Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers.  Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite.  You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised.  Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat.  And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently.   If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine.  The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace:  If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal.  If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react …

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did.  She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps.  While she and you were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps.  And while she and you were fucking she said


loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness.   And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter.  If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

189 Responses to “Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake”

  1. Your Wife's Son says:

    >But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

    On that note:

    “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

    I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

    With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about “Yankee imperialism,” “exploitive capitalism,” “war-mongering,” “monopolists,” in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.

    I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

    But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

    We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.”'s%20CIA%20article.html

    Note the date of Harry S. Truman’s article: December 21, 1963, exactly one month after JFK’s assassination (November 22, 1963).

  2. EdensThaw says:

    Now Terry Richardson on the chopping block. The left is eating itself faster than it can eat the right.

    • Mackus says:

      Of course! When enough of Right stopped to automatically grovel and apologize, it became easier to eat fellow leftist than the right!

  3. Mister Grumpus says:

    (I love you man.)

  4. j says:

    Harvey Weinstein affair just proves that stereotypes are true: the way of advancement for a female is through offering sex to powerful males. It is true in Hollywood as it is true in any office, as well in a chimp gang in the jungle.

  5. SomeGuy says:

    Speaking as a gay man, I agree with this article wholeheartedly. That’s why, if I’m ever alone in a closed room with Jim, he’d better hope he’s not my type.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      You are implying that gay sex is the same as heterosexual sex, but that is not the case. Speaking as a bisexual mulatto and a Muslim (I am Barack Hussein Obama), I have raped my fair share of infidels and infidelettes over the years – trust me, the latter feels way, way better.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      “After he had created people, Zeus immediately implanted in them all the possible human character traits, but he forgot about Shame. Since he didn’t know how to get Shame inside the human body, he ordered her to go in from behind. At first Shame protested, considering Zeus’s request to be beneath her dignity. When Zeus kept insisting, she said, ‘All right, I will go in there, on the condition that if anything comes in there after me, I will leave immediately.’ As a result, people who engage in sodomy have no sense of shame.”

  6. Garr says:

    A couple of general thoughts about men and women:
    (1) Men are actually more tender and nurturing than women are (toward children, toward women, toward other men) … so how did people start believing that women are tender and nurturing? Maybe because men want to cuddle and take care of women, and project the tenderness that they feel toward women onto the women, as though the women are the tender ones?
    (2) Sex-relations (I mean how men are toward women and how women are toward men in general, not just while “having sex”) seem to vary so much from (racial and ethnic) group to group that I’m starting to think that statements about them should be group-specific. For example, the sneering disdainful domineering poses and facial expressions of Black celebrity-girls — do White men find this at all attractive? And there’s something sort of giggly-feminine (by White male standards) about Black men — consider the neon sneakers and slick brightly-colored hats and jackets.

    • peppermint says:

      Because nursing is what women are for. What trannies most get wrong is behavior around children, because that’s an ancient instinct.

      • Garr says:

        Women either bark and snap at children or engage in histrionic rituals of obviously fake appreciation and understanding, just as they do with one another. “Nursing” stops well before speech begins and therefore fails to constitute any aspect of the nurturing of a personal being.

        Men put a lot of time, effort, and thought into helping each other — this blog is an example. Women say “You go, girl!” to one another.

        Men put a lot of time, effort, and thought into helping women. Women put a lot of time and effort into extracting every last ounce of possible help from men.

        • peppermint says:

          Women love cooking for their man and their family. Women have different nurturing instincts towards children than men which are obviously valuable. If you’ve never seen what a good woman does – it’s rarely portrayed in media and is mostly done in the home where you’ll never see it – that’s your problem, not the problem of evolution.

          • Garr says:

            Diogenes looking for a good woman …
            Glad you’ve found one.

            • peppermint says:

              I’ve had a series of good women.

              They don’t get angry about being asked to make a sandwich. They get angry about not being asked to make a sandwich, not having their ass grabbed when no one is looking and being pinned down for sex, and fundamentally not being taken seriously as potentially a permanent mate. And they have evolved the ability to know how you’re feeling even when you lie to yourself about it.

  7. Mr Curious says:

    ‘It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but thesr women are not victims. They are whores.’

  8. Glenfilthie says:

    Nonsense. Weiner isn’t fat. Bill Clinton isn’t fat. Ghomeshi was not fat.

    Fat fucks fuck whores all the time. Any number of fat sugar daddies do their thing every day with hardly a peep. Attractive, fit men fuck whores every day and end up getting fucked.

    This is a case of whores being whores. He fucked tire biters and got what he deserved. Sex ALWAYS carries a price tag and ol’ Harv is going to pay through the nose. Let this be a lesson boys: low women may look dandy and roll well in the hay – but a tire biter is still just a tire biter.

    • peppermint says:

      No, dickweed, he fucked those of the prettiest women the American nation could produce that he could, turning them into crack whores, and making garbage movies with them.

      Can the induhvidualism faggot.

      • Glenfilthie says:


        That whole ‘actions-and-consequences’ is lame, isn’t it. Say – have ya ever fucked a rattlesnake, P-Mint? Neither have I! You should try it and let us know how it goes! 🙂

        • peppermint says:

          You’re talking as if Weinstein and his whores are the only people affected by the whoring. Which is exactly what is wrong with christcuckoldry.

          Sin is not between the individual and God with God the primary victim and each individual only responsible for themself. God does not exist. The individual has a family, a nation, and a race, and must do his best for them.

          And whenever someone tried to express this, christcucks interpret it as a duty to the entire world, especially niggers. Which is the second worst thing about christcuckoldry.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            I agree.

            I am pointing out that Harv didn’t go down because he was fat as Jim said, I am saying he went down because he fucked low women just as Ghomeshi and Clinton did. Jim believes in evo-psych to unreasonable extent; I say that it starts and ends with the sexual contract and that’s that for that! In other words, you fuck it – you bought it. Even whores have to get paid. My scholarly position is that for any happiness men and women need to honestly define the terms of their sexual contracts before any sex takes place. To establish the credibility and honesty of a prospective woman – that calls for long courtships and possibly a marriage contract as well.

            I am a chit house Christian at best. My priorities in life are my family, myself, and the church in that order and if the church hands me any bullshit – they’ll get cut from the last faster n’ you can think about it.

            Blacks are the same as women for me – I take them one at a time and if they are honest and up front – yeah, sure I will respect them. I will not take shit off niggers or whores. Jim is correct when he says we need to start policing our women and our coloured people again or they WILL destroy us.

            • jim says:

              Better quality women are not found, but made, made by the authority of the male to whom they submit.

              • Narm says:


                The question becomes how much energy to improve the quality, and in what contexts should one invest, and so on.

                One question I’ve been wondering about: Rollo says “sisterhood uber alles.” Certainly this is true in prog-land. And we know women have at least some in-group preference. But how true is this generally?

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  I dunno about that either, guys.

                  I’ve seen good men raise horrible daughters – I did so myself. My mother is an awful woman at times too. I have seen morons raise wonderful daughters – my father in law comes to mind – and he submitted to his wife in everything, not the other way around…

                • Cavalier says:

                  >I’ve seen good men raise horrible daughters – I did so myself. My mother is an awful woman at times too. I have seen morons raise wonderful daughters – my father in law comes to mind – and he submitted to his wife in everything, not the other way around…

                  Genetics. It always comes down to genetics, in the end. And not just individually, but also in regression to the familial mean. Did you ever wonder about the root cause of the cheerleader effect? It isn’t a psychological defect.

                  Steve Jobs was raised by working-class nobodies, but his biological father was the son of a a self-made millionaire Syrian.

                  Were you the guy with the mail-order bride, or was that someone else?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Were you the guy with the mail-order bride, or was that someone else?

                  Oy vey: muh human trafficking. And if you buy a young “underage” bride for your son and bring her to the US: oy vey, muh international child sex trafficking.

                  But perhaps “oy vey” should be replaced with something else in this case, because these (“human trafficking,” “international child sex trafficking”) are distinctly and unmistakably puritan memes. But the kikes are not doing anything to oppose these puritan memes, just as they do nothing about the rest of the puritan program, because kikes and puritans are close allies.

                  Hence “Yankee-Judea.”

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Oy vey: muh human trafficking.

                  Oy vey: scrape the bottom of the barrel, get barrel scrapings.

    • Cavalier says:

      What, exactly, is the lesson? Spend three or four decades in hedonistic bliss before finally jetting off into the sunset, as an old, ugly, shriveled-up man, to live on your private island with your three steady consolation girlfriends?

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Good point.

        The man can afford to lose multimillion dollar lawsuits, public condemnation… and do just that.

        Can you?

  9. peppermint says:

    GenZ didn’t win the last election. Strictly speaking, they’re only voting in 2020.

    My circles are coastal elite oven middle class.

    Metoo is fizzling before our eyes. It’s cut off from star power because entertainment media is guilty and news media is complicit, we’re hearing exactly the stories we expect for exactly the people we expect, and it’s not getting the response from white knights that it needs. This one Xir bitch’s metoo post got two Xir cucks saying that they have nothing to say like the trained dogs they are, which is, of course, creepy and unseemly.

    When I got to college, two of the women I met there would be raped by niggers within the year. Did one of them post a metoo story that her friends left her in the car in [African-infested area] when they went to the club since she was underage, the car was broken into and they raped her? Even leaving out the place doesn’t prevent literally everyone from knowing that she should be grateful for being culturally enriched. Did the other post a metoo about how she let these guys in her dorm room and they raped her and stole her laptop? No, the only metoo stories allowed are the ones where the perp behavior could reasonably be construed as White, and literally everyone knows this. The first thing anyone thinks about a rape story is racial identity of perp and victim, and literally everyone knows it.

    Marxism was never about economis, and neither is nationalism. Historical materialism is, as Mike Enoch says, the class consciousness of the oven middle class, such a compellingly important idea it needs fabulous funding.

    Economics is, as Anglin says, and Jim said before, less meaningful in a world of plenty. The insane economic theories of communism and UBI communism and robot worker communism need to be dismissed but also supplanted with recognition of each individual’s place in the nation because they are the doctrines not of lazy working people but rootless cosmopolitan bugmen.

    Did anyone expect White men to choose the flag over football?

    Unless something changes soon, the left is finished.

    • deltahedge says:

      >Did anyone expect White men to choose the flag over football?

      given the state of each and every white countries today, in which their women are voting for more muslim and african men to come in, fuck them, and let their men pay the pills – why should they?

      There is a reason I moved to Switzerland – probably the only white country that is not utterly cucked today. Alas thats only because women got the right to vote later here than elsewhere – in a few decades it will look like any other European country.

      Where to go then?

      • jim says:

        We are just going to have to disenfranchise women. Vote should be restricted to property owning male head of household, and men that are employed at violence under authority – police, military, rentacops, and mercenaries – or have been so employed and have been honorably discharged.

        • Cavalier says:

          If the problem was women voting, women wouldn’t be voting. Women voting is an effect, not a cause. Also, voting is democracy, and the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of government constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Indeed, in America these gun-wielding democratic patriots of yours most assuredly live undisturbed by bishops, nobles, or kings; and there likewise they enjoy all the blessings which can attend that happy state, where every member of society will be his own law-giver, his own governor, judge, and director.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          In Britain, women historically voted Conservative. If women are married, their votes don’t matter. A stably married woman votes for her husband by proxy. If women are unmarried, there are deeper problems.

          And married women don’t want votes, unless married to men who want women to have votes.

          • Frank says:

            20% of women (1s and 2s on a SMV scale from 1 to 10, and very crazy women) will always be unmarriageable.

            Give them their house (house of whores and feral women). Formalize their interest. Make them an explicit interest group, and let them negotiate an exchange acceptable to all houses. Alternative is to regularly remove them out of existence — which I don’t think will be psychologically feasible anytime soon.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              I don’t think the scale is equally distributed and set in stone; I suspect utterly unmarriageable is closer to the rate of homosexuality (somewhere between 1-10%).

              That said you don’t have to kill them if you need to get rid of them; simply send them to Africa. Toxic waste, ugly chicks, substandard goods- the continent will accept them all.

        • Kevin C. says:

          Except that, historically, no polity has ever successfully narrowed the franchise without eliminating it altogether, and pretty much every attempt to do so has met with disaster for the government that tried. The one time a country tried to roll back from universal male suffrage to property requirements, the result was Napoleon III.

          • jim says:

            Athens disenfranchised a bunch of foreign migrants. But then it did not have universal franchise at the time.

  10. Reluctant Dissident says:

    The BBC managed to work the phrase ‘locker-room talk’ into their analysis. It seems clear to me that our echoey friend is a sacrificial lamb to attone for ”white’ privilege’, er I mean as a means to entrap the President.

    If the Donald loudly denounces then he’s a hypocrite because locker-room talk; if he offers support or calls for moderation, he’s complicit.

    Of course I take all your points about the historical context for this man’s actions, but I see your context and raise you a specific context: he knew full well what the rules of engagement were in the world in which he actually lived, so he has only himself to blame for the consequences, just as a man ‘carrying a plant in his pocket’ can hardly complain when he goes to jail for drug offences.

    It’s not a democracy, old chap!

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Or Trump ignores it and goes after another culture war target. The only way it stops him is if the media builds it up to be a serious problem; however that requires a witch hunt and more sacrifices. Otherwise they have nothing to pull him in.

    • peppermint says:

      Who gave Pussygate legs? The same people who just lost their last scraps of credibility by rabidly pursuing Trump while avoiding Roman Polanski and Weinstein, Cosby and Clinton, and letting Weiner keep going for so long.

      As induhvidual idea men, we’re not used to thinking in terms of tu quoque, which is a formal fallacy. And that’s really our great weakness. The reason the West is dying is its heart was eaten out by us logical big brain nibba bugmen. We never understood the Jew as Satan the Accuser any more than the desert merchant Jew understood the Aryan c

      • peppermint says:

        ivilization builder.

        The Simpsons started during the term of conman George “Herbert Walker” Bush. Reverend Lovejoy was a right-wing pastor, Lisa said the Bible says judge not lest ye be judged and Lovejoy said that’s probably in the back somewhere. Everyone went to those legacy churches and it was unimaginable that the churches would completely disappear even for christmas and easter.

        Homer would listen to right-wing radio and Carl and Lenny would complain to him about it, not to HR to get him fired.

        Sideshow Bob, the insufferable elitist quoting Buddhism and talking about the glory of England, was a conservative Republican who said that deep down inside people want to be ruled by him. Today someone saying the exact same things would be a Democrat.

        Kent Brockman was constantly made fun of for the sensationalism more than the lying. It was unimaginable that the now-legacy news or entertainment media would some day collapse.

        Nelson had a soul in the beginning and in the early ’90s my elementary school also had a White groundskeeper, while Sideshow Bob referred to Princeton as clown school college was taken seriously, Homer went to work as a nuclear safety engineer because it was one of the few jobs that didn’t require a college degree, and it was unimaginable that the legacy education system would collapse.

        Chuch doesn’t even exist for GenZ or even Millennials. Legacy newsmedia no longer exists for GenZ and cable channels don’t exist for Millenials. School still exists but GenZ can make fun of it in real time on the Internet so it doesn’t have the desired brainwashing effect anymore.

        In the mid 90s, The Simpsons got meaner and meaner towards White Americans. Homer became a moron and so forth.

        Today GenZ is much closer in thinking to their great-grandparents before the age of mass education let alone force integrated mass education than their cuckold grandparents and parents.

        No one who isn’t a White leftist takes metoo seriously. Everyone knows the vast majority of sexual misconduct against White women comes from niggers, Jews with power, and White liberal men. White leftism is collapsing because the institutions responsible for brainwashing Whites into it are disappearing and its hold over the youth is broken.

        Do you know any Xir single moms of GenZ children? Their busybody despair is delicious.

        • peppermint says:

          Our challenge going forward isn’t to discuss how to torture the parents of the Boomers and the Boomers and Xirs to death for their treason, but to impress upon them that they matter because we matter and our nation matters.

          Selling patriotism to Boomers will be difficult because they’re so used to dismissing it, and to Xirs and other Millennials because we’re so used to thinking our nation already defeated. My dad said that I’ve spent my entire life in school being sold various propositions under the guise of patriotism. He seemed genuinely surprised when I told him that I actually was told by immortal philosophers made of starstuff that attachment to contingent things like the American nation is silly prejudice and should be eradicated, even though he admitted that all the agitprop he’d learned about Christopher Columbus he’d learned from his kids when they brought it back from school. I’ve seen the wholesome short films they showed him in school on YouTube.

          I don’t know how to do it, but I’m working on my oldfags in my social network. If I can convince them to raise the American flag, we can build back from this.

          • Reluctant Dissident says:

            An impressive speech, Peppermint. The trouble is, as is almost always the case with nationalists (and I have tremendous sympathy for what you stand for and will always side with the tribe), you’re deluded about how much progress you’re making.

            You think Leftism’s collapsing? In what universe? The man in the street is still very much convinced of the truth of virtually all of it: especially the economic parts, which nationalists often agree with, but also the social parts, which nationalists pretend are in sharp decline.

            Yes, in the circles you move in, the media’s grip is loosening. In wider society not so much, and the President IS widely regarded as a wicked, wicked man.
            Now would half of America vote for him again in a private ballot if they thought it’d take the pressure off their labour market environment, improve their chances of competing with cheap foreign alternatives and (most importantly of all) secretly shield them from diversity? Quite probably.

            Will that fraction increase? Quite probably.

            Does that mean The Cathedral’s done and we’re one election away from Charles II? I hardly think so.

            As Jim has pointed out, Trump is going to need a self-coup if he wants to sort this out, and by all appearances, he doesn’t necessarily want to sort this out. What he wants is for his businesses to do well, for his reputation to be augmented by his statesmanhood, and to basically get by without being taken down (or out) by the Reds.

            If you can convince the oldfags to hoist the star-spangled banner, I’ll apologise and give credit where it’s due, but right now I think you have more chance of being bitten by a friendly daffodil.

            Oldfags are more ready to sing The Internationale than at any time in the past century.

            • pdimov says:

              Oldfags are dying.

            • Reluctant Dissident says:

              I never expected to meet outright Leftism on this site, but my expectations are not realistic. As Jim said back in 2008, the world has moved back leftward economically.

              Yes the demographic replacement crisis is far more serious and yes it’s right to co-operate with NatSocs, alt.right types and economic leftists in general so long as they’re red-pilled and shitlordy where it counts the most….. but no, I’m certainly not conceding any of that and have zero wish to ‘debate’ it, otherwise I’d be at The Guardian, not

              • peppermint says:

                “Working men” is implicit White identity, not to mention sexism, and in the context of “a spectre is haunting Europe”, “workers of all countries, unite!” sounds White supremacist.

                That’s not to say marxism is now good – rather, economic marxism no longer exists and its symbols are no longer recognized.

                We do need to disabuse the bugmen of their Star Trek fantasy of infinite free interracial porno forever fueled by infinite free zero point energy.

              • jim says:

                Not seeing any outright leftism in Peppermint’s post.

                “The recognition of each individual’s place in the nation”

                is not obviously equivalent to free gibs for the useless.

            • Stripes Duncan says:

              I disagree. On the surface it seems so, but I’ve noticed here in the nest of loony leftism in which I reside that if you’re in a group and refuse to join the chorus of virtue-signaling, it usually emboldens one or two to start jumping out of line. People start feeling comfortable enough to talk about how “busing” has ruined the local schools, or start playing devil’s advocate for some aspects of Trumpism when five minutes prior Trump was Literally Hitler.

              People don’t really buy into the modern paradigm as much as they appear to. They have to pay lip service to it because they can’t move in society otherwise. They say what they feel they need to say to get invited to parties or get promoted at work. The key as always is to watch what they do, not what they say. My son’s Catholic school is filled with shitlibs who ostensibly love diversity and loathe Christians, yet they’d rather turn their children over to learn about God than send them to school with a bunch of muds.

              Shitlibs with means seem to live their lives rather conservatively. It reveals a lot, in my opinion.

            • jim says:

              > You think Leftism’s collapsing?

              see, for example

              Leftism can intimidate, it can lie, it can silence those who disbelieve, but as in the latter days of communism, it is no longer believed.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            America is not a nation. America the state is gone. Any restoration in North America will destroy the American state and found a nation with a different name.

            • peppermint says:

              My newsman family member literally believes mudslimes become American in the second generation, because Catholics and Irish and Germans did. You also confuse nation with state.

              Anarchists are right about this: that statists don’t have the power they think they have.

              America continues to exist because us Americans continue to exist. There could, and should, be multiple states – in fact, multiple states was intended from the beginning.

              America denialism is a typical leftist ploy. You’re not an American, they say, you’re Irish or English or Polish or Italian or maybe German but please don’t take pride in that. We Americans are still here.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                America has always been a fiction.

                Britain is real. Ireland is real. Germany is real. A genetic and cultural fusion may be real, and may even be stable.

                For a British-Irish-German nation to survive on the North American continent it must reject the name “American” and destroy the United States of America.

                If you call yourself American, you must believe that “we hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal…” is basically a good idea. To survive, superior races must explicitly reject this.

                • peppermint says:

                  Britain is a fiction. Scotland and England are different nations.

                  America is real. America was not founded by the Founders of the Republic.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >America is real. America was not founded by the Founders of the Republic.

                  Which America? Puritan America (which was pretty nice btw)?

                  Cavalier America?

                  French America? Did you know that the Louisiana purchase doubled the size of then-America?

                  The Founders were mostly planters, by the way. Aristocrats, dude. Why can’t we be their America? Oh, right, because New York, center of the world, is owned and operated by a potato/pizza/”””Russian””” mafia low-trust clusterfuck.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Britain is a fiction to some extent, though England and Scotland have major similarities on points on which they differ from the rest of the world. Doesn’t change the basic point.

                  British-Irish-German America did not exist until after the foundation of the Republic. Before the foundation of the Republic, there were Roundhead and Cavalier nations, even with their own states.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The Enemy only has any power because British-Irish-Germans, who compose approximately 95% of the fighting power of the American State, perceive themselves as Americans, a nationality created to oppress, enslave, and finally destroy them, and therefore express and enact extreme loyal to a nationality created to oppress, enslave, and finally destroy them.

                  I am British and live in “America”, an Indian-Italian-Mystery Meat nation to judge by the streets, and yet four cops out of five look like me.

                • John Morris says:

                  Nah, all you need do is revive the meaning those words held when written. Remember that actual slavery was commonplace, voluntary and involuntary servitude, etc. existed and was included in the country those words created.

                  It does not mean all men are exactly equal. It means exactly what it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You simply have to apply a little common sense and use the unwritten but real assumptions of the time. Obviously they meant free men, not slaves when they wrote “all men” and not equality in the modern sense, more like equality before the law, equality in the equal liberty to live and strive for success to the best of ones ability and ambition. Not that everybody would have the same outcome, the same amount of stuff, etc. Not socialism.

                  The Declaration was political rhetoric, not carefully reasoned dialectic or pure logic. It was written to serve an immediate political purpose. Obviously it succeeded.

                • peppermint says:

                  Back when His Majesty wasn’t a factor, I would have agreed that breakup is the only path to continued existence of Whites on this continent. Boomers and Xirs are, however, now part of His Majesty’s coalition. Millennials like talking about breakup because Millennials fundamentally do not believe that the USA is our country, in a way that Boomers fundamentally do.

                  At this point, everyone knows that America is a White nation with a White Nationalist history except for cuckservatives.

                  Boomer liberals recognize that America is a White nation with a White Nationalist history, recognize that they are White, fully believe that America is theirs, and want to give it away out from under their own children and grandchildren for holiness and cheap chalupas. I know several of these people and converse with some of them openly.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Nah, all you need do is revive the meaning those words held when written.”

                  When written those doing the writing called themselves British or English. That can’t be restored because America simply isn’t British or English; there are essentially zero unadmixted British Americans.

                  America diverged from Britain on the point, “we hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. Which in a small number of words is the whole programme of the left, opposing which is our whole programme.

                  Peppermint wants a nordic race-nation on North America. That was never what America was. It could be created, but if it is created it will be a new nation, and to survive it must (and trivially will) destroy the United States of America and its Constitution.


                  The US is unlikely to geographically break up because the nations that constitute it aren’t cleanly geographically divided. What is practically inevitable is that one of the groups starts ruling the others and committing genocide against them in plausibly deniable ways.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >there are essentially zero unadmixed British Americans

                  There are a few, and some of those even are un-admixed colonial English Americans.

              • Cavalier says:

                pick one, m8e

  11. peppermint says:

    How many fission plants weren’t built because fusion was coming with lower liability within the working life of a new plant?

    We could have fission power everywhere, but the Boomers chose to worship themselves and the Jews.

  12. Karl says:

    Your comparison of ITER and Challender is not sound. Challenger was a US project. ITER is an international project. Hey, they are building it in France. The council is in Moskau. The Chinese contribution is as large as the US contribution.

    Mind, I’m not saying that ITER is well managed or well designed or works better than Challenger, just that it is not a US project. Arguably the ruling class of the EU has the same problems as the ruling class of the EU. Still I wonder what the Russians and the Chinese are doing with ITER.

    • jim says:

      The Russians and the Chinese are likely wondering the same thing, since the division of tasks was unclear.

      Doubtless ITER employs a great many very clever people, but as with Challenger, the rot starts at the top.

      Iter is a jobs program for smart people to keep them out of the way and not making trouble while the stupid people run things.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      ITER seems to be considerably worse managed than Challenger, but it probably won’t kill anyone when it explodes.

    • Reluctant Dissident says:

      Karl, welcome to ‘the international community’.

      ITER’s an American project. Anyone else asserts themselves on matters other than engineering (which the Americans don’t understand) and they quickly receive word from their respective embassies to kindly STFU.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Doesn’t look particularly American. Looks French primarily, so entirely French according to the French, but without anyone at all being actually in control.

  13. lalit says:

    “The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter”

    What? I thought the reason Harvey Weinstein got into trouble now is because he might have insulted/slighted/pissed off some one very powerful. That’s how things work in most of the world. It’s not like Harvey W was some kind of Adonis a decade back. He was always an ugly M*%$^ F*%##

    • jim says:

      Hey, I am not Adonis either, and it does not make a huge difference.

      Good looks and money gets your foot in the door, good looks and money make it a whole lot easier to meet chicks, but what happens next is not so much dependent on looks and money. Weinstein had power. That made him sexy.

      Here is what impresses chicks:

      say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; Do this, and he doeth it.

      That is why hiring a driver works so well.

      Weinstein’s modus operandi was to call a meeting. He says “Come” and they cometh, then he says “Go”, and they goeth. Except for the chick. Then he is all alone with the chick. Action is almost guaranteed.

      • lalit says:

        Certainly, when I said Adonis, I also meant the game concept. What I’m asking is why now? What changed suddenly? I find it hard to buy the getting older and fatter bit.

        Berlusconi was doing teenagers into his 70s and he’s now into his 80s and probably doing them still.

        It seems much more likely that Weinstein pissed off someone more powerful himself and what we see now is that someone putting weinstein in his place.

        • Cavalier says:

          Probably so.

          I haven’t found ideology to be very predictive of who gets what when, and who gets shafted. For one thing, the ideology seems to keep changing; for another, the exception is the ruler, and the ruler is the exception.

          Incidentally, coincident with Trump’s assumption of power, if Trump does indeed assume power, we will see a whole lot of previously powerful people go down on wholly legitimate charges of sexual misconduct. Does the one cause the other, or does the other cause the one, or are cause and effect the same? that is the eternal question.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Berlusconi was an alpha who happened to have fame, money and power. Weinstein was an omega using them as a crutch.

        • jim says:

          Berlusconi has game. Weinstein merely has power.

          • Cavalier says:

            Casanova was jailed multiple times. Daring on his part and hilarious incompetence on the part of the authorities let him escape. “Game” doesn’t seem to help much with police officers, SWAT teams, or divorce courts, though.

          • lalit says:

            So you don’t think that Weinstein merely pissed off someone more powerful?

            • peppermint says:

              There’s no one more powerful. He was in the elite of the elite.

              Matt Damon couldn’t threaten Frank Sinatra’s son by Woody Allen’s wife who was earlier his adopted daughter when that guy could just as easiy blog it and use his star power to make people look.

              The legacy media was too weak to continue protecting him, not only because we have alternatives but because the legacy media blew its credibility explicitly lying about Trump.

            • jim says:

              The left is devouring its own all over the place. Weinstein is one more. As leftism gets lefter, whores get holier, and consent vaguer.

            • pdimov says:

              His brother wanted him out. Supposedly.

                • peppermint says:

                  why is a conspiracy theory easier for you to believe than an unstable ideological situation getting destabilized by a bastard?

                  If Bob wanted to ruin Harvey, you still need to explain how he helped Farrow.

                • pdimov says:

                  The “I call you a conspiracy theorist therefore I win” trick doesn’t work, but even if it did work, the conspiracy here worked in Harvey’s favor (for decades), not against him.

                  As a general rule, spontaneous uprisings against the powerful aren’t spontaneous. You accept this for countries in the Middle East, why not here?

                • peppermint says:

                  The conspiracy was based on the idea that male feminists can’t be predators, because true sexual predation is coercive marriage while transactional sex doesn’t violate NAP. That idea having been abandoned, the ideological ability to control journalists was weakened, and Woody Allen’s wife’s son published.

                  How did Bob help Farrow?

                • pdimov says:

                  “The conspiracy was based on the idea that…”

                  The conspiracy had nothing to do with an idea. It was based on if you accuse, we sue you, if you suppress, we reward you.

                  “How did Bob help Farrow?”

                  By signaling that Harvey is no longer protected.

                • peppermint says:

                  We’re in the middle of huge ideological battles that will define the future of our race and you think ideas don’t matter? The pound me too activists are desperately trying to spin it into an attack on the right but the right has been aggressively policed for decades while men have been bought by feminism with pussy. The left’s leadership went insane after Trump and thought they could take him down with pussygate this way.

                  Farrow could write because White or ((White)) men can’t get away with using women without their enthusiastic consent by claiming to be of good character i.e. feminist enough anymore.

                  It wasn’t Bob’s decision to participate in covering up the ((White)) male feminist casting couch and it wasn’t his decision to stop covering it up. George Soros may have been influential in getting pink hats, but pussyhats and pussygate weren’t his idea either.

                  The more thoughtful feminists are trying to reshape attitudes towards sex again. But the only direction to go with that is back towards marriage, which is something the female feminists deeply want.

                • pdimov says:

                  Whether ideas matter (in the sense of whether they confer power, as opposed to power conferring power) is an interesting discussion in principle on which I haven’t formed a strong opinion yet.

                  In this specific case though everything’s pretty clear. The stick is known; Weinstein was litigious to the extreme and the board(s) was/were backing him. The carrot is known: fake movie rights.

                  This is no different from any other royal coup. At some point the hyenas seemingly without any coordination jump at the old monarch when they smell that he’s no longer the monarch. You look at that and say hey, the ideological climate has changed.

        • peppermint says:

          Throughout the aughts Weinstein was protected by the legacy media because he’s a Jew. Even now the legacy media has shut down jokes about Weinstein.

          What happened was two things, feminism got too strong, and the legacy media got too weak.

          Even now my liberal friends, old women and faggots mostly, are trying to redirect this outrage away from Weinstein and Hollywood and burn feminism down with their retarded #metoo campaign. The faggots are, of course, proving that the faggot community’s sexual relationships are not wholesome.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Women will consume this Hollywood drama like they consume Us Weekly’s manufactured drama about starlet X and star Y being in a relationship (when star Y is actually gay and starlet X is a literal whore who gets passed around for parts).

            Weinstein will be the big bad guy in the little drama that’ll play out, he’ll pay out some money and lose his company and women will touch themselves imagining a handsome charming movie producer forcing them to submit to his will. It won’t end feminism or Hollywood*.

            *Barring Weinstein having blackmail material and actually using it.

            • peppermint says:

              Weinstein recontextualizes everything. Before, everyone joked about the casting couch. Now, every hot actress, you’re not thinking she’s hot I wish I could touch her, you’re thinking Weinstein fucked her. Princess Leia is in heavy chains before the evil slug, you’re thinking, yeah, she’s a crack whore, there’s no reason Luke needs to break her out. You see the interracial porno in the first five minutes of every netflix original, you’re not thinking oh sexy, or wtf gross, you’re thinking, that was inserted because some perv like Weinstein wanted it. You watch kids movies with kids sayng pottymouth stuff, you’re not thinking aw charming they’re growing up, you’re wondering which execs diddled which child actors. You hear Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus singing slutty songs, you’re not just joking about who Christina Aguilera gave head to first like Eminem used to back when he was edgy, you’re just sad because you know they are used as whores back stage after they flaunt their stuff on stage and try to take pride in it. Matt Damon will never be taken seriously again after his Jason Bourne programming made him threaten reporters to suppress the Weinstein story.

              No one will ever look at the ((legacy entertainment media)) the same way ever again.

              • Cavalier says:

                That’s a good point. The plausibly deniable “oh, the actresses are fucking whatever super hot actor guys they want” is totally different from the visceral experience of staring at Weinstein’s ugly mug.

        • Ron says:

          “What changed suddenly?”

          What changed was that people were asking too many questions about Las Vegas.

          Also something “Your wifes son” said, that it’s a setup to take down Trump.

          Well YWS, that’s what you get when you support Frankists, you stupid evil fuck.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            >What changed was that people were asking too many questions about Las Vegas.

            No sure that the timing is relevant. That said, if Vegas turns out to be a psychological operation gone wrong, a botched 9/11 II (here assuming that you accept some degree of Troofism about the original 9/11), a failed “incident” that was incompetently organized and incompetently carried out by the feds, possibly involving MKUltra-based individual mind control aka patsy-ing, and perhaps even elimination of witnesses, then basically the Cathedral is illegitimized completely forever. Had NRxers been interested in persuasion, this could have been the precise moment for them to push for regime change in the US. But alas.

            >Also something “Your wifes son” said, that it’s a setup to take down Trump.

            I said that cheering for the witch hunt against Weinstein was retarded, because all men are vulnerable and liable to be taken down by these sorts of witch hunts, including and especially men hated by the left, such as Trump.

            I also said some time ago that the deep state will frantically search for “pedophilia” in Trump’s past or among his associates, because these days that’s the surest way to bring down an enemy, and while the public can forgive Trump for groping pussies, it cannot forgive anyone for “pedophilia.” Since this is the ultimate crime — the “final boss” of crimes, something that people consider worse than cannibalistic murder — if you can stick the “pedo” label on Trump, you can get rid of him. So far they have found nothing, I guess.

            But they are searching.

            >Well YWS, that’s what you get when you support Frankists, you stupid evil fuck.

            Harris Lenowitz says in the 2001 version of his book, titled “The Jewish Messiahs”:

            “The most famous instance was Justice Louis Brandeis’s copy of the portrait of Ewa. It had no doubt been given to him by his mother, Alice Goldmark, the descendant of one of the Prague Frankist families, very many of whom, whether converted to Christianity or not, were engaged in the practice of law.”

            Problem: Alice Goldmark was not Brandeis’ mother, but his wife. His mother was Frederika Dembitz. Oopsie.

            Next – Jerry Rabow writes in his 2002 book, titled “50 Jewish Messiahs”:

            “United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter is reported to have received a copy of Eva Frank’s portrait from his mother, a descendent of a Prague Frankist family.”

            Ah, reported to have received! Gotcha. And notice the switch from Brandeis (who indeed had a Frankist background) to Frankfurter (who did not). Some confusion, indeed.

            But this is Jewish “scholarship” for you.

            About as trustworthy as Barry “it seems highly likely that the Illuminati carried out this assassination against Rabin” Chamish and Marvin “alternative medicine salesman” Antelman.

            Moving on to the Sabbateans – because when a Jew whines about the evil Frankists, he usually also whines about the evil Sabbateans. So, from the encyclopedia, about Abraham Miguel Cardozo:

            “During Cardozo’s stay in Smyrna and Constantinople, he was beset by many personal misfortunes and almost all of his children died of plague.”

            Okay, now let’s look at his brother Issac:

            “[Isaac] Cardozo, unlike his brother, firmly opposed the teachings of the Kabbalah and Shabbetai Ẓevi. His comprehensive apologetic work Las excelencias y calumnias de los Hebreos (Amsterdam, 1679) described ten virtues of the Jewish people and refuted ten common calumnies.”

            Remember, Ron, that there have been plenty of Marranos in England already by the middle of the 17th century; surely, there have been Cardozos among them, and there is no indication that any of them were related to Abraham Cardozo the “Sabbatean Prophet.” After all, he was wandering around, and most of his (legitimate) kids died. Thus, when you read this thing:


            You really have no reason to assume “Sabbatean descent” on the part of Benjamin N. Cardoso. It’s practically impossible. And likewise, there is no evidence that Emma Lazarus had any “Sabbatean” ancestry. Meanwhile, the Jewish encyclopedia tells you that some Marranos have become *famous rabbis*:


            Just RTWT if you don’t take my word for it. So you see, the Marranos kept in touch with the mainstream of Jewry, indeed, have often intermingled with regular Jews – intermingled and intermarried.

            Now, having read thus far: what, exactly, is your case against the Frankists? Let’s hear it. Remember, though, that a Gentile audience doesn’t care about “they were bad for Judaism.” You are telling the goyim to hate Frankists, but I suspect that you did not do your homework. But I’m giving you the chance to prove me wrong. Go ahead.

            • Cavalier says:

              >and perhaps even elimination of witnesses

              Well, apparently the FBI (and other agencies) has been wiping thousands of people’s phones and computers.

            • Cavalier says:

              *(and other agencies?)

            • Ron says:

              I have to explain to you why working with dishonorable people is wrong?! Why deceitful conduct is shameful? We are not talking about people trying to just survive! We are talking about people attempting to sabotage through deuception because if they would simply be honest no one would listen to them!

              You think Im outraged because I need your help to deal with them? Or because Im worried that I wouldnt be able to deal with you if they have power. You have it EXACTLY backwards.

              I dont need your help for anything! Especially in this! When I say I believe God is with me, and that all I have to do is act with integrity, Im not paying lip service, this is what I believe!

              I oppose these people because they are bringing the human SPIRIT to destruction! I oppose them because their very tactics undermine their own humanity and everything worthwhile in this life! Everything they do is based on their own lack of faith in themselves as precious to God! As if God cant love them without them meeting their insane goals. That not LIFE, thats not LIVING.

              I didn’t understand most of what you wrote regarding Brandeis and whatever. I didnt much care either. You arent debating a scholar right now. Im nothing special and I barely even know how to speak in hebrew. Most of the things Ive read I can barely remember. What I said is from the heart, if Im wrong, fine. But its what I believe and thats that.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >I didn’t understand most of what you wrote regarding Brandeis and whatever.

                Jewish charlatans such as Barry “Illuminati” Chamish blame Frankists for everything bad that ever happened. Conspiracy theorists on the CIA’s payroll (disinformation purveyors) also push this shit. Look:

                “Adolph Hitler was conceived, in Vienna, during a Frankist celebration of the Ninth of Av, which took place on July 20th, 1888 in celebration of Sabbatai Tzvi’s birthday. Adolph Hitler was born 9 months later on April 20th, 1889.”



                This is what you guys are pushing. The point about Brandeis was that he was the sole legitimate “Frankist” you could actually pinpoint in recent history. Literally, you only have one dude, and that’s it. Everything else is *false*, and is pure disinformation pushed by nutty Jews (see: Henry Makow) trying to shift blame away from themselves and onto “a secret society of Sabbatean Frankists,” and also promoted by CIA conspiracists wishing to distract you with arrant nonsense so that you won’t pay attention to what’s really going on, hence “Hitler was a Frankist” and so on.

                Meanwhile, Jacob Frank was nothing short of a magician: he made many of his Jewish followers in Poland, Ukraine, and the surrounding regions disappear forever from Jewish society. I support that, and believe that he should’ve been recognized as the Jewish or at least the Ashkenazi messiah, and all Jews should’ve followed him.

              • Your Wife's Son says:


                Yes, I know, and my exact point is that Frank has humanized (gentilized) the Jews, resulting in — more or less — successful assimilation.

                Which is why you hate him so much.

                • Ron says:

                  “Yes, I know, and my exact point is that Frank has humanized (gentilized) the Jews, resulting in — more or less — successful assimilation.”

                  You are completely delusional.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  And then Ron, inspired by his friends B and J, and by all the other Israelis roaming around, stood up and proclaimed before assembly: “truly I tell you, fruits will turn into vegetables, and clit-choppers from Afghanistan will become Einsteins and Feynmans; but we Jews shall never be humanized: neither by Jesus Christ, nor by Jacob Frank, nor by anyone else. Dispel thy delusions, oy goyim!” And the multitudes were not-very-astounded at his teaching.

                • Ron says:

                  To clarify: Yes, they did succeed in assimiliating large numbers of Jews, yes, I do have a problem with that. But that is not why I hate them. I hate them because of their methods, their dishonesty, and that like the SJWs, they are not interested in “assimilating” they are interested in controlling. And not benignly either. Which is why I regard you as delusional. their methods are vicious and destructive and it doesn’t stop with their “enemies”, that kind of thing goes on and on.

                  You I despise, because you are not interested in letting other people live in peace, specifically me and mine, but instead you want to force others to do things your way, even when it doesn’t affect you. Regardless of who you hurt to get your way.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >I hate them because of their methods, their dishonesty

                  The Frankists’ so-called dishonesty was in affirming the “blood libel,” but the reason why they affirmed the “blood libel” was that the rabbis actually were trying to get them literally murdered; thus, it can be justified as a self-defense measure.

                  Surely, you must be familiar with this line: “by way of deception thou shalt do war.” So, having initiated this absolute war against the blasphemous Frankists, the rabbis got a taste of their own medicine.

                  You claim to hate their “methods,” meaning subversiveness, but that’s just a mirror image of your own subversiveness. See, everyone hates Jewish subversion; the Frankists simply turned this subversion inside out, applying it against Judaism itself – subverting the subverters. It is hypocritical on your part to denounce their “dishonesty.” They did to you, what you have been doing to Gentiles.

                  When you say:

                  >their methods are vicious and destructive and it doesn’t stop with their “enemies”, that kind of thing goes on and on.

                  >you are not interested in letting other people live in peace, specifically me and mine, but instead you want to force others to do things your way, even when it doesn’t affect you. Regardless of who you hurt to get your way.

                  You are describing with utmost accuracy, not the Frankist Jews, but the typical Jews, and specifically you are describing the typically Jewish treatment of whites.

                  You have yet to explain in which manner the Frankists were destructive towards anyone but Jewry itself.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Or to be precise, destructive towards Judaism. The Eastern-European Frankist Jews who became Poles and Ukrainians, like the Southern-European Christian Jews who became Italians and Portuguese, had it good.

                • Ron says:

                  “your own subversiveness”

                  Classic. I specifically point out things you do and say which are wrong, and your response is to make a vague accusation that I am evil.

                  You are dishonest YWS. Which is implied in the name you chose to represent yourself.

                  As for the rest of that mess you posted, I will let everyone else decide which of us is upfront and which is a deceiver.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  I did not accuse you of personal dishonesty; I accused the Jews of collective dishonesty. You insist on making this conversation personal, just as B used to do; I guess that’s what Jews are used to.

                  But my beef is not with Ron. I chose Frank because I had suspected (and of course, I was right) that it would trigger immense cognitive dissonance among the Jewish commenters here – because Jim tells me that Jews are “assimilating,” so by showing the vehement loathing you exhibit towards someone who actually espoused assimilation, I could strikingly prove what the Jewish collective, including so-called “based” alt-right Jews, thinks of his (Jim’s) suggestion that Jews are, and should be, assimilating.

                  It is crucial, because just as you hate Jesus some 2,000 years later, you hate Frank some 200 years later, and the sole reason for your hatred is that he and his followers practiced assimilation. I am trying to prove certain points, and you are helping me every single time. Now I can tell Jim: “remember how your commenters responded when I put on a Jacob Frank avatar.”

                  You can’t help yourself.

                • jim says:

                  Jews here should assimilate or move to Israel.

                  Jews in Israel should judaize Israel and not assimilate to progressivism.

                  Leftist Jews are assimilating.

                  Rightist Jews are not assimilating, which is uncomfortable for both them and their host society.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  I understand your position, Jim.

                  I’ll note that, based on Twitter conversations between some Jews, in the near future some “rightist” Jews in the west are going to be declaring themselves “white,” even though the science says that the average full Ashkenazi Jew — and not all Jews are Ashkenazim, as we well know — is only 30-40% genetically European. That’s less than Barry Soetoro’s 50%; had Bernie Sanders won the presidency, he would have been the most non-white US President ever.

                  As Andrew Joyce wrote on numerous occasions at KMac’s “The Occidental Observer” website, the idea that Jews are white is self-deception on the part of Jews.

                  Oh, and it’s going to be real fun if/when Zuck runs. The whole Jewish house of cards — “we are white but also people of color” — will go down in a “poof.” Vid not really related, but funny:


            • Steve Johnson says:

              I also said some time ago that the deep state will frantically search for “pedophilia” in Trump’s past or among his associates, because these days that’s the surest way to bring down an enemy, and while the public can forgive Trump for groping pussies, it cannot forgive anyone for “pedophilia.” Since this is the ultimate crime — the “final boss” of crimes, something that people consider worse than cannibalistic murder — if you can stick the “pedo” label on Trump, you can get rid of him.

              Absolute bullshit. You’ve got a pet issue you constantly whip.

              Corey Feldman came out years ago with exactly that type of accusation – nothing. Corey Haim – same – plus he killed himself.

              Cute whores looking to get paid twice for the same trick (once with stardom, the second time with adulation now that they’re faded)? Everyone in the world is on it.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                If I’m wrong, we’ve got a timeframe to prove it: the following 8 years. If throughout all this time, the deep state doesn’t make any attempt to use pedohysteria to bring down Trump or at least sabotage his presidency, you could say that I whipped up this issue for no reason.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  More bullshit.

                  The only reason to go in for “the next 8 years will prove me right” is because the next 8 years haven’t happened yet.

                  Literally google the (unquoted) phrase “name of the guy who molested all the boy band members” and the first hit is Lou Pearlman’s wikipedia page.

                  Your hypothesis is fully falsified.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  It’s not a hypothesis, it’s a prediction, which necessarily can only materialize in the future. Either the Deep State will use pedohysteria against Trump, as I predict, or it won’t.

                  Hollywood shenanigans are not the issue under discussion here.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  You could argue that my prediction is implausible if the deep state didn’t fund endless NGOs and think-tanks around the world to fight non-existent “child sex trafficking.” But it does fund them. Millions upon millions of dollars are poured into this project.

                  Since sex-hysteria, rape-hysteria, and pedo-hysteria all emanate from Harvard and the CIA*, it stands to reason that the people behind these notions will use them against a serious political opponent.

                  Unless, of course, Trump is not really the deep state’s serious political opponent. If you can conceive of Trump not as an enemy of the deep state, but as someone useful — in his own particular way — to the deep state, then maybe they won’t pull the “pedo” card against him after all.

                  I leave it up to you to figure out the ways in which Trump could be useful to the deep state.

                  *(((Gloria Steinem))) was a CIA spook, and it wasn’t just her: modern Feminism in its entirety is a psychological operation, and now that rapehysteria has served its utility, the next phase is pedohysteria.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >(((Gloria Steinem))) was a CIA spook, and it wasn’t just her: modern Feminism in its entirety is a psychological operation

                  Well, someone funded it.


                  Who can say, really?

                  I happen to think that ritual group pedostuff — a.k.a. making your bones — is today the primary mechanism of “shadow” control. Shared crime can be demonically effective at asabiyyah generation.

                  Homosex probably was once, also — English public schools, anyone? Normalize it, though, and the magic dissipates.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >I happen to think that ritual group pedostuff — a.k.a. making your bones — is today the primary mechanism of “shadow” control. Shared crime can be demonically effective at asabiyyah generation.

                  Or, which is more probable, people (including yourself and Jim) tend to associate their nemeses with the worst things imaginable, which for different people could be: demon worship, satan worship, satanism, pedophilia, ritual pedophilia, cannibalism, ritual cannibalism, occult, witchcraft, ritual murder, and so on.

                  (Obviously these are not mutually exclusive, hence: “the elite are demon worshiping, satanist pedophiles, who murder people in cabbalistic rituals, then eat them”)

                  Look, rhetorically it makes sense to call lesbians and feminists “witches,” but I don’t actually believe that they have altars and potions and all that, and likewise, rhetorically it makes sense to argue that the Protocols accurately describe Jewish political influence, without literally believing in secret meetings conducted by the Elders.

                  When you cross the line into “secret societies” territory, that’s when my disinfo-radar tells me that it’s a distraction leading down a (pretty empty) rabbit hole. The main problem with “secret societies” — aside from lack of concrete evidence — is that you gotta maintain continuance of the secret society over many generations, which necessitates that you will have access to the right sort of people in sufficient quantities. The sort of people who are both very intelligent and very evil.

                  I believe in small conspiracies, involving small groups of people (but, nevertheless, working within larger organizations), whose participants are few enough and committed enough that the secret would not slip out. Or, if it slips out, they would have a hard time proving its veracity, so that exposing the conspiracy would be pointless if not simply impossible. Take the spooks: a spook is not privy to other spooks’ operations. You know specifically what your and your teammates’ mission is, but you don’t know what other teams are doing.

                  Possibly, people who work within the same department know what their fellows in the department are up to; for instance, if we’re talking about the CIA’s public disinfo department (whatever it’s actually called), you may be a scientist, and so your job is proving scientifically that the Earth is Flat; and the guy in the office next to you may be a historian, and his mission is proving historically that the Papacy in Rome is pulling the strings behind all world governments; another fellow with whom you eat lunch regularly is an amateur fantasy and fiction writer, and his job is fine-tuning the story about the CIA’s and NASA’s contacts with the Zeta Reticuli grey robots who crashed down in Area 51 and their Reptilian overlords back in the home galaxy; and so it goes.

                  None of these people know what’s going on in the Afghan poppy fields, needless to say. They may suspect that their fellow spooks are doing some sinister stuff, but they don’t actually know the details. Not supposed to know them.

                  (“There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan. By 2016 that number went up to 4,500,000 (2.5 million heroin addicts and 2 million casual users). Heroin deaths shot up from 1,779 in 2001 to 10,574 in 2014 as Afghan opium poppy fields metastasized from 7,600 hectares in 2001 (when the US-NATO War in Afghanistan began) to 224,000 hectares in 2016… In late 2009, Antonio Maria Costa, the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, went on record to say that it was primarily drug money that kept the American financial system afloat during the 2008 crisis. She estimated that over $300 billion dollars of drug profits had been laundered via the major US banks during that period”)

                  The “secret society” theory of world-politics is the opposite of all that I have just described: it assumes that there are certain cults, or families, or what have you, who all share a commitment to their nefarious conspiracy, and who manage to recruit new members every now and then — often, it is alleged, for over several centuries — without the whole business just falling apart because someone in-the-know decides that he’s had enough.

                  You point to crime-as-asabiyah-generator, but that may only be a short term motive; if you’re a psychopath, your incentives are wholly material and you couldn’t give less of a shit about asabiyah, making you unreliable and prone to screw over everyone else when you feel like it; if you’re a conscience-haver, eventually you’ll feel that this satanic-pedophile-cannibal-cabal thing is emotionally too much to handle, and you’ll reveal for the whole world that such shadowy stuff occurs underground.

                  “Secret society,” in the context of modern politics, doesn’t make sense, is impractical, and cannot last for more than 1 or 2 generations. I’m open minded about small-scale minimum-participant conspiracies within broader frameworks, but my instincts tell me that human psychology and human capacity are incompatible with the Bavarian Illuminati still being active (let alone supremely influential) in the 21st century, or other theories similar to this one.

                  That the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers are up to no good is pretty obvious, but you don’t need secret cults to explain that: as much as Moldbug disagrees with that saying, power really does corrupt, and these are very powerful dynasties. In the video you provided, the guy presents perfectly rational reasons for the Rockefellers to fund feminism, without needing to go for “and then they meet at midnight and rape kids; furthermore, they sacrifice them to the demons, bwahahah.”

                  We hate the Rockefellers — I personally know a female lawyer who received a scholarship from their Foundation, and I bet you can guess exactly what her politics are — but it’s no excuse to let our imagination run wild.

                  The Jews are a perfect example. In general, there are two types of antisemitism – one is the rational, Kevin MacDonald-esque type that says: “look, the Jews are establishing all these leftist movements, promoting various kinds of social ills and ideologies detrimental to white people, and generally behaving like pieces of shit, hmmm, let’s analyse why they are doing it.” Then these’s the second variety alluded to above, of the Elders meeting late night at the cemetery and rubbing their hands together as they concoct the latest scheme to vex the goyim.

                  If you believe in the latter kind, it’s because you don’t consider revealed Jewish behavior to be bad enough; someone who understands how bad Jewish behavior truly is, behavior which everyone can see with their own eyes, and which is well documented, doesn’t need to imagine a secret council of zionist rabbis. There are no fuhwer (sic) than 6,000,000 good reasons to commit a final genocide against the kikes, and secret meetings at the cemetery need not be one of them.

                  Same holds true for the rest of what we’re discussing. I don’t need to imagine that Hillary Clinton is eating a LITERAL baby salad in order to be against her, and as someone who follows the pedo community on the darknet, reading what actual real pedophiles have to say, I am convinced that the pedohysteria we’re seeing on the internet right now (it did not really exist in 2007, for instance) is not entirely spontaneous, but artificial in substantial part, and is essentially a plot by Big Government to both expand and legitimize the surveillance state, the police state, the spy state, and the prison state, and to keep people in a state of moral panic so that they will support encroachments on their liberties by “altruistic” social engineers.

                  (If these words sound familiar, it’s because that is basically the explanation behind all the psyops, excluding the MIC’s war-focused psyops)

                  When you have kids, you’ll understand that their best protection is at home, with you, their father; and that the best way to eliminate that protection is to remove you; and that the most efficient way to remove you is to label you a pedophile. Also, the same people who came up with “marital rape” are the people who came up with “statutory rape,” both notions being used by THE STATE to put men (and occasionally women) in prison for victorian and feminist reasons.

                  Since the internet gives ample exposure to young sexuality, and since sexting allows young people to document forever the extent of their own peers’ sexuality, the state has waged a jihad against “child porn” and against “the epidemic of sexting among schoolers,” and has to justify this insane, perverted, and intrusive jihad by stoking pedohysteria.

                  Pre-feminism, pre-victorianism, the AOC ranged between [none] to 7 to 12. Even as puberty now begins earlier than ever before, the AOC is now 18 in many states; and curiously, all the so-called “taboo breakers” of our age refuse to touch this issue.

                  If you say that nigger babies belong in mass graves, your fellow iconoclasts will applaud you for being so politically incorrect; but if you dare suggest that the AOC should be a few years lower, then you’ll see the dankest, edgiest, most avant garde alt-righters turn into blue-pilled and blue-balled conservadads in a second, and they’ll chase you down with torches and pitchforks. That’s how you know that the psyop has 100% succeeded.

                  Of course, both propositions could be true at the same time: it could be that the spook-state promotes pedohysteria because it seeks more power over the sheeple (plus, it’s a nice distraction) *and* that there are some pedophile conspiracies among the elite.

                  But the former, at any rate, has strong explanatory power and is completely rational in terms of incentives (increased control over the citizens) and human psychology (moral panics and purity spirals are common enough; as such, they are very easy to artificially inflame); the latter is… lacking proof, and seems unlikely given human nature.

                  Dennis Hastert is the best that the FBI could find. Meh, lame. Of course, you can say that the FBI are in on the pedophile conspiracy among the elite, and covering it up. Again, unlikely given human nature. Many people do have consciences. It’s emotionally easier to spread a false rumor that there are satanist cannibal pedophiles operating in D.C. than to cover up instance upon instance of actual satanic cannibalistic pedophilia, if there are indeed such many cases.

                  Orwell depicted a society that is, officially, completely puritanical. And it’s called the JUNIOR Anti-Sex League for a reason. Inner Party members could have orgies, but the state is puritanical in terms of laws and propaganda. If 1984 were real, the state would be sexhysterical, rapehysterical, and pedohysterical.

                  OH, BUT IT *IS* REAL.

                  I know that people in these corners think Brave New World was the more prophetic between the two. I don’t think so. Huxley was generally correct, but Orwell was precisely and totally correct. We have no “liberty in an unfree world.”

                • jim says:

                  > Or, which is more probable, people (including yourself and Jim) tend to associate their nemeses with the worst things imaginable, which for different people could be: demon worship, satan worship, satanism, pedophilia, ritual pedophilia, cannibalism, ritual cannibalism, occult, witchcraft, ritual murder, and so on.

                  The world is, in practice, run by conspiracies, because conspiring is effective. It is obvious that the Clintons are up to their necks in serious crimes. The mysterious death rate among those connected to the Clintons rivals that of American communists back in the sixties.

                  So how do they make sure that no one rats them out?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Mobsters, like the Clintons, assassinate people. Should one assume that being murderous, they also engage in satanism-pedophilia-cannibalism? Are their crimes not bad enough, not reason enough to oppose them, as it is?

                  Read my whole post. I don’t dispute small scale conspiracies, nor do I deny the effectiveness of terrorizing people into remaining silent. But “secret society of demon worshippers who eat literal baby salad” smells like a distraction more than anything.

                  We know that the Clintons are bad, the Bushes are bad, the Foundations are bad, and the deep state swamp is very bad. We know that they engage in conspiracies (albeit there is widespread disagreement about which ones are true; see: your and Cavalier’s dispute about 9/11 troofism).

                  Why claim that they do ritual occult stuff involving “burnt offerings,” when it’s simply likelier that they go about their death-sprees in a callous and calculating manner, and that’s that?

                  That they are murderous, doesn’t mean that they must be irrational also. Demoniac pedophile cannibal orgiastic witches’ sabbaths (hail Satan, 666) are bad for OPSEC, and if you run a “secret society,” somebody’s gonna spill the beans sooner rather than later, because the alleged participants in such a scenario are too many, and as such, include emotionally fragile people who can’t keep a secret for long, and egotistical assholes who don’t care about secrecy if they can gain fame — or even notoriety — for blowing the lid off something so grotesque.

                  Their crimes which we know about are bad enough.

                • Cavalier says:

                  You know, your only problem is that it’s pretty hard to explain away stuff like this:


                • peppermint says:

                  » Demoniac pedophile cannibal orgiastic witches’ sabbaths (hail Satan, 666) are bad for OPSEC

                  anyone involved is guilty at least of not reporting it earlier, they’re not going to be believed if they report it because it sounds crazy and irrelevant, it ensures everyone involved has no morals and won’t develop a distaste for what’s happening, and at some point society will broadly accept it so there will be nothing to gain by revealing it

                  but what happened to hollywood jews is

                  feminism turned on male feminists, it’s hard to believe now but feminism used to mean that women should fuck male feminists to advance their careers because the only good sex is casual and transactional

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >it’s pretty hard to explain away stuff like this

                  A LARPing Jewess named Marina Abramovic stages her gore-themed “art,” which is supposed to be as outrageous and shocking as possible; as intended, some unrefined and boorish goyim (who just can’t appreciate the beauty and genius of mutilated corpses lying on a dinner table) are outraged and shocked.

                  Wow, it’s almost like “shock art” is a thing, and degenerate, artistically-challenged kikesses excel at it.


                  If you didn’t find satanism-pedophilia-cannibalism to be outrageous, Marina would be out of business.

                  I guess, as someone who’s seen Encyclopedia Dramatica in its better days, and has listened a lot to death metal (and read the lyrics), and visited some internet forums inhabited by people more depraved than you can imagine, I just don’t attribute to “Lucifer” what should better be attributed to “some people just want to be shocking lol.”

                  Some people enjoy horror movies and dressing in scary costumes. I’m not one of those people, but I learned early on in life that “to each his own,” which really applies to many different subjects.

                  The better question is: why do the elites associate with degenerate artists (Sex Stains, Heavy Breathing, Abramovic) in the first place?

                  The answer you want to hear is: “because the elites literally engage in demon worship, pedosex, and cannibalism, so they relish art that exhibits those things.”

                  Notice, however, that it’s not all the elites. You don’t see Red Empire, Pentagon, and Republican folks going to Abramovic’s spirit dinners. You only see leftist Democrats — the “inner party,” some would say — engaging in that stuff. Why? The answer you’re looking for is found here:


                  Do RTWT, but the short of it is that some people happen to be born with mental aberrations, and these are distinctly associated with left-wing politics. Hence, sick artistic tastes and sick lifestyles among the top Democrats.

                  So, between “in Washington they eat literal baby ribs, with literal baby salad on the side!” and “leftists are generally twisted and their artistic preferences speak to that,” I’d go with the latter.

                  You don’t want this explanation, because it’s not “sexy” enough. But it’s the more realistic between the two.

                • Cavalier says:

                  There is sufficient evidence of pedosex and simulated cannibalism. There is some circumstantial evidence of literal “human” (Third World denizen) sacrifice. I don’t know whether or not there is literal cannibalism, but I would lean toward “no” unless presented with stronger evidence.

                  If “Red State”/Pentagon/Republicuck people were in charge or capable of taking charge, they would take the “Blue State”/State/Democrat people down on wholly legitimate charges of the sick stuff they do in their spare time, in order to consolidate their power. They’re not, so they don’t.

                  But, please, tell me all about how Clinton’s campaign manager’s favorite artist’s ”art” is just a mentally ill coincidence.

                  It’s all just a sick joke. Or a psyop. Yeah.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >There is sufficient evidence of pedosex

                  I have seen no evidence that Washington insiders engage in sexual relations with prepubescent children. What I have seen is pizzagate, which was a CIA psyop on par with “Benghazi was the result of an anti-Islamic youtube video.”

                  (Remember that, btw? I don’t call it a “CIA psyop” because I randomly blame everything on the CIA now. Look up:


                  Former CIA director Mike Morell has actually pushed the “youtube video caused Benghazi” nonsense. Literally the director of the CIA was saying it. However, by now this “youtube video caused Benghazi” lie has been completely memory-holed. Pure cohencidence, goyim)

                  I have already done your work for you by going over the emails where “pizza” and so on are discussed. And I have argued that, if it’s a codeword for something, which it may or may not be, then it’s more likely to be drugs than kid-rape.

                  Since the CIA is balls-deep into the whole drug trade business, they would know if members of the elite are users, and if they figured out that pizza is a codeword for drugs, they would not hesitate to spread the rumor that it’s a codeword for something else, since the accused can’t just come out and say: “guyz, it’s all cool, we’re not pedos, we’re just junkies lolol.”

                  Note the part about “spreading the rumor”: nothing about pizzagate was spontaneous. We are all familiar with cultural warfare memes, and this one, as far as I can tell, appeared seemingly out of nowhere one fine day and *instantly* spread like wildfire all over the place, in a very suspicious manner.

                  Recall how the “fake news” meme was created by them through PropOrNot shortly after pizzagate; the plan was to discredit the alt-right entirely and Trump as well; as Andrew Anglin himself has documented, this “spontaneous” meme was anything but. All the media, mainstream and pseudo-alternative, just began pushing it in unison one day.

                  I remember back then hearing a smart shitlib I know saying: “Trump is indebted to Russian oligarchs and is gaining popularity due to fake news.” Like, come the fuck on! Btw, notice how the “indebted to Russian oligarchs” meme suddenly evaporated, replaced by other “muh Russia” nonsense – you think that’s somehow a coincidence? Nope, it’s another CIA cohen-cidence.

                  Recall the “shooting” at Comet Ping Pong committed by the literal actor Edgar Maddison Welch. (in this case, I think it’s not MKUltra mind control; more likely, they must have simply paid him lots of money to do it, enough to recompense his 4-year jail term)

                  It’s all part of the same manipulation: they are playing you like a fiddle — some would say dreidel — by sending you down empty rabbit holes pointing away from the real conspiracies.

                  I’m fond of predictions, so let me offer a prediction: one of their next psyops will *result* in a severe tightening of internet regulation (censorship), its purpose being to stifle… us, internet dissidents. There will be a mass shooting, or a “terror attack,” or some other high incident, and it will be blamed by everyone on alternative media and blogs like this one, and then the feds and legislators will try to (((shut us down))) as ruthlessly as child porn or the Daily Stormer are being shut down.

                  It will happen within the next 10 years. And then you will notice that many “conspiracy” websites (muh UFOs, muh Flat Earth, etc.) are not shut down — because they are controlled opposition — while websites actually revealing the real conspiracies, or even just delegitimizing USG with criticism, will be terminated.

                  If you can’t see how the “pedo rape-rooms underground!” version of pizzagate ties into this, it’s a real shame.

                  Also, there is the issue of – Alex Jones: “They say listen, Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur. I never said this because the media will go crazy with it, but I’ve talked to people that are in protective details, they’re scared of her. And they say listen, she’s a frickin’ demon and she stinks and so does Obama. I go, like what? Sulfur. They smell like Hell.”

                  This is the stuff of comedy. It’s legitimately very funny. But I’m looking for what the deep state is actually doing, and these things are distractions.

                  >But, please, tell me all about how Clinton’s campaign manager’s favorite artist’s ”art” is just a mentally ill coincidence.

                  Leftists are mentally aberrant, news at 11. How is that evidence, direct or circumstantial, that whatever monstrosities are represented by their favorite “art” are reflections of their real-life pursuits?

                  >There is some circumstantial evidence of literal “human” (Third World denizen) sacrifice.

                  Enlighten me on this one. Are you referring to Gaddafi? I don’t really see it as, y’know, an occult demon-worshiper thing. It’s a political murder; he was sacrificed to USG’s geopolitical agenda.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            In fact, just to augment my own point, you’ve got rabbis with the surname Cardozo, and actually, with almost all the surnames mentioned by me in this context: Frankfurter, Brandeis, Lazarus, and Goldmark. The sole exception is Dembitz, which indeed is the only Frankist branch growing up on this entire tree; however, you’ve got rabbis having the surname Dembitzer.

            Which again shows that if you want to tell the goyim that “the Frankists are so evil n’ stuff,” you need to come up with actual Frankists doing actually evil stuff. So far, you’ve only got Frederika Dembitz, whose crime, according to people using your crooked logic, was giving birth to Louis Brandeis. Yeah, okay. Now, who else was a Frankist (or “Sabbatean”) among these folks?

            NOBODY. NOT ONE OF THEM.

            You really shouldn’t have taken my bait, like J did. I know what I’m doing.

            • Ron says:

              I didnt read this until after I posted. I dont know what your second reply proves. I think you are either saying there are no secret groups or if there are they are benign.

              Im sorry, but if thats what you mean, I dont accept that. I rarely argue this issue any more, Im tired of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, im even tired about arguing redpill. And it doesnt really help me to convince Gentiles of this. I believe that the only way to deal with those people is to encourage everyone to turn to God, to live healthy, to act healthy, to act with integrity. To strengthen myself and set an example for others to do the same. Im a screwed up guy, Im not going to pretend otherwise, Im not much of an example of anything, and that isnt false modesty. But again, thats what I beleive I and everyone else has to do.

              Ive seen and studied enough to convince myself of this matter, and my issue with them is about doing whats right. As in “Right and Wrong”.

              Also, I dont think its just a bunch of secret Jews. I think you have your own versions of the same thing, and even more entrenched, if not crazier.

              • j says:

                All the old sects originated from Judaism are coming back to the mainstream. People long gone underground, like the Jews of Minorca and Tras-os-Montes are emerging and making aliya. Even Turkish Dombe are coming back to the fold. Secrecy makes no sense today. Frankists disappeared hundred years ago and became drunken Ukrainians. You are seeing phantoms in your imagination, you are having phantom pains like a man with amputated leg.

              • jim says:

                Obviously secret groups of powerful people must exist – if you watch “survivor” you will see how useful and effective conspiracy is.

                Of course secret groups tend to be secret – so you don’t actually know which secret groups actually exist, particularly as one secret group is apt to invent and blame other secret groups, real and imaginary.

                But, given that Judaism is the father of religion and heresies, demonic and heretical offspring of Judaism, some of them public like communism, some of them secret, some of them demon worshiping, seem almost inevitable.

  14. Your Wife's Son says:

    Jim: “Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.”

    The enemy is not making any mistake. When the subversive kike Weinstein got the shaft, it brought a smile to the faces of many alt-retards. Now that the very same Cathedral agents who brought down Weinstein are moving on to fuck over Trump, suddenly the retards aren’t smiling anymore. Surprise, goyim, surprise:

    My position is that all sex crimes should be legalized, so that men as heads of households would be forced to implement strict iron-rule patriarchy, instead of outsourcing to the state the protection of their little dear ones. When you make certain forms of sexual conduct illegal, you outsource the protection of your family to the state, meaning you’re a little pussy coward. It’s a bad strategy. In my vision, white families and especially high-class white families get superior protection because their heads of households are superior fucking white males, while nigger families get screwed over and raped by Weinstein because niggers aren’t capable of protecting their families.

    Under my system these white whore-cunts wouldn’t have been touched by Kikestein because their white fathers or white husbands would be locking them up in a basement, while Kikestein would be free and merry to rape every single stinking negress and slutina in sight, because niggers and spics are dysfunctional and can’t protect their own – how’s *that* for eugenics.

    • jim says:


      But I would add to that the system applying under the Kings of Israel, as indicated in the book of Proverbs, which was issued by the court of the Kings of Israel starting with Solomon:

      If someone screws your wife or betrothed, the courts of the King will not go after him: But it is totally legal for you to kill him.

      This, as you implied, has the effect of making the husband or fiancee more manly in the eyes of his wife or betrothed.

      • Cavalier says:

        The central powers can make what was informal, formal, but it cannot make what is not formal, informal.

      • Cavalier says:

        And on a slightly different but equally valid note, the central powers can make what was informal, formal, but it cannot make what is formal, informal.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          The central power can decree whatever the heck it wants. If it has any actual power, the decree will be obeyed. If not, it won’t. But the question will become moot if and when world-society splinters into tiny autonomies in lieu of the current sovereignty-monopolies that are modern states. Which will take several centuries, but technological progress combined with demographic upheaval will leave no choice but to dismantle the sclerotic big states into local self-governing autonomies, whose laws and religion will wildly differ, and whose “formalties” will be in explicit discontinuity with those of their monopolist predecessors, *because* those formalties will be deemed, if not detrimental and outright insane, then at least unenforceable.

          “Marital rape,” “statutory rape,” “telepathic voodoo rape,” all of that formal insanity will be gone by 2100. Because these insane laws stem from the totalitarian modern state, from the police state, and from the surveillance state, all of which will not endure the coming transformation.

            • peppermint says:

              technology seemed to decentralize when Americans with personal firearms faced British soldiers with standardized muskets

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Same reason and result as Vietnam. British traitors gave away the win to their American allies. Militarily the Americans stood no chance.

                • peppermint says:

                  It wouldn’t have been possible in the age of knights or the three musketeers.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  I’m not sure how much treason was responsible, but there certainly was centralized power on the side of the Americans- the French, Dutch and Spanish aided the US.

                  I don’t remember the details, but I believe the French were responsible for essentially all of the revolutionary forces gunpowder reserve.

                • jim says:

                  Lord Howe arranged for the deaths of his own men and supplied gunpowder to General Washington. The Whigs committed treason against the King because they wanted the Americans to win.

                • peppermint says:

                  The CIA gave ISIS most of its heavy weapons, but ISIS could pretend to have stolen some from the Iraqi government, bought outright and converted some off Ebay, and have small arms and RPGs because everyone has access to that in Iraq and Syria.

                  In the age of knights and the three musketeers, ISIS or the American colonists could pretend to have their own longswords and muskets and horses, but knights and cannon would be a stretch. As it was, the Americans’ only source of cannon was stealing it from the British who somehow didn’t destroy it when they retreated. The French blockade that helped the American victory is of course like American air power destroying Libya but unable to destroy Syria because Russians prevented it.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Hey Cavalier, check this out:

              “More than four months prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that: 1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing 302 forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to “keep quiet” regarding this issue.”



              “According to Edmonds, Gladio B identified, among other things, regular meetings between senior US intelligence and current leader of Al Qaeda Ayman al-Zawahiri at the U.S. embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan between 1997 and 2001, with al-Zawahiri and other mujahideen being transported by NATO aircraft to Central Asia and the Balkans to participate in Pentagon-backed destabilisation operations. She added that in 1997, NATO asked Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to release from prison Islamist militants affiliated with Ayman al-Zawahiri. They were flown by U.S. intelligence orders to Turkey for training and use in operations by the Pentagon. Additionally, she reported that an Al-Qaeda leader had been training some of the 9-11 hijackers at a base in Turkey. These and related allegations were seemingly confirmed by Sunday Times journalists in 2008 who spoke to Pentagon and MI6 sources.[37] However, according to Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed,[38] the journalists were prevented from publishing many of these allegations when the second half of their four-part series was dropped, possibly due to pressure from the U.S. State Department. She suggests that the objectives of Gladio B are “projecting U.S. power in the former Soviet sphere of influence to access previously untapped strategic energy and mineral reserves for U.S. and European companies; pushing back Russian and Chinese power; and expanding the scope of lucrative criminal activities, particularly illegal arms and drugs trafficking.””


              All that stuff is not exactly identical with your controlled demolition / inside job view of 9/11, but it’s #close enough# IMO.

              • jim says:

                I think 9/11 Troofing is a CIA conspiracy to cover up the fact that political correctness allowed 9/11 to happen, to cover up the fact that our government is rolling over for Islam.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  On the one hand, you have a point, Jim. On the other hand, if the Operation Gladio B stuff is correct — and it seems like it — then 9/11 and Al-Qaeda (now ISIS) themselves are more than just the result of political correctness.

                • jim says:

                  Operation Gladio/B is supposedly:

                  “projecting U.S. power in the former Soviet sphere of influence to access previously untapped strategic energy and mineral reserves for U.S. and European companies;”

                  That is obsolete Marxist ideology that no one can possibly take seriously any more. It is even sillier than the proposition that the planes that hit the two towers were small unmanned drones.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  The original Operation Gladio, Gladio A, was aimed at the commies. Gladio B sets in in the 90s, using Islamism rather than Communism for false flag attacks. The FBI whistleblower said this in 2015 (transcript, some editing by me):

                  “Operation Gladio is not some kind of a conspiracy term or something that people come up with, saying: “I believe there was such an operation.” Operation Gladio, people can go and do a google search and they can find it, even from the CIA’s own division.

                  …four year documents that in late nineteen fifties after World War 2, after CIA was established, after NATO was established, NATO together with the CIA they created these covert paramilitary units around the world, mainly in Europe, some in the Middle East, to basically counter the Soviet Union and the spread of communism as an ideology.

                  So the role of these paramilitary units, funded, directed, managed, armed by the CIA and NATO was, during these years, in Europe and elsewhere, were to create terror events. You know, blow up bombs, gun down people, set, let’s say a shopping centre on fire, and then blame it on the communist networks. And they did hundreds of such operations. There are several good books from historians who have documented these false flag terror events, terror events that were created, implemented, brought about by the CIA/NATO’s paramilitary units within Eastern Europe, in Italy, and in Italy they were very big, but the biggest nation that they had the biggest units in — we just had its own office inside the Pentagon — was in Turkey, and that’s where I’m from! – the Turkish arm of the Gladio network.

                  So, they did all this and you’d think that once the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990-1991, the operation would have been basically shut down, because this was against communism so-called. That’s basically the competition between the two superpowers, not per se the communism as ideology, it was the fight for the dominance – global dominance. But they didn’t shut it down.

                  They switched that and they changed the operation from the original operation to Operation B, Gladio Operation B.

                  Starting in 1995-1996, and these are paramilitary NATO and CIA units in central Asia, in Caucasus, in Middle East and in North Africa, utilizing these paramilitary units under fanatic Islam labels and title and terror organization names and have them basically create terror events in that part of the world. For example they have, and this is Gladio Operation B, they have Chechen networks, and they have had these units trained inside Turkey, and this is the mid-1990’s and it still continues today, and they arm them and they set up operational guidelines with targets to let’s say blow up a school or a movie theatre somewhere in Russia whether it is Moscow or St. Petersburg or elsewhere. Or let’s say somewhere in Georgia or Azerbaijan. Same thing with what you see in other parts of the Middle East.

                  So that is Operation Gladio turned into a different operation, the same modus operandi of creating false flag events synthetically created terror units as Islamic units that would create these terror events, thus the chaos associated with it, thus the justification for NATO, CIA, US military intervention in the Middle East today, but with the goal of having more of these events taking us further into previously Russian territories. If you look at the ultimate nations that we will be seeing more and more it will be in places such as Georgia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and basically closing further and further towards Russia because when they create these events, consequences provide the pretext to interfere and go inside those nations, for example Azerbaijan is now becoming a NATO member, we have a large base in Azerbaijan, anyone can go and look at a map and see how close it is to Russia and Georgia is another candidate to become a NATO member.

                  That was the training and beginning of the ISIS brand. It started as ISIL and then turned to ISIS and now for short IS. This was completed by design, it was created, and the people who are part of the so called ISIS – they were carefully selected, brought into the U.S. NATO base in Turkey, they were trained, they were funnelled, and this is what they were told to do. They created a new brand and a new brand with purpose of replacing the old brand: Al Qaeda.

                  Al Qaeda, after twelve years started losing its oomph as a brand, this is no different than any kid of marketing strategy: you would see from companies bringing in the same kind of product, but under a different brand and packaging to excite the buyers, purchasers, the consumers. This is the same kind of thing. With Al Qaeda weakening as a brand because after a while people get, like, “oh yeah it’s the same thing, Al Qaeda here, Al Qaeda there, they are inside the wells, they are in my backyard, they are in the outhouse.” So they said this is the time to create another brand, so they gave birth to this ISIS brand. Within two years this brand that never existed before, and if you go and look at the headlines you can Google ISIS and financial network, this ISIS brand became the richest terror organization on the planet with two plus billion dollars net worth.

                  Think about it, how does that happen? How can in two years some ferocious terror group get to form and they have all these guns, all these bombs, and they have range rovers and they have jeeps, and they have all this sophisticated training, military and paramilitary training. They have two billion dollars plus. They have IT networks and they are the world’s scariest terror organization. That is the hallmark of Operation Gladio B. That is what they have been doing since the 1950’s and now with people getting likely to buy these types of brands and subscribe to these types of brands, they are being marketed to the consumers in the west. They are gobbling it up with the mainstream media about this ISIS. They even have uniform-like looks with the special bandanas. They look like ninja turtles.

                  I wouldn’t be surprised if they got some help from Hollywood production consultants they have on their payroll and some really brilliant marketing experts to re-brand Al Qaeda, come up with a brand new brand, replace the old brand, and in less than two, three years make it the largest, the richest, the most ferocious, the most capable. As they did with Al Qaeda, today they are putting out this headline saying ISIS has access and capability in biological weapons, people can Google this. ISIS has ability and capability to utilize chemical weapons in attack. Now they are saying that they possibly have nuclear capabilities. Even if you look at the unbelievable organizations that fairly quickly became big, you would never see such marketing scheme that in two three years you could become that rich, two billion dollars plus net worth.

                  This all goes into the years and years, decades and decades, half a century of experience in creating these synthetically created terror brands, and give them the oomph to market it to the consumers here in the west.

                  Of course, it’s a souped-up version of Al Qaeda just re-branded with some new marketing factors entering into the equation. Of course, after having been 14 years since 9/11 it is much easier to sell it to people today, you can sell more. They are likely to buy. You have an entirely new generation that grew up since 9/11 and they have been reading everyday in the newspaper, if they read newspapers, or the social networks and the TV. Even the shows like 24 and dozens of others, you hear the words terror, terror, terrorist, Middle Eastern, Islamic terror. It has been a word that dates back all the way to the 1950’s, but since 9/11 it has become a major brand that has been sold to the public, that as a result justifies trillions and trillions of dollars that are being spent, that are being given to the military industrial complex and related organizations, intelligence complex and their contractors, and their subcontractors.

                  So it’s a trillions and trillions of dollars economy created, it’s the regional geo-strategic dominance, because they can’t come and say: “we are going to go take over Syria and divide it into three.” Even with the apathy today, especially with people here in the United States, it would be a hard sell, maybe not impossible, but hard. But you create synthetically these events, and the terror groups. Then, you show it and you can say: “because these people have nuclear and biological and chemical weapons and some of them have blue eyes, they can blend in and come here to the United States and blow up this elementary school in Iowa, they have that kind of a reach.” They get public cheer and consent to go and send drones and bomb and take over nations.

                  That has become the pretext, that has become the justification. It was for Iraq immediately after 9/11 even though Iraq had nothing to do with any of these events. And then Afghanistan, and then Libya, and now Syria, there is Yemen. Anytime anyone in the U.S pauses and says: “what the heck, why are we going and bombing Yemen? It is this poor nation out in the desert,” we can turn around and say: “look, they have the ISIS brand there, and that ISIS brand is going to come and get you in Iowa,” and then they say: “oh no, please go bomb them, do whatever you must, because they really look scary.”

                  We have to admit, they have created, especially since 9/11, an entire industry: from the intelligence complex, the military industrial complex, like I said, contractors and subcontractors. You are looking at — domestically here in the United States —
                  trillions of dollars, and if you start going outward and internationally, in terms of gaining dominance in the region, whether it is with Iraq and Syria and the Middle East, or what’s going to come, and it has been at work in Central Asia. Ukraine kind of quieted down, but we actually got what we wanted with that.

                  Next we are going to see, and that’s my prediction, we are going to see some unrest in Georgia because there are going to be some so-called terror events that are going to be blamed on some ferocious Chechen factions that may be collaborating with ISIS factions, and that is going to lead to Georgia officially being accepted into NATO as a member. We already have troops in Georgia, it’s already on its way, in terms of the base. So that’s what we are going to see in that region.

                  With Middle East, Iran has been placed on that back-burner. It is temporary. It is completely strategic. We created a president’s legacy that made peace with Iran. That is going to be coming back, and becoming an issue again, within the second or third year of the next coming president, until it is all done with Iran.

                  But most importantly, we have two regions that people here in the United States, I’m not sure about Canada, they don’t ever get to hear. One is Central Asia/Caucasus region, the backdoor of Russia. The other is the Turkestan; Uyghuristan. The Uyghur region of China, in China it’s called Xinjiang region. People don’t hear much about that region and what has been happening. We have been training and putting in place various terror units in that region with the goal, just like Taiwan, we have this separation with that region, because those are Muslim Uyghur people, and put our military base over there.

                  People may think this is far reaching, but if they go start digging — and with today’s technology we can research it — they will see why it is so important. In the past 10-15 years how we have been moving towards that objective, that has been an objective, but the implementation of the operations that are going to take us to the end game with that objective over there.”


                  Okay, so it does sound like a “conspiracy theory,” but is it really so silly, Jim? I say, if anything crazy happens in the Georgia region within the next 5 years or so, this woman will be vindicated.

                  By the way, on a semi-related note, the Corbett Report raised a *very* interesting point:

                  “Do you ever get the feeling that modern art can only exist because it’s being funded by the CIA in a vast conspiracy to confuse and disorient the public? Because if you do, you’d be exactly right.

                  At least, such was the case throughout much of the 50s and 60s. In 1950, Tom Braden set up the CIA’s International Organizations Division specifically to pay for such diverse artistic endeavors as the touring program of the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the animation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm (complete with an altered ending that made it more palatable for American propaganda purposes). As we now know (thanks to the 1995 admission of former case officer Donald Jameson) they also funded abstract expressionist painters, from Jackson Pollack to Mark Rothko to Willem de Kooning.

                  So why would the CIA be interested in promoting an artist who hung paint cans upside down and let them drizzle on to the canvas randomly? The official explanation is that it was all part of a cunning plan to convince the Soviets of the vibrant creativity of American culture…Or something like that. Given that it probably just made the Russkies cock an eyebrow or laugh at American silliness, one has to wonder what the *real* purpose of the program was. Especially when it’s discovered that other counter-cultural movements of the period were funded by the Agency, it would seem that the program was aimed more at demoralizing America itself than in scoring cultural points in the Cold War.”


                  Last paragraph is chilling.

                  “Demoralizing America itself.”

                • jim says:

                  Gladio was perfectly real.

                  All supposed evidence for “Gladio B” consists of old type commies making ridiculous assertions for which they provide absolutely no evidence.

              • Cavalier says:

                Assuming that that is correct, it is exactly the sort of rational, self-interested motive that I would expect.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Some thoughts on a certain subject.

                  You can easily identify the CIA disinfo/propaganda agent because he’s the one pushing the narrative that “bad people were trying to weaken our government, so we should support and stand behind our government.”

                  If USG is caught red handed murdering its own citizens, which should naturally lead to unrest and disaffection among the public, the professional CIA shill will say that actually, the “bad people” behind the scenes want you to feel disaffected in order to weaken the country, thus, you need to stop feeling disaffected, and instead, you need to have greater trust in USG.

                  To repeat: if you say: “USG is murdering its own citizens,” the CIA shill will respond with: “that’s what the bad people want you to think, because they hate the country and wish to weaken it, but the problem is not the government, which is actually protecting you; the problem is those bad people who try to undermine the government.”

                  Thus USG keeps the American citizen distracted with an endless succession of bogeymen, some ostensibly being “foreign enemies” (lol), others ostensibly being “sneaky infiltrators” (double lol), when in fact it is USG itself that is responsible for the sorrow of its own people.

                  The CIA propagandist, having exhausted his efforts at blaming Russian hackers for this and Islamic terrorists for that, will appeal to your right-wing sentiments, and gladly point his finger at “the elite,” provided that the government — elected and unelected alike, with both its transitory and permanent elements — is excluded from this category.

                  He will play the part of “fellow right-winger,” blame the globalist elite, blame George Soros (usually neglecting to mention Soros’ being a State Department stooge), maybe even blame the Jews, but what he will never, ever do, is cast USG itself as the culprit. Au contraire: he will paint USG as the victim, and will attempt to foster a sense of “unity” between Americans and their state apparatus.

                  If you are identified as a “rogue internet agitator” or some such, all the tactics developed by JTRIG will be used to silence you. Whenever you shall try to unplug the sheeple from the matrix, the disinfo agent will be there to force-plug them back in.

                  If you succeed for a while, and the sheeple go unplugged for a day or two, a week or two, this “PR crisis” (for USG) will be dealt with by sophisticated, insidious, disingenuous “damage control” propaganda scripts; and because the CIA’s pro-regime shills are many and highly motivated, whereas you are but one private citizen, eventually most of the stray sheep will be guided all the way back into the pen, or, if you will, the wandering horses will be taken back to the paddock.

                • jim says:

                  > You can easily identify the CIA disinfo/propaganda agent because he’s the one pushing the narrative that “bad people were trying to weaken our government, so we should support and stand behind our government.”

                  The CIA has been at war with the red state since the late 1970s, and therefore with great regularity pushes positions that undermine the government. For example the CIA funds and pushes modern art, the way that Jews push interacial cuckoldry, which certainly is not associated with the position that we should support and stand behind our government.

                  The CIA is a subversive organization in the same way that Harvard is a subversive organization, deeply involved in destructive and treasonous power struggles within the state.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Your Wife’s Son,

                  I’ll have to think about both of your posts.

                  But, given what we know of past governmental actions, such as Iran-Contra, the Tuskegee study, 9/11, Eisenhower immediately after WWII, and USG’s total coolness with Unit 731 provided that they could get their grubby hands on the research, it seems pretty reasonable.

                  Do you think Paul ever wished to be Saul once again?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Do you think Paul ever wished to be Saul once again?

                  It has been one hell of a ride for all of us. In 2012 I just wanted to get a critical perspective on feminism… but the rabbit hole was so deep.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      Going after Trump reflexively and getting Trump are very different things.

  15. Alrenous says:

    When you’re eating of a bag of chips, does each chip taste worse than the one before it, or is that just me?

    Eventually they taste downright terrible. The weird thing is the impulse to have other doesn’t go away.

    No wait that’s not weird. Something something I burned out my aversion circuits.

  16. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Please elaborate on ITER.

    • jim says:

      I cannot give you links. I looked at it some time ago. I will describe from memory.

      ITER is an enormously expensive program to develop fusion, which of course attracts all the usual. Various parts of the ITER project were given to various bloodsuckers highly qualified experts in grantsmanship The project was subdivided without any clear idea of what the subdivisions were, or how they would be fitted together, and of course, it came to pass that they did not in fact fit together.

      Unlike the Challenger screw up, this did not kill anyone, but it was outstandingly stupid and absurd.

      • Alrenous says:

        Saudis don’t like nuclear because they can replace oil-fired generators. Fusion can’t be allowed to work either.

        Hasn’t killed anyone yet, you mean. They might try to turn the thing on.

        • Candide III says:

          > Hasn’t killed anyone yet, you mean. They might try to turn the thing on.
          Pfui. The amount of energy in the plasma is small, just a few kilos of TNT equivalent. At most the magnets lose superconductivity and get bent out of shape, as in LHC a couple of years ago. Part of the reason why the thing is so horribly expensive is that magnets have to be built to withstand quenching and magnetic forces. The stored magnetic energy in ITER is equivalent to at least 3 tons, and magnets are built to dissipate it as heat in the event of a catastrophic quench.

    • Candide III says:

      Jim knows little about ITER. I used to work with people who work on ITER (among other things). The scientists and engineers building ITER are OK, and whatever Jim may think, ITER is more complicated than Challenger. The trouble with ITER is that it has been known at least for a couple of decades that the whole concept of fusion power with tokamaks doesn’t make economic sense – the capital cost is way too high. So the whole thing is a combination of (a) a vanity/prestige project (b) a typical bureaucratic self-licking ice-cream cone and (c) a jobs program for scientists and skilled labor, with no binding deadlines, and project management is what you might expect. As a jobs program, it has points to recommend it; if you want research scientists to teach your practical scientists and your engineers, you have to give scientists something to do and ITER is something (i.e. better than nothing). Also, from a weak government’s point of view, scientists are much better off working on something harmless like ITER than building weapons for foreign potentates like Saudis. USA is still running a program, introduced about the time USSR ceased to exist, that employs Russian physicists in harmless pursuits rather than build new bombs for Putin. Finally, ITER’s not that well funded – $20B over 20-30 years may sound like a lot to laymen but is very little for such a large cement-and-fancy-steel construction project. To compare: (i) a new 1GW nuclear power plant would cost $5B. (ii) Over the next several years, just the city government of Tianjing will pump $5B into AI research and ventures, which need little new capital investment beyond a laptop and a coffee maker.

      • Alrenous says:

        The layman doesn’t know how much 5GW is, and neither do I.

        I do know the Tesla factory will cost $5 billion, and is planned to almost double world production of Li batteries.

        The actual experts working on Challenger were competent too, but management fucked with them, so stuff blew up. ITER is designed to soak failures? That’s nice. Given who’s funding and managing it, I will remind you that eating a kilo of TNT to the face is bad for your health. Stand well back when they first turn it on.

        The jobs program is the thing. Almost the entire university system is a jobs program to pay off intellectuals so they won’t try to subvert the government.

      • jim says:

        “and project management is what you might expect.”

        Sounds like you are saying I know a lot about ITER, for what I described was failure of project management.

        Yes, it is a makework program for very smart people. But the project management indicates that the people running it are not very smart at all. If you managed the construction of a chicken coop the way they manage ITER, the chickens would have no place to sleep.

    • Dave says:

      As I understand it, fusion can’t work because ~80% of the energy is released as fast neutrons, which are bad because they (a) carry away energy needed to keep the reaction going and (b) fuck up your equipment and turn it radioactive, so the whole apparatus has to be replaced every couple of years.

      The Sun runs on fusion, but its power density (i.e. watts per cubic meter) at the core is comparable to an active compost pile or reptile metabolism. Nuclear bombs do not derive energy from fusion; they use it to generate a blast of neutrons to fission uranium or plutonium more efficiently.

      Helium-3 offers hope of neutron-free fusion but has an ultra-high ignition temperature and is extremely rare on Earth (over decades, the government has stockpiled about 25 pounds of it). We’d have to mine it from the Moon’s surface and the atmospheres of outer planets.

      Meanwhile, we have enough uranium and thorium right here on Earth to power civilization for millions of years. We just need to get better at cleaning up the occasional spill (cf. phytoremediation).

  17. Steve Johnson says:

    The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy.

    That’s not what they think though.

    They think that their way of enforcing the rules means that guys like Weinstein (when he had more power) get chicks but that that power comes from being good leftists. Weinstein was supposed to be above the rules for being a leftist, powerful, and a Jew – therefore he was “allowed” to act in a way that got him laid. Being Weinstein or Joss Whedon is the payout for saying the humiliating stuff you have to say to remain a leftist in good standing.

    As a consequence of believing in saintly women who are corrupted by evil men they literally think that evilness is what attracts women so that they’ll turn a blind eye to evilness if you have the right beliefs and you belong to the leftist club.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Now that I think about it the belief that evilness in itself attracts women is actually a benefit to the prog memeplex because it lets guys lie to themselves that them failing to get laid is proof of their virtue.

    • Rape says:

      >they literally think that evilness is what attracts women
      Not exactly far from the truth, no? Consider the “small evil child” comment from

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Weinstein is evil and unattractive.

        • Cavalier says:

          That which is, is good, and that which is not, is evil.

          Before nobody knew who he was, did you think him evil?

          Who sets the morality, and when “they” flip, why do you flip also?

          It never gets old.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          He had power.

          He could advance the careers of women in a profession where most of the actors are whores, including the men who put out gay sex.

          All of this is just validating stereotypes which as usual are correct.
          Pattern recognition is validated.

  18. Space Ghost says:

    If Trump and the Republican Congress had any balls they would open a Congressional Inquiry into sex abuse and harassment in Hollywood. Get a parade of pretty young starlets testifying about how they were “forced” to blow some producer in order to get a job. RICO the whole damn industry. Hollywood is one of the enemy citadels and it needs to be burned to the ground.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Blowing up Hollywood – good

      Blowing up Hollywood in the name of protecting literal whores – worse than not blowing up Hollywood

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        Is it, though? The only thing bigger than Hollywood is the universities. I’d shake hands with the devil to burn down Hollywood.

      • peppermint says:

        Meanwhile, every liberal woman on Facebook is currently blowing up feminism to protect Hollywood with the #metoo campaign.

        There is no scenario in which both Hollywood and feminism survive. Ten years ago they could have sacrificed Weinstein to gin up enough outrage to get Trump.

        • Cavalier says:

          When evil fat women from the government lose all their jobs, you’ll know that feminism is blown up, and not a minute before.

          • vxxc2014 says:

            Refer to title.

            Never interrupt the enemy when they’re making a mistake, especially eating each other. Law>Bureaucrats>Unis>Hollywood>Politicians save the President.

            Except to let more of them eat each other: Evil Fat Govt Women, NYC’s Leftist DA and the FBI [which isn’t evil but answers to Evil Fat Govt Women/EFGW] and Lawyers, politicians and Bureaucrats will be all over this one. If it does go Federal than the full weight of EFGW will descend on Hollywood, dragging in more than a few politicians.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          >every liberal woman on Facebook is currently blowing up feminism to protect Hollywood with the #metoo campaign
          How so? I don’t follow how #metoo is blowing up feminism or protecting Hollywood.

          • peppermint says:

            Protecting Weinstein et al by trying to deflect criticism from Weinstein et al. Everyone but clever sillies understands that people can only focus on up to some handful of events and one narrative at a time. The metoos exist to take up events and redirect the narrative.

            This is destroying feminism because it’s putting the pettiness of the metoo stories up front in a way that they can be dismissed en masse. Feminists probably knew that this danger existed but underestimated it because they’re so used to no one ever telling them they’re ovarreacting and focusing on the wrong problem.

      • Randy Stipp says:

        Sometimes you have to throw their own petard back at them.

  19. […] Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake […]

  20. Dave says:

    Found this comment on Vox:

    “To any tempted by despair: morale on the left is low and falling. I listen to some of their better podcasts, and they are losing faith. They still hold to equality, progress, etc., but they don’t know how to defend them. This explains the appeal of Bernie Sanders, an old left figure with a pure, uncorrupted faith.

    “They hope some figure will emerge to pull the sword from the stone and restore the kingdom. Except they don’t believe in swords, stones, and kingdoms. They’re in a tough spot.”

  21. jim says:

    sorry about breaking comments. Fixed it.

    I broke comments as a side effect of forcing everyone to use https. You had to use https to comment, but you could not use https to comment.

    If the change has caused any other bugs, at least you can now report them to me in a comment.

    • TrevorSedis says:

      Your Wife’s Son says:

      > Jim: “Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.”

      > The enemy is not making any mistake. When the subversive kike Weinstein
      > got the shaft, it brought a smile to the faces of many alt-retards.

      Guys have made the same Jim-like response per feminism. For 50 years they did nothing to stop the women’s movement. They said, “Oh, let the little ladies have their say and way. What’s the harm? Besides, no sane person takes it serious.”

      A half-century later…after millions of men lost custody of their kids, lost jobs-families-assets-lives due to false allegations (and ever-expanding definitions!) of DV, SH, rapes, etc….guys still do nothing. Men do not care about themselve or other men. They laugh at boys raped by female teachers, even getting jealous. The call the increasing number of males committing suicide “pussies.” They don’t care that young boys, drugged in school for being imperfect girls, grow up wanting to be gay, bisexual, trannies, etc. — ANYTHING but demonized straight men. Western men go along with the NFL, USPS, and sundry other male-created enterprises raising money solely for breast cancer…though prostate cancer has about the same mortality rate.

      In short, Western men will do anything but A-C-T! If ISIS sent an army of bikini-clad women to invade America…promising to allow non-Muslim men to drink beer, watch sports on TV, and fap at-will…they’d conquer in a minute.

      Of course, Western men would continue to bellyache nonstop online, but who’d give a a shit?

Leave a Reply