I play a wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole in front of women. A confrontational bully. It works. What else can one do if one wants to get laid?

But the character I play is not the man that that builds or maintains civilizations. It is the man that is high status in a world of female dominance, where women are more equal than men. It is not the man who should be high status, not the man that a civilization needs to make high status in order for that civilization to succeed.

Unguided, unsupervised, and unrestrained female choice rewards male bad behavior.

But recognizing that this is the man that women want is a good corrective to what progs teach men to be. That man is a lot closer to the man that builds civilization than the emasculated man.

As civilization falls apart, likely we can only attain Pauline masculinity by going through Viking masculinity and out the other side. A world of female sexual choice is a world that is likely to be conquered by men practicing Viking masculinity, for its cuckolded males will not defend it, neither will its playboy males watching the decline from the poolside defend it, hence the female preference for that kind of masculinity.

Tags: ,

251 Responses to “Masculinity”

  1. lalit says:

    So much for masculinity.

    Meanwhile, the latest innovations in Feminism

    After birth abortion?
    This is really cutting edge feminism, eh what? Literally and Figuratively

  2. Your Wife's Son says:

    >Christianity destroyed marriage by pretending that women aren’t interested in sex.

    Not exactly.

    Christianity made celibacy holier than sexual marriage, and women, being more susceptible to brainwashing and to blind herd-following than men are, and more prone to respond to social shaming, used the artificially high status of celibacy to shame the “low status” horny wives for their sexual desire, so that a woman either had to stop being horny, or to stop being a wife. Thus the false dichotomy between “chaste wife” and “lustful slut” was created. Without this false dichotomy, the sex lives of many men and also many women would be much better.

    The Jews, by the way, are also doing this, with their “married sex life must be boring as Hell; file for divorce and go partayyyy” meme. But the Christians had invented this whole game; it’s just that the Jews inverted it – Christians use it to argue for the arrant abomination that is “celibate marriage,” while Jews use it to promote the degenerate “lifestyle” that is promiscuity. Both groups agree that sex doesn’t belong in marriage. Two sides of the same shekel, really.

    So Christianity has indeed destroyed marriage, but not in the way you propose. To fix the problem, need to make celibacy low status, and to render sexual marriage the holier path from among the two. Need to imbue married sex with holiness, not to destroy the sex, but to render the sex indispensable.

  3. peppermint says:

    As a city Millennial, I know lots of people. The Black men are closer to restoring traditional Christian masculinity than the Whites, since Blacks have always been less doctrinaire and more interested in doing what’s considered cool, and since Black women are more receptive to husbandry right now, while most individual Black men have less options for sin.

    I hope and expect GenZ White men to use redpill philosophy to restore traditional White mansculinity as well.

    Christianity destroyed marriage by pretending that women aren’t interested in sex. Getting dick is all women ever care about, and dick is what a man must constantly offer to his wife if he would keep her. At the same time, men must not seek polygyny, or their women will fight and try to trade up.

  4. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Here is where VD cucks hardest though:

    “The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

    “The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.”

    In other words white countries have a right to stay white and feminist slowly killing off their populations because those are our values now, while Africans have a right to double their population every twenty years so long as they stay in Africa. This will result in total defeat if implemented and has nothing to do with Christianity.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      You beat the shit out of that Strawman, man. Truly impressive. Next time, I suggest actually reading and understanding him, and arguing against what he really says. It will mean a little more

      The Shadowed Knight

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Anti-feminism isn’t a “point of the alt right”, yet it’s the only existential problem with the Ingsoc. The “points of the alt right” are unserious because Vox doesn’t want to upset people.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The only existential problem with IngSoc? Are you mad, or just deranged? How many millions need to die to every possible permutation of socialism before you halfwits realize maybe it is inherently flawed? Or are you so lacking of imagination that you can only conceive of some form of socialism going forward?

          IngSoc is Puritanism. That is what Anglo Socialism is. That is inescapable. If you want IngSoc, you get feminism, and there is no way around it.

          Socialism is going to be burned out of the West, or we all die. They said, once, to Christians, that it was impossible to see into the hearts of men, and that you cannot kill an idea. How can you destroy an idea when only God knows the heart of men? We have an answer: God will know his own. If we have to create our Appian Way with the pyres of socialists, then we will.

          The Shadowed Knight

          • pdimov says:

            Lack of socialism doesn’t cause lack of feminism. Why would it? If anything, the opposite is true.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Lack of socialism is necessary, but not sufficient, to rid the West of feminism.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • pdimov says:

                Nope. Lack of socialism is at best irrelevant.

                The underlying force of what we see as “isms” is the inequality “money != power”. “Capitalism” demands money == power. When the rich do not have the power they ought to have (due f.ex. to regulations impeding their actions), we see that as “socialism”. When blacks don’t have the power they ought to have according to their wealth, we see that as “racism”. When a female economic actor is treated differently by society from a male ostensibly equivalent economic actor, we see that as “sexism”.

                Feminism is trying to get rid of “sexism”, which has the same underlying cause as “socialism”. Feminism and socialism do not point in the same direction.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Capitalism invented racism, sexism, and socialism? Either you are dumber than dogshit, or you are simply lying, and I have no time for either.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  I think you’ve misunderstood him, TSK. He meant that under capitalism, every ideology which impedes the acquisition/utilization of power by some group must be explained by an “ism,” e.g racism, sexism, socialism, because power is supposed to derive from money, ergo lack of power stems from lack of money, ergo let’s pour money on the “disadvantaged,” and Karl Marx was kinda right, in that capitalism is susceptible to collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions – or, if not “collapsing,” then at least being substantially undermined by the contradictions.

                  Okay, that may or may not be exactly what Pdimov meant, but look around.

                • Garr says:

                  Pdimov seems to me to be saying that capitalism generates worries about, and accusations of, “racism,” “sexism,” and “socialism.” According to Pdimov, if I understand him correctly, these worries and accusations are just a capitalistic defense-mechanism.

                  Pdimov’s claim (if this is in fact his claim) is supported by the consideration that medieval lords and bishops never accused anyone of racism, sexism, and socialism.

                  That anti-socialism emanates from a commitment to the wealth=power formula seems plausible to me. But I’m not sure about Pdimov’s suggestion that the “Racism!” and “Sexism!” worries result from outrage at the failure of Colored and Female wealth to bring with it a proportional degree of power. It seems to me that people who cry “Racist!”, “Sexist!” think that Coloreds and Women are insufficiently wealthy to begin with.

                  I’m probably missing Pdimov’s point …

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  No, what he is saying is “capitalism” is inherently egalitarian. All you are judged on is money. If people have the same money and are treated differently, it will be attacked under capitalism.

                  Capitalism is in quotes because he is referring to a specific form of capitalism. I think what he is trying to state is when you make money the status marker, you end up abolishing all the other status systems.

                • Garr says:

                  Sam — we agree, then, that he’s saying that the “egalitarian” (if you want to put it that way) capitalist program generates worries about, and accusations of, “racism,” “sexism,” and “socialism.” (Your “No, …” is unnecessary.)

                  But it still sounds weird to say (as he seems to say) that capitalistically-minded people scream “Racist!” “Sexist” because they think that Coloreds and Women should have power in proportion to their wealth. They don’t think that Coloreds and Women have enough wealth to begin with.

                • pdimov says:

                  I don’t think that feminism has ever been about wealth. It’s always been about power, even nominally.

                  What I’m trying to say is that if you posit that money equals power, the cognitive dissonance created by money not, in fact, being equal to power produces these phenomena.

                  In addition to feudalism, I can also cite the example of the communist bloc, which (we ought to agree) was socialist, but did not have feminism.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Either you are dumber than dogshit, or you are simply lying…”

                  Yeah, your point was probably just that if you cut welfare, women will become economically dependent on men. Which is true as far as it goes.

                • Garr says:

                  Pdimov, I agree that feminism and colorism have always been primarily about power, not wealth.

                  “What I’m trying to say is that if you posit that money equals power, the cognitive dissonance created by money not, in fact, being equal to power produces these phenomena.”

                  Okay, that sounds plausible, but what’s the route from “money should equal power!” to “women and coloreds should have more power!” Because the route DOESN’T go through “Women and coloreds have lots of money but no power!”

                • Antipas says:

                  Pdimov, how can you say that the communist block did not have feminism?

                  Perhaps it didn’t have USA 2017 feminism, but I always thought they were the progs of their era. Women were educated, abortion was legal (and quite common from what I understand)

                • pdimov says:

                  “Because the route DOESN’T go through “Women and coloreds have lots of money but no power!””

                  Doesn’t it? That’s what anti-discrimination laws are – one customer is as good as the other, one employee is as good as the other, you can’t take race into account.

                  When one is refused service based on race, or not taken seriously based on sex, one feels powerless, not cheated.

                  “Perhaps it didn’t have USA 2017 feminism, but I always thought they were the progs of their era. Women were educated, abortion was legal (and quite common from what I understand)”

                  That depends on whether you use feminism to denote a state or a process. Yes, women were educated, part of the workforce, abortion was legal. At the same time, there was no feminism in the sense of a political movement trying to undermine the society and change things for the worse. The occasional woman did fight the patriarchy by retaining the family name of her father rather than taking the one of her husband, but that was the extent of it.

                  Ultimately, that’s where our disagreement with TSK comes from – if feminism is used to denote a state, and socialism is used as a synonym for welfare directed towards women, then obviously getting rid of socialism will get rid of feminism.

                  What I was saying was that it will not get rid of feminism the process. You want to turn the clock back, fine, but you were already there, and you got here, by way of feminism. Why would the second time be any different?

                • jim says:

                  That’s what anti-discrimination laws are – one customer is as good as the other, one employee is as good as the other, you can’t take race into account.

                  That is not what anti discrimination laws are for. That is the rhetoric used to justify them. In fact we went directly from laws making women and blacks second class to laws making males and whites second class with no intervening period of laws mandating neutral treatment.

                  You want to turn the clock back, fine, but you were already there, and you got here, by way of feminism. Why would the second time be any different?

                  Because the rhetoric you just gave us has been exposed as a lie.

                  You cannot actually make inferiors equal. You can give them power and privilege, but not equality, and no matter how much power and privilege you give them, they will still be inferior, and thus the more power and privilege you give them, the more hard done by that they feel. As recently illustrated by the events around Damore, and by “A rape on Campus”.

                • pdimov says:

                  “… and Karl Marx was kinda right…”

                  I read the communist manifesto the other day. Imagine my shock when it wasn’t total nonsense from start to finish.

                  Specifically, the descriptive parts are good. The prescriptive parts… not so much.

                • pdimov says:

                  “That is not what anti discrimination laws are for. That is the rhetoric used to justify them. In fact we went directly from laws making women and blacks second class to laws making males and whites second class with no intervening period of laws mandating neutral treatment.”

                  My general point was that the underlying cause of feminism is not socialism, and getting rid of socialism does not remove the underlying cause of feminism.

                  Even if we posit that my theories of that underlying cause are completely wrong and it’s much simpler – just attack the white males – the general point still stands. If you remove one avenue of attack, this will not get rid of the other.

                  Stated differently, if TSK’s plan for getting rid of feminism is

                  1. Get rid of socialism
                  2. Do that other thing

                  I’m saying that (2) alone will work just as well.

                  All those libertarian-style ideas are intended to redirect the effort from (2), which is effective, into (1), which isn’t.

                  TL;DR TSK is cucked.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Pdimov is correct, because feminism and socialism derive from different evolutionary-biological forces within man’s psyche. Historically also, the “cladistic” roots of feminism lie centuries earlier than the industrial revolution, whereas socialism is the brainchild of the industrial revolution. Feminism is both much older than socialism, and infinitely more destructive.

                  If “left vs right” were essentially “socialism vs capitalism,” I wouldn’t be interested in politics at all – boooring. Fortunately, the actual world is much more interesting than Americans who follow the liberal tradition would have one believe.

                • jim says:

                  Industrial revolution does not start until Charles the Second. Plenty of examples of socialism way earlier than that, for example Jack Cade as depicted by Shakespeare:

                  “All the realm shall be in common” says Jack Cade. Class warfare, class based justice. Attempts to create prosperity by decree.

                • Anony-maus says:

                  I think one of the greatest errors is believing that there is a perfect solution. So what if we turn the clock back and are in this situation again later? People are born, age, and die. We do it again, and again. It doesn’t mean that the next iteration of our children must be immortal, or else we’ve failed.

                  Accepting that civilizations have a life cycle would go a long way to confronting reality.

                • peppermint says:

                  the communist manifesto said that adultery happens and therefore marriage should simply be abolished, pretending that marriage is about sex instead of being about family and children

                  marx was an bourgeois layabout faggot exactly like every other professor or priest from his time to ours

                  he had no sense of creation, of wealth or people. he only wanted to redistribute wealth and people – to himself and his friends

                  gas the professors, information war now

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Anglos seem to viscerally despise socialism, so they should not have it. But other whites such as Germans and Scandinavians are a-okay with the idea, and as long as they can have private ownership of property, and a society free of non-whites and various anti-social elements, they can pull off a socialist state.

                  Feminism, on the other hand, is an endemic problem among whites, and I’m not sure how you can “manage” it without importing a foreign-originated Semitic cult such as Christianity or Islam. The only groups of people today with average TFRs higher than 3 are following some version or another of the Semitic cults. Perhaps the problem is Semitic genes, but not Semitic memes? Seems like a paradox, since the memes derive from the genes; can a bad tree bear good fruit?

                  An impasse!

                • jim says:

                  Feminism not an endemic problem among whites. Early nineteenth century Australia dealt with the women problem in ways that would make the Taliban blush.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Was it not a Christian country? Christianity originated in the Levant. Without Christianity, the Taliban would have no reason to blush. That’s the issue I’m addressing – lack of Semitic religion leading to feminism among whites, and the only force curbing feminism being Semitic religion. I’ll be glad to be proven wrong, so that I’ll know which non-Semitic religion I should promote to save the white race.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  We do not live under capitalism. We live in a socialist country. America is a communist country.

                  Socialism has metastasized far beyond simple economic principles. Either you are being disingenuous, or you really are just that much a fool. Communists and socialists have been pushing for feminism for decades, nearing on a century. Capitalists had it imposed upon them by the socialists.

                  Niggers had no money, and neither did women. It belonged to white men, and the socialists tried to redistribute it to them to dissolve the social bonds that held them together.

                  Cutting welfare end up with women dying in childbirth in alleys, as Jim mentions. Women are not capable of sufficient abstract thought to understand economics that far in advance, so economic persuasion is not going to work. You have to use social coersion, which means that you have to abandon the pretense of equality and accept that women are to be subservient to men. “Their” property is held by their father in trust for their husbands, or by the nearest male relative otherwise. Unopened women are consigned to nunneries, or to whorehouses to be commonly possessed by the lowest class of men that cannot otherwise find a woman of their own, or are assigned to men who assume authority over them. That is how you fix feminism. That, and by publicly burning the occasional bitchy spinster as a witch.

                  I am not a libertarian, either. Libertarianism is an attempt to get to the workers paradise by withering the state to create the perfect man. I do not believe in earthly paradises or perfect men. I believe in order, chaos, and balance. Capitalism and Socialism are both Marx’s retarded children, and they both need to die.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • pdimov says:

                  “the communist manifesto said that adultery happens and therefore marriage should simply be abolished…”

                  As I said, everything “should” there is best ignored.

                • pdimov says:

                  TSK, everything you wrote is either true or close enough to true as to not be worth arguing about, yet you still do not explain why getting rid of socialism is a prerequisite for getting rid of feminism.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  TSK, welfarist redistribution from men to women is but one tool in the feminist toolbox: privatizing everything and eliminating taxation and regulation, reducing state bureaucracy to a minimum, and ending all “affirmative action,” will indeed dramatically decrease the force of feminism, but won’t eliminate it.

                  Feminism as a mass movement is sustained by cultural/media promotion and by academic indoctrination – in short, the priests are responsible, and we’re in a global dictatorship of the priesthood right now.

                  As recent events (viz. censorship by private companies) have clearly shown, HOLINESS IS A HUMAN MARKET, which is why “non-statist” human economies always contain a holiness/religion niche, and it’s this niche which dictates the ideological meta-narrative of society these days. Ironically, a socialist authoritarian NK-tier state can better eliminate feminism than unfettered free-market capitalism. If nuclear-armed Fat Kim — the communist dictator — decides to do patriarchy, there will be patriarchy.

                  You don’t need to get rid of socialism or even full-communism in order to get rid of feminism; quite the contrary. Look at the direction of the infection – the feminist contagion spreads from rich capitalist countries into poor socialist countries, rather than vice versa. No coincidence here.

                  You can only topple feminism by toppling the Cathedral itself; by replacing the bad priests with good priests, or by replacing all priests with warriors. Socialism isn’t the problem, nor is statism the problem. The problem is the religious niche, be it private or public, being a petri dish of bubbling poz. Listen to Peppermint, send the professors and the journos to labor camps (on the moon, with no oxygen supply), and you’ll have no feminism; socialism isn’t the problem here.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Also, abolish the CIA, because all the modern feminist and quasi-feminist memes (“domestic violence,” “rape culture,” “human trafficking,” “sex trafficking,” “wage gap,” “abortion is a right” and so on and so forth) have originated from it or have been deliberately spread by it.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  The modern brouhaha over “sexting” is a good example – someone really, really wants to spy on your private text messages. I wonder who could be behind this? What could be the motivation? Such a great mystery!

                  But I digress.

                • Dave says:

                  “Women are not capable of sufficient abstract thought…”

                  Years ago I read a Captain Capitalism blogpost about a young investment advisor whose girlfriend was a stripper. At his suggestion, she and all her stripper friends brought him thick wads of cash and he opened accounts for them. This was 1982, at the cusp of the greatest bull market the world has ever seen.

                  The result? Within a year, every stripper had cashed it all out to buy fancy cars, fur coats, jewelry, etc. What a shock, that women who take a short-term view of their sexuality would also take a short-term view of their finances!

            • Garr says:

              It occurred to me during the past week that “the market” is never going to provide young guys with meaningful-feeling male-type work that would give them a reason not to be stoned all the time, and soft, and spending their days looking into their phones. (I “teach” these guys, and feel bad for them — I’m talking about the sons and grandsons of men who made a living making and fixing things.) Only “the government” can make that happen, or perhaps a corporation or corporate conglomerate run by a visionary sociopath such as Elon Musk, which basically takes over the country and becomes the government (Elon Musk as first Galactic Emperor). So — maybe these guys need some socialistic help. Maybe a lot of socialistic help.

              • peppermint says:

                Elon Musk???

                No, we already have a God-Emperor, Who has a history of building things, not announcing politically correct cool projects and getting the right palms greased to give it the old college try.

                If our Emperor fails, and by some miracle we are not destroyed by our GenXers and Millennials with internal cannibalism and overrun by various tech levels of mud people, other Millennials and GenZ will rediscover the old ways.

                If the civil war goes hot their top priority targets are DS writers and everyone with a right-wing blog or podcast, our top priority targets are professors and journalists, and the choice of life and death will hopefully fall to GenZ men who will choose life instead of GenX men who would prefer death to the loss of their lifestyle of sin.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  You’re being unduly eschatological. Don’t immanentize, etc.

                  And if any generation rises up to save civilization, it will be those whom I designate the “last generation,” ironically named generation Alpha. That’s the latest of the late.

                  If the “last generation” becomes yet another “lost generation,” it will be civilization itself which will be lost – possibly and in fact likely forever.

                  GenZ were raised by older millennials and GenXers, which means that they were still infected. But GenAlpha are not infected, because their GenZ and younger millennial parents are the first to become truly woke and to provide genuine parenting.

                  It follows that the real fight will happen not 15 years from now, as you seem to hope, but 35 years from now. Of course, an American civil war will occur much earlier, but this civil war is only the *precursor* of the Day of the Oven aka WWIII: Memetic Incarnation In The Flash.

                • Garr says:

                  Elon Musk is just an example of the sort of person who might make his business the government and would be motivated to do stuff because it seems cool rather than because it seems likely to be profitable.

                  Elon Musk wants to cybernetically enhance himself, make himself immortal, and colonize the rest of the solar system, so he might be the first Galactic Emperor.

                  A lot of GenX men are just trying to make rent and child-support payments. That’s the generation of people the same age as Kurt Cobain, for whom The Violent Femmes and The Pixies were cool bands, right? These are sad nowhere-people who missed the fun and grandeur of Woodstock and Punk Rock and feel inferior. No more novels, no more poetry, no more art, no more music, no more movies even, video games not yet really invented — everything done and dead. No more cool wars even. Just boring dull deterioration and nagging.

                • Iviking says:

                  you the cuck in the white house thats cucked on daca cucked on the paris accord cucked now on backing the cuck in alabama what exactly has the cuck emperor done that you like besides annoying libtards

                • jim says:

                  You are listening to the mainstream media. Maybe he will cuck, but that mainstream media has announced him cucking is not significant.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Writing that that’s the only problem that is going to murder us all shouldn’t be read as denying any other problems.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            >How many millions need to die

            Billions need to be rid of for there to be eugenics, and when there’s eugenics, even socialism is tenable. Not necessarily desirable, but it can be done. Socialism only ends up in disaster if non-whites or low-quality whites exist. Without non-whites and without low-quality whites, socialism is as valid as an unregulated market.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              So we just need to make a perfectible human. I wonder why no one has ever tried that before? Well, we should be able to do it. What to call it? Oh! I just had an idea.

              We can call it… the New Soviet Man.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >counter-signalling eugenics

                wew lad

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Serious response: yeah, man can be made better. You remove the bad genes, you let the good genes proliferate, and after several generations, you get better humanity. The soviets were anti-eugenics, just like you, but nationalist socialists were pro-eugenics, and they had the right idea.

                Again, without non-whites and without low quality anti-social whites — groups which should not exist in high quality white society in the first place — when you only have pro-social Aryans, you can pull socialism off. It’s not necessarily better than capitalism — I withhold judgement because like Hitler and Anglin, I don’t care too much about the boring economic stuff — but it’s tenable.

                • Dave says:

                  Mutations happen, so you can never let up on the eugenics. In any socialist society there are makers and there are takers, and even if everyone is lily-white, the takers must be sterilized young so they don’t evolve into niggers.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Absolutely agreed.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  That’s also what the national socialists had in mind, and it was awesome. When Jim says that “nazis = commies,” he misses the crucial difference: commies denied biology, nazis embraced it. Even if they were exactly identical in every other way (they weren’t), this issue alone suffices to place nazis as far superior.

    • Cavalier says:

      No number of Africans can defeat any white power.

      Ideology, including Christianity, is irrelevant to the acquisition of power except insomuch as it immediately and directly organizes the conquest thereof.

      Religion is what you impose after you win.

      >human sub-species

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Vox Day is against feminism. The problem with his platform is he offers no blueprint for how Christianity is supposed to work as the backbone of society which is a problem since his entire plan relies on that.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        >Vox Day is against feminism.

        VD is anti-feminist in the same way as Damore is anti-feminist. Very weak sauce. And weak sauce won’t do here, as this is the most important issue.

      • peppermint says:

        He doesn’t want to demand a particular Christianity because he wants to restore what we had in the US from 1830 to 1930, presumably excluding Transcendentalists and Quakers. All forms were acceptable, but marriage was enshrined in law.

        His problem is that, like all authors from the long 20th century, he casually assumes the goodness of all institutions of Western civilization. Clearly the institutions of Western civlization failed. We need to know how and why so we can restore what worked and dispose of what didn’t.

        • peppermint says:

          He doesn’t actually believe in all institutions. He casually dismisses monarchy, aristocracy, and patrons for artists and scientists.

          Many key open source programmers have patrons in private industry who don’t tell them what to do but enjoy the prestige of having them on staff and immediate response if they need bugfixes or features for their companies.

          Virtually all 20c authors, including him, his author for Victoria, and Harold Covington, write classroom scenes or professor characters to tell the reader that some idea has prestige. The university is the institution that destroyed the rest, and seemed designed to do it. It must be abolished and prevented from reforming in any way.

    • Antipas says:

      Africa’s birth rate is high (along with a increasingly lower infant mortality rate) because western countries give them food, technology, and healthcare. If they were on “their own” things wouldn’t be as they are.

  5. viking says:

    So JIM,

    Now that Your “God Emperor” is instead of “Building the wall deporting them all even the children” instead now bragging about the DACA Amnesty bill he and Schumer/Pelosi are putting together., do you now get that the mid campaign cuck on immigration was in fact just that, and not a feint to the center to win the election?

    Do you get he does not have a plan a philosophy, that hes exactly what he seems, a dumbass from queens torn between the instincts of his uncle Archie bunker and His Saturday night Guido fever to be accepted across the river in manhattan.He folded like a cheap empty suit.

    He didn’t even fight, he immediately staffed up with nothing but jews and neocucks. Why Because hes too stupid to even grasp those concepts and implications, Because hes too stupid to understand where is instincts might be turned into a third way platform , let alone how to leverage that autonomy. Too stupid to even really get where his constituents came from, He doesn’t grasp the lines of the civil war, hes been wandering cluelessly back and forth across the lines his whole life, He thinks it doesnt matter if he loses some of his voters if he gains some democrat voters, he has zero game theory game. Because he was too stupid to think one move ahead about, if I win where on earth will i find competent people that are not dems or cucks, how on earth will I dislodge the permanent civil service, How can I triangulate the cucks and dems, state and defense, nationalist and globalist jews, neocuckGOP and their voters, Dems and their voters.

    Yeah yeah I know hot wife and golden flying palace.Well I hope that gives you solace.

    • Cavalier says:

      Q: When permanent civil servants are fireproof, how does one disemploy the permanent civil service?

      A: Crash the currency.

      So: How crazy is Trump, really?

    • peppermint says:

      DACA adds 800k democrats and millions of fraudulent votes are going away.

      Every year from now on, Boomers die and GenZ starts voting.

      Trump needs to raise taxes and move Obamacare subsidies to general tax revenues instead of secret taxes on White people’s healthcare.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        I don’t mind trading if Trump wins more than he loses but it looks like he is going to give away those 800k voters for meaningless promises. Build the god damn wall.

        • Cavalier says:

          DACA is irrelevant.

          The Wall is irrelevant.

          Policy itself is irrelevant.

          There is only power.

          • Iviking says:

            and power comes out of the end of a gun not internet faggotry

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              You’re butthurt because someone just told you that your little political games of “policy” are irrelevant, at the end of the day.

              • Iviking says:

                Hmm I think I just spoke of killing, you seem to be one of the NRX cucks jew mesmerized into non aggression waiting for DAVOS to call because youre sooooo clever like a jew

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Power is the means to implement policy. You want to play some 1D chess game where we trade off the ability to actually implement policies in exchange for whatever the hell else you think power might consist of?

        • Zach says:

          800k will eventually be 4 million or so. Chaining is a summabitch.

    • Iviking says:




      • jim says:

        Don’t believe what the left tells you.

        Progs announce Trump is cucking to make it happen, not because it is happening.

        Wait till you hear it from Trump that he is cucking.

        Maybe he will cuck, but announcements from his enemies that he has cucked are not indicative.

  6. viking says:

    I hear what you are saying, nothing is worse than a cuck. Cucks dont survive to decide how to live.Niggers trump cucks, this is the essential problem we are talking about in reaction. No doubt the sand niggers are a step up from the jungle niggers and sand niggers trump jungle niggers and cucks.Is this really the best we can do?Even if you think it is, what makes you think cuck people can be better sand niggers than sand niggers let alone whether sand niggers can trunp jew niggers or yellow niggers which Ill go out on a limb and say they certainly cant.Whether its the jew moldbugs utopian Elysium Patch or Jims peodephile Islamism, its taking a reasoned assessment of HBD and then ignoring that those HBD laws apply to us as well, we can no more be sand niggers than they can be Fields Medalists.
    Most progressives that are not jews acting in jew interest are essentially trying to fix the unintended consequences of the last fix, this is what jim is doing when wanting to engage the insanity of leftism with more insanity.I am perfectly sympathetic to the impulse of sticking it to the feminists, to jamming up the progressive juggernaut.But Jim unlike say heartiste is supposedly proposing the world to come. If he want s to stop larping philosopher and acknowledge he only want to be chief saboteur, that he is intentionally wrecking us along with them in the hopes of total collapse and is counting on some other branch to design the HBD sustainable civilization, AND more importantly that thats a good plan, and explain why and how, then fine. But hes not hes suggesting we can become sand niggers, which we cant. That sand niggers can survive jews and gooks, which is not true. At least Moldjew admits its a crazy Idea that presupposes the Cathedral will collapse before whites are extinguished or enslaved and somehow, something, something, brilliant techfags like your wifes son will be able to fend off the hells angels and niggers, and lead us all into slavery by jew patch lords.

    • jim says:

      Your position on women, like your position on most things, is that leftism was fine up to 1930 or so, but after that the evil Jews got hold of it.

      No, leftism was evil and deluded before the Jews got hold of it.

      • peppermint says:

        Vox Day thinks leftism was fine before the Jews took over with cultural marxism. He also hates Nazis because he doesn’t want to be compared to them and because Nazis weren’t Christian; he expects his GenX Legion to restore the correct interpretation of Christianity.

        Cultural marxism is a real thing. It’s also an excuse for pro-university christcucks.

        • Rape says:

          What would VD make of the Bloody Shovel assertion that Christianity is leftist agitation, I wonder.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            What is common to Christianity and Nazism is that both resisted the leftward swimming of Cthulhu. Jesus had opposed the Pharisees so they killed him; Hitler opposed international Judeo-Bolshevism so it killed him. The Pharisees were to the left of Jesus, and Weimar/America/USSR were to the left of Nazi Germany.

            The main difference is that Jesus has been trolling the Jews for 2,000 years while Hitler only had 70. But give it some time. Still, just as one need not be 100% pro-Jesus to view his vengeance against Jewry as a positive thing, likewise one need not be 100% pro-Hitler to view his vengeance against Jewry as a positive thing. The Jew’s wettest dream is escape from punishment; anyone who deprives the Jew of this fantasy is a hero.

            I tremendously enjoy everything Lorenz Kraus writes, and this text especially was memorable:


            • Your Wife's Son says:

              I’d say that Lorenz hasn’t gone far enough in his thesis. Who *was* the Jew anti-Jew? I propose it was Loki. In fact, I have made up a totally ridiculous but very lulzy explanation — a literally (literally) fantastic tale — about antisemitic Loki playing a trick and becoming Jesus, but I can’t be arsed to write it down lol.

              Btw, he came back again in 1726, and did nothing wrong.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          VD is a book salesman who went into business pitching at the American far right at a time when there wasn’t really an American far right market that wasn’t Christian. Who knows if he actually believes all this stuff but he can’t change his mind without looking ridiculous so it doesn’t really matter. So much for Vox Day.

          • Alrenous says:

            Not exactly a book salesman, but close enough. Books are the current thing.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            The nazis were right, and anyone who counter-signals them, not by calling them cucks who didn’t go far enough, but by kvetching about their “authoritarianism,” is going to fall down from grace the sooner.

            VD may wish to become Leader of the AR, together with his pals Cerno and Milo, but they are all just a flash in the pan – while Anglin is a veritable lightning strike, in much the same way as 2008-2011 Roissy was a veritable lightning strike.

            Just as today we all think in Heartistian terms (i.e “alpha versus beta” and all that’s associated with this dichotomy), and in fact the whole world now thinks in Heartistian terms, so we are now all thinking in Anglinian terms (viz. his various memes) and, if Anglin succeeds and is not assassinated within 5 years, the whole world may just start thinking in Anglinian terms. Roissy is the hero of the previous decade, Anglin is the hero of this one.

            To discern between flashes in the pan and lightning strikes, observe whose memes stick, and whose memes evaporate within a week. VD can’t meme. Okay, this is unfair – his memes: “SJWs always lie” and “SJWs always project” are rather strong. Fine. But this is nothing groundbreaking, really. His proposed male SMV hierarchy is a total flop. Lolz, I possess better memetic prowess than him, and I’m not even trying; whereas he’s a blowhard tryhard.

            And this henceforth shall be his moniker: Vox “Blowhard Tryhard” Day. 2 words which encapsulate all that’s wrong with him.

            Hail Anglin.

            • Glenfilthie says:

              He’s a joke, IMO. He WAS good with social commentary; but a pathetic writer. If you read him enough you begin to see that he exhibits all the traits he hates in others; he lies, doubles down and projects. And like his gamma males – he has a hissy fit when he gets caught at it. Like many of Jim’s fan boys here, he’s a very bitter, angry yet fairly intelligent young man, obsessed with trying to blame someone for the world he inherited rather than fixing it. The Alt Right is gearing up to reject him the same way they rejected Richard Spencer – and so they should. Last I heard he was suing Gab to give up the identities of posters that said things he didn’t like. He’s acting like a scorned woman and only his fan boys see anything in him.

              I still check on him from time to time but the quality of his work has severely degraded as of late. I now prefer the work of The Z Man who has a much more mature and intelligent approach to dissident right wing politics.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >Last I heard he was suing Gab to give up the identities of posters that said things he didn’t like.

                It’s related to the pedohysteria I’ve been discussing at length here. VD asked his fanboyz to call people they dislike “pedophiles,” and now the flaming hypocrite is suing Gab ‘cuz some random dudes called *him* a “pedophile.” Fuck VD – if you promote pedohysteria (which he has on several different occasions), you deserve the label of pedophile yourself.

                >I still check on him from time to time but the quality of his work has severely degraded as of late.

                I’ve never got what’s so appealing about him in the first place. I’ve been visiting since 2013, and VD is always linked there, and I just don’t get what’s so interesting about his blog. He’s just like a very prolific shitposter with connections who wants to promote some brands. Not saying he’s worthless, but he seems to be 90% hype, 10% substance.

                >I now prefer the work of The Z Man who has a much more mature and intelligent approach to dissident right wing politics.

                Zman is doubtlessly superior to VD, but like VD, he too is trying to appeal to a certain non-existent “center” within the AR, and so he misses the big picture. His post titled “The Nazi Tar Baby” was especially weak, and I criticized him for it in the comment section. In general, the less popular blogs tend to be of higher quality.

                >The Alt Right is gearing up to reject him the same way they rejected Richard Spencer

                It’s ironic, since VD has been flinging shit at Spencer ever since the Tumblrina died of a heart attack – as I said, VD attempted to position himself as leader of the AR by disparaging Spencer, Johnson, and Anglin, and now he finds himself in the same spot. Truth be told, none of these people is the next Hitler. But at least Anglin is a meme-master.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  How does the Hitler strategy work in the US context? Popular electoral victory for Nazis isn’t very likely when Aryans are only marginally a majority in the first place. In Germany the Jews were only about 1% of the population and irrelevant as a voting bloc.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Anglin complements NRx.

                  It’s not what Moldbug had in mind when he set out to formulate a new political ideology, but the truth is, the NRx strategy of recruiting the Brahmins and telling the masses: “fuck you, demotists” doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Even if NRx finds a billionaire to fund it, it has nothing to offer without people on the ground using the barrel of the gun — metaphorically or literally — to gain political power.

                  That’s where Anglin comes in with his “mass movement” strategy. He is persuasive. His sense of humar is unmatched by anyone. If — and that’s a big “if” — Anglin manages to turn the AR into an authentic popular movement, and if he succeeds in redpilling at least some high-IQ individuals amidst the great oceans of retardation and mediocrity, eventually these people will reach some of the same conclusions as NRx has reached, and searching for “activism” (that dreaded word!), they may get on board with monarchism and all that, and provide NRx with the requisite “critical mass” of red blooded members looking to form a traditional, patriarchal, legitimist, poz-free community run by His Highness, King Shitlord McShekelburg I. Or something like that.

                  That’s the ideal outcome, at any rate. Is it likely? Nope, and I’m afraid Gnon is gonna be pissed off real soon and devour civilization and its inhabitants furiously. But without some kind of “horizontal appeal,” NRx will remain the untried theory of a Californian mischling. So, the answer to your question is that you gotta have Hitler at some point, someone who will crystallize this movement and perhaps build some institutions and redpill masses of normies. That’s a difficult task, and equally difficult is the part where billionaire-funded NRx takes over the AR, which is unlikely as long as NRx is so ostentatiously Jewish.

                  Since NRx is in deep denial about: 1) the indispensability of Hitler; 2) its own off-putting Jewishness, it will probably miss the opportunity to leverage the AR to form a legitimist mini-state should such an opportunity present itself, and anyway, neither Brahmins nor billionaires are interested in the project, as far as I know.

                  So, you’re gonna have Hitler, because you’ve got nothing else.

                • jim says:

                  The masses do not matter.

                  Election outcomes do not matter much.

                  Our elite is trapped in a holiness spiral that is taking them, and the entire nation, to destruction. We offer the elites a way out.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Elections don’t matter. Critical mass of people willing to join a NRx community matters. How will you get ’em?

                • jim says:

                  Critical mass does not matter, except to legitimize changes that have already made. We don’t favor that method of legitimization.

                • pdimov says:

                  “How does the Hitler strategy work in the US context?”

                  Slowly. A generation or two away still, I suppose.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  No need for critical mass, you say? Reminds me of something, Jim. Here’s your “theory of legitimacy:”


                  He found himself in the neighborhood of the asteroids 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, and 330. He began, therefore, by visiting them, in order to add to his knowledge.

                  The first of them was inhabited by a king. Clad in royal purple and ermine, he was seated upon a throne which was at the same time both simple and majestic.

                  “Ah! Here is a subject,” exclaimed the king, when he saw the little prince coming.

                  And the little prince asked himself:

                  “How could he recognize me when he had never seen me before?”

                  He did not know how the world is simplified for kings. To them, all men are subjects.

                  “Approach, so that I may see you better,” said the king, who felt consumingly proud of being at last a king over somebody.

                  The little prince looked everywhere to find a place to sit down; but the entire planet was crammed and obstructed by the king’s magnificent ermine robe. So he remained standing upright, and, since he was tired, he yawned.

                  “It is contrary to etiquette to yawn in the presence of a king,” the monarch said to him. “I forbid you to do so.”

                  “I can’t help it. I can’t stop myself,” replied the little prince, thoroughly embarrassed. “I have come on a long journey, and I have had no sleep . . .”

                  “Ah, then,” the king said. “I order you to yawn. It is years since I have seen anyone yawning. Yawns, to me, are objects of curiosity. Come, now! Yawn again! It is an order.”

                  “That frightens me . . . I cannot, any more . . .” murmured the little prince, now completely abashed.

                  “Hum! Hum!” replied the king. “Then I–I order you sometimes to yawn and sometimes to–”

                  He sputtered a little, and seemed vexed.

                  For what the king fundamentally insisted upon was that his authority should be respected. He tolerated no disobedience. He was an absolute monarch. But, because he was a very good man, he made his orders reasonable.

                  “If I ordered a general,” he would say, by way of example, “if I ordered a general to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not obey me, that would not be the fault of the general. It would be my fault.”

                  “May I sit down?” came now a timid inquiry from the little prince.
                  “I order you to do so,” the king answered him, and majestically gathered in a fold of his ermine mantle.

                  But the little prince was wondering . . . The planet was tiny. Over what could this king really rule?

                  “Sire,” he said to him, “I beg that you will excuse my asking you a question–”

                  “I order you to ask me a question,” the king hastened to assure him.

                  “Sire–over what do you rule?”

                  “Over everything,” said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

                  “Over everything?”

                  The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

                  “Over all that?” asked the little prince.

                  “Over all that,” the king answered.

                  For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

                  “And the stars obey you?”

                  “Certainly they do,” the king said. “They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination.”

                  Such power was a thing for the little prince to marvel at. If he had been master of such complete authority, he would have been able to watch the sunset, not forty-four times in one day, but seventy-two, or even a hundred, or even two hundred times, without ever having to move his chair. And because he felt a bit sad as he remembered his little planet which he had forsaken, he plucked up his courage to ask the king a favor:

                  “I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . .”

                  “If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?” the king demanded. “The general, or myself?”

                  “You,” said the little prince firmly.

                  “Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform,” the king went on. “Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable.”

                  “Then my sunset?” the little prince reminded him: for he never forgot a question once he had asked it.

                  “You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But, according to my science of government, I shall wait until conditions are favorable.”

                  “When will that be?” inquired the little prince.

                  “Hum! Hum!” replied the king; and before saying anything else he consulted a bulky almanac. “Hum! Hum! That will be about–about–that will be this evening about twenty minutes to eight. And you will see how well I am obeyed!”

                  The little prince yawned. He was regretting his lost sunset. And then, too, he was already beginning to be a little bored.

                  “I have nothing more to do here,” he said to the king. “So I shall set out on my way again.”

                  “Do not go,” said the king, who was very proud of having a subject. “Do not go. I will make you a Minister!”

                  “Minister of what?”

                  “Minster of–of Justice!”

                  “But there is nobody here to judge!”

                  “We do not know that,” the king said to him. “I have not yet made a complete tour of my kingdom. I am very old. There is no room here for a carriage. And it tires me to walk.”

                  “Oh, but I have looked already!” said the little prince, turning around to give one more glance to the other side of the planet. On that side, as on this, there was nobody at all . . .

                  “Then you shall judge yourself,” the king answered. “that is the most difficult thing of all. It is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others. If you succeed in judging yourself rightly, then you are indeed a man of true wisdom.”

                  “Yes,” said the little prince, “but I can judge myself anywhere. I do not need to live on this planet.

                  “Hum! Hum!” said the king. “I have good reason to believe that somewhere on my planet there is an old rat. I hear him at night. You can judge this old rat. From time to time you will condemn him to death. Thus his life will depend on your justice. But you will pardon him on each occasion; for he must be treated thriftily. He is the only one we have.”

                  “I,” replied the little prince, “do not like to condemn anyone to death. And now I think I will go on my way.”

                  “No,” said the king.

                  But the little prince, having now completed his preparations for departure, had no wish to grieve the old monarch.

                  “If Your Majesty wishes to be promptly obeyed,” he said, “he should be able to give me a reasonable order. He should be able, for example, to order me to be gone by the end of one minute. It seems to me that conditions are favorable . . .”

                  As the king made no answer, the little prince hesitated a moment. Then, with a sigh, he took his leave.

                  “I make you my Ambassador,” the king called out, hastily.

                  He had a magnificent air of authority.

                  “The grown-ups are very strange,” the little prince said to himself, as he continued on his journey.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  You get the point, don’t you Jim? Legitimist rule only applies to those who recognize it as authoritative. And there’s no guarantee that anybody will recognize your legitimacy, hence the need to establish authority over one’s subjects by means other than “I am the king because I said so.”

                  There has to be some kind of substance to your kinghood. Your legitimist rule *may* be recognized by everyone, and so your orders will be obeyed, out of fear or out of respect. But if there’s no one “beneath you” to recognize your authority, then you’re just a king on a lonely planet, and your sole subject is an old and possibly imaginary rat.

                • jim says:

                  Does not work like that.

                  A handful of elite people agree that the legitimate government is X, and everyone follows along. Problem is that to coordinate, they need an explanation of X. If they coordinated on the entrails of a bull or some such, everyone else would take it seriously, the problem would be that they could not trust each other to take it seriously. No matter how silly, the masses would take it seriously, and it would not matter if they did not.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Hitler had more support among elites than the left admits, or the right realises. Nonetheless, he was not the elite candidate. Given the German electoral system, which was and is engineered to create pluralism, he won a decisive victory in the popular vote and he traded this with the right elite for real power. How can that happen in the US where you’d need to win pretty close to every Aryan vote to make that happen?

                  Please note that the right elite was “in power” at that time. In the US, clearly a left elite is in power.

                  Germany also had the odd circumstance that the Versailles treaty meant they had a very small army. One of the main reasons the right elites did their deal with Hitler at all was that war games suggested the army would lose to the party militias if it tried to suppress them. Not the case in the US.

                  So the German example looks really unencouraging for the US. The Moldbug approach might suck, but what sucks less?

                  James Damore achieved much more than Unite the Right, and with much less severe personal consequences than those now charged with murder etc.

                  For a movement that is based on the belief that it possesses extremely well documented but suppressed truths, it puts remarkably little effort into getting them in the open. Why are we defending Confederate statues rather than mass mailing a leaflet on HBD to every household in America?

                • jim says:

                  Because we don’t care about every household in America.

                • peppermint says:

                  Mass mail leaflets -> get condemned as racist by everyone, people learn that they’re not allowed to say what’s in it.

                  Defend statues -> people learn that it’s ok to stand up to sjws.

                  Mailing pamphlets is what you do if you take democracy literally, which, like socialism, has never been tried, and the Founders of the Republic warned against.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Charlottesville showed that you’re not allowed to stand up to SJWs, most people think Charlottesville showed it was necessary and just to ban people from standing up to SJWs, and you also got no message across.

                  Forcing HBD into the public debate exposes elites to HBD, and forces the system to either admit that it lied about HBD or lied about science and free speech.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            I mean, it is true:

            Blowhard: “a person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.”

            Tryhard: “a person usually of little talent who tries hard to succeed, especially through imitation, usually to gain fame or popularity.”

            This is Vox Day in a nutshell.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Vox Day was fine with ironic Nazis until someone died. That changed things. This is not a about bantz and lulz anymore, it is literally deadly serious. The problem with the Nazis is not just that they are Nazis. It is in great part because they are fuckups that drift from fringe group to fringe group tearing them apart as they go. They are a liability, and not in the sense that the normies will never accept them, but that they will destroy anything that lets them be anything more than bodies in a crowd.

          Charlottesville showed how inept and unserious the Nazis are. You all are completely unready for primetime, and when people start dying in street clashes, that is as prime a time as it gets. You all still want to LARP as the NSDAP while this is getting closer and closer to a hot civil war. This is not a game. You want to play games, play games, but do not play in the middle of a serious political operation.

          The Shadowed Knight

          • jim says:

            I don’t think Nazis should be blamed for Charlottesville. Repression was escalating regardless of what Nazis did or failed to do.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              That is a fair point, Jim. Not Charlottesville, per se, but their handling of the situation. I tend to agree more with Pax than Vox on this one; the preparation was appropriate to the previous rules of engagement the police had used. However, their response is worthy of criticism.

              I am talking about the organizer being run out of his own press conference by filthy antifa. I am talking about their doubling down on the Nazi imagery right as the media is busy painting them as “LITERALLY FUCKING HITLER OMFG,” providing them with all the ammunition they needed. Instead of Trayvon-Martining the dead antifa with memes of her Facebook rants and horrible haircuts, they mocked her. She was an antifa SJW, so there had to be something. I am talking about the epic failure to learn from their defeat and the complete unwillingness to use any tactic that is not yelling to the media that, “WERE LITERALLY FUCKING HITLER, LOL!”

              Charlottesville is not their fault, but their were unprepared for it, and they have showed no sign of changing to prepare for the future. They have one setting, and that is full retard, and you never go full retard.

              The Shadowed Knight

          • pdimov says:

            “Vox Day was fine with ironic Nazis until someone died. That changed things.”

            You’re anthropomorphizing VD, how cute.

            Heather Heyer died of a heart attack, by the way. She probably wasn’t even touched by the car.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Does not matter how she died. They tried to hang it on the Nazis, and the Nazis just made jokes about her being fat. Where were the meme artists? Where was all the quality Nazis claim they have when the rubber met the road? How did those idiots just let it happen?

              Nazis are fuckups. The people who are serious change tactics when the situation changes. The rest get Night of the Long Knifed. The Nazis are less than worthless because they actively damage their nominal goals for their own amusement. They are either going to change with the times, or get used as cannon fodder and disposed of when they lose even that utility.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                There have been National Socialist platforms in the US for many decades. Mostly, they’ve been treated leniently, like a “controlled opposition.” Now, in the current year, something has changed dramatically. It could be that Nazism has finally begun gaining traction which necessitates de-platforming, or it could be that Nazis so far *were* controlled opposition, while the alt-right proper isn’t – which would explain why 99% of Nazi websites have not been (((shut down))), whereas those few Nazis who are rather closely affiliated with the alt-right have been banned.

                Be that as it may, I believe that alt-rightism spooks the Cathedral profoundly, while “regular” Nazism does not. Which means that there’s no point blaming the Nazis for anything. The reaction (overreaction) by TPTB is due to the alt-right’s growing influence; Nazis seem like an excuse. David Duke has always been working for the feds. Those who actually, literally LARP as the NSDAP are not a threat to the establishment.

                The true threat began in 2012, when the Manosphere became huge; but “sexists” just aren’t as scary as LITERALLY HITLER, so they were mostly ignored. Then, in 2014, Manospherians went “hey wait a minute, while we’re criticizing the system for its feminism, let’s see what else is going wrong with society” and so the AR was born, synthesizing HBD and sexrealism. In 2017, seems like the AR is fully woke about the JQ, and *one particular blogger* has synthesized HBD, sexrealism, and Jew-realism.

                This one, particular blogger is the funniest and most popular of the AR bunch. See, Anglin is not made of the same cloth as regular old school (old age) Nazis. He’s very different.

                Guess who was banned completely?

                He was. And all his affiliates – just in case!

                Don’t blame the Nazis.

              • pdimov says:

                Andrew Anglin made a “joke” of her being fat, not “Nazis”. Said joke consisting of an obviously over the top trollish satirical article entirely within the style of Andrew Anglin.

                For which “joke” Daily Stormer was blacklisted from the entire internet (including Tor) via a concerted and coordinated action never seen before, on which bandwagon VD decided to jump.


                • Alrenous says:

                  It remains a fact that Anglin is a joke.

                  Moreover, Vox’s opinion of him is irrelevant. Neither are strong enough medicine for the ills of the West. Moldbug was of the opinion anything short of restoration only feeds the beast, so it may well be that both Vox and Anglin are part of the problem.

                • pdimov says:

                  I used to not hold Anglin in high regard. Not anymore. Jokes do not get worldwide registrar bans and Tor blocks. Genuine threats do.

                  My respect for VD has, on the other hand, cratered.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >It remains a fact that Anglin is a joke.

                  Anglin doesn’t reveal his power level, and rightly so, because serious 140-IQ high-brow writing isn’t as captivating as trollzy 120-IQ middle-brow writing; and since he wants a “mass movement,” he can’t aim for the serious 140-IQ high-brow crowd, because it’s a very extremely tiny minority among movements, generally.

                  I think he understands that as far as you soar “vertically” in terms of intellectual meme-power, you ought to have a corresponding “horizontal” appeal to large segments of society so as to furnish your side with the requisite critical mass of followers – a quantitative difference *makes* for a qualitative difference. He follows Hitler to a T. And he has a point, doesn’t he?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  *as high

              • peppermint says:

                The Shuttening was inevitable and it’s good that Anglin triggered it instead of it happening at their choice of time.

                In particular, the fact that it was Heather Heifer is good for us, because that narrative is getting run over by new facts faster than the Trayvon or Michael Brown narratives.

                Heather Heyer is recorded on video looking for trouble, wasn’t hit by any car, and died of a heart attack. That makes her totally unsympathetic.

                As it stands, DS now uses Tor, it’s actually functionally unaffected, while normie conservatives and random liberals are being threatened by the Goolag.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >the fact that it was Heather Heifer is good for us, because that narrative is getting run over by new facts faster than the Trayvon or Michael Brown narratives.

                  Key difference: normies don’t follow this saga, because the media doesn’t follow this saga, and alternative media which isn’t strictly alt-right/neo-nazi either doesn’t care about it or only reports on it reluctantly and scarcely. The shuttening of Angling has succeeded.

                • Anony-maus says:

                  Correct. As a normie with sympathies toward the alt-right and not greatly involved one way or another, I do think that DS overplayed their hand.

                  It was dumb.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >I do think that DS overplayed their hand.

                  They really haven’t. Anglin has published plenty of shockingly offensive articles, and the one about Moo-Moo Red Heifer wasn’t particularly mind-blowing or anything. TPTD were looking for an excuse.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Well – here again: he started out yammering about the idea of ‘never punching to the right’. Gotta stand shoulder to shoulder against the proggie left, dontchya know! And any of you that might find HIM to be an unsavoury ally in this fight better zip YOUR lips too!

            So what does he do when the winds of this culture war change? He starts punching right! He goes after Spencer, he sues Gab to give up the identities of posters he doesn’t like, and acts like a woman having a hissy fit, or a petulant child.

            Clearly, other than the inferior posters he has for fan boys – nobody with an intellect or an understanding of dissident right issues can take him seriously.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              He’s an intellectual lightweight. And, as with others of similar caliber: all his good ideas aren’t original, and all his original ideas aren’t good.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          Vox Day, like MPC, is a puritan. He is 80 or 90 years to the left of Nazis in terms of wokeness about the Sex Question, and as Jim says, the Nazis weren’t nearly woke enough in this regard.

          “Look at me everyone! I recognize the existence of innate, inborn, behavioral and mental differences between the sexes, and I even maintain a separate blog to discuss just them; I’m so edgy and such a genius.”

          And whatcha gonna do ’bout dis issue?

          “Nothing substantial.”

          Yeah, Anglin is right, VD is wrong, because Anglin is not a puritan, while VD is. That’s the bottom line.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Spot on.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Another thing:

              VD’s inane, oddball terminology to describe the male sexual market hierarchy: “Sigma male,” “Gamma male,” and “Delta male” (which he uses *in addition* to the already established Alpha-Beta-Omega classification), showcases the sheer autism inherent in his conception of sexuality, not unlike his conceptions of all other things.

              Seriously, who needs 6 fucking letters from the Greek alphabet to conceptualize the male sexual hierarchy? Are 3 not enough? In fact, the only relevant, interesting distinction is between “chads” and “virgins” – everything else is just sophistry.

              And again, this is but a minor point. The larger issue is VD’s blue-pilled puritanism.

          • jim says:

            In general, the solution to most problems is to copy other people’s successful solution.

            Women problem: Copy Timor Leste, Regency and earlier England, Revolution and earlier Virginia, Regency and earlier Australia.

            Healthcare: Copy Singapore.

            Economics: Copy Old Hong Kong.

            Copying Nazi Germany economics or Nazi Germany’s solution to the women problem is clearly a bad idea.

      • viking says:

        no the jews were in control in europe hundreds of years ago and in the us by the 1850s were doing things like pulling all the ads from newspapers who didnt do as they were told because the jews owned all the department stores by then

        But yes leftism was a bad idea but from a good motive that persists today in good whites, they believe they can in fact make the world better because they have in fact made the world better. unfortunately they are spoiled stupid and jews have been
        manipulating them not to make the world better but better for the jews.
        what is the nrx obsession with defending the obvious treachery of jews?

        • jim says:

          You cannot have it both ways: If Jews are aliens, they cannot be traitors.

          Expecting Jews to be loyal to the US is no sillier, and no less silly, than expecting Muslims to be loyal to the US. And right now Muslim influence is causing comparable or greater problems.

          • viking says:

            well you can have it both ways, despite thousands of years of bad experience whites in the USA who are mutts decided to save the jews from the mess they made by trying to destroy europe with communism and general degeneracy. We offered the jews full white citizenship and what did they do, same old as the citizens they were granted which national and racial (there were never any separate restrooms and bus sections for jews) they are traitors.
            Since anyone in there right mind not (pozzed by leftist guilt like yourself) It is clear by their actions they are absolutely incapable of assimilation into white nations, they are also aliens to the extent we can get enough pozzed idiots heads out of their asses and admit the simple facts.
            To say muslims are causing greater problems is fucking retarded muslims niggers east asians are nothing more than the jews proxy army, and on their own they are not a threat we would simply kill or deport them all.But even with them here they are still not the problem the jews Cathedral is.
            Have you even read anything about the extent of what they have done? as a new yorker I thought I already had a good idea,I didnt. when I finally got unpozzed and started reading it was an eye opener it was orders of magnitude worse than I imagined.

            • Garr says:

              Viking, do you spend a lot of time hanging out with Lubavitchers? They’re intense in a temporarily entertaining way, but ultimately and on a deeper level boringly nuts. They might be distorting your view of everything.

              (“assimilation” — I’m one of 4 half-Jewish siblings. I’ve got ten half-Jewish first cousins — not a single all-Jewish first cousin. [Well, three of them live in Israel and have a Jewish mom — my mother’s brother’s kids — so they’re halachically Jewish, but half-Jewish. One of them married a Dutch girl, so his kids aren’t Jewish. (Dutch DNA is good for Israel, I think.)])

              I like you — it just makes me sad, the way you’re wasting your talent on this crazy, narrow obsession. You could be reading French symbolist poetry or studying Taoism with cool old Chinese guys or something. You could become an expert on the history of the Holy Roman Empire. You could carve Vikings out of oak-tree trunks.

              Why are you doing this to yourself?

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >Viking, do you spend a lot of time hanging out with Lubavitchers? They’re intense in a temporarily entertaining way, but ultimately and on a deeper level boringly nuts. They might be distorting your view of everything.

                There’s nothing distorted here. How could Nick Bougas, whom I consider to be a saint, draw all those eternally-pertinent and absolutely 100% accurate Jewish caricatures? Because St. Bougas has had ample interactions with myriads of Jews, and became an “antisemite” as a result. His caricatures reflect the deepest, sincerest perception of what Jewry *is* that I’ve ever seen. It’s because he knows them all too well.

                It doesn’t matter if his gf is Jewish. It doesn’t matter if he’s best friends with plenty of Jews. *That’s the point.* Nick Bougas has worked, lived, and consorted with more Jews than you can find in the Tel Aviv phonebook, and THEREFORE became such an extreme antisemite. That’s what happens to you when you’re surrounded by Jews – either you’re okay with this (if you’re a stereotypical kike), or you become a Hitler. Bougas did nothing wrong.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Don’t you get it? God has communicated with us *through* Bougas. Let’s heed his Word, shall we?

              • Iviking says:

                I like you too Garr, Most of my friends are jewish well at least half in NYC, As I have repeatedly said It would be my preference and I think under certain precise circumstances Jews could be flipped. So I am not a neo nazi, I am also unlike 99% of the NRx and alt right a former lefty. Sure I am aware a case can be made for jews becoming atheist and or marrying out at higher than average rates thats figured in to my best case scenario.

                That said guys like James Macdonald etal ( incl quite a few jews who have written on the topic) are essentially correct as are the crowd that focuses on the jewish direction of the cathedral. Anecdotes of my personal friendship and your high IQ family marrying high IQ leftists indoctrinated by the high IQ jewish professors and their proteges at university is really beside the point.I know a lot of the type of assimilated jews you speak about, they are rarely religious often if usually married to a nonjew, by this point in my life i know as many of this types children who are 1/2 or 1/4 jewish and married for 2-3 generations to non jews.they are no less commie jews than their great grand parents.Its really astounding. rarely are they anything but far left, sometimes they are fiscally conservative. They are still as paranoid at anti semitism and hostile to whites ( oh do I have to stipulate I mean bad whites, you know the ones who don’t signal their submission on contact?) I know you know what I mean unless you inherited that jewish trait of total blindness to self.Maybe f we had a couple hundred years and we could prevent them from doing the things they are doing to genocide us in the meantime they would in fact become no problem. Unfortunately we are probably past the event horizon already,and there is no way to prevent them from continuing, and under these circumstances I really see few ways to counter them short of recognizing the threat explicitly and devising a counter strategy.The first is of course the nazi approach basically turn the volk against them and purge them back to israel, I wonder might it be possible to use that first approach coupled with the lefts antizionism and lefts inevitable development of anti jew privilege (which could be germinated on the right ) as a stick to force them into an about face and collaboration with a sort of WN right.By which I mean something that doesn’t quite exist yet but ought to, Lets say a WN that includes jews as white under the proviso they submit to de jewification, i wont get into the weeds but lets say we remediate the tendency of 1/8 jews to continue to be a problem there all sorts of economic genetic social ways to incentivise assimilation.

                The better part of your question is why am I so intense. decades before I came to see that of all the aspects of leftism that are destroying my people and their civilization, back before I even read the bell curve and probably though even blacks could be pulled up I was intense. So its of course part personality it bleeds into my business, personal, etc

                You used the lubavitchers, I met the rebbi once, well I saw him on a subway decades ago he was reading scripture he was so lost in it he was gesticulating wildly with his hands like a conductor of celestial orchestra I was sure he was a saint. but i digress.

                Why am I so intense like a lubavitcher?, reminds me of a couple of lubavitchers of my own people Tolstoy (who looked like the rebbi ) and CS Lewis.
                who essentially asked why are you not so intense, if you know what you say you know how can you act so casually.
                Perhaps I am,(and Im coming to concede) wrong, but I thought when I came upon reaction et, people who understood like I did this is not simply annoying politics, not even like the threat of world communism that although we now know can be recovered from in mere decades, and could not really sustain its oppression indefinitely, we did at least always know life went on, even culture went on though circumscribed.and it was at least brought to a stalemate in the west. It wasnt an existential threat The synagogue kek, is an existential threat, its will literally end the existence of white peoples and has already outlawed its civilization for decades. This isnt hyperbole, west civ and its people can not survive the explicit program of the synagogue they are very clear white people and their way are the enemies of the synagogue and have been forcefully moving to eradicate both for a 100 years at least.

                Mere Reactionaries allege to understand this yet larp on about AI robot armies that all the tech jews will build to save them, about exiting like the warlords routinely brought to trial in the hague,about God emperors, Meme Majik,imaginary new untested utopian schemes like letting the capitalists literally own everything cause thats been working so well thus far, and sundry other faggotries.In short they cant possibly really get this is an existential threat to themselves and their families possibly within their own lifetimes, they dont get basic white principle that it is their own specific duty to do something about it personally, they utter fucking juvenile faggots ruined by the cathedral useless snowflakes larping the latest hipster edgy pose.Only guys like VXXC seem to get where we are at. The alt right is a little better they may not be as smart but they get the seriousness more than reaction.

                Im intense because theyre at the gate you idiot.No actually they are not at the gate they are pouring through the gate at millions a week and the jews paid for their fare and opened the gate and is providing them with lawyers guns and money. The fact that not every jew really sees clearly how everything is connected or that after 100 year or more some whites are brainwashed or bribed into helping this is irrelevant. TODAY TOMORROW IF all the jews in media academia finance law etc were to coordinate the way they do know against us were instead to reverse and say ” THIS IS MADNESS WHITE CIVILIZATION IS REALLY THE BEST CIVILIZATION AND MUST BE PRESERVED AT ALL COSTS” it would end tomorrow,Jews may not be the entire left but they are a necessary precondition and can not be opposed. Jims god King Trump is whites best and latest effort and the jews have destroyed in him nothing flat. Thats a fact Garr.
                But you know what Many people but I notice maybe even more in reaction dont care, they dont care if westciv and its people are wiped out, they think its cool in a way. The same way the radical leftist think whites dying off is cool for the niggers or gaia or whatever. Youre not merely complacent youre one of two things. Crazy or maybe there’s a lot more jews in reaction than some of non jews suppose, maybe as I have suggested reaction is actually a jewish operation designed like the neocon movement. The answer is in how it acts so far it acts against whites, routinely characterizes whites exactly in the same redneck way the left does. advises non action and chases its intellectual tail for a decade now.

            • Anony-maus says:

              Your ideas are entertaining and I would like to buy your masculinity pills.

              • Iviking says:

                just grow up the only white brothers in a sea of niggers and spics and if you survive you get masculine.
                You also loose your faggot llusions

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Funny, because you’re one of the most delusional faggots in here.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              >Have you even read anything about the extent of what they have done?

              Forget reading, it’s for nerds anyway. 🙂 Go out there and interact with rich, old Jewesses for a week or two. You’d know everything you need to know about this execrable race, and then some. You can only know what chutzpah is after it strikes you over the head. When it does, you’ll realize that Hitler was a cuck for not starting at least a mini Holy Cause against the Reich’s Jewry as early as 1936.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Because Nrx believes leftism is ALWAYS evil. Because there is only status games and claiming you are more moral for doing something that has tried- and failed- countless times before in order to inflate your status is evil.

          “what is the nrx obsession with defending the obvious treachery of jews?”

          Aside from the large composition of Jews in nrx, there is also the cases where there were no Jews and issues with leftism as well as where there were large numbers of Jews and not issues with leftism. The Second Polish Republic had the highest rate of Jews outside Israel and did not have a Jewish problem (they had organized crime, pimping and embezzlement, but no subversion).

          Jews make leftism worse. They do not cause leftism.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            >The Second Polish Republic had the highest rate of Jews outside Israel and did not have a Jewish problem (they had organized crime, pimping and embezzlement, but no subversion).

            I lol’d.

            You know, “subversion” is not the whole story, and never has been. By saying “Jews behave exactly as antisemites have always been claiming that Jews behave, except Jews did not invent leftism out of thin air,” you’re not proving that there’s no JP – on the contrary, you’re proving just how deep-rooted the problem is.

            But do go on – honesty is a virtue.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              Those where the crimes On the Eve mentions Jews had a higher rate then Poles; for every other crime they had a lower rate. I don’t have the book on me so I don’t know to what degree it was.

              I’m not sure why you think I am trying to disprove JP. There are always problems with ethnic minorities and Jews are a problem minority. I’m not saying the communist party in Poland wasn’t staffed with Jews (the fact Belarussians were being back by the USSR makes the Jewish community look better). I’m saying the presence of Jews did not cause Poland to shift to the left.

              • Iviking says:

                or when poland wouldnt trust the jews for a second they had to stick to crime.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you” is a Polish proverb. Jews made up 10% of the population of interwar Poland and presumably lots of normal jobs; Jews are just drawn to specific types of crimes. Less crimes of passion and increasing status through violence and more crimes of intellect and increasing status through screwing over marks and aggregating large piles of money.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >what is the nrx obsession with defending the obvious treachery of jews?

          Bourgeois-signalling. As Cavalier says, the urbanite middle-classes have become “Jewish,” and being solidly middle and upper class, NRx feels an instinctive affinity towards “the real thing.” Where Cavalier is wrong is in thinking that this is somehow not degenerate. It *is* degenerate. Why? Because by becoming figuratively and/or literally Jewish, NRx loses its primary redeeming value – noblesse oblige. See, Jews entirely lack this concept, and as such, Judaization produces not a benevolent elite (which is what NRx aspires to be), but a hostile elite. And hostile elites belong in death camps.

          • Iviking says:

            yes in these parts expressing noblesse oblige is to signal demotist tendencies. Im a multi millionaire with parents who were also successful artist intellectuals but because i went into blue collar fields partly because the faggotry of the upper classes disgusts me and partly because i was an alcoholic who couldn’t finish school I learned the lower classes are not so bad I was also taught noblesse oblige as a child by my european mother. I could go on about why my white lower class brethren earned my respect but its pointless here its just socialist Im told

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          This is actually a very important point.

          How can NRx be a benevolent elite and disproportionately Jewish concomitantly? Historically this is unprecedented – disproportionately Jewish elites are always, always, always hostile towards their subjects.

          Jim has a relatively sound solution – Jews should not hold positions of power in white countries, and whites should not hold positions of power in Israel. Now, putting aside the question of whether or not Israel should even exist rather than be blotted off the map, there’s at least some consistency in this proposition.

          Meanwhile, the standard NRx position of brushing off the Judaization of the elite, or even supporting Judeo-elitism as per Moldbug, is sheer lunacy. Judeo-elitism is one of the modern world’s fiercest scourges. If one could send the disproportionately-Jewish elites to “””labor””” camps (a one-way ticket), one should take hold of this opportunity with both hands. Instead, NRx seeks to “formalize” the rule of Judeo-elitism forever.

          The reason Jews should be removed from white society has even less to do with Jewish political subversion as with Jews in general being solipsistic, obnoxious snobs. It’s on the inter-personal level that the Jew is at his most offensive. Not all Jews — pretty sure Scott Alexander is a nice fellow — but once you get to deal, IRL, with sufficient numbers of 40, 50, and 60 y/o Jewesses from rich backgrounds, if the thought of sending this entire accursed race to its death doesn’t pop into your head at least a few times, there must be something very irregular about your brain wiring.

          Indeed, antisemitism “from afar” isn’t a real thing; it’s exactly the antisemitism produced while having to deal with actual real Jews in actual real life that is the most potent and unshakable form of Jew-hatred. I have a dream – to see the condescending, arrogant smirk wiped off Jewry’s collective face, once and for all. Give me this one ultimate delight, and I shall need nothing more.

          • Iviking says:

            all pretty sensible except I never heard jim say anything remotely like jews cant hold sensitive positions in white nations in fact he seems to clobber me when ever i suggest such things.
            20-30 year old jewesses are fine if you know how to handle them the old ones are def better composted

  7. Anonymous says:

    Jim, your views are timeless and universal truths.

    Guru Govind Singh, the last of the ten Sikh gurus of medieval India, is best known for organising the Sikhs into a military force to protect Hindus from the depredations of the Islamic Mughal empire.

    What is less well known is that he wrote a text called the Dasam Granth, considered the second most important Sikh religious text, which retold several ancient Hindu myths and folktales. One of the major components of this text is called the Charitropakhyan.

    In this text, a wise minister tells a king several short stories that reveal the fickle, lustful and manipulative nature of woman. The setting is that the old king’s hot young second wife developed an attraction to the king’s son from his first marriage. The son was reluctant to give in, so the hot chick, to avenge the insult, made up a story that he had raped her. The king, blindly in love, was about to execute his loyal son. This is when his minister decided to step in with these tales, trying to make the king reconsider his decision to punish his son.

    Sjws have, of course, tried to suppress it, and most modern Sikhs do some hand-waving and try to explain it away. But the message stares you in the face.

  8. Glenfilthie says:

    Post pics, Jim, or it didn’t happen! 🙂

    If the object of the game is to screw a tire-biter I guess I will defer to you too. I’ll try to feel sorry for ya when you have your Pakie Ghomeshi moment as well.

    Considering that at least half of our women are shrews, whores, or bat-shit insane I can imagine you’re pretty busy. Can’t see your tactics working with a woman of quality though.

    • StringsofCoins says:

      Lolololol oh my God. “Woman of quality”. Dear God I don’t know why I bother. None of you know shit and none of you have ever had a woman beg for more. The blind (incels) leading the blind. Do tell me more about women though. I’m sure you know so much

      • Cavalier says:

        There are, in fact, women of quality. “Quality” defined as “not receptive to a veritable constellation of low-end trash tendencies”, and especially indisposed to promiscuity and suchlike. They all respond to dominance and masculinity, every one of them; receptivity to the specific manifestations of dominance and masculinity is perhaps the biggest aspect of “quality”, as there are indisputably higher and lower forms of dominance and masculinity.

        • jim says:

          Good women exist, but they are not all good as blue pillers understand good.

          A good women corresponds to the biblical description of a good woman.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        >None of you know shit and none of you have ever had a woman beg for more. The blind (incels) leading the blind. Do tell me more about women though. I’m sure you know so much

        Shut up, stupid faggot pisshead.

        The first person to insert “incel” into any discussion is usually an incel himself, possibly a kisless virgin, and invariably DESERVING of his abysmally low SMV.

        “None of us,” dumbass? What do you know about the people here? Personally, I may not have been blessed by God with remarkable looks or phenomenal social-savvy or stashes of $$$, yet *I still am* blessed by Him with exactly what I need – let’s just say that I have my sexneeds satisfied regularly by a very eager woman.

        I’m sure other commenters here know what it’s like to be desired by a woman with a tingling pussy and a throbbing clit. If I know what it’s like, which I do, then men who are more attractive than me surely do also.

        You sound like some kind of a fake non-existent wooden shower-room gassings survivor, telling the goyim all about the things going on *in your mind* while in reality all you’ve got is a keyboard and a large disparity in the size of your arms due to FURIOUS MASTURBATION.

        Go stick your cock in a sock, you filth.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Nope. Found my gal in high school. Got married in 1985. Happily married ever since. House, two cars, two dogs. Daughter’s a moral and intellectual write-off – a militant lesbo SJW. Haven’t seen her in 7 years. Maybe you chads and jerk boys can school me on family values too. 🙂

        How old are you Jim? 45? 50? I’m just asking because I have seen what happens to women at those ages. They spread out and if they’re still single, they’re turning into crazy barren spinsters or lonely cat women. They are pathetically desperate too. Pumpin and dumpin old women like that is hardly a feat worth bragging about.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          >Daughter’s a moral and intellectual write-off – a militant lesbo SJW.

          Dykes are the reason we must have genetic engineering ASAP.

          I’ve been saying for years that they’re worse than faggots and trannies; it was lesbians who had constituted the basis and the backbone from which first wave feminism emerged, predating the CIA and the (((Frankfurt School))) by decades, if not a whole century. I often suspect that catladies such as Angela Merkel and Joanne Rowling have always been carpet munchers, whatever their ostensible relations with men. No matter what merits they possess, dykes are the bane of civilizational health.

          Remove dykes from the gene pool -> remove feminism from the meme pool.

          • jim says:

            Lesbianism is non hereditary. Has low concordance rate between identical twins.

            Lesbianism does not really exist. While gays usually have sex only with gay males, lesbians have more sex with men than they do with girls.

            A gold star lesbian is a lesbian who has only had sexual relationships with other women. It does not mean that she has only had sex with other women.

            The observed behavior and incidence of lesbianism shows that lesbianism is environmentally contingent, not genetically determined. Change the environment.

            If you want to eliminated “lesbianism” change the environment to one where women are lower status than men, women are socially and legally required to have sex with their husbands, are socially required to get married, and in the event of bad behavior, as for example illicit sex, are compelled to get married.

            In that environment, one hundred percent of today’s “lesbians” and female to male transexuals would be compelled to get married, many of them at age nine or ten.

            • Glenfilthie says:

              You sure about that, Jim? I’ve never seen my daughter with a boyfriend, not once. She was an incredibly difficult child and I thought it entirely reasonable that she went to great lengths to keep her love life private. As she got older I prayed that was what it was, but by then she was hanging out with creepy, ugly and sullen girls – and some of them? No way in hell can you tell me they are laying with men – no man would have them even if they were amenable.
              I would not want to see my daughter forced to marry a man – it wouldn’t be fair to him or to her, nobody deserves that. I would rather they get back in the damned closet, do what they’re gonna do and STFU about it…

              • peppermint says:

                You evil Boomer/GenX cuck. I have known many lesbians and transmen. They all want to be forced to marry a man, every single one of them, with no exceptions. Fuck your licentiousness, fuck your christcuckoldry, fuck you. You will not recieve social security, your 401k has already been spent by your captains of industry, your gold will be confiscated, and you will have the privilege of dying in a nursing home under the tender care of migrant niggers. Fuck you.

                • Ron says:


                  That was an extremely beautiful and caring response.

                  I say that with zero irony or sarcasm. Seriously. It absolutely needed to be said.

                • Glenfilthie says:


                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Wow – how long did ya work on that one, P-Mint? Awesome rant, BTW! 🙂

                  A. I’m borderline Gen X/Boomer. Sorry, I got shut out of the Boomer gravy train same as you.

                  B. Won’t need social security. I’m gonna work until I die… and that’s okay with me. My retirement will be either a S&W .45 or a bottle of whisky and some pills. I’m not afraid of death.

                  C. I am well aware of our Captains Of Industry, or great socialist humanitarians and the eeeeeeevil jooooooos. I’ve been hiding my assets for the last coon’s age – so I’ll do alright.

                  So will you – but you’ll probably need to grow up first – and you obviously have a ways to go with that.

              • peppermint says:

                For all of human (i.e. White) history, it has been understood that what a man needs to be happy is meaningful work that provides for his family, a house to put them in and a gun to protect all of it, and what a woman needs is a man to protect her, a child to look after, and a home to keep.

                Boomers didn’t even take feminism seriously other than grrl power slutdom. GenX decided to transgender their own children. This is GenX:

                Boomers and GenXers need to die in order for the GenZ revolution to succeed. They will never stop cucking and they sooner die than give up their decadent lifestyles.

              • jim says:

                I tell you she is hanging out with girls a lot more than she is hanging out with men, but she has fucked a lot more men than she has fucked girls.

                Likely starting at age ten.

                And I am also telling you that she is hanging out with girls because girls are higher status than men, would be happier in a society where men were higher status than females, where she was married to one man who as substantially higher status than she is, and forced to be always sexually available to him, and never to any other.

                Check what is on her porn folder.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Check what is on her porn folder.

                  The sickening dykes fetishize male and female genital mutilation; to be precise, they fantasize about inflicting pain on penises, testicles, vaginas, and boobs. That’s because they are power-hungry and so naturally attracted to sadism and domination.

                  Gonna need a very big oven indeed. And the dykes will go before the faggots and even before the trannies, because it was not the cum farters, but the carpet munchers, who promoted feminism in the 19th century.

            • jay says:

              ”many of them at age nine or ten.”

              Mate the ancients had the menarche in the normal range of 12-13 as the minimum age of marriage because that to them signified womanhood. The age range at 9-10 is never justified biologically or ethically.

              The range of medical problems and psychological problems resulting from this indicates its immorality.

              Read this:

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >range of medical problems

                Jim said they prefer the cowboy position for a reason.

                >psychological problems

                Today, maybe. In traditional patriarchal society? If you’re married at 6 (like Aisha) and get the dicking at 9 (ditto), and so are all your friends, then no psychological problems. It’s just “normal.”

                Note that I don’t actually want that. But I think that “pedophiles” are allies because marriage/sex *should* be possible at 12, and the pedos help us push things in the right direction – if they “push too far,” that can always be fixed.

                It’s similar to being redpilled on the JQ and antisemitic, but not outright Nazi, yet vehemently supporting the Nazis because Nazis push things in the right direction. See, that has been my strategy all along – support the most radical positions about everything (nazism, “pedophilia”), so that winds shift in the right direction – if they shift too much, well, it’s something to worry about later on. First let the winds shift.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                And no, I’m not a fed. Yes, the tag on my black suit which reads “not FBI” is legit. And I wear sunglasses at night because I’ve got a passion for fashion – I’m gay.

                Seriously though, I’ve been commenting here since early 2015 and I’ve made some progress, exactly due to my voicing, at time, what seems like over-the-top positions about certain subjects.

                I have said regarding nazism: let’s propose to exterminate every Jew everywhere, including mischlings who are only 1/4 or 1/8 Jewish. And yet I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not really a nazi. That’s the thing – first you push as strongly as you can in the desired direction, then you can always slow down or stop. Sometimes you can even go back.

                Likewise, I have proposed to legalize the rape of single women, and to legalize pedophilia including especially child prostitution. Really, let’s do that. *Then*, if and when we live in such a society, we can ponder if we need to legislate prohibitions against such things.

                Too extreme? Child prostitution, for instance, was common throughout most of history, including white history. Whites west of the Hajnal Line may have married late, but the prostitutes have always — always until the 19th century — been *very young*. Likewise: sex slaves, totally normal during all of history, tended to get fucked pretty young.

                So, you see. I’ll continue pushing in that direction, on this particular subject. If, by chance, all my proposals come to pass – don’t worry, the world will not come to an end. Erect apes (that’s us) have lived like that for millions of years. Nor will civilization end, though it’ll look entirely different. But if all is fulfilled, and then something doesn’t seem right, then re-illegalization is always possible. My strategy is effective.

                The left has been “pushing the most radical things” since always. If the right wants to gain anything, it has to understand what Jim and Anglin and I understand, and do the same.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                Also, consistency is valuable for its own sake. Too many people can’t make heads and tails out of their own stated positions. My weltanschauung may be absolutely spergtastic, but mentally and conceptually it all fits together very neatly, and though I may change my positions at times, I do not just “get confused,” generally.

                As a thought experiment, try doubling-down on all your beliefs until you literally CAN’T EVEN double-down any longer, and you’ll be astounded by the worldview you’ll end up coming up with. It’ll be so shocking – and yet, so amazing.

              • jim says:

                A ban on marriage at extremely young ages only makes sense if you have an effective system of control of female sexual immorality, for example purdah, female circumcision at age eight, and all that.

                If you are not stopping nine year old girls from having sex, stopping them from getting married is counterproductive.

                Effective systems for stopping female immorality tend to be disturbingly harsh. The humane solution is that the state and society should back parental authority and female chastity, and apply shotgun marriage when moderate pressure against female sexual immorality fails.

                • Iviking says:

                  Jim the reason everyone thinks youre crazy on this is no one has ever heard of even one none year old girl having sex except the extremely rare instances of criminals. It makes one wonder are you a criminal that has first hand knowledge of lots of nine year old sex and yet are so clueless what an aberration this is that you posit it as a wiki

                  “Despite their behaviors, 90% of adolescents “agree that most young people have sex before they are really ready.” The average age of first sexual intercourse in the United States is around 18 for males and around 17 for females, and this has been rising in recent years.” note the kids are not even comfortable at 17/18 but since their parents have created a decadent overly sexualized cuckture they get caught up in it.

                • jim says:

                  I am reminded of the divorce of Queen Caroline.

                  The Victorians were in stubborn denial about the nature of women, until feminists seeking to smash marriage rubbed it in their face.

                  And now everyone reluctantly believes that women voluntarily have sex, that it is not just something that they reluctantly put up with in return for affection and economic support, but often something they thirstily go after destroying love and enonomic support.

                  But they only believe that women only have politically correct sex.

                  Disney has made big business out of catering to nine year old girls’ sexual desires. The median age at which interest in men starts (and it is always older, powerful, independent men) is the age at which they first have hair on their pussies, not the age at which they are physically capable of becoming pregnant. Yet everyone believes the little angels would never act on this desire, and that they never do act on it unless some evil male induces them to do so.

                  Since it is obvious that the Victorians and the later Regency were massively and absurdly deluded about the nature of women, you should consider the likelihood that women are less politically correct than believed.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  On the contrary, vik. Kids parrot parental/environmental morality, which even in the current year — *especially* in the current year — is insanely, dangerously puritanical, as you yourself prove with your very posts here.

                  From my own personal experience, those who have sex from ages 12 to 15, invariably feel ready enough for it, even if sometimes they regret it. What they really regret is their choice of partner, but not the fact of having sex. Nor does it matter what teens “think” – revealed preference is the only indication one needs as to their inner psychology.

                  Those who don’t feel ready, guess what vik? They’re simply not having sex. And you will find much, much more teens ready for sex, but not getting any, than teens unready for sex, but somehow “sexualized” by evil evil society. In fact society is split between a sexualizing tendency and a de-sexualizing aka infantilizing tendency, and if, according to you, even 18 is “too early” for some, then evidently the infantilization has won – big time.

                  (abolish schools!)

                  You’re a puritan, and you present a DISTILLED FORM of puritan thought. Infantilization is leftism from the 19th century. “Muh poor kids” is leftism from the 18th century.

                  Your IQ, vik, is realistically around 125 – just smart enough to not be a dumbass, but still, someone else has thought your thoughts for you. You’re PWNED and you can’t get out of this state of affairs, because of your emotional investments in your ideology.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Viking can’t get over the fact that a century ago, the ages of consent have ranged from non-existent to 7 to 10 to 12 throughout the world. If teenage sex has been so traumatizing and mentally catastrophic since time immemorial, how come it was only “realized” by Anglo and French leftists relatively not so long ago?

                  How come those who raised it in England from 13 to 16 were feminists, bent on “fighting teen prostitution,” also known as “being old wrinkly harridan catladies jealous of youth”? How come you take for granted a radical notion from a century ago, namely that teenagers are sexually immature, despite all the biological, mental, behavioral, and may I add anecdotal, evidence to the contrary? Btw, those same feminists wanted to raise it to 18. Had you been alive back then, you would’ve gone an extra mile, and raised to to 21 – “just in case.”

                  The only way out of puritanism is completely out. Not partial removal of the malignant tumor. Full removal. Abolish the age of consent, legalize child prostitution, let the puritans vomit their own lungs out in despair, and when you realize that teens are evolutionarily fit for sex, and evolution is a better guide than your arbitrary sentimental emotions, then you could propose legislation to deal with this and that.

                  And the community does indeed need shotgun marriage, because — to your surprise, no doubt — when left to their own devices, teens have an explosive, volcanic, all-surpassing and all-encompassing sexuality which “adults” can hardly comprehend – just as GNON intended. Hence, they’ll fuck, and fuck some more, and if you want to solve this issue, well, you can let 10 y/os jump atop older men’s woodies when they’re asleep on the couch in the living room, or you can institute shotgun marriage.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Vik needs to understand that a 12 y/o girl is, today, unlikely to come to her father and say to him: “dad, my pussy needs a cock inside of it, so please find me a suitable husband so I can marry him and subsequently fuck his brains out.” Instead, she’s more likely to do something immoral such as jumping on the older man who’s asleep on the couch.

                  Need to re-introduce and re-normalize young marriage.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  I have heard stories of very young girls having sex. It is fascinating to talk to the lower classes and the crazy behaviors in which they engage. Those are the girls that are most vulnerable to the breakdown of social structures, and the most impulsive. A bad mix when dealing with sexuality and the incredibly powerful urges around it. Marrying them off early is protecting them, not exploiting them.

                  I myself was attracted to a young woman at my college. And then I did the math after some things she said and came up with 15. And then I carefully backed away, because these things are so dangerous for men. Is it better that some asshole who does not care about his future and reputation, because he has neither, ends up fucking her, or someone like me who is interested in finding a wife and starting a family?

                  All you are doing is scaring away men like me, while the Jeremy Meeks of the world have their fun, and the girls end up used and worth less and less as time goes on.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • jim says:

                  The proposition that this is a lower class phenomenon is just nuts. Twinks are lower class or underclass fatherless. Ten year old girls having sex are generally middle class dual income family high socioeconomic status parents, often divorced but with paternal child support and working mother, though the men they have sex with are apt to be underclass, or at least able to give a convincing simulation of violence and criminality.

                • peppermint says:

                  When I was a high school edgy racist whigger, richer girls were more interested in me. Of course they were – they were looking for high quality aggressive genetics, not for men who were going to be able to support them. It’s obvious if you can build up the courage to look at what’s in front of your face instead of repeating the same stupid lies.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Jim, not merely a lower class phenomenon, for sure, but the lower classes are where you see the low impulse control, propensity to brag and shamelessness, and lack of social controls most clearly. I have no doubt it happens elsewhere, that was not what I am trying to say. More that the lower classes have no compunction about telling the stories of the crazy things which they did.

                  The man in question was a friend of my father, and he would regale my siblings and I of his exploits. Such as when he was a boy having sex with the girls in school. Or when he was a bank robber. Or the time he spent in jail and the people he met. That is the kind of man who goes around fucking young women. Not the middle/upper-middle class military veteran attending college, but the alcoholic thief/hellion.

                  Ban guns, viking, and only criminals have guns. Ban teenage pussy, viking, and only criminals will have teenage pussy. Ban young marriage, viking, and, well, criminals do not get married, so no one will have marriage. Your delicate sensibilities be damned, this is the way Europe dealt with the problem for centuries. This is how Europeans keep women under control. Not your prog-sanctioned moral posturing, but by making sure that if a girl was intent on fucking, at least it would be her husband she was fucking.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • jim says:

                  That is the guy that young girls are having sex with.

                  Not necessarily the class of the young girls that are having sex with him.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Jim, we agree. The class of the girls is irrelevant. The class of the man is highly relevant. The type of man that viking would run off is exactly the type of man that should be getting married. The lowlifes, hellraisers, and criminals are not going to care what the law is.

                  The whole point is that, yes, that very young girls having sex happens, that lower class men are the ones the girls are chasing, and that making it illegal is not going do dissuade them.

                  The Shadowed Knight

                • jay says:

                  ”If you are not stopping nine year old girls from having sex”

                  9yo girls having sex mostly due to single motherhood which ensures early puberty.

                  Having a father in the home actually delays puberty and menses.


                  Hence you will find why instead of 9 years old menses among the Patriarchal hebrews it occurs latter at approximately 12-13 plus the body doesn’t stop growing and reach full menstrual cycle until 2 years at approximately 15-16.

                  Likewise early pregnancy alongside malnutrition is the reason africa has such high rates of Obstetric fistula:

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think so. Looks to me that early sex is dual income family, that girls who have early sex have children late, and parents that had children late.

                  Early menstruation is caused by single motherhood, and causes single motherhood. But early sex resulting from early menstruation is not a problem. The problem is sex preceding menstruation.

                  Older women, women approaching thirty, are more relationship oriented, which restrains their hypergamy. They are less keen to be number nine on Jeremy Meeks booty call list, want a guy to remove spiders, change the light bulbs, and take out the garbage. Conversely, very young girls, particularly before menarche, are less relationship oriented, their hypergamy unrestrained and inordinate.

                • jay says:

                  I think how Aisha reacted to sex with Muhammad as recorded in the Quran. As well as the other facts that are well cited indicate the psychological damage of pedophilia.

                • jay says:

                  What’s your opinion on r/K selection theory:

                • jim says:

                  Tries to explain too much.

                  Yes, Democratic party constituencies are the product of r selection. The left, being the party of chaos and entropy, aligns with thinking typical of adaption to r selection.

                  But actual leftists, for example Karl Marx, Margaret Mead, are the product of K selection. Democratic constituencies are r selected. Democrati leadership K selected. Note that leading leftists do not reproduce, which is the opposite of what r selection would predict. They rely on the votes of the woman with twelve children, each with a different father, and each father a criminal, which is what r selection would predict.

                • peppermint says:

                  R/k is
                  * backwards. Liberals have small families and meticulously raise their children to be faggots while conservatives have large families and accept the fact that their children could fail and need to be cut off
                  * retarded. Nature does not have R species and k species. It has food-limited species and territory-limited species
                  * pseudoscience, of the modeling variety. Other classifications of pseudoscience are data-driven and logical reification

                • jay says:

                  Early sex and late childbirth is only possible with birth control. They would end up with more births in the absence of birth control.

                  r-selection is basically a focus on quantity high promiscuity and low investment parenting. And K-selection is a focus on quality which means that they will have children but invest in them heavily and doesn’t care about birth control.

                • jay says:

                  ”But early sex resulting from early menstruation is not a problem.”

                  Where is the evidence for that claim though. Because all the evidence I manage to find is negative about early sex and menstruation.

                • jim says:

                  > Where is the evidence for that claim though. Because all the evidence left wing agitation and propaganda I manage to find is negative about early sex and menstruation.

                  I fixed your typo for you.

                  Correlations between early menstruation and bad outcomes occur because blacks, being closer to chimps, mature faster than whites. If you look for the correlation between early menstruation and bad outcomes within a single race, no strong association with bad outcomes.

                  Early pregnancy, yes, bad outcomes. Girls should not bear children as soon as physically possible. Neither should female cats or female dogs. But they should bear children not very long after it becomes physically possible.

                  Correlations between early sex without pregnancy and bad outcomes are not available, since early sex officially does not happen except in cases officially deemed rape and child abuse. But it looks to me, on the basis of casual observation, that the main harmful effect of early sex is a high propensity to become a childless left wing cat lady on reaching a certain age, which would be fixed if we had shotgun marriage for female sexual immorality. The big problem with early sex is that girls are apt to burn up their ability to bond emotionally with a man by fucking one bad boy wild one after another before it is even legal for them to get married.

                • jay says:

                  You can call it left wing agitation but there is no well designed replicable scientific and medical studies that are in favor of your current worldview in regards to this topic.

                  No proof of scientific misconduct or monkeying with the data has been shown.

                • jim says:


                  Gimmee something actually scientific? How do they in fact know that early sex is bad? What is the evidence?

                  What are these well designed replicable studies that show that early sex is bad for girls?

        • Cloudswrest says:

          I believe Jim is somewhere North of 60.

        • jim says:

          I am a lot older than that, and apart from my wife, all my women are under thirty, and as I have gotten older, their age has not changed much at all. I am looking for one woman to settle down with, and I hope to keep her as she ages over thirty.

          Yes, when you are old and fat, it is a big problem, and when I was really fat, a near insuperable problem. So I lost some weight and gained some muscle, and now it is back to merely being a big problem, but not such a big problem that I feel inclined to solve it by having sex with women thirty and older.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Okay. Jim – I gotta call bullchit. If you are North of 60 and bedding bubble gummers – it’s because they smell money on you.

            You’re the one being hustled, I’d wager. So are you on Viagra or Cialis?

            • jim says:

              Possibly, though I am not actually rich, or even well off. I just have the means to maintain the appearance of being wealthy when advisable to do so. Donald Trump’s flying palace was often flying one step ahead of his creditors.

              But in my observation, money helps, but is more effective when deployed as a sign of status, than applied in ways that directly benefit the girl. Recollect those U tube videos where a player uses a (rented) status car to pick up chicks. If you tell a girl that you will send your driver to pick her up, makes one hell of a difference, but if she asks for an expensive gift, and you comply, certain failure. If they are trying to take advantage of me, they are not going about it in the right way.

              Better to conspicuously spend money on yourself, than on the girl.

              Also, in my observation, no amount of money can compensate for lack of other forms of game. Maybe if I was playing a poor vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole I would not get far, but I surely would get further than playing a wealthy humble generous faithful lawabiding homebody. Plenty of very rich men do very badly. And I am not a very rich man.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                Fella doesn’t have to be rich, Jim, long as he’s free. But I noticed you dodged the Viagra/cialus question too. 😉

                As I get older I look at the shrews, sluts, and degenerates our young women have become and I feel sorry for the young men. If my wife were to pass I wouldn’t consider getting back in the dating game, or whatever passes for it these days.

                So you’re a widower Jim?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Jim’s testosterone levels must be substantially higher than yours; he doesn’t give up on the unceasing evolutionary struggle. It’s genuinely admirable.

              • Zach says:

                Holy shit. I pegged you for 60s too.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, am sixties. My girls are always under thirty, except, of course, for my wife, where wife goggles took affect.

                  However in defect/defect equilibrium, wife goggles do not take effect, which is why defect/defect equilibrium is worse for girls than for men.

            • Zach says:

              Anybody not on T after age 40 or 50 is making a mistake. However some people not on T in high school are making a mistake.

  9. Poochy says:

    “I play a wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole”

    And who says these are not the men that build civilizations? Were these not the men who discovered and conquered America?

  10. Garr says:

    I suspect that your success is at least in part due to the fact that women think it’s cute of you to put so much effort into your performance. Also, they find the effort flattering. And if you’re a good performer, they’re probably responding to your demonstration of theatrical ability as well.

    On the “route to renewed civilization lies through Vikings” point — well, it lies through Vikings who cultivate the allegiance of talented Nerds. I guess that’s the Trump method …

    (… although Trump himself doesn’t seem to be doing very well right now. It seems to me that the USA is in fact ungoverned. Nobody makes decisions. The machinery just grinds on. This seems dangerous.)

    • jim says:

      One seldom errs in the direction of over estimating the darkness of women’s souls.

      Under estimating, on the other hand, is a common and very bad error.

      My girlfriend recently caused me to watch two movies and an anime targeted at women. One was “Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Of which the important moral was that if you give women what they want, they will bang some other guy. As the male fantasy is to take the entire Swedish beach vollyball to bed, the female fantasy is alpha fucks, beta bucks.

      The other was reverse harem anime. The female protagonist, who the story tells us is fifteen,is drawn as age ten, no breasts (we see her naked and she still has no breasts) and exactly the same width all the way from shoulders to ass. Her primary love interest is a handsome rich and powerful man of about forty or so, who buys her as a slave, in chains, and then immediately removes her clothes, which explode away from her body in shreds. (After the fashion of Rolling Stone’s “A rape on campus”.) This is a romance, not loli porn. It is entirely targeted at women with all fan service directed at women, none at males. Also all the males except for the primary love interest die horribly while deeply in love. It is all about handsome adult males with massive preselection falling deeply in love with her, not about males getting their rocks off inside a cute girl.

      What women want, as indicated by movies and manga, is really bad for males and makes relationships difficult and dangerous. In stories targeted at women and girls, men only get happy ever after when, as in the anime with the ironing board shaped protagonist, the story caters to a woman’s masochistic desires. And often, as in “A rape on Campus”, not even then.

      Similarly, “The Wedding Date” where Mr Beta Bucks agrees to marry a woman who cuckolded him, while the protagonist maid of honor agrees to be friends with benefits to Mr Alpha Fucks. The groom is headed for divorce rape, while the maid of honor is headed to becoming a cat lady when she drops off Mr Alpha Fucks booty call list.

      In romances targeted at women there is persistent and disturbing darkness and evil, malice combined with self destructiveness. “A rape on campus” being a particularly disturbing example.

      Women in fiction targeted at women behave in ways that would in real life likely have bad consequences for themselves and for the men in their lives.

      • Garr says:

        Well, I’ll defer to your experience, and Pdimov’s (I’m probably thinking wishfully rather than rationalizing — maybe I wish that women were more motherly; women seem to actually like their male children, at least.)

        Following up on my thought about how the USA doesn’t seem to have anyone in charge of it right now — maybe the “Deep State” should be thought of as an AI incorporating thousands of human brains and thousands of computers. (I became acquainted with the suggestion that bureaucracies might be AIs through a post or comment at Slatestarcodex, I believe.) If the Deep State is an AI then maybe we’re basically okay.

        On Vikings — maybe the real Vikings were mostly more nerdy than fierce-warrior/jockish. I read somewhere that when someone wanted to lead a raid he’d go to a bunch of Scandinavian villages and basically interview applicants; he’d hire the most highly skilled guys for the job. Are our own Navy SEAL type guys really more jockish than nerdy? I’ll bet they’re fairly nerdy. Some of you might know — Shadowed Knight, VXXwhatever? B? I’m curious.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Bureaucratic inertia works well enough as an explanation. People just keep following the guidelines on the expectation that things will eventually return to normal. Of course the issue is when parts of the system conflict with each other and there are no higher ups to resolve the issue and things start breaking down.

      • viking says:

        yeah you failed that shit test. Proper response was 2 minutes in to smash TV and tell her to do something useful like baking.

        • lalit says:

          What? Are you serious?

          • StringsofCoins says:

            Maybe tell her to cook you some broccoli and beef instead?

            • viking says:

              yes > Do you watch movies like that or allow your women to humiliate you by making you watch them, are you into cuck porn too?
              Women certainly need to be put to good use, if you have taken on a woman you do not let her waste the labor she owes you on such garbage you tell her what her duties are and see that she carries them out. similarly you direct her less structured time to be spent improving herself so she can then improve your children. If you allow women to watch crap like these movies sex and the city and the like then you complain that they emulate the propaganda designed to make them emulate, well pretty stupid.
              No you explain to them that they have been mistaken and unhappy, that now they have a new sovereign that will reorder their lives properly so they will be happy and fulfilled.

              • jim says:

                Owning a woman is like owning a dog, but catching a woman is like catching a big fish. Sometimes you reel the fish in, sometimes you let the fish run for a bit then reel it in.

                Too much beta does not work, but all alpha all the time does not work either. So: Take her to the movies, and impose a ratio of two or three guy movies to every girlie movie.

              • jim says:

                Alpha is not being rough on women one hundred percent of the time. It is being rough on women sufficiently often to show who is the boss. You also have to be nice – just not excessive niceness, not appeasing niceness.

                • viking says:

                  yes jim all thats true still in all I have never been made to watch a chick flick. theres some things you dont do, like carry her purse for her. help her deliver a baby, wear a wedding ring. let her keep the checkbooks, agree to do half the housework, i could go on but its pointless you watched that movie youre ruined

              • StringsofCoins says:

                Oh yes. My wife’s mind was blown when we were just dating and I told her that she was going to homeschool my children. At least the woman I married was going to. She’s much happier with me because I do structure her life, just like I structure her sex life. I am the man, she is the woman, she obeys me. And if not? Why she tried this around six months into our marriage. If not then I’ll go fuck some other girl and lead her, and cease and desist leading my wife.

                She tried some baloney tears and some laughable threat of divorcing me. . Later she threw a bottle at me. So I gave her two black eyes. Then she turned into purring kitten and has obeyed me since.

                • New here says:

                  I don’t know if this is real, but by God I hope so. Fucking heros, the lot of you.

        • Arpad V. says:

          An experienced player knows that he needs both hard dominance and soft dominance. You should not take any shit from women – be the impenetrable castle that she sees and unconquerable. At the same time, have some soft cushions and fine wine inside that castle.

          While I have my disagreements with Jim about his view on women, he seems like a guy he knows what he’s doing. In one of his older posts, he compared women with hunting dogs, and I believe that’s roughly the right attitude – reward good behavior, punish bad behavior. If you only kick the dog, without giving him a reward when he does a good job, he will not be a good dog. The same applies for a woman. I have no idea why Jim invested hours into watching that stuff, but if it was his estimation of rewarding a woman by giving her an emotional experience that’s bonding them, that’s a good way to go.

    • pdimov says:

      “I suspect that your success is at least in part due to the fact that women think it’s cute of you to put so much effort into your performance.”

      You’re rationalizing, but the performance does not target the rational part of the female brain.

      • viking says:

        true but theyre also not fooled by late middle aged pedos fronting meeks, so they ( if there really were a they which we all know isnt true) intuit this betas expending a lot of calories and I dont see meeks around.

    • viking says:

      yes exactly.
      like teenagers girls have excellent bullshit detectors Jims “tweedy academic fronts meeks” is not fooling them (if there really is a them which is really doubtful) Hes a clown putting on a show just for them.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Girls do not have excellent filters. That was the reason for patriarchy; women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. They are flighty, foolish, selfish little monsters if they are not tightly controlled. Appeal to their darker natures, and they will love you for it.

        I used to have problems with women challenging me because I was calm and friendly. Women, threatening me. Until I told them that I would throw them across the room and beat them when they landed. Then it was sunshine and happiness.

        I get far more mileage out of being an asshole than being restrained and polite, because they see that as weakness. Look at them with shark eyes, strip the emotion away and look at them to evaluate them for a fight and follow up rape, and they love it. Not really where my interests lie, but my interests do not matter. Theirs do, and their revealed preference is for a cruel, arrogant, vain asshole with a propensity towards violence. I do not have the social capability to do any better, so I play the part.

        The Shadowed Knight

        • viking says:

          No question the ones too do dumb to see hes clowning will respond from the side of their brain we would be better off letting wither from disuse. Heartiste is 100% correct. My comment was an agrree response to Garrs assertion not that “game doesn’t work but that Jim’s unlikely to be pulling off such a extreme alpha larp and is more likely triggering a laugh fuck .

          Nature always has backup plans. women’s attempts to choose mates is a back up plan, their weakness that allows men to select reject or assign them regardless their preferences is the more evolved, even more recently whites have attempted to resolve the tension by giving women the illusion they have some say. Obviously this evolution has gotten away from whites and is reiterating back to square one.

      • Zach says:

        Perhaps he’s just exaggerating to absurdities his normal self. Having a fucking crude sense of humor always worked for me, but only a specific brand of chick laughs at that shit.

      • StringsofCoins says:

        Yes you think everyone who isn’t a white white knight is a clown. How is your wife’s son doing?

      • Anony-maus says:

        That’s untrue.

  11. >What else can one do if one wants to get laid?

    Playing the wealthy vain narcissistic playboy, without the violent sadistic criminal part and adding being witty, often scathingly sarcastic, but sometimes very intellectually philosophical (since education is status these days) worked well enough when I was young and single.

    I think you either over-emphasize the importance of the dark stuff or your target market differs from mine.

    Say, ever had a goth girl (not fat) studying to be a psychotherapist and writing abstract poetry? Those sorts were my girlfriends.

    • alf says:

      Some girls need only the tiniest hint of violence, say a stern look. But truth is, plenty of girls crave a decent amount of violence, and some crave a lot of violence.

      • StringsofCoins says:

        Hell maybe I can say this here without being banned. If a woman dares to talk back to you? Slap her in the face. And then don’t be a weak faggot and apologize but rather go fuck the shit out of her later. Cause her vagina will be on 🔥

        • Cavalier says:

          And if she needs more than a slap and a fuck, ditch her at your soonest convenience.

      • Arpad V. says:

        Well said.

        In my experience, if you’re trying to seduce an IQ>100 women with no significant mental problems, just the fact that you tell them that you did some martial arts and got heavily injured while sparring will get those gina tingles going. Ghetto sluts need a bullet wound.

        The same principle applies if the woman behaves bad. For women of quality, mild punishment, for the underclass sluts something much more severe.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Lol – how does that play acting work for you Jim? I suppose you might be able to pull it off on your preferred 9-10 year old girls, but I seriously doubt you’ve got anyone else fooled, you dirty old man 😉

    • jim says:

      Your insult concedes the important point: That a wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole who is a confrontational bully can get away with grabbing them by the pussy, whether or not I succeed in carrying out the act.

      • viking says:

        Just more of your might as well act like niggers philosophy. Acting like niggers is not our edge.You further the niggerization of westciv you lose to niggers in long run. you are simply exploiting a microclimate while destroying the world. You’re conceding leadership to bitches and niggers who are beasts who need to be led not followed.You think you are sticking it in the eye of the faggot class that let the niggers and bitches out of their jungles and kitchens, but you are really assisting them.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          Wrong, you useless dipshit retardo. What’s your excuse for writing like a nigger, anyway? Do you suffer from a debilitating neuro-degenerative disease? I HOPE YOU DO.

          Niggerization of society by means of individual misconduct would be Jim hitting on happily married women, which so far he did not report doing. Since, unfortunately, the percentage of married women in society is far lower than the ideal 100% (which means that there are ample horny sluts walking amongst us), catering to revealed female preference — whatever that preference is — in order to get one’s dick wet does not constitute, and should not be regarded as, niggerization.

          Jim is an inspiration. I’m not saying this because I want to suck up to him – I don’t give a shit what he thinks about me, or what anyone else thinks about me. I genuinely think that a man his age, who is doing what he’s doing, who is trying to figure out how to find lasting intimate romantic/sexual contentment with women, despite all the obvious “handicaps,” despite being as fat as a polar bear and looking like one, all while running the best blog in the entire universe – I think that all this makes him worthy of having us name our sons after him. Which may well come to pass.

          On the other hand… No one, viking, has ever gained ANY insight from any post you have ever written under any name in any website at any time. You may as well have never existed on the internet, and I bet the exact same can be said of your IRL persona, too.

          Kill yourself, swine. I hope an actual nigger (that’d be “a towering intellectual superior” for you) stabs your throat and rapes your teenage daughter in the anus in front of your dying faggot self. And forces you to “clean it up” during your last, pathetic, oxygen-deprived seconds on this Earth.

          Have you fucked your own daughter already, mister “viking”? What are you waiting for, execrable wuss? Everyone can see that this is your sick perverted fantasy, which is why you keep bringing her up, time after time after time after time, unsolicited, into every single discussion where the volcanic sex drive of teenage women is mentioned. If every discussion about the topic of “horny teens” immediately compels you to post personal private stuff about your own daughter, to be viewed by a bunch of anonymous strangers on the internet, then guess what? You’re the “chomo,” chomo.

          The excrement I dump into the toilet has a higher value than the stinking piece of crap you contain inside your skull as a substitute for “brains.” Come at me, you impotent worthless faggot nigger.

          • viking says:

            yeah Jims an intellectual giant and sexual exemplar, has mom got your supper ready yet? I have mentioned my children at times because this space is full of neckbeard animae peter pans with zero life experience enthralled by some middle aged child molester because he eptimizes the powerless rage they feel and encourages them to wreck shit they do not understand.

        • ilkarnal says:

          I think he’d be perfectly happy to act a gentleman if acting a gentleman was rewarded as it once was. I’d bet my bottom dollar he’d be happier in such a situation, a situation where he was restrained, his partner was restrained, and other men were restrained to act in pro-social ways. That’s a more stable and productive environment – men in such organizations crush men who must constantly scramble over one another.

          To pretend to be in such a situation when you aren’t is to be a cuck. That’s what cuckstians do, pretend that ‘doing the right thing’ will be magically rewarded when the enforcement mechanisms have been stripped out and the commons are being vigorously trashed. Those are the people who ‘think they are sticking it in the eye of the faggot class’ but are really assisting them.

          • StringsofCoins says:

            You do not understand. He is acting like a gentleman. He’s restrained, at all the right points. He is just not acting as a tool for bitches to use, but a cocky asshole to use the bitches. Still a gentleman though. A gentleman in the streets, a beast in the sheets

            • viking says:

              my reply mysteriously posted at the bottom ” I hear what you are saying”…..

        • Anony-maus says:

          People act consistent with incentives. The incentives encourage people to act in ways that are untoward to civilization.

          Hate the game, not the player.

          Stay cool.

      • jay says:

        Not only an insult but baseless accusation and even libel.

    • viking says:


    • jay says:


  13. Rape says:

    This is why I like monstergirls. 3D is PD.

    • jim says:

      Monster girls are an odd sexual deviation. I can understand why women like dinosaur sex. They are attracted to size, strength, power and danger. But men are attracted to weakness and submission. So why monster girls?

      My conjecture is that men find it hard to imagine that women would desire intimate contact out of sexual appetite, so fantasize about girls that would like to literally eat them.

      I conjecture that the monster girl sexual deviation is a perverse male response to a perverse environment where women have superior social status to men – that the monster girl sexual deviation derives from the vore cannibalism sexual deviation.

      • What if a man feels crazy because he’s afraid of something he can’t articulate or doesn’t want to admit to being afraid of? He may feel better (less crazy) if he can find something plausible to be afraid of. There was a Catholic addiction counselor named Terry Kellogg who used a similar explanation for why people from alcoholic families, who were in denial, would be attracted to alcoholics.

      • Alrenous says:

        Man is attracted to causing submission of something that is resisting. Otherwise pedophilia would be normal – the submission/attraction link would leak across categories. Puppies would be sexy instead of cute. Monster girls can resist more and are therefore more of a conquest. Women see a man who’s nice to them as a signal they can trade up. Similarly, a man sees a woman who doesn’t resist very much as an easy lay, from which he can trade up. Why buy the cow etc.

        Then there’s also autism. Monster girls are socially inept, thus autists are capable of being socially dominant relative to them. The very term ‘monster’ denotes outcast and deviant, hence the same social class as your iconic /pol/ poster.

        Monster girls are therefore a paradoxical combination of high-status girlfriend (trophy) and low-status (within reach).

        There’s also the savior complex. Again, because ‘monster’ is mythologically outcast and deviant, the monster-porn afficianado imagines themselves acknowledging their ‘secret’ virtue, for which the monster is pathetically gracious.

        There’s also the sexual variety thing. Monster => more various.

        Handicap principle. If you’re not hot, you can get a hot SO if they have a downside. Hot, but stupid. Hot, but crazy. Hot, but half spider. As a bonus, art of spiders isn’t as inherently ugly as a real spider – the artist can turn the escapism up to 11.

        • jim says:

          Yes, that makes sense of the Monster Girl sexual deviation. Male outcasts are fantasizing about hot female outcasts. The male insert character is not shown fucking the monster girl, or being eaten by the monster girl, but socially dominating the monster girl, unlike real life.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            Why monster girls (which don’t exist) instead of crippled burn-victim girls (which do exist) is beyond me.

        • Rape says:

          This is right on the money—especially the points about resisting, autism, and sexual variety.

          I would also add that I participate in a particular monstergirl community, hosted on an anonymous imageboard website, which distinguishes itself from other communities by the presence of extreme romance and babymaking and an absence of (relatively) more degenerate fetishes such as futa and furry. It’s a nice and comfortable place to chat with other monstercons.

      • Alrenous says:

        A general principle: why bother with a practice that fulfills only one psychological need, when you can answer several at a time?

      • Erik says:

        Monstergirls are the counterpart to sparklepires.

        • jim says:

          Sparklepires are super bad boys. And real life girls get laid by real life bad boys.

          It is natural for girls to want bad boys, not natural for boys to want bad girls.

          The fans of monstergirls are low socio-sexual status (even though frequently high economic status) The fans of sparklepires are very high socio sexual status (even though frequently low economic status) Big difference.

          Also fans of monster girls don’t get a real life equivalent of their monster girls, while fans of sparklepires get a midnight booty call from Jeremy Meeks. The real life equivalent of the sparklepire is the wealthy vain narcissistic playboy sadistic violent criminal adventurer asshole.

    • viking says:

      children are to be seen and not heard- get lost faggot

  14. Dave says:

    Instincts change only through natural selection. Female-specific instincts change slowly if at all because no society can afford to cull half or more of its females in each generation. For civilization to work, females were told to shut up, suppress their instincts, and do as they’re told.

    Emancipated females are monkeys seeking sex with the most monkey-like men. All PUA advice can be summed up as “act like a dominant male monkey”.

Leave a Reply