t like calcium carbonate for calcium supplementation, what with it being literally a stone. It’s definitely not a good thing to chew, but your stomach will happily rip it to pieces. You mainly need calcium for calcium ions, which is exactly what HCL + CaCOH produces.

        E.g. Vitamin C is not ascorbic acid. The acid is just a wrapper for some copper compound, apparently, which is used to make things like collagen. Meaning you can extract vitamin C from collagen, i.e. muscle fibre matrices, even though meat has no “vitamin C” as in ascorbic acid. If you instead take a pill you get ascorbic acid with nothing in it, which will absorb the copper compound from your fluids, making it less available rather than more.

        • pdimov says:

          Interesting, thanks. Do you have any links about vit. C?

          • Alrenous says:

            I found it buried in an Eric Berg video somewhere. It’s better to try it yourself.

            Have some lab vitamin C, and see if it does things like give you nosebleeds. For me, vitamin D prevents colds, “vitamin C” only causes bonus problems, even in doses well below the listed maximum of 2000 micrograms. I even get issues from grocery store orange juice. Burst capillaries is a symptom of scurvy, vitamin C should be making it less possible, not causing it. This observation is consistent with Berg’s claims.

            I intentionally induced mild scurvy in myself, and indeed it is cured by meat, and nobody thinks there’s any ascorbic acid in meat. If scurvy is cured by ascorbic acid, then this should be impossible.

            The other claim is that meat reduces the need for vitamin C. Certainly, this is true. However, it’s impossible to reduce your need for it to zero, so a pure meat diet should still cause scurvy, and it should be particularly impossible to cure scurvy with meat.

            Unless nutrition scientists are full of shit, of course. Which may have happened before, once or twice.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        That’s just garbage. Half the world is lactose-intolerant and eggs aren’t widely consumed in many places.

        It’s perfectly ok for you to be enthusiastic about the high animal fat lifestyle – if that works for you in terms of health, happiness and weight control, that’s great!

        Jack Albreton seems pretty lean on a mostly raw, entirely vegan diet.

        • jim says:

          You live in another universe.

          Anyone in any country who eats very little meat, milk, or eggs is at best weak and frail, and at worst, if no meat, milk or eggs, very ill indeed.

          It is plain as the nose on your face.

          Jack Albriton is indeed slim, but I could break him like a twig. His arms are skinny, and despite being skinny, no muscle definition, no visible veins.

  4. >Facebook recently purged a facebook group for advocating healthy eating habits

    OTOH Reddit often has /r/ketogains material on the front page. And they are known to manipulate rankings, pretty sure it is intentional.

  5. nobody says:

    You are largely correct about human vice, but this kind of FB crackdown is the sort of thing BigPharma does.

  6. […] Jim on eating. Lots of good stuff in there. And he’s right, diet soda makes you fat. I don’t know why either, but my anechdata agrees. […]

  7. Alrenous says:

    Discovered why fake-sugar drinks indeed make you fat.

    Avoid artificial sweeteners. The oral sensation of sweetness causes an almost identical (by volume) release of insulin, even when the source of sweetness is 100% sugar-free.

    It’s not sugar, and definitely not fat, that makes you fat: it’s insulin. So there you go.

    The fake sugar will make you pack away all the sugar in your blood. Since you didn’t have any real sugar, you will now be low in energy. In other words, hungry. Then you’ll eat. Probably with more fake sugar.

    • pdimov says:

      That’s because the pancreas has sweet taste receptors.

    • BC says:

      >The fake sugar will make you pack away all the sugar in your blood. Since you didn’t have any real sugar, you will now be low in energy. In other words, hungry. Then you’ll eat. Probably with more fake sugar.

      That theory has been tested multiple times on over /r/keto on reddit and I’ve tested it myself using a blood gluclose tester. Diet soda has no effect on glucose levels in the blood. Whatever is going on with coke zero, it’s not very straightforward. My guess is it probably has something to do with gut bacteria.

    • No. The issue with insulin is generally not packing away sugar in the blood. The issue is insulin resistance, or reduced insulin sensitivity, which makes muscles *refuse* to pack the sugar away, hence it gets stored as fat.

      Muscles won’t take more sugar than they need and muscle is a good place to store sugar because it is going to be used there. The issue is precisely the opposite, at lower insulin sensitivity, i.e. at insulin resistance, muscles will take less sugar than they need. Thus the double whammy of it getting stored as fat and yet feeling low energy, feeling tired to work out, which is precisely the vicious cycle of getting fat. Because the sugar is in the belly where we don’t want it and not in the muscle where we do want it.

  8. Dr. Dream - Metastasizing Kookanorrhea says:

    It’s me again, I’ve got no brain; let’s step things up a notch.
    Your shiv hits hard, since I’m retard; a splendid sight to watch.
    Three clicks away, the other day; revealed that I’m a brony.
    Annoying n’ nagging, ideas zigzagging; shall make Vox Day my crony.
    My Game is shit, could not compete; my girlfriend’s cunt went sideways.
    From my bed sheet, like a banshee; had vanished with the sun rays.
    So then I snapped, too long I fapped; my nuts have shrunk n’ shriveled.
    To seek out thrills, I must chug pills; therefore my mind’s dishevelled.
    My ancestors, par for the course; were simian-porcine hybrids.
    I sternly vowed, to make them proud; and usher in more half-breeds.
    Now seriously, with endless glee; I’ll tell you ’bout them bigfoots.
    Such a creature, must surely feature; throughout my verbal outputs.
    With scripted lore, and shills galore; the footage leaves no doubts.
    While I’m no tankie, moon’s had no Yankee; just Soviet cosmonauts.
    No need to wait, for pizzagate; let’s now conclude this issue.
    Troof-proof abounds, in 4chan’s bounds; please give me a dry tissue.
    Cray-cray and nutty, I believe in Illuminati; the state fulfills their wish.
    Flailing fruitcase, retorts can’t phrase; all I can say is “sheesh.”
    Consumed by rage, what’s my real age? I play the fedpost games.
    For Lord Satan, I’m always baitin’; to spark infernal flames!
    Like naked mice, scared friends advise: Repeat Vox Day verbatim.
    Thus when accused, “Your brain’s not used”; I speak in ultimatums.
    Mister Arcane, drove me insane; I’ve measured my own sockets.
    Then came out with, a baseless myth; now fatten up my pockets.
    I made a forum, sans all decorum; some edgelords to ensnare.
    On Jim’s blog went, my shape got bent; pretend that I don’t care!
    These bullycides, thrash me like tides; no business here for snobs.
    To launch resistance, summoned assistance; attracted only zhlobs.
    I’m a poor schmuck, shit outta luck; destroyed by my tormentors.
    Believed I’m tough, turned out it’s bluff; can’t emulate my mentors.
    With poor hygiene, I ‘showed my chin’; still couldn’t help but weep.
    Grimaced and winced, mouth’s now rinsed; the wound is cut so deep.
    Devoid of tips, my sun’s eclipsed; Flat Earth must hold the answers.
    Therefore I will, produce more swill: infect more minds with cancers!
    I think my foes, are UFOs; surely they’re from the stars.
    Psycho-clown, laughed out of town; my face’s now bruised with scars.
    My brain’s got lesions, they give me visions; of roaring dinosaurs.
    So eyes I cover, yet soon discover; that ghosts fly out my pores!
    My friend glosoli, cannot console me; IQ’s not high enough.
    He’s too frenetic, locked in his attic; he gets his fare by trough.
    We’re no real fundies, just soil our undies; and plan to suicide.
    A lowly critter, my tears smack bitter; too frail to make this ride.
    Cannot withstand, this spit-roast band; I burn like gasoline.
    Shunned and abhorred, my scalp’s all gored; I’m farting Vaseline.
    Chirp like a mantis, thus from Atlantis; confirmed by the Q Anons.
    When I kick the bucket, in straightjacket; my flash shall fodder cannons.
    My skull’s so septic, brain’s epileptic; conceived from rotten semen.
    Bark up a tree, with Asatru agree; Yahweh’s a volcano demon.
    I hear a chorus, and think I’m Horus; at least Tezcatlipoca.
    You strike like snipers, I’m wearing diapers; it mitigates the knock out.
    When mom got blacked, it’s been fact checked: those her oldest tricks.
    I’m ignoramus, AIDS’ in my anus; I’m giving birth to bricks.
    My thoughts are daft, no neurons left; decapitate me faster!
    It ain’t no loss, I’m trash and dross; most certainly a bastard.
    My tales are crocks, bash me with rocks; you’ll have one mutant fewer.
    A mindless nutter, my home’s the gutter; just dump me in the sewer.
    Forget ‘bout blood type, just rip my windpipe; see my face turn purple.
    On my tombstone, carve with inked bone: the world rests on a turtle.
    Thus ends the track, my balls now crack; I hope you had a pleasure.
    May be some next, so be relaxed; re-read this in your leisure.

  9. simplyconnected says:

    Jim, I think roissy is a bit confused about hosting options.
    He might appreciate some help, he doesn’t sound very tech savvy. He probably hasn’t seen the discussion here on some of his options to remain online.

    You can see his thoughts on it at gab.com/heartiste.

    • jim says:

      The obvious solution is to get untraceable bitcoins – and for him, the easiest way of doing so is to solicit bitcoin donations to a bitcoin wallet running on his own machine.

      I suggested this.

      With untraceable bitcoin, buy a domain name and hosting.

      • simplyconnected says:

        I hope he sees it and can continue posting.
        He has an outsized influence and seems to initiate a lot of people that can at first only see that something is wrong with the mating market.

      • The Cominator says:

        > Untracable bitcoins…

        I wouldn’t believe for a minute that cryptos are untracable at least not the big ones. Probably a glownagger plan to get libertarians on board with abolishing cash.

        • jim says:

          Bitcoins he receives from a donation to “Heartiste” are not traceable to his official name and official bank account.

  10. Foofaranic says:

    Don’t call me nuts, I’m just a putz – to roast me is no chore.
    What a relief, it will be brief – but later will bring more.
    Just like in Compton, sharp scorn I prompt on – I get a diss-track album.
    Some trollish pervs, upset my nerves – and set my mind in maelstrom.
    With a tinfoil hat, I’ll promise you that: – The USA is lawless.
    My psyche’s in crisis, I’m joining ISIS – my sanity is flawless!
    The doomsday’s due, I’ve heard from Q – therefore it must transpire.
    Seen on my shelf, a dancing elf – it lit my arse on fire.
    In bigfoot’s lair, there’s no despair – his chef serves no E. coli.
    Who knows me best? You could’ve guessed – my best friend is glosoli.
    Our brains are toasts, we’re seeing ghosts – a nightmare apophenic.
    We’re VD’s fags, your punching bags – so crooked and schizophrenic.
    My cheeks spread wide, when Vox’s inside – he gives me rectal tearings.
    Like every LARP, I only harp – my testes shall be your earrings.
    Now listen pal, I think I’m Thal – because my head’s so swelled.
    Here in Shenzhen, is my Eden – my sod had me expelled.
    A con-man quack, and pencilneck – with nostrills of a horse.
    Just one last comment, savor the moment – the bullying will get worse.

    • shaman says:

      Really, his schizophrenia is so severe and debilitating that he’s walking around in broad daylight with “koans” markered on his arms, like the kook he is.

    • 160 IQ Ayahuasca Trip says:

      Kookanic is Satanic.

    • sheman says:

      It’s a shame he didn’t want to be your friend, and quite cute that you still have a candle burning for him. It’ll burn for the rest of your days I bet.

      • shaman says:

        You’re making stuff up, ladyboy.

        Have already explained what this is about: His ideas are criminally insane, and on top of that, he has an offensively “bad attitude.” My tolerance for such individuals borders on zero, and I’m always glad to participate in their destruction.

        • sheman says:

          I will repeat my comment from a previous post, which quotes butthurt gamma shaman. Shaman wrote, re Koanic

          ‘Here’s your history: in your ill-conceived quest to prove how “above it all” you are, you have alienated a dozen or so people who might have been sympathetic to you, initially. I am one of those people, and unlike those who instantly crap their pants when a sad-sack like you says, “My IQ is THIS high,” I responded by calling you a pudding-brained dipshit right then and there.’

          Gamma rejected by sigma. Gamma will never get over it. Sigma still here posting, gamma rages, declares his secret King victories, so many of them, all in his own tiny mind.

          Don’t be a gamma, be a Simga, ZFG.’

          He lives inside your head, always, eating away at you, and that time he made you look silly and rejected you. Now, you’re not even a Secret King Gamma, you’ve come out of the closet as the Self-Appointed Arbiter of Blog Sanity and Worthiness.

          All Hail the King.

          Try, as hard as you can, it’ll be really tough I know, but try to let it go. I doubt anyone really gives a monkeys for your noise. Just like Scalzi and Vox, you will always show that you care so much.

          Vox did a video series I think, and I recall some blog posts too, on overcoming gamma. Good luck to you, perhaps you can make the leap to beta.

          • shaman says:

            Try, as hard as you can, it’ll be really tough I know, but try to let it go. I doubt anyone really gives a monkeys for your noise.

            Okay. I promise.

            I promise that my next songs will be so brutal and “to the point,” that everyone here will literally cry wet tears – some with rolling laughter, others (like you) with bitter butthurt.

            And take note: the harder you try to dissuade me from doing so by pathetically breaking down, like you just did, the more determined I’ll become to do carry out this promise.

            • sheman says:


              • shaman says:

                You’ve already said that. It was not true the first time, and repeating yourself won’t make it any more true. Don’t you have more creative insults, mama-kid?

              • jim says:

                Deleted because he already said that.

                He is now on moderation for repetition and insufficient entertainment value.

                I now have a policy that personal attacks are only allowed if entertaining or informative.

                Excessive repetition has never been allowed. (Except, of course, for me. 🤠)

          • jim says:

            This is getting repetitious:

            Further repetition will be deleted as a waste of reader bandwidth.

            Insults with creativity and entertainment value, are of course welcome. If one side is more creative than the other, the creative disputant gets to insult freely with crappy comebacks being deleted.

      • shaman says:

        By the way, I notice that Kookanic’s harebrained allies never seem to produce any real advocacy on his behalf. Instead of flailing and wailing about the fact that Kookanic is being mercilessly bullied on the internet (boo-hoo), you should be able to defend him by bringing up his contributions and insights, if there are any.

        This now is your opportunity to do precisely that: Explain in as great detail as you can what makes Kookanic a net-positive blogger and poster, rather than the exact opposite of that. Explain why Jim’s very accurate assessment of Kookanic is actually wrong and absurd, and why Jim should apologize for ever having issued it. Explain why Kookanic’s pros — such as they are, if indeed they exist — outweigh his cons. (Pun intended)

        You non-ironically claimed that Kookanic is a top-tier genius, on the same inimitable and singular level as Moldbug, Jim, Heartiste, and some others in this sphere. Well, okay then: Prove it now with clear evidence and demonstration; prove it right here and right now, and for all eternity hereafter.

        Or get lost.

        • sheman says:

          Don’t dish it out, if you can’t take it back.

          The peanut gallery sees what you are.

          See you around.

      • Not Satanic At All says:

        Proof that Kookanic is a smart fella:

        I contemplated Jim’s harbingers of civilization, the pirate-capitalists. I found I lacked their spirit. A man must be able to embrace chaos and destruction for their own sake; he must be able to toast marshmellows on the world’s pyre.

        Yet where is the Christian model for this? It is all Apollonian stained glass.

        Finally the example of Samson struck me – truly a man of disaffection, chaos, and magnificent grudge. A hero of destruction small and great, without an iota of redemptive rebuilding.

        It’s not meant to be the whole of the personality, only a facet – the threat behind the line drawn in the sand. A threat capable of graduated response, an animalistic growl unsullied by civilization.

        Even as I departed from Churchianity, my training focused on building the Kingdom. But in Samson’s time, no such building was possible. As his time, so ours. How then, to act? When one is a born loser, a Yakuza, one can lose any way one pleases.

        Everyone seems to conceptualize Yahweh as the God of brilliant light. But Satan, not Yahweh, is the morning star. Yahweh existed before light. I think the heart of Yahweh is smoke – if you can make sense of that. This makes Him more to be feared.

        Hail Satan \666/

        • Mike says:

          I’m late to this controversy,
          can someone please explain to me what Koanic’s ideas are?

          • Nikolai says:

            A bizarre and incoherent amalgamation of fedposting, Qanon & voxday shilling, fundamentalist protestantism, bigfoot conspiracies and above all else, edginess and novelty.

            • The Cominator says:

              If only kookniac was novel…

            • jim says:

              Koanic is not a fundamentalist protestant that any fundamentalist protestant would recognize. To him, the aspects of fundamentalism that attract well deserved ridicule are just another bit of craziness, to attract followers, but he has no real interest or belief in the aspects of fundamentalism that are actual Christianity.

              • Koanic says:

                Jim> but he has no real interest or belief in the aspects of fundamentalism that are actual Christianity.

                That’s a lie. The Koanic Soul blog focused on esoterica because it was a persona created for that purpose.

                Actual Christianity: I confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, who died for our sins, rose from the dead on the 3rd day, and is the only path to the Father, Jehovah.

                • shaman says:

                  The Koanic Soul blog focused on esoterica because it was a persona created for that purpose.

                  Left answered: Why anyone should now believe that what you’re playing here is not, likewise, a carefully crafted persona designed for specific ideological purposes.

                  More importantly: it is clear as day that you were trying to associate the Tex-Vox-sphere with chaotic destructive violence; and in very similar fashion, on this blog you’re trying to associate NRx with chaotic indiscriminate destructive violence, and on the Gab platform you’re trying to associate WN with chaotic destructive violence and terrorism.


                • glosoli says:


                  ‘But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’


                  ‘There is no need to wait for an attempt to kill before bloodshed is morally justified. The Old Testament threshold for mortal insult is sufficiently low to justify killing the entire Left right now.’

                  The Lord Jesus will not know you Koanic, you are trapped in the Old Testament, full of a desire for revenge, bloodlust, murder. I suspect it’s a genetic thing, I pray you find the narrow path at some point, let the hatred go, overcome your genetic handicap.

                • 2019 is boring says:


                  The Lord Jesus will not know you Koanic, you are trapped in the Old Testament, full of a desire for revenge, bloodlust, murder. I suspect it’s a genetic thing, I pray you find the narrow path at some point, let the hatred go, overcome your genetic handicap.

                  Kookanic on St. Paul:

                  The whole Bible is profitable for understanding the Father. That means the Old Testament, the racist book of blood and steel. Follow Him, the Creator, not Paul, a man, nor Marx, the Satanic prophet.

                  Kookanic on the hidden forces behind 9/11 (spoiler: the Pentagon and the Mossad did it in cahoots):

                  There were Jews involved in 9/11, Larry Silverstein to name one. But Dick Cheney was perhaps THE central piece, and he’s a melonhead. The melon picture is bigger than the Jews, who are merely a partially overlapping subset.

                  Kookanic performs D&C shilling against Aryan identity:

                  There is an anti-racist lesson in all this. A heavily Thal white man has more in common with a heavy Thal Thai like Buakaw Por Pramuk than he does with a Cro Magnon white like Brittni Colleps. Armed with face reading, you can go anywhere in the world and find sympathetic, trustworthy friends.

                  Kookanic on inheriting Neanderthal traits from his Jewish mother and EWWWW Melonhead ancestry from his gentile father:

                  Personally, I have 1/8 Ashkenazi Jewish blood, from my mother’s line. On that side, we appear to have been an artistic and middle to upper middle class family. Information is sorely lacking due to the Holocaust, but I detect mostly high-IQ Thallishness from that side.

                  Ironically, my readily detectable Melonhead lineage comes from my non-Jewish father’s side, which contains a striking sequence – I am a third-generation extreme MT.

                  Kookanic on Jews being Satanic (i.e., contradicting his subtle philo-Semitism regarding his Jewish mother with some quite energetic anti-Semitism about Jews in general):

                  According to 23andMe, I am 99.4% European, 64.6% Northern European, and 15% Ashkenazi. As I understand it, Ashkhenazi are the Khazars who converted to Judaism for geopolitical reasons in the Middle Ages. I have .3% Middle Eastern DNA. I don’t know what these sub .5% numbers mean; they may be rounding errors. When I switch from speculative to standard view, I am 98.8% European and 1.2% unassigned.

                  So apparently, 15% of my genetic ancestry joined the synagogue of Satan, and before that they were snake-worshipping melonheads, the ancient ruling class. Jesus Christ crushed the serpent’s head. I renounce the Devil and all his works.

                  Kookanic wears his inborn fedposting proclivities on his sleeve:

                  This reflects my MT psychology. The Melon back is essentially an ambitious psycho. The Thal front is an abstracted logic drive. Pair them together musically and I can just tunnel focus and work with a feeling of exhiliration.

                  This is why I think MT’s are particularly suited to be driven towards personally engaging in ideological bloodshed. The abstraction blunts empathy and the ability to appreciate the gentler pastels of life. Sex, violence and domination are among the powerful emotions we can experience.

                  Classical music on the other hand feels too undriven; life for life’s sake rather than to some logically expressed overriding inexorable purpose.

                  In short, an MT male needs to be crushing something. Of course, most MT’s are not so ideologically motivated as I am, so it instead is expressed through ambition or group affiliation of some kind.

                  When an MT sees TM’s exercising Thallish charisma for concepts, we feel, “What’s your point?” An MT wants to see blood, and resents and suspects TM smoothness. But we respect the conceptually driven part, even if it strikes us as pointless because it’s not directly connected to social action.

                  TT’s appear to us incomprehensibly virtuous, because they lack the dark streak of ambition, but still emotionally process the same way. Their only fault is an excess of passivity.

                  MM’s reflect to us our worst side, and also what we interpret as conceptual incompetence. That, combined with a charisma and influence we consider cheating.

                  The thing I most regret about being an MT is a reduced ability to live the life that Tolkein extolled in his writing: life for the sake of living, like the TT’s can do. That and the touch of genius Thals have, both come from the occipital lobe. However, I think the noble feminine can resolve this MT pain and bring peace.

                  Make of all that what you will.

                  P.S. Kookanic probably thinks that we’re all “Travellers” in here.

                • jim says:

                  If Koanic is not Pauline, then not Christian.

                  If you go to Church you are required to say “Peace on Earth to all men of good will“. Which accepts the blood and steel of the Old Testament, but puts a limit on it.

                  There is a place for blood and steel, but the object is “peace on earth to all men of goodwill”. Christ’s take on the Old Testament was not to throw it overboard, as he is now interpreted as saying by Cuckianity, but rather to seek the broadest possible cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

                  People who do not behave neighborly are not your neighbor, and the blood and steel of the old Testament was directed at people who were not very neighborly.

                • glosoli says:

                  Jim, you’re now directly contradicting Jesus’ own words on how we treat those who are not good neighbours. Dangerous tactics to employ.

                  We don’t kill them with steel, we love them and show them what being Christian is all about. Even Jehovah says in the Old Testament that we should look after the stranger in our midsts, as His people were also strangers in Egypt.

                  His words are within this thread, I quoted them.

                  The putting right of wrongs in the era since Christ is due to the power of the Holy Spirit, and eventually to Christ Himself upon His return.

                  The building of a Christian nation is a different matter, achieved by England under Alfred the Great, by adopting God’s laws, and being blessed. Israel still practices usury, yet B was flummoxed when challenged on that point on Twitter, to the point he had to mute me, coward. They think they’re chosen, stupid and stiff-necked people, chosen only to provide a good back story for Gods grace in dealing with their constant lack of faith and obedience.

                • jim says:

                  > Jim, you’re now directly contradicting Jesus’ own words on how we treat those who are not good neighbours.


                  The old Testament and the Christian Church had plenty of applications of fire and steel. We should not interpret the words of Jesus to directly contradict the Old Testament, when there is a reasonable interpretation that does not contradict the Old Testament, and when this interpretation has held throughout the history of the Christian Church and this interpretation is repeated by Christians every Sunday.

                  Every Christian, when he attends Church, says “Glory to God in Heaven, and peace on Earth to all men of goodwill“. Which implies that the application of fire and steel to deal with people seriously lacking in goodwill is permitted.

                  The words of Jesus imply one should walk the extra mile to avoid that solution. They do not say that solution, fire and steel, is impermissible, just that one should walk one extra mile to avoid it.. The Church has throughout its entire history, until it started endorsing female adultery, divorce on female whim, and gay sex, did not reject that solution, and even today, every Christian, every Sunday, speaks an interpretation of the words of Jesus that explicitly allows that solution.

                  Jesus said you should walk the extra mile, not that you walk an indefinitely large number of miles.

                  Glory to God in heaven, and on earth, peace to all men of good will.

                  Cuckstians and Churchians tend leave out the qualifier “of good will”

                • Alrenous says:

                  Regardless of what Jesus intended, it’s good game theory.

                  Human are naturally hostile, paranoid, and suspicious. In other words they’re fond of finding excuses to become violent. To deviate on cooperators due to misunderstanding. If you believe someone has insulted or attacked you, except in extraordinarily clear situations (e.g. you are already bleeding) it behooves you to confirm that it was on purpose.

                  See also: tit for two tats. Tit for tat works best in noise-free simulations. Once misunderstanding is introduced, the ideal agent forgives – once. Typically there’s also a small helper population of regular tit for tat, which researchers are fond of calling the police force.

                  This is probably where the common interpretation of ‘turn the other cheek’ came from. If they slap you once, turn the other cheek. If they slap you twice, you have now run out of cheeks, and can beat the shit out of them.

                  The problem is the human is overconfident, and errs on the side of committing violence. Untrained, the human thinks every situation is extraordinarily clear, as if they had an IQ in the 175+ range. If instead you go all Stoic on the first response, and then ask about their intentions (something an IQ 100 probably can’t even do – I could just lie, and it would work), you’ll find that more fights start due to mis-hearing or poor wording than due to ill intent.

                • jim says:

                  This sound game theory interpretation of the words of Jesus has been supported and taught every Sunday by every major Church over the past two thousand years, in that though the New Testament does not qualify the “peace on earth” line all the Churches, as near to all of them as made no difference, added a qualifier.

                • Koanic says:

                  No objections to what Jim’s saying here.

                • Koanic says:

                  > in that though the New Testament does not qualify the “peace on earth” line

                  I don’t think this is correct. It appears to be a mistranslation in the KJV, with the NIV getting the correct gist:

                  “and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

                  Which is more in character with the rest of the Bible.

                  But supposing there was a moment of Divine catholic goodwill to celebrate the birth of Jesus, plenty of other verses qualify that pronouncement. Here’s a few:


                • ten says:

                  To expand on Alrenous’ game theory contra glosoli’s i don’t know what it is:

                  If you love someone like you love yourself, you do not let them turn evil. If you are an agent in a simulated system, you reward evil for evil, if there is much evil, or forgive a potentially mistaken evil, filtering out abusers of forgiveness with a few scattered unforgiving agents, filtering out abusers of forgiveness with borders of unforgiving agents around pools of forgiving agents. If you try to give good to abusers, you breed abusers, you breed evil. It is obviously evil to breed evil.

                  To the extent cuckstians and progs wish to do good, instead of wishing to steal and murder, they are breeding evil, doing evil, being evil, because insane, because tricked by the devil.

                  To do good to the evil or the weak, you forgive them a mistake, if your system can afford it without being corrupted. i suppose a stronger system can afford more forgiveness. but to lead them to good, must give good for good and evil for evil, and only sway from that path when it does not corrupt the system.

                • glosoli says:

                  Jim, by taking your usual cowardly lying approach to Christian matters, you once again refuse to allow me to quote Jesus Christ Himself to prove my point.

                  Rest assured, your deception is seen by the Lord, and I pray that the curse on you is magnified ten-fold, as you seek to lead readers here to a fake religion, inspired by your lying murdering father, Satan. Amen.

                • jim says:

                  You quoted him already. Repeatedly.

                  The devil can quote scripture to his purpose.

                  Your interpretation of the words of Jesus is not the only possible interpretation, and contradicts two thousand years of Christian interpretation.

                  Which makes you not a Christian.

                  Christianity is not a suicide pact, and no mainstream Church has ever interpreted it as a suicide pact.

                  Subsequent insults will be deleted unless entertaining or informative.

                • @Alrenous @Jim Jesus and game theory is an excellent concept which would deserve its own blog post. But there is one issue. A big one. Love your enemies = diligite inimicos vestros. Inimicus = enemy inside the ingroup. A rival chimp competing for the alpha chimp position of the ingroup. So it means: love your rivals. (Well, diligere is more like choose, respect, take, prefer. A rational judgement. Not just instinctive amor. And not caritas. So it means respect your rivals in the ingroup. Don’t go too hard on them.)

                  The outgroup enemy, the enemy of your whole ingroup, is hostis. Hostes in plural. They get the fire and steel treatment.

                  The issue is this: you actually have more information about your ingroup enemy / rival than about your outgroup enemy! So game theory would say be more forgiving to the low-information outgroup enemy than to the high-information ingroup enemy! That is a big issue…

                • jim says:

                  > The issue is this: you actually have more information about your ingroup enemy / rival than about your outgroup enemy! So game theory would say be more forgiving to the low-information outgroup enemy than to the high-information ingroup enemy!

                  However, interactions with the outgroup are likely to be one off, and the outgroup member is likely to expect it to be a one off interaction, so is likely to play “always defect”, therefore you should play always defect. Reputational losses for both of you are diminished by weaker information flow between groups, and because people expect defection towards outgroups.

                  This leads to a state of war between groups, which is bad. So leaders of both groups have to make a deal to mitigate individual incentives for bad behavior towards outgroups. Anti racism would be fine if they were going after black people for obvious hate crimes and called out the propensity of Jews to get unduly creative on interpreting contracts. Any deal whereby the leaders of groups arrange for peace between groups has to be reciprocal.

                • Koanic says:

                  > The issue is this: you actually have more information about your ingroup enemy / rival than about your outgroup enemy! So game theory would say be more forgiving to the low-information outgroup enemy than to the high-information ingroup enemy! That is a big issue…

                  Game theory is abstraction; abstraction is always wrong. In this case, the erroneous abstraction is the rest of the in-group, who witnesses the behavior of the two rivals, and interacts with them repeatedly over time. It is his loss of reputation in their eyes that constitutes “burning coals on his head.”

                • @Koanic regarding mistranslation. Anthropois eudokias = me of good will (genitive). Yes, can be interpreted both as men who have good will and men who have His good will. Yes, often it was interpreted the second way. Yes, some Qumran stuff apparently shows “sons of His good pleasure”.

                  But me as a nonbeliever who sees Christianity as a great social technology, I see Germanized Christianity as a great social technology. Medieval Catholicism. Even if it is not exactly the original one. And medieval Catholicism always interpreted Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis, men of good will, genitive, as good-willing men.

                • Koanic says:

                  “Burning coals on his head” is a double-reference to shame. Shame causes the head to flush with a feeling of heat – embarrassment. Ashes on the head are a sign of public grief and repentance in the Bible.

                • Koanic says:

                  God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is an example of “Love your enemy,” in the Old Testament:

                  > And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them? 22And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. 23And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.

                  It was far more common, of course, for Jehovah to demand the execution of enemies captured by Divine aid, rather than their release. But in this case, the principle worked.

                  There are readers who insist on absolutizing the naive reading of “Love your enemies.” They are idiots stupider than Jesus’ own disciples, whom he often chastised for failure to interpret his cryptic pre-death public pronouncements. As Jesus put it: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” The implication being that most are deaf. If only the deaf were dumb, our ears would not suffer their mangled parody of speech.

        • Eli says:

          First, the big positive: Kookanic appears to be a man with honor, which is not so common these days.

          The rest:
          Found that quoted text in a post online. Concur: it’s as close to de facto Satanism as can be. Certainly goes beyond vanilla Gnosticism, which takes more of a “disaffected observer” position, a position that, when active, is used to justify selfish action in view of (incorrectly posited) teleology of evil and its almost total rule of the observed world, past and future. (Rather than, as I hold, evils — notice the plural — being side effects of the good attributes and continual evolution of the world along a path of betterment).

          There used to be this website “Church of Satan” or some such that existed years ago — which glorified the goodness of 9/11, abortion, and suicide. In my understanding, it was more Gnostic than Satanic, albeit our opinions might vary here.

          Satanism is a proactive position, because physically applied to self and others for “destruction for [its] own sake.”

          It seems he still holds these views. Or maybe they were simply ravings of a depressed lunatic. Whether he actually applied those views isn’t certain (it is their application that makes it truly Satanic), but he might’ve.

          Either way, depressed or not depressed, is still a loony, based on his recent posts.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            Eli, you like theological discussions, right? So what do you think about Kookanic’s following:

            Abel and Esau BOTH seem to be types of the Neanderthal. And there is no contradiction in this – the Neanderthal would keep popping up in the Adamic bloodline for quite a while, right down to the present.

            The observation that modern Jews are corrupted by some serpent seed has corroboration in the Bible – Jesus calls both the Pharisees (whom modern Jews are) and Judas “children of the serpent”. Going all the way back to the Garden of Eden, it seems clear that the serpent/magician who tempted Eve was the family “tree” of a contemporary civilization. Such a union might explain the origin of Cain. This civilization was wicked, Satanic, and of a different bloodline. Adam was created to restore justice to the world, and rule over it, but he fell to the serpent’s temptation, and was driven from the Garden. The serpent, that civilization, was also cursed to be cast down and eat dust. The “bruise heel, crush head” prophecy was fulfilled when the Pharisees crucified Christ, and Christ then crushed the Pharisees. Surely the Jews have gone on their bellies and eaten dust since then, and before that the serpent cults were repeatedly broken and scattered. Yet the final contest is not yet complete. Wheat and tares.

            Who are the children of the serpent? Easy – those who look like snakes. Those Semitic features may not just be due to Khazar admixture – both Semitic-looking Jews and the Khazars may share a common serpent-ancestor root. Not a literal snake, but the physiognomy and spiritual heritage of one.

            The most likely serpentine rulers that Adam was meant to supplant were the elongated skull snake-worshipping pyramid builder world-spanning civilization, which God eventually destroyed in the interglacial melt worldwide floods – but not before it corrupted Adam’s line. Certainly such a civilization would speak fair and promise to make one wise.

            Any reflections on all that?

            • Eli says:

              Hard to comment on something so delusional. But heck, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So ok, I’ll do it.

              There is research on cranial characteristics, eg: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29542944?, for anyone who cares.

              In general, it’s hard to generalize on those things, but from what I’ve gathered so far, it is believed by some experts that Amorite tribes and their descendants: shasu tribes (Kenites/Amalekites/Edomites/Moabites etc), and members of Southern Tribes of the Israelites (e.g. Judah) were dolichocephalic (long-headed), like the modern Bedouins. This is the typical semi-nomad North Semitic appearance, something you’d see on carvings featuring Assyrian warriors:

              So, what’s “snake?” Something which looks very much like this, in a modern photo: http://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3PDGJIGYUQI6RLVX3XFNJIFFJY.jpg

              These are, again Amorite pastoralist features. The legend of Avraham (“av raham” father of multitudes) is about Amorites descending Eastward and Westward circa 20th c BC, to found the ruling dynasties in both Ur (Uruq/Iraq) and occupying portions of what then was Canaan, by conquest.

              Genetically, Amorites were J1e, which is also my haplotype (which is also prominent among the Cohanim, i.e. the foremostly Aaron-derived priestly caste) and of most male on the Arabian peninsula.

              The land of Canaan was populated by other people also, of course. They were settled farmers and town-dwellers. Some were merchants and even maritime explorers. They’d be J2 and E1B1B (which is likely Natufian, and prevalent in N Africa) genetically. Taleb and Assad would be good examples of that type, appearance-wise. Those were the Canaanites. Notice, they appear more mesaticephalic. The Samaritans, as few of them as there are, are 99% descendants of the Northern Tribes. However, whatever mixture of Amorite was among them was very strongly diluted by the much more dense settled Canaanite demographics. Hence, they, too, like the Lebanese and the Alawites are mesaticephalic/brachycephalics.

              Now, of course, Amorites intermixed pretty strongly with the locals. Further, after Exodus, there were Indo-European tribes that got mixed in: by this I mean Achean Greeks, like the tribe of Dan and the Philistines. Closer to us in time, Ashkenazi Jews are almost half-Italian. I read somewhere that Sephardi Jews have considerably higher proportion of dolichocephalic skulls. Likely, because their overall Amorite/Semitic component is higher.

              Such features are quite widespread in Arabs, esp in the Gulf. At least, in those that aren’t too intermixed with either the conquered locals or Negro slaves.

              Take a look at Muhammad bin Salman, shave his beard and put a kippah on his head, and tell me how he (with some ligther skin) is not a Jew. https://www.thenational.ae/world/saudi-arabia-s-prince-mohammed-in-us-for-talks-with-obama-1.199363?videoId=5756209783001

              Heck, I’d even say that, put Kushner vs MBS side by side and the only difference is finer features and lighter skin for the former. I’m ignoring likely major difference in cephalic index, of course.

              So, of course, Kookanic is right: we are all snakes. Not loony flying pigs, like he is.

              Secondly, about snakes as part of worship/ideology. Our Kookanic is not shining in his originality or innovation here either. ISIS talks about Jews being heretics because of their alleged “lying” in Scriptures and, to paraphrase, “projection of fallibility” of God. Here, go to page 50 of Dabiq: https://clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf .

              I’d say, ISIS’s critique of Jews has a better grounding. It indeed appears true that Scriptures (including the Pentateuch) were added to and, possibly, slightly modified in places, throughout generations.

              But the real philosophical/theological problem is anthropomorphizing and anthropopathizing God, not evolution of Scriptures. The ancients — all ancients — were “guilty” of that. All people do the same thing, although it appears to be very intuitive to do so, almost like when a child talks to his toys. Why does one pray? Because, in essence, one hopes that by praying he can, essentially, *change* or affect the Mind of God, be it in an active or passive direction. The Muslims are guilty of that 5 times per day. The fact that Israelite and Jewish scribes and lore tellers portrayed God as changing His Mind, post-factum of a sin/disobedience of his command, is merely another illustration of this simple phenomenon.

              Again, does ISIS portray God in a different way? Nope. In fact, they worsen the problem, because their alleged God, their version thereof, is akin to unfixable robot, whose decrees can never be amended or expanded upon, be it by puny men or unanticipated turns of events. And it introduces other problems: for if God is omni-knowing and omni-powerful at the same time, there is a paradox of why he wouldn’t just destroy the sinners in advance of their sin. Or, alternatively, why not create the Infallible Man, in the first place? Furthermore, isn’t, just extending this logic, “man created in the image of God” false by mere observation of utter imbeciles and degenerates and crazies (like Kookanic)?

              So, yes, back to Kookanic. Taking the wise and tempting serpent as an allegory of Satan is exactly what both ISIS and Kookanic do. It is, of course, nonsense. The ancient Middle East and Mediterranean is choke full of serpents, both literally and metaphorically. I mean, the cult of serpent (Nehushtan) was widespread and hard to eradicate. And, in fact, it is Jews/Judaism that eradicated it in Canaan (it was a native Canaanite cult), albeit painfully slowly. The Egyptians worshipped serpents also. Nothing to do with satan.

              The Genesis’s serpent and the forbidden fruit story is an allegory for evolution of man into a knowledge-using human, from a mere hominin, animal. Just like the story of Adam being made in the image of God, it is more like an allegory for the direction in which man has to evolve, after reaching a threshold of knowledge and capability: someone who has to learn the ways and laws of God; to assert, like God, his dominion as creator of next iteration of whatever else might (or might not) come.

              • Eli says:

                Gotta retract about Samaritans. It appears that whoever preserved their faith among the survivers of the Northern Tribes, had much purer Semitic/Amorite component. Hence, Samaritans are probably one of the purest representatives of Amorites/Semites of Judaic faith. Their cephalic index is close to that of Bedouins.


                (Some of the historic info in that link is incorrect. E.g. Amorites were classified as “Aryan” which they were absolutely not. But the article is old and historians were writing long time ago. The cranial data is still very useful).

            • Eli says:

              Furthermore. I might’ve said, but will say it again: if anything, Jesus (and Paul) were considered an integral part of Pharisaic movement, and probably not the craziest part of it. Pharisees were against Jesus’s death sentence. However, likely a part of the Sadducee old priesthood (the ones who were in the Hierodian party, along with some Rome-connected nobles) were for getting rid of him.

              I’d likely be in the latter camp (at least, in my view), too. Mainly, for this kind of crap:

              43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

              Classical Progressive holiness. If not for Paul, Christianity wouldn’t get off the ground, that’s certain.

              • jim says:

                > Classical Progressive holiness. If not for Paul, Christianity wouldn’t get off the ground, that’s certain.

                Well, yes. But Jesus also mounted flaming attacks on the Pharisee’s purported holiness, and Paul’s (and Christianity’s) interpretation of Jesus’ position is plausible in that context.

                Christ went to the cross so that you only have to walk one extra mile, and can beat the crap out the guy who slapped the other cheek. He is preaching one tit for two tats, not zero tits for unlimited tats, which is sound game theory in a world of imperfect information. The Pharisee and the Levite disqualified themselves as neighbors.

                • Eli says:

                  I’ll attempt to argue in good faith here. What bugs me is referring to enemies as “enemies.” This is what makes Jesus’s position Progressive. Now, if he said, “brother” (achi) or “neighbor [co-pasturer/co-shepherd]” (re’a) that’d be totally acceptable. But he didn’t!

                  And that’s not the only place he did such things.

                  Jews have had similar “look into the root and love your fellow Jew” movements. Chassidism (esp. Chabad branch) has quite a lot of similarities.

                  I see Paul coming in and correcting it, to make it non-suicidal, but again, I cannot give Jesus the credit, other for being charismatic and laying claim on being a king, which was nonsensical, given both his origin and his entire program.

                • jim says:

                  The circumstances were that the holiness spiral that Jesus attacks was sending the Jews on a stupid, wicked, and suicidal course, and that Jesus type measures were effective in mitigating the defects of Roman occupation. The Romans were highly responsive to being shamed, but notorious in their response to truculence and violence.

                  Under the circumstances, some hyperbole is fine. Jesus as interpreted by the Christian Church is reasonable, and he was addressing Jews caught in a holier than thou spiral that was leading them to their deaths.

                • shaman says:

                  “Oyev” (enemy) goes too far, but “soneh” (hater) has an OT precedent in Proverbs 25:21-22.

                  21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:

                  22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.

                  The Hebrew says son’acha, which literally means “the one who hates you,” which is somewhat milder in tone and meaning than the mistranslation of the word as “enemy,” which denotes active adversity rather than merely being ill-disposed. Maybe Kookanic had a point.

                • Eli says:

                  @shaman: Interesting find, thanks!

                  Nonetheless, I’d like to know what word Jesus himself used. The New Testament was composed in Greek, so we may never find out.

                  I will, however, give the benefit of doubt. Maybe Jesus’s “enemy” indeed meant someone whom you’re *supposed* to be civil with (and who’s supposed to be civil w you), but who isn’t actually so civil with you.

                  Kookanic then *might* have a point indeed. But *only*, only if the context of “enemy” is limited in such a way. This is important to specify.

                • Eli says:

                  To be more precise:

                  If Jesus was talking about a local Levite being nasty to you, a Jew, his program is within Judaism.

                  If Jesus was talking about a Roman soldier being abusive to you, a Jew, his program is unacceptable in Judaism.

                  So, for example, this would be a complete drivel:

                • jim says:

                  As a matter of reality, Jesus’s Roman program was correct. The Romans felt bad about abuses and attempted to correct them, while attempting to physically overthrow the Romans was suicidal. A non violent approach intended to shame them was realistic and in fact effective. Truculence was obviously likely to be fatal, and proved to be so.

                  Further, the Roman empire brought large benefits to Israel. The life of Brian parody “what have the Romans ever done for us” is accurate.

                  You will recall how fundamentally insane the issue that finally caused the Revolution was. The Jews rioted because Jews in a Greek city were crossing over someone else’s land to go to and from the synagogue, and someone sacrificed a chicken on his own land. And they killed the Roman officer attempting to restore order, and things escalated from there.

                  That was not a Roman soldier being abusive to a Jews. That was Romans maintaining order amongst a truculent and difficult people who kept stubbornly attacking their neighbors.

                  When the Romans sacked the temple, they found an immense stash of gold and silver, that funded empire for quite a bit. So why did not the sadducees build aqueducts and sanitation?

                  They were following hygiene rules appropriate for sheep herders, not city dwellers. You are commanded to bury your feces outside the camp. So what if you are not camping, but living in the city. The sadducees should have followed the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

                  In this context the words of Jesus are, under their usual Christian interpretation, realistic, sensible, and pragmatic, and the Jewish holiness spiral unholy, wicked, insane, and stupid.

                • Eli says:

                  We’ve been over it.

                  Accepting such arguments would’ve destroyed Judaism from within, utterly. Better to lose a battle than lose a war.

                  The example you gave from Josephus, is a particular incident.

                  I can get my Gedaliah Alon book and start bringing some data from there, in particular, about ruthless taxation by Roman procurators etc. I might do it, if I find time.

                • jim says:

                  > Accepting such arguments would’ve destroyed Judaism from within

                  And failure to accept such arguments got you sent into exile for two millenia.

                  Judaism would not have been destroyed. It would still have been as ethnocentric as ever, though in other ways somewhat Christian. Recall the Jewish supremacist rant of Jesus. And it would have been in Israel for two millenia. Supporting Jesus’s coup at the temple would have been the wise thing to do. If they had done so Jews would still be Jews, and would still be as Jewish as Peter was (recollect Peter and Paul’s dispute). And following the spirit of the law is the greater fidelity to the law, not the lesser. When Jews go overboard about meat and milk they are compensating for their failure to follow the spirit of the law in ways that matter by going overboard on the letter.

                  When you say it would have “destroyed Judaism from within”, you are defining Judaism by legalistic interpretation of the letter of the law while avoiding the spirit. It would not have destroyed Judaism. What got Judaism exiled was killing a cop for performing his duty to enforce a fair law that applied to everyone. And the murder of that cop was motivated by legalistic over observance of the letter of the law on avoiding blood. (Also, of course, motivated by envy and covetousness, but legalistic over observance of the law on avoiding blood was the loudly announced justification, even though it resulted in a great deal of wrongfully spilled blood getting over everyone. They got covered in wrongfully spilled blood because they wanted someone else’s land to be clean of chicken blood.)

                • jim says:

                  > The example you gave from Josephus, is a particular incident.

                  That was the particular incident. That was the particular incident that started the war. The incident led to war because of general truculence against the Romans, a belief that God entitled them to full possession of the land of Israel. But it was prophesied when they first got the land, that if they failed to obey God’s commandments they would be exiled for a time but return in the end. And in that incident, they violated a whole pile of the ten commandments, and received the collective support of the Jewish community in doing so.

                  In that incident they were coveting, coveting led to stealing, and stealing led to murdering. If they had started the war over the notoriously corrupt and brutal tax collection that they justly complain about in “What have the Romans ever done for us”, and that the New Testament also justly complains about, that would have been different.

                  They should have interpreted their troubles as the result of failure to obey God’s commandments. And since they were going overboard on the letter of the commandments in all manner of complicated, obscure, minor and trivial matters, meat and milk being the most infamous, that would imply that they were failing to obey in those matters that are most important, the spirit of the law: Which obviously they were: Should have handed those guys that murdered a Roman cop for doing his proper job over to the Romans. That cop was completely in the right, and entire Jewish community was in the wrong. No amount of keeping meat and milk separate matters if you murder a cop for enforcing a fair law that applies to everyone.

                  The Romans responded to this incident by mild collective punishment of the Jews because they could not find the perpetrators. Jews should have identified the perpetrators and handed them over, not because of fear of collective punishment, but because that is the spirit of the law. And, failing to do so, should have accepted the punishment as just, and the murder as wrong.

                  The Jews murdered a Roman cop for doing his duty, in that some particular Jews murdered a cop and the rest showed collective solidarity with them, with the result that the murder went unpunished. The Romans imposed a reasonable and proportionate collective punishment, which the Jews collectively failed to accept as just. Thus, war, a war that resulted in the results prophesied for when Jews collectively fail to obey God’s commandments. Events proved Jesus correct, and the Jews that failed to accept him wrong.

                • Eli says:

                  The example of burying feces is not exactly relevant, btw. Jews were known for their cleanliness (as opposed to Germanics, btw). Besides, modern Jews use regular toilets.
                  More here: https://thetorah.com/keeping-excrement-out-of-gods-presence/

                  If you do want to bring example of spirit vs letter, you can give an example boiling kid in his mother’s milk, cooking (in microwave) or driving or lighting an electric/LED bulb on Sabbath etc.

                • jim says:

                  We are talking about Jews at the time of Jesus, who implemented an aqueduct and sewers because the Romans damn well made them do it, thereby demonstrating failure to follow the spirit of the law.

                  And that the war began over a right of way dispute where Jews claimed the right to walk over someone else’s land indicates failure to follow the tenth commandment. If they did not like what their neighbors did on their own land, should have moved the synagogue.

  11. vxxc says:


    May 30, 2019 at 9:39 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    This is a preview, your comment will be visible after it has been approved.

    (On thread or close enough tangent)
    (Personal recent favorite)
    (Childless Cucked_Catholic Church chix)


    Seen The Handmaids Tale?
    It’s a cry for help.
    So is this…
    Don’t worry, we’re coming.
    Yes we’ll subjugate and impregnate you, and in some form marry you.
    You’ll be protected, honored and find the happiness that eludes you.
    Don’t worry we’re not going back to the 1950s.
    We’re going back at least to the 1750s, possibly via the 5th century first but we’ll get there….
    Meanwhile: smile, shut up, make him dinner, tell him you want Trad Wife so no bed until marriage and above all : LET THE MAN BE THE BOSS.
    As most women know women are horrible bosses.
    Think of how you girls really treat each other…and recognize as soon as we’re “equal” you start being catty to us. That’s the start of you being hateful as you are scorned because you lost respect for us.
    Equality is the ultimate scorn.
    No. We can’t be equal.
    You can’t handle it.
    You. Not us.
    Don’t worry. We’re on our way- simply because we want kids too.
    If you think this is a bad deal you can examine our current situation of being bondsmen to feminist Sharia. Or your current plight, also a bad deal.
    In any case its the only deal.
    It was always the only deal.
    PS: if you can have my kids send pics and ceteris paribus we’ll get married.
    I’m not worried about the rest. Including the Priests.
    Nor should you, Dear.
    If you can’t or won’t do step aside when we come to take what’s ours: children.
    For ye have banished nature, but he has returned.

  12. Frederick Algernon says:

    This guy is breddy gudd:


    • kawaii_kike says:

      Entertaining, he saved me the trouble of watching the show.

      Those are the type of women that would just have to be helicoptered, don’t see much redemption for any of them, unfortunately.

      • jim says:

        Women have no fixed innate character. They respond to male authority, and internalize that authority. Absent male authority, all sorts of weird shit is going to happen.

        Of course, in our current society, hard to exercise male authority when the state backs her in any disagreement, and she has had ten dicks in her all of them belonging to men handsomer, richer, more charismatic, more plausibly violent, and with bigger dicks than yours.

        • kawaii_kike says:

          >Women have no fixed innate character.

          I guess I’m misunderstanding you, but doesn’t that contradict the redpill on women? I thought the fixed innate character of women was lecherous immorality and selfishness. The wanton innate character of women is what leads directly to the defect equilibrium. It takes the constant discipline of a strong male authority to rein in their inherent destructive nature.

          If women don’t receive the right male authority at an early age and internalize it, then doesn’t it become too late and the women becomes unteachable? I’m not sure if you watched the video, but do you think that even those jailhouse whores can be re-educated into becoming housewives? At some point all that dick has to damage their psyches irreparably.

          • jim says:

            I have often remarked that if General Buck Naked showed up wearing his trademark necklace of fresh human eyeballs, his AK47, and absolutely nothing else, I would be shit out of luck.

            But if a woman is securely under male authority, if male authority is able to prove his superior manliness by shooting General Buck Naked in the event that he should turn up, without being charged with murder-racism-HitlerHitlerHitler, or if she perceives male authority as perfectly capable of shooting General Buck Naked and worrying about charges of being HitlerHitlerHitler another day, her innate nature is what male authority tells her it damn well is.

          • The Cominator says:

            The redpill that women are fickle selfish liars and untrustworthy is for this society WHICH ENCOURAGES THEM TO BE SO.

            The truly fixed part of female nature is horrific fear of ostracism from the herd and tendency to either conform to a male in authority over her or her female friend group, the latter being the reason why long term NAWALTs in a degenerate society like ours is not possible, once the NAWALT starts hanging around with other women she will change for the worse to be more like her friends (knew one girl who was NAWALTish for years who basically didn’t hang out with other women except in large mixed groups… this changed and when it did so did she).

            Female nature has some fixed characteristics but is far more socially malleable then male nature.

          • jim says:

            > I guess I’m misunderstanding you, but doesn’t that contradict the redpill on women? I thought the fixed innate character of women was lecherous immorality and selfishness.


            That is a demonization of the red pill, that is the red pill as depicted by blue pillers.

            That account of the red pill presupposes that red pillers accept blue pill sexual morality. No red pillers accept blue pill sexual morality. None of them accept blue pill sexual morality, not a single one, unless you count purple pillers as red pilled, and reactionaries accept First Temple and first Millenium Christian sexual morality.

            You cannot expect women to act in accordance with male sexual objectives, unless you have a society that coercively aligns male and female interests in reproduction. In this sense, everyone is lecherous and immoral. We have abolished marriage, so of course women are going to act feral and men are going to act single. But this is not what women want. They want to be owned, and this very moral desire is being frustrated, making them neurotic and unhappy. Men want to own a woman, women want to be owned. These are very virtuous desires, but no one is getting what they want, least of all women.

  13. yewotm8 says:

    Would like to point out that those who are lifting weights regularly and trying to be muscular should definitely not eat low carb every day. They should eat a large amount of complex carbs shortly before and after a workout, and stay low carb the rest of the time, especially on off days or in the morning if they do not fast. Though I’d assume that these men are not fat in the first place, and would know that your weight loss advice does not apply to them. Exercise changes your metabolism and moves you farther into the “able to handle carbs” region.

  14. Tietonian says:

    Today is the 359th anniversary of The Restoration. Jim, does this not deserve a small article in remembrance?

    • jim says:

      The three hundred and sixtieth anniversary might be more apposite, because coup and counter coup is unfolding, and I would like a May Day post that looks to the future, as well as the past. On the three sixtieth anniversary, it may well be apposite to place the events that will then be current in the context of the events of the past. After all, on May Day one celebrates spring, rather than remembering past summers. I hope that on the the three hundred and sixtieth anniversary, we may have more signs of spring.

      Monck replaced parliament’s guards with his own praetorians on 21 of February 1960, and that was the completion of the coup. His regiment still guards the British Parliament. There then proceeded an electoral process which rapidly produced, surprise surprise, a royalist parliament, by arguably legal, customary, and constitutional means, all taking place under the watchful eye of Monck’s praetorians. At every step in the process, Monck told the people of the old regime that the old regime would remain in place, with relatively minor changes. Supposedly Royalists would not be allowed to organize and participate in this process, but surprise surprise, they did and no one stopped them.

      The restoration is generally dated to 1960 May the first, May day, an important symbolic date, reflecting the good old northern pagan festival which celebrates northern spring, and thus celebrates renewal and restoration on which day Parliament invited the King to return. This was celebrated by May Day festivals, indicating that parliament’s supposed decision had been decided for them well in advance.

      Parliament, however, set the celebration date to today, the twenty ninth of May, the day he arrived in London, which fails to reflect the legality that he had always been King, and that date seems to have been forgotten. I think it would be nice to connect to our pagan past, the past restoration, and our Christian future. If we remember the restoration in hope of another one, May Day seems better.

      The resignation of the traitors Mueller and Brennan is a very good sign. Trump has the army and if he gets the FBI, I think that we will see seemingly legal, customary, and constitutional processes start to produce rather Trumpist results.

      The Democrats were figuring on taking the Senate, which would have allowed them to give good legal color to the coup, and everyone was treating Trump like a lame duck, because they figured a bunch of violent and dangerous people suffering from Trump derangement syndrome would take power. But now that it looks like they will not, people are starting to cover their asses and flee, as traitor Mueller just did.

      • Starman says:

        President Trump should eventually send some troops into the halls of Congress during Congressional proceedings… in Full Dress Uniform of course.

      • Tietonian says:

        Indeed. Praying everything turns out as you predict. Another reason May 29 is not a good day for celebration is that it is also the anniversary of the Fall of Constantinople. A minor issue, but mixing remembrances is annoying.

        Who shall be our Coldstreamers? It has been pointed out that Quantico is a helicopter ride from the White House, but as time goes on my hope that the official USG Guys With Guns will turn on our Rump Congress fades.

  15. Natz says:

    Sorry if I sound like an asshole, I’m quitting nicotine and just started taking my Ritalin again.

    The one thing that makes me want to stay far away from the US is the fatness. It’s absolutely disgusting, and the fatness surely tells a lot about what kind of people and culture grows it. In some ways the US is much more “woke” or reactionary than my home-country of Sweden, but at the same time there are some things that are very good and very constant here in Sweden. I guess the lack of your particular kind of individualism.

    Sweden could be over 1000 years old, it’s hard to say, but I truly think there is great strength in such history, and it is granted to those now alive. Once more people start experiencing in their daily lives the problems of third world immigration (or other modern ills), people’s minds will suddenly open, and they will know who they are (and that is partly defined by what their ancestors were) even if they don’t dare say it too excplicitly right away.

    Instead of the third-world infested America making fun of Sweden (Sweden – not yet as infested) for being infested by the third world, I think Sweden will soon start making fun of America for its pointless nothingness foundation, rootlessness, incoherence and denial, ….and maybe this has something to do with gluttony I don’t know.

    Sweden is perhaps (as a whole, not just what people say, norms, etc but all possibilities considered) a much more racial society, it is our foundation to a much larger extent, everyone is extremely aware on some level of race. We all know what a Swede is, blond/brown/red hair and pale eyes, that’s it. And whoever else lives here is either going to be seen as breeding stock (asian, brazilian, thai, filipino, japanese, korean, chinese, -women) and thus automatically gained entry and given much respect (as they should, and nationalist parties should in no way discourage this, it just breeds the worst form of anger).
    Men fuck whoever they like, that’s how it is these days. Women too, but they choose European men.
    (Of course several problems exists with this modern situation, but inter-racial sex is like number 792.)

    My brief encounters with Middle-Eastern (non-Iranian non-Jewish) men suggest they are very frustrated with their sexual situation, and they feel very much excluded from Swedish society, and excluded by Swedish women.

    I was going to concoct some weird theory relating to this and the obesity thing….but….I guess maybe US people just are too detached from the spirits of your ancestors and thus need to eat to fill the void. ; – )

    • jim says:

      I absolute don’t believe you.

      My information is interracial Swedish babies with white mothers and unknown brown fathers all over the place, that the doctors are white, the mothers are mostly white, and the babies are in very substantial part brown and fatherless, that you are being massively cucked at the most fundamental level, that the maternity ward testifies that swedish men have been conquered, defeated, broken, and humiliated.

      • ten says:

        I can remember no single fatherless baby from a brown father and a swedish mother ever. I have known a few broken stupid wrecks of girls to be picked up by the coke guy, proud and happy to finally land the aryan babe he was told in the sad cellar mosque could not wait for alpha muslim dick. He’s too stupid to discern between a broken coke whore and a proper aryan babe anyway.

        I have known gangsta swedish teen girls ashamedly trying to explain away having fucked a black guy – the interesting part being that noone present insinuated fucking a black guy might be a non shameful act, even for fucked up gangster girls.

        “I read the sweden democrats program… i don’t get it how can you possibly be against multiculture? as long as they don’t hit on me, foreigners are so disgusting” is an actual quote

        In my own spheres, academia, I have never seen any interracial dating at all, except white guy azn girl. Not one single swedish woman with any single black or brown man. I brought up my exp of the lower classes to flesh out this picture.

        Just as my countryman Natz I also heard the arabs bitterly complaining that all swedish women are racists, that they pretend to love foreigners but look disgusted and insulted if one would talk to them as a man talks to a woman ( and that they of course prefer open racial hostility to these games ).

        And I even think there is a perverted form of virility in the pure death drive of swedish male leftists.

        Also i see tons of brown doctors

        • jim says:

          Well, you live there and I do not. So your data is better than mine.

          But when you are conquered, defeated, and humiliated you get rather more interracial babies than interracial relationships. What I would like to see is not data on interracial relationships, which I can well believe are few and far between, but data on interracial babies, of which I have heard there are a great many. Check out a day care for me and watch the mothers collect their kids. The anecdotes I heard were about the maternity ward, not dating.

          You should be mindful that a great deal of sex, especially between white girls and nonwhite men, does not involve boyfriends or ongoing relationships. These days you don’t get a girlfriend in order to have sex with her, you have sex with her in order to make her your girlfriend. The stereotypical cucking involves a white husband, a white wife, and a random brown who is never seen again, followed not long thereafter by another random brown who is never seen again. The stereotypical coal burner has no black boyfriend, but lots of black sex. In the stereotypical conquest, the conquerors ravish the conquered women.

      • The Cominator says:

        What you say I could perhaps believe about Italy or even Germany but not Sweden for a number of reasons.

        Other then perhaps Canadians from Toronto the most cucked and bluepilled website commenters you run into are inevitably Swedes. Swedes aren’t allowed to consider that they perhaps might have had national pride in anything other being progressives even in the past. Their SJW masculine feminist conditioning (which seems to be more thorough and effective) then in say the US makes them less attractive to women and the fact that Sweden tends to take the worst of the worst tends to make the immigrants more “dangerous” and attractive to women.

        Also Nordic blonde woomen often (regardless of other factors) have a fetish for black men (women with slight non-European admixture tend to find black men repulsive)…

        The theoretically submitting to political correctness but covertly resisting it (in most cases) is more consistent with what I hear about the Germans then the Swedes. The German public attitude is that they must be good Europeans and virtue signal but privately they generally Merkel’s invaders are untermenschen.

        • ten says:

          I really think what you’re dealing there is cut with so much narrative sugar it’s basically substanceless. That picture has become very popular in the online counterculture. There’s not nothing to it, but..

          Our cucks are very enthusiastic commenters, given.
          America invented race cuckery. America enforced race cuckery on it’s empire. Swedes were already forcefully indoctrinated in socialist internationalism and egalitarianism, which did not stop the socialist party from immediately disintegrating when it started enforcing race cuckery indoctrination. The enthusiasts for the new race ideology are not many. The enthusiasts for the old race ideology, which was its own brand of low key volkish national pride and international solidarity, are many.

          I have as previously stated never seen any swedish woman except for broken whores (2, during all my life) with arabs or blacks. I have only ever heard them disgusted by the thought. Even the social justice warriors just space out, blank stare, give lip service to interracial sex with no heart in it, vehemently condemn open race preferences, and proceed white exclusive fucking. Secret guilty kinks aside, i fully and entirely disbelieve our women liking blacks. I spent much time around the sort of women you’d expect liking BBC and saw nothing of it, saw surprising amounts of open disgust to the idea, heard of no single woman actually enticed by the idea.

          (Chinese girls on the other hand are crazy about blacks. In theory. When they actually go to meet one, they find them retarded, creepy, stinky and flee quickly)

          But i’m interested in why you think what you think, cominator. Anecdotes or data or whatever.

          • jim says:

            I am still asking you to go to a kindergarden, childcare, or daycare when mothers are collecting their children and check out the degree of racial homogeneity between mothers and children. That is where the rubber meets the road.

            • ten says:

              I wrote a lengthier reply to your previous answer to me, submitting it gave an error and i didn’t bother rewriting it (don’t know what error).

              I should do that, would be interesting to see the results. Should probably do it in another city or far from the university.

          • alf says:

            In the Netherlands, it is obvious that foreigners (mostly browns) are outbreeding the locals. Exactly in places such as playgrounds, kindergardens or even just on the streets, noticeably more brown children than white children.

            As far as race mixing, it is not that prominent. Beautiful exotic women tend to snag white men, average white women have some hots for brown men, but not so much that it strikes me… yet.

            • alf says:

              Thing about browns is that they are, on average, dumber, uglier and shorter than white men, all of which women don’t like. They are officially higher status, yes, but to fantasize about a black man is quite different from hanging out with a black man.

              • jim says:

                It is not, however, all that different from wandering off to a location where one is likely to be “raped” by black man. In a society with a very large fatherlessness rate, you should not assume that most sex or most reproductive sex occurs in the context of a relationship.

                Of the girls that you had sex with, how many were in a relationship with you? Probably not a large proportion of them. Well, figure that most of the sex that fertile age girls are having is with men even more alpha than yourself, no matter how alpha and how good with women you are, in which case, they are having sex with men that they have even less of a relationship with.

            • jim says:

              Don’t look at “long term relationships”. Look at parentage. The vast majority of mixed children born to white women are not born in a relationship with a nonwhite man.

  16. Natz says:

    East asians in east asia eat a lot of carbs but they don’t eat a lot of sugar as far as I know. Eating a bunch of white rice is not the same thing as drinking sucrose at 12% in large volumes.

    Maybe you should check out the wiki article on caloric intake before you give people diet advice? Maybe it’s the calories, and not the coke zero.

    As far as zero sugar drinks being related to obesity, sure. I’m guessing it has to do with cravings, like if you enjoy pizza you might enjoy it with a coke of some sort, that’s it. You like flavors in your mouth so you chew on 3 pizzas and drink a gallon of dr pepper zero (instead of water etc).

    As far as saturated fat who knows (although the status quo rec is still something like <20 g sat fat per day for the average individual), but there's no particular reason to eat a bunch of saturated fat. Like if you put butter in your coffee or some shit, or butter your potatoes, it in no way helps you reduce caloric intake. Protein with fat however, yeah it's very satiating, probably mostly due to the protein. Just drinking some whey protein can make some people feel lethargic and not at all interested in anything , including eating, it has to do with insulin. Whey protein (from powder dissolved in liquid) stimulates insulin extremely strongly.

    Do you honestly think let's say white potato only diet would make a fat person stay just as fat? If they really did it, and only ate white boiled potatoes for 1 month. White potatoes boiled are super satiating, it's a bunch of water and moderate amounts of starch. Now white rice only, yeah maybe some people have the appetite to be able to eat 7000 kcal from that.

    Anyway just my personal opinion is that the sort of old school European diet of white potatoes, meat, and a bit of vegetables and a very slim sauce made mostly of some wheat flour and water in a pan, probably isn't going to make anyone fat.

    Only thing I use 100% saturated fat (fully hardened coconut fat, free of trans-fats (illegal in the EU)) is for frying a nice steak once in a while. That's just cause sat fat generally is very chemically stable so it won't turn into too many toxic compounds when the heat hits it.

    • jim says:

      Asians are Asians, whites are whites. As I said, obviously asians can handle carbs. Equally obviously, most whites cannot. That carbs are obviously OK for east Asians does not imply that they are OK for us.

      > Do you honestly think let’s say white potato only diet would make a fat person stay just as fat?

      Since it is the cafeteria diet that makes you fat, the more foods your diet rules out, even if ruled out in a totally nonsensical and arbitrary fashion, the less fat you get, and the more monotonous and unpleasant your diet is, the less fat you get. The white potato diet works in the short run, and any “Only X” diet will work in the short run.

      But observed reality is that there simply is no one around who was substantially fat, and became substantially less fat on the potato diet.

      > but there’s no particular reason to eat a bunch of saturated fat. Like if you put butter in your coffee or some shit, or butter your potatoes, it in no way helps you reduce caloric intake.

      If you reduce carbs, have to increase fats, because there is a limit to how much protein you should eat. And for most white people, reducing carbs helps them control their appetite, particularly if they reduce carbs to very low levels.

      So yes, slathering your potatoes with butter helps – and butter in your coffee, and mushrooms fried with butter, helps considerably more. Not because butter makes you slim. What makes you slim is not eating for long periods, and butter makes it easier to not eat for long periods.

      • spandrell says:

        Asians can’t handle carbs. They get diabetes sooner than whites do. They’re thin and have bad muscle tone; but they don’t drink sodas or just eat that many calories in the end of the day.

  17. Dave says:

    Your title echoes the recent Daily Stormer headline, “Morbidly Obese Paki Sex Guru Equates Physical Fitness to Nazism – And I Concur”

    • Alrenous says:

      The regnant left are sophists. ‘Sophist’ is simply the name for professional liar. As such, they hate true things. In extremis certain facts can get a bye, but, almost always, if a belief is true and useful the regnant left is attempting to suppress it.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Sophists argue like lawyers, not like truth seekers. But now we have learned that truth is relative and blah blah so aren’t they really the same?

    • yewotm8 says:

      Anglin and Jim agree on more things than they disagree, especially women. The only things I see them disagreeing on are the jewish question and their interpretation of Trump’s actions, which are of course inextricable.

      • jim says:

        We should ally with some Jews. Good Jews want an Israel that is Jewish, and good Americans want an America that is American.

        The Dancing Israelis story and similar stuff tells us that Tel Aviv rules the USA. Not so. Harvard rules Jerusalem. If it did not, Israel would have solved the Gaza problem overnight.

  18. It’s important to keep your genetics and body make-up in mind. Personally, I am a big guy and I’ll always be a big guy, like my father, both grandpas and great-uncle before me. The choice I get is will I be big with muscle or big with fat. I chose the former. I’ll never be slender, even if I starve.

    • alf says:

      Me, on the other hand, I’m skinny, will always be skinny. Well, with proper diet (lots of meat, butter, vegetables and bread) and exercise (currently go to the gym twice a week, which for me is plenty) I upgrade from skinny to normal. Whenever I lose my shirt people always tell me how clearly defined my muscles are. That’s what you get with, if I recall correctly, 7-8% body fat.

  19. uranus rises says:

    What about lesser known vegetable oils, like hemp (seed) oil?

    • newwest says:

      All seed oils are full of PUFAs and that’s bad.

      • jim says:

        You need a moderate amount of the right pufas, but plant pufas tend to be very different from what animals need. Oily fish such as salmon is the best source of healthy pufas, and if you eat plenty of butter, you probably get a reasonable amount of animal pufas. Vegetable sources tend to give you far too much of one pufa, and not nearly enough of the other pufas. The unsaturated fats in chocolate are quite healthy, but the sugar is bad for you and the combination of sweet and fatty tends to get you binge eating.

        Also, they keep cutting chocolate with mystery vegetable oil from mystery non cacao sources.

        • newwest says:

          Correct. I should have written “All seed oils are full of omega-6 PUFAs and that’s bad”.

          • uranus rises says:

            Hemp seed oil (don’t know about hemp oil itself) is supposed to have the right ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 (1/3) out of the box, and it has lots of both, with little mono-unsatured or saturated fatty acids. One of its omega-3’s is uncommon and even easier to assimilate than the rest.

            Vegetarians wanting to compensate for too many omega-6 can use flaxseed oil, whose ratio is 4/1.

            • jim says:

              Flaxseed oil, despite its wonderful ratio, strangely does not appear to provide the benefits of fish oil.

              And fish oil does not provide the benefits of actually eating oily fish such as salmon or sardines.

              Further, in practice, all flaxseed oil and all fish oil has gone rancid by the time it gets to the consumer.

              • The Cominator says:

                Highly concentrated EPA fish oil does provide all those benefits…

                • jim says:



                • Alrenous says:

                  I’m currently trying out fish oil. Doesn’t taste rancid. Does provide noticeable health benefits. There was a fair amount of lag, in my case. Made it through a bottle and a half before it was clearly working.

                • jim says:

                  So, what observables are “clearly working”?

                • Alrenous says:

                  ‘Fishy’ tastes and odours are the rot byproducts. If your fish oil isn’t literally fishy, it’s not metaphorically fishy.

                  Flax has the wrong kind of omega-3. What you need is DHA and maybe EPA. Flax has APA. Same as having plant-type vitamin D2 instead of animal-type D3. Just kind of not useful.

                  Also, there’s some reason to think insoluble fibre is actually bad for you. Several doctors think it does the same kind of damage to your gut as smoking does to your lungs.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Fish oil is resolving certain long-standing skin issues I’ve had. I got the idea from Eric Berg, who said it would resolve skin issues caused by vitamin D, which I take rather large amounts of. It’s been better than that. Hasn’t even peaked yet.

                  Notably the kind I use is specifically marketed for not having a fishy taste/burp.

                • jim says:

                  this links to a study on Vascepa. What is the connection to fish oil?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Vascepa is highly concentrated EPA as I described, thus a derivative super (and pharmeutical grade purified) fish oil.

                • uranus rises says:

                  Alrenous, do you have a link for the bad fibre bit? Among vegans, raw vegans seem the healthiest. Part of it might be due to the intestinal flora that thrives on that fibre (which could be producing b12 “on-site”, an impressive capability on its own).

                • Alrenous says:

                  I used google. https://www.gutsense.org/fiber-menace/why-dietary-fiber-causes-harm.html

                  Long term, insoluble fibre scars the gut and is the cause of many food-related problems in the elderly, since scar tissue isn’t useful for digestion.

                  Fibre affects constipation because the gut tries to protect itself with more mucous. Exactly like the lungs do when irritated by smoke. The extra gut snot also interferes with digestion.

                • uranus rises says:

                  Alrenous, although it’s interesting, at first sight this does not provide sources for every one of their many claims.

                  Personally, since the start of my vegetarian experiment, my digestion has been fine, if not better than my previous, random mess of carbs and protein.

                  There was gas for about three weeks and that was it. According to your source this means my flora is dead. I would guess instead that it has been replaced. Considering the potential links between gut flora and the mind, I very much want this to happen and see the results (see the summary, for example, of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-018-0240-5).

                  Many problems your link talks about are mechanical issues. I wonder how much oil consumption mitigates them. Potty time is now, for me, often short and clean business, especially thanks the the amounts of oil I consume that do not get absorbed (relatively low-carb, high fat diet).

                • Alrenous says:

                  You’ve demonstrated that my link is not suitable for a hostile audience.
                  I’m not interested in hostile audiences, so if you want to rip your colon to shreds, more power to you.

                • uranus rises says:

                  I’ve bookmarked your link, but for the near future I will keep doing what I’m doing and see the results for myself. Fibre being bad would be frustrating, as leafy greens are essentially a cheat code: as many essential micro-nutrients as you can stuff yourself with without any calories, giving you more freedom over the rest of your diet. Maybe juicing would solve this.

              • uranus rises says:

                Point taken about flaxseed oil quickly becoming rancid. That still leaves the seeds themselves as a solution.

                The interesting fats in oily fish seem to come from the algae that the fish eat, not synthesised by the fish themselves. If this is true, incorporating the right algae to a diet might work just as well.

                • aswaes says:

                  Humans can’t get meaningful amounts of usable omega-3 from flaxseed. Humans convert ALA to EPA and DHA at abysmally low rates.

                  Many humans can’t convert β-carotene to retinol (vitamin A).

                  Vitamin D3 is an animal hormone.

                  You can’t get vitamin B12 from vegetables.

                  Cholesterol production is costly. Eat animals to get it exogenously.

                  Look, humans aren’t herbivores. Between the digestive systems of wolves and ruminants, ours is much closer to wolves. It’s short. We outsource our digestion to specialist animals, and we eat them. If you stop eating flesh of animals, you’ll feel good for a while because you’ll be primarily consuming an animal, namely, yourself. Then, as you deplete your stores of animal micronutrients, you’ll slowly deteriorate. Your cognition will be foggy, your memory unreliable, motivation gone, libido nonexistent. Your bones will be fragile. You’ll suffer from tooth decay, hair loss, skin issues.

                  Plants have a few usable nutrients (minerals and vitamin C), and what little they’ve got is very costly to digest: they come with anti-nutrients (phytic acid, oxalic acid). If you get your vitamin C from animal sources (liver, kidney), there’s no excuse for destroying your gut by eating veggies.

                • Zach says:

                  Don’t do Krill either. Flax is a mess.

                • uranus rises says:

                  Aswaes, I will keep your warning in mind. Note though that I have specific goals (cognitive performance and longevity; blue zone diets and all that) with no regard to what nature intended me to eat. I supplement myself with the essentials in pills not matter my diet of the moment, it’s cheap health insurance.

                  I you (or Zach) have any source that expands on your argument, I’m all ears.

                • uranus rises says:

                  To drive the point home, the Matrix white goo would be my ideal food.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          “… but the sugar is bad for you and the combination of sweet and fatty tends to get you binge eating.”

          What sugar would that be? I nibble on unsweeted chocolate. I also don’t sweeten my coffee.


          • jim says:

            I eat cacao, which is the material out of which chocolate is made. It looks like chocolate, tastes like chocolate, but without the sugar, it is bitter. I still like it, but not nearly as much as processed-to-hell chocolate.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Cacao nibs are great if you can tolerate them – personally I prefer to go with 87% or greater dark chocolate. At 87 there’s very little sugar – less than 5 grams in a serving – and the taste is much improved. Have to be careful though – there are good brands out there but others put soy lecithin in the bars so the chocolate is smoother.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              True, a little bit of sugar does improve the taste. One of the biggest problems with sweetened chocolate though is it rots your teeth. Chocolate is sticky and if sweetened this keeps the sugar adhered to your teeth. 85% or 90% cacao, sweetened with Xylitol would probably be the perfect solution. In this case you get the improved flavor, tooth protection, and there is still too little Xylitol go give you the runs.

  20. This is about the 1000th obesity-related article I read where alcohol abuse is not mentioned. I suppose because people put into an entirely different category, something that is inherently a much bigger problem and requires serious medical intervention.

    (Also, a study comparing alcohol consumption between the US and Germany found the later has more than twice the per capita consumption and about twice as many (per capita) daily drinkers. Intra-European comparisons show strange numbers, Italy high, Finland low, Denmark high, Sweden low. This is the opposite of stereotypes, simply because stereotypes are based on visibly drunk people, who have not developed as much alcohol tolerance through practice, so they signal the opposite.)

    The way it actually works is that while hard liquor packs fewer calories, daily drinkers who tend towards abuse tend to increase their intake faster with liquor, often reaching the bottle a day level which is roughly the serious medical intervention needed level. A bottle of liquor has roughly as much alcohol as 7 liters of beer (1.8 US gallons).

    That’s a lot of fluid, so for this reason beer, even when drunk abusively, is safer from a liver and suchlike viewpoint, after 20 years of daily drinking I am roughly at 2-2.5 liters a day, which would map to putting away a bottle of liquor in three days. This is less brutal for the liver and when I will be ready to stop it will probably not require much of a medical intervention. But that is a lot of calories and a lot of carbs.

    Eating healthy in itself is trivially easy – it is just about throwing a big hunk of meat, bag of frozen vegs, random herbs, water and a bouillon cube or two into a crock pot before going to sleep or work. But dealing with that strange feeling that you feel full yet not sated because lacking carbs requires some discipline, which requires sobriety, so I will probably fix this alcohol thing this year with high-dosed Baclofen.

    Snacking is indeed terrible, and while intermittent fasting is ideal, if people could at least not snack and not drink sugary drinks between the three main meals that would in itself help a lot in cutting insulin resistance / increasing insulin sensitivity. Which is precisely what we were trained to do as kids. I think every responsible parent in the eighties had a no snacking between meals policy. Eat when it is mealtime even if not hungry, don’t eat when it is not mealtime even if hungry. So it is kind of strange that adults behave now like bad kids.

    • jim says:

      I have a simple rule on alcohol. I never drink unless someone is drinking with me.

      The rightful role of alcohol is as a truth serum to cement friendships, alliances, and deals. If you are drinking alone, you have a big problem. And yes, I am frequently tempted.

      One of the big advantages of moonshine is that it takes a moment more preparation. It is 180 proof rocket fuel, so you have to mix it with something else, which makes it a bit harder to scarf down in a moment’s forgetfulness. I have a big jug sitting on the kitchen table, and have been able to outstare it for as long as no one else is at the table. But when people are drinking I do tend to get drunk faster than everyone else at the table, hitting several drinks before they have finished theirs. Fortunately I have an extraordinarily fast metabolism for alcohol, so as the evening wears on, they are usually drunker than I am. But early in the evening, I tend to get drunker than everyone else, which is not how alcohol should be used.

      But while that is not a good way to use alcohol, drinking alone is a far worse way.

      • I know. Chesterton defined it right: “Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable.” Using it as anti-stress medicine is basically what I called the abusive attitude, attitude that is oriented towards alcohol abuse and addiction.

      • Dave says:

        In Russia, the taboo against drinking alone is so strong that some alcoholics invite hobos into their homes to drink with them.

    • Alrenous says:

      that strange feeling that you feel full yet not sated because lacking carbs requires some discipline

      I fixed it by adding pure lard to my pork and diluting my supplementary cream with coffee or tea. I go for about 1:1 because at that ratio it’s still hot but can be chugged.

    • Zach says:

      Try phenibut but don’t take it more than once a week. This is how I stopped alcohol completely. I disliked drinking calories. Look into it. Very similar to baclofen but unreggulated and much better.

      • Zach says:

        This was surprisingly accurate – didn’t expect that. Although I don’t care what the evidence says, it is definitely a cognitive enhancer. Drunk on alcohol, or drunk oh phenibut that is the question.

        No hangover. No calories.


        (keep it to one day a week at most)

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          I am interested. Can you explain more about the process and dose? I’ve developed a reluctant but no less persistent relationship with booze and i’d like to see it off. I am pretty sure i can stop, but university has a way of undermining my attempts. That being said, i’m not looking for a swap, rather a methodology for cessation.

          • Zach says:

            The come up can be 5 hours so plan accordingly. Dose only once but not again. It lasts forever. Use HCL version the most common version. Don’t exceed 4 grams but start at 1 gram see how it goes. Dose only once per week. Can be combined with alcohol to drink less. Be careful. Don’t abuse. There is no way to taper without soul crushing depression and if abused long enough don’t count on getting a wink of sleep for a week… literally. Beta alanine can help with taper but Lyrica. is best. It’s perfectly safe if obeyed and a great alcohol substitute. For me anyway. Great study drug. Great social drug. Widely available. PHONE POST

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              As someone who Knows, i have to say your post has me more confused than before. Why is use of this stuff not more widespread?

              • Zach says:

                It’s not widespread because people are lemmings, and it’s quite risky if one doesn’t have self control. Tolerance is lightening fast, and if re-dosed too early, then possible to withdraw from two doses on two consecutive days. Which invites the danger of taking more to stop the withdrawal. Take alcohol for example, one can re-dose alcohol all through the week and not suffer withdrawal. It’s a traditional tried and true method with a lot of history backing it. I get it. Alcohol more or less has the advantage of working on everybody. A subset of people are almost immune to Phenibut.

                Similarly, I could name tons of drugs that are research chemicals which are superior to alcohol, non addicting benzos for example in Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials, but those are not widely available. Neuro pharmacology is one of my thangs. So is being a lab rat. I don’t need the bunkum “studies”. X does Y, it’s safe, I take it, then know about it (experience it), then stop.

                I used to buy mine from Liftmode, but you either need an account these days or they dropped it. Not sure which.

                nootropics depot is probably a safe bet. I’m putting this on a pedestal as a social lubricant, that doesn’t make you dumb, and should not regularly be used. For that, it’s golden. Start at 1 gram. But I don’t want to oversell it either. Maybe it just works for me as good as it does? I will not get on an airplane without being hammered, or dosing phenibut. Irrational fears are a mother fucker. I’m also a germaphobe. doh!

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Also, sourcing? The web is all over the place in terms of purchase. gods, i miss the days when i could just buy grams of 2CI like it was sex toys.

  21. Mike in Boston says:

    Don’t eat vegetable oils, except for olive oil, coconut oil, avocado oil, and palm oil. Nuts are generally OK, even peanuts, but peanut oil not so much.

    Somehow I think of olive, coconut and avocado oils as “fruit oils”. Calling them “vegetable oils” seems like it obscures what I thought was their key difference from the industrial “vegetable” oils: that they are extracted mechanically rather than chemically. I thought this was the thing responsible for their more favorable fatty acid makeup, but then again peanut oil can also be extracted mechanically. So maybe I am mistaken.

    The studies on palm oil I find simply confusing.

    • Not Tom says:

      If we’re going to be pedantic, then peanuts, palm fruits and corn aren’t technically vegetables either. I’m pretty sure “vegetable oil” is an informal name meaning any plant-based fat.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        The point I was ham-fistedly trying to make is that there are two different ways to group plant-derived oils into two groups.

        One way is the extraction method: can you extract it simply by crushing, or do you have to use hexane or some other chemical?

        Another is the fatty acid makeup of the oil: what is the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio?

        Peanut oil is sort of an exception: it is naturally high in omega-6 relative to omega-3, like the other unhealthy “vegetable” oils and unlike olive oil; but it can be extracted purely mechanically, like olive oil and unlike the other vegetable oils. Therefore it is tempting to use it when you want a cheap, high smoke point oil, as for instance when I deep fry the Thanksgiving turkey.

        A non-pozzed link that may be useful is https://roguehealthandfitness.com/vegetable-oils-are-dangerous-to-health/ .

    • jim says:

      I read your link: Palm oil is good for health except it has been reheated repeatedly and kept hot for a long time, which bad for any oil. And all the objections to it are from the excessively holy – “Oh no, if people grow palm oil, they cut down forest”. They just don’t like humans filling wilderness.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        Yeah, I apologize for posting that pozzed link without a disclaimer to ignore all the virtue-signaling chaff among the somewhat useful links to studies. I should have taken the time to try and turn up a less pozzed collection of links to palm oil studies.

        This is a worthwhile topic, glad you posted on it.

      • info says:

        Indeed. They could have objected on the basis of loss of naturally occurring medicines,food and other resources. An utter waste

    • aswaes says:

      Animal fat comes with essential animal nutrients like cholesterol and fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K). Your body prefers digesting animal fat. Meds have a history of consuming olive oil; but, coconut oil, avocado oil, and, palm oil are not lindy.

      Compare palatability of coconut oil with butter. Adding trace amounts of honey, I can eat butter all day. A spoonful of coconut oil induces nausea.

      Seed and nut oils are actively harmful. As far as I know, there’s no reason for eating nuts unless you don’t have access to organ meat.

      It’s advisable to avoid all non-animal sources of fat.

      Get your fat from fatty cuts, brain, bone marrow, butter, cheese, cream, eggs. Regularly eat organ meat, especially liver (of herbivores).

      Also eat fermented food (cheese, yogurt, kefir).

  22. BC says:

    Jim, you’ve described people as Demons before. I get the idea that some people committing acts that one would associate with Demons, but I’m at a loss to when trying explain the idea to other people, especially when it comes to why they’re acting in that manner. Could you define it an easier to explain way?

    • jim says:

      Moloch and Moloch worship is the type specimen of a demon. Irrespective of whether Moloch existed outside the minds of believers, their belief system led to them doing horribly evil and self destructive things which had the effect of propagating and extending Moloch worship, but reducing the propagation and extension of the believers.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        This is actually a very Dennettian insight.

        Quite often the difference between “really X” and “just as if X” is a difference that makes very little difference in practice, and in borderline/marginal cases it’s a question that doesn’t require an answer. If it behaves just as if X then treat it as X and worry about whether it’s ‘really X’ later, if ever.

        Hard borders between ‘definitely X’ and ‘definitely not X’ rarely exist for complex phenomena, yet just as with human races for example, you can usually tell whether someone’s white or black when you need to.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      The naturalistic demon is a tendencency to behave in a certain way due to certain behavioral triggers. The metaphysical/supernatural demon is a spirit that influences people to act in a way that suits its particular hungers. The Molochian sacrifice of infants in ancient times is similar in form to the way that abortionists ply their trade. The difference between a priest of Moloch and an abortionist is one of language, not intent.

      The intent is to kill infants, as demonstrated by the relaxing of inspection and licensing of abortion clinics. Licensing and inspection are how priestly casts maintain control over other classes. The relaxation of these is a matter of abortionists being brought into the priestly fold. If it were really about women’s health, then these places would need to show the same concern for sanitation and good medical practice that a hospital would.

      Does Moloch exist? Undoubtedly, as evidenced by its appearance all over the world across cultures separated by time and geography. Is Moloch a spiritual entity that whispers in the ears of people to push them to fulfill its degenerate whims, or an error or glitch in the subconscious processing of the human brain? I say spirit, but those who disagree can still understand it as a Demonic Pattern, of which Moloch is only a single example. Lilith, the emancipator of rebellious women, is another such pattern, and I am sure there are more, but can bring none to my head at the moment.

      • BC says:

        >Lilith, female demonic figure of Jewish folklore. Her name and personality are thought to be derived from the class of Mesopotamian demons called lilû (feminine: lilītu), and the name is usually translated as “night monster.” A cult associated with Lilith survived among some Jews as late as the 7th century ce. The evil she threatened, especially against children and women in childbirth, was said to be counteracted by the wearing of an amulet bearing the names of certain angels.

        >In rabbinic literature Lilith is variously depicted as the mother of Adam’s demonic offspring following his separation from Eve or as his first wife. Whereas Eve was created from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:22), some accounts hold that Lilith was the woman implied in Genesis 1:27 and was made from the same soil as Adam. Insolently refusing to be subservient to her husband, Lilith left Adam and the perfection of the Garden of Eden; three angels tried in vain to force her return. According to some mythologies, her demonic offspring were sired by an archangel named Samael and were not Adam’s progeny. Those children are sometimes identified as incubi and succubi.

        Interesting stuff. Liberated women are end of children and pregnancy. A demonic manifestation. NRx could use a full study on real demonology.

      • jim says:

        > The intent is to kill infants, as demonstrated by the relaxing of inspection and licensing of abortion clinics. Licensing and inspection are how priestly casts maintain control over other classes. The relaxation of these is a matter of abortionists being brought into the priestly fold.

        “This is my body”

        Child sacrifice as a parodic inversion of Christianity.

  23. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    So long as fruit and veg aren’t banned, imposing this diet on society would be a very positive thing. People with high appetites who get on well with a fruit&veg heavy diet could still do that if they wanted, and if it made them fat they’d be the first but the new authoritarian régime could address that problem in due course.

    This is a very positive development for this blog. Health matters.
    Sea changes aren’t a bad thing and in fact take a lot of integrity.

    Roosh V is another good example.

    • ten says:

      Imposing good things on bad people means work and more bad people better off.

      Eventually it means slavery, because it is difficult to impose anything on non property. And runaway slavery ruins everything.

      Unless by impose you mean encourage and culture the good.

    • alf says:

      And you finally got one of your comments through the censor filter. This is a very good development for your character.

    • There’s a distinction here that you miss in general. The state’s role in promoting heath is to use its power over culture to shame fatness and raise the status of fitness. This power can and should be used, and will motivate people to be fit and not be fat.

      It’s not the state’s job to force people to eat healthy or to ban a wide swath of food because sovereign power is de facto alienable and when the King creates a ministry to meddle in people’s lives and preferences, he cuts off a great deal of his power and authority. Once enough of his power has been given away to bureaucrats, they overthrow him, sometimes peaceably and usually involving obscene large-scale violence, and we get rule by bureaucrats.

  24. simplyconnected says:

    I never have dinner.
    Getting up hungry also helps in getting up early: your body will wake you up early so you can go hunt something.

  25. James says:

    If you’re working out a lot, putting away 200g of protein generally isn’t hard, especially if that protein is buffered with fat, as it is in meat and full fat dairy products. 100g would leave me frail and unrecovered.

    I can verify most of what people are agreeing with here, though — I generally eat a light meal (some greek yogurt, some fruit, veggies, etc) after my noontime run, have a mid afternoon snack of something like nuts or more dairy, and then carb up, lift heavy, and cap my day off with about a pound of meat.

    My father raised me as a vegetarian. It took me about a decade of research and experimentation to get to where I am now.

    • uranus rises says:

      Did you actually test your routine with 100g of protein?

      What did you find in your research that made you change diet?

      • Not Tom says:

        Too little protein = severe DOMS and slow progress. Muscle tissue that is actively being broken down requires more muscle food (protein and glycogen) to rebuild than muscle tissue that is not under stress and just needs to be maintained.

        0.5g/lb protein is recommended for maintenance, 1g/lb for any kind of athletic training. Does not have to be “working out”, soccer players and long-distance runners should supplement too.

      • James says:

        I tried it with about 120g of protein, and found that I could never progress past a certain level of strength, and my recovery suffered significantly. I was sorer for longer and could never get past s low-200s squat or low-300s deadlift.

        I don’t actually know if 200g is necessary, but it seems to be significantly over 150g.

        My research and self-experimentation basically involved varying my diet according to various methods I found online (and common sense / watching my micronutrients), sticking to those changes for a few weeks or months, and observing my athletic and career performance and body composition.

        I’ve personally found that for my lifestyle, intermittent fasting, high protein and moderate fat + carb works really well for weight loss, while maintenance and growth favors more moderate protein intake (on a relative basis), with higher fat and carbohydrate intake boosting my total calories.

        I generally eat large quantities of meat I buy from a local farmer, a lot of greens, and moderate amounts of full fat dairy and fruit. When I am feeling under-recovered, I will eat some processed grains — a couple of English muffins can give me a massive overnight boost.

        • uranus rises says:

          Interesting, thanks. So far, I was going by what seemed the rough consensus in studies (muscle gain happening between 1.6 and 2.2 g of protein/kg of body mass, meaning 110-150 g for a 70 kg man: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29497353 ). I had this idea that protein digestion isn’t a particularly clean process (kidneys?) and wanted to limit it to the necessary minimum, long-term. I could definitely try it for a few months of weight loss though.

          I assume you’re going for hypertrophy, not pure strength (e.g. bodyweight) or pure endurance?

          • James says:

            I aim for strength and endurance, hypertrophy isn’t really a concern of mine. I like being strong, fast, endurance, and generally capable. Size and looks happen for me as a consequence of function.

  26. Brian says:

    How bad is alcohol, really? Do I need to avoid beer? Whiskey? Or is the CW off base?

  27. I converged onto something remarkably similar to Jim’s diet a long time ago just by eating the way that felt most natural to me and tasted good, that being a light lunch around 2pm and a huge dinner around 8pm involving about a pound of meat, with everything else either fried in olive oil or sauteed in butter, milk, and cheese.

    I would say take it with a grain of salt though, because I’m young and active and thus have no trouble metabolizing a low-moderate amount of carbs. As I get older, going to cut back on carbs.

    Some white people can handle carbs and some cannot because some white people lead active lifestyles and some do not. When I had a job that involved strenuous manual labor outdoors for hours on end, I ate a ton of pasta and rice and in fact lost weight. If I had done low carb, would not have had the energy to do the job. Now that I have a job that is less active, I eat far fewer carbs.

    If your job involves sitting at a computer all day, and your only exercise is the weight room 3-4 times per week, low carb. If you do heavy labor, you’ll need carbs.

    • S.J., Esquire says:

      ***If your job involves sitting at a computer all day, and your only exercise is the weight room 3-4 times per week, low carb. ***

      My job is fairly sedentary, I do not avoid carbs in the slightest, and I do exercise about an hour a day (mix of weights and cardio), but I have that metabolism where despite pushing 40, I have not begun to pile on the middle-aged weight that I have been warned about for years. In fact I would LIKE to weigh slightly more. I follow the alt-nutrition advice with great interest, I am sure it is great for the average person, but unfortunately it contains nothing for people like me.

  28. Not Tom says:

    Getting through 5 hypertrophy/power workouts per week on a paleo/keto diet was next to impossible for me. Dietary fat just doesn’t burn fast enough to fuel that intensity. I still avoid refined sugar, though; decent-quality carbs (rice, lentils, etc.) with some fruit will fuel an entire workout instead of crashing 30 minutes into it.

    Totally agree that for people who don’t train, or don’t train with very high intensity, avoiding carbs and vegetable fats and replacing with greens and animal fats is the best. You feel satiated pretty much all the time, making it very easy to maintain a caloric deficit without screwing up hormones.

    Unfortunately the anti-animal-fat meme has also infected most of the training community, who will tell you – with zero credible evidence, and visible irritation over any questioning – that you should limit fat intake to 10-15% of your calories and eat nothing but pound after pound of chicken breasts and the occasional fish for protein. Great way to crash your T levels and become basically anemic. Your body desperately needs that saturated fat, but they apparently still rely on that one joke of a study from the 1970s claiming that saturated=bad, and not the dozens of studies afterward showing that actually PUFA=bad.

    The amount of mainstream disinfo is truly astounding, considering the abundance of published work contradicting it. It’s as if the medical profession is permanently stuck in the 1970s.

    • Zach says:

      Did you wait it out for a bit though? Maybe 3 to 4 months? My training has improved, but it wasn’t that way initially.

    • jim says:

      > Unfortunately the anti-animal-fat meme has also infected most of the training community,

      The anti-animal-fat meme originates from greenies and vegetarians. The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet reveals that science has been replaced by leftist theology – veganism is holier, therefore animal fat is sinful.

      Notice that PETA hates animals with white hot hatred. Meat is sinful therefore farming is sinful therefore any contact with animals is sinful therefore kill the stray cats and that cute polar bear pup!

      When we have the upper hand, we will make a dusk to dusk water only fast part of lent, so as to direct food holiness spirals in a healthier direction. Make all Christians do it once a year, and super holy do it every day.

      • Not Tom says:

        I’ve noticed a second element to the anti-animal-fat meme in the more bleeding-edge progressive groups: an unironic suggestion to eat bugs. Never mind that they’re a terrible protein source from EAA point of view. PETA-tier hatred definitely drives the food soldiers, but from the neoliberal power brokers I detect a strange undercurrent of just wanting people to eat lower on the food chain, where it’s more “efficient”.

        It brings to mind the image of a labor camp, prison or sci-fi corporate dystopia where food is a centrally-managed expense and they want to be able to produce and distribute it as cheaply as possible.

        • Not Tom says:

          That was supposed to say “foot soldiers” but I guess “food soldiers” works too.

        • shaman says:

          a labor camp, prison or sci-fi corporate dystopia where food is a centrally-managed expense

          Bugmen envisage a future in which Soylent has replaced all meals; if current trends continue unabated, by 2050 meat consumption will be criminalized. (Meme) Progressivism can be conceived as estrogen mortally parasitizing its Logos-borne host society, its leftoid NPC minions as harbingers of civilization’s necrotic eunuchism.

          “Soy becomes sentient.”

          • Not Tom says:

            Progressivism can be conceived as estrogen mortally parasitizing its Logos-borne host society

            I like it. But what of the high-T women? It seems to play out in practice more as an inversion of sexual roles and corresponding hormones than as a shift of both sexes toward the feminine.

            • shaman says:

              But what of the high-T women?

              Manjawed, broad shouldered, low waist-to-hip ratio Feminists are usually androgenized prenatally; they don’t actually possess high plasma T-levels in their bloodstream, as far as I’m aware. Indeed, the medication they take to regulate their mental disorders, plus the birth control pills they’re popping, pretty much obliterate their T.

              If they really had high plasma T, they wouldn’t transmogrify into nannyish BPD-exhibiting cat-ladies prior to menopause, only post-menopause. Cat-ladyism among 30-year-olds and 40-year-olds is femotropism, not androtropism. Granted, it doesn’t modernly manifest as femininity, because the aforementioned fetally masculinized Feminist “thought leaders” (often dykes) have proscribed that, but neither does it manifest as proper masculinity.

              #MeToo is as endocrinally estrogenized as it gets.

              • >prenatally

                There was this study showing the plasma T levels of pregnant women are a better predictor of whether their daughter is going to be lesbian 30 years later than said daughters plasma T levels 30 years later. Beta dude pedestalizes pregnant wife, treats her as super high status, worshipping the Golden Womb, therefore her T levels go up and it affects the female baby.

                (It does not affect male babies. Their own T production is far higher than what they could get through the placenta.)

                • shaman says:

                  It really can’t be over-emphasized how extremely important this issue is. The Cathedral exploded with rage and fury when scientists figured that it’s possible to eliminate both baseline Feminism and lesbianism by reducing plasma T in the pregnant mother – killing two birds with one stone. Imagine a world in which all the women are naturally feminine and prefer it to be so! No, the Cathedral can’t allow that horrible, horrible scenario to transpire; it’s against everything the priestly class believes in, and hinders the most elementary aspect of Bio-Leninism, arresting it right in the womb.

                  I hope that in a decade or two, Russia and (more likely) China will methodically, systematically pursue the scientific course to obviating the androgenized female problem.

                • shaman says:

                  By the way, the idea of prenatally preventing sexual misfittedness should be very appealing to you; unlike me, you don’t appear to have a wrathful sadistic streak, so you may flinch from seeing homosexuals dropped like sacks of potatoes off roofs. Well, there ya have it: cruelty can be minimized if we find a way to prevent these endocrinal shit-shows from being produced in the first place. Whatever predisposes males to become girly and/or gay, and females to become androgenized and/or lesbian, needs to be discovered and neutralized.

                  From the Cathedral’s perspective, what I just wrote is an “End Times

                • jim says:

                  Check all pregnancies. Spironolactone starting at eight weeks if the fetus is female. Bingo. All women come out feminine.

                  Not clear what causes effeminacy in men, but homosexuality in male sheep seems very similar to homosexuality in male humans. We should be researching what causes it in sheep, and we are not, for fear of what might be discovered.

                • shaman says:

                  From the Cathedral’s perspective, what I just wrote is an “End Times Apocalypse” scenario, as it will deprive it of a substantial portion of Bio-Leninist loyalists. Moreover, a society that allows or incentivizes the biological engineering of its members to fit healthy sexual roles is the diametrical opposite of our modern dystopia.

                  But anyway, if only out of humanistic concern for all the poofs who’ll get pushed off roofs, and for all the gender ideologues who’ll get their pink-haired asses helicopter’d to the Pacific, you should be in favor of utilizing science to solve the problem of sexual misfits; it’s an unalloyed pro-social good.

                • shaman says:

                  If we ensure that males develop to be masculine and females develop to be feminine, then it goes without saying that we operate under a firm recognition that men and women possess dissimilar natures. The WQ is more than half-way to being solved, in that case. Sure, living poz-vectors and mental/anatomical hermaphrodites will resist the new reality, so there won’t be a choice but to apply OT or similar methods to physically remove them; but preventative measures can be taken, in advance.

                  And if “drugs against androgyny” don’t appeal to you, it may be possible (if predisposition to homosexuality can be discovered prenatally) to perform ideological jiu-jitsu on the progressives by using their own Moloch worship against them: “We deem androgyny to be retardation of a sexual type, and sexual retards, just like cognitive retards, should get aborted.” Traditionalists probably won’t like that, though, and should naturally prefer the use of corrective medication rather than fetus slaughter.

                  Of course, the decision should be up to fathers, not mothers; we already know that abortion in general is now used to deprive fathers of children they very much desire, we know that fathers don’t want faggot sons whereas mothers usually don’t mind the prospect (or maybe they even like the idea nowadays, for reasons of virtue signalling), and we also know that mothers with BPD often perform post-birth Moloch worship by turning their male children into trannies, so whatever measures are taken to neutralize prenatal factors that cause androgynous traits, fathers rather than mothers should be those who determine them.

                  Jim previously suggested that drugs should be used on girls to delay andrenarche or menarche till they reach their mid-to-late teens, so surely the idea of using drugs to extirpate fagtors (it’s a portmanteau of “fag” and “factors”) shouldn’t come across as especially odd here. The matter of effective elimination of fagtors should be thoroughly investigated, but one needn’t expect that to happen anytime soon in the West, due to it being radically offensive to PC sensibilities; the Cathedral shrieks in horror about the very notion, which is really telling.

                  Joke: “We should tolerate sexual misfits.”

                  Woke: “We should render androgynous traits and androgynous behavior extremely low status.”

                  Bespoke: “We should render androgynous traits and androgynous behavior obsolete on the biological level.”

            • shaman says:

              Jim’s famous “metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supplies” maxim points to the modern day substitution of masculine modes of thinking — and thus, say, conflict resolution methods — with feminine ones; literal endocrinal disruption cannot be far off, and is attested to by the ever-rising prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders among women as well as by the ever-magnifying pest of infertile and asexual girly soyboys.

              As Alrenous notes below, they despise warriors, and the expected criminalization of meat is not unrelated to the ongoing criminalization of heterosexuality and the increasing opprobrium cast on any expression of “toxic” masculinity; GamerGate was a reaction to the latter, for instance, as male hobbies such as video games are condemned for no other reason than being a common male indulgence. Fidelbogen terms this phenomenon “gynonormativization,” and though it sounds goofy, it’s still accurate.

              (Alex Jones: “They turn the freaking frogs gay”)

              • Alrenous says:

                Researchers have found evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of drug residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species, and have been shown to labs to impair human cell function.

                • shaman says:

                  The thing about greenies is that they want the West to de-industrialize because they’re f**king Communists, which has given environmentalism a very bad reputation among people who aren’t dimwitted poofters. A hypothetical right-wing version of environmentalism would have to be both anthropocentric (Gaia can piss off) and explicitly aimed at buttressing social technologies and mankind’s civilizing conquest of nature rather than obstructing them. The only ones who could’ve pulled that off were the Nazis, and even then, Hitler’s pro-animal predilections rub me the wrong way.

                • shaman says:

                  Indeed, from a dietetic perspective, the Nazis were far worse than Anglosphere liberals, because of the demonic tree-hugging vegetarianism that many of them were afflicted with. Recall that Richard Wagner argued that meat eating is a Semitic practice, and vegetarianism quintessentially Germanic, and of course Hitler had to espouse similar views.

                  And even today, at the intersection of Esoteric Hitlerism, Trooferism, and New Age kookery (it’s the unholy and un-Christian trinity of controlled opposition entryism), you find people who say, “Meat = Jewish; Plants = White.” At root, vegetarianism is a leftie-loon worldview, and will soon provide fertile ground for top-down social engineers who hate our freedoms to infringe on our liberty.

                • shaman says:

                  However, I’m not letting the Anglosphere off the hook here. The Neo-Buddhist psychedelic movement, pioneered by the likes of Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary (both vegetarians, not coincidentally), has had a long tradition of inculcating Gaia-worship in its adherents. That’s where the “Be one with the world, maaan” meme, now also prevalent among stoners, comes from.

                  But! The Mitteleuropean version of that mindset is naturally authoritarian, while the Woodstock boomers (if not their modern successors) tended towards anarchism, so you should expect mandatory vegetarianism to emerge in Europe first, and only later in the Anglophone. Unless Mohammedans spoil it by enforcing Sharia on everyone, which is not an unlikely scenario.

                • shaman says:

                  The vegetarians always give me flak (read: scream bloody murder) when I voice my support for animal experimentation, and their dearly held sentiment has grown not uncommon outside the veggie community, too. Well, I’m an extropian, and thus prioritize the scientific advancement of humanity above touchy-feely emotionalism. Seems to me that the veggies don’t even comprehend that this view exists; if you support animal experimentation, they’ll say that you just “hate animals,” an all-the-more absurd accusation if you also support experimentation on inferior kinds of humans.

                  Proceeding from the earlier discussion of societal estrogenization, you can identify the sundry veggie and veggie-inspired weltanschauungen as facets of an ever expanding Emetocracy, a rule-by-emotions, which is absolutely inimical to a society where the masculine Logos is dominant. It all goes back to my “progressivism as femotropism” thesis, according to which artificial girliness is induced by left-wing ideology; or perhaps vice versa. Indeed, it’s a feedback loop in which leftism cultivates emasculation, and emasculation cultivates leftism. That’s why it’s essential to get rid of at least one part of this equation, if not both of them, and that’s what we’re doing here.

                • shaman says:

                  “Emetocracy” is a typo; meant “Emotocracy.” Than again, rule-by-vomit certainly works in that context. Heh.

                • shaman says:

                  This reminds me of something else, though. There is an undercurrent of right-wing butch sodomites, most notably Jack Donovan and BAP, who likewise seek to encourage masculinity (or, ominously, hipster bodybuilding), albeit their underlying motives clearly differ from ours. Plain-and-simple, they are attracted to virile, muscular men; it’s an erotic and aesthetic issue, for them. Still, they are willing to side with reactionaries on many subjects.

                  How should they be treated? I think I’ll leave that question open to Jim and the community. Maybe a Reaction 101 can help us sort this one out.

                • jim says:

                  They have to keep it in the closet.

                  The possibility of sodomy undermines male cohesion. It prevents men from bonding with men. Therefore, when in power, we have to throw open sodomites off high buildings or something similar, and when out of power, socially exclude open sodomites – though Milo was wonderfully entertaining and devastatingly effective.

                  Out of power, we should ally with open sodomites who are wonderfully effective, but only if they are wonderfully effective. Bronze Age pervert is not effective enough to justify this, but he is fine so long as he keeps it in the closet.

                • @Shaman

                  >The thing about greenies is that they want the West to de-industrialize because they’re f**king Communists

                  Russian Communists were pro-industrialization. I would recommend a different interpretation. We often talk in the framework of leftism-as-religion, but most kinds of leftism function so only in the moral sense. Now, environmentalism has more religious features, more of the emotional, psychological ones. Not just morality. But also a dream of returning to a previous, pure, happy state, return to the Garden of Eden, without social dysharmony, sin, and be noble savages like the Na’vi. So this presses more buttons in people than just common leftism saying oppressing people is bad. It has a long history in Protestant Christanity. America itself was seen by the Puritans as a return to the Garden of Eden and living like Adam and Eve.

                • shaman says:

                  Russian Communists were pro-industrialization.

                  Right; moreover, my critique of progressivism as a feminine force most probably doesn’t apply to old-school Russian Communists either. What I had in my when accusing the greenies of being motivated by a communist worldview is accurately reflected in your following explanation:

                  Now, environmentalism has more religious features, more of the emotional, psychological ones. Not just morality. But also a dream of returning to a previous, pure, happy state, return to the Garden of Eden, without social dysharmony, sin, and be noble savages like the Na’vi.

                  I see that as communism (in disguise), albeit not of the Soviet Russian variety; it has strong echoes in revolutionary Francophone anarchism and, indeed, in Puritanism; these being variants of the same communist malaise.

                  The underlying idea there is that modern society is inherently oppressive and alienating, that we are currently ruled by aristocrats and/or capitalists who won’t let us poop in the streets and suchlike, and that therefore we should roll things back to the primordial blissful state – which surely requires sending the bourgeoisie to the guillotine. Such atavism is antithetical to civilization, and is at the core of anarcho-communism.

                  Obviously, it has religious overtones, not just moral ones. We obviously agree that these people are driven by Gaia-worship, or by something remarkably similar, perhaps demon worship; the point of contention here is trivial, as I do not imply that the greenies subscribe to the dogmatic, programmatic, “moral but not religious,” Leninist type of communism – rather, their communism or anarcho-communism clearly hinge on deeply religious and emotional impulses.

                  Hence Soviet Communists being relatively practical and nihilistic, whereas SJWs — a category of which greenies are a subset — tend to be true believers, and totally unmoored to considerations of sensicality.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  shaman, are you sure BAP is a homo? I once asked Cominator what the evidence was and he said that BAP sent gay porn to someone he, BAP, disliked. While weird, this is a classic 4chanish prank and I don’t think it necessarily indicates actual faggotry.

                • shaman says:

                  Evidence in the form of an explicit admission, “I am sexually attracted to men and engage in anal sex with them,” there is none so far.

                  The reason BAP is regularly accused of being a homo is his posting histories on Twitter and especially on The Phora Forum, where he has often inserted crass homoeroticism and even disparaged the female physique. People have been taking it for granted that he’s gay since at least 2014.

                  Could a perfectly straight man have “tongue-in-cheek” behaved in this manner? Yes, theoretically, but it’s not really likely. Surely you’ve seen the screenshots Spandrell attached in this article. Regardless of the argument set forth in that piece, the pictorial evidence is hard to ignore.

                  Since faggotry viscerally repulses normal men, we prefer not to see it, prefer to mentally filter its presence, especially if the person afflicted with it is someone we are otherwise fond of. Think about all the parents whose children are overt flamers or carpet munchers, who stubbornly and ostrich-like stay in denial about the situation: The parents are “in the closet” about their own progeny.

                  I believe that BAP considers “butch-type” (not effeminate or pederast) homosexuality to be perfectly compatible with a right-wing worldview. That’s actually quite odd, since cross-dressing, “third sex,” and pederasty are endemic to many cultures – while it is the butch variant that is relatively recent, lacking in historical precedent.

                  Or maybe that’s not odd at all, because the more sophisticated from among the sodomites always try to insidiously induce bisexuality in their non-queer audience, e.g. by constantly mixing up images of sexy women and muscular men; it’s intended to trick your brain into pavlovically associating the sexual arousal induced by the former with the latter.

                  As a sly H E B E P H I L E I’m obviously immune to such transparent mind games, but unsuspecting autists must beware.

            • shaman says:

              You do have a point about the inversion of sexual roles, so let me elaborate my thought on it some more.

              The incidence of both cerebral androgyny (consequent to excessive prenatal exposure or receptivity to androgens among girls, for example) and autism is on the rise, and the two conditions are likely linked; combined with the Butlerization of culture, it’s no wonder so many folks go tranny. The agender agenda strikes again!

              Such an artificial, detrimental state of affairs may necessitate the future Reactionary State to institute a policy of testosterone therapy for the general male public, and to substantially minimize the prescription of Xanax and the like for women; the latter indefinitely, the former not indefinitely, but until the natural order is restored and sexual harmony is re-established. Alternatively, the post-collapse chaos will itself suffice to weed the geldings and the manjawed cunts out of the gene pool, i.e. the possession of an androgynous phenotype will become an unsustainable liability.

              Come the restoration, gender ideology should not only be inapplicable, but outright unthinkable; wide-scale book burning may prove indispensable, and the priesthood shall take the appropriate measures to censor such mental poison as “Gender Trouble,” “The Beauty Myth,” “The Feminine Mystique,” and so on. That stuff has to be both erased from public memory and absolutely de-digitized, and the censorship required to achieve that goal will be so thorough as to make modern Twitter look like a bastion of free speech in comparison.

              • I think censorship is rarely necessary: people rarely engage in stupid ideas if they are not encouraged by the powers that be / if they cannot be used to gain power.

                Typically it works like this: ruling elites have a certain political formula, a legitimizing myth. Defecting elites, opposition elites and ambitious plebs use a more extreme version of the official political formula, because it is difficult to punish people for this, and the elites have to engage seriously with such claims less their legitimacy weakens. Gender ideology is simply a more extreme version of liberal egalitarianism. It’s purpose is to shame moderately liberal egalitarian elites, to tell them their egalitarianism is fake and they should yield power to those who are more egalitarian. They cannot punish them for it because admitting their ideas are so dangerous that more extreme versions of it are punishment-worthy, would imply the ideas are not so good and besides it would just trigger the reverse spiral: competition towards being the most moderate liberal. Which would be far better but I think it would kill the political formula and they know it at some level, if you rule by political formula, you must tolerate extreme version of it.

                So I think in a reactionary state hardly anyone would care about gender idelogy, because it buys nothing, the state is not based on a myth of equality. Not based on any political formula. So these texts lose their extreme-holy status and become yet another weird stuff nobody cares about.

                History is littered with the corpses of such weird ideas that were used once for such purposes.

                These ideas are not inherently attractive. They are only attractive because they promise power by taking the egalitarian political formula to the extreme.

                Rule by priests means the political formula, the legitimizing myth has immense power and everybody can try to gain power by manipulating it. Rule by warriors means there is simply a bunch of people who rule, by force, and while a political formula generated by priests is still necessary, it plays a secondary role. In such a setup those who do not belong to the ruling group personally cannot tweak the formula to gain power. But of course there is still an issue of infighting inside the ruling group.

                To solve that it is also clear to me that the reactionary political formula has to be centered around property rights. That is, less oriented towards the divine right of kings and more towards them holding the position as a hereditary property. So there is no chance of out-divining the king.

      • Alrenous says:

        It didn’t become holy to not eat meat. They don’t want you to eat meat, and therefore it became holy. Meat is warrior food. Historically it was well known that low-meat diets make you passive and submissive, which your warriors and your best hunters cannot afford to be.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        It is not uncommon in the Eastern Orthodox world for people to keep a complete water fast on Good Friday.

        I have heard of one monk who was keeping a water fast on Holy Wednesday enjoining his lay visitors not to, because they were doing physical labor on the monastery grounds while the monk was at prayer.

    • jim says:

      > Getting through 5 hypertrophy/power workouts per week on a paleo/keto diet was next to impossible for me. Dietary fat just doesn’t burn fast enough to fuel that intensity.

      Your ability to burn animal fat improves over time.

      • James says:

        That is definitely true, but your fat metabolism pathway alone will never have the throughput of fat and carbs together. I found myself performing drastically better, for longer, whenI started adding preworkout carbs to my routine.

      • Not Tom says:

        It certainly does, if you’re not already fat-adapted. I started training seriously during a multi-year paleo diet, and continued training for about a year on that diet. It’s definitely possible to train without carbs, and many people do – just not at the same level of intensity as training _with_ carbs.

        Lipolysis is just a slower process chemically than glycolysis, there’s no getting around that. Though that doesn’t mean you need a carb-heavy diet; as James says below, it’s for pre- and optionally post-workout, not much point in eating carbs all day long and doesn’t justify cafeteria-style snacking.

        It’s carbs with no corresponding physical activity that kill; scarfing down all those fast-metabolizing calories and then sitting on the couch is just going to spike insulin and leave you hungry again in a few hours. Dietary fat converts more easily than carbs to body fat, but leaves you more satiated for a longer time.

        • jim says:

          > It’s carbs with no corresponding physical activity that kill; scarfing down all those fast-metabolizing calories and then sitting on the couch is just going to spike insulin and leave you hungry again in a few hours.

          Exactly so.

        • Poochman says:

          Well said. It’s also the quality of carb that is important as well. As an amateur bodybuilder, I will perform drastically better in the gym with potatoes or rice as my main carb source as opposed to processed sugar-laden crap like cookies or crackers that will have my blood sugar crashing shortly after I eat.

  29. bigfoot is qanon says:

    Agree with most of this, but not all of it (my credential is that I dropped 100 lbs while adding ~20 lbs muscle).

    Weighing yourself every day is pointless or even counterproductive. Weight fluctuates for all kinds of reasons. You can do exactly what you need to do and still gain a couple pounds over a few days. If you’re easily discouraged, seeing that disinfo on a scale readout is like an enemy propaganda officer whispering in your ear that your plan is doomed to fail. If you follow a proven formula (no/low carb + resistance training), you don’t need to measure daily micro-results.

    Also not sure about zero calorie soft drinks. I drank diet Coke like a fish while losing weight. But I never tried cutting them out, so maybe I would have lost weight even faster. “Looking at fat people’s eating habits, you can see that substituting zero calorie soft drinks for sugary soft drinks is not a solution.” <- Fat people make perfunctory gesture at losing weight while eating loads of other garbage. This doesn't tell us much. It a good idea to give up "diet" soda so you break the conditioning to expect sweet food/drinks, but I'm dubious about there being a direct metabolic effect.

    • Cloudswrest says:

      It’s my hunch that non-caloric sweeteners are toxic purely by virtue of being both sweet and non-caloric. I think, metabolically, there’s more to “sweetness” than just a pleasant qualia. It must certainly set in motion metabolic processes in anticipation of the arrival of sugar. When the sugar doesn’t arrive they are essentially “faked out”. This is exactly how sugar alcohols (Xylitol, Sorbitol, etc.) reduce tooth decay. The tooth bacteria think they’re getting some sugar and ramp up in anticipation, only to be faked out after it’s too late and they die.

      • Alrenous says:

        I don’t know about most fake sweeteners. Aspartame, however, was a ant poison candidate. Chosen for likely toxicity. “It’s fine if the concentration is low.” Detectable concentrations aren’t low enough. Most find it has an off taste for a reason.

        • Reziac says:

          Just because something is toxic to one species doesn’t mean it is to another. Celery can kill a cat in short order. Goats eat all sorts of stuff that would kill humans. You can safely take ivermectin every day, but it kills a host of parasites. All plants are toxic, it’s a matter of degree and a given species’ tolerance. Etc, etc.

          HOWEVER — there has long been suspicion that aspartame is a thyroid inhibitor, tho it’s never been seriously looked at. But there was some recent research (IIRC done in Egypt, so salt as desired) that looked at thyroid tissue in rats fed aspartame, and noted damage at the cellular level, similar to what one gets with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. (I’ve been meaning to find the article again to reference here, but never got to it. Ah well.)

          It only takes about 5% drop in thyroid function to generate insidious weight gain, and eventually a host of other issues, such as heart disease and high blood pressure. Weight gain is not the cause of those or any other weight-related morbidities; the excess weight is a co-symptom of low thyroid, which causes everything else (including increased appetite and sugar cravings). This is plain if one looks broadly at the research, rather than focusing on whatever specialty or disorder.

          [I can go on about this topic at tiresome length… I read the research so you don’t have to, and because doctors don’t. Thyroid should be the FIRST line of inquiry for ANY chronic condition, including the ‘symptoms of aging’.]

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        I know ‘zero calorie’ sweeteners are toxic because if you replace a carbon atom with a fluorine atom in the molecule then of course the result is going to be toxic.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Biogenic alcohols like xylitol (or ethanol, for that matter) are tolerable because most human species have metabolic pathways for processing them.

        That;s the main thing when considering the potential issues a particular substance will have if consumed; whether or not the body is designed to handle them, whether or not they are compatible with those designs.

      • Bawls says:

        This is a courtesy link to a review of the current state of understanding of the effects of artificial sweeteners on metabolism re: metabolic syndrome. What follows is from memory of an animal study I reviewed during a senior seminar in biology at the dawn of microbiota research which I am disinclined to track down.
        It has been shown that aspartame and sucralose when chronically ingested cause evolution of microbiome species to metabolize them. In both sweeteners, the primary by-product is a molecule which crosses into the bloodstream and acts to signal human cells to down-regulate insulin sensitivity. This is the mechanism by which chronic diet soda drinkers end up spiking insulin repeatedly throughout the day and developing type 2 diabetes. In moderation, ie once or fewer times per day, there is substantially lowered selection pressure on microbiome to metabolize artificial sweeteners, and much less reason for concern over deleterious effects as a result of such consumption. The study I’m recalling did not investigate stevia or other sweeteners to my recollection, but I assume that in the intervening years the body of knowledge has expanded somewhat.
        Your theory of ‘faking out’ human metabolism seems to be addressed in the review I linked, and may also have some explanatory power here, but there is a direct metabolic problem mechanism mediated by gut bacteria which we do know is harmful even if there is no evidence for the ‘fake out’ hypothesis.

  30. Zach says:

    IGF1 is raised through a lot of grey market SARMS and other peptides. If anybody out here is screwing around with that because the doctor’s script is absurd, my jellyfish is having a lot of success with this:


    Requires some hands-on extraction.

  31. Cloudswrest says:

    “if you are eating too much protein, you probably will find you don’t like it. People on very high protein diets get sick, and find it hard to keep meat down.”

    The term for this is “rabbit starvation”. It refers to nutritional fat deficiency due to subsisting on too much lean protein. Wikipedia helpfully renamed the article on this to “Protein poisoning”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning.

    “Notice that people whose insulin secretion is defective (as in type one diabetes) don’t get fat even if they eat a lot, and are apt to lose alarming amounts of weight unless they inject themselves with insulin. That, however, is just a wild assed guess.”

    Indeed. T1Ds are usually rail thin without treatment. Sugar homeostasis regulation in the body is BIPOLAR. There are two regulating hormones. Insulin (sugar down) and Glucagon (sugar up). Insulin is the “master” in that it suppresses Glucagon production. Glucagon producing alpha cells in the pancreas are in close proximity to the Insulin producing beta cells. So there is very high gain for Insulin suppressing Glucagon. You lose this high gain feature when simply injecting Insulin. The primary lethal effect of T1D is ketoacidosis. This is due to runaway Glucagon production due to no Insulin to suppress it. In effect runaway Glucagon production is telling the body to catabolize all muscle mass in order to generate adequate sugar for the body, even though there is really plenty present, but the body is blind to it. It’s been shown that Glucagon knockout mice live quite happily with full on T1D without exogenous Insulin. See this excellent, and very informative, lecture by T1D researcher Roger Unger:
    “Professor Roger Unger, University of Texas, recipient of Rolf Luft Award 2014. The prize lecture is entitled “A New Biology For Diabetes” https://youtu.be/VjQkqFSdDOc

  32. Zach says:

    “The formula for losing weight is fewer meals, approximately one hundred grams of protein per day for a male, which is approximately a pound of meat, and plenty of animal fat, as for example bacon, eggs, cheese, and butter. You should go about seventeen hours, if socially possible, before breaking fast. And since dinner is usually socially required, that likely means skipping breakfast.”

    This is more or less the lifestyle I’ve had for about 2 years. With a month here and there off the wagon. No food after 8pm. No food before Noon. I think Dave Asprey is a complete dumbass, but when I started I did do the bulletproof coffee thing to keep me satiated. I remember it working well to begin, but unnecessary for hardliners.

    Fasting 3 days a week is even better IMO. You can have a few hundred calories but nothing else. Nobody wants to do this thus we have Keto – a name that sounds like 12 gay guys tied their dicks together to form a pattern. God I hate that name.

    Some may feel quite off when they start. Some will not. My wife’s body shutdown for almost two weeks before she felt great. I had headaches for a day then felt great. I’m in my 40s. There is a drastic difference in inflammation between 20g of carbs /day and 100g.

    I also cook (well, she does :)) a mean Cabbage Stew with beef in it. She 2x’s the recipe and literally chow down on that all week if anybody is interested in that recipe.

  33. the science of weight gain is so complicated. two people can have identical diets and body compositions yet one gains weight and the other doesn’t.

    • jim says:

      There is a lot of genetic variation in response to carbs.

      The white race evolved from a hybrid population of brown eyed middle eastern farmers who ate bread and beer, and blue eyed pastoralists who ate milk, meat, and butter.

      • If we assume the Scandavians are the closest to the pastoralists and indeed they have the highest rates of lactose tolerance, implying little farmer admixture, they do have an ale and bread culture back to the beginnings if their written history.

        If someone can point me towards a reliable summary of the prehistory of whites I’d be grateful, but genetic research keeps making reliability harder. In 2014 a 37K years old skeleton with Scandi genetics was processed in Russia: http://sciencenordic.com/scandinavians-are-earliest-europeans

        This means “Aryans” existed already in the hunter-gatherer period and they likely went on hunting-gathering for tends of thousands of years. Entirely possible they got into Western Europe before the farmers from the south…

        • ten says:

          Check out survive the jives youtube. He’s a british pagan pretty well versed in these things

        • jim says:

          We know that blue eyed people existed in Europe in the paleolithic. That may be what you refer to as “Scandi Genetics”

          In most of Europe they suffered total replacement by brown eyed neolithic grain farmers from the Middle East.

          Somewhere near the Caspian sea, mingling, but not total replacement. Subsequently that population of pastoralists, the proto Indian Europeans, conquered all of Europe, and most of India.

  34. Karl says:

    What is your idea of “ideal weight”? With the possibe expection of very serious body building, adding 4 pounds of muscle should not be harmful for the vast majority of men. An additional 4 pounds of fat is a different matter. Scales won’t tell the difference.

    I think that a mirror is more helpful than scales to find out whether you are too fat. If you can see your abs clearly, no need to worry about weight.

    • jim says:

      I can see my abs clearly, but I would like them to be good deal clearer.

    • Dave says:

      My standard for both sexes is the thigh gap. Humans evolved to walk, not waddle, so at the ideal body weight, the thighs should almost touch when walking or standing bare-legged. You can see this in old photos of beauty pageants since they started having swimsuit competitions circa 1920.

      • Not Tom says:

        Standard for both sexes? You think fit men should have a thigh gap?

        • Dave says:

          Yes. If your thighs rub together as you walk, or you have to waddle, your thigh gap is negative and you are too fat. Our ancestors of both sexes had to store fat in case of famine, but not in a way that impaired their mobility. A wider pelvis enables women to store more fat on their thighs while maintaining a thigh gap slightly above zero.

          A person of either sex with a large positive thigh gap is too thin.

          • Not Tom says:

            Yeah, no. Skinnyfat soyboys have thigh gaps. Professional bodybuilders with 5% body fat don’t have thigh gaps. A man with a thigh gap is a man with weak chicken legs.

            Your bizarre inductive argument with vague references to waddling – which I’ve almost never seen happen, even with rather obese men – is not a substitute for the realities of body composition and biomechanics.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Can corroborate the waddle, but agree with you completely. A thigh gap on a man just sounds hella-gay.

  35. vxxc says:

    We’ll get thinner in CW2.

  36. Koanic says:

    Lifting weights to reduce body fat percentage is more important than losing weight, since muscle is denser than fat.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Lifting weights will let you add muscle – which most men need to do – but it absolutely won’t get rid of fat – which a lot of men need to do as well. Only improved diet or spending lots of time and energy on low intensity training will do the latter – but low intensity training also catabolizes muscle (and wrecks joints).

      Gotta fast and to fast, gotta eat low carb or you’ll lose your mind trying to do it.

      • Koanic says:

        > but it absolutely won’t get rid of fat

        Not true. Takes a lot of energy to grow muscle, and some to maintain it.

  37. anon says:

    I lost thirty kilograms over six months before I was diagnosed with type one diabetes, then gained most of it back after three weeks of insulin treatment (and hospital food). So, insulin causing weight gain makes perfect sense. Without insulin, all eaten sugar eventually ends up in bladder.
    I completely dropped white flour and potatoes from my diet. I stopped snacking sweets once I figured out how low my sugar can safely drop before I get hypoglycemia symptoms.
    I now mostly consist on diet of meat, fish, eggs, cabbage, radishes, cauliflower, lentils, millet, whole-wheat, dairy, and some specific fruits.

    • One thing that needs saying is that the real difference is not even between people having different diets, but more like people who have diets and people who don’t. I mean, not having a diet means not making conscious choices. Not having a diet means someone asks you what you had for lunch yesterday you have no idea because it was just some random sandwich from the corner store.

      I think once one has a diet it is not hard to change it like going from vegetarian to high-fat, low-carb, lots of meat carnivore. It is from not having a diet at all to any conscious diet what requires a mindset change. It is deciding you are not going to eat 90% of the ready made food offered. For example where I live, they are typically the grocery store sandwiches, the kebabs, the bakery stuff all have white flour. Only acceptable fast food would what McD recently came up with, that the burger bun is made of lettuce.

      I think exercise works similarly. It is not physical fatigue / laziness. It is a mindset change that can be hard. I remember I never did any sports and then at 17 I was introduced to a commercial fitness gym, mostly the exercise machines, albeit the ones that imitate the big lifts. So while doing stuff like cable rows or chest presses or leg presses, I was thinking “Great, it can make me look athletic without having to do a sport.” A sport is something you concentrate 100% on. While the cable row was something my body could do automatically while my mind was somewhere else. Two decades later this Rippetoean squat-and-deadlift thing became popular. I tried it and my immediate experience was it is very much like a sport again. You must 100% concentrate or your form immediately goes through the window. Which is fine, but I was thinking, sports like weight or power lifting have been around since forever, I thought the whole point of fitness gyms is that it is for people who do not want to do a sport, who do not have the kind of concentration that sports require, hence all this form-enforcing machine equipment?

      I think we are just one smart entrepreneur away from having the diet equivalent of the chest press machine. Someone will come up with a high-fat, high-protein, mid-fiber, low-carb meat and vegs ball and put it in the corner stores in 10 flavors. And then all the people who eat random stuff they buy without being conscious about it because their mind is thinking about a mathematical problem or something will have to pay attention to buy the correct brand and it will be okay.

    • Zach says:

      Type 1 is reversible.

  38. Alrenous says:

    The solution to obesity is now well known – well, well known in some circles, but oddly unknown in left wing circles

    Middle class members identify with their beliefs and have severe trouble changing them. As per Peterson, it feels to them like killing a part of themselves. Reinforcing this, they’re very fond of doing whatever the sovereign tells them to do. This is also why pick up artistry doesn’t saturate the dating market and enter an arms race situation.

    rather than high carb vegetables.

    Even carrots have a noticeably harmful effect on my health. Predictable from the fact hey don’t taste good to me, which is how one’s genes tell you what’s compatible with them.

    that likely means skipping breakfast.

    One of the best things about the low, and especially zero carb diet is the ability to trivially skip breakfast and lunch. Even skipping a whole day simply isn’t an issue. Is eating an inconvenient interruption? That’s fine. Just don’t.

    • jim says:

      Yes, biggest benefit of the very low carb diet is the ability to go for long periods without eating. And if you are able to go for long periods without eating, you can lose weight as fast as you think is safe.

      • Zach says:

        For most intents and purposes: the less ya eat, the longer ya live. It helps to be alive though 🙂

    • Friendly Fred says:

      As I redd Alrenous’s comment my first thought was that “pick up artistry doesn’t saturate the dating market” not primarily because of obedience to the sovereign but simply because it’s too much of a drag for most people to play that game — but I guess entering “the dating market” is already a matter of sitting down at the game-table and is in itself a big drag.

      The only people in Greek myths who behave like modern “dating market” consumers are the gods — Ares and Aphrodite have sex behind Aphrodite’s husband Hephaestus’s back, Hephaestus catches them in a golden net, locked together in the act, and exhibits them to the gods in order the shame them, Hermes says “Wow, I’d love to be caught in that situation the way Ares is now,” and Aphrodite obligingly invites Hermes to fuck her later on, which is how “Hermaphroditus” is born.

      • Koanic says:

        I like the Old Testament version better, in which Phineas impales the prince of Israel and princess of Moab in their bed with his spear, stopping God’s plague from sweeping through the camp.

        The contemporary equivalent would be Texas Chainsaw Massacre in a sodomite bathhouse to stop the AIDS epidemic.

      • shaman says:

        “After he had created people, Zeus immediately implanted in them all the possible human character traits, but he forgot about Shame. Since he didn’t know how to get Shame inside the human body, he ordered her to go in from behind. At first Shame protested, considering Zeus’s request to be beneath her dignity. When Zeus kept insisting, she said, “All right, I will go in there, on the condition that if anything comes in there after me, I will leave immediately.””


        Never gets old.

      • PUA/Game is not hard at all at an actual bar pick-up or a date. Maintaining that throughout a relationship is entirely different.

        I wonder if chiseled abs and all that are a requirement for PUA/Game to work, or it would work for any bad smelling fat nerd, or is it more like running PUA/Game requires immense amounts of confidence, otherwise you will just be anxious and stutter, and chiseled abs or large bank accounts are simply ways men convince themselves that they are worthy of having confidence. (This is how money relates to pick-up success. Directly usually does not. But many men base their self-worth on their income, so if having money helps a man convice himself that yes he deserves to be very confident, then in that indirect way it helps. It is not that girls are impressed by a sports car, it is more like many men are impressed by their own sports car, it helps them think they are THE fuckin’ winner of life, and that attitude impresses women.)

        PUA/Game is far harder in a relationship, either because the woman sees that suave guy in the expensive suit is very much a common pig at home, or, more likely, men lose their confidence when the woman sees them being the common pig at home, and losing confidence makes PUA/Game fat harder to run. It is one thing to LARP a playboy with psychopathic tendencies in a bar. But what kind of homes do real playboys with psychopathic tendencies have? Probably ones that are far harder to afford than just one expensive suit. Penthouse etc. While you might just have an apartment or a normal house. What do real playboys with psychopathic tendencies do in those homes? Probably party with people and drugs all the time. So when the chick sees you playing videogames alone… it might not even be a problem for her. But it is very likely a problem for you. You feel kind of ashamed, your confidence drops, hence PUA/Game becomes harder to run.

        This is the hard part. LARP something you are not at a date, pick-up is easy, but doing the same while a woman is living with you is another thing. Perhaps you just have to run a different act, instead of playboy with psychopathic tendencies, just a mysterious guy who often comes late home for mysterious reasons, I don’t know.

        • Not Tom says:

          It is not that girls are impressed by a sports car, it is more like many men are impressed by their own sports car, it helps them think they are THE fuckin’ winner of life, and that attitude impresses women.

          No, it’s actually the car. In particular, the loud, threatening sound it makes. Same but to a lesser degree with some motorcycles. There’ve been bona fide scientific studies on it.

          Game should be a technique, and part of a broader worldview, not a totalizing ideology. Confidence can overcome many other obstacles, and every man eventually needs to pass shit tests, but the quality and quantity of those tests is related to her perception of status. Being richer and better-looking than all of the guys around you generally means you are high status, and the shit tests will be a lot more forgiving.

          Improving yourself so that you don’t have to fake it all the time is a longer path to take than learning a few Jedi mind tricks, but it’s the more pro-social behavior and (probably) leads to more stable marriages. I don’t think the Reaction will have much of a place for cads with no other useful traits or skills; they’re inherently markers of a dysfunctional sexual market.

          • jim says:

            Improving yourself so that you don’t have to fake it all the time is a longer path to take than learning a few Jedi mind tricks

            You do have to fake it all the time. What women really want is incompatible with civilization. If women had their way, the top alpha male would kill all the other alpha males and take all the women into his harem.

            Women are maladapted to the current male status hierarchy, which is designed for extended cooperation on a much larger scale than the ancestral male status hierarchy, and in a better functioning society we need to provide them with something that looks to them like the ancestral ape-like male status hierarchy, as a garden looks like a patch of wilderness.

            But in this society, have to dance the pimp monkey dance. I am not really an adventurer with a secret history of lethal violence. Or perhaps I am telling you that to conceal my history of lethal violence.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              This seems shortsighted. If there is a bug in the code, shouldn’t we look for ways to fix it instead of just working around it? I get that it isn’t easy, but for those off us that wish to inherit the stars, it seems like a failing if we have to introduce our females to other species as an un-evolved necessity we couldn’t/wouldn’t bother to fix.

              Understand, i agree with your assessment as to the state of things, but i guess i just don’t want to settle for a shitty system.

              • shaman says:

                If there is a bug in the code, shouldn’t we look for ways to fix it instead of just working around it?

                Of course: Sexual anarcho-tyranny should be replaced with patriarchy, monogamy, and young marriage. This won’t end the shit tests, but will definitely go a long way toward making it easy enough for the regular man to pass them so as to usher in sexual harmony and contentment within society.

                Or do you want something more radical, like biologically transforming women to be more compatible with civilization? Yeah, that’s more of a 22nd century idea.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I want to stop fighting with my wife.

                  WHOOPS i mean…

                  Seriously though, i dont know what the best course of action is, but my time on this earth has taught me thought delaying in solving real problems means bigger problems down the road. I dont want to monkey dance. I hate dancing.

                • jim says:

                  > I dont want to monkey dance. I hate dancing.

                  No alternative but celibacy.

                  If we win, there will be an alternative.

                • shaman says:

                  We’re not exactly living in a society that facilitates marital relations. Currently, you have no other option but to dance and entertain and LARP as a preselected alpha male killa-gorilla, and even that doesn’t guarantee that she won’t frivorce you.

                  Also, don’t tell her about your politics in an explicit way. For example, don’t say to her,

                  “Wife, I would like us to watch a great movie together. It is a masterpiece of the cinema. It’s called: “Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told.” A magnificent, 6 hour historical documentary in 27 parts, that is completely objective, really eye opening, and, as you shall soon discover, outside the conventional politically correct box foisted on us by — ahem, ahem, ahem, ahem, ahem, ahem, ahem — the international bankers and war profiteers and rootless cosmopolitan merchants, so to speak. Come here, my beloved darling.”

                  Yeah, avoid that, and instead read Roosh’s and Roissy’s advice abou… uh oh, never mind.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I thank GNON every day for the woman he has bestowed upon me. She has her faults, as I have mine.

                  I was thinking more about my son(s) future than my present.

              • shaman says:

                it seems like a failing if we have to introduce our females to other species as an un-evolved necessity we couldn’t/wouldn’t bother to fix.

                >born in 2144
                >women are all feminine nymphomaniacs
                >don’t discriminate between jocks and nerds
                >polygamy legalized because sex ratio is 1:4
                >(“majority-rule” necessarily abolished; NRx won)
                >Prussian School System also abolished
                >drugs 100% legal –> average IQ 130 (trash taken out)
                >adult men look 28, adult women look 17

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  The beauty of a skilled painter is the indecipherable qualitative difference between a nuclear holocaust and the most brilliant sunset in history.

                  I dont want a slave. I dont want a suicide bomber. Alas…

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Come on Frederick, having a slave sounds fun. Biologically engineered women really does sound like a dream. Kinda like Warhammer 40k.

                  What would replace the Prussian School System?

                • shaman says:

                  What would replace the Prussian School System?

                  Work and apprenticeship for regular boys, university for geniuses; girls will help around the household, and marry young.

                • shaman says:

                  Or maybe you can spend most of your time connected to virtual reality while collecting UBI; that’s far from being my cup of tea (I rather want biological intelligence to increase dramatically, which will naturally create many opportunities for humans to do interesting things), but apparently Moldbug and others in Silicon Valley view that as the preferable solution to the Dire Problem.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Living in virtual reality and collecting NEET BUX would be fun for about a week. But I guess it could prevent would be drug addicts and undesirables from committing crimes.

                  Intelligence takes a long time to increase in a population naturally. Do you think biological intelligence will increase significantly without extreme advances in biological engineering?
                  The national IQ is already dropping because of immigration and women’s dysgenic behavior. Bio engineering needs more geniuses to advance the technology but we can’t advance the technology because we don’t have enough geniuses because we don’t have the technology…

                  Maybe reactionary families could just start breeding eugenically together and eventually create royal bloodlines.

                • jim says:

                  Here is my plan, using science and technology that does not quite exist yet, but is within reach:

                  Edit out the genetic load. To identify genetic load, we will need detailed DNA reads on a large proportion of the population, very high accuracy complete reads on a significant portion of the population, and family tree data on everyone read. With the family tree data and the detailed data, we can use the very high accuracy complete reads to infer very high accuracy complete reads on those for whom we only have detailed DNA reads plus a family tree.

                  Editing out genetic load is an enormously bigger gene modification than any gene modifications done so far, requiring hundreds, possibly thousands of edits, but there is good reason to believe that a substantial reduction in genetic load would produce genius superathletes.

                  At present a single edit is well within reach of the skilled and affluent home hobbyist – if he is editing frogs, which are highly expendable and have conveniently accessible eggs. A single edit on cats and puppies is well within the reach of a small business – but again, cats and puppies are expendable. An edit on a human at acceptable human cost is a rather bigger project, but a medium sized business can do it. A thousand edits is today impractical, but well within reach. The hard part is figuring out what to edit.

                  The reason it is so hard to identify genes that raise IQ is that they are for the most part just not there. If they were there, and did not have harmful side effects, they would be in everyone. The problem is a very large number of very rare genes that lower IQ. Being rare, it is difficult to identify any one of them.

                  What is more easily achievable is elite fertility and a smart prosocial elite. As I have said many times before, ensuring elite fertility is easy: State, society, family and Church should back patriarchal authority even when it is arguably exercised in a harsh and unreasonable way, but only for men able and willing to take care of their women. (Jeremy Meeks need not apply.) Old Testament law was that it was OK to abduct an unbetrothed virgin, it was letting her go afterwards that was the crime.

                • jim says:

                  The difference between the genetic engineering technology that we have, and the genetic engineering technology that could produce children with massively improved health and intelligence, is roughly the difference between the rockets launched by the German rocket club before World War II, and the moon mission. The technology is within reach. But a society that could reach for it, would also be a society capable of eugenic fertility.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  A first order approximation to eliminating genetic load would be what Gregory Chochran calls “spell checking” the genome. This algorithm is purely mechanical and involves statistically scanning a large population and identifying the dominant or “best” allele at each loci and constructing a genome with only the “good” alleles. If you’ve every run your DNA through the Promethease database you will get a good idea what this is about. They scan every one of your available SNPs and give it a rating of good/bad/neutral based on it’s statistical correlations of those SNPs in the population.

                • jim says:

                  It is harder than that. It is not a simple mechanical process.

                  That is an outline of what is needed. The trouble is in the details. There is not exactly one canonical correct total genome.

                  Here and there there is one canonical, or a small number of canonical correct genomes, in one particular small section of the total genome, but putting it all together into a small number of canonical correct total genomes, the adamic genome, is by no means a simple mechanical process. A lot of places in the genome represent magnitudes in unary, in which case substituting the majority token everywhere would be fatal.

                  You could fix a lot of the genome, probably most of what matters, that way. But if you fix other parts of the genome that way, the result would be non viable.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  #BASEDworld cometh! #BASEDworld cometh!

                • eternal anglo says:

                  >born in 2144
                  >women are all feminine nymphomaniacs
                  >don’t discriminate between jocks and nerds
                  >polygamy legalized because sex ratio is 1:4
                  >(“majority-rule” necessarily abolished; NRx won)
                  >Prussian School System also abolished
                  >drugs 100% legal –> average IQ 130 (trash taken out)
                  >adult men look 28, adult women look 17

                  Jim’s blog: last bastion of Faustianism.

                  Hitler-figure: BASED! Mass, shouted response: AND REDPILLED!

            • Poochman says:

              I disagree. In my experience, I’ve found what women want are alpha, masculine men with ambitious goals in life and a clear mission. I spent many years learning and practicing pick-up gimmicks and fakery with fleeting success.

              It was only when I focused my energies on personal goals (fitness and entrepreneurial) outside just getting laid that women really became attracted to me in a way that was continual. This seems like it can be compatible with civilization to me.

              • jim says:

                Yes, of course women do. But the more your mission resembles that of General Buck Naked, and the less it resembles that of organizing a database, the more impressed they are going to be.

                Obviously women respond to status. But their perceptions of status are alarmingly primitive.

                For the female response to status to be prosocial and eugenic rather than antisocial and dysgenic, we need to organize our society so that the male status hierarchies look to them like ape status hierarchies, as a garden resembles a wilderness.

                You say you see one thing, and I say I see different thing. I dance the pimp monkey dance because the masculinity that impresses males fails to impress women. What impresses women is a more primitive form of masculinity, the wolf not the guard dog.

                So let us look at something we both can see: romances such as “Titanic” and “the wild one”. They reveal an anti social and dysgenic preference. And so I dance the pimp monkey dance.

                Lord Byron was stony broke and lived largely by mooching off his numerous wealthy girlfriends. That he was famous helped him a great deal, but what really helped him was that he was “mad, bad, and dangerous to know”. Being a famous poet, like any form of fame, helped greatly with the chicks, but other famous poets did not clean up with the chicks the way Lord Byron did. Similarly, Beau Brummel’s snappy dressing helped greatly with the chicks, but what really helped him was successfully snubbing the King.

                Having a driver at your beck and call helps. Having a bodyguard at your beck and call helps a great deal. (Not that I can afford either for very long or very often.) But you are still not going to be able to compete with a thug who has another thug at his beck and call, even if you are immensely wealthier and way higher in the male status hierarchy than that thug.

        • Grand Inquisitor Bob says:

          So when the chick sees you playing videogames alone… it might not even be a problem for her. But it is very likely a problem for you. You feel kind of ashamed, your confidence drops, hence PUA/Game becomes harder to run.

          When you PUA full time, the world is your vidya.

          • jim says:

            When you fulfill the role for which you were born in real life, the video game contests become less appealing, and other people’s stories less appealing.

        • Neurotoxin says:

          PUA/Game is not hard at all at an actual bar pick-up or a date. Maintaining that throughout a relationship is entirely different… PUA/Game is far harder in a relationship.

          This is not my experience at all. I find LTR game effortlessly easy. It’s fun, too. The wonderful thing about Game is that once you know it you literally understand women better than they understand themselves. Boy, does this make things easy.

    • James says:

      Pickup artistry really has saturated the dating market in the major coastal cities. That said, that’s just because it only takes a tiny sliver — probably 1 to 5% — of the men adopting pickup artistry and using it effectively to throw the entire dating market out of whack. When men start spinning plates and having rotations of 2 to 5 women who are generally (temporarily) exclusive to him, and he sets a new bar for all of their future mates, it becomes a lot harder for normal men to compete. A lot of PUA tactics have entered mainstream dating advice columns.

      It hasn’t saturated the minds of normal men, but normal men aren’t getting anywhere in the dating market. They used to get laid by their wives, even more than the pickup artists of today do, but since they aren’t acquiring mates effectively, they aren’t getting that, either. I’ve recently moved inland and I’ve found that the women here are incredibly easy compared to the coastal cities. I’ve tried to respect their innocence and not ruin things for local men, but it’s going to get ugly here, too, before very long.

Leave a Reply