How to lose weight

When a high status person shows status insecurity, you can gain status by insulting him and by desecrating what is holy to him. Smash his icons to steal his status. Eating meat, salt and fat insults our ruling priesthood and our ruling religion, and desecrates what is holy to them.

Real men eat meat and fat, and salt the hell out of it.

The holy campaign against saturated fat never had any scientific basis whatsoever. It was always official science – peer reviewers meeting behind closed doors to tell mere observers what they should observe and poison the scientific literature. It was entirely motivated by instinctive irrational gut hostility against masculinity, just as the holy Global Warming campaign is motivated by gut hostility to technological civilization, hatred of what white people have created. (Also they needed an excuse to stick it to those coal miners in flyover country, and global warming gives them a rationale to make those that they hate and despise suffer.)

When my wife got sick, I was too busy looking after her to sleep with other women, so I stopped bothering about my weight, and since I was cooking and feeding her, there was always food in front of me tempting me, with the result that I developed a striking resemblance to Jabba the Hut. When she died, I set about replacing her, and God, it was brutal – well, it was always brutal, but what with being older and considerably fatter, it was even more brutal. So I set about losing weight on a high fat, moderately low carb, paleo diet, with regular fasting, running, and lifting iron. I now wear size S (small) pants, and size L (large) shirts and jackets. I have lost 38 kilos, and now dating is somewhat less brutal.

My diet is 60% fat by calorie, 20% protein by calorie, 20% carbs by calorie. Switching away from carbs is tough, a full ketogenic diet (75% fat, 20% protein, 5% carbs) gives you the keto flue until you are fully withdrawn from carbs, but even a moderate carb diet like mine is kind of harsh at first.

Fat makes you full. Carbs make you hungry.

It is not calories in calories out that makes you fat. It is insulin that makes you fat, causes heart attacks, high blood pressure, etc. Type one diabetics don’t get fat except that they take insulin. Snacking, and especially snacking food containing carbs, keeps your insulin continually high, and causes you to become addicted to high insulin.

All addictive foods contain substantial amounts of carbs. They are a manifestation of insulin addiction, and high insulin tolerance. I cannot eat just one potato chip, or one slice of pizza, or drink just one glass of ice cold Mountain Dew. I keep going till it is all gone. But I like pork crackling even more than I like pizza, and yet I can easily eat an appropriate amount of pork crackling, and then stop. It is carbs that cause uncontrollable eating. Even fruit if you eat too much of it. Broccoli with cheese sauce is easier to control. Avocados are easier to control than watermelon. Not that I can entirely give up watermelon, but if I eat too much of it, I will then eat even more of it.

On a moderate carb diet, you need sodium, potassium, magnesium, and zinc. You really need to watch your electrolytes on a full ketogenic diet, but even on a moderately low carb diet it is an issue. Leafy greens help. Broccoli with cheese, Chinese cabbage with butter and chicken broth. Butter fried mushrooms.

Most of my calories come from pork, bacon, butter, lots of butter, eggs, and more butter. I liberally salt my meat, and drink lots of coffee and cold water.

Salt will raise your blood pressure, but only if you have dangerously high levels of insulin, which most Americans do. I salt the hell out of my meat and add fish sauce to everything. My blood pressure has dropped to healthy levels, my cholesterol and lipid profiles, which used to look pretty bad, now look great. To get adequate potassium and suchlike I eat brocolli and cabbage covered in hot melted cheese, mushrooms fried in butter, raw tomatoes, tomatoes cooked in butter, and raw tomatoes covered with my buttery substitute for gravy and mayo.

I also have testosterone replacement therapy, and control my estrogen levels to healthy normal male levels. Since we invented clothing, no one gets enough vitamin D3 any more, so I have 2000 units of Vitamin D3 every morning. And, of course, run, and lift iron. Hate running, don’t run very far, but I run hard for the very short distances that I do run.

But the trouble is that gravy is wheat based, thus non paleo. And what is meat without lots of salty gravy? Also, on a high fat, moderately low carb diet, I never get enough fiber, so I don’t want to eat any carbs except in the form of fruit and vegetables,

Fats make you full, carbs make you hungry. All highly addictive foods contain substantial carbs, so regular gravy on meat results in uncontrollable overeating.

So this is my substitute for gravy: Take the meat juices. If I don’t have enough meat juices, some broth. Add some whole eggs, a bit of mustard, some vinegar, maybe some strong hot coffee, maybe some steamed garlic, some turmeric, and some chilis. Lots of chilis, lots of fish sauce. Toss in the blender and let the blender whip it till it gets hot. Add butter, till the mix is about fifty percent meat juices, eggs, and chilis, and fifty percent meat fat and butter. Maybe some steamed parsley to make it different from time to time. I never make it the same twice. Keep going till the temperature reaches sixty five centigrade or so to make sure the eggs are pasteurized. Make sure it has enough salt. Always needs more salt than I expect. Slosh liberally over the meat, into coffee, over tomatoes, etc.

It is sort of gravy – hollandaise sauce – mayonnaise – redeye gravy. Hollandaise sauce is hot mayonnaise made with butter rather than vegetable oil. Gravy is meat juice and fat that you mix using flour to make water and oil miscible. Hollandaise and mayonnaise uses eggs and vinegar to make them miscible. Southern redeye gravy uses coffee to make the fat and meat broth miscible. So this is gravy with eggs, vinegar, and perhaps coffee to make the butter, fat and meat juice miscible.

There is something just more manly about eating bacon, roast pork crackling, and suchlike. Perhaps it is irrational to think that, but the same irrationality resulted in the government and the medical profession poisoning Americans. Anything that pisses them off is good. Chicks like badboys, and this is another little bit of badness.

Tags: ,

270 Responses to “How to lose weight”

  1. Dave says:

    What is atherosclerosis and why does it happen? Blood vessels would seem like the stupidest possible place to store fat, yet arterial plaque is mostly fat, though it eventually absorbs enough calcium to turn bone-hard.

    I suppose this wasn’t a problem for our ancestors because recurring famines stripped their bodies of fat. Perhaps it’s more convenient to store fat in blood vessels for use in the near future, like piling up firewood in the hallways for a winter that in our case never comes. People who undertake a multi-week water-fast are often amazed at how young and vigorous they feel during and after.

    • jim says:

      No. Caused by permanent high insulin which shuts down fat transport permanently.

      As a result fat accumulates in various odd places where it is not supposed to accumulate.

      Test of this model is every simple. If you give insulin resistant people more insulin, they get more atherosclerosis.

      You are only designed for short bursts of high insulin, but snacking results in insulin addiction and permanent high insulin.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        For a VERY interesting lecture by veteran diabetes researcher Professor Roger Unger go here:

        What he has shown is that the pathological effects of type-1 diabetes are due to runaway glucagon production (which is suppressed by insulin). Glucagon knockout mice, who then have their beta-cells destroyed, disabling all insulin production, appear to live perfectly normal lives, WITHOUT any exogenous insulin. People who have type-1 diabetes who don’t get enough exogenous insulin are rail thin and die from ketoacidosis caused by runaway glucagon production. The sugar regulating mechanism in the body is bi-polar. An insulin only model is uni-polar. Glucagon, produced by the alpha-cells in the pancreas, is the “anti-insulin”. It tells the liver to release sugar into the bloodstream, or if the liver has no glycogen available, start breaking down proteins to make sugar. It looks like cells don’t really need insulin to tell them to eat glucose. Insulin is a regulatory signal to lower blood sugar levels. What insulin is really saying to the cells is, “Please eat more sugar please, there’s too much in the bloodstream.” Most of your cells start to balk after awhile. The only cells that can take sugar indefinitely are fat cells, who turn it into fat obviously.

        Since the alpha cells and beta cells in the pancreas are in close proximity there is very high gain in the insulin/glucagon suppression feedback mechanism. There is much lower gain with exogenous insulin injections, which don’t suppress glucagon as well, since the alpha cells then just see systemic insulin concentrations, or if you increase the insulin injections then the fat cells get too much, which is partially why a lot of people who take insulin are fat. A lot of this info does not seem to have made it into the mainstream (as usual). The body makes it a high priority to keep sugar levels down because high blood sugar levels are corrosive to body tissue. See “Maillard Reaction”.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      The primary instigator of tissue calcification (such as in the brain, or the arteries, or other improper depositions)is a lack of vitamin K2; an essential factor in how the body processes calcium.

      K2 deficiency is endemic in the population, since dairy products (and eggs) were the primary source of K2 in the western diet, and dairy animals are no longer fed green leafy plant matter. Almost all green leafy plant matter is high in K1; humans have difficulty transforming ‘plant form’ K1 into ‘animal form’ K2, but herbivores like cows can easily transform K1 into K2.

      Secondary factors towards plaque formation is anti-oxident deficiency, most especially vitamin c deficiency (another nutrient humans do not systhesize natively [and which you really can’t get enough of for many different processes]).

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Side note, K2 deficiency also happened to be a primary factor in the cavity epidemic, leading to jewdoctors saying that right thinking community organizers concerned with the public health would need to fluoridate the populace by various to stop cavities.

        (Fluorine is one of the singlemost reactive elements in the whole periodic table; stories from the history of fluorine chemistry are legendary in their sheer entropic extravagance. It goes without saying then of course, that once inside the body it reacts and causes chains of reactions with all sorts of things; most pertinently, *reacting with calcium or other heavier elements to destructively bond with tissues in places you’d rather not*.)

  2. […] How to lose weight…Jim in his indomitable style is always a refreshing dose of truth. […]

  3. […] abbreviated week from Jim with only one post, but it is on an important subject for us all: how to lose weight. Definitly RTWT on this one, as there’s a recipe for gravy that made my mouth water a good […]

  4. Your Wife's Son says:

    A lot of people worldwide are asking themselves right now: what the hell is wrong with America? Well, to all you non-Americans who just don’t grok the utter insanity that the US is in the midst of, read these excerpts.

    — — —

    Theodore Dreiser (1917):

    “As a fourteen or fifteen year old boy, I listened to sermons on hell, where it was, and what was the nature of its torments. As rewards for imaginary good behavior I have been given colored picture cards containing exact reproductions of heaven. Every newspaper that have ever read, or still can find to read, has had an exact code of morals, by the light of which one might detect at once both Mr. Bad Man and Mr. Good Man, and so save one’s self from the machinations of the former! The books which I was advised to read, and for the neglect of which I was frowned upon, were of that naive character known as pure. One should read only good books—which meant, of course, books from which any reference to sex had been eliminated; and what followed as a natural consequence was that all intelligent interpretation of character and human nature was immediately discounted.

    A picture of a nude or partially nude woman was sinful. A statue equally so. The dance in our home and our town was taboo. The theater was an institution which led to crime. The saloon a center of low, even bestial, vices. The existence of such a thing as an erring or fallen woman, let alone a house of prostitution, was a crime, hardly a fact to be considered. There were forms and social appearances which we were taught to wear, quite as one wears a suit of clothes. One had to go to church on Sunday whether one wanted to or not.

    We were taught persistently to shun most human experiences as either dangerous or degrading or destructive. The less you knew about life the better. The more you knew about the fictional heaven and hell, the same. People walked in a form of sanctified maze or dream, hypnotized or self hypnotized by an erratic and impossible theory of human conduct, which had grown up heaven knows where or how, and had finally cast it amethystine spell over all America, if not over all the world.

    Positively, I stake my solemn word on this, until I was between seventeen and eighteen, I had scarcely begun to suspect that any other human being was so low as to harbor the erratic and sinful thoughts which occasionally flashed through my own mind.

    My concern is with the mental and critical standards of America as they exist today, and of England, from which they seem to be derived. England—the home of bourgeois art and bourgeois accomplishment. The average American, as I have said before, has such an odd, such a naive conception of what the world is like, what it is that is taking place under his eyes and under the sun.

    As a matter of fact, in spite of the American constitution and the American oratorical address of all and sundry occasions, the average American school, college, university, institution, is very much against the development of the individual in the true sense of that word. What it really wants is not an individual, but an automatic copy of some altruistic and impossible ideal, which has been formulated here and in England, under the domination of Christianity. This is literally true. I defy you to read any college or university prospectus or address or plea, which concerns the purposes or the ideals of these institutions, and not agree with me. They are not after individuals, they are after types or schools of individuals, all to be very much alike, all to be like themselves.

    No country in the world, at least none that I know anything about, has such a peculiar, such a seemingly fierce determination, to make the Ten Commandments work. It would be amusing if it were not pitiful, their faith in these binding religious ideals. I, for one, have never been able to make up my mind whether this springs from the zealotry of the Puritans who landed at Plymouth Rock, or whether it is indigenous to the soil (which I doubt when I think of the Indians who preceded the whites), or whether it is a product of the federal constitution, compounded by such idealists as Paine and Jefferson and Franklin, and the more or less religious and political dreamers of the p re-constitutional days. Certain it is that no profound moral idealism animated the French in Canada, the Dutch in New York, the Swedes in New Jersey, or the mixed French and English in the extreme south and New Orleans.

    But an odd thing in connection with this financial and social criminality is that it has been consistently and regularly accompanied, outwardly at least, by a religious and a sex puritanism which would be scarcely believable if it were not true. I do not say that the robbers and thieves who did so much to build up our great commercial and social structures were in themselves inwardly or outwardly always religious or puritanically moral from the sex point of view, although in regard to the latter, they most frequently made a show of so being. But I do say this, that the communities and the states and the nation in which they were committing their depredations have been individually and collectively, in so far as the written, printed and acted word are concerned, and in pictures and music, militantly pure and religious during all the time that this has been going forward under their eyes, and, to a certain extent, with their political consent. Why? I have a vague feeling that it is the American of Anglo-Saxon origin only who has been most vivid in his excitement over religion and morals where the written, printed, acted, or painted word was concerned, yet who, at the same time, and perhaps for this very reason, was failing or deliberately refusing to see, the contrast which his ordinary and very human actions presented to all this.

    One of the interesting phases of this puritanism or phariseeism is his attitude toward women and their morality and their purity. If ever a people has refined eroticism to a greater degree than the American, I am not aware of it. Owing to a theory or the doctrinaire acceptance of the Mary legend (Mary olotry, no less), the good American, capable of the same gross financial crimes previously indicated, has been able to look upon most women, but more particularly those above him in the social scale, as considerably more than human—angelic, no less, and possessed of qualities the like of which are not to be found in any breathing being, man, woman, child, or animal. It matters not that his cities and towns, like those of any other nation, are rife with sex ; that in each one are specific and often large areas devoted to Eros or Venus, or both. While maintaining them, he is still blind to their existence or import. He or his boys or his friends go —but—.

    Only a sex blunted nature or race such as the Anglo-Saxon could have built up any such asinine theory as this. The purity, the sanctity, the self abnegation, the delicacy of women —how these qualities have been exaggerated and dinned into our ears, until at last the average scrubby non reasoning male, quite capable of visiting the gardens of Venus, or taking a girl off the street, is no more able to clearly visualize the creature before him than he is the central wilds of Africa which he has never seen. A princess, a goddess, a divine mother or creative principle, all the virtues, all the perfections, no vices, no weaknesses, no errors—some such hodgepodge as this has come to be the average Anglo-Saxon, or at least American, conception of the average American woman. I do not say that a portion of this illusion is not valuable — I think it is. But as it stands now, she is too good to be true; a paragon, a myth! Actually, she doesn’t exist at all as he has been taught to imagine her. She is nothing more than a two-legged biped like the rest of us, but in consequence of this delusion sex itself, being a violation of this paragon, has become a crime. We enter upon the earth, it is true, in a none too artistic manner (conceived in iniquity and born in sin, is the biblical phrasing of it) , but all this has long since been glossed over ignored—and to obviate its brutality as much as possible, the male has been called upon to purify himself in thought and deed, to avoid all private speculation as to women and his relationship to them, and, much more than that, to avoid all public discussion, either by word of mouth or the printed page.

    To think of women or to describe them as anything less than the paragon previously commented upon, has become, by this process, not only a sin—it is a shameful infraction of the moral code, no less. Women are too good, the sex relationship too vile a thing, to be mentioned or even thought of. We must move in a mirage of illusion. We must not know what we really do. We must trample fact under foot and give fancy, in the guise of our so-called better natures, free rein.

    Yet this is a democracy. Here, as in every other realm of the world, the individual is permitted, compelled, to seek his own material and mental salvation as best he may. The trouble with a democracy as opposed to an autocracy, with a line of titled idlers permitted the gift of leisure and art indulgence, is that there is no central force or group to foster art, to secure letters and art in their inalienable rights, to make of superior thought a noble and a sacred thing. I am not saying that democracy will not yet produce such a central force or group.

    The most significant and, to me, discouraging manifestation in connection with the United States today, is the tendency to even narrower and more puritanical standards than have obtained in the past. In all conscience, up to this year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventeen, they have been bad enough. As a matter of fact, America, in its hundred years of life, has not even reached the intellectual maturity that goes in individual cases with a stripling of eighteen.

    The American, by some hocus pocus of atavism, has seemingly borrowed or retained from lower English middle-class puritans all their fol de rol notions about making human nature perfect by fiat or edict—the written word, as it were, which goes with all religions. So, although by reason of the coarsest and most brutal methods, we, as a nation, have built up one of the most interesting and domineering oligarchies in the world, we are still by no means aware of the fact.

    Indeed, ever since the Mayflower landed, and the country began to grow westward, we have been convinced that we were destined to make the Ten Commandments, in all their arbitrary perfection, work. One might show readily enough that America attained its amazing position in life by reason of the fact that, along with boundless opportunities, the Ten Commandments did not and do not work, but what would be the use? With one hand the naïve American takes and executes with all the brutal insistence of nature itself; with the other he writes glowing platitudes concerning brotherly love, virtue, purity, truth, etc., etc.

    A part of this right or left hand tendency, as the case might be, is seen in the constant desire of the American to reform something. No country in the world, not even England, the mother of fol de rol reforms, is so prolific in these frail ventures as this great country of ours. In turn we have had campaigns for the reform of the atheist, the drunkard, the lecher, the fallen woman, the buccaneer financier, the drug fiend, the dancer, the theater goer, the reader of novels, the wearer of low-neck dresses and surplus jewelry—in fact, every human taste and frivolity, wherever sporadically it has chanced to manifest itself with any interesting human force. Your reformer’s idea is that any human being, to be a successful one, must be a pale spindling sprout, incapable of any vice or crime. And all the while the threshing sea of life is sounding in his ears. The thief, the lecher, the drunkard, the fallen woman, the greedy, the inordinately vain, as in all ages past, pass by his door, and are not the whit less numerous for the unending campaigns which have been launched to save them. In other words, human nature is human nature, but your American cannot be made to believe it.

    He will not give up the illusion which was piled safely in the hold of the Mayflower when it set sail. He is going to reform man and the world willy nilly, and, while- in his rampant idealism he is neglecting to build up a suitable army and navy wherewith to defend himself, he is busy propagating little cults whereby man is to be made less vigorous, more the useless anemic thing that he has in mind.

    Personally, my quarrel is with America’s quarrel with original thought. It is so painful to me to see one after another of our alleged reformers tilting Don Quixote-like at the giant windmills of fact. We are to have no pictures which the puritan and the narrow, animated by an obsolete dogma, cannot approve of. We are to have no theaters, no motion pictures, no books, no public exhibitions of any kind, no speech even, which will in any way contravene his limited view of life. A few years ago it was the humble dealer in liquor whose life was anathematized, and whose property: was descended upon with torches, axes and bombs. Now comes prohibition. A little later, our cities growing and the sections devoted to the worship of Venus becoming more manifest, the Vice Crusader was bred, and we had the spectacle of whole areas of fallen women scattered to the four winds, and allowed to practice separately what they could not do collectively. Then came Mr. Comstock, vindictive, persistent, and with a nose and a taste for the profane and erotic, such as elsewhere has not been equaled since. Pictures, books, the theater, the dance, the studio—all came under his watchful eye. During the twenty or thirty years in which he acted as a United States Postoffice Inspector, he was, because of his dull charging against things which he did not rightly understand, never out of the white light of publicity which he so greatly craved. One month it would be a novel by D’Annunzio; another, a set of works by Balzac or de Maupassant, found in the shade of some gravelly bookseller’s shop; the humble photographer attempting a nude; the painter who allowed his reverence for Raphael to carry him too far; the poet who attempted a recrudescence of Don Juan in modern iambics, was immediately seized upon and hauled before an equally dull magistrate, there to be charged with his offense and to be fined accordingly. All this is being continued with emphasis.

    Then came the day of the White Slave Chasers, and now no American city, and no backwoods Four Corners, however humble, is complete without a vice commission of some kind, or at least a local agent or representative, charged with the duty of keeping the art, the literature, the press, and the private lives of all those at hand up to that standard of perfection which only the dull can set for themselves.

    Several years ago, when the White Slave question was at its whitest heat, the problem of giving expression to its fundamental aspects was divided between raiding plays which attempted to show the character of the crime in too graphic a manner, and licensing those which appealed to the intelligence of those who were foremost in the crusade. Thus we had the spectacle of an uncensored, but nevertheless approved, ten-reel film showing more details of the crime and better methods of securing white slaves, than any other production of the day, running undisturbed to packed houses all over the country, while two somewhat more dramatic, but far less effective distributors of information in the way of plays were successfully harried from city to city and finally withdrawn.

    Shakespeare has been ordered from the schools in some of the states. A production of “Antony and Cleopatra” has been raided in Chicago. Japanese prints of a high art value, intended for the seclusion of a private collection, have been seized and the most valuable of them held to be destroyed. By turns, an artistic fountain to Heine in New York, loan exhibits of paintings in Denver, Kansas City, and elsewhere, scores of books by Stevenson, James Lane Allen, Frances H. Burnett, have been attacked, not only, as in the case of the latter, with the invisible weapons of the law, as might be expected, but, in regard to the former, with actual axes. A male dancer of repute and some artistic ability, has been raided publicly by the Vice Crusaders for his shameless exposure of his person! No play, no picture, no book, no public or private jubilation of any kind, is complete any more without its vice attack.

    To me this sort of thing is dull, and bespeaks the low state to which our mental activities have fallen.”

    — — —

    I hope that these passages have helped you, dear reader, understand better the moral panic that the Americans exhibit right now; and, in fact, have always exhibited.

    • Cavalier says:

      You’ve dredged up an interesting passage, Mr. Cohen. Or is it Mr. Kagan? Or Mr. Krogan? I can never quite keep these things in order.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Mr Kogan did nothing to stop puritanism from evolving in the direction it did; if Jews would’ve used their verbal IQ and influence over Western society to pose any serious opposition to puritanism, you’d have a case. So far, the eternal yid and the eternal anglo have been in full cooperation.

        You have to make up your mind: if Jews are in complete control, then it’s they who allowed this bonkers situation to happen, meaning that they are totally okay with puritanism as long as it neutralizes whites; and if Jews are not in complete control, then America has an “organic” moral insanity problem.

        Or, you think that there is nothing crazy about the current crusade against “sexual harassers,” in which case, you’re part of the very same feminist agenda as they promote.

        Again, to repeat my contention: either the current moral panic is created by Jews, meaning that Jews push a distinctly puritan agenda; or it is created against the will of the Jews, meaning that the Jews are PWNED by “someone” stronger than they are, and so that “someone” is responsible for this mad situation.

        Or it’s both of those things, bizarrely.

        Since — for instance — the AOC in Israel is 16, it follows that, for whatever reason, the supposed (imaginary) Jewish opposition to puritanism, which stands at the base of your comment (going beyond muh ed hominem), has either failed, or was never attempted. As Massachusetts conquered the world, for some reason, the Jews did not hinder it on its path.

        Funny, isn’t it?

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        In other words: Jews came to a puritan country, and armed with high abstract reasoning, had 140 years to fight against the puritan ideology. Since evidently this ideology is still going very strong, it’s either that the Jews have tried to quench it and failed miserably, or they did not try to stop it at all.

        If the latter case is true, as I believe it is, then it raises the question of why Jews are cooperating with an agenda that someone else came up with. The answer, with which you must be familiar, is that Jews exacerbate diseases which are already found among the host, and in the case of puritanism, they recognized it for the disease it is, and have chosen to cooperate with it.

        They did the same thing with egalitarianism. Now egalitarianism is devouring the Jews themselves (“let us have a conversation about Jewish privilege…”), and likewise, the puritan-feminist ideology, which the Jews thought was their exclusive weapon to be wielded against the hated hosts, is now being used against them, or to be precise, being used in a manner not approved by them.

        Basically, the Jews did not invent anti-racism, but they are responsible for turning it into such a potent weapon as it has become; and the Jews did not come up with feminism, but they are responsible for it becoming the potent weapon that it has become. Now anti-racism is used against the Jews, or at least that’s where things are headed, and the feminist agenda — which the Jews have inherited from the puritans — is likewise used against them and against their allies.

        Which may be a good thing, but I don’t see how the 14 words are promoted by this state of affairs. It’s like the Jews had been drowning you in a pool which you have built, so you grabbed them by the legs and pulled them down into the water, and now both of you are drowning in the same pool. Poetic justice, but you’re still drowning.

        • glosoli says:

          Why do you think that puritanism is still going strong? Aren’t we living in a modern-day version of the worst of Rome?

          A few media guys and pols being called out by some (mostly) whores is more likely to be the ongoing march of feminism than any resurgence of puritanism. Age of consent issues surely are just designed to stop whites from replacing themselves, or adding to their numbers, same as all the other finance-promoted policies. We are their only threat globally.

          The end result of recent revelations is consistent with the motivation of the financiers/capitalists: continued destruction of trust; more misery; continued destruction of masculinity; continued power to females; less white children.

          • jim says:

            Such was puritanism from the beginning. Cromwell desecrated marriage and introduced divorce.

            • glosoli says:

              It’s a bit of a misnomer then.
              Probably a name suggested by Jewish spooks to confuse us.

              Ever wonder where ‘girlfriend’ originated?
              Or ‘partner’?

              These evil bastards love distorting language don’t they (like Comrade Vox).

              • peppermint says:

                girlfriend was probably initially derisive but simply adopted by shamess 20c clowns. The abortion doctors at Kent State were unfortunately restrained by anti-choice laws.

  5. RW says:

    I’ve been on a lo carb diet for four months; lost 30 pounds so far. Lots of other health benefits besides losing fat: even energy levels throughout the work day, good digestion, total absence of heartburn. All good. Pork, eggs, beef, chicken fish, shrimp, avos, asparagus, green beans, mushrooms, cheese, pork rinds. Red wine and bourbon.

    Cheers, Jim, first post here. Great blog but man, do your commenters go off on various tangents. Heya Glen, see you at Zman.

    • jim says:

      It is going to get tougher as you approach normal weight, tougher when you look in the mirror and say “Wow, I have a good figure. I need to buy some nice clothes.”. But when I eat too many carbs, it stops being tough and becomes completely impossible.

      • RW says:

        Yes, and the strength training part of the prescription continues to elude me due to arthritis/cartilage issues in both shoulders and one knee. But my blood chem is back in normal range and I feel better eating this way, so that’s lot of positive reinforcement. Cheers

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Try the potato hack, Jim. Works for me, works for many others. It is the secret weapon of many body-builders.

        • jim says:

          The potato hack is low protein, leading to loss of muscles, and low palatability. High palatability diet is more manly, and muscles are more manly.

          Any low palatability diet will cause rapid weight loss if adhered to. How about the cat poop diet.

  6. Alrenous says:

    How long have you been on the diet?
    Official Science™ says diets reliably rebound after a year. For some reason I don’t trust them to have tested meaty diets properly.

    • jim says:

      I have been dieting for a year.

      We shall see.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Congratulations, Jim!

        As somebody who is just coming to terms with a weight problem himself – I can appreciate what you’ve done.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Easy confoundation; undisciplined people (most people) reliably rebound on diet plans after about a year.

      • peppermint says:

        Women say they will follow no fat diets as they say they will only have sex with men they expect to commit to them while pursuing a career.

        Then they slather on salad dressing to get the fat they need.

        Sometimes, a woman has a husband committed to a stupid diet. These husbands may or may not enforce the diet rigorously depending on how feminist they are. Ironically, this is a way feminism helps families to at least survive, though husband and wife will be angry with each other, wife at husband for poisoning her, husband at wife for disobedience.

        Sometimes the husband meets the wife over the stupid diet because the woman was told to marry a liberal. These couples can kill their babies with their diet, but usually just malnourish their children.

  7. Grampy_bone says:

    It’s hard to give up my pasta

  8. Zach says:

    In terms of running I’ve read a ton that suggests that (for example) going full bonkers sprinting for 30 seconds, then walking for a minute, then sprinting for 30 seconds, then walking for a minute actually does some hormone magic that merely running for 20 mins, or even walking for that matter, will not provide in the least.

    The details avoid me.

    • glosoli says:

      True. Applies to biking, and to weights, swimming, you name it.
      Something to do with stressing the body, harkens back to the short sharp chase for (or as) prey perhaps?

      • Zach says:

        Yup. Lots of dudes, especially of the sort that I would imagine frequent a place like this, might go for walks, and skip weights.

  9. Zach says:

    Almost every single male at 40+ years should have their T checked. I’m wondering Jim, did you talk your doctor into the correct levels of T you should have? Or is he going the typical bullshit route of just getting it above nancy boy level, and leaving it at that?

  10. Adam says:

    Hey Jim, thoughts on full cream milk, does it have a place in this diet?

    Also, I recently read The Big Fat Suprise after you mentioned it, what do you think of eating the more-fat, less-lean meat like the brain? Worth pursuing nowadays or not enough pay off?


    • jim says:

      Have not thought about that. Worried about brain tissue – don’t understand what the disease agent of mad cow disease is.

    • peppermint says:

      > hey guys did you know meat is actually ok
      > so you should eat weird bugman shit lol

    • Alrenous says:

      Full cream milk has enough lactose to kill ketogenesis.

      Heavy cream doesn’t, but unfortunately they don’t sell it without various industrial waste products added for ‘stability’ and such.

  11. Rape says:

    Sounds delicious, Jim.

  12. Zach says:

    Do not underestimate the simple egg. Go bonkers.

  13. TBeholder says:

    > There is something just more manly about eating bacon, roast pork crackling, and suchlike. Perhaps it is irrational to think that,
    An interesting article from Taleb: “How to be Rational about Rationality” (
    He mentions Jewish dietary hoop-jumping as an example of a tradition that actually survived for very long. Let’s see – no pork, but while milk and meat are separated, both sets are very much in use. Fish and broth have become stereotypes, too.

    > Anything that pisses them off is good.
    “The opposite of a stupid thing is smart”?

    • jim says:

      Smashing other people’s icons makes you holy. When those icons actually are stupid and evil, it really does make you holy.

      • TBeholder says:

        Smashing is an improvement, hanging them upside down isn’t.

        • jim says:

          That depends on the content of the icon. Ask yourself why they chose this icon.

          It is because “red meat” is a symbol of manliness and masculinity.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            True, but the Zionist Occupation Government convinced me to eat less red meat and more poultry/fish, not with muh cholesterol or muh obesity, but with muh cancer. Should the “red meat causes cancer” stuff be dismissed as prog mind virus?

            • jim says:

              Yes, it is a prog mind virus, motivated by irrational and demented hostility to anything vaguely associated with masculinity. First they came to the conclusion, then they went through the superficial motions of finding the evidence for this predetermined conclusion.

              Peer review tends to select for holiness signals that are at best unrelated to truth value, and at worst necessarily inconsistent with truth value.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                I’m not sure. Are they against tobacco for the same reasons?

                The studies say that processed meat and roasted meat are a probable cause of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. Numerous carcinogens have been proposed, I believe. My concern is not about picking up chicks, but the cancer. Your “they make stuff up because they hate masculinity” argument doesn’t assuage my fears.

                • jim says:

                  Maybe they do. But it is publish or perish, and if you find that red meat has good effects, you are not going to be published, while if you find it has bad effects, you are going to be published.

                  Thus, for example, people did a study where they found that rising CO2 levels increase food production – but that under certain not very likely condiitions, the food containsts a lower proportion of protein, even though the total amount of protein produced increases, the carbs increases more than the protein: Conclusion: Rising CO2 will cause protein deficiencies.

                  Similarly, it is perfectly obvious that coral bleaching is caused by low water events, because there is an obvious waterline level to each coral bleaching event, but no one will say that, because it has to be global warming or you just will not get published.

                • Will says:

                  Yes, they are against tobacco for pretty much the same reasons. Nick B Steves had a twitter rant about this a few weeks ago. Smoking is a very traditional pastime especially among the working class and men. Progs hate it because it’s a vaisya symbol.

                  Excessive smoking is obviously bad for you, but one cigarette every other day and/or a cigar on the weekends won’t do much harm. And there are a couple physical and mental benefits to nicotine. Reduced risk of Alzheimers and I definitely feel more relaxed and focused after my mid-shift smoke break.

                  Remember progs don’t care about your health. That’s just an excuse they use to attack things they already don’t like. These are the same people who champion fat acceptance and decriminalized HIV transmissions.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Kek. Vaisyas have alcohol, Dalits have cigarettes, Brahmins have marijuana and Adderall, and Helots have heroin and crack.

                  Speaking of Moldbug castes, here’s an interesting piece:

                  SJWism, for the most part, is localized to tech. It is an interesting concept, is it not, that SJW & Co. may be Brahmin shock troop in Populares territory. The Brahmins lack the cumulative power to pass legislation to explicitly inflict pain, so they have to resort to terrorizing floor-level engineers, but that’s what they can do, so it’s what they do.

                • Zach says:

                  How about grass fed cows, and steak?

                • peppermint says:

                  So don’t buy overprocessed meat, it’s the nitrates that get turned into the stuff they were pointing at a decade ago. Inhaling smoke is ok as long as it’s not too much to clean up, same with charred meat, these existed in smaller quantities forever and later on it became important to be able to deal with smoke and burnt food.

  14. anon says:

    Okinawa diet: 70% of calories from sweet potatoes alone.

    If starch isn’t providing the bulk of your calories, you are fighting a losing war. Starch is comfort food.

    Even better than starch, leftover starches in the refrigerator forms ‘resistant starch’ for your lunch the next day.

    • peppermint says:

      Why aren’t hazelnuts, beef jerky, pepperoni, cheddar, and parmesan comfort food?

      • Cavalier says:

        Agricorp and/or gubbernmint.

        Should also include almonds and swiss.

        And whisky.

        • peppermint says:

          why would a White man eat an almond?

          Booze doesn’t do it for me anymore, it’s a pure restriction on the ability to think. Legalizing cannabis was a great idea, you lose the internal self-censorship and see everything differently and understand what other people are really thinking when they say things, or said things 30 years ago on tv. Would a country with legal cannabis have fallen for political correctness?

          • Cavalier says:

            >Why would a white man eat an almond?

            Besides being the best nut and the the best snack food in existence besides?

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Almonds are high in omega 6 – they’re basically like eating grains.

              Macadamias are all saturated fat and taste much better.

    • Alrenous says:

      “You can’t get by without my drug of choice. I’m uncomfortable without it.”

      • jim says:

        Tasty carbs are indeed a problem, and one I struggle with, but the solution is to just say no.

        • peppermint says:

          crackers and pretzels don’t taste good without cheese, peanut butter, hazelnuts, berf jerky, and salami. Chips don’t taste good without ground beef, pulled pork, tuna, cheese microwaved on, onion dip, cheese dip.

          • jim says:

            Quite so, but the bottom line is that when I overeat, it is always a substantial proportion of carbs.

            • glosoli says:

              If you lifted twice a week, you could eat what you want when you want.

              • jim says:

                I lift every day, and I quite certainly cannot eat what I want when I want.

                • glosoli says:

                  I did a calorie in/out counter a while ago (I was trying to gain weight).

                  I worked out that I’d need to be eating over 3,000 calories a day to gain (lifting twice a week, playing other sport too, living).

                  I just can’t do it, struggle to get 2,500 calories in me during a day, just can’t eat more.

                  We’re all different I suppose, my body shape is ectomorph, I guess you’re the bigger shape, forget what it’s called now.

  15. TBeholder says:

    > It was entirely motivated by instinctive irrational gut hostility against masculinity,
    >just as the holy Global Warming campaign is motivated by gut hostility to technological civilization
    Not a chance. Though indeed all such campaigns are fairly similar.
    * Those who actually push the campaign?
    They don’t even bother to pretend in everyday life that they drink their own Kool-Aid. Socialist bosses lived in palaces and looted by trains. How many windmills are stuck around Al Gore’s own home? And #GreensGoByAir still.
    For comparison: they also clutch pearls in fake hoplophobia. They obviously don’t have anything against guns (their bodyguards carry and often so do themselves), but simply want any sort of power to be their alone, especially anything that can be useful to get rid of them. So why use different interpretations for very uniform actions of the same group?
    * The activists and parrots (including MSM)?
    They will woof or squawk at whatever they were told to make sounds at. Or will first love, then (when ordered to turn) hate, then love it AGAIN. Just like the undisguised reds acted toward Trotsky, Tukhachevsky etc. And repeated the same with Stalin. Some after “having their eyes opened” and being “repentant” on the next turn, some without cheap histrionics.
    And those who sang “hurr, concrete clad paradise, just sweep aside the oldthinkers who unbellyfeel, yarr” were on the same team that later re-painted into Fake Green to sing “hurr, concrete clad hell, and it’s all fault of the oldthinkers who unbellyfeel, baww”.
    The Fake Green rather obviously don’t take their green-ness seriously. Exactly the same deal as with puppy-killing PETArds. They never took the whole “equality” thing seriously. Why would they suddenly do any other such slogan too seriously?
    * Tag-along crowd?
    It’s motivated by carrot and stick. Which is why it does not lead, it follows. And will sigh, reluctantly turn and graze on in whichever new direction activists are herding it.
    * The fanatics?
    There are always a few clowns who actually believe that crap and will not waver with the line of party, yeah. But their direction is also initially set by following whatever the preachers told them. And when the preachers turn and they won’t, these are routinely left behind and used as living straw of “oldthinkers who unbellyfeel”

    So, which exactly part of a campaign is “motivated” by something deep-rooted toward something? Not seeing it.

    • jim says:

      OK, but why the food pyramid and war on fat? Why the anthropogenic global warming scam? The Mediterranean diet, which is not all that bad, was a creation of the Greek export board, thinly laundered through scientists for hire, but the food pyramid, which has killed more people than communism, was pure academic theocracy, with only the thinnest pretense of paying attention to external evidence, only the most superficial going through the motions of the old scientific method. It was not big corn, or big sugar, it was not human error, it was an internally generated belief system. It came from inside. Like Freudianism, they wanted to believe.

      • Hank Rearden says:

        Several of the earliest promoters of the “Mediterranean diet” were observing post-war scarcity in good foods as a normal diet. Here’s a little more historical background on it:

        “Was the lean, so-called Mediterranean diet they observed after the war the true Mediterranean diet? Or were they observing the tail end of deprivation engendered by half a decade of conflict?”

        The Mediterranean Diet: Pasta or Pastrami?

      • TBeholder says:

        > but why the food pyramid and war on fat?
        There’s not necessarily any reason at all beyond “this one worked”. It’s but one quack movement which managed to expand farther and for longer in a field swarming with whole herds of quacks. If this was very unpopular (like many others), it would quietly die and be replaced by another, and another.
        The rest is science as a nationalized industry being consumed by bureaucracy (for which almost any quack campaign would do), and feeding the non-issue factory (ditto – pseudoscience is a juicier fallback than “The flaccid tissues of long-dead issues offensive to God and mankind”).
        >Why the anthropogenic global warming scam?
        Hmm. To think of it, AGW campaign had three levels.
        1) “Global Warming” scare shaping to be equal and opposite of the previous “Global Cooling” scare, not unlike many others. It was large, but not intense. And had purpose: for the parrots it was bird food between proper focused campaigns, for their owners it kept distracted everyone who heeds the parrots.
        this probably created opportunities to promote something a particular power group wants that happened to remotely align with the “issue”, but it’s usual and random.
        2) “big politics thing”. It probably started from Thatcher vs. coal miners, indeed.
        Which in itself was yet another opportunistic use of quacks as a stepladder. Much like with the economists – sometimes a stopped clock shows the time convenient for someone. While reusable, it was not essential to anything. And rather limited in campaign scope. The ozone scare and DDT scare were greater, and they accomplished little beyond distraction and a little more control freakery creeping in.
        3) Full hysteria. By far more intense. Up to carbon indulgences, Agenda 21 and all. Seizing power in plain sight. Global Cooling and Ozone Holes put together were not half this big.

        Ironically (given the subject), the process is too large and intertwined to tell ”why” anything happened this way.
        Maybe it’s a random convenience. Perhaps the Global Cooling had some opportunities for the elites and New Comintern, but with heat being a byproduct of literally everything this only meant doing anything is a good thing. Inverting it and reusing arguments with which it was dismissed was trivial. Also, the “Nuclear Winter” scare industry was rendered mostly irrelevant. and thus desperate for sponsors.
        Maybe it’s a positive feedback explosion. After all, Ozone Holes were a much greater non-issue than Global Cooling, and it follows that as bullshit industry grew and was a bit desperate after USSR collapse, the next global scare had to start ASAP, be more of a big deal (more hungry parrots), and become more frantic (they compete).
        Maybe the next turn was planned to be tighter and ran only with minor adaptations.
        Maybe it was a plan that randomly ran into already forming avalanche rather than another dead end?

      • TBeholder says:

        > was pure academic theocracy, with only the thinnest pretense of paying attention to external evidence
        Well, yeah. It’s nothing new, either.
        Such a long run of something so obviously fishy may point at broken mechanisms that used to limit this. Not only real science is not done, but also ivory tower academics (new theologists) and plain quacks don’t compete enough, because they became a part of the socialist pyramid too.

        > It was not big corn, or big sugar, it was not human error, it was an internally generated belief system. It came from inside. Like Freudianism, they wanted to believe.
        The food industry came for the free advertisement, and stayed longer than was safe for the perverse incentives, indeed.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Many people seem to have trouble distinguishing who is currently benefiting from some idea having been pushed and therefore work to keep it going and who pushed the idea in the first place.

        Everything that exists has people who profit from it because people seek out profit. Everything that people profit from they protect. That doesn’t mean that the current beneficiaries pushed whatever it was that they benefit from.

        • jim says:

          That crap about “profit” is Marxism. Money no longer buys status. Power no longer buys status. What buys status is superior holiness. This woman is way holier than the founder of Apple, and in the jobs that she gets affirmative actioned into she can beat the crap out of the white males who are actually productive, and if they try to defend themselves, they will get fired for racism, she will not get fired for violence, drug abuse, drunkeness, and theft.

          • glosoli says:

            These days are numbered, the overt left progs will be destroyed soon.

            We’re moving on to worldwide NAZIism, it’ll fool most, not me though:


            I lol’d so hard that Dox Gay quoted from this. Actual Nazis, and he praised it as alt-right.

            Is he that stupid Of course not, just further evidence he’s a shill for the string-pullers, nudging the sheep into the next field, ready to be sheared yet again. I must go and troll him about this.

            • glosoli says:

              I did some more digging, being a super-sleuth.

              The British signatory to the European Nazi Agenda that Vox was praising is one Roger Scruton. He’s a (sigh) philosopher, humanist, not married. He has a part-time position at the American Enterprise Institute:


              Just look at that lot, all True Conservatives (Shalom). Cheney, Seth Klarman, Harvey Golub to name but a few.

              The scholars are no better:


              Anyway, confirms my suspicions of Dox Gay as a bought-and-paid-for shill for the next iteration of the World Order. Buy his books, believe his thoughts.

              All of it designed to increase the wealth of the ultra-wealthy, many of whom happen to be…..dajooz.

          • Cavalier says:

            There is more than one ladder of status. Different people respond to different things. Ghetto nogs like gold chains and fancy rimz. Founders of companies are a lot less motivated by job titles and a lot more motivated by profit. In one of his books, Donald Trump made the remark that his employees often seemed more pleased with a better job title than a raise, and that he didn’t understand it.

            • peppermint says:

              Job titles are important for resume building and career advancement. Once you gather enough titles and university accreditations you can go to a VC and be a CxO. Between the people in charge of money-making enterprises, a job title for a pay cut is a sucker’s choice, but money-destroying enterprises are still run by titles with the top people designated not by money but by personal authority. Which thus must be turned up all the way all the time, and they become corrupted by it in a way that people whose status is denomknated in money, or real aristocrats who can show a title in a dispute, don’t have to be.

              • Cavalier says:

                What is a money-making enterprise, and what is a money-destroying enterprise? USG would obviously be an example of the latter, but I can’t think of any private ones; if a company turns unprofitable, it’s promptly Romneyed and the pieces go to the highest bidders.

                • peppermint says:

                  When will Bain Capital buy out DC and churn out reprints of old comics and action figures for them forever, or CNN and just have some hot blondie reading press releases off a teleprompter in between softball interviews? 50 years libertarians said companies don’t exist to provide jobs and services to the community, now they are silent in the face of managers using company assets to promote social justice. The Boomers who bought into the stock market deserve nothing.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  peppermint (as usual) has it exactly.

                  The zombie economy continually expands and eats the productive economy. To just have money is to be a chump because your enemy can just create as much of it as it wants out of thin air to buy up your enterprise. If you don’t make money faster than USG gives money to political allies your enterprise gets eaten by USG backed vultures. If you do, then you get to avoid getting eaten all at once and instead get eaten piece by piece when they install commissars to run your business. The only way to avoid that is to focus on befriending the progressive state instead of running a profit making business.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >To just have money is to be a chump because your enemy can just create as much of it as it wants out of thin air to buy up your enterprise
                  >If you don’t make money faster than USG gives money to political allies your enterprise gets eaten by USG backed vultures.

                  I think you’re trying to make a point, but I’m not sure what it is. In the real world, business is as usual, and USG is remote and far away… and almost comically incompetent.

                  P.S. Incorporate in Hong Kong.

                  P.P.S. Isn’t it kind of weird how businesses get all manner of tax breaks while salaried employees get shafted every which way and then some?

                • jim says:

                  Bunkum. The rich, and even the middle class, are taxed far beyond the Laffer limit.


                  Incorporating in Hong Kong only works if you cut all ties with the US. America claims the right to tax everyone in the entire world on all activities everywhere, and vigorously attempts to do so. And if it did not vigorously attempt to do so, even more wealth creation would flee the US than does already.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >The rich, and even the middle class, are taxed far beyond the Laffer limit.

                  This is true, and yet there are still tax breaks. In many small ways, corporations get screwed significantly less than do their salaried employees.

                  >America claims the right to tax everyone in the entire world on all activities everywhere

                  Well, America claims the right to tax every one of its citizens everywhere in the entire world on all income over 100 something thousand dollars. And it’s utterly outrageous. Fortunately, however, corps help patch over the bullshit.

                  On the other hand, America should claim the right to tax its colonial subjects to death on all activities everywhere.

      • glosoli says:

        Why those things?

        Money. Profit.
        Healthcare, carbon credits, agriculture, finance.
        It’s their driver. They want it all.
        And they’re already sat in gold awaiting the reset.
        Get some gold.

        • jim says:

          Silicon valley billionaires have for a long time been falling on their knees before White House correspondents who are paid with the smell of an oil rag.

          Our current society is holiness driven, not money driven. Victim points beat billion dollar fortunes.

          • Cavalier says:

            A billionaire bends the knee to a correspondent. The billionaire then take his private jet back to his enormous mansion on the water. The corespondent then takes an Uber back to his middling apartment in a shithole city.

            Who wins?

            • jim says:

              The correspondent has the power, and in consequence the billionaire’s black female affirmative action hire can spit on him.

              • Cavalier says:


                Billionaires don’t really bend knees to correspondents. They get invited to parties for the same reason that celebrities do: they give off an aura of glamor.

                This is America, land of the almighty dollar.

                • jim says:

                  Not any more. Has not been so for quite some time.

                • Cavalier says:

                  This is a Silicon Valley billionaire in a subordinate position:

                  I went looking for a Silicon Valley billionaire at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner, but in 15 minutes I couldn’t find one, only mentions of Silicon Valley billionaires attending private dinners with Obama, or in Congressional hearings.

                  Which supports my point, in any case, of America being the land of the almighty dollar: these people have launched to the top of the (formal) system based on nothing but their assets. Many of them don’t even have degrees. Have a lot of money, though, and a bit of fame, perhaps, and for some odd reason you get invited to speak at some of the best colleges around.

                • peppermint says:

                  If money is power, why is there a faggot in charge of Apple and curry niggers in charge of Microsoft and Google? MS and Google have been garbage for some time, but Apple recently stopped being able to push ridiculous overpriced products.

                  Why was Yahoo killed by Marissa Meyer? If Yahoo’s shareholders, ie money, had power, Yahoo would at least be able to quietly and permanently exist

                • jim says:

                  The faggot is buggering Apple. If money had power he would be out of a job.

                • glosoli says:

                  Companies like Apple, FB, Google are all intelligence fronts anyway. And I don’t mean the state, I mean for those with the trillions. It doesn’t matter to them how many Iphones sell, or even if they turn a profit.

                  Information is power.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Dollars accumulate power as they age. A freshly minted dollar — tech — is not worth nearly as much as an old one.

                  Money is status, not power. Or at least a prerequisite for status, at various thresholds, within which boundaries — roughly, social milieus — the rest is determined by personal charisma, skill, and taste. These things, as mentioned previously, take time.

                  Some money (assets) is (are) power. When tech companies travel to court Congress to bow and scrape before their sovereign attend hearings on such-and-such topic, that is submission. When the economy crashes, literally trillions of dollars disappear overnight, and the Federal Reserve tells Congress to fuck off, that is power.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Let’s try that again.

                  Dollars accumulate power as they age. A freshly minted dollar — tech — is not worth nearly as much as an old one.

                  Money is status, not power. Or at least a prerequisite for status, at various thresholds, within which boundaries — roughly, social milieus — the rest is determined by personal charisma, skill, and taste. These things, as mentioned previously, take time.

                  Some money (assets) is (are) power. When tech companies go to court Congress to bow and scrape before their sovereign attend hearings on such-and-such topic, that is submission. When the economy crashes, literally trillions of dollars disappear overnight, and the Federal Reserve tells Congress to fuck off, that is power.

                • peppermint says:

                  And what are the old enterprises with power? Tech is sexy, while agriculture, oil, energy, mining, the military-industrial complex, textiles, just aren’t. Cars and airplanes are still kinda sexy in the sense that people think the products are cool, maybe, sometimes, in particular Tesla, which exists because it isn’t Ford or GM or some other racist old polluter relic from the old days when White union men had it good.

                  Seems to me dollars rot as they age and the only sure way to hold on to some amount of existing power is to be an investment banker or a university administrator.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >agriculture, oil, energy, mining, the military-industrial complex, textiles not sexy.

                  They don’t have any mass sex appeal because they’re all tapped out. Nobody new is going to make it big in oil. I can assure you, however, that the established powers in each of those sectors find their quarterly royalty and dividend checks very sexy.

                  Dollars do not, in fact, rot as they age, and the only sure way to ensure that your descendents maintain some sort of not-crushingly-bleak-UBI-poverty standard of living is to understand at a visceral, primal level that r > g.

                  Telecom stocks are heritable. University posts? not so much.

                • jim says:

                  Firstly that is not true – lots of new companies and new rich people fracking.

                  Secondly, if it was true, would contradict the point you intend to prove that old money is better than new money.

                  HR will make a billionaire hire Obamaphone woman, and he has to watch his step, for if Obamaphone women beats the shit out of him in a drunken rage on one of those rare days when she shows up at work, he has to take it or else be a racist.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >lots of new companies and new rich people fracking

                  Fracking is a new thing. Also, no glamorous fracking billionaires. The old oil tycoons did pretty well for themselves in terms of reputation and all that. Who cares about some uncharismatic schmuck in fracking. Cars, though, are pretty sexy if done right. Rockets are extremely sexy. I don’t invent the rules.

                  >would contradict the point you intend to prove that old money is better than new money

                  Old money is better in some ways and worse in some other ways.

                  Better: more stable, more reliable, more time to gently massage class into its possessors, more time to accumulate the coterie of high-end lawyers and finance dudes and capable managers and whatnot to protect it and further its interests.

                  Worse: it’s boring, it’s reliable, it doesn’t excite the imaginations of the unwashed masses because they know that even in their wildest fantasies that the time to become an oil tycoon or whatever has passed, the rags-to-riches mean-regression-unstable Hero-Founder is usually decrepit or dead and his offspring bland and unimpressive, etc.

                  The Wild West nature of America, both in the literal Wild West and the figurative Wild West of the wealth “churn” produced by the Industrial Revolution, effectively destroyed good breeding as a traditional, reputable thing. If shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations, no lineages ever get long enough to stabilize sufficiently to cement their hold on the system and use the respite to further concern themselves with self-breeding.

                  >HR will make a billionaire hire Obamaphone woman, and he has to watch his step

                  For one thing, Obamaphone woman actually turned out to be pretty reasonable.

                  For another, HR occupies a very specific place in the company hierarchy. It can slowly destroy a company over time, but only by controlling the inflow and outflow of floor-level employees. Think of it this way: there is a layer of the people in charge of the company, then below them is a layer of HR, then below them are the credentialed peasants. HR has zero authority over who gets helicoptered into management positions, who gets on what boards, or any of that, and merely the suggestion, once stated explicitly, is ludicrous.

                  Billionaires are not subject to HR in the same way as they are not subject to TSA gropeage.

                • jim says:

                  Think of it this way: there is a layer of the people in charge of the company, then below them is a layer of HR, then below them are the credentialed peasants.

                  HR and accounting are tentacles of the state, thus not actually under the people nominally in control of the company.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >HR and accounting are tentacles of the state, thus not actually under the people nominally in control of the company.

                  To an extent, every evil fat woman from the government is a tentacle of the state. For some reason, though, they still suck up to management.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing it. I was, briefly, management, and I got pissed on.

                  Being a tentacle of the state is higher status than being responsible for closing deals, making payroll, or delivering product.

                • peppermint says:

                  When I came here, I was basically a Marxist and saw the importation of muds and exportation of factories as a way to drive down costs. What turned me around was Jim’s observation that the bankers lost big or were directly taken over by the government after the CRA-driven financial crisis. Why would bankers even want the CRA? Even if the government has been taken over by bankers, those bankers are now the government, and it makes no sense to talk about banker power when it’s government power.

                  Jim has been saying for years that academics took over the banks and the government, not with money, but with politics and culture.

                • peppermint says:

                  if money is power, how do commies win?

                • Cavalier says:

                  Jim’s habitual refrain is that Harvard runs the country. It may well. My question is the following: why, then, does Harvard send most of its graduates into finance and consulting? Literally, most. Not law… not academia… not government (lol) — finance and consulting.

                • Cavalier says:

                  P.S. The fountainhead of commieism is, and always has been, Wall Street.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Finance is less competitive than power and most of them are not good enough.

                • Mackus says:

                  What would happen if billionare CEO attempted to hire people loyal to him to his HR department?

                • jim says:

                  I expect that the government would find him in breach of one hundred and one human resource laws, laws which no one really complies with, or even understands, because they are intended to be incomprehensible and impossible to comply with.

                  Who whom. The laws are intended to be applied selectively.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Finance is less competitive than power and most of them are not good enough.

                  Now that is an interesting concept.

          • glosoli says:

            I wasn’t referring to ‘new money’, but to to the real elite: the Roths, The Rockefellers at a. The ones who don’t appear on billionaire’s lists, as they’re in the trillions.

            • glosoli says:

              et al.

            • Cavalier says:

              Well, it’s unpleasant to think that the central banks, being the sovereign institutions that they are, might have privately issued stocks and act as the tax component of an invisible system of government of private courts and private security.

              To even consider the notion is outrageous, hideous conspiricizing. “We would know”, we think. How? Who would tell us? The media? The schools? The universities? Beats me.

              We can’t prove it, but we can’t disprove it either. Human nature and human civilization being what they are, I don’t know why we would expect any true ruling class to have any social contact whatsoever with hoi polloi. I’m not aware of any historical basis for it; are you?

              The Ivies were extremely socially exclusionary from their founding to 1960-1965, whereupon Harvard, led by Nathan Pusey and McGeorge Bundy, opened itself up to the unwashed masses from all over the country and every class. Why? In all likelihood, the same reason as anything else: who, whom.

              How much social contact do you have with ghetto negros? Exactly.

              • glosoli says:

                I have c.8 weeks a year of contact with a ghetto negro in Morocco, does that count? Never judge a man by the colour of his skin or his status.

                If you’re curious about the BIS et al, google for Another Thoughts (goldtrail). It’s a Roth spilling the beans covertly on the next monetary system. Some BS (as you would expect from a Roth). Maybe he was a rare benevolent Roth, sharing some inside info? Dunno, but it’s all happening as he predicted.

              • peppermint says:

                I have some social contact with ghetto niggers. Their perspective is irrelevant, of course, and nothing they say is surprising, but it’s neat to hear from the nigger’s mouth.

                Leftoids, of course, continually annoy them because they refuse to understand them.

            • jim says:

              It is pretty obvious that Soros is way more powerful than they are, but nonetheless has to kiss Victoria Nuland’s feet. If money was power, we would have a more competent elite, and Marvel Comics would not put total dipshits with no history of creating anything readable in charge of writing their comics.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Begging the question why billionaires choose to keep all their money in individual US stocks.

            • glosoli says:

              Ain’t enough gold for everyone.

            • Cavalier says:

              Many of them keep much of their assets in individual stocks because they have some degree of control over and insight into those companies, as they or their relatives or their friends founded and/or run them.

              Beyond that, anybody with a halfway decent financial dude spreads their assets around everywhere: land, gold, fallout shelters, investment funds, art, real estate, whatnot.

              • glosoli says:

                The really big boys have thousands of tonnes of gold squirreled away. They want it all of course. Fuck knows why, how much can one spend in a lifetime?

                • Cavalier says:

                  Real money aristocrats don’t care about the money or wealth in terms of consumption, they care about it in terms of empire.

                  In this mindset, at the highest “level” of power, Darwin is more is an unalloyed

                • Cavalier says:

                  Belay that. Again…

                  Real money aristocrats don’t care about the money or wealth in terms of consumption, they care about it in terms of empire.

                  In this mindset, at the highest “tier” of power, there is no higher guarantor, Darwin is inimitable, and more is an unalloyed good.

                • glosoli says:

                  I think they simply want it all, because they covet anyone else having it. Applies to all physical assets on the planet, not just gold or money.

                  Love of money is indeed the root of all evil.

                • jim says:

                  Our rulers are indifferent to money, as money has ceased to buy power or status.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Our rulers are indifferent to money, as money has ceased to buy power or status.

                  Wake me up when New York is no longer the center of the Universe.

                • jim says:

                  I think New York ceased being the center of the universe when the financial crisis bit in 2005, but they are still in denial. (And it bit in 2005, not 2007)

                • Will says:

                  Love of status is the root of all evil

                  The pharisees crucified Christ not because they were afraid of losing money, but because they saw Him as a credible threat to their status and feared that people would no longer look to them for guidance and they would no longer get the best seats at banquets.

                • glosoli says:

                  ‘Our rulers are indifferent to money, as money has ceased to buy power or status.’

                  We disagree on this matter because we disagree on who our rulers are.

                  In my view, they rarely make the newspapers, never make the Forbes lists, and they’ve been consolidating the real power for well over 1,000 years.

                  New York will lose its position as centre of finance before 2032, the centre will move to China. The BIS arrived in Hong Kong in ’98 I recall. The Fed will lose its charter c. 2030. I can supply links if you’re interested.

                • pdimov says:

                  “I think New York ceased being the center of the universe when the financial crisis bit in 2005, but they are still in denial.”

                  I’d place the ceasing date at 2001.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >I’d place the ceasing date at 2001.

                  I’ve considered this. I think it may be true in one sense and untrue in another.

                  On one hand, their crown jewels were knocked down and replaced with a shorter, inferior tower unabashedly named “One World Trade Center”.

                  On the other, 7 WTC housed the offices of, among others, the IRS, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, and the CIA.

                  Although, I guess that would mostly qualify as “RedGov”, or at least “outer party”, no? Don’t ask me how anybody beats the Secret Service, the DOD, and the CIA, though — I have no idea.

                  >In my view, they rarely make the newspapers, never make the Forbes lists, and they’ve been consolidating the real power for well over 1,000 years.

                  Besides the ownership of the Economist Group, who do you think?

                • pdimov says:

                  It’s not just 9/11; NY has gradually ceased looking center-worldy in films and TV shows too, and there’s been a palpable drop in the prestige of the Fed Chairman position. I still remember the time when Greenspan could supposedly move the markets with one word (something that I’ve always felt weird and disproportionate).

                  Although I also remember Albright and how everyone supposedly paid attention to her pins.

  16. Garr says:

    Was unable to post the ideal Millennial Nerd diet-link, but if you kids are interested, google “Eddie Hall diet.” For more on Boomer diets, google “Johnny Rotten diet.”

  17. peppermint says:

    Academics say light colored skin was developed in response to latitude because they don’t want to say either that it was developed through sexual selection or that niggers traditionally wear ornamentation not clothing. Chinks and sand niggers also traditionally cover up and have light skin. How old is the race of dune coons?

    • Hank Rearden says:

      Dune Coons lightened their skin with the genetics of White Women via the white slave trade. They still do it today, like Kushner.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        On the other hand, they darkened themselves through the black slave/concubine trade, so now there are plenty of Arabs who are genetically 15%-20% Sub-Saharan African.

        • Cavalier says:

          The conquistador white man sets up a gradient “caste” system wherever he goes. The only exceptions, to my knowledge, are the conquered lands of the Anglo Protestant left from the 17th to 19th centuries: New England, Royal Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent South Africa and Rhodesia, where the natives were allowed to live and proliferate but there was very limited interbreeding. All others are counterexamples: India, the Middle East, and North Africa, and colonial and post-colonial Central America and South America, and to a lesser extent the American South, with its mulatto population but one-drop rule.

          Europe stayed as it was because there was no practical way for the aristocracy to import dark matter.

          But now it can be — and so is.

          P.S. Some of them also whitened themselves through the slave/concubine trade.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            Yeah, we were discussing what the Arab man did, not what the European man did. Obviously, the European man had it right, because unlike the Arab, he did not negrify his own homelands, thus he did not end up as 15% Sub-Saharan African.

            Is Christianity more conducive to ethnonationalism / racerealism than the egalitarian creed of Mohammedanism?

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            Arab and Jewish, actually. But Jews back in the day whitened themselves much more so than they darkened themselves. But then modern Israel happened…

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              England did start to Negrify in the 1600’s. The results were so fast there was a huge uproar from the English men. English women were sampling dark meat, marrying and producing mixed offspring in great numbers. So they clamped down on it for another couple hundred years. But now it is happening all over again. English women really like to sample what the world has to offer.

  18. EH says:

    The best sauce I ever made used pork tenderloin pan drippings, shallots and dry prunes emulsified in the blender. Perhaps because of the fiber in the prunes it didn’t need thickening. Only problem was getting enough pan drippings. I’ve been meaning to try substituting the “better than bouillon” brand condensed stock for some of the pan drippings, but it will need some caramelization to work.

  19. StringsOfCoins says:

    To take care of the fiber issue I just use fiber powder which I can mix in with a glass of whole milk. That and I will have buttered toast with my eggs and bacon that has 6g of fiber a slice. I go 30% carbs though.

    My father suffers from high cholesterol. He tries to solve this by eating no cholesterol, using soy spread not butter, avoiding egg yolks and meat, etc etc. His cholesterol is still very high. While I eat in the ways you have described, I eat tons of cholesterol, and my cholesterol is great. It’s a shame he won’t listen to me. He suffers from boomer cuck disease.

    • peppermint says:

      carbs <= fat + protein is also my formula

    • glosoli says:

      You dad is doing things wrong.

      You cannot increase your blood cholesterol levels via dietary cholesterol intake. Studies have shown this.

      He needs to cut out all sugary crap, carbs need to be chopped, and he needs to go paleo. I know you will have a job convincing your father, but I hope he will read some research, as otherwise he will be at risk of serious health issues.

      My family (on my father’s side) has a track record of heart problems, but I don’t even track my cholesterol readings anymore, there’s no point, as long as you don’t eat the sugars that cause cholesterol to clog up arteries.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      I’ve been doing the Wilbur method of fibre supplementation, 125 grams per day, for the past week. Amazing things have been happening. More info on Tim Steele’s blog. Low carb isn’t the way humans have historically lived, nor should they. The problem is when the high fibre levels were eliminated.

      • jim says:

        We are descended in the male line from pastoralists. Looks like pastoralists have repeatedly conquered, settled down, started growing grain, and then been conquered by fresh waves of pastoralists.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          The Hittites and Egyptians weren’t pastoralists, but they divided up the Middle East between them for a very long time.

          • Cavalier says:

            I don’t know about you, but I’m not descended from Hittites or Egyptians. Moreover:

            “The Anatolians were a group of distinct Indo-European peoples who spoke the Anatolian languages and shared a common culture.[1][2][3][4][5] The Anatolian languages were a branch of the larger family of Indo-European languages. According to the most widely accepted Kurgan theory on the Proto-Indo-European homeland, however, these Indo-European Anatolians were themselves immigrants to Anatolia from the north.”

            For some incomprehensible reason, every great ancient civilization began with an “immigration” from the north.

  20. glosoli says:

    I just threw away c. 5kg of pork products that were in my freezer, as well as two bags of pork scratchings, and 1.5 bags of pork gelatine.

    I’m all for meat eating, but I’m now sure pork is bad for us, and shrimps too:

    We ignore God’s advice at our peril.

    • Cavalier says:

      You’re a nut.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        The precise terminology is “fundie nutter.” But I’m warming up to glosoli, he brings much needed diversity to this materialist-fedoraist treehouse.

        • Hank Rearden says:

          glosoli is a perfect example of a fairly decent European man who, while calling himself Christian, rejects Christ’s Judeo-Bolshevist teachings with clever yet strained and ultimately inadequate interpretations.

          “….primitive Christianity is Bolshevism.”
          -Ludwig von Mises (Socialism, p. 413)

          Unfortunately, Christendom’s endorsement of Jesus gives excuse to the Bolshevists, and good Europeans have been “continually disarmed” by Jesus’ Judeo-Bolshevism, as Mises also observed:

          “One thing of course is clear, and no skilful interpretation can obscure it. Jesus’ words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect….This is a case in which the Redeemer’s words bore evil seed…The Church as an organization has certainly always stood on the side of those who tried to ward off communistic attack. But it could not achieve much in this struggle. For it was continually disarmed by the words: ‘Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the Kingdom of God.'”
          (at section IV.29.20 in the above reference)

          While “no skilful interpretation can obscure it,” I’m sure glosoli will try. And his apologetics will be “continually disarmed” by simply quoting the Jewbook.

          • glosoli says:

            You’re boring, a typical atheist, just re-hashing anti-Christian stuff you find online, with no reference to scripture.

            Rather than quote some old books, quote me any (yes, any) of Jesus’ words that prove your point.

            Give it your best shot.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              His paganism, ironic or unironic, makes him a non-typical atheist.

            • Hank Rearden says:

              Liar. I most certainly am not an atheist. And now that you’re proven to be a liar, whose your daddy? (John 8:44)

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Tbh I don’t think he intended to lie about you; it’s far from clear what a person on the other side of the screen believes. So, paganism it is, then. Good; I support that:


                However, I suspect that you’re more serious about it than yours trolly, so no offense.

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  Not a pagan, sorry, try again. But I do enjoy antagonizing midwit cocksuckers like glosoli who feel they have to insert their Jew-centric religion into every single conversation, even one on food.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >not pagan, not christcuck, not semitic

                  Okay, but you do understand why I said that it’s not all that easy guessing up what the person on the other side of the screen believes.

                  You strike me as a Wotanist, and isn’t that a right-wing version of modern day paganism, a la Varg Vikernes?

                  (I do not expect you to give me any explanations)

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  Everybody you meet is a Wodenist between Tues’ Day and Thor’s Day, for His name is on their lips. Even when they’re ostensibly worshiping the kike’s Jehovah in church on Sun-worship Day, the name of their forefathers’ pagan Gott (God, Gotin, Wotan, Woden) is on their lips, and worshiping God specifically displeases the kike’s deity, according to Isaiah 65:11:

                  “And ye are those forsaking Jehovah, Who are forgetting My holy mountain, Who are setting in array for G_d a table…”

                  Hebes getting upset about worshiping God is funny as Hell — who was Loki’s daughter by the way, and never mentioned in the original manuscripts of the Jewbook.

                • glosoli says:

                  It’s fascinating to me that I made the decision to give up pig products on Friday, and the next day Jim writes about pork.

                  I wouldn’t have mentioned it otherwise.

                  I wonder why the timing was so perfect?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Bitch, please. I quoted from the sexy sexy sexy books of Nancy Friday on November 4. On November 5, it was announced that she died. Evidence:



                  These things happen to me all the time.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Just think about it from my perspective, okay? I had been engaging in a discussion about child sexuality for quite a while, and thought about a (legal) way to prove my point. It then popped into my mind that I had read books by this lady containing some juicy quotes I could use, so I went over the stuff and posted the relevant pieces on November 4. It generated some fun discussion, and I felt proud of myself for being “right” on the internet and ruffling some feathers.

                  Keep in mind that nobody here has even heard of that woman until I brought her up. Previous time I had gone through her stuff was years ago.

                  Then, within a day later, within 24 hours, I googled her name again, and what did I see?

                  November 5, 2017

                  P U R E C O I N C I D E N C E

                  As I said, it’s far from the first time that shit like that jumps on me. I mean it. But let me tell you: it’s not insignificant statistical oddities like these that have convinced me that “something is going on.” Such coincidences seem pretty random. But I have experienced two specific events — one statistically unlikely, one statistically very unlikely — in my IRL that converted me away from strict fedoraism and into the wild realm of agnostic theism.

                  Be prepared to bring some comfortable clothing with you to the asylum, because they’re gonna take away our belts.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Truth really is stranger than fiction.

                • glosoli says:

                  Very strange indeed.

              • glosoli says:

                Define your theism for us.

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  Apologize for your damned lies, asshole.

                • glosoli says:

                  Oh, a tree-hugger.

                  Nice one. Lots of earthly *gods*, all subservient to mine.


                • Hank Rearden says:

                  You’re doubling down on your lies, I see. Typical Jew-worshiper. If you were an honest White man, you wouldn’t have lowered yourself to beg like a bitch to a foreign Jewish “Master” for crumbs from a table set “only” for Jews (Matthew 15:21-28), accept second-rater status in a foreign “Jews first” cult (Romans 1:16), worship a foreign Jewish “King of Israel” (John 1:49), or adopt the International Jew’s globalist perspective of tikkum olam. (Matthew 28:19)

                  P.S. Don’t forget to send shekels to your Jewish Masters in Jerusalem, as the Bible says to. (Romans 15:27)

                • glosoli says:

                  I can feel your anger.

                  Anger against Jews mostly it seems?

                  I mean, Jews are far from perfect, but you should try to calm down.

                  Perhaps nip down to your local hostelry for a pint of child’s blood? Calm your nerves a bit.

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  Ah, the feelz expert now. Snowflake SJWs love to call other people angry. As if anger is something bad for their safe space. But wait!

                  “This made Jesus very angry.” (MK 1.41)

                  I’ve got at least ten different print translations right here on my shelf and they all concede that the original Greek was “anger” (in a couple of cases, “extreme anger”) as part of the footnotes.

                  So I’m like Jesus, and you’re not. Hey, I never said he was all bad.

                • glosoli says:

                  Couldn’t match your words with that chapter and verse. In your anger you possibly mis-typed.

                  You seem to think I’ll be surprised that Jehovah and Jesus become angry? Nope. Righteous anger is very common from God, an excellent thing.

                  Anger at God (and His followers) for no good reason is very bad, so you need to be careful, Jehovah is watching you.

                  There is one of us being antagonised here, the other is very calm. I have the Holy Spirit within me. You have some days of the week whose etymology may link to Norse gods.

                  I’ll stick with the Holy Spirit. You enjoy those words.

                • c says:

                  You probably believe the earth is flat too…

                • glosoli says:

                  Why do you care enough to comment? Is that the best attack you can muster. Heh.

                  What do YOU believe?


                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  He believes that he can destroy your reputation by way of deception – that’s his gambit.

                  The shills seem to have left me alone, because it has downed on them that they have created a monster.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  You can bet that before he pressed the “submit comment” button he had asked himself: “can I game this?”

                  No, shills – you can’t. Your hit-and-run tricks are as transparent as your agenda, and both will come to nought.

                  You shills inevitably run away when called out; tell your supervisor that I’m gonna anally defile her with a broken beer bottle.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Imagine sitting through all of those presentations about “how to become an internet magician,” only to find out that someone is familiar with your stuff better than you are, and can flip the tables in fury against your transparent muh hocus pocus in an instant. The magic malfunctioned.

                  I take the “the” out of “psychotherapist,” motherfuckers. And your time is running out; in due course, you’ll figure out what’s going on. When I said that I’m warming up to glosoli, you should’ve known better than to attempt your bullshit against him.

                • glosoli says:


                  Interesting that they should choose ‘flat earth’ as the topic of attack, as I read about that recently, and concluded it was indeed an op to discredit many truth-seekers by leading them astray.

                  I thought it was just a pissy atheist, rather than a real-life spook.

              • A Portuguese Man says:

                The thing with atheists, neopagans and other types of such wankers is the nice chorus they make with the Jews hating on Christianity.

                Wake me up when the Jews blame the sacred six million on paganism or zoroastrianism or whatever you call yourself.

                In the meanwhile, the question is: why is it that you talk about jew-centric this, jew-centric that, but end up attacking the same targets as the jew?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Wake me up when the Jews blame the sacred six million on paganism

                  Jews who try to ingratiate themselves with cuckservative Christians claim that the Nazis were atheistic Pagans. Remember that Jews play all sides, and that there are Jewish converts to Christianity.

                  >why is it that you talk about jew-centric this, jew-centric that,

                  You have to understand where they’re coming from. It just feels *weird* discussing the detrimental Jewish influence on society, and proposing to eliminate all Jewish social constructs – and then going to Church and hearing about saintly Jewish figures doing this and that. The atheists/pagans ask a logical question: if Jews are so bad, why are we venerating them?

                  >end up attacking the same targets as the jew?

                  Of course, you do have a point: since Jews kvetch so loudly about “historical persecution by Christians,” surely, the Church isn’t all bad. The difference, though, is that Jews attack the Church for being antisemitic, while atheists/pagans attack it for being philosemitic. Same target, wholly different criticism.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  By the way, this could be a cool meme: “oh, we don’t want to exterminate the Jews; we just want to de-construct the social construct known as Jewish lives.”

                • Garr says:

                  We DO blame it on Bad Paganism. (We think that there’s a Nice kind of Paganism, too — the Greek kind. Also, we like the pictures in the D’Aulaires Book of Norse Myths a LOT.)

                  We think that Christians are mean to us but not usually in a beating-up, killy kind of way. It’s the Bad Pagans who wanna sacrifice us to that devil-god from the Doctor Strange movie, — you know, the one who floats in the Metaverse. Oh – Dormammu; I just looked it up.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >We think that there’s a Nice kind of Paganism, too — the Greek kind.

                  U wut m8?

                  Jews despise Greek paganism about as much as — no, actually, way more so than — they despise Germanic paganism. Jews practically blame the rise of Christianity on Greek paganism; they blame all their troubles between 200 BC and 200 AD on the Greeks/Romans; they sometimes call the modern “anti-Jewish” Western World “Greek”; for crying out loud, Jews call other Jews they dislike HELLENISTS.

                  Every fucking Hanukkah, you commemorate your genocidal and fanatic war against GREEK PAGANS.

                  Jews don’t think anybody else is “nice.” They hold a grudge against the entire world. Have been at it for 2.5 millennia. Oy vey.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        That said, he serves as more proof that being on the schizotypal spectrum is positively correlated with religious and especially religio-Semitic habits. I mean, c’mon glosoli, after getting rid of all this pork and shunning the shrimps, are you gonna slice off the foreskin as your next step towards full desert-dwellerism?

        Lots of people go fundie after experiencing a NDE, but why go specifically for this type of Semitic mind virus?

        • glosoli says:

          Having mentioned (on the previous post by Jim) my discovery of the jubilee cycle (debts are actually wiped out in the 50th year, even though we don’t obey God’s laws to do this, next 50th year is 2031), am I really a nut to stop eating pork? Did you read the linked article?

          Even today, mainstream diets are focused on carbs and sugars, and animal fats are blamed for heart disease. But we know that was all lies, pushed by the sugar industry. And no doubt pushed by (((others))) to harm our health. But 95% of the Western population still eat crap and believe that nonsense, so perhaps it’s those people that are nuts, rather than me, I switched to paleo 4 or 5 years ago.

          Listen, I become red-pilled through 2016, before that I was barely dipping a toe into the water (and it was only really financial stuff and health stuff).

          Everything I’ve read in the reactionary/alt-right sphere, literally everything, and everything I see actually happening in the world, is confirmed by my ongoing reading of the bible, including the Old Testament. Whether it’s intersex relationships and behaviour, money, power, ethno-nationalism, societal morals, family and tribal bonds, good and evil, all of it is just a subset of what God has already revealed to us. I have no agenda, other than a curious mind and a desire to know the truth about our world and our existence, and the meaning of it all.

          I don’t have to give up pork, it doesn’t affect my salvation, but there’s nothing solid in the New Testament that removes God’s sensible guidance on what is good to eat, and what is unclean. And science seems to support this too. I’ve suffered from IBS for many years so it will be interesting to see if my guts improve with pork off the menu.

          Circumcision was not necessary for adult converts to Christianity, so I will not be going down that road. I have yet to research the background to why God required infant boys to be circumcised, but I will do at some point.

          I feel quite sad for those with prejudiced views about biblical truth. I would suggest reading, or listening to the bible (Alexander Scourby version) and thinking about how old truths still apply. And maybe, if you ask God to reveal Himself to you, like me, you will have a couple of inexplicable supernatural experiences too.

          • jim says:

            Wild pork tends to be loaded with worms, worms that can infect humans. I expect that was also the case with domestic pork a few centuries back. But today, cleaner pigsties, and better controlled cooking methods render pork safe.

              • glosoli says:

                Of course, the more interesting matter to ponder is why God outlawed eating pig?

                I assume we all know that evolutionary theory is largely garbage?

                Not that many are aware of hybridization theory though.

                If you’re prepared to go down this particular rabbit hole, you’ll learn about that, and why God told us to stay away from pig flesh, because He knew how hominids had appeared on the planet, before He imbued us with souls. So, have fun reading this:


                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >I assume we all know that evolutionary theory is largely garbage?

                  Lol. There are two reasons why, in the Current Year, the fundie-fedora war was put on hold:

                  1) Islam made criticism of religion verboten among progressives;

                  2) Intelligent religious folks (especially if race-realist and sex-realist) realized that evolution is correct, so perhaps the atheists should be given some respect after all.

                  You are sawing off the branch you are sitting on by rejecting Darwin. Cavalier is gonna be apoplectic when he sees this.

                  Seriously, I don’t think anyone here rejects the theory of evolution. Are you sure that you’ve thought this one through?

                • jim says:

                  Evolutionary psychiatry gives pretty much the same predictions as fall of man theory, assuming the ancestral environment, the environment of evolutionary adaptation, was morally decadent.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Actually there’s a third reason:

                  3) Right-wing atheists, separated off from left-wing atheists who went completely off the rails with SJWism, began appreciating the wisdom of traditional religion, as traditional religion largely confirms things that the right-wing cares about, such as natural sex roles.

                  Still, in fundie-fedora interactions, the theory of evolution as such is rarely mentioned, for reasons of diplomacy.

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  Fundamentalists of all stripes desperately try to eradicate the “chance” within evolution.

                  “By getting rid of Mendelism-Morganism-Weismannism from our science we banish chance out of biological science. We must keep in mind clearly that science is the enemy of chance.” -T D Lysenko, Aug. 7, 1948

                • glosoli says:

                  I guess none of you follow the updates on these matters at Tex Arcane’s blog? Come on, keep up.
                  Darwin was a nutjob, his finches analysis was disproven decades ago.

                  Then there’s this:


                  ‘the study’s conclusions are bound to raise eyebrows in the human evolution community.’

                  ‘Put simply, the study argues there was another — previously unidentified — human-like creature walking the Earth long before we believed it was possible.’


                  They really don’t know much about anything.

                  Vault-co blogspot, as worthy of your time to read as Jim’s blog. Meanwhile, have you not read about epigenetics?


                  It’s staggering that evolutionary theory is still standing.

                • pdimov says:

                  Read the link


                  YWS. You assumed that this is some creationist bullshit and skipped it, but it isn’t. It’s fun.

                  Greg Cochran says that it’s complete nonsense, but even if so, it’s interesting for the same reason the aquatic ape theory is interesting (if more obviously nonsense) – it enumerates the questions for which there are currently no answers.

                  And yes, it’s quite likely that gradualism is largely garbage. (Not “evolution”, which is trivially true.)

                • jim says:

                  None of these are post Darwinian.

                  For example, the acquisition of multiple antibiotic resistance in a single leap by bacteria comes through gene transfer with some other bacterium that already has it – by the bacterial equivalent of sex and hybridization. Nothing post Darwinian about sex and hybridization. Darwin literally wrote the book on sex and evolution, in that his book on the topic is still as relevant and foundational as ever it was, and we are still carrying out that book’s research program.

                • pdimov says:

                  When people say “evolution” they typically mean gradualism, the creation of new species via gradual accumulation of random mutations and natural selection of the beneficial ones.

         is a hybridization theory of speciation, which is very far from the mainstream.

                  It may not be “post-Darwinian”, but it’s certainly not what most people mean by evolution.

                  But keep reading, there’s more in TOF’s article.

                • jim says:

                  Hybridization in no way contradicts or casts doubt on Darwin, who did not think that species were objectively well defined or unambiguously distinct.

                  Darwin’s account is that everything was a breed, and breeds tended to drift apart over time, so tribes gradually became races, and races gradually became species, with no well defined time at which crossbreeding between one breed and another stopped. The abrupt origin of a new kind, as a creature finds its way to a new island, or new environmental niche, or a fortunate and successful hybrid, is entirely part of Darwin’s theory. But then that new kind gradually becomes more perfectly fitted to its new environment.

                  To argue that the abrupt origin of new kinds is contrary to Darwin, you have to impose on Darwin a concept of species as objective and well defined entities that Darwin explicitly rejected. To refute Darwin’s gradualism, you have to simultaneously deny his gradualism.

                  In Darwin’s account, a successful hybrid gradually becomes more than just a hybrid, becomes a new species, not overnight, but as a result of gradual changes. But there is no particular point at which one can say that it is now a new species, not just yet another hybrid.

                • pdimov says:


                  “Secondly, detailed study of many bacterial characteristics, especially pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) and virulence, indicate that they are encoded by plasmids or by critical segments of the DNA, so-called “genomic islands” (Hacker and Carniel 2001; Juhas, van der Meer et al. 2009). The sequences of genomic islands show that they have been acquired from unrelated organisms and integrated into the cellular genome by natural genetic engineering methods.”

                  Acquiring DNA from unrelated organisms is not at all like sex.

                  The simplistic understanding of evolution is basically a fairy tale for trumpet players, and the actual mechanisms are completely different.

                • jim says:

                  Depends on how unrelated the unrelated organism is. These horizontal gene transfers occur between life forms that to the ordinary person look mighty similar.

                • pdimov says:

                  Nope, transfers are possible between bacteria and plant or animal cells, for instance. (Also, viruses carry DNA segments of all kinds of cells around.) Plus, transfers are targeted, not random.

                  And it’s not just transfers; there are DNA rewrite mechanisms that rearrange the genome in non-random ways in response to environmental cues.

                  Need to read a selection of Shapiro.


                • jim says:

                  Transfers are not targeted, they are random. And transfers between grossly unrelated kinds generally fail to have interesting consequences.

                  As kinds become more distantly related, transfers become more likely to be destructive, and hence less likely to be lastingly incorporated. But at the same time, transfers between distant kinds are more likely to provide novel capabilities. All of this was envisaged and foreseen by Darwin.

                  We have small bits of DNA from wildly unrelated kinds – but most of them are mildly harmful, the seriously harmful ones having been eliminated by evolution, and none of them are particularly useful.

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  Evolution, life itself, is just a subset of physics, the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, as shown by A. Lotka (1922), H. T. Odum (1994), and now this whippersnapper:

                  “[T]he origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill…Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.”
                  -A New Physics Theory of Life

                • pdimov says:

                  “In Darwin’s account, a successful hybrid gradually becomes more than just a hybrid, becomes a new species, not overnight, but as a result of gradual changes. But there is no particular point at which one can say that it is now a new species, not just yet another hybrid.”

                  On the genetic level, hybridization between two species that are distinct enough triggers the DNA rewrite mechanisms that reshuffle the genome. So the hybrid is indeed a new species, overnight and immediately.

                  “Transfers are not targeted, they are random.”

                  The insistence on randomness is the same as the insistence on global warming; it just has to be so otherwise the evil creationists win (even though no creator is posited.)

                  Models that assume randomness fail to predict.

                • jim says:

                  So the hybrid is indeed a new species, overnight and immediately.

                  Darwinism 101: “Species” are rather arbitrary sharp black and white lines that scientists draw upon a world that lacks sharp lines and is composed of shades of gray. Whether two kinds are two closely related species or two distantly related races is a fact about terminology, not a fact about the world.

                  Models that assume randomness fail to predict.

                  Chance and necessity, randomness followed by selection, explains all in biology, and adequate predicts all that is predictable. That Darwin’s account is consistent with the world that we see is apparent in data that was gathered before peer review poisoned the scientific literature.

                • pdimov says:

                  > “Darwinism 101: “Species” are rather arbitrary sharp black and white lines that scientists draw upon a world that lacks sharp lines and is composed of shades of gray.”

                  Darwinism 101 is pre-sequencing. On the genetic level, when two species have different number of chromosomes, it’s not exactly gray. And there can be no gradual changes between 45 and 46 chromosomes, as you can’t have 45.1, 45.2 and so on. It’s a pretty sharp line, and it lies somewhere.

                  Similarly, if the chromosomes are the same number but in a different order. Given a genome you can always tell which species it is, there’s no gray. You just check the order.

                  “Chance and necessity, randomness followed by selection, explains all in biology, and adequate predicts all that is predictable.”

                  A good summary of gradualism. No, it doesn’t adequately predict the future. Changes occur when they aren’t expected to, and don’t occur when they are expected to. Like the climate models, it explains the past, but can’t predict the future.

                • jim says:

                  On the genetic level, when two species have different number of chromosomes, it’s not exactly gray.

                  There are perfectly good species that have a variable number of chromosomes, for example chickens, pigeons, and pigs. If you want to divide chickens into two species on the basis of the number of chromosomes, chicken farmers will look at you funny.

                  Similarly, if the chromosomes are the same number but in a different order. Given a genome you can always tell which species it is, there’s no gray. You just check the order.

                  That gives humans more different species than you can shake a stick at.

                • pdimov says:

                  “There are perfectly good species that have a variable number of chromosomes, for example chickens, pigeons, and pigs.”


                  I’ll get back to you on that one after I ask someone more knowledgeable than (78, 80, 38).

                • pdimov says:

                  Someone more knowledgeable says that it’s impossible for perfectly good species such as chicken to have varying number of chromosomes.

                  Do you by any chance also think that chickens don’t have W chromosomes?

                • Cavalier says:

                  Chromosomal abnormalities usually result in infertility, notably chromosomal mismatches.

                • jim says:

                  For some species, not many, certain variations in chromosome number are not abnormal.

                • glosoli says:

                  Most of the thread was above my head.
                  I think Darwin’s gradualism is nonsense, I think modern science knows that.

                  But, I wonder if God forbids pig because we’re descended from pigs?

                  Meanwhile, did you know the connection you have with Barbary apes:


                • jim says:

                  For our own kind, whites originated around ten thousand years ago, the most recent of all the races. Gradual enough for you? At that rate, a hundred thousand years gives you a difference that no one could plausibly deny amounts to a species difference.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Chance and Necessity” by Jacques Monod is essential reading for Darwinists. It’s up there with “Plan and Purpose in Nature” and “The Extended Phenotype”.

                  Everything Jim says on this subject is right. ‘Species’ is a useful fiction, as indeed is ‘organism’. There’s nothing to be gained by nitpicking and insisting on the absolute capital-R Reality of everything. (A good philosophical primer for that area of thought is Dan Dennett’s “The Intentional Stance”.)

                  As for saltations, again Dennett’s instructive: “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” totally destroys the Gouldian saltationist ‘punctuated equilibrium’ idea. Basically the apparent leaps in evolution are an artefact solely of *scale*. Change the scale and things that looked smooth are now lumpy. Change the scale the other way and things that looked jumpy are now gradual.

                  Generally speaking, Darwinism’s austere (no magic epi-bullshit), adaptationist and far-reaching (genes operating on behaviour/environment outside their particular phenome).

                  Oh also Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour. Just saying.

                • pdimov says:

                  “whites originated around ten thousand years ago”

                  Whites are Sapiens/Neanderthal hybrids, and the latter went extinct 40Kya.

                • jim says:

                  Ten thousand years ago, not identifiable as white.

                • pdimov says:

                  By what criteria? And what does this prove, given that we’re still the same species as Africans, even after the hybridization event. How is this an argument in favor of gradualism?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Ten thousand years ago, not identifiable as white.

                  Today, Armenians aren’t identifiable as white.

                  I’m not sure that “white” is a useful category.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >given that we’re still the same species as Africans

                  This is more than one species of: lemur, kangaroo, deer, wolf, bear, rabbit, fox, rat, mole, giraffe, alligator, and gazelle… and a million and one subspecies thereof.

                  How is it, then, that there is one human species, not a single human subspecies, and this is its archetype?

                • Alrenous says:

                  Yes, ‘white’ don’t real.

                  However, you can for example distinguish causasians and mongoloids by examining the hip bones.

                  Caucasian basically means PIE descendents, doesn’t it?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  “Caucasian” is even more of a misnomer than white.

                  There are basically 3 sub-species of “human”: Africans, far Asians, and “Eurasians” or “PIE.”

                  Africans includes all the different kinds of black niggers in Africa.

                  Far Asians includes Australoids/Melanesians, Mongoloids (ching chong ding dong), and Amerinds.

                  Eurasian/PIE includes everyone between India in the east, Yemen in the south, Morocco/Portugal in the west, and Russia/Norway in the north.

                  It’s funny to put Abos and Japanese as the same sub-species, given that Abos are probably the most inferior and least neotenic “humans” in the world while Japanese are an uber-neotenic master race, but that’s the reality. Likewise, Cavalier must be offended when I say that black street-shitting Dravidians and white Aryans like himself are broadly the same sub-species, but that’s what it looks like. If the nips can swallow their pride, so can you.

                  Which is why we use “race” in the first place. We say that the Chinaman belongs to the yellow race and the Amerind belongs to the red race; we also differentiate between Europeans, whom we call “whites,” and the North Africans, Middle Easterners, and South-Central Asians, whom we do not call “whites.”

                  The only sub-species about which there’s no confusion is the niggers of Africa.

                  The Armenians, like “European Jews,” and like Turks, are the same sub-species as you are, but they’re more like half-white than white. The white category is not entirely useless, as it serves to differentiate Europeans from non-Europeans; within the white race, there are sub-races, such as Mediterraneans, Nordics, Alpines, or whatever.

                  It’s not helpful to define pure Semites or anyone with old Aryan blood such as North Indians or Persians or some Afghans or some Berbers as “white,” because we reserve that category to people whose ancestry is largely indigenous to Europe, which these groups’ ancestries are not.

                  Whiteness is not confined to the Hajnal Line, nor is it confined to K-selected populations. Vladimir is white. Shlomo, half-white. Abdul, non-white. Same sub-species, though.

                  Discriminating against Shlomo is not a problem, in the same way that discriminating against Barry Soetoro is not a problem. Half-white is not white.

                  But Cavalier wants to discriminate against Vladimir. For that purpose, he needs to differentiate between Nordics and Slavs. Both are white, but not the same kind of white. The Nordic category should include the British, the Germans, the French, the Scandinavians, and related peoples; while the Slavs (and Balts, and perhaps Magyars also – depends on how racist you feel at any particular moment) would be those other whites in Eastern Europe.

                  At this point in history, I think that it’s a completely misguided strategy on your part to discriminate against Vlad. But if that’s your thing, it’s best that you call your ideology “Nordicism.”

                  Apparently, though, even Nordicism is not exclusive enough for you, which is understandable, but then perhaps you should focus on territory in conjunction with race, and declare East Anglia as the homeland of the ubermensch. That’s when you know that your (racial) purity spiralling has gotten completely out of control, but in your view that’s a good thing, so so be it.

                • pdimov says:

                  “This is more than one species of: …”

                  Pre-sequencing, species was determined by “scientific consensus”, and (1) scientists like to discover new species, (2) “endangered species” has legal teeth so politics.

                  Post-sequencing, wolves and dogs are now the same species because same genome.

                  Human races are the same species because the genome structure is basically identical (within epsilon). No subspecies for political reasons; there’s no biological reason to insist on lack of subspecies. If aliens existed, their biologists would have consensus that human races are at least subspecies.

                • jim says:

                  No one, however, wants to sequence the bones of native Tasmanians and coastal aboriginals, who are quite obviously not the same species. Furthermore, I doubt that human genomes as similar as wolf and coyote genomes, and am quite sure that pretty much every human race differs from each of the others by more than Californian spotted owls differ from barred owls.

                  DNA sequencing reveals that many coyotes are recently descended in the female line from the same individual as wolves.

                • pdimov says:


                  Those evil Brits, wanting to use the bones of our ancestors for “scientific” “experiments”.

          • peppermint says:

            so buy a 10$ instant read thermometer with a sharp probe and cook it to 165 inside, side benefit of doing it right is perfectly cooked meat every time

            or eat those flavorless crackers kikes pretend to like every spring

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            I researched the Bible “autistically” between 2010 and 2012; there was even a time when I sincerely believe in it. And by the way, I’m also a “nut,” in that I do believe in a higher power, and I also believe that that my life has been strikingly influenced by this higher power.

            But it’s exactly my extensive knowledge of the Bible that tells me that the truth is to be found elsewhere. All the pro-Bible arguments rest on a single and simple line of reasoning: “it could not have been written by humans without divine intervention.” But that is patently false. For each segment of the Bible, there is a perfectly human explanation as to how — and why, when, where, and by whom — it was written.

            Now you can say: “the whole is larger than the sum of its parts.” I won’t argue against that. I’ll note that any believer in any religious script could say that, and because this argument is based on subjective judgement — and, as such, is unfalsifiable — there is no point arguing against it.

            We could go over each and every part of the Bible, and I could do my best to explain to you the circumstances of its writing to the best of my knowledge, and at the end of the day, you could still say: “the whole is larger than the sum of its parts,” and I’d have nothing to use as a counter-argument, because you would be making an argument that superficially sounds objective, when in really it is purely subjective.

            The religious believer is thus left with: “I understand that the Bible could have been written by humans without any divine intervention, by I still choose to believe that a divine intervention has occurred, because [reasons].” Again, I’ll leave it at that, because at that point the discussion is usually inundated with a whole host of unfalsifiable statements.

            To make an analogy – have you sen these?:


            You see: if you *want* to believe, then why not? We’ve been visited by those from the “outside.” Sure. Is there a human explanation not requiring an arrival of extra-terrestrial beings to Earth for these drawings? Yes, there is. But if you acknowledge that, then say: “yeah, okay, but I still think that it’s more likely to be an actual documentation of ancient astronauts,” I really am left with no counter-argument. Whatever, m8.

            I do believe in a higher power, in that I believe that there is a being that makes things that are statistically unlikely to happen happen. But that also is a subjective judgement, which is why I don’t go around proclaiming my gospel. In my purely subjective view, “God” is not necessarily the creator of the world, nor is he involved in everything that happens in the world. Sometimes, though — by no means often — He makes things happen that would not have ‘naturally’ happened.

            (I’d share a room with you in an asylum – no homo)

            I have found no reason to link any ‘unnatural’ event that happened in my personal life to any specific religion; I do, however, link those events to an awesome higher being (God) endowed with superpowers. As far as God’s influence over history, I *suspect* that He is kind of an antisemitic troll, and that there *could be* a supernatural force behind Christianity (which is not the same as “Christianity is the truth”), but that’s about as far as I’d be willing to go with my speculations about the nature of divine influence over worldly events unrelated to my personal life.

            One last thing: as a white man, you can come up with a religion more impressive than OT + NT. That’d be better for you than believing that ancient Jews had known the truth about God.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘the truth is to be found elsewhere’

              Where is this ‘elsewhere’ you mention? Have you found it?

              As a white man, with some prior knowledge of the issues with the Jews in my country and elsewhere, I was delighted to read in the OT so far how hopeless the Jews generally are. All of them. If the bible were just written by men for men, by Jews, they definitely would have edited out their many stupid moves against God. Even when He was up on Mount Sinai with Moses they became impatient and made a golden calf to worship (and He’d just rescued them and fed them manna). They’re terrible people most of the time. But all of that is included, which adds to its authenticity for me.

              I can’t help myself, I can’t just come up with something better than the OT and NT. All I can do is read them, study them, and see where it takes me. If I eventually conclude it’s all fake, I’ll move on. I would be surprised if that happens though, based on my reading so far.

              I mean, the jubilee thing, every 49 years. Amazing.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >Where is this ‘elsewhere’ you mention? Have you found it?

                Things beyond my knowledge are, by definition, things that I do not know. I don’t really know who/what God really is, and it’d be arrogant on my part to make assumptions jus’ ‘cuz.

                • glosoli says:

                  No offence intended with this question, but is it possible your lifestyle made Christianity difficult for you? So you moved on, even though you did believe for a time.

                  I’m thinking of the parable of the seeds.

                • Your Wife's Son says:


                  Once I had believed because I was impressionable; then I disbelieved because I figured that there was no legitimate reason to believe other than wishful thinking; now I’m an “agnostic believer” (I think that there is a higher power, but I am skeptical about it, not knowing much about it), which may or may not stem from wishful thinking.

                • glosoli says:

                  To be honest, even though I’m now a very firm Christian, I don’t really know who/what God really is.
                  But it seems clear He created our universe from nothing. I hope the answers to these questions will be forthcoming in heaven.

                  Re this you wrote: ‘at that point the discussion is usually inundated with a whole host of unfalsifiable statements.’

                  I have found so far in my reading of the bible and the lessons it conveys that literally everything I’ve become red-pilled about in the past 18 months is already contained in the bible. And more besides, like this 50th year jubilee cycle. There’s no way biblical insights such as these could have been made up by bronze age peoples. So I hope you perhaps will revisit the bible one day soon, as you seem like a man that deserves eternal salvation.

            • pdimov says:

              “I do believe in a higher power, in that I believe that there is a being that makes things that are statistically unlikely to happen happen.”

              What makes you think that? Anything specific that doesn’t fit?

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Just things that happened to me IRL which I’m not willing to divulge; I have no doctrine to push in this regard, so you can’t accuse me of depriving you of Salvation or Heaven or whatever because of this reluctance to share it. As I said though: not physically impossible stuff, but statistically unlikely stuff.

          • Hank Rearden says:

            Gott (God, Gotin, Godin, Wotan, Woden) never required genital mutilation. The Jew’s Jehovah did. May God help you remember his name before Thor’s Day arrives.

    • Hank Rearden says:

      glosoli desperately needs an Aryan afterlife narrative that adequately assuages his mortality salience fears, while cutting-out le happy afterlife merchant middleman. Can somebody serve his terror management needs better than the kikes?

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Le happy afterlife merchant middleman is only bad to the extent that he prevents you from inventing scientific inventions that could extent your longevity and the quality of your life (because, in such a case, he made you too busy barking up trees of superstition); otherwise he’s not that bad a merchant.

        • Hank Rearden says:

          Le happy afterlife merchant demands you hate and forsake your own blood and soil, and even your own life. (Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:27-30, John 12:25) Which detracts from science and inventiveness, and tends towards this form of pious lethargy:

          ♫ Ain’t got time to fix the shingles, ain’t got time to fix the floor, ain’t got time to oil the hinges… ♪

          • glosoli says:

            Heh, you’re clutching at straws now my friend.

            I was 49 years as an atheist, was perfectly happy. But I dodn’t hassle Christians. How sad a life that would be.

            The truth just happened to fall into my lap. Still perfectly happy.

            My own personal salvation and the afterlife is not what has made me a believer. If it all proves to be false when I die, I will take my lumps then.

            In the meantime, by following God’s laws, I’l live a good life and do good by my fellow men. I doubt you have any idea how to even define good? Clearly some bitterness towards Christians flows through you, I wonder why (I know why, satan has you).

            If you want to have a pop at me and my faith every day, keep going, you’ll tire before I do, and you’ll never make a substantive point that I can’t disprove. All you hater-atheists are like broken records, boring.

            And whatever you do, accept that men can marry men, and that girls can be boys, and that races can live happily together, and that usury is a good thing. Because we all know those are your truths. Heh, prog cuck.

            • Hank Rearden says:

              I’m not an atheist, never have been. Can you do nothing but tell lies, christfag?

            • Hank Rearden says:

              P.S. Since you’re onto the subject now, Jesus carried on with his Beloved in public like a pederastic San Francisco flamer. (John 13:23-25) And early Christian art of Jesus and his Beloved boytoy copies the pederasty of Zeus and Ganymede.


              And aren’t you going to be a Bride of Christ? Enjoy consummating that marriage, christfag.

              • jim says:

                You are projecting twenty first century sensibilities into times and places where they are grossly inappropriate.

                In times and places where homosexuals get thrown from high buildings, men feel free to express their affection for each other in ways unthinkable today.
                Homosexuals are a signaling hazard. If King David dare not love Jonathan, this undermines elite cohesion. This is precisely why we need to throw homosexuals from high buildings, so that very masculine men are free to carry on like that.

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  No, Jim, I’m not. /wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece A young beardless boy laying in the bosom of an older bearded man indicates pederasty, then and now. You’re glossing the degenerate parts of the New Testament that nobody wants to admit are degenerate.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.” 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

                  How the hell did you arrive at homoeroticism from this? Where’s the “beardless young boy”? C’mon, some male-male intimacy used to be a thing, and in this case that isn’t even intimacy – they were squatting next to each other, like Slavs. At least, that’s how I imagine it to have occurred, not being a педик.

                  Are you saying that the Essenes shunned women because they were a bunch of homos?

                • Hank Rearden says:

                  “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” is the way a more honest translation reads.

                  If you’re snuggled into the bosom of some other man, and openly in love, don’t be surprised if folks think you’re a degenerate faggot. Especially when, in context, that kike-faggot Jesus:

                  1. Banned normal male-female relations in his perverted utopia, in favor of angelic androgyny. (Matt. 22:30)

                  2. Encouraged men to transition to a less manly physique by castration. (Matthew 19:11-12)

                  3. Mocked normal men’s sex drive towards women. (Mark 9:47, etal)

                  4. White-knighted for whoring skanks. (John 8:4-11)

                  Jews gonna jew. Hasn’t changed for 2000 years.

                • jim says:

                  All that stuff, in a society were gays are suppressed, is not a signal of gayness. You are reading about a substantially less sexually degenerate society, and grotesquely misinterpreting the signals: Homosexuals are a signaling hazard.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m happy to leave WootanClanists to get on with their tree hugging, we all have free will.

                  But why do tree-huggers spend so much energy attacking Jehovah and Jesus, and always with futility?


                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  That a Wotanist like you could miss it that Jesus was Loki in disguise, trolling the hell out of the Jews, is incomprehensible. Anyway…

                  >Banned normal male-female relations in his perverted utopia, in favor of angelic androgyny.

                  The Buddhist concept of transmigration tells you that you are karmatically connected to everything and anything in the world, in a sense that your inner essence or “energy” could take, or has taken, the shape of a male, female, human, animal, object – it’s all one thing anyway, maaan. I guess Buddha was a conniving Heeb.

                  >Encouraged men to transition to a less manly physique by castration.

                  Now, you see, there is legitimate criticism to be made here, but you have missed it. The problem is not that some men opt for castration for whatever reasons – it is actually better off that some men get castrated, it’s also better off when some females get hysterectomy. Transfiguration isn’t always transsexualism.

                  Rather, the legitimate criticism is that Jesus proclaimed eunuchism to be holy. That’s indeed “problematic,” I have to admit, since you don’t want infertile men to have higher status than fertile men, just as you don’t want infertile women to have higher status than fertile women – TFR is sacred.

                  But then again, I don’t see many eunuchs prancing around nowadays, nor was it ever an exceptionally common practice, so does it really matter?

                  >Mocked normal men’s sex drive towards women.

                  Would you rather he said: “leer at any cunt who passes by, and constantly ponder the joys of shagging?” Would that — unlike his actual words — *not* have made him sound like a kike pervert? The Jews are notoriously horny perverts, so Jesus gave them a good dominatrix performance, humiliating them for their sexuality. I lol’d.

                  Listen to glosoli’s advice – take it easy.

              • Markus says:

                By necessity my grandfather could still sleep with other men without anyone calling him a fag, of course this is completely incomprehensible to an atheist pagan.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Good to hear, Glosoli! I’ll contact you on Skype shortly; been busy, left it to long.

      • glosoli says:


        I started on the Rushdoony book. Hard going, but I was disappointed to read his weak acceptance of the abandonment of the Sabbath.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          I appreciate you starting on Rushdoony. He lived in different times; he pushed the message as far as he could without losing his audience entirely. But for the Sabbath stuff, he concluded it was Sunday, and based on the information available back then, that was reasonable. When I share the info I’ve learned, it blows the whole Saturday/Sunday debate out of the water; some amazing fulfillments of prophecies.

          • jim says:

            The point of setting a day of rest is to make sure everyone takes time off at the same time so that believers will socialize with believers. It really does not have to be any particular day.

            The correct way to do it would be to make sure that every fourth day of rest occurred on a full moon, plus local rest days locked to the solar year rather than the moon timed to coincide with local harvests and the availability of local seasonal foods, plus special rest days locked to the solar year and local harvest festivals rather than the moon, commemorating real and mythical events that provide social cohesion.

            • Hank Rearden says:

              Our pre-Christian ancestors once enjoyed the correct way, a lunisolar calendar as you describe.

              “They assemble, except in the case of a sudden emergency, on certain fixed days, either at new or at full moon; for this they consider the most auspicious season for the transaction of business.” -Tacitus [wiki/Germanic_calendar]

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Why have separate solar and lunar years, rather than a combined luni-solar calendar? The signs in the sun moon and stars are simple enough to read, and universal in scope.

              • peppermint says:

                A year that doesn’t start on a new moon isn’t a lunar year, and a year that doesn’t start on xmas isn’t a solar year. 365 day solar year for profane things, things men care about, that need to take weather into account. 13 month lunar year for social/sacred events.

  21. Garr says:

    I think it’s “lift weights”, with “pump iron” lingering as an archaic phrase from the ’70s.

    (I remember a lady professor saying that maybe women can do everything men do because of the fact that there are “female weightbuilders.”)

  22. Cavalier says:

    The secret to eating well is the art of the pan sauce.

    This dude is awesome:

    The flat iron is the best cut for the budget; it’s a borderline ribeye at 1/2 to 1/3 the price.

    I would be interested in hearing what you do for estrogen control.

    • jim says:

      0.15 anastrozole every two days. Lots of people use 0.5mg every day. But watch it, too much anastrozole will crash your estrogen below healthy male levels – resulting in turning you into an old woman – no morning wood, irrationally emotional, morally weak. On the other hand, too much estrogen will also kill your morning wood and cause you to be irrationally emotional. Not to mention that too much variation in estrogen levels, up and then down again, will cause you to be irrationally emotional and will mess up your sex drive in strange ways. Male estrogen needs to be stable, moderate, and middle of the road. The fatter you are, the harder it is to keep estrogen stable and moderate. That I take that amount of anastrozole should not imply that someone else should take that amount. Check your estrogen levels, and your morning woodie. Regular morning woodie and usual sexual inclinations means your estrogen level is probably OK. Too much estrogen is bad for males, too little estrogen is bad for males, and changes in estrogen level are bad for males. So taking too little is less risky than taking too much.

  23. Alrenous says:

    I go for 10 000 D. I get noticeably ill from infections if I use less. Natural production plateaus around 20 000.

    It’s long been known that meat is warrior food. More generally, it’s what you eat if you want to get work done. I have no need to lose weight. The health penalties for falling off the wagon are immediate and obvious.

    Gravy isn’t really wheat based. It’s vegetable (e.g. broccoli) stock that’s had meat cooked in it. It’s not viscous without starch, but it’s still gravy. Alternatively, you can take roast drippings and cook vegetables in them. Still best to boil out most of the water, though.

    Test: have some straight meat juices. Then cook vegetables in it and try it again.
    You can also do this: remember what steamed vegetables taste like. Steam some vegetables. Drown in butter, and compare.

  24. Ketoking says:

    You can easily replace wheat/gluten in gravy by using inulin (chicory root) and konjac root flour. That also adds lots of fermentable fiber.

    • EH says:

      Or arrowroot, which works better than flour for thickening by far. It needs to be mixed with a bit of not-hot fluid before going in the sauce or it will make gooey lumps. Still a carb, but the amount is trivial unless you’re on the Homer Simpson regimen:

      Dr. Hibbert: Your cholesterol level is lethally high, but I’m more concerned about your gravy level…

      Homer Simpson: Now, wait a second, you doctors have been telling us to drink eight glasses of gravy a day.

      • peppermint says:

        Or just onions, onions cook down into sauce. Some meat fat and juice can mix into creamy cheese sauce. Lots of ways to replace that which hides the lack of food ingredients with food, or you can mix in more queer powders from tropical islands.

      • TBeholder says:

        > you doctors have been telling us to drink eight glasses of gravy a day.
        It just goes round and round, doesn’t it?
        The earliest example of mocking this quackery AFAIK was Mark Twain: «and she never observed that her health-journals of the current month customarily upset everything they had recommended the month before».

        • peppermint says:

          you know what they say, if you stack all the scientific papers on top of each other, the top moves faster than light, which isn’t a spacetime problem because information can’t have a spacelike worldline

          (n.b. relativity is an intentionally loaded word and Einstein an attention whore chosen by the jewspapers, the future will speak of Poincaré spacetime and Hilbert spacetime, while future scifi will finally integrate Poincaré spacetime into its worldview instead of demanding that the future look like the present in the sense that billionaires and rich boomers can theoretically go anywhere except North Korea in a few hours)

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            If all motion is relative, how do objects gain energy/mass as they increase in velocity?

            Checkmate atheists.

  25. j says:

    You should also drink red wine.

  26. […] How to lose weight […]

  27. Oliver Cromwell says:

    You can judge a man by what he eats.

    • mikey says:

      Anyone try the potato hack? I saw what seemed to be a smart food guy on Joe Rogan and it sounded pretty good. I am trying it. I can’t do much exercise due to arthritis.

Leave a Reply