Kathy Forth’s suicide

Kathy Forth offed herself, leaving a lengthy suicide note in which she accused numerous men of sexually harassing her, and the entire society of ignoring this terrible sexual harassment, thereby driving her to suicide.

Fat, pushing forty, and supposedly suffers unbearable amounts of sexual assault.

Back when she was hot, the amount of sexual assault she suffered was entirely bearable.

All women love drama, all women create drama, and all women create drama because they are looking for a spanking from a strong man. All women are like that. Childlessness and the lack of a strong man in their lives greatly worsens this problem.

Not all women make false accusations of sexual harassment, not all women kill themselves, but all disruptively create drama and problems: The ones not under the authority of an alpha male, and the ones that have remained childless while their fertility is running out, create more disruption, more drama, and more problems.

They are all cruising for a spanking, every single one.

All the sides in this debate that are permitted within the Overton Window are the same insane side. Scott is evil, depraved, decadent, and insane, #metoo is even more evil and more insane, and the fat old cat lady who offed herself was ridiculous, hilarious, evil, sinful and insane, her over the top evil, and her over the top vanity being hilariously funny to any sane person. Any remotely sane person commenting on that reddit thread gets instabanned. Anyone who manages to post twice on that thread is evil or insane, and most likely both. That thread is a conversation in the lunatic asylum.

Every woman lusts for drama. Fat, and pushing forty, people were ignoring her: Men were ignoring her. So she decided to go out in a blaze of glory, the ultimate “Hey look at me” opera, a gigantic soap opera of martyrdom.

Kathy Forth was evil and spent her life ruining other people’s lives out of depraved, foolish, and ridiculous sexual lust.

It is normal, and indeed universal, for childless unowned women who are fertile age, or not very long past fertile age, to destructively and self destructively destroy their social and organizational environment, burn the family assets, disrupt the business, divorce, etc. Kathy took this to extremes.

All Women Are Like That. Kathy more than others.

When a woman creates drama she is unconsciously, and in Kathy’s case quite consciously, hoping to smoke the alpha male out of hiding so that he will take possession of her and give her a spanking. She flat out tells us in her suicide note. In her suicide note she tells of her fantasies for powerful alpha male to take possession of her, to own her, to command her, supposedly in order to protect her from all this supposedly terrible sexual harassment.

This is what female lust looks like. It is not genitally focused like male lust, but that does not make it better, it makes it worse. Much worse.

During her fertile years, a lustful woman is not funny. Past fertile age, a lustful childless woman is hilarious.

Not every woman makes false rape and false sexual harassment allegations, but every woman acts disruptively, every unowned fertile age woman acts more disruptively and causes great damage, childless unowned women even more so, and childless unowned women continue doing so well past fertile age, while women with children calm down as their fertile period ends, particularly women who have previously experienced the firm hand of the father of their children.

182 Responses to “Kathy Forth’s suicide”

  1. Cloudswrest says:

    “So she decided to go out in a blaze of glory, the ultimate “Hey look at me” opera, a gigantic soap opera of martyrdom.”

    Exemplified by Daffy Duck.


  2. Jeffrey S. Forth says:

    One last afterthought as Kathy’s father. Did not have much contact with Kathy after age15 or so. Her mom, who makes Kathy’s personality look 👀 like a rose garden. This is what she was exposed to, perhaps karmically, since we provided a body for her. From what I understand from her mother who wanted to pursue criminal charges, Kathy went to live with a man in Australia, who isolated her from her family, and drugged her, and from what I understand was farmed out as a sex slave. Finally getting lucid enough to make her way to the Melbourne police dept. she ended up in an Australian mental institution for 6 or so weeks. I did not know any of this until after she decided to end her life. I can only surmise that after the Australia experience, she most likely suffered from PTSD, from the trauma and the betrayal of someone she trusted. We all have our ups and downs, trials and tribulations. What is not right, fair, or honorable for any gender to do is to purposely drug someone without their consent, as in the case of my daughter, and control them to the point that they do things they would not normally do. I only think she could reconcile what she was subjected to. When one hits a dead end, killing ones body seems to be the only way out. I have stared into that precipice. I have not owned a gun since I was 18 – window of opportunity. A dectective told me that Kathy bought a rifle, left her ID on the gun store counter, and immediately went across the street and ended her life. I currently volunteer at MAMI of Fupage County. There are many troubled people out there with Mental Illness. PTSD is a category of Mental Illness. Everyone deserves a break, and the benefit of the doubt as we are all human, and I believe to be able to reign in our emotions and attitudes so that we do not make other people’s lives more difficult, which results in making our own more troublesome.

    • Jeffrey S. Forth says:

      Errata. Kathy could not reconcile with the trauma she had been through.
      It is NAMI of Dupage County. National Association for Mental Health. Kathy’s mother is a force to be reckoned with, obviously she exhibited some of her mothers more combative side.

  3. I think it is important to remember what the good book says, sow, and as ye sow, so shall ye also reap. To put it another way, what goes around comes around. Yet another word to describe this natural law, Karma, which is as much of a universal law as gravity.

    Think about it! Observe your driving habits and the types of situations you attract, or the types of people you attract with your attitudes.

    If we show kindness, tolerance, and understanding of others, helping make their lives easier, we will attract the same. If we are harsh, critical, and harmful to others, making their lives more difficult, so shall one also attract to oneself. Tis not so difficult to observe our own behavior and those around us. If we are angry we will attract angry people, of either sex.

    Take this one step further, think for a moment if the hypothesis of reincarnation is valid, that we as a reincarnating human being move from one lifetime to another strengthened by our virtues, and weakened by our vices. Now think of one’s attitudes, we perpetuate the idea’s and beliefs of one culture or another, and may perpetuate unfairness toward the opposite sex. What if, one incarnates as a man in one lifetime and a woman the next lifetime. A soul is androgynous, it exists beyond gender.

    If this is so, then the idea of our habitual thoughts and feelings, acts, attitudes, etc., will follow us from lifetime to lifetime like a shadow determining the circumstances of our next incarnation. So if we harm others in one lifetime, we are apt to be harmed in a future lifetime, perhaps by the same soul we harmed previously. The good book says an eye for an eye, etc. The karma of cruelty is the worst of all.

    Perhaps we incarnate with the challenge to change cultural norms and behaviors, like perceiving women as being less equal to men. So, souls incarnating as a woman may challenge certain attitudes, like harassment, rape, misogyny to help level the playing field. This certainly has been happening since the dawn of the industrial revolution in 1820, which of course evolved into the suffrage movement, and later the woman’s rights movement, strengthened by the civil rights movement in America in the 1950’s and 60’s.

    Technology is shifting the balance of power, it is the great equalizer. Men are having to change their views or suffer the consequences of their own prejudicial thoughts and attitudes toward women. The problem is, many men who engage in misogyny, and treat women poorly, complain bitterly when they are called on the carpet for their behavior. If they chose not to take responsibility for their own actions, society, and strong women will hold them accountable. Refusing to fess up to one’s actions and behavior is the same as cowardice. In my book, these guys lack the stones to be a true man and instead are little boys crying foul when they get caught in the web they have woven for themselves.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      For reincarnationists, Jim is perhaps best described as the Bishamon-Ten of the NRx pantheon.


    • Yara says:


    • jim says:

      Being, or pretending to be, apt to anger and vengeance tends to attract chicks eager to obey and serve. Does not attract people apt to anger and vengeance. Is intended to repel bad people, and in fact does so.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      >Think about it! Observe your driving habits and the types of situations you attract, or the types of people you attract with your attitudes.

      Think about what that says about Kathy Forth.

      Everyone around her in life “just happened” to be an awful person who drove her to suicide. Kathy claimed this was because she was just so good looking…

    • peppermint says:

      > A soul is androgynous, it exists beyond gender.

      (1) the nature of the soul, if it exists, is not for us to know
      (2) this is dualist faggotry
      (3) this contradicts the position you are just about legally required to take that trannies have the wrong bodies for their souls

      But yes, sneaky, worthless “nice guys” are finally getting laughed at like they should have been all along, while my gf tells her Boomer whore aunt that it’s retarded to shun guys who suck at delivering pickup lines because they’re the ones who are easy to get.

      The big difference is today’s soyboys and tumblrinas refuse to be taken advantage of.

    • Alrenous says:

      If we show kindness, tolerance, and understanding of others, helping make their lives easier, we will attract the same. If we are harsh, critical, and harmful to others, making their lives more difficult, so shall one also attract to oneself.

      That’s not what it means.

      Which is good. I specifically tested this empirically and if anything, the opposite is true.

      • Let’s be more specific. Cheaty, dishonest behavior does attract cheaty, dishonest people, and I mean that in the money sense, not sex sense. However, aggressive, harsh behavior does not attract aggressive, harsh people, it tends to attract weak and nice people.

        The reason for the first is that you cannot cheat a honest man. Every fraud promises some unearned reward. Honest people don’t want unearned rewards. Most scams basically make a promise of scamming someone else. It is something similar in sex, playboys who want quick sex before developing commitment will find whorish women, who are never reliable.

        The second is mostly just complementary dominance-submission.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Every fraud promises some unearned reward. Honest people don’t want unearned rewards.”

          Nonsense. Plenty of honest people want unearned rewards. They just don’t want to have to lie to and swindle people to get it. But most would be fine with accidentally striking oil.

          Older people from the WWII and silent generations get scammed so often not because they are less honest but because they are more gullible.

  4. Anyder says:

    As a newcomer to the EA and Rationalist communities, this post and the following discussion really opened my eyes to many things I had not considered before. You all have my genuine thanks – I feel enlightened to some of the insidious thoughts present in discussions that I had never realized were there before. Now I can’t believe I never saw them.


    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Cuddle pile, Shlomo fucks your gf, cult compound, etc., etc. Fuck off and die, you pretentious self-satisfied fag.

    • peppermint says:

      The enemies of the puritans cucked out by calling them puritans.

      We’re not cucking by calling them SJWs. SJWs claim to be ordinary people, the name SJW exposes them as aggressive activists.

      Puritans claim to care a great deal about purity. What they are is joymops.

      How do they lead witch hunts to gain power that they use to get you to ignore their sexual and other misconduct? By being fun sponges, not by being pure.

      A merriment broom’s utopia is total domination of every situation, the optimism of congeniality hypochlorite is that in the future all will bow before it in fear, and they won’t even have the responsibility of a king because their commands are obviously right and agreed upon.

      It’s time we took the words optimism and utopia away from bliss bleach.

      • Yara says:

        I like your wordplay, but I’m afraid you’ve finally begun to need a glossary.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          Don’t worry. In the glorious future, books of Generalissimo Peppermint’s wisdom, bound in boomer hide, will be distributed to all white men.

  5. TBeholder says:

    Fuckedness-uppedness increases:

  6. jay says:

    Verifiable proof why arranged marriages don’t work:

    And why female choice is important.

    • jim says:

      An enormous number of arranged marriages, many of them child marriages. Progs go trolling to lure girls out of their marriages – get few takers – the way I read it, only one taker is identified, and no explicit statement that there were any other takers. On the data provided, looks like arranged marriages, child marriages, and arranged child marriages have a near zero divorce rate.

    • Rule Britannia says:

      >female choice is important

    • Singh says:

      Stay the fuck out of Bharat, when General Dyer shot up Amritsar we followed him to London।।You can escape the solar system we’ll still get you।।We’re not going to convert to your nigger-gay worship religion just like we’re not going to convert to christianity or islam।।

      Bharat belongs to the Aryas &
      The Guru then said to his Sikhs, “All of the Khalsa should listen, carrying weapons is the highest action।।



      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        General Dyer died in his bed of natural causes and if he had been praised rather than condemned the Indian subcontinent might still have an above replacement birth rate.

      • jim says:

        You are thinking of Lieutenant-Governor Sir Michael O’Dwyer, governor of the Punjab, not Colonel Dyer, who shot up Amritsar and died in his bed of old age.

        The revolutionaries that Colones Dyer shot up were going to destroy your society and your religion, and perhaps they have.

        Guru Gobind Singh made it clear that Sikhism is a manly religion. The British recognized it as a manly religion. Is it still a manly religion?

        The current rulers of India, like the “international community”, unlike the Lieutenant-Governor Michael O’Dwyer and Colonel Dyer, do not think it is, or should be.

        You are still ruled by outsiders, by people who don’t share your language or your values. But Colonel Dyer and Sir O’Dwyer had a lot more respect for your values than the current lot have.

        • Singh says:


          No & Sikh deserve to be purged from existence unless they correct course, which they seem to be slowly doing through reinstating the Gurbani of Guru Gobind Singh||

          [And the Guru remarked], Adorning [unshorn] hair on your head, you shall be warriors, fastening weapons to your waist, and adopting Singh [Tiger] in your name.

          [You shall] wear the blue dress of Mata Kali [The Dark Goddess]

          Conducting war with the Turks you will kill and stop [their tyranny].
          Bansāvalināmā, page 151, verse 292-293

          You speak in terms of respect, as if we’re not tasked by Guru Gobind Singh Ji to rule Ourselves & All of You||

          These elements entered society with the British & the British run Secular State still genocides Hindus||
          The True Hindu Dharma is Khalsa & those who want to be saved from, and destroy the coming Plagues of the Kali Yuga will be wise to join them||

          The Guru then said to his Sikhs, “All of the Khalsa should listen [to this directive], carrying weapons is the highest action.

          British tried to suppress the teachings and sayings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, by claiming they are too Hindu & trying to reform Sikhi to be more like the Protestant Pacifism that you decry on this blog|| (Singh Sabha Lahore) They did & continue to try to do this but this is a dif topc & comment already long. If you want to discuss this let me know an email.

          You should know that whatever military men did or not, they die in battle they are in Svarag||
          The meanderings of political mandarins is the real issue, and the problem is only growing in significance|| (Bio-Leninism)

          We will overthrow the Secular State & Re Create the Empires of Vedic Kings such as Chakravartain Samrat Sri Pariksht or Samrat SaravDaman ie Bharat (SaravDhaman = Subduer of all)||

          Fact is, you’re still slaves of the same people. You can unite or Perish,

          End of the day beef eaters whether Muslim or Christian (British, Portuguese, Dutch, French, w/e) have no right to Step Foot in Bharat let alone exist in this world||


  7. Todd Gregory says:


    This is why Europe NEEDS diversity

    Compare France (majority People of Color) to Germany (mostly white)

    You don’t embrace diversity you LOSE BADLY

    • Roberto says:

      Furthermore (goyim), murdering your national intelligentsia and Monarch is just what you need; had — for instance — the Romanovs not been murdered by Effective Altruists, Russia would probably never have become a SUPER-POWER, and would today be as developed as the Congo! These stupid borscht-niggers should be grateful for the great gift bestowed on them by Lenin, Sverdlov, and Yurovsky – all 3 being Effective Altruists par excellence.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Catcucks btfo yet again.

      • Roberto says:

        Laugh all you want, but when glosoli gets RUPTURED straight into paradise while you remain down on Earth to face off against demonic hellspawn hyena-wolf hybrids, then the joke will be on YOU.

  8. peppermint says:

    > Women are every bit as able as men to operate beyond their instincts and hormones

    90s shows like Stargate SG1 and everything before was bigoted against women, but fortunately GenZ was raised in a new world, so let’s ask them what they think about women

  9. Glenfilthie says:

    Jesus Jim. Where did you develop your ideas about women? A fuggin trailer park? No not all women are like that. All TIRE BITERS are like that. And hell’s bells – a suicidal lunatic is proof of your argument?

    Girls are prone to drama. They used to grow out of it in their mid teens, but now? The behaviour is more widespread because of helicopter parents and over protective fathers. Doubling down on that is the fact that women have no role models anymore.

    Women are every bit as able as men to operate beyond their instincts and hormones, same as us guys. You don’t notice them because they are doing the job of the faithful house wife. They don’t go round fucking chads and alpha poseurs, or accusing innocent men of sexual assault. If they do it’s because nobody will hold them to a higher standard.

    You seriously need to familiarize yourself with real women, fella. The advice you are giving these youngsters is going to get them hurt.

    • jim says:

      > Where did you develop your ideas about women? A fuggin trailer park? No not all women are like that. All TIRE BITERS are like that. And hell’s bells – a suicidal lunatic is proof of your argument?

      If you cannot see what is in front of your eyes, here are some statistics that you need to explain: The distribution of sexual harassment complaints, and the distribution of startup venture capitalist failures.

      If you don’t like my explanation of these very odd statistics, my explanation being that women are always shit testing attractive men, always cruising for someone with the stones to rape them and beat them, that their uncontrolled sexual lust seriously disrupts the workplace, and indeed most mixed groups, creating a hostile environment for males, in that males get shit tested when they don’t want to be, and generally fail the shit test, what then is your explanation?

      Lust means that women are always shit testing attractive males, and hypergamy means that these shit tests are always calibrated to fail the vast majority of men, which results in women acting disruptively.

      All women are like that, as anyone can see, were seeing not forbidden. If one woman was different, Feynman, Brad Pitt, and Einstein would have had an easier time.

      • simplyconnected says:

        From your article on the distribution of startup venture capitalist failures:

        > The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

        That’s true, but perhaps more important is lack of incentives.
        As Roy Baumeister:


        and Satoshi Kanazawa:


        both point out, there is a huge gap in motivation between men and women. For men there is a significant payoff to achievement at work, for women… she’ll be out-competed by the cute girl at the reception, even if she is a top executive.

        What woman would dedicate a lifetime of (often solitary) work to achieve effectively nothing in return?

        Just an anecdote, a friend of mine had a (very masculine) female advisor who would only hire male students because (paraphrasing): they will work hard because they don’t have a plan B. (Plan B is of course: get married and let the husband take care of making money.)

        I know you know this, which is why I’m surprised enough to comment.

        • jim says:

          > both point out, there is a huge gap in motivation between men and women.

          That would predict that startups with female only leadership would be less common than startups with mixed leadership, which would be less common that startups with male only leadership.

          The striking and dramatic difference, however is failure rate, not participation. It is not that female leaders are uncommon that needs to be explained, it is their utterly disastrous impact on men.

          The striking fact about failure rate is that we not only observe that startups with female only leadership are massively less successful than startups with male only leadership, we also observe that startups with mixed leadership are even more massively less successful than startups with female only leadership, that all startups with mixed leadership fail.

          None of your proposed mechanisms predict the total failure of all startups with mixed leadership.

          The fact that needs to be explained is not that female leaders are uncommon, it is that powerful women fail, and, even more dramatically, the presence of powerful women causes powerful men to fail. All startups with mixed leadership fail, as near to all of them as makes no difference.

          None of your proposed explanations admit the existence of this absolutely total phenomenon, let alone explain it. Women, if not under the authority of a charismatic alpha male, ruin everything. All women are like that. All organizations are like that. It is not just that women in leadership fail to contribute as much as men in leadership, it is that they destroy what men build. All women, all of the time, at least in our culture where women are allowed to go feral, and allowed to misbehave in ways that in saner cultures would result in her being immediately whacked with a stick and put on a leash like a dog that chases chickens, allowed to misbehave in ways that in saner cultures would result in the powerful men in the organization with mixed leadership immediately removing her from power with physical force, and imprisoning the misbehaving female to the bedroom and the kitchen.

          Women in power, all women in power, misbehave in ways that in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, in the societies from which we are quite recently descended, would result in them being coercively forced to focus on activities leading to them having lots of children and grandchildren. From the point of view of natural selection, being whacked with a stick and attached with a long chain to the bed of a powerful man is a better outcome than becoming the female CEO of a successful business. Unless, of course, that female already has lots of children and grandchildren. And, surprise surprise, women with children and a masterful husband can run things, but childless women and single women cannot, which is exactly what we would expect to be optimal behavior in the environment of evolutionary adaptation.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            “Women, if not under the authority of a charismatic alpha male, ruin everything.”

            They at best fall into the ‘mother’ role, or, more disastrously, the ‘single mother’ role. That’s no way to run a company.

          • simplyconnected says:

            > The striking fact about failure rate is that we not only observe that startups with female only leadership are massively less successful than startups with male only leadership, we also observe that startups with mixed leadership are even more massively less successful than startups with female only leadership, that all startups with mixed leadership fail.

            Indeed that is striking, and it is true that the ‘women do not have the incentives to work ridiculously hard and excel’-model does not explain it.
            My point was solely about the ratio of male to female top performers specifically in the fields you mentioned above of “top engineers, scientists, etc” (note that that specific list didn’t mention CEOs, just technical work).

            I will borrow another argument, this time from Steve Moxon who in a House of Commons inquiry on ‘Women in the workplace’

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwqTi6HN0pM (the video is gold, if anything to see the reaction of female politicians to hearing some evolutionary theory; TL;DR: they are disgusted and refuse to reply)

            makes the point that it is difficult from an evolutionary perspective to justify why women enter the workforce, and that he can only think of one reason: “to place themselves in the path of high status men”.
            I can think of an additional one: to make themselves economically self-sufficient so they don’t have to marry a beta, even if it means being the single mother of children conceived by alphas (afaik a preferable deal for them).

            That is in regards to the question of why they enter the workforce, and why we do not see as many true highly competent female scientists and engineers.

            As to the question of why female-led, and even more so male+female-led companies, fail catastrophically, I have nothing to add to what you said. Sadly, I doubt any intellectually honest research could currently be done on this question.
            What you argue seems to make evolutionary sense (but I am not an expert).

          • Mike says:

            Your posts are always spot on Jim. I think the point you often miss though when talking to people in the comments though is that people nowadays, having grown up in a “prog” environment, take extreme precautions in regards to exceptions. You always get pissed at people who wonder about when Male patriarchy or female obedience results in something grotesque or bad. Well the reason people always pester you about exceptions is because we all have been conditioned by our liberal society to think this way.


            Speaking of exceptions, is the above shitshow the fault of liberalism stoking it to ridiculous heights, or is this an example of “muh patriarchy” just failing spectacularly?

            • jim says:

              Taking extreme care with exceptions and distributions did not help Damore.

              They reacted as if he had reissued one of my posts. Probably should have.

            • simplyconnected says:

              Agree with you. But wasn’t talking about exceptions, just arguing that Jim missed the main factor in explaining his claim in paragraph 3 of:
              Paragraph 3 was a minor claim of that post, but looked like needed some rethinking. It may be nitpicking, but am I wrong in assuming people here expect a high standard of precision in their claims?

              • jim says:

                Minor claim, and in these circles well known and uncontroversial.

                The point of the post was

              • jim says:

                The third paragraph is uncontroversially true, is obvious to any engineer, and not contentious. You will find ample documented scientific support for that claim in Atavisionary’s book “Smart and Sexy”, but providing properly scientific support it is like providing properly scientific support for the claim that water is wet.

                I can simply see that it is true, and to doubt it would be to doubt my own sanity.

                And, seeing widespread bad female behavior in the workplace when seemingly no one else could see what I saw did cause me to doubt my own sanity. The question “Am I insane, or is everyone else insane?” was causing me a little unease. But seeing that a significantly smaller proportion of females than males have engineering smarts did not cause me any unease, nor any curiosity to look up the scientific data, because it was and is perfectly obvious that everyone else could see what I saw.

                Yet though everyone can see this rather minor difference between men and women, no one seems able to see astonishing and disruptive aggressive female behavior in the workplace. I had a shared office with three other engineers and observed a female diving under a desk to get at an engineer’s genitals in a shared office. I cannot imagine a male engaging in equivalent behavior.

                • Roberto says:

                  >I cannot imagine a male engaging in equivalent behavior.

                  Trannies? Faggots in general?

                • jim says:

                  Well, of course, but I cannot imagine a heterosexual gender conforming male engaging in equivalent behavior.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > The third paragraph is uncontroversially true

                  The claim that you make about aptitude distribution is as you say uncontroversially true, the ample evidence you reference is exactly as you say.

                  I am only claiming that there is (yet) another factor, which is lack of incentives (women seem to intuit that working non-stop to excel at work does not make them more competitive in attracting men). I claim this factor may be as important, if not more, than the differences in aptitude distributions (and there are big differences in distributions, as you point out).
                  As we know aptitude alone isn’t enough at the top levels, so lack of incentives must work to make the sex imbalance even higher.

                  About your more important point on female disruption in the work place, I have nothing to add. The fact that mixed male-female founder teams crash and burn the way they do (more so than all others), is a very interesting observation, and your take logical and reasonable.

                  The only other take on the phenomenon that you observe that I’ve heard of is from Steve Moxon in that House of Commons inquiry linked above. He claims that when you put men and women together at work what you get isn’t workplace competition, but “sexual display”. If I understand it correctly, his take is compatible with yours.

                • jim says:

                  > when you put men and women together at work what you get isn’t workplace competition, but “sexual display”. If I understand it correctly, his take is compatible with yours.

                  Indeed it is, but he neglects to mention that we are drastically suppressing even the most innocuous sexual display by men, while grossly disruptive behavior by women is entirely ignored.

                  The problem is not that women are engaged in sexual display. Female sexual display is makeup and high heeled shoes, which does not disrupt, while male sexual display is macho, charisma, and dominance, which can easily disrupt. The problem is that women are shit testing men in the workplace, which is always inherently disruptive.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > The question “Am I insane, or is everyone else insane?” was causing me a little unease.

                  As far as I can tell men at mixed workplaces are permanently walking on eggshells, I have heard some express their view in private which are completely at odds with what they say in public. I have seen innocuous conversations stop when the office feminist walks in the room. They know they might be fired if they noticed anything.

      • The Cominator says:

        AWALT may not be literally true but 99% of women are like that, and all women BECOME like that if they get sucked into a female friend group which most women cannot in the long term avoid doing.

        So while NAWALT may exist as a TEMPORARY and UNSTABLE state its not something to count on, its definitely not stable in areas where feminism is rampant…

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      >women aren’t like that, and they have just as much agency as men
      >also, it’s your fault that women are like that

      Thanks for the insight, boomer. I’ll just look the hiring manager in the eye and give him a firm handshake. I can’t believe I never thought of that!

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Nah, stay in the basement, soyboy. Child like you can’t handle adversity – and there is a lot of it out there for young men, that’s for sure.

        A lot of what you are seeing – the incompetent bull dyke managers, the fascist HR fatties, the office drama slut, etc etc – are the result of failed liberal social experiments. Try spanking one of those into respectful submission, Jim – and you’ll find yourself unpersoned and exiled for your conduct the way Ghomeshi was. And he was of their hive; where as you are a notorious crime thinker.

        There’s good women out there. Leave the tire biters and trailer trash to the self proclaimed alphas and PUA’s. show some self control and restraint and you will be rewarded.

        • Contaminated NEET says:


          Thus another meme enters the realm of the forever accursed. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust.

        • Roberto says:

          It used to be said that millennials are fond of putting things inside their asses; a practically universal trait. Not sure why you went with “soyboy.” Then again, if you boomercons had any clue, you’d figure that “liberals are the real racists” is a much weaker talking point than “racists are the real liberals.”

        • jim says:

          > you’ll find yourself unpersoned and exiled for your conduct the way Ghomeshi was

          Ghomeshi was only in trouble only many years after these events, when the chicks he beat up had ceased to be hot, and thus lost hope for subsequent booty calls.

          He made a good living in the progressive mass media environment for a long time after beating up numerous famous women. When he was eventually unpersoned, as a result of his numerous conquests hitting the wall and blaming him, he was unable to make a living in that business, and forced to adopt a new identity, which new identity is kind of broke, but still swimming in pussy.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            He’s screwing whores, Jim. Unless he wants a dose of the clap, or another run in with the grievance warriors – he’s gonna hit a wall of his own, sooner rather than later.

            • jim says:

              If you count movie actresses as whores.

              • The Cominator says:

                Before the 20th century they were considered if not the same then very similar.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                Obviously you missed that #MeToo thing, huh?

                • jim says:

                  If Weinstein had hit those whores with a stick, he would be fine.

                  He got in trouble for acting beta while using wealth and fame as a crutch. Fake alpha, or situational alpha. Also, of course, they were long past their sell by date, and knew they were not getting another booty call.

                  Women don’t want to beaten and do not want to be raped. But they want men who might beat them and might rape them, and despite the #metoo hyperbole, Weinstein was not that man. By “he raped me” they mean “I fucked him to get a role in his movie, and he did not call me.”

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Hogwash. How many women can you beat with a stick at once, Jim? As you say, Ghomeshi beat his whores like rented mules and they turned on him. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if Harv didn’t too… Weinstein and Ghomeshi got tarred and feathered because hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. This is why classical marriage arose the way it did – because it was a damned good deal for women, far more so than men.

                  That is why women lose their shit when you dump them. If you dump enough of them in a short time span don’t be surprised if they drag you through the wringer with them. If you are screwing trailer trash and liberal skanks, you will probably pay the piper sooner rather than later too.

                • jim says:

                  They did not turn on him because he beat them like rented mules. They turned on him after he had neglected them for many years.

                • pdimov says:

                  >As you say, Ghomeshi beat his whores like rented mules and they turned on him.

                  Well that’s the thing, they didn’t. Not until a few years after he stopped beating them.

                • peppermint says:

                  The chicks were posterior nonplussed because Weinstein was creepy and didn’t make them into big enough stars to be worth that creepy sex act.

                  The reason Weinstein was creepy is instead of grabbing them by the pussy and fucking them violently so they could brag to their friends about their hot sex with the director, he jerked off into a potted plant while asking them to show 8008135 and maybe touch his pecker, which is something they can only complain about to their friends who would be all like eww thats so weird you’re a star who could have anyone why would you come in sexual contact with that creepy little fat old weirdo imaging having a fat little old baby who grows up to jerk off into potted plants without the money to get a fine piece of ass.

                  Remember, what causes derriere disconcertion isn’t violence, violence is sexy, every woman loves seeing men fight over her and being dominated by a man. It’s the thought of sexual congress with a creepy guy who couldn’t even function in a straight up fight, who might have money, but doesn’t have it because of competence and would likely have loser children.

                  Women tell me this when they describe how turned off they were about getting messages on Tinder and OKCupid saying I have a good job and a house, marry me please. The correct thing for those guys to say would be, I think you have what I’m looking for, come to my house and see what happens.

              • Yara says:

                At least prostitution is an honest profession.

    • Starman says:

      “You seriously need to familiarize yourself with real women, fella. The advice you are giving these youngsters is going to get them hurt.”


      The boomer boomsplains again!

    • Steve Johnson says:

      >You seriously need to familiarize yourself with real women, fella. The advice you are giving these youngsters is going to get them hurt.

      Yeah, they might fuck up raising a daughter so badly that she turns out as a shitlib dyke.

      That would be a bad outcome – better be sure to avoid that.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Just listening to ya, I can kinda figure how impressed your parents are with you too. I’m sure they tried to raise you right just as I did with my kid – but Darwin and Murphy will have their way, I suppose.

        Somehow I don’t think having kids and doing the parent thing is something either of you will have to worry about, LOL.

        Call it a hunch.

  10. nonevah says:

    Hey Jim.
    Have you considered not commenting? Frankly, when accused of enabling sexual harassment, a neoreactionary’s endorsement is the last thing you want.

    • jim says:

      I rejoice to see leftists devouring each other and throwing each other to the crocodiles.

      Keeps them off my back.

      While they are busy destroying near, I will count as far, so they will leave me alone.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        It seems to me that it is primarily leftists who instantly apologise who are destroyed by these persecutions, just as Stalin’s purges are presented as indiscriminate terror but in reality only affected paid-up Party members.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Go back to the cuddle pile and keep paying Shlomo to fuck your gf for you.

    • Roberto says:

      What NEET said.

      You pathological altruists need to cut out your faggotized soy-morality and start patrolling your BPD-thots with utilitarian (sorry: “consequentialist”) efficiency. Show the world how goal-oriented you truly are – by getting your skanks under control.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Oh no, it’ll make the crazy leftists less functional if a bad thinker is the one who says the sky is blue!

    • Yara says:

      >muh optics

    • peppermint says:

      when accused of enabling [the consequences of liberalism], a [non-liberal]’s endorsement…

      Oh, but you wanted a culture of sex without defined consequences and roles and without men negotiating aggressively and women being willing to accept a raw deal but then feeling butthurt about it later.

      Do you understand what happened as the Millennials tried that between 2000 and 2018?

  11. Say It says:

    Out of context: Where do I find the live stream for all of this?

    Email untilyousaymyname@gmail.com

  12. TBeholder says:

    Terminal attention withdrawal? Ouch.

  13. Dan Kurt says:

    Could someone post a photo of this woman, Kathy Forth, as Google shows multiple females?

    Dan Kurt

  14. I know at least two women from my youth who were desperate for me to own them, they were highly depressed, had about zero self-worth, a very problematic family background. If I was the “selfish” type who would use this leverage to command a woman to give me anal and wash my car, I they would certainly would have obeyed. I rejected both (one friendzoned instantly, the other rejected after a short relationship) because they were sticky like flypaper, way too desperate, and I felt like I should have to roleplay a psychiatrist in our relationship (like helping them deal with a supposedly asshole brother and whore mother, of course the father was nowhere in the picture, I find it probably that was the root of the problem to begin with) and I felt neither the inclination nor the skill to do so. Also they were ugly.

    Now I am kind of afraid to look them up on Faceberg because I would give it 30% chance they killed themselves. I really hope they found a good owner. They themselves did nothing wrong, just were the victims of circumstances, both immediate and general social.

  15. Mike Hoffman's girlfriend says:

    Karlsson’s wife is next.

  16. Dave says:

    How is anyone able to reproduce anymore? Here’s a clue: In an unsuccessful attempt to make friends, my daughter attended sixth grade at a rural white public school, and discovered that half her classmates had daddies in prison. Even the white people who don’t breed with niggers are evolving into niggers!

    I think that’s what’s going to break our civilization, not financial collapse, hyperinflation, famine, or ecological catastrophe. Men who give a shit what women think, obey laws written by women, white-knight for damsels in distress, and pay taxes so that women can have a welfare state, are being culled from the gene pool by women unwilling to have sex with them. Feminists expect government to protect them from hostile men, as though government were some newly discovered third sex.

    • Eli says:

      When B used to comment here, that was precisely what he noted.

      This is not unique to humans. Wolves were culled off pretty much everywhere in the US. Now coyotes are evolving to become larger. Ultimately, any niche in nature will eventually be filled by something that already exists not too far from it.

      This, in other words, what’s wrong with the call to “kill the niggers” as panacea. If niggers are mostly an epiphenomenon rather than direct cause, then just killing niggers but not solving the systemic cause will help only temporarily.

      By the way, this situation is not unique just to America. In Russia, for a number of years now, the government has been sponsoring Russian women to breed. Which kinds of women and men, on average, do you think, have taken advantage of such program? I’ve long observed that all bureaucratic efforts to step into the role of family provider are ultimately dysgenic.

      • The Cominator says:

        Eli Putin has largely solved “the woman problem” in Russia by legalizing so called “domestic violence” (its not totally legal but unless you break bones its a small fine) this happened only last year so it will take some time to see the real effects.

        We should also note that Russia is the exception to women voting mostly left wing, in Russia they vote for Putin by a bigger % then men. Is it because he legalized “domestic violence”… maybe.

        • Roberto says:

          If Putin managed to significantly raise the TFR of white Slavs (as opposed to Tajiks, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, etc.), you could say that he solved the “woman problem.” Currently, white Slavic fetuses tend to get aborted more-so than they get birthed, and divorce is rampant. Sure, legalizing the putting of a bitch in her place is a step in the right direction, but Putin needs more drastic measures to prevent Russia from becoming a Central-Asian shithole within 3 generations.

        • Eli says:

          No. Divorce and custody laws are still the same. And again: poor whores are getting the government to be their sugars daddy, hence don’t need men.

          In light of this, no problem solved.

          • The Cominator says:

            If he decriminalized “domestic violence” surely more good things are coming soon…

            • pdimov says:

              Turning around a country the size of Russia is hard, and the effects are only visible years down the road. He is quite obviously fixing things, which is more than can be said of anyone else (in the West; Poland and Hungary obviously excepted).

          • Dave says:


            “Holding on to a good man long-term is an equally high-stakes matter. Divorce in Russia is easy; a powerful man can divorce his wife “in an hour,” according to one local insider. Under the country’s anachronistic divorce laws, husbands are generally not obliged to give their wives a penny, and they are often awarded custody of the children.”

            If average Russian men are not so privileged in divorce court, it hardly matters, because a man who earns $200 a month will not be paying his ex much in any case.

        • 1. Divorce legislation, actual judiciary practice and the gender of family judges matters more. And single mom welfare. Basically if the man as a provider is not replaced by the state or a divorce-raped version of himself. Domestic violence of the kind that causes wounds to be used as evidence isn’t really necesary. Don’t marry women so crazy that basically overpowering them, holding them, wrestling them, so showing physical violence in a non-wounding way does not calm down their hysterics. Since today marrying is not necessary to get sex, we can be picky and marry only if we find a sensible enough woman. Also, get in the habit of picking her up in the air every time you come home from work – cute romantic thing but also serves as a reminder who is stronger.

          2. Women are not voting left-wing, this is a misinterpretation. Trump had 53% of the white woman vote. Basically todays mainstream conservatives are centrists. Nice betas who would just let the machinery work. Boring and unsexy. Women vote for men who are far-left or far-right enough to take personal charge over the machinery. They vote for the personal power charme of the alpha male. Either a far-left Che Guevara type rebel, or the kind of “shaman” Obama was presented to be in his first electoral campaign (then that charme quickly evaporated when in office), or a Trump-Putin “kingly” type on the right.

          Nice guy mainstream conservatives, centrists, are making a mistake even by running. They are not fit to be leaders, they belong in the staff, the administration of leaders.

      • pdimov says:

        >This, in other words, what’s wrong with the call to “kill the niggers” as panacea. If niggers are mostly an epiphenomenon rather than direct cause, then just killing niggers but not solving the systemic cause will help only temporarily.

        This is academic. The systemic cause also prevents killing niggers, so for killing niggers to occur, the cause must be gone.

        • Eli says:

          Not seeing any reason for killing most of them. Lots of them are naturally strong, if quite dumb and lazy. They could be used for manual labor, given sufficient precautions are used. There is also a non-trivial amount of Whites in similar category.

          Any imbecile who cannot get out of self-inflicted debt obligation — which happens too often with those using credit cards — deserves to be presented with a choice: debt prison (where it’s a type of prison where calories are scarce, akin to what they had in England until 20th century) or an opportunity to sell oneself or his children into slavery.

          • The Cominator says:

            Slavery has the same problems as mass immigration. It puts people even responsible people at entry level out of work and encourages powerful interests to actively import people who in the long term are undesirables. Neoreaction generally gets a lot of things right but this support for chattel slavery even from a purely pragmatic POV is one thing it gets very wrong.

            I could see a limited role for indentured servitude, I could also see irresponsible women being sentenced to non hereditary slavery.

            • Eli says:

              Slavery does not imply chattel slavery, nor does it imply importation of foreign workforce, even if the incentive is there.

              I mean slavery as described in the Old Testament. Certain guidelines regarding treatment of the slave. Also, not hereditary slavery: a person could sell himself or his children for a certain period of time, agreed before the transaction, after which period they would be released.

              That does imply some control over the process, to prevent unnecessary abuse (eg damage to internal organs, scars on face, etc, taking away of virginity without marriage). It also probably requires an explicit prohibition against importing foreign slaves, even those obtained in war, unless it’s one woman per warrior or something along those lines.

              • The Cominator says:

                Slavery of any kind bad idea when applied to the economy long term.

                It might be a good idea as a temporary measure for all the shitlib progressive women who have been brainwashed though. No reason to keep most white male progressives around if it comes to a civil war in the aftermath… the women otoh (who in general will be banned from working other then in a few traditionally female professions) need to be put under the control of responsible men.

                • jim says:

                  Making able and industrious people slaves is bad for the economy. Slavery is an excellent solution for dealing with the large minority that are unlikely to be productive unless someone is standing over them with a sjambock, and apt to impose costs on other people if wandering around unrestrained.

                  African slavery was in substantial part the subsaharan solution for dealing with vagrants who hunt other people’s cattle and gather from other people’s gardens. If you have no substantial welfare state, and there is someone around who has no visible means of support, he is a problem. Killing him just for being a suspicious character, a very common solution, seems a bit drastic, and creates a society where it is difficult to have large scale organization, so you enslave him. If the society is more organized and larger scale, you haul him off to the authorities, who convict him of being an able bodied beggar, or a vagrant with no visible means of support, and enslave him.

                  You will notice that subsaharan Africans who have recently immigrated from Africa, for example Obama, are a lot more inclined to do productive work, get an education, and so forth, than afro americans descended from slaves – because the ancestors of Afro Americans were, for the most part, not enslaved by evil white slave raiders, but by local kings for vagrancy and petty theft, in accordance with ancient and long accepted laws.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Making able people slaves is bad for the economy. Slavery is an excellent solution for dealing with the large minority that are unlikely to be productive unless someone is standing over them with a sjambock, and apt to impose costs on other people if wandering around unrestrained.”

                  Slave societies tend to invest less in labor saving innovations. Sometimes good short term if you have a crazy labor intensive project (like a great wall on the Mexican border say) or a total war but generally bad for any society that practices it long term.

                  Yes part of the reason the South was so underdeveloped industrially compared to the North was climate and parasites but it was mostly due to being a slave economy.

                • Roberto says:

                  Nice try, viking. Learn to punctuate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim just accidently used my name… can you fix it.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing where I used your name. Give me the date and time of the incorrectly authored comment.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I did it like an idiot (autocomplete and didn’t check) two comments today.

                  I haven’t been sleeping well lately I guess… thank you

                  2018-06-24 at 21:44

                  2018-06-24 at 22:37

                • jim says:


            • jim says:

              Yes, slavery creates an incentive to import the worst, resulting in long term costs that are not born by the importer.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            “Lots of them are naturally strong, if quite dumb and lazy.”

            I’m not aware of evidence blacks are inherently stronger then whites.

            “They could be used for manual labor, given sufficient precautions are used. ”

            Or we could use white people and not have to use ‘sufficient precautions’.

            • Eli says:

              The West African descended niggers have more fast-twitch muscle fiber tissue. For certain activities, they are better adapted than White nigs. For example, they’re obviously better in basketball or sprinting. They were also quite effective in cotton plantations, more effective than Whites or Indians, as far as I remember from my reading on the subject. Likely that was in large part due to their natural resistance to malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases.

              I don’t know how slave pricing might work, but I’d imagine that the additional security measures and enforcement apparatus will affect their pricing in the markets, with those considered too expensive for their worth being ultimately found guilty of some crime and being made to suffer capital punishment or just left without food until they comply. Shifting that security burden to the central governments might help, but it also introduces the moral hazard of getting bureaucrats with no skin in the game involved, and we should know by now that it’s generally bad. Maybe pooling local resources is a better idea.

              Honestly, with the current amount of automation, most of their work might be relegated to small farms or homesteads. Then again, they’re basically extra mouths to feed. It’s kind of hard to project, especially not knowing the level of post-cataclysm tech and population structure and density.

              In short: A lot of assumptions have to be made. It is beyond my predictive abilities.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                Strongman competitions are dominated by ice giants, like Brian Shaw, Eddie Hall, or Hafthor Bjornsson.

                The fiber profile of sub-saharans is good for running after dinner on the hoof, but not so good for intensive labour (like ambush hunting… or combat under heavy loads).

          • peppermint says:

            > lots of them are naturally strong, wise, and well endowed

            the reason most football players are niggers is because niggers go through puberty a year before humans on average, giving them a temporary advantage when they’re 15 and getting them the athletic scholarship at 18. Putting adult niggers in school with human children is one of the most abusive things the 20c garbage did. Boomers were created by their parents.

            • Eli says:

              Talking about fully developed adults here (25 y.o. or so). Can still sprint faster than whites. Might also punch better. Bad swimmers though, and noticeably at that. Also not present in Strongest Man competitions, so might be disadvantaged to when it comes to taking on really heavy objects.

              As to dick size, I saw a table somewhere, many years ago, that showed that Africans’ mean size is a bit larger (less than half inch or so), but by a very moderate amount. Asians and South Asians are significantly smaller.

              • BC says:

                >Might also punch better. 

                Nope. Whites dominated boxing for a while after the fall of the Soviet Union. Boxing requires you to trade brain damage for winning so the winners come from groups who are either super poor or despert. Once a white group is no longer in the gutter they stop winning at boxing because the damage is not worth it.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Blacks do have higher bone density so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have an edge in the lower weight classes.

                  In the highest weight classes it’s pretty obvious that Slavs and large whites dominate – the Klitchkos have by far the most impressive records of all time – knocking out 80% of their opponents who are bigger and stronger than opponents of past heavyweight champions.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Slavery is too good a benefit to waste on people not your own.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:


        (but kill nigs anyways)

  17. Steve Johnson says:

    It’s always good to get confirmation that your model of the world is right but Kathy didn’t restrict her accusations to true but trivial events – she also made stuff up:


    “The other thing that I feel is an important part of this conversation, and which is even harder to say, is that I know of one sexual assault allegation which Kathy made which I have several independent reasons (only some of which I can discuss publicly, but I’ll discuss the others over PM) to conclude was entirely false. There were many witnesses who did not see anything happen. There were already significant concerns about Kathy’s behavior and treatment of others.”

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      >naming your blog “The Unit of Caring.”
      >not immediately dying from overdose of saccharine pretentiousness

      How are we losing to these people?

      • jim says:

        > How are we losing to these people?

        Because they are backed by state power, backed by the presidency – albeit a state that is rapidly losing the cohesion that makes a state a state and a presidency that is at war with its president.

        A state is, like a fiat currency, a collective hallucination that is real because people believe it is real. It is an idea, not a thing, and ideas can change at the speed of thought, without people ever quite realizing that they have changed.

        What happened in Russia is that the Czar’s bureaucrats overthrew the Czar, intending and expecting that the idea of monarchy would be replaced by the idea of a constitutional republic. But people kept voting in a politically incorrect fashion, so instead of a constitutional republic, they got coup after coup, resulting in a situation where power fell into the streets, waiting for someone to pick it up. Unfortunately, in these situations, everyone expects the leftmost be successful in picking it up, with the result that the leftmost were successful in picking it up.

        The way the wind blows, either Trump will arrest the FBI, or the FBI will arrest Trump. Either outcome will lead to interesting times. Either way, it will be announced, and perhaps believed, that everything is normal and nothing dramatic has changed, much as the Roman Republic supposedly continued for four hundred years after it fell, but in reality, either outcome will be things changing. As we approach the left singularity, prediction becomes difficult, and increasingly unreliable, but I confidently predict that we can expect the unexpected.

        • TBeholder says:

          > What happened in Russia is that the Czar’s bureaucrats overthrew the Czar, intending and expecting that the idea of monarchy would be replaced by the idea of a constitutional republic.
          That’s a part of it. But it didn’t come out of nothing, bureaucrats were but a part of aristocratic classes. And those were dealt a hard blow when slavery was abolished. Then they killed the monarch strong enough to actually pull it, which mostly stopped actual improvements and led to a shadow civil war between different factions of said bureaucrats, both claiming moral high ground. Then a monarch who happened to be a complete moron did everything he could to ruin the whole thing and pissed off absolutely everyone.
          It was broken from to to bottom before the coups started. Under a competent ruler even Sergei Witte didn’t anything disastrously inadequate.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Isn’t the Fuck the least unit of caring?

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          Yes, it is! If that’s the meaning of the title, then I retract what I said above. It’s halfway clever, and it doesn’t give me cavities. Judging by the last couple of posts, though, and the inspirational-needlepoint-slogan-tier subtitle, I doubt that’s the meaning. The author is too high on her own self-proclaimed compassion, intelligence, compassionate intelligence, and intelligent compassion to pick a vulgar, callous, and self-deprecating title like that.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        The author is an “Effective Altruist” and (as far as I know though I can’t find the specific place where it’s stated) the term “the unit of caring” is referring to the idea money is the unit of caring meaning that you can say you “care” about starving Africans but if you don’t spend money to provide them food or malaria nets or whatever then you don’t really care.

        As a title it’s not awful.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          The name is a two-pronged claim of superior holiness:
          “Caring” because, well, of course she is more compassionate than you.
          “Unit of” because she approaches things, even caring, in a systematic, scientific way; that is to say, she is smarter than you.
          Being both smarter and more compassionate than you, she has the right, nay, the duty, to rule you. Accept the title and you’re accepting your proper place as the ruled. Until High Inquisitor Jim introduces her to the rack, ridicule is the only response that makes sense.
          Plus, it’s just gay as hell.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      That woman seems to have been nearly pure poison. And yet the culture wherein she operated dictated that she must be treated with kid’s gloves rather than institutionalized or strapped to the dunking stool. Among much else in that blog post, we have this:

      I do think that the people who work on making sure harassment allegations get heard and dealt with have done a really great job, and often while Kathy was stalking them and their friends, and I commend that

      In one sense, at least for as long as we have given up on trying to manage them, it’s perhaps for the best that the crazy people on their own congregate far away in the Bay Area. The societal failure is really that the mutterings and ravings of this open air madhouse are subsequently taken seriously and used to implement social policy.

      • jim says:

        > Among much else in that blog post, we have this:

        > > “I do think that the people who work on making sure harassment allegations get heard and dealt with have done a really great job, and often while Kathy was stalking them and their friends, and I commend that”

        They threw their friends to the crocodiles in the hope of being last to be devoured.

  18. Contaminated NEET says:

    I hate to say it, but why was poor old Scott-sempai’s response so bad? There’s a lot of hemming and hawing, yes, but he says Forth was a lunatic who made false accusations for attention and she shouldn’t be made into a martyr. It’s a little pathetic that he apologizes for it over and over again, but he tells the truth. I’m impressed. I expected far less from him.

    • jim says:

      Scott tells nothing but the truth, but only half the truth, and thus implies a lie, a lie that hurts a great many people, and gravely endangers me personally, a lie that makes it very hard for whites and east Asians to successfully reproduce, a lie that has murdered quite a few older Japanese men, and horrifyingly emasculated all younger Japanese men, and to a lesser extent, emasculated all males in the US empire.

      • TBeholder says:

        Simply shallow. Due to mental laziness.
        Also, people don’t want to think about what causes diseases even when chatting about symptoms. Which does indeed allow “random isolated accidents with weird freaks” bullshit to roll until it becomes completely indecent. And helps promotion of “pop a pill, it’s magic” grade solutions to anything.
        But talking about symptoms is a start.

        • Ron says:

          Respectfully disagree. Shallow because a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise. Because weak men unconsciously need to emasculate strong men, which then leads to emasculation of large numbers of emotionally vulnerable young men who dont know better. The purpose of which is to even the playing field to score hot young pussy.

          Weak men cannot compete with strong men, and do not have the will to endure thousands of rejections to learn how to calmly be relaxed around women. For better to castrate all other potential rivals.

          Which, not incidentally is exactly what chimpanzees do to other rival males.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        As always Jim takes the truths that Solzhentitsyn expounded to his generation and illustrates them for this one. “The absolutely essential task is not political liberation, but the liberation of our souls from participation in the lie forced upon us.” Solzhenitsyn, <a href="https://archive.org/stream/SolzhenitsynAleksandrIsaevichFromUnderTheRubble/Solzhenitsyn,%20Aleksandr%20Isaevich%20-%20From%20Under%20the%20Rubble_djvu.txt"From Under the Rubble, 1973. And by liberating our souls we liberate our bodies as well.

    • pdimov says:

      I’m impressed too.

  19. Red Com says:

    Advocacy of spanking women and children.. disgusting and sadistic coward, abuser of girls and women. The punishment for your abominations in a socialist state is Death.

    I wish for the day in communism to rise to power and execute you on the gallows one by one, watching as the previous one falls and his legs kick the air in a pathetically futile attempt to reach the ground.

    You are evil, an illness that must be purged. The glorious communism exterminated the fascist trash in 1945 and will do it again in 2018 if necessary. Capitalism will die. Fascism will die. Religion will die. And from your blood we will dye our red flags.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      That might be but for today there’s one fewer fat communist cat ladies.

    • jim says:

      Because communism is contrary to the will of Gnon, you will find that you cannot in fact impose communism, so you will incorrectly conclude the problem is hidden enemies, secret enemies, hidden capitalist roaders, so you find you have more and more imagined enemies. You liquidate the kulaks, then you liquidate each other. If not halted by a Cromwell, a Napoleon, a Stalin or a Deng, or by foreign invasion as ended the Khmer Rouge, you wind up liquidating everyone until there are only handful left, as happened in Szechuan, or until there are so few Khmer Rouge left that you fall to foreign invasion.

      Should you achieve power, you will find your fellow communists will eventually execute you, either for insufficient communism, or for secretly being a capitalist roader. The Communists killed far more communists than the Nazis. You will be safer under a Hitler than under your fellow communists, and immeasurably safer under a Pinochet.

      It is the will of Gnon that a woman’s desire shall be to her husband, and he shall rule over her. Women are endlessly seeking alpha in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Read Kathy Forth’s suicide note. She killed herself because she could not find a man capable of owning her and it had become too late for her to find such a man.

    • Starman says:

      @Red Com

      You urban commies will go nowhere when your urban centers of power are nuked.

    • peppermint says:

      > his legs kick the air in a pathetically futile attempt to reach the ground.

      from one effiminate autistic freak to another, hanging does not work in this manner

      also plz note that women are much more morbid than men. Do you wonder why that is?

    • pdimov says:

      Troll or sincere? If sincere… this is not like NatGeo, it’s much better.

    • Wilfred Ruffian says:

      Somebody’s been reading some stupid shit from the 1930s

    • Dave says:

      I laughed reading Reddit when they said, “huh huh, Jim Donald tried to leave a comment here, we done banned him good huh huh! He gets banned everywhere he goes huh huh!”

      If they could also ban the homeless niggers who shit on the sidewalk outside their $2000/month studio apartments and just occupied all the local Starbucks, they might have a valid point there.

    • daniel says:

      >And from your blood we will dye our red flags.
      It’ll turn brown when it dries you retard.

  20. Mister Grumpus says:

    A wise buddy told me, in as many words, that with women (and especially fuckable ones), there’s no cruise-control, and there’s no coasting. It’s an up-hill slalom, 24-7, the whole way, always and forever. ‘And anyone who truly accepts that can be rewarded with the gift of liking women.

    That about right?

    • jim says:

      Yes, that is about right. The shit tests get easier, but they never end, and they never become safe or easy. I am always forced to bust a move, always forced to take risks that I do not wish to take. I keep being hit with shit tests that are risky for a man with assets and a clean criminal record to pass, and I still have to pass them. It is always an uphill slalom, and I have to pretend that it comes easily and naturally to me. I not only have to do this stuff, I have to do it with style as though it is natural as breathing and as inevitable as the sun rising.

      I want a society where it is legal for husbands to pass shit tests.

      • Simon says:

        Why do you find shit tests difficult?

        Pretending doesn’t work over time because you cannot fake body language and women pick up on incongruent body language in men like tigers do lameness in a gazelle.

        • jim says:

          Because some shit tests can only be passed by acts that are now illegal, and many shit tests create a risk of white knight violence.

          • Simon says:

            Could you please give more detail.

              • Simon says:

                Ok, but you also said you find shit tests difficult and unnatural to pass. That example shows why they can be dangerous to pass, but not difficult and unnatural.

                • jim says:

                  My natural preference is for peace, quiet, and the absence of drama. Women demand drama. Sometimes I have to be dramatic. Women demand bad behavior. Women demand a very bad man. Women want the wolf, not the sheep dog. I have monsters inside, and let them out to play when needed, so can perform that role quite naturally, but this gives me less peace and quiet than I am comfortable with.

                • Simon says:

                  Seems to me like you’re now saying water is wet, which is not what you were saying before but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              • Corvinus says:

                I see that you are still at it again with insisting that all women desire to be hit with a stick. In a civilized society, adult men/women who smash their significant other merely because they are exercising free will, or are “challenging” their authority, or are issuing a “shit test”, will face legal consequences. Now, if you were a true alpha, you wouldn’t care about potential state action taken against you.

                Do ALL women demand bad behavior, a very bad man, and/or drama? Of course not. Do MOST? Absolutely not.

                But Jim is in his own little world and has trouble comprehending reality.

                I give you props Simon for boxing Jim in, but he is a weasel and tries his best to get out.

                • jim says:

                  It is not that women consciously desire to be hit with a stick. They don’t desire it at all. They object most strongly.

                  But their objection tends to take the strange, mysterious, and inexplicable form of rewarding individuals and members of groups who can and sometimes do hit them with a stick, and punishing individuals and members of groups who would be horrified by hitting them with a stick.

                  Example: Outraged at entirely imaginary rape by affluent white college fratboys, totally relaxed about entirely real rape by Muslim rapeugees.

                  If your wife does not suspect you at least might whack her with a stick, even if in reality you would not, she is likely to take all your assets, burn them in a series of round the world cruises to countries full of violent men, and poison your children’s minds against you.

                  If, on the other hand, it seems like you might potentially whack her with a stick, will probably make you a sandwich and be fun in bed.

                • peppermint says:

                  If you don’t know how much your woman wants you to snap a dog collar on her neck and drag her around with a leash, you probably don’t have a good relationship with your woman if you have one.

                  Yes, they are all like that, every last one, of all the women I’ve dated, which, being a millennial, a young man in a time when roles and consequences for sexual activity was suppressed as a grand social experiment, is a shamefully high number, despite being a total leftist fuckstick for most of that time and throwing away many chances for left ideological reasons.

                  If I’d wanted to I could have taken several vcards, and if I’d been smart about wanting to, I could probably have taken many more. All of the women, without exception, were a bit posterior nonplussed that I wasn’t taking the lead in bed, and eagerly responded to any hint of me taking charge.

                  You’re going to say, well, you never tried putting a dog collar on all those women did you? And it’s true, I didn’t, I didn’t have one and I though sex toys were gay, excuse me, to a leftist, impure, degrading to the free exchange of passion between two rational agents. Instead the women wanted me to grab them in a chokehold and other physical displays of dominance and ownership.

                  Because fundamentally, in those days, regardless of the whaargarbl we used to justify our actions, the women wanted to be owned by me, and I just wanted to get laid so I could brag about it later.

                  And here I am.

                  Only the husband of a lady can fuck her. If you fuck a common girl, and get her pregnant, you have to marry her. You can fuck a whore and have no further responsibility but the agreed upon price.

                  The essence of feminism is to be whaargarbl to convince ladies that it’s okay to allow themselves to be fucked like whores.

                • hawtpotato3 says:

                  i recommend paracord. very multipurpose. very nice. noose knot very easy. with three or four other knots make anything possible.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        All right Mister. I’ve been drinking, so now I’m asking. Real talk, Mystery-Man:

        Is it worth it?

        Because I, for one, am one of that sad legion of deformed retards out here who doesn’t even know what said worth-it-ness feels like.

        Like Ferraris. Ferrara are beautiful, yes. But Ferraris aren’t just expensive. If they were expensive and reliable then that would be one thing. But oh no. Ferraris are expensive AND break all the time. And I realize that I’m completely alienated from whatever it is in some fellows that makes them decide to wake up early, earn a ton of money, and then spend it on a Ferrari.

        So really now: Is it worth it? And how would you try to explain to a stranger what it’s like to experience worth-it-ness?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Ron provides a good explanation.

          Focus on hate and spite. The purpose of women is to provide you sons who can shit on the graves of the weak men who have gotten us to this point.

        • jim says:

          Yes, way worth it.

          You are descended from a long line of men all of whom found that it was worth it.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            I’ve got a buddy. Doctor. Loads of income. Married this lady, a little later in life. She’s a hyperbolically expensive pain in the ass. The shit-testing is never-ending.

            But! My buddy is also smart, and honest, and reasonable, and practically-minded about the whole thing. He’s built to require in-house access to a woman. He has no choice in the matter. So he starts THERE, doesn’t complain about it, and works out the best solution he can manage.

            I admire him for that.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Hi Grumpus

          Firstly may I just say that while some would use what you just told us to make criticisms of *you*, this is unreasonable, and all the good decent people who’ve given the matter any thought at all will have concluded that something’s badly wrong with society when able, intelligent, open-minded and creative people like yourself are ‘deselected’ in the age of mass communication and easy transport.

          With that out the way, the second obvious thing is drink. Sure it’s harmful to health over the long run, at least potentially; but worse than that it’s a time thief: you’re only here once and alcohol can very easily rob you of decades of your life in which you look back and struggle to think of *anything* that really happened. That’s because very little did: you had a day drinking til late, doing nothing of any importance even on narrow selfish terms; then you had a day recovering, perhaps did some exercise, ate healthy, etc. etc. ; then you fancied a drink again. Repeat ad infinitum. Meanwhile from time to time you had ‘bad trips’ where you either fell out with people, came on to people, or just generally did things you ended up feeling bad about. Add to that the emotional disinhibition and you end up with overwhelming feelings of guilt and dread: a good reason to have another drink!

          The good news is it’s easy to stop. You WILL suffer what people usually call ‘withdrawal symptoms’. This is a misnomer: it’s the effects of the alcohol on your body – a ‘hangover’ if you will. It’ll include dry eyes, sleeplessness, irritability and a tendency to think about booze a lot.
          After a week it’ll be completely bearable and after a month you’ll be used to the thoughts popping up, laughing at how the mind works, then the thoughts subsiding again.

          The biggest medium term risk is the dogma that you’re ‘an alcoholic’ or that if you were to take a drink again you’d be back to square one. Nope, it’s just that you choose not to drink because you know how easily you fall into the comfort zone of a readily repeated routine that’s comfortable and effort-free. We all do.

          I’ve been gardening lately and had a flash of insight: the ‘addictive personality’ is not in fact pathological. I found myself clipping little branches off of big ones, so that the stuff can more readily fit in my little gardening bins. I found myself saying “ok two more and then I’m going in”. Then twenty minutes later, “ok this is the last one, then I’m done”. Then half an hour later……..and it hit me: this is EXACTLY what I used to do when I was gambling and drinking!
          It isn’t pathological: it’s a commitment that binds you into completing boring, repetitive work. It’s an adaptation that makes over-sowing seed, over-harvesting food, building huts that are over-large and over-sturdy, putting things away, etc. etc. bearable to people rising from the hunter-gatherer behavioural extended phenotype.

          Your drinking is like fat people’s pizza eating: that would’ve been highly adaptive when it really mattered to our people in the ancestral environment, but times have rapidly changed and there are situations now in which those adaptive behaviours can be pathological.

          The solution? Find something better to ‘commit’ to in the above sense. Build stuff, make money, whatever.

          But here’s the rub: once you do that, you’ll have more time and probably more resources, and that creates a space for a family. As time passes you’ll find yourself focusing more and more on the fact of your mortality.

          Nihilist post-modern society says our mortality is a tragic aspect of existence itself; that it highlights the intrinsic meaninglessness of a material universe; that it’s the reason nothing matter.

          This is completely backwards: mortality is a bulwark against narcissism and small-mindedness. It literally FORCES you to see a picture bigger than your own life, and the implication of that bigger picture is that you’re here, after a certain point, for the benefit of the ones *of you* that come after: and ultimately it’s not even for them – it’s for their great grandchildren and the civilisation they’ll inherit that’ll be kinder, richer, smarter and better than the one you’re living in.

          It’s the ultimate blessing, a message of hope and comfort: yes things are bad, yes we’re impotent in the fact of much of it, but no we’re not doomed. The future exists and we can help it along *a little* just as all our ancestors helped the present along *a little*: the peasant who placed the thousandth stone in Lincoln Cathedral never got to cry in the mini chapel at the humility of the clergy and the glory of God, but his actions made it possible for you to do so.

          You too can cry when a vibrant youthful mind inexplicably echoes what used to go on in your own when it was vibrant and youthful.

          To channel Millennial Woes, the things you love that exist now only exist because ALL of your ancestors thought it was worth it. If they hadn’t worked for things beyond their own immediate needs, we’d be living like they do in Bongo-Bongo-Land.

          There’s something about our people that recoils at that prospect, that redundant, defeatist resignation to the grubbiness and humiliation of our existence.

          Plus, what those other guys said.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Thanks homie. And I’m not that hard a case I swear.

            You know it’s funny. The Leftward Slide, the Demographic Crisis, the Guillotines at the Ready, and all of that, and yet I’ve never been a happier person than I am right now. I’m the most relaxed mofo in the whole office.

            Jim here’s work really is a lifesaver. There’s something magical about understanding. Even if it’s Crime-Know.

          • glosoli says:

            > it’s for their great grandchildren and the civilisation they’ll inherit that’ll be kinder, richer, smarter and better than the one you’re living in.

            Do you actually believe the above?
            I thought it was nonsense.

            We no longer have a civilisation, barely a veneer. We’re not richer, everyone’s in debt, hence poorer. We not smarter, we are much mores stupid. There is nothing about today that is better than 600 years ago.

            And the reason for all of that, and your delusion? The devil has made you worship materialism and not Jehovah, so now you and your nation are accursed.

            Rather than relying on mindless misplaced optimism, read the bible, find the truth, find the solutions, worship God, let Him bless you.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          At some point in life you realise that there isn’t much point to any of it, unless you set yourself some goal that is difficult.

          I care mostly because it is difficult, and because winning spites my enemies and I enjoy spiting my enemies.

          If we had stable monogamy I am not sure I would support it.

          This is probably a natural corrective mechanism. There are too many “whatever” people.

  21. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you man.

  22. […] Kathy Forth’s suicide ォ   All women love drama, all women create drama, and all women create drama because they are looking for a spanking from a strong man. All women are like that. Childlessness and the lack of a strong man in their lives greatly worsens this problem. […]

  23. […] Kathy Forth’s suicide […]

Leave a Reply