The trouble with Rotherham

The trouble with Rotherham is not that white girls were raped and beaten, but that Muslims get exemption to be manly as women understand manliness, and whites and Hindus do not.

The Rotherham girls were raped, threatened, and beaten all right, but they were also complicit in the violence.

For the most part, the pimp, rather than aggressively forcing his women into prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, is aggressively, but unsuccessfully, attempting to restrain them from prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, and to the extent that he goes along with their prostitution, is just being the dancing monkey, pretending to be in charge so as to retain some tattered shreds of manliness despite being massively cuckolded.

Human female sexuality is closer to feline female sexuality than to chimpanzee female sexuality. Apes are primarily vegetarians, but we are descended from killer apes. Even when sex involves quite dangerous violence against women plus infanticide and plenty of it, as it rather often does, human females are massively complicit in that violence and infanticide. The women that pimps go through the motions of oppressing are topping from the bottom, and pimps are more accurately understood as the cucked and oppressed victims of lustful bawdy women.

Prostitution is frequently in substantial part an alarmingly enthusiastic and endlessly continuing search for a male who is alpha as women understand alpha – which manliness and alpha character is in substantial part is demonstrated by criminal violence against women and children and being able to get away with violence against women and children.

Even when sex involves a lot of violence against women and children, as it often does, it is the pimps that are the real victims, being brutally cucked by their lustful women.

If a girl is being sexually trafficked, there is absolutely no way the pimp can stop her from wandering off with one of her customers, and whores do this with great regularity. The client is trying to “rescue” the girl from prostitution and her brutal pimp and human trafficker, but she then tries to turn him into a pimp and cuckold. Hence the saying:

“You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

Reality is that all the power is in the hands of the whores, not the pimps, which deeply frustrates the women, who are endlessly searching for manly power and authority in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Everyone gets hurt, no one gets their desires fulfilled.

The Democrats prefer to import Jihadis, criminals, and whores. Jihadis and criminals because they can be relied upon to vote Democratic, whores because they will become cat ladies who can be relied upon to vote Democratic. As a rationalization for importing whores, they implemented the “blue campaign”, which defined illegal immigrant whores to be victims of human trafficing, which the government proceeded to “rescue”.

The purported “victim-centered approach” – as opposed to criminal-focused prosecutions – was mostly a fraud-enabling way in the spirit of asylum/refugee fraud to give a bunch of illegal alien women yet another zero-scrutiny way to claim a victim status that was a free and quick golden ticket to a green card. Cf: U Visas). “Some evil man trafficked my humanness here and took all my documents which are totally from a country that is both unable and unwilling to cooperate with your investigators.”)

Men who come here to kill us and take our stuff will reliably vote Democratic, and women who are whores will remain single, and thus reliably vote Democratic.

Hence the striking and conspicuous preference for importing criminals, Jihadis, and whores.

Two incidents with a woman:

  1. I protected her. We were walking along a little used path in a semi rural area when a dog charged us barking furiously. She would have run, in which case the dog would have done a large circle around me and attacked her (a barking dog always wants to attack from behind) so I tightened my grip on her, and turned to face the dog while sweeping her behind me like a sack of potatoes and prepared to strike at the dog with my free hand and with one foot. The dog, seeing my focused immobility, the steady predator gaze of the tiger in ambush, abruptly spun around, tucked its tail between its legs, and fled.

    Heh, I thought. Massive display of protective manliness. She is going to remember this fondly.


    Wrong again!

    She totally and completely forgets it.

  2. I endangered her:
    “Why”, I ask, “are we at the kiddy pool?”
    “I cannot swim”, she replies. I pick her up.

    “Hey, put me down”, she screams. She then realizes that I carrying her off to the adult pool. Her screaming redoubles.

    She then realizes that I am carrying her off to the deep end of the adult pool, and realizes I am going to throw her into it. She screams and struggles.

    I am doing this in front of her family, in front of several male members of her family. The trip from the kiddy pool to the deep end of the adult pool requires me to walk past the security guy, who is responsible for order and safety.

    I am old and at that time was rather fat. She is young and slim. I am walking very briskly, so, obvious sexual predator forcibly abducting screaming young girl, or at least a guy being disorderly and endangering safety. To avoid triggering his white knight impulses, I totally ignore him, and keep my gaze steady on my destination, so I don’t know how he reacted. As usual, when I act with confidence and determination, as I have learned to do in the presence of fertile age women, no one gets in my way.

    I toss her in, shortly thereafter get laid like a rug.

I really do not like violence against women all that much. The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies. Truth is, I had been warned there was a dangerous and aggressive dog in that area. I had no way of knowing for sure that I would be able to intimidate it or defeat it, but was confident I could. I have plenty of experience with dangerous and aggressive dogs. Dogs, like humans, can tell if you are seriously considering killing them and think you might be able to accomplish it. It was totally a setup to give effect to my sexual fantasies. But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is. Women do not particularly want protection, and are disinclined to cooperate with males who protect them. The early James Bond movies reflect male fantasies. Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers, and men have no alternative but to play along. I must dance, and women call the tune.

The Rotherham problem was not Muslims out of control, but women out of control. The cure is not to restrain Muslims, but to restrain women.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

It also makes total sense if you take the story of the fall seriously. It is the curse of Eve. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It also makes sense of female voting behavior. Single women have no country. They want us to be conquered, they want their male kin to be castrated, so they can finally get into the possession of someone strong enough to own them.

Whenever someone talks about rape in the sense of the female not consenting, implying it is perfectly fine and completely normal if she has sex without her father consenting, or engages in serial monogamy, he is normalizing a morally degenerate male fantasy that fails to correspond to observed female revealed preference.

Women perceive protective manliness as something as natural as the sun rising in the east, and aggressive male dominance as an extraordinary gift from heavens to be adored and worshiped.

Which makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, since aggressive male dominance is likely to result in being auctioned off naked and in chains, followed by seven children and twenty grandchildren, while protective manliness is likely to result in becoming a cat lady.

Female sexual autonomy results in defect/defect equilibrium, the equilibrium of whores and pimps. Nobody gets what they want. Queen Gwenevere cheats on King Arthur with Lancelot, King Arthur finds out, Camelot falls because of internal disunity, and everyone gets killed.

Protective manliness that protects the sexual autonomy of women, protective manliness that protects Queen Gwenevere’s sexual autonomy, is not only unappreciated by women, but is white knighting, is wicked, evil, and morally degenerate. The curse of Eve is that women should not have sexual autonomy, and endlessly look for a man strong enough to take it away from them.

Be that man.

In order to reproduce successfully, women need to be conquered and subdued. Her owner can then safely invest in her. With female sexual autonomy he cannot, so he does not. Her bearing children for her owner, means her holding hostages against him, thus cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Tags: , ,

138 Responses to “The trouble with Rotherham”

  1. […] Needless to say, feminists, and indeed women generally, are totally untroubled by this, just as they untroubled by Rotherham. […]

  2. Starman says:

    OT, sort of.

    I wonder if there’s an unofficial American Triumvirate (the original Roman Triumvirate was unofficial too) being formed by people like Donald Trump, Mattis, Erik Prince, Peter Thiel, Mark Cuban, possibly Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others? To topple the Cathedral?

    The Sexual Harassment Panda purge looks alot like the American version of Proscription Lists.

    • glosoli says:

      Yes, the merger of state and big business is proceeding according to….someone’s ….plan. It’s all about the money you know, they want it all.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        No one has any USD – it’s fully revocable and can be diluted to worthlessness at any time. Any loyalty that is bought with it can be out bid by USG just by creating more. You’re seeing big business merge with the state because the state is becoming more and more the only possible source of wealth so businesses are falling over themselves to serve it.

        The only people who hold any money are those who possess private keys to BTC.

  3. TBeholder says:

    > Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology
    Indeed, but this should not be applied selectively.
    For one, inclinations toward anything that ends in defect/defect obviously are selected against, unless there are mechanisms that will counter such a disadvantage.
    Thus if something repeatably leads to defect/defect, there must be other factors that beat this and in other circumstances would be beneficial.

    • jim says:

      Evolution does not, cannot, solve prisoner’s dilemma actions and collective action problems.

      Evolution always selects for defect/defect except in certain cases.

      The case where you don’t get defect/defect is where both sides apply tit for tat, there are many iterations and no definite end in sight. If human children grew up as quickly as ducklings, that would work. But because of the high cost and long childhood of humans, we have prisoner’s dilemma with a limited number of iterations, so, absent external coercion, will always get defection, and evolution will select for defectors.

      The problem is that it is always in the interests of both parties to defect, to return evil for good. So the cooperating party gets screwed.

      For evolution to select for cooperation, need the legal and social environment depicted in Deuteronomy and Proverbs.

    • jim says:

      It is individually optimal for females to return evil for good, and good for evil. Which makes it individually optimal for men to be evil to women.

      • Garr says:

        I don’t wanna be evil to women. I like women. They’re cute and fun.

      • Mike says:

        Damn Jim your writing makes my head spin. It is so unnerving to think about things this way, and yet it makes sense. In reference to what you have said about Rotherham and pimps, is it even possible for a woman to be “sexually abused”? IMO, it sounds like that from your perspective, 90% of so called “abuse” is total bullshit.

        How do we know what is correct to take seriously and what is just going against gnon?

      • Pooch says:

        Does simply removing divorce rape laws solve this problem you think?

        • jim says:


          Australian authorities solved this problem until about 1810 or so, when their solution became too politically incorrect.

          The solution is that state and church should demand that the wife honor and obey, the husband love and cherish. And the state will punish, and the Church condemn, wives who speak back to husbands.

  4. Mister Grumpus says:

    Jim, I’ve never just up and asked you:

    But how do you FEEL about All This, man? Are you furious? Are you sad? Are you depressed? Etc. Because this holiness-spiral auto-genocide phenomenon is some horrible horrible shit, and I (usually) just can’t understand how you can dwell on it — predictive accuracy notwithstanding — without just losing your shit entirely.

    Is it just not your style to talk about that? Or maybe you’ve been steeped in this material/perspective for so long that you’ve reached some Uber-Zen “acceptance phase”? And what the hell is THAT like? Or are you such a galaxy-brain space-alien that you don’t even need to notice such fleshy pedestrian emotionality in the first place?

    Or maybe I’m a pussy for wanting to ask. Anyway. Just curious.

    (I recall a question that some reporter once asked the great WWII General Marshall about how he FELT about some big deal that was going on, and his reply was simply that he didn’t have “feelings” about it, and that his “feelings” were reserved for Mrs. Marshall.)

    • jim says:

      I am very sad about this.

      Notice that human eyes have whites, and other creatures do not. This is an indicator, one of a great many such indicators, that the human specialty is cooperation – cooperative violence, as the equine specialty is fast running over the plains, the feline specialty is ambush predation, the falcon’s specialty is predation in the air by flying faster than its prey, and so on and so forth.

      And we always try to have cooperation for violence at larger and larger scales, and the white mechanism for doing this has been the state church, the shared ingroup religion. But this mechanism is prone to holiness spirals, which lead to collective suicide. And here we are.

      Breaking out of the cycle is a collective action problem. And the state and the state religion is our mechanism for handling collective action problems. It is not in the individual interest to fix the problem. It is always in the interests of individuals to make the problem worse, even though the result is bad for everyone.

      • Robert Brockman says:

        “It is always in the interests of individuals to make the problem worse, even though the result is bad for everyone.”

        Fortunately, we can disprove this: it is in *your* individual interest to fix the collective action problem, which is why you are trying to fix it. Were you to take action to make the problem worse, you would be miserable.

        Good people want things to be better for everyone. Bad people want to exploit others. Worse people lie to others / themselves about wanting things to be better for everyone as part of a strategy for exploiting others (spiritual pride / holiness spiral.)

        The technical problem is simple: allow the good people to coordinate while protecting them from the bad people and the worse people. Right now we know the worse people are in charge because they let the bad people run amok and make survival and reproduction harder for good people.

        You spend time working on this because you are a relatively good person: you know that someday you will be gone and want things to run right in your absence.

        • jim says:

          Our standard mechanism for this coordination is religion. Darwin, however, made the creator God obsolete, and since then we have been coordinating with things that have deny being a religion, but have a lot of characteristics in common with a state religion.

          Since we want to preserve and recover old social technology, we should piously acknowledge successful state religions of the past – Constantine’s Council of Nicea and the Anglicanism of Charles the Second being hugely successful state religions, but avoid having the creator God and creation as load bearing elements. The fall is symbolically true. We don’t expect people to believe it to be literally true.

          Saying we need a better coordination point and better coordination mechanism, is saying we need a better state religion. A non state religion is a good start, but just does not cut it. Existing Christianity is hopelessly cucked, and yet further heretical deviation from existing heretical deviation means that instead of sixteen heresies, you have seventeen heresies.

          • Robert Brockman says:

            Yes, a new state religion that supported good people cooperating and bad / worse people being neutralized (or ideally, made into good people) would be ideal. I’m currently a big fan of Orthodox Christianity because it seems to have the most patriarchy / resistance to communism in it but there is evidence that the leadership has been compromised by entryism (and we know what comes next.)

            We should enumerate a small set of principles this new state religion should have, build it, and then support its control over a state. Maybe set up a small wiki linked to this site where you keep track of what key proposed beliefs and operating principles you think would be optimal?

            • jim says:

              Inventing a new religion from scratch not a good idea. Neither is accepting degenerate twentieth century heresies. We need to recover ancient social technologies, while maintaining modern Red Pill and Dark Enlightenment insights. Which insights are apt to lead to the black pill, which we need to remedy with the white pill. Evolutionary Psychology gives us similar but better data than the doctrine of the fall, so we absolutely need to accept evolution and make creation a symbol and myth, rather than literal history.

              We really need to do a number against celibacy. I keep coming back to the fact that romance and mandatory celibacy appeared at the same time.

              A state needs a state religion as its large scale coordination mechanism:. Darwin, however, made the creator God obsolete, and since then we have been coordinating with things that have deny being a religion, but have a lot of characteristics in common with a state religion.

              Se we will deny being a religion, while vigorously recovering the social technology of Constantine’s Council of Nicea and Charles the Second’s Anglicanism.

              We also need to function as a religion, which minimally requires participation in hatching, matching, and dispatching. We need to provide social support for member’s marriages and families.

              Our plan for taking power is that some violent man grabs power, needs priests to say his possession of power is OK, and we apply for the job.

              State religions tend to attack families, as for example Moloch worshippers sacrificing their firstborn for status and advancement in the state religion,

              A state religion that demands its adherents sacrifice their families, as for example the cat ladies of HR, will have loyal full time supporters who have convincingly demonstrated their loyalty by their sacrifice, and also have no competing loyalties – the state religion has solved the problem of priests operating the state Church as a jobs program for their numerous sons.

              Obviously we cannot yet grant status, and we should not demand that adherents sacrifice their families. We can, however, generate loyalty on the Mormon pattern, by providing social support for marriage and social enforcement of patriarchy, thereby gaining the reliable loyalty of patriarchs. They back the group, and the group backs them.

              Demanding sacrifice of family results in a stronger church, at the expense of the society that the Church should be representing and should provide Asabiyyah to. It is a betrayal of near, everyone gets hurt.

              We need to conspicuously condemn this, and conspicuously preach and do the opposite. Support us, and we will make sure you can safely invest in your wife and kids. It was wicked, wrong, and heretical of the Church to require celibacy. Heretical because scripture 1 Timothy Chapter 3 verses 2-6, and because of the Council of Nicea, wicked and wrong because a betrayal of near, sacrificing people for power.

              So, we have to acknowledge that the Church is badly cucked now, and has been somewhat cucked since eleven hundred

              And for starters, need to get with hatch, match, and dispatch.

              • Robert Brockman says:

                In that case, is there any reason not to just focus on reinforcing Orthodox Christianity? They have the non-celibate priesthood (which seem very patriarchal) and the history of being the state church for a long time. The Russian branch seems to be doing business with Tzar Vladimir just fine and are resisting degeneracy.

                The Greek ecumenical patriarch seems compromised by POZ, but the Russian patriarch isn’t going along with it. Local Greek Orthodox clergy and bishops seem almost completely unaffected by leftism so far. Maybe it’s early enough in the process to salvage this church and make it into a state church (maybe start with Russia?) This might be an efficient use of our efforts.

                Orthodoxy does not seem to have an official position on evolution or much modern science — this might require an ecumenical council which probably won’t happen again for a few hundred years. Preliminary research indicates a significant fraction of priests believe that evolution and Orthodoxy are compatible.

                The Mormons may also be sufficiently solid to form a state religion in Utah if things go sideways. I personally know a devout Mormon patriarch who is a POZ-hating genetics professor, so no big issues with evolution there either.

                Of course we also have Jordan Peterson, who has undertaken a strategic initiative to extract all of the technology out of the Old Testament and unify it with evolution in a manner usable by moderns.

                • Motet says:

                  All religion is a conspiracy by men and their grandmothers to impose a more civilized mating pattern onto their daughters and wives.

                  If you solve this problem, the glitz and shiny baubles and other window-dressing seem to sort itself out as if by magic.

                  If you fail this problem, nothing else you do matters very much at all.

                  You, Robert Brockman, are worried about the wrong things.

                • peppermint says:

                  The Stoic cardinal virtues aren’t enough for non-philosophers who will prefer hedonistic Epicureanism. They need the theological virtues pushed on them as well – faith in His Majesty the God-Emperor, hope that America will be great again, unconditional love for our nation without which we are nothing.

                  What we need in a religion right now is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It isn’t a noble lie or any lie to say that our God-Emperor is our king and our symbol. Hope for the hereafter is a noble lie, hope for our genetic future is not only not a lie but our prime directive. Love of nation is the supreme guiding principle.

                  Evolution is a fact. Christians can only pussyfoot around it and end up calling all of “humanity” “image-bearers”. If Joseph didn’t have children by a former wife that isn’t mentioned, he’s a cuckold. Christians can only pussyfoot around it and end up celebrating cuckoldry.

                  If Christianity is to be taken seriously, Jews and the Levant are theologically important. If Christianity is not taken seriously, we cam talk sensibly about Jews and the Levant.

                  We must take the good parts of the ruined Christian religion and ise them in our future guiding principles. Abortion is generally bad. Antibabypillen and condoms should be avoided because time wasted as a 20 something not having children is a sin against one’s ancestors. Marriage that isn’t one man one woman for life, sealed upon consummation, annulment available if barren, is anathema. Note that these positions are logical if the theological virtues of national stoicism are accepted, but only furtively smuggled in by today’s Bible or Cultural Christians.

              • Koanic says:

                Paul had a wife and son.

              • Pooch says:

                What are the odds Islam can be used/repurposed by the West in some sort of mass conversion?

                There seems to be some similarities to the current times and when the late decadent Roman Empire converted to Christianity.

                • glosoli says:

                  Look out for an attempt to merge the 3 religions of the book. It’s a working thesis, they’ll try to unite Christians, Jews, Moslems, it’ll be part of a NWO.
                  Christians will resist.
                  Just a thesis.

                • peppermint says:

                  you will not resist, you will cheerfully larp with generalized abrahamism, not because it mandates gender roles and has stronger anti-jewism than christcuckoldry, but for it’s ridiculous promise of an afterlife that few have ever taken seriously and certainly not after the 19c, because besides being a moron you’re a coward

                  the reasonable people already accept the truth of national stoicism

                  some day you will die, and I will also die, and our nation, if it endures, will endure despite your failure

                • glosoli says:

                  I love reading your comments.
                  They start with mad statements, then meander aimlessly, then end in another dimension.

                  How do you cope out in the real world?

                  Sometimes, just try writing nothing. Save your energy for beheading your grandparents. Post some photos of that as proof though.

                • peppermint says:

                  The response to eternal life is cowardice used to be Proclus’ proof that souls are eternal, while Socrates merely said he didn’t dispute that the sun is a god, presumably since claiming it’s a lump of coal is no improvement and at any rate he was against democracy, not the traditions of his people.

                  Today there is no argument against the fact that belief in eternal life is cowardice, and the believers just banned abortion but only of downies, to act out their retarded larping, and also to harm the right in general to try to hurt Trump.

            • Motet says:

              >and then support its control over a state

              The smallest state is the state of you.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Shinto seems to be the best.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        But new collective-action tools and technologies are constantly being invented, to the point that people who were Untouchably Elite just 10 years ago are sleeping under their beds with fear.

        I know I know. The holiness spiral eats its own worshippers.

        But the Trump election was one hell of a collective action also.

        Hell, is having more effect than a bus-full of Patrick Buchanans could in 1990, don’t you think?

        • jim says:

          > But new collective-action tools and technologies are constantly being invented.

          Programmers as priests, says Jacobite mag. Has a point.

          We need to revive ancient social technologies that have been lost, the social technologies of Constantine’s Council of Nicea and Charles the Second’s Anglicanism, but also need to apply them in the age of the internet.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Maybe these proof-of-_____ concepts that the blockchain geniuses are coming up with might end up being exactly that. Or at least something so different social-technology-wise that they knock us back out into “unknown” territory, which is so much more let’s-not-quit-trying motivating than “We Are Doomed.”

            There’s also the Counterfund thing that Pax-D is up to, and he’s a genius too.

            So the Whitepill I get from these — and you caught me on a good day — is that some computer guys really are trying to think and act at a similar civilizational angle. They’re not just trying to cook up the next VisiCalc or whatever.

  5. Aldo says:

    The best example of what happens when you let women have too high status is Sparta.

    Spartan women could divorce their husbands and keep the property with the kids, were spared from the infanticide done to boys, could dress slutty. You name it.

    Aristotle himself noted how Sparta’s women ruined their society.

  6. Zoltan Lynch says:

    Hey Jim, would you mind listing your top 5 history books (or just books) every shit lord/thought criminal should read?

    Christmas vacation is coming. I need some fresh, poolside reading.

    • jim says:

      Five is kind of hard. It all depends.

      Hikayat Abdulla
      Sydney George Fisher’s True History of the American Revolution.
      The Shortest-Way With The Dissenters.
      A South-Side View of Slavery
      The descent of man.

      But, with evolutionary psychology, we now have a truer understanding of the nature of women, consistent with the Old Testament and the doctrine of the fall.

      We have made regress, rather than progress, in understanding women since Christianity adopted celibacy, and only now with the Red Pill and the Dark Enlightenment, are we starting to once again understand the nature of women. So, for understanding women, hit the modern sources, in particular, and especially Heartiste.

      Ever since Christianity adopted celibacy, our understanding of the differences between men and woman has been sliding into darkness, Chesterton’s fence has been falling apart, and only now, with the PUA, Red Pill, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Dark Enlightenment, are we reversing this loss of knowledge, and preparing to reverse this loss of social technology.

      In three hundred AD, priestly celibacy was a heresy that got shot down in flames. Advocate mandatory priestly celibacy, lose your job and your social status.

      Priestly celibacy only becomes orthodoxy in eleven hundred and twenty five AD, and lo and behold, the first Troubador, William IX, Duke of Aquitaine, proceeds to preach adultery and celebrate male and female misbehavior, making “love” the get out jail free card for wives to cuckold their husbands and murder their children, at the same time as the Church proclaims celibacy for priests.

      Television tells forty year old women with two children that they can divorce their husbands and win cash, prizes, and a new and improved husband.

      When I am grand inquisitor, romance, rather than porn, will be the number one target for censorship. Any romance that does not start with paternal authority, and proceed to fiancee authority followed by husband’s authority, will have to feature rape or murder or both, and end in the death, disgrace, or suicide of the lovers.

      Romances where a rather ordinary woman gets the undying love of the six foot four vampire King Demon billionaire will suffer even more severe censorship than porn featuring five year olds being sodomized.

      You will be allowed to feature Queen Guinevere cuckolding King Arthur provided you go directly to everyone betrays everyone and then they all get killed, and provided you depict the adulterers as bad people acting badly and foolishly for selfish and foolish reasons.

      The romance genre started off as Guinevere’s adultery being presented as way cool, because that is popular with women. Women like to hear that they can misbehave and it will be fine. Hard to tell consumer demand from hostile enemy propaganda.

      Mandatory celibacy is a thousand year old heresy, which resulted in, or appeared simultaneously with, Romance, which is a thousand year old celebration of evil, advocacy of evil, and a great big lie justifying evil.

      We need to revert to the position on celibacy stated by Constantine’s Council of Nicea, and suppress most Romance literature as satanic pornography.

      But because this heresy and this satanic deception is a thousand years old, you will not find any old books that are all that good as a corrective to it.

      • Alrenous says:

        eleven hundred

        What a coincidence.

      • Dave says:

        If the Church allows married men to be priests, how shall it deal with the problem you described in “Civilization and Dysgenesis”, of priests using the Church as a jobs program for their sons?

        • peppermint says:

          why is that bad and it’s good to have priests shuffled in from elsewhere?

          • TBeholder says:

            It causes ossification of the castes. Does not mean the opposite extreme is better, but it kills too.
            If this goes too far, they become entitled asses going through motions. Complacency leads to inflexibility, which in turn leads to fragility.

            Until either everything withers because it’s a stagnant swamp and all motivation rots away (“Did you do anything to destroy USSR?.. Or to save it?”) and/or a crisis (whether caused by outsiders or natural) crushes the whole card house because it cannot adapt even to trivial things.

            In the best case scenario, some guy says “let the puffed up elders go screw themselves, we’ll have meritocracy now”, and the youngsters hear and follow.
            And even then. Temujin had to win a civil war just to make his countrymen capable of keeping themselves out of Chinese slave market.

            • jim says:

              If you are selecting military officers on merit you have an argument. If you are selecting priests on holiness, you have a suicide pact.

              But for the British army, it does not seem that selecting military officers on merit was a good idea. Selecting them on the merit of their fathers and older relatives worked better. Hard to tell if an officer has merit unless you see him commanding in battle, so the obvious way to go is to select the male kin of men who have commanded in battle and survived.

        • jim says:

          This is a problem?

          Seemed to work pretty good for Israel and Aaron.

          Shortly after Israel went off hereditary priesthood, they got into a holiness spiral where they repeatedly attacked their neighbors and the Romans, and attacking the Romans was a really bad idea.

          History tells us that hereditary priesthood, and semi hereditary priesthood, works for society.

          Optimal solution is priesthood as semi private property. The priest privately owns a shrine, but the shrine is holy and has value because the state deems it so, so it is sort of half way between public and private property. It is a symbol of his state job as preacher. Also, he is supposed to inherit the shrine from his father or his father in law, and not buy it in the market place.

          • TBeholder says:

            > If you are selecting military officers on merit you have an argument. If you are selecting priests on holiness, you have a suicide pact.
            Unrestricted, yes. But in this no extremes end well.
            Locked castes are protected from some forms of predation, but risk becoming stagnant and inbred, then left by wayside or overthrown as useless. Just like degeneration of big chunks of academia into circlejerk, only slower.
            Conversely, with constant, but slow caste migration the group can improve itself.
            There needs to be a balance. Easy reward for ambitions creates holiness spirals, lack of it creates a group that does just well enough and not more, then will act like beheaded chickens when something unusual happens.
            It helps if some of the criteria for entry having more practical sense.

            Then there are differences between entering the group and promotions inside the group.
            If entry level in itself is not rewarding, it’s easier for migration rates between the groups to remain reasonably low.
            Entry is an attack surface for creating support groups at will, which requires protection if entry is possible at all. Arbitrary invitation is unprotected, fixed criteria can be gamed, but the question is how much.

            • jim says:

              Locked castes never happen in practice. There is always a great deal of social mobility. Sometimes, often, a caste is in denial about the degree of social mobility.

              Suppose that only people descended in the male line from Aaron can be priests. Plentiful supply of sons.

      • TBeholder says:

        > Romances where a rather ordinary woman gets the undying love of the six foot four vampire King Demon billionaire will suffer even more severe censorship
        Lol. There’s some Wet Streets Cause Rain fallacy, or maybe “Mario turns kids into plumbers”. Supply would be useless without existing demand, unless allowed to manipulate it.
        Some pointing and laughing is definitely in order – but that’s exactly what the “Twihards” naturally receive, when not protected by an army of harpies.

  7. peppermint says:

    What’s a woman going to like?

    * I must save the world at any cost to myself and my people no matter what the world thinks
    * I must do whatever Optimus says
    * I’m a nominal terrorist leader who somehow doesn’t even have the respect of my terrorists
    * I get away with insulting everyone lol

    Of course they like Starscream and maybe a random Autobot, and will until Megatron punishes him properly, or Optimus puts his Autobots first before the pathetic humans.

    Is a man not entitled to the pride of a life well lived? No, says the man in America, it belongs to God. Thus the men of America are cucked.

    • glosoli says:

      You like your pride don’t you?
      I just read Leviticus, no laws from Jehovah on that subject, as far as I can recall.
      Stop scapegoating Jehovah, perhaps you can then live a life worthy of pride.
      At the moment you sound like a whiny girl.
      Live life within Gods laws though, otherwise we end up back at today.
      You realise Jehovah loved Patriarchs?
      Have you ever even read the bible?

      • peppermint says:

        God’s laws, or something claiming to be God’s laws with an impeccable intellectual pedigree, ruled America in the ’50s, and ordered men to cuck. Can you explain what went wrong? No, because despite standing with the Fundamentalists against the Transcendentalists, you can’t step outside of your perspective long enough to explain what the perspectives are.

        This isn’t Boomer school. If you write me a 5000 word essay detailing history of religion in particular on this continent and cite things to demonstrate that you’ve heard of them, I will laugh at you. Boomers to this day “debate each other” on the Internet by reciting 80s newspaper editorials to each other while avoiding the issue at question or retrospectives on the last 30 years. History ended in 1991 when Boomers began to be able to assert themselves politically because the older people were just too old to keep it away from them and began again in 2016 when the Boomers, being cucks, could no longer keep Boomertopia running.

        Starscream sounds like a whiny girl and all the human women want his robot dick. If you don’t care to understand why, go fuck yourself.

        • glosoli says:

          As usual you ignore my point and go off on your pet subject.
          It was nothing to do with Christianity, it was infiltration by the reds.
          The boomers were clueless, pre-internet, how could be red-pilled?
          Direct your anger at your nations enemies, not your fathers.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Thanks for bringing up Starscream. I’m no Jungian genius, but I could always tell that Starscream — just a cartoon character! — was always written to some particular archetype that I never had the vocabulary to label/describe. (And let me guess: All other cartoon characters are as well?)

          Now the only vocabulary I have for it is… “Starscream”!

  8. Niiiidriveevof says:

    Hypothesis, racial diversity with proximity (except in the case of slavery) promotes emancipation of women. Men would rather keep the status of women low, except they dare not lower them below the men of the lower race.

    • StoneMan says:

      “You can’t fire me, because I quit”

      “You can’t cheat on White men with Niggers, because we don’t own you”

      Yeah. Sounds about right.

  9. StringsOfCoins says:

    I do have to wonder 🤔 is modern feminism changing the female genome?

    I have to conclude that it is.

    Women who submit wholly and early to men simply have more children than aggressive women who are picky about the guy that they let come into port. Those women often have no children.

    The woman who signals that she’s available to be taken has children. When she signals with her giggles and lust in her eyes that she actually enjoys being taken, on a wild ride, she signals to the men around her. Poor a baby in me.

    All the wrong men of course. But hell I still can’t believe there are so many fucking cucks around today. Especially on the right.

    The woman who signals that she’s available to be careful courted for fifteen or even fifty years and maybe she’ll deign to marry you? She’s got ten cats right now, to go along with her 130 IQ that she thinks makes her a genius, cause didn’t fifty cucks just tell her so yesterday? and career nobody cares about, while she wallows in sadness at thirty five and bitches about her “probably gay” boyfriend who struggles to get it up to her before he goes home and jacks it to porn featuring teenage girls. The pedophile!

    I’m gonna have to beat my wife again this weekend. I should honestly go do it tonight. I never should have hesitated. But I did because I really don’t want women to be the feral property that they are. It just means too much work. Why not just go back to the cad life? Why not?

    Instead of owning her, as she gets one day older, every single day, one day worse, why not just go fuck around on her some more? You know the worst thing about any woman? Tomorrow she’s a day older, next year she’s a year older. You can’t not see the Crow’s feet. You can’t not the saggy tits, if you are actually fucking these girls. You know the best thing about every woman? Twenty one year olds stay twenty one, forever. They are pert. Not just in body but in spirit. And nobody is preparing them for their aging.

    Fathers failing everywhere while they send their girls to college. To get a train ran on them while they gain even more hypergamous value to use against their evil future husbands. Who don’t even want to run a train on them 😂😂

    It’s so sick you can’t even make it up.

    I applaud you Jim for trying to get it through these betas skulls. That women want, nay, *need*, to be owned. To be controlled. It’s life or death for them. Either a man utterly owns them, and brings them along with his frame, or they fall into the deepest depression as they desperately throw themselves at criminal after cad dreaming that he will turn them into property. While the cucks cry on the side and the cads… ? Resign myself to go beat my wife around tonight.

    Even though I don’t want to. Got to dance monkey.

    It’s what she wants, after all.

    • Dave says:

      “… is modern feminism changing the female genome?”

      Probably, but it’s changing the male genome much faster by importing millions of Muslim rapists, and letting tattooed thugs spread their seed while nice guys die without issue. A shockingly high percentage of my daughter’s junior-high classmates have daddies in prison!

    • jim says:

      No, wrong way around.

      Submission is an adaption to cooperate cooperate. We are in an environment of defect/defect, which selects for black African behavior.

      The submissive women will wind up submitting to guys in prison. The monogamous male will wind up divorce raped and cuckolded.

      Check the kids. Reproduction is way down, but to the extent that people are reproducing, it is mostly bad people who are reproducing.

      Evolution will select for cooperation in an environment where cooperation is enforced, and non cooperation is punished, which is the opposite of our current environment.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        So, like you, we have to learn to dance the pimp monkey dance just enough to get ahead a little, but not to the point of actually needing to kill the security guard. And to accept the imperfection of the arrangement and the risks that come with it.

        (That about right?)

        • jim says:

          Exactly so. I dance the pimp monkey dance, just up to the point where I would need to kill the security guard, and when I get to the point where I would need to kill the security guard, I do something to distract her attention and disappear in a puff of smoke. Girls are so hard up for alpha, that they are willing to suspend disbelief, provided you don’t push their suspension of disbelief too hard.

          And it is a dangerous and unsatisfactory arrangement, that has already resulted in me being taken by the police to the cop shop once, though by force of charisma I got off without being formally arrested and without a blemish on my sterling character.

          • Eli says:

            My respect to you for getting off scotfree.

            One time I tried (clumsily) to put a rather misbehaving bitch in her place — I got arrested, charged with assault with a dangerous weapon (i.e. a lukewarm coffee cup). (Btw, she was the one who attacked me physically). To top it off, the local leftist newspaper ran an article on me the morning after the next day. My name was published, but not hers. You know, victims are sacred, but in the court of pub(l)ic opinion the man is the perpetrator.

            At that point I worked at a place that had that newspaper delivered to office every day. Luckily for me, it was vacation time, and no one who knew me personally noticed.

            Subsequently, I hired a good lawyer, paid a few thousands, got this thing fully discharged by prosecutor within year and half.

            Funny enough, years before that, my bipolar ex actually attacked someone with a knife, in a fit of psychosis combined with drunken rage. She got arrested, woke up two days later being tied to bed at a psychiatric hospital, and subsequently charged with assault or something along those lines. Her story got published also.

            I still cannot find her story online, but whenever I google my name, my misadventure is the first thing that comes up.

            My G-d smite all journalists.

  10. Garr says:

    So after you tossed her in you jumped in after her and pulled her to the side? And she said, while laughing, “I HATE you!” and punched you in the arm? And then you said, “I saved your life; you should be grateful!”? And then she said, still laughing, “Oh my God, you’re such a JERK!’? And you said, “Oh, I’m an absolute monster.” And she said, shaking her head in a theatrical “I don’t believe this!” way, “You really are!”

    • jim says:

      I rescued her immediately, of course, but subsequent interaction was primarily non verbal and pre verbal.

      • c says:

        Crisis – The Bully threw her into the pool

        Reaction – Damsel in distress

        Solution – White knighted….

        Did i miss anything?

  11. lalit says:

    This post is a masterpiece with brutal conclusions. I am curious. Do all your ideas about women come from personal experience and observation/reflection or does at least some of it come from old classic books (not modern PUA literature as they too do not take things to their logical conclusion)? If the latter, can you please publish a post with a list/bibliography. That would be most instructive. Or at the very least, any old writers with views similar to yours in this regard.

    Among the Indian writers, Chanakya in his Arthashastra comes quite close to your views about women. Modern Right wing Hindu-cucks are quite puzzled by Chanakya’s genius in Politics and statecraft combined with his “Misogyny” and “regressive views” regarding women. Cucks! No wonder they keep ceding ground to the death-cult of the Desert-Madmen.

    Here is a link on his views regarding women from around 320 B.C. or thereabout

    Jim, You of course goes further than Chanakya and takes the facts to their logical and apparently Brutal conclusion. You would have made him Blush.

    • jim says:

      Back in the day when everyone knew this stuff, no one discussed it explicitly and at length. For example Machiavelli casually mentions in passing the female preference for rape and rapists, in a manner that shows it was uncontroversial at the time and everyone was perfectly well aware of it.

      And, similarly, female conduct in legends and myths is generally perfectly realistic, as for example the story of the city of Yys. The King creates a port city that prospers as an entrepot and trading node. Although a Christian, he has a daughter by a pagan sea deity. His daughter has a succession of lovers, whom she sacrifices to demons, then she has a demon lover, to whom she sacrifices herself, her father, and the city. Her father attempts to rescue her, which rescue goes horribly wrong because of her disinclination to cooperate in her own rescue.

    • Garr says:

      Lalit, weird shit started popping up on my screen a split-second after the Chanakya page came up — first a girls-for-hire thing, then a “financial advice” thing. And the Chanakya page never reappeared. Now I’ll probably be getting that kind of crap for the next month at the top of my email, and there’s no doubt a virus in my computer and I’ve just been entered into an FBI list.

  12. peppermint says:

    When your woman’s little sister tells you you ate the bottom half of her bag of chips, you buy her a new bag of chips thereby treating her like a baby, when your woman does, you buy a new one and eat at least the top half in front of her. There’s a reason boys going through puberty do pranks on the girls they’re interested in, it isn’t just to get their attention and is the opposite of being immature.

  13. Mister Grumpus says:

    But it WAS fun to chuck the girl into the deep end, right?

    I mean you had to pay the toll of risking pissing her off and getting white-knighted by the people nearby, but once you’d gotten over than and committed to the action, it turned fun, right? Like skydiving?

    I’ve defied women few enough times in my life to count on two hands, but the results were always a positive surprise. A thrill around every corner.

    • jim says:

      Oh, lots of fun. And indeed, I am always doing stuff like that, but I reported this particular incident because of the striking contrast between the outcome when I bravely protected her from the dog, compared to the outcome when I bullied her.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “Bullying.” I smell a rat. I smell a linguistic hihack if that’s the only word we have left now for what we once properly called _____.

        I can recite facts and figures from school like a motherfucker. But noticing such holes in my understanding? Slow class, nigga.

  14. Zach says:


    I’ve seen something similar recently. Two peeps were dating, and I went out with them with my wife. The guy was forcibly shoving food into her mouth for forty five minutes, acting like a complete idiot. But alas, they’re now living together.

    Go figure.

    • StringsOfCoins says:

      Women during certain stages of their lives do indeed want a servile weak man.

      Be aware of those stages. Cunts may indeed try to bail on you for a man they can control during those times. And even protect the weak man.

      Enough money seems to overcome this.

      • jim says:

        Not seeing it.

        • A.B. Prosper says:

          AIUI The pill does this to women, makes them want men who would be genetically wrong for them by screwing up scent signaling

          It also makes women’s hormonal cycle behave irrationally and there are times when a woman will crave a soft man, when they shouldn’t. In healthy women this happens during nurturing cycles but with the pill this kind of thing can happen randomly

          Beyond fertility control the pill creates a lot of infidelity and it ought to go.

      • peppermint says:

        I know women who date weak men and sleep with a different weak man every week and post facebook statuses about how much they want to marry this or that celebrity and cry themselves to sleep when they attract comments from weak men.

        They post alt-rightish stuff about how hard it is to be a millennial man, and leftoid stufd because that’s what they get brownie points for signaling, and when they try to post about marriage a million weak men tell them marriage is sexist.

        Their weak men and fellow women tell them not to date Trump supporters, but they’ll talk to Trump supporters on Tinder and only stop talking if the Trump supporter cucks out.

        The Xer and Boomer women are probably more sincere about wanting a weak man, and indeed only a weak White man would even look at them when there are so many 30 year old unmarried White women who would love a chance to form even one babby with a 40 or 50 year old man. But those White men just want a chat session to masturbate in between watching Star Trek reruns and don’t actually want a dumpster fire, and they end up in Jamal’s arms.

  15. Robert Brockman says:

    “But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is.”

    This frame is still way too weak, decidedly suboptimal. If you are bigger and stronger, why do her fantasies matter? If you do whatever you think is correct (including imposing correct behavior on her) she will go along with it (because what choice does she have?) If you are really bigger and stronger, this does not require anger — hence “amused mastery.” Girls DO happen to love this — but their opinion doesn’t matter.

    Patriarchy is doing what you know is correct regardless of what your girl thinks or feels.

    “Doing what it takes to get laid” means demonstrating that you need something from girls. This is also the wrong frame. The correct frame is that the girls do what it takes to get sex from you. This should mean being worthy of bearing your children.

    Fixing civilization is an effect, not a cause, of getting this correct.

    • jim says:

      Yes, and a large part of that means ignoring the likelihood of intervention by white knights to protect female sexual autonomy. But it is not actually all that ignorable.

      Obviously you have to act as if you are ignoring it, and appear to your girl to be ignoring it, but you always have to have a plan up your sleeve for retreat.

      The dancing monkey plays the role of someone who can ignore white knights.

      With the dog, not a problem. Worst case outcome is that I get bitten somewhat, and a dead dog is mysteriously lying on the path. But, unfortunately, I dare not kill the security guard, and should not kill her male kin.

      We should make it legally OK to kill white knights, but there will always be some people with legitimate duties of care that give them justifiable grounds for white knighting. So we need to generate social disapproval of white knighting also.

      • StringsOfCoins says:

        Active ridicule doesn’t seem to be enough. There must be a better way.


        Bullying them seems to work and oh my do the women love a bully.

        For how long they love the bully seems to depend on how deep and well he can bully other men. Most bullies hit a wall at the monetary. But not all of us.

        Men should understand. Bullying other men comes first. Bullying other men monetarily comes like fourth. There are at least three hard steps you must overcome before your money matters, in the service of the cunts.

        Hey they all scream! I won’t ever do my monkey dance!! And five minutes later they are defending some rando ugly internet hoe cause like she thinks the ways I do lol.

        We all dance. But during a dance there are times you have the lead. And there are times you watch her, and see who she really is. There’s nothing more true.

        • StringsOfCoins says:

          Oh and I do even need to mention in current year that women are indeed lesser than men and if you can bully a 5′ 6″ man you can easily bully a 5′ 6″ girl.

      • Ron says:

        A simpler solution is men respecting the property rights of other men

        For example if I made it illegal to physically restrain cows on your property, then milk production would become just as insane and chaotic as the sexual market.

        The problem is neither cows nor women. The problem is sort of the white knights, but more specifically that the white knights are acting on instinct and haven’t thought any of this out. They don’t realize that their reasoning is suspect because the monkey they are inhabiting has a range of desires of it’s own. Ie to castrate all male competitors and fuck all the women.

        The problem goes back further, because somewhere along the line someone forgot that integrity is more important than intelligence. A hyper intelligent killer ape is a nightmare, not an asset.

        Which requires a Man to think long and hard about his own motivations and be surrounded by similar men who won’t let him get away with BS.

        Just my two cents.

        • jim says:

          It should be legal to kill white knights unless they have legitimate grounds for care, such as male kin of the girl, or you are under someone else’s roof, and the proprietor, or his security men acting in accord with his rules.

          A white knight is consciously or subconsciously acting with intent to cuck you, and the woman is consciously or subconciously acting with intend that you and he fight. Therefore, killing white knights should be legal. If violence ensues, and someone gets hurt, the blood should be on the head of the man who was sniffing around someone else’s women.

  16. Doug Smythe says:

    Re: pimps: Where I grew up, all the action in the sex trade, at least where Whites were concerned, was controlled by bikers. These guys were pretty far from cucked dancing monkeys. They explicitly conceived of the many, many girls who would attach themselves to them as property and physically mark them as such (with that exact word); if they put the girls to work, the reasoning was, as any property owner would, that they can rent out their property if they damn well feel like it. This proprietary status was impressed on the girls as vividly as it could have been, and the fact that these girls would have to pay big money to be manumitted, if that was what they really, really wanted, suggests that escape attempts weren’t a big problem. So at least in this case, I have a hard time seeing the element of cuckery in the pimp-ho relationship.

    • peppermint says:

      > they can rent out their property if they damn well feel like it

      …and if they choose to be cucked, then they’re not being _cucked_ cucked. Their body, their choice lol

    • jim says:

      You have a hard time seeing it, because you are fooled by the dance of the dancing monkey.

  17. If pimps are the cucked boyfriends of prostitutes who are trying to hold them back, why do pimps “traditionally” dress very flashy, drive “pimped out” cars and generally try hard to look the way a 80IQ girl imagines a rich playboy (kitchy, flashy, flamboyantly impressive) ?

    • jim says:

      Not seeing your reasoning here. Pimps are trying to impress their girlfriends. Dogs bites man. News at eleven!

      Why is there something odd about pimps trying to impress their girlfriends?

    • StringsOfCoins says:

      If I were to brag to men the way I brag to women the men would despise me and ostracize me. When I brag that way to women they all fall in love/line.

      Even the married ones.

      Women aren’t men with dicks. They are different at the neurological level. And they love the stronger man who shits all over the lesser, never helping him, and laughing as he holds them down with utter contempt.

      Even the spergy nerd girls dream about this man. And hey? If she turns out hot enough after her ugly duckling faze? Don’t worry we’ll come take her from you, just like we took your lunch money.

      Power, over all the things to master, always wins.

      And how do you gain power?

      You just assume it.

      It’s so easy. So simple. And yet almost no one can do it.

      • glosoli says:

        ‘Women aren’t men with dicks.’

        The transgender thing is confusing you too I see.

  18. Mycroft Jones says:

    You are wrong about Hindus. Sikh and Hindu men are just as big into grooming as Muslim men are. They are very, very thirsty.

    • jim says:

      Hindu males are subject to almost as much repression as Christians. Muslims considerable less.

      • jamie says:

        Hindu abortion of little girls are contributing to this thirst. Part of why Christians conquered the Roman Empire is because they did not murder their daughters as babies.

  19. Reziac says:

    “Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers,…”

    I sense a theme:

  20. ilkarnal says:

    I think modern female pickiness is not a natural thing, but the result of the neutering of both men and the environment, and an overabundance of men. You pooh-poohed some ‘hang ’em high’ commenters earlier, but if you hanged a lot of miscreants there would be a shortage of men, especially the sort who illicitly satisfy lots of women, and as a result less picky women. Naturally they might try to invite invaders, but if you aren’t crazy enough to allow that, you’ll have women who aren’t so spoiled for choice.

    Also, once you enter a malthusaian world there is a virtuous cycle where good behaviors feel good and bad behaviors feel very bad.

    Women are not nearly as wicked, or men as feckless as they are currently presenting. Extreme circumstances.

    • BomberCommand says:

      >I think modern female pickiness is not a natural thing, but the result of the neutering of both men and the environment, and an overabundance of men.

      It’s more a factor of relative status. Women mate up and men mate down. Since female status is so high most women have a very small pool of men who are higher status than them. Under a patriarchy, all women’s status is low thus almost any marriage is a step up for a woman which results in a very large mating pool that makes women happy.

      • Garr says:

        In 1650 England would a woman’s status have been determined by her father’s status in the economic/political scheme of things? So that a girl wanted a man whose male-status-ranking was higher than her own father’s?

      • peppermint says:

        Bonus: “Atticus Finch” males who hide their talents because pride is a sin make it impossible, and their wives pretty much try to make their daughters swing and their granddaughters hook up with niggers.

        America won’t be great again until Americans are great again, which won’t be until the Atticus Finches die the silent death and have their graves pissed on by people who hate them that they have spent their lives preparing for, the cowardly Boomers lose their will to live, and Millennial bugmen run out of toys. These things are happening right now. The new Star Trek sucks and everyone knows that Star Trek has always sucked.

        Old movies were less degenerate, but they were also more Transcendentalist.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          >Star Trek has always sucked.
          DS9’s inherent greatness shone through all the nauseating UN-and-miscegenation propaganda. Qapla’!

          • peppermint says:

            Yes, it had some non-pozzed elements, niggers with enough facial makeup to make them not look like niggers with an honorable warrior culture which niggers can pull off with lots of guidance, and space russians who were portrayed sympathetically because of old USSR boosterism.

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              It’s no coincidence that the Klingons are perennial favorites even among the ultra-pozzed Trek fan community.

          • peppermint says:

            Babylon 5 seemed dirtier and more conservative at the time, but it was actually more leftist. DS9 had the idea that different peoples should live in their own countries and negotiate directly if they have a dispute, and even said a few times that the Federation was either a hippie flower covered human empire or a human suicide pact but wasn’t intrinsically better than other empires, B5 about gods and demons just being people too and leaving and building a one world government to take care of everyone.

            • glosoli says:

              Your attacks on boomers are pointless.
              Men’s characters are a function of the times in which they live.
              Easy times = weak men. (The Tytler cycle).
              Atheism is another sign of weak mean: hence you have been pozzed yourself.
              I pray you find the light and the truth one day.

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                Yes, fine, everyone is a product of his times to some degree. Boomers are shit because of their times. So what? That doesn’t change the fact that you are generation of locusts that cannot go into the ground fast enough. When the day comes that peppermint’s legions of fanatical killers are carving you up for organs and animal feed, please remember that they too are just products of their times, and must not be blamed for anything they do.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m not a boomer.
                  Your vitriol at boomers is pathetic.

                  Direct that anger at the real enemy goy, not your grandparents, who had no internet to inform them.
                  The youth think they’re so smart. In fact still ignorant.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >I’m not a boomer.

                  Woodstock was really something, maaaaan.

                • glosoli says:

                  NEET rhetoric, always misses by a mile.

        • peppermint says:

          Jew Hollywood has always been covert propaganda, but historically it had to be a lot less preachy because it had to compete, with overt morality plays about the evils of drunkenness and gambling and whatever.

          Has there ever been a movie or TV show that isn’t subtle anti-White propaganda or open christcuck anti-White propaganda? Is there anything that doesn’t somehow insult ordinary Whites?

          I like old Simpsons episodes because their subversion isn’t subversive anymore and they show Whites being White and comfortable in a virtually all White society, and help me remember how the 90s really felt, and King of the Hill was intentionally subversive of liberalism merely by showing decent people albeit playing it off as a joke on the surface.

  21. Rape says:

    >The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies.
    Nancy Friday could say the same.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Nancy would give herself to the winner.

      • jim says:

        I figured my girl would give herself to the winner, but she was unimpressed.

        Male fantasy is that he gets the girl by defeating dangerous and powerful enemies, because that is what builds status in male hierarchies, but the female sexual fantasy is that the dangerous man engages in violence against the weak and helpless.

        James Bond (male fantasy) goes up against Jaws. What is the equivalent in Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray?

  22. Dave says:

    I guess the moral is, if you plan to play Captain Save-a-Ho, you should have a furnished shipping container buried in your backyard.

  23. Stanley Clarke says:

    What a cute little fantasy from Jim the man! Threw her in the pool, got laid like a rug! Btw, what the fuck does that mean? You got rug burn on your dick from humping the floor in a blind fit of psychosis?

    Hint: the behavior you describe is not effective with anything but damaged psycho bitches. And doubtful even with them. You are fucking deranged :). Cheers!

    • jim says:

      I hear an involuntary celibate speaking.

      • Robert Brockman says:

        Yep. Even the sweetest girls love this stuff. The behavior Jim describes is completely reasonable and realistic.

      • Stanley Clarke says:

        Yeah, you talking to yourself again you sadistic old quack?

        Women are not slaves. It is not ok to give 10 year old girls a good “dicking.” I just checked with my *wife* (you silly fuck) and, what do you know, she agrees!

        You’re a fucking degenerate old man James. There’s nothing wrong with healthy back and forth in a relationship as long as it involves consent – but you abhor the very idea of consent. Women are unable to give consent, right? You’re a short eyed degenerate fucked up pedophile, a pervert, the bad kind, the kind that gets ass raped and beaten to death in prison.

        Have fun LARPing your days away. Stay away from schools please.

        • peppermint says:

          …it’s not OK to give it to ten year old girls, yes, which is why it is necessary to understand that many of them want it and need to be prevented from getting it.

          Under liberalism, it is axiomatic that anyone should get what they want unless it directly burdens another. So the only way to stop them is to gaslight them and everyone into thinking they don’t want it…

          …creating exacty the situation where pedophiles can prey on young women while everyone ignores the very potential of it happening.

          White knights are pure evil.

          • StringsOfCoins says:

            Yes yes they must ‘protect’ the womenz! Lololol!

            While they set them up! For me!!

            And all the while, what and whom are they really ‘protecting’?


            Humans are so predictable. And pathetic.

          • StoneMan says:

            Well said Peppermint. Very well said.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “Women are unable to give consent, right?”

          If consent was something that actually existed, there wouldn’t be different ages for it in different countries and it wouldn’t vary depending on the age of the two parties. The fact that a 13 year old can consent to sex with a 15 year old but not a 19 year old tells you it is a bunch of nonsense.

        • jim says:

          Do not listen to what women say. Watch what they do.

        • Robert Brockman says:

          Q: What is the age of consent for females in the Catholic Church?
          Q: What was the age of consent in said church pre-1800?
          Q: What about in the English common law?
          Q: What about Roman law?
          Q: What about Islam? (somewhat different from the above)

          I suspect all recent changes to the age of consent have something to do with ensuring that there are fewer virgin brides and decreasing overall fertility. Humans have not evolved biologically enough in the last 3000 years to justify such a change — I suspect corruption.

        • StringsOfCoins says:

          Yes please do not give your wife a good dicking.

          Why it would be rape if you did.

      • Ron says:


        Based on what you are saying, I have a feeling that if instead of sweeping a woman behind you, you sweep her in front of you and use her as a shield to protect yourself from the dog, then assuming she survives the woman would probably be immensely attracted.

        • BomberCommand says:

          Based on what you are saying, I have a feeling that if instead of sweeping a woman behind you, you sweep her in front of you and use her as a shield to protect yourself from the dog, then assuming she survives the woman would probably be immensely attracted.


          Failing to protect a woman will get you dumped as well. Women naturally expect guys to protect them so when you do it, it’s not a big deal and when you don’t you’re no longer a man in her eyes.

          You can see this in stories of guys who’s been tied up by home invader robbers. Even if they’re women not raped by the invaders, generally the woman will view the man with disgust for his failure to protect his own. Relationships generally don’t long outlast home invasions if the man was home at the time.

          I have however seen women verbally attack her husband until he struck her. After which she was on cloud 9 with love towards her man for months. The worse the beating, the greater the love.

          I’ve personally never hit a woman but I’ve dated girls who talked endlessly about who their ex-bf used to hit them and then they’d do stupid stuff to endless piss me off. Ones such girl accused me of hitting her after I dumped her. She even gave herself a bruise to prove it to my social circle. BTW, try defending yourself against a charge like that, it’s not posible women are always belived. In retrospective she would have been much happier if I’d been willing to beat her when she acted up. But as a white male there’s way too much danger in fufilling those types of female fantasies.

          • jim says:

            Failing to protect a woman will get you dumped as well

            I don’t think the incidents you describe are losing a woman by failing to protect her. I think they are losing a woman by being dominated by another man.

            The converse of this is hiring a driver. Because I dominate the driver, I score amazing pussy points.

        • jim says:

          I will try it next time. See if it works better.

      • Corvinus says:

        Unless you have actual video footage from the chick verifying exactly how you told it–of course several miles away from you and not in your presence as to limit coercion on your part–then your description is pure fantasy.

    • Glenfilthie says:


      Gee, I wonder who that other celibate cretin was that also accused our host of lying with trailer park trash and tire-biters? 🙂

      Retards like Vox Day have an entire alphabet of Greek letters to describe male behaviour, but as for women? He and his cellar dwelling fanbois have…nothing. Like our host they assume they’re all the same, controlled only by their hormones and emotions.

      Women are as complex and varied as us guys are. If you think you can ‘Alpha’ your way into their pants, yeah, maybe you can with the lower order trollops and tire biters. But even they will come back to bite you later on as half of the old alphas of Hollywood are finding out right now. (And that is a Good Thing: watching screeching liberal whores emasculate their formerly feminist men is the stuff of high comedy). I love how that works too: some cankle got seduced decades ago, remembers it as rape – and some famous alpha liberal shithead is guilty until proven innocent! Hang ‘em high, you clot headed cnuts!

      Were I in the dating game I would be honest right up front: I am a traditional man; any relationship I engage in will be a traditional patriarchal one, and any woman that isn’t okay with that is wasting her time with me. Sure, being celibate sucks… but messy divorces suck harder. I am no white knight or cuck – I know that current gender roles and liberal family values have destroyed vast numbers of our pretty young women and have made them incapable of marriage and even basic sexual relationships. But there’s a lot of good women around too.

      If I were inclined to banging lower order females I would think with my brain instead of my dink. If all you want to do is pump and dump them, maybe a viable strategy might be to start burning the coal? If they are going to treat our women like whores, and our women are going to betray us like that… turn about is fair play, right? Even Jim has to admit that some of that dark meat can be mighty tempting…. 😉

      • jim says:

        Women are as complex and varied as us guys are. If you think you can ‘Alpha’ your way into their pants, yeah, maybe you can with the lower order trollops and tire biters.

        Just as all men react in the same way to female beauty, all women react the same way to male status. Unfortunately female perception of male status resembles the perceptions of a small child raised by cannibal headhunters.

    • Zach says:

      Rugs get laid brah! That’s what rugs do. Besides getting stepped on.

  24. […] The trouble with Rotherham […]

Leave a Reply