Analysis of a Chinese video

You will never see courtship realistically portrayed in videos made for the west in anything made since the sixties, but they are still allowed to do romance realistically in China.

Episode seven: Hat tip Spandrell.

At 1:12 the pre fertile age chick is trying to attract his attention while simultaneously directing an expression of disdain and boredom at him. Obvious fitness test, which means she is after him. If a chick does this to you, you have to pass her test, which he does by commanding her to see him after class.

At 2:13, her boredom and lack of enthusiasm suddenly vanishes while his back is turned, only to instantly reappear when she positions herself in front of him. When the girl moves to the direction that you are facing, moves into your field of view, you know its on – and you also know that she is going to hit you with something unpleasant.

At 2:44 she references the previous episode six failed fitness test with an expression of maximum possible disdain and boredom, retesting him. He fails again. He apologizes, even though she is and was obviously in the wrong. Needless to say, at 3:03 apology not accepted. She doubles down on the fitness test, giving him another chance to pass. At 3:09 he changes direction, and starts a counter attack. At 3:13, seeing what is coming, she perks up.

At 3:52, she launches a new shit test, but she is simultaneously flirting, which takes the sting out of it.

At 4:17, she launches a physical attack, which cannot possibly succeed, hoping to provoke him into physically overwhelming her, but he allows it to succeed, failing the shit test, and she wanders off with entirely genuine boredom and disdain. End of the pre fertile age romance for this episode.

At 4:35 we get a boring promotion for Deng’s new China and new market economic order. But you are not going to see the American market order promoted on American television, only denigrated and condemned.

Then at 7:39, a different romance thread involving a different couple: beta male (beta with her, alpha with everyone else) approaches the fertile age chick, who of course hits him with a blocking fitness test at 8:11, then gives him the lets be friends pushoff. He plows on, and she walks away at 8:39 with him chasing after like a lost puppy. If hit with an unpassable fitness test, do not plow on.

He keeps on plowing on, making a bad situation worse. And plow, and plow. Boring. More plugs for the new economic order. Then at 12:57, the video proceeds to denigrate the old economic order – its enforcers are the bad guys, who are mucking up the economy by restraining the pursuit of the self interest. Again, you are never going to see socialism portrayed realistically on a video made in the west. At 18:15 Dongbao courageously announces he will fight politically for the market order and the pursuit of self interest. You are not going to see that on American video.

At 18:39 romance thread with the fertile age chick resumes. Watch her perk up as she imagines, that he is going to pass her shit test, that his mission is more important than she is. Now she chases after him, entertains him, and serves him. He brushes her off, because his mission really is more important than she is, and she chases after him.

At 22:44, encouraged by this, he resumes plowing. Watch her enthusiasm instantly fade. She shrinks away from him. He resumes his mission, and she switches back to wanting to follow him.

Then it is another tedious propaganda pitch for the new economic order. Yes, yes, we know already. Instead of thanking the party planning committee for assigning you a new tractor, you thank the party for creating a political and economic order that enables you to buy your own damned tractor. Yeah yeah, it was mildly interesting the first time because we see the opposite of that on US television. On US television the videos condemn the evil old white males for avariciously maintaining a social order that enables someone else to buy themselves a new car, but thanking the party for an order that rewards hard work and wise decisions gets old really fast.

At 31:31, the party praises raising capital and individual economic initiative. Probably not news to most readers of this blog, but you are not going to see that praised on US television. Excruciatingly dull lecture of economic activity follows. “It is totally within reason for your brigade to be be rich”. Yeah, yeah, not news to us reactionaries, but you are not going to see such a statement on US television. More thanks to the party. What you get on US television is “You did not build that”. And then they thank the party some more. And thank the party some more. Well, better than having a transexual on every show and in every comic strip. Then more thanking the party. And did I mention they give thanks to the party?

38:07 Switches back to the romance with the fertile age female. Now everything is fine – once he stopped plowing and focused on his mission.

Sound economics, sound romance stories. Far too much praising the party.

Episode 8
3:28 Pre fertile age chick “accidentally” runs into her love interest. He brushes her off, and she sticks like glue. Then she menaces him with another fitness test, which he passes by being amused, rather than menaced. Things then go smoothly.

Skipping forward over more cheering the party for its market oriented economic order, and more cheering the party, and nothing terribly interesting happening with romance of the fertile age love interest to 14:54, where the pre fertile age love interest is lurking to intercept teacher. This time, runs gleefully up to intercept him. No more boredom and feigned disinterest. She follows him around like a lost puppy, while he focuses on his mission. 19:58, hits on him. 22:24, asks him for a date. It is implied that they date.

Main romance, fertile age couple, proceeds to married happily ever after – boring. More boring, then at 41:44 we see the lead up to missionary position sex between happily married people which is, by wildly inflated US standards of consent, not very consensual. She shields herself with bedcovers and multiple layers of clothing, and he pounces on top her and starts forcefully removing them ignoring her protests and her demands to take things more slowly. She is, of course, entirely delighted with this, video fades to black, before she loses much clothing.

In the US video, she would, of course, be horrified by this. You will see full frontal full penetration on US videos, but even when they show a porn of sexual exploitation of illegal border crossers, it is explicit consent every step of the way. You will not see female submission to the conquering male realistically portrayed.

Episode nine
Boring happy marriage of fertile age couple. Then at 7:09, second date of the pre fertile age chick.

And, what do you know: A product placement for Coca Cola. Pre fertile chick tells her love interest:”Taste of a smile”. “Tastes really good”.

It really is the new economic order. I wonder how much Coca Cola paid for that one. Not quite as boring as praising the party for the new economic order. Love interest poses holding the can with the logo directly facing the camera. The people making this video are not just preaching the new economic order. They are putting it into practice.

11:36 During the second date, love interest tells pre fertile age chick, with the coca cola can placed prominently on the table, “We can stand on the shoulders of giants like Copernicus and Newton”

You are not going to see that on US videos, or hear that in US university. What you hear is that Western civilization is a shame and a disgusting rape of the earth that needs to be smashed as soon as possible, and we are way superior to those ignorant prejudiced bigots.

Further dates to be postponed till she reaches a slightly less inappropriate age. And then it is all the new economic order, educating the viewer in capitalism 101.

Episode 12

1:09 Bad old socialists causing trouble. At 1:20 They beat up a peddler for capitalism and confiscate his stuff, much as Trotskyites killed the cows of the peasant with two cows, and Carlylean Restorationist wants to shut down your local Domino’s pizza franchise. Socialist rabble rouser declaims, as the cops arrest the poor peddler and the mob make off with his pile of goodies:

“Strike a severe blow to speculation and profiteering!”
“Be determined to amputate the tail of capitalism!”

Are we ever going to see a rabble rouser on USA television who is not a heroic good guy fighting power, or a mob that are not heroic good guys fighting power, but are just there to knock over the liquor store and set fire to the supermarket?

Having framed the socialists as rabble rousers and a mob who will burn down the supermarket to grab a case of beer, or rather beat up a peddler to grab his hot buns, rest of episode 12 is politics and economics.

216 Responses to “Analysis of a Chinese video”

  1. […] movies or the original Indiana Jones any more. A society that allows homosexuality to be depicted is unable to to allow heterosexuality to be depicted, except by having the heterosexuals act gay, as for example in the recent star wars and avengers […]

  2. OK, this video a good test of how much I understand women.

    To me, it was entirely obvious the young girl is flirting. She seemed neither bored to me nor very much shit testing, just…flirting. This is what flirting is like. Of course it has aspects of throwing hard balls. Otherwise it would be boring. If those hard balls are called a shit test, OK. I think his problem was that she was too young to reply appropriately, with an adult woman a man would take a far more sexual approach to flirting back. Like grab her in a dominating hug to get the test paper back and when she laughs, kiss her.

    About the second couple, the fertile age woman and the green jacket guy, my impression was originally that she is not testing, but not interested at all. No signs of flirting. Then the later interest seemed to me not so much as sexual interest in a man who focuses on his mission, but more like just being worried about a friend getting himself into trouble. Then as they are moving towards a relationship, I would have read that as a friendzoned guy working a friendship into a relationship, which is generally a blue-pilled Hollywood lie. This scenario had a very unreal feel to me. She showed no signs of flirting, like the little girl so obviously did. What she did like washing the guys collars simply looked like friendship gestures to me, not sexual interest. If these things are sexual interest then I must have misread it a lot of times, as girls were doing this to me a lot but I took it as a sign of friendship. Only obvious flirting, like what the little girl did, was what I picked up and made a move on, usually.

    Then when they are married, she asking him to turn off the lights and smiling while she is hiding behind the blanket are to me obvious signs of consent. If Hollywood libs do not think it is, they are weird people indeed. I read her as simply not wanting to seem too cheap and easy, making him work a bit, so that he appreciates the sex more and respects her more for not being a slut. This is perfectly normal, in fact, when girls I had sex with did not behave a bit like this, if they wanted it too openly, that was a bit of a turn-off to me as I found it too slutty. No, it is just the entirely normal way how women make men want and appreciate them more. The signs of consent were extremely obvious. This is how “good girls” consent.

    So it seems I have read the first and the third roughly correctly and missed the second one. Indeed, I don’t even see how one does not miss the second one. She was behaving so stone-faced, no sign of flirting in the face or the body language, just like a friend who is worried about a friend.

    • jim says:

      > but I took it as a sign of friendship.

      Men and women can never be friends. Women want to serve. Service is how they express themselves sexually.

      • The Cominator says:

        Its more like women in the long term can’t be all that loyal in other ways to a guy they aren’t fucking… though there was one I knew who was for years before she changed… and I loved the girl she WAS more then any other including the ones I did fuck in my life.

      • But there is the submissive kind of service and the mothering kind of service. The later comes bundled with criticism, belittling, wipe-your-nose-boy attitudes and it is very, very bad for sexual dynamics. I know. Being an impractical absent-minded type, I often fall into being mothered by my women and it is not good for sexual dynamics.

        “You can’t go to the county office wear a dirty collar. Go wash your face while I clean it” is mothering. In fact you could call it a shit test. You, snotty little boy don’t even know how to dress properly for an official visit! Mom knows best!

        To be fair I am not good at detecting shit test. I mostly just detect my reaction to them. I tend to react to them like how I react to male banter. My reaction to “go wash your face” is “I’ll wash my ass, too, just in case you want to kiss it.” So from my reaction I realize it was a shit test. Well, people often say don’t treat women like one of the boys so maybe it is not a good reaction. Dunno. For me male banter and female shit tests look like very much the same thing. “Sizing up.”

  3. The Cominator says:

    This is the embodiment of modern feminist brainwashed womans hatred for their beta provider should they acquire one… stabs him and then spends time checking her dating app..

  4. Koanic says:

    I recall being scoffed at here for raising concerns about ongoing anthropogenic environmental damage. Humans are an extinction event:

    Butterfly numbers fall by 84% in Netherlands over 130 years – study

    • jim says:

      Nature is unstable, kinds are always becoming more numerous and less numerous.

      When I was a young lad I wandered through semi desert, where the only green things were a few spindly shrubs with very few leaves on brown dirt, with a lot of reddish brown dirt between each shrub.

      I go back there today, and it is all grassland and new forest, covered with trees all of them considerably younger than myself. Satellite photos confirm what is obvious on casually looking around: The earth has become massively greener. Looks more like we are recovering from a near extinction event, presumably the little ice age, rather than entering one.

      • Koanic says:

        I’m aware of the greenery recovery. The animal trend points in the opposite direction, and that’s more concerning, because I don’t believe in global warming, and thus don’t care about CO2, but I am an animal.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          You cannot have perpetual growth in a finite world. The carrying capacity’s already over the top, but if the West was left alone to be itself, the problem would partially solve itself. Most people in the West are reproducing at below replacement levels, indicating a gently declining population. If we could hit a global level of five billion by the end of the century, that’d surely help.
          Sadly there’s immigration.

          At risk of being a libertarian, the government’s been pushing high time preference behaviour for decades and it’s about as bad as it can get right now: credit card debt through the roof, corporate debt so high it’s sometimes measured in the trillions (General Motors), state bail-outs to shitty behaviour leading to more shitty behaviour, etc. etc. etc.

          One of the most poisonous effects of the low interest rate, paycheck to paycheck++ environment is increased personal consumption, whether it’s partying hard or flying on planes.
          You say you don’t care about CO2 and that’s fine – it’s a very weak case they’re making that has more to do with their religion than any actual science. Nevertheless the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is a very bad idea: those things aren’t coming back and we’re going to need something like 1970s per capita fuel use for centuries to come if life’s to be worth living. (You can forget about Randian energy-from-air pipe dreams and in fact as the workforce becomes stupider and browner, nuclear’s unlikely to work for much longer….and thanks to decades of government bloat, the bill’s far higher than it was when the most recent plants were built.)

          We need a full-on John Michael Greer programme: far less travel, far fewer needless prosthetics (apps, dishwashers, etc.), far more reuse of existing things, far more of a return to old ways that worked well for centuries.

          The rapid change of the 19th and 20th centuries gave us high per capita GDP based on perpetual growth, and many people enjoyed the luxury. Others used it to debauch themselves and their communities.

          Either way, looking back at it, the whole thing was a big mistake. Let’s keep the parts that could work well for us without killing every other animal on the planet, and ban the rest.

          No need for regulations, just a massive ban-hammer like the world has never seen before. Amazon thinks it can burn books? Just wait until the eco-fascists take power and burn blueprints!

          • jim says:


            The lights go out in socialist countries, and the lights went out when Nixon meddled in the energy industry. From space, North Korea and Venezuela are dark at night, and the US was well on the way towards the same condition when Reagan was elected.

            We can continue increasing oil consumption for about fifty or a hundred years, coal consumption for about three hundred years. When we run out of oil, we will gradually, over a century or so, switch to syngas and synfuel made from coal. When we run out of coal, to syngas made from limestone using nuclear power, gradually, over a couple of centuries.

            Businesses always lie about the amount of reserves left, because property rights in discovered oil and gas are insecure, so any given oil field or gas field is always supposedly going to run out in ten years time, but it seldom does.

            Governments’ always think we are genuinely running out, despite the fact that private firms have been lying about fuel reserves for centuries, because when they meddle in coal or oil production, we genuinely do run out.

            The last big US intervention in fuel was the Nixon price controls, which led to the government effectively taking over the energy industry, which in turn resulted in a full on Venezuelan style catastrophe. People’s cars just stopped for lack of gas, people died for lack of heating, sat in the dark for lack of power.

            Running out of coal and oil, supposing we do eventually run out, which is far from clear (the stone age did not end for lack of stone) will be a gradual event, and there is nothing stopping us from gradually transitioning to nuclear. Progress in superconductors has brought fusion within reach, but even without fusion, fear of nuclear is just irrational superstition.

            The Chernobyl “catastrophe” killed nine people outside the fence, and inside the fence, killed fewer people than a big mining disaster. Nuclear is by far the safest form of power, and if we had a Chernobyl once a decade it would still be by far the safest form of power. If every wealthy man and every large business had a nuclear reactor in his basement, would still be by far the safest form of power. With nuclear power, we can make synfuel from rock.

            And if it was not for technological decline and evil superstition clinging to the demon haunted dark, we would probably all have our own personal nuclear reactors. As I said, it was not a shortage of stone that brought an end to the stone age.

            • Eli says:

              Strongly concurred. Gen 2 and 3 are not bad. Gen 4 reactors are much safer. Nuclear power should be a no-brainer at this stage.

              One gets much higher dosages of radiation on an intercontinental flight than living a whole lifetime next to a nuclear power station.

            • Starman says:

              @Communist Revolutionary

              Once again the anti-tech types reveal themselves as the controlled opposition they are. If Communist Revolutionary had his way he would ban SpaceX’s BFR…

            • vxxc says:

              I love the stone age line, stolen

          • Koanic says:

            I find it amusing that you think you’re intelligent enough to talk to me.

          • The Cominator says:

            CR is now worse then a Stalinist he has in effect endorsed the economic platform of Pol Pot. Destroy blueprints… year zero. We’re not regulating or planning economic activity we’re banning it lol. We should start calling you Brother No. 1.


            “You’ll work harder with a gun in your back for a bowl of rice a day”.

            • Simon says:

              The only reason Caloric Restrictionist is here is to try to in group people. He isn’t self aware enough to realise everyone thinks he is a pathetic faggot.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:


              • jim says:

                Your comment presupposes that the past was not capitalist, that capitalism was created by the enlightenment, and that we agree that the capitalism is recent, that everyone knows this, that it is entirely uncontroversial.

                We have been capitalist since at least the early iron age, and probably all the way back to the Y Chromosome bottleneck.

                If you want to dispute this, post evidence and argument, starting from the definition of capitalism that I gave here and here

                Actual reality is that the enlightenment starts with Rousseau and company attacking capitalism, leading to the French Revolution, in which the Popular Society and the Committee for Public Safety bloodily and brutally imposed socialism very similar to today’s Venezuela, with capitalism being restored when Napoleon was exiled.

                Destroying capitalism was the core and central program of the enlightenment.

                If you want to debate this, lets start with the definition of capitalism. The definition of capitalism that you insist on attributing to us has never existed, could never exist, it is just an excuse for beating up the peddler and stealing his stuff, burning down the supermarket to steal a case of beer, confiscating the seed corn, and killing the cows of the peasant with two cows. What you call capitalism, what you insist we mean by capitalism, no matter how plainly and bluntly we reject the meaning you attribute to us, is social justice warriors projecting their own misconduct onto capitalists as an excuse to burn down the supermarket and steal a case of beer. What you are calling capitalism, what you tell us we totally agree capitalism is, is what priests meddling in other people’s property do, not what merchants do with their own property, and “capitalism”, as you tell us we define it, can only last until you guys run out of other people’s money.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Khmerian rogueianist seems incapable of learning and instead has progressed from Stalin to Pol Pot.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You can keep saying that as much as you want, but it’s still not true.

                  If capitalism was pre-existing, why did Enlightenment thinkers publish vast tomes extolling the reasons why it ought to be tried?

                  It makes no sense. The only way you can square that circle is by pointing to TRADE in the Stone Age and then CAPITALISM in the 19th century and pretending they’re the same thing.

                  They’re not the same thing. The reason Enlightenment thinkers advocated for power to step back from its traditional role in giving the yea or nay to trade was that the Enlightenment was The Cathedral’s evil religion.

                  What you’re demanding everyone accepts is a counterfactual view of history. It’s a matter of FACT that the laissez-faire entrepreneurial paradise of 19th century America COULD NOT have come to be without particular essential antecedents, including – but not limited to –

                  – The Glorious Revolution
                  – The Bill Of Rights
                  – The Articles Of Confederation
                  – The Declaration Of Independence

                  All of these seemingly specific and political sea-changes were in fact limitations of the Crown and Altar’s ability to step on the rattlesnake of private property held by what might be called ‘sovereign citizens’ today.

                  Without these REFORMS, things would have progressed as they had for the previous three or four hundred years: a few technological innovations, inadequately resisted by either Crown or Altar (or sometimes both) but mostly the continuation of great British furniture-making, great French wine-making and so on.

                  The traditions had proven themselves worthy of making great civilisations so why change them in any way whatsoever?

                  There may be a case for Julio Gallo making nice palatable wine, but it wouldn’t have carried much weight among the Bourbon aristocracy in the Two Sicilies.

                • jim says:

                  > You can keep saying that as much as you want, but it’s still not true.

                  > If capitalism was pre-existing, why did Enlightenment thinkers publish vast tomes extolling the reasons why it ought to be tried?

                  Commie liar

                  You are making up your own history.

                  Adam Smith, 1776, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” presupposes and takes for granted that capitalism has always existed, that it is ancient beyond memory, beyond recorded history.

                  “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” is a fundamentally conservative book, that explains why it is unwise to interfere with this ancient and divinely ordained system.

                  Rousseau, on the other hand, urges us to smash capitalism – but again, Rousseau, like Adam Smith, assumes that capitalism is as ancient as the dawn of history, as the oldest civilizations, that civilization is inherently capitalist, and proposes to dismantle civilization itself.

                  I have actually read those books. You have only read twenty first academics writing about what other twenty first century academics, who have not read those books either, wrote about those books.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Don’t tell us what Adam Smith said. It is not what he said. It is what Karl Marx frames him as saying.

                  You have one argument: Argument from fake consensus: That people we admire agreed with Marx, that everyone agrees with Marx, that we agree with Marx.

                  Don’t argue from supposed consensus: Argue from the evidence, as I did here and here. Respond to the evidence I gave, using the definition of capitalism that I, and everyone who is not a Marxist, uses, that capitalism is the process whereby merchants use the market in capital goods to apply capital and labor to its highest and best uses, like the good woman celebrated by Solomon in Proverbs 31, that capitalism is the free market in capital goods, such as land, grapevines, carts, and ships, plus wage labor.

                • jim says:

                  Don’t tell us what Adam Smith said. It is not what he said. It is what Karl Marx frames him as saying.

                  You have one argument: Argument from fake consensus: That people we admire agreed with Marx, that everyone agrees with Marx, that we agree with Marx.

                  Don’t argue from supposed consensus: Argue from the evidence, as I did here and here. Respond to the evidence I gave, using the definition of capitalism that I, and everyone who is not a Marxist, uses, that capitalism is the process where merchants use the market in capital goods to apply capital to its highest and best uses, like the good women celebrated by Solomon in Proverbs 31

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for lying about what Adam Smith said, lying about what I said, lying about what everyone who is not a Marxist says.

                  Stop arguing from fake consensus. Argue from the evidence, as I did here and here, and use same definition of capitalism as non Marxists use, which definition I gave you yet again here.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’ve never once praised Karl Marx, nor have I ever claimed that anything Karl Marx ever said was true.

                  Constant lying just makes you look ridiculous.

                  You know as well as I do that Adam Smith’s theory of inter-national trade pretended the same neutrality that Menger and Mises did later, and that, just like them, he tried to beg the question of laissez-faire by emphasising the benefits to consumers, just as people like Bob Murphy continue to do today.

                  “Yes some people will lose their jobs but the benefit to the economy as a whole means there’ll be new jobs for them to do, and meanwhile everyone can be a consumer and benefit from lower prices.”

                  You know this as well as I do, and denying it is just a sign of the weakness of your position.

                  What you’re supposed to do, as a capitalist advocate, is to completely double down: “in the end the benefits outweigh the costs to a few vested interests”.

                  You can’t bring yourself to do that because you’re a MAGApede and you know that you have to advocate a certain degree of protectionism in the US context as part of your allegiance to Trump.

                  All I’m saying is that Trump’s protectionism doesn’t go nearly far enough. All jobs are deserving of protection and all progress is destruction: not ‘creative destruction’, just common or garden variety destruction.

                • jim says:

                  > I’ve never once praised Karl Marx, nor have I ever claimed that anything Karl Marx ever said was true.

                  Instead you have claimed that Adam Smith, Moldbug, myself, Bastiat, and the rest totally agree that every key point of Marxist class theory, Marxist history, whig history, and progressive history is true.

                  You always argue from false consensus, never from evidence. Further appeals to consensus will be silently deleted.

                  And in this very comment to which I reply you attribute Marxist class theory, Marxist history, and Cultural Marxist economics to Adam Smith, while in fact he flatly and plainly said the direct opposite. He was indeed arguing that the sovereign should make it easy for merchants to transfer property from the protection of one sovereign to the protection of another, but his argument for this was the reverse of the argument that Cultural Marxists attribute to him.

                  Further, his position on international trade is irrelevant to the point in dispute.

                  Adam Smith claimed that capitalism was ancient, divinely ordained, and that for the sovereign to interfere is unwise. It would still be capitalism internally even if the sovereign built a brass wall one hundred meters high around the country, provided that the sovereign allowed merchants to internally allocate capital to its highest and best use using markets and prices. Debate on tariffs is irrelevant to the ancient and divine origins of capitalism. During the Y Chromosome singularity it was hard to trade between patrilineal kin groups, so trade areas were so small that merchants could not get rich from capital goods, but after rise of Kings in the early Bronze age or late neolithic age, trade occurred on a Kingdom scale, even if it was often hard to trade between Kingdoms, and the Kingdom scale was large enough to permit the rise of numerous wealthy merchants whose wealth derived from specializing in the highest and best use of some capital good, from employing wage laborers to apply that capital good to its highest and best use, and from supervising those wage laborers to apply that good to its best use.

                  Further you always tell us your position is what Cultural Marxists think that right wingers think – but your position (you hate blacks and women despite the fact that blacks are magical, the British white male working class is trash, women are wonderful, and the acid attacks in Britain have nothing to do with the mass importation of a hostile alien race and religion) makes no internal sense. Just as no one supports capitalism as you define it, nor has capitalism you define it ever existed, nor could it ever exist, no one believes, nor could anyone ever believe, in your insanely evil and stupid parody of the right wing political position. We don’t hate people of other races. We just think that there are good reasons why some races living together causes problems for both races. Jews should not have state and quasi statal positions in the USA, and non Jews should not have state and quasis statal positions in Israel. Blacks should have their own areas, and should be guests of a white person when in white areas, and whites should be guests of a black person when in black areas. Integration of East Asians with whites works OK, but integration of middle easterners with whites causes big problems, though it is hard to tell to what extent this is race, and to what extent it is religion. Mixed teams of white and East Asian engineers work fine, but they work considerably better when a white engineer is in charge. I conjecture if the team is all, or nearly all, East Asian, the team would work better if an East Asian is in charge, but have insufficient data to support this conjecture. Mixed teams of whites and Indians have big problems, albeit maybe they work OK with high caste Indians.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  …nor have I ever claimed that anything Karl Marx ever said was true.

                  You’ve asserted that capitalism is a relatively recent historical innovation, which is 200-proof Marx.

                • Shillbot Restorationist says:

                  …thats totally false. All i said was that marx wuz totally right about everything as we all agree. Furthermore, jim, your economic theories make no sense, if i can quote sting, a great human being whom we could all learn a lot from.

                  Now lets consider the heterodyning of the capital-labor nexus with the obvious, as we all agree, allocational superiority of socialism, as demonstrated by some Queen of England a few hundred years back – as you have conceded.

                  There’s nothing to actually argue since d’o;df’jdf ljkdf df;ldfvq hlkj gf which takes care of the socialist calculation debate. And since the definition of capitalism is df lk wl yy rtr a qwertyuiop. Error 309: Processor encountered division by zero.

                  Thus, as Hegel said, human flourishing cannot occur unless we starve everyone into submission. The obvious desirability of this idea fgfljk bhjfzg f fgljkfg flg apqr.

                  Error 301: Loop interrupted. Return to top of loop.

                  Hello everyone, I’ve never posted here before, so let me introduce myself. My name is Carlylean Restorationist, and, like you all, I am totally not a paid shill-bot and am totally not a Marxist, except the minor detail of accepting huge chunks of Marxist history and wanting to smash capitalism. I am interested in discussing topics such as economics…

                • Koanic says:

                  Excellent parody, much more readable than the original!

                • Shillbot Restorationist says:

                  Parody? Parody!? How dare you suggest such a thing!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  You presuppose agreement on Marx’s most absurd claim, his Immiseration thesis: “Let’s look at what Marx got right”, making absolutely no attempt to defend or support it, since we supposedly already agree.

                  Since he supposedly obviously got it right, and we supposedly agree he got it right, you don’t have to present any evidence or argument.

                  The booming economy of 1819 disproves the Marxist story about capitalism immiserating the workers, as does the booming US economy of 2019.

                  Not to mention the Marxist story about the immiseration of the proletariat is transparently insane on its face, presupposing that capital rules society politically, rather than merchants ruling merely their own property.

                  Obviously Capitalism, and in particular corporate capitalism, will increase the productivity of the workers, and equally obviously the lion’s share of that increased productivity will go to the workers, as the above market profit received by one capitalist who innovates higher productivity methods gets competed away as the innovation spreads, as for example Shockley and the Fairchildren.

                  And if Marxists genuinely doubted this, they would attempt to present arguments against it, rather than telling us that we don’t believe our lying eyes, so they don’t need to present evidence and argument that our lying eyes are misleading us.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  To anticipate the unsatisfied response to my last comment: why HAVE wages fallen in the West since, say, 1950, if indeed it hasn’t been due to government parasitism and if indeed Marx was wrong that industrialisation per se wasn’t impotent in the face of isolated wage catallactics?

                  Easy peasy:

                  1) Women in the workforce – prices adjusted to the ability to pay them

                  2) Immigration

                  3) The demise of unions thanks to multiculturalism and the reinvigoration of individualist thinking


                  I hardly think so.

                • jim says:

                  > Why HAVE wages fallen in the West since, say, 1950, if indeed it hasn’t been due to government parasitism

                  Wages have fallen in the west due to government parasitism – observe that under Trump wages, employment, and capital formation have risen dramatically, proving, yet again, that Marx was wrong about wages.

                  Wages have not fallen due to women. Wages have fallen due to women being affirmative actioned into jobs which they cannot do and in which roles they disrupt the creation of value by men. If women had continued to do jobs that women do well, as they have done for centuries, there would be no problem.

                  > Marxist?

                  > I hardly think so.

                  You offer us the standard Marxist explanation of the Obama economy. It is all the fault of the kulaks, and Obama needs to crack down on the kulaks even harder. Obama the lightbringer is doing the best he can to protect us against those horrid kulaks.

                  You endorse Marx’s most ludicrous and absurd claim, that his immiseration thesis, as self evidently true and uncontroversial.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing facts not in evidence. Discuss the Trump economy, rather than blaming the Obama economy on capitalism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Note for public, which any responsible editor would post:

                  The “in response to your response to my most recent comment” comment was a third comment and referenced the previous two, which have been silently deleted.

                  The blog host intends you to believe that my “in response to your response” comment pertains to the previous visible post, rather than the two silently deleted ones.

                  The presence of delete-then-respond is a means to and end in this deliberate deception.

                  Any remotely honest person would NEVER resort to this type of deliberate manipulation.

                  Any remotely honest person would, at this point, either restore the silent deletes, respond to them like he has to other deletes, or else explain his actions.

                  What a dishonest person would do, as regular as clockwork, would be to either silently delete THIS, or else delete-then-respond as if to some totally unrelated post.

                  Again, I find this entire thing hugely entertaining. It’s the JQ writ large. Anyone with any doubt at all about how the Jewish mind works need only post any random anti-capitalist comment on this blog and observe the archetypal ‘JQ’ behaviour first-hand.

                • jim says:

                  If I silently delete a comment, it is because it is same old same old that I have repeatedly given the same reason for deleting.

                  I not only want to stop your endless and repetitious Marxist spam, I also want to stop my endless and repetitious complaints about your endless Marxist spam.

          • St. Mandela II says:

            You cannot have perpetual growth in a finite world.

            We don’t have a finite world. We have nuclear fission for unlimited energy and can mine asteroids for unlimited natural resources.

            The reason Germany isn’t in space and doesn’t have nuclear power plants in This Year Of Our Lord 2019 is because we have bankers promoting subjugation as socialism and miscegenation as liberation in their maneuvering for a totalitarian world government.

            Fuck you, I want galactic empire.

            • Starman says:

              @St. Mandela II


              Commie Revolutionary, like all other anti-tech entryists, hates the White Man’s technology. They hate the White men who builds the tech. And they hate space travel, travel which can open up the vast universe before us.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Communist Revolutionary doesn’t hate space travel because it opens up the universe to us – he hates it because it puts us beyond the reach of “accountability” to commissars.

                • Starman says:

                  @Steve Johnson

                  Yup, the further away from the Earth political center, the weaker its control gets.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  Communist Revolutionary doesn’t hate space travel because it opens up the universe to us – he hates it because it puts us beyond the reach of “accountability” to commissars.

                  Bingo. This is the real reason the left hates space exploration.

                • Mike says:

                  Space exploration and astronomy is my favorite side interest. I wish so badly that we were out there exploring the stars right now. I almost believe that I’d give up my constant fretting about the shitshow of modern liberalism if our civilization could just get off its ass and start out into the great frontier again. Of course the problem there is that as long as we are liberal, it ain’t happening.

            • The Cominator says:

              Okay good you aren’t an entryists just a little purple pilled on some issues. You will learn the true redpill in time whereas Communist Revolutionary is beyond saving and destined for the helicopter ride.

            • regret says:

              >Okay good you aren’t an entryist

              St. Mendelssohn should explain briefly how WTC 7 collapsed.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:


              • jim says:

                Repetitious and a waste of bandwidth.

                You reiterate leftist doctrine on resources and the environment as if it was self evident truth. Since we quite obviously dispute that truth, you need to provide evidence and argument.

                You guys have been predicting peak oil is ten or twenty years away for over a hundred years. The Arctic Ice was supposed to melt in 2012, and the low lying pacific nations were going to be under water by 2010.

                We have heard it all before, endlessly repeated and we have been hearing it for over a century. Since you guys became holier than Jesus, you have taken to predicting the wrath of Gaia instead of the return of Jesus.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted because Motte and Bailey.

                  If you are actually making “only a very modest claim”, it does not address the argument of your interlocutor – but by making only a “very modest claim”, you imply that you and your interlocutor agree on a wildly immodest claim, an evil and insane claim, when your interlocutor has forcefully and passionately rejected that evil and insane claim.

                  If you are genuinely claiming only the motte, “only a very modest claim” and conceding the bailey to your interlocutor, you have to concede that he is correct to claiming the bailey, rather than presupposing that his agreement on the motte, implies agreement on the bailey.

                  A motte and bailey argument is a particular form of the fake consensus argument. You presuppose consensus on evil, improbable and absurd things, things that people who are not watermelons passionately disagree with. You presuppose that everyone agrees that the motte implies the bailey, which reactionaries obviously do not believe.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m happy to keep on playing this stupid game. It’s entertaining to see you kvetch and Talmud your way to justifying your irrational behaviour.

                  My ‘modest claim’ was that planetary resources are finite.

                  If you want to claim that that’s somehow unreasonable or extreme then you ought to make that case, because from where I’m sitting, the claim that planetary resources are NOT finite is the unreasonable, extreme claim.

                  Of course you just delete instead, then respond as if to some completely different comment.

                  Like I said, I find it tremendously entertaining because every time you do it, you think people are fooled, but they’re really not, and at the very very VERY least, you know there’s at least one person who knows for an absolute fact what you’re up to, what you delete and what you reply as if to.

                  It’s hilarious. The hubris of the over-confident Jew.

                • jim says:

                  > My ‘modest claim’ was that planetary resources are finite.

                  That is your motte claim, intended to imply consensus on your immodest extreme and unreasonable bailey claim that we are going to run out of oil.

                  We are not going to run out of oil. The stone age did not end for lack of stone.

                  Chances are we will be riding fusion power to the stars and will lose interest in the remaining oil. Peak oil will happen because no one cares.

                  Future repetition of your motte claim will be silently deleted until you concede the bailey claim, or explicitly or implicitly admit that your interlocutor rejects your bailey claim, or present evidence and argument against your interlocutors bailey claim and for your bailey claim.

            • vxxc says:

              Yes on Galatic Empire.

              In a choice between the world and the open sky America must choose the open sky.

  5. Atul Gawande says:

    Just wanted to thank you for your sterling work promoting the ideas of liberty. Ron Paul sends his regards and wonders if you had time to consider the fundraiser for my gynaecological clinic. Women really are the best entrepreneurs. As an Indian-American it’s my privilege to raise awareness.

  6. Anonymous says:

    What did you do during the war, granddad?

  7. Vxxc says:

    Rabble rousing: Winner of Ghetto Lottery Powerball McBath wants to (yawn) confiscate guns cuz metoo violence etc….
    Here’s the lyrics her “son” died for…

    Song is Beef by lil reese..,

    OTF is only the family.

  8. Frederick Algernon says:

    For future use, m80s

  9. simplyconnected says:

    Very surprised to see for the first time a mainstream (Victor Davis Hanson appears on Fox often) reference to the left purity spiral:

  10. Dave says:

    Just curious, Jim, to whom do you owe your red-pilling? How did seventeen-year-old Jim already know more about women than most men of his birth year know today? Ah, the things we wish we’d known at seventeen, when we could have courted virgin girls without meeting Chris Hansen.

    As the faster-evolving sex, men will, over the next few generations, change in whatever way they must in order to get laid, the only problem being that the sons and grandsons of Jeremy Meeks might not be compatible with civilization.

    • jim says:

      Well, seventeen year old Jim was of course rather naive, but considerably more red pilled than most men today, because that was then while this is now, because most men then were more red pilled than most men now, and because I was born and raised in a fast shrinking enclave of the old upper class culture that was about two generations behind the then current year, so more red pilled than most men then.

      But it was all unconscious, something one absorbs without thinking about it, something in the air. Richard Feynman, and later the PUA movement, brought this to conscious attention, and caused me think about it consciously and to state it explicitly.

      Also, old enough to remember a time when women were civilized, and continually shocked by current year conduct.

    • The Cominator says:

      People with names longer then a certain # of characters need to be considered autospam…

  11. lalit says:

    Jim, Trump has delivered a masterstroke in Taxes this year. He is not permitting state income taxes to be deducted from Federal taxes for 2018. While total tax bill for people living in red states has either stayed the same, gone down a little or increased a little, those in NY and CA have gotten themselves shafted.

    For instance, My leftie acquaintances in these states have seen their taxes go up by USD 20K to USD 50k. Friends in TX/FL/NH have barely seen their taxes budge. But seeing their compatriots in the Blue states get shafted these red state folk are celebrating as if they have received a refund, such is their schadenFreude. The mainstream media is simply not talking about this.

    My humble request to you to take the stage and post a new article on this latest education Trump is giving us all on the Art of politics.

    • Koanic says:

      The absolute madman!

      Talk about draining the swamp. It’s almost enough to make him an honorary non-Yankee, if he hadn’t motorboated Giuliani’s tits and married his daughter to a kike.

    • jim says:

      Not much to say. Obviously, Republicans in power should tax residents in high tax states. What are they going to do? Vote against Republicans by a bigger landslide than they do already? The tax changes raised taxes on rich people in state Republicans have no hope of winning, and cut taxes on middle class people in flyover country where republicans are competitive.

      Trump is trying to get Republicans to win, while cuckservatives are trying to lose for fear that they might come under pressure to actually pass their platform.

    • Jehu says:

      Trump’s tax cut was cunningly crafted. I live in a Blue State, hit the SALT cap, and Trump still gave me a modest tax cut, primarily because of his substantial increase in the child tax credit and the much more generous way it phases out. This is true of most of the less liberal people I know in this very blue state as well, pretty much all of them got tax cuts, some of them pretty big ones.

      • The Cominator says:

        Lets not talk as if child tax credits are a good thing. Trump didn’t even want them there because they make no economic sense that cuck traitor Rubio put them there. The only people who suffer from the Trump tax law are rich people who have a lot of personal real estate in blue states.

        • Jehu says:

          Trump’s voters in blue states have quite a few more kids than his not-voters. 2000 as a credit per child with very little phase out (before the credit started phasing out not much above 100k AGI and phased out pretty fast) makes a big difference and prevents his targeted tax hike on the blue state wealthy from having collateral damage on his remnant in said states.
          Now, I agree that it’d be better if the child tax credit was contingent on legitimacy, and even better if it were just for prosocial elements, but that’s not bad targeting for a blunderbuss when rifle fire is out of bounds in tax policy.

          • The Cominator says:

            Well even if they are a good thing which I don’t accept… that part of the bill was not Trump’s idea and it was forced upon him.

            • Jehu says:

              I’m learning to be a bit more circumspect about what Trump has “forced on him’. For instance, Trump got us out of the Zero interest rate policy hole, despite constantly criticizing the Fed for implementing same, which he had to do for political reasons. But it was absolutely the right thing to do.
              Economically the child tax credit may make little sense, but from who..whom, it makes perfect sense.

  12. The Cominator says:

    In other news in the wake of the Mueller coup falling on its ass the Trump administration and their allies have begun a counterattack on Cathedral control of media, higher education and social media.

    Judicial watch has filed FOIA request for Brennan/CIA communications with big media firms, the Trump admin has launched various lawsuits against academia for official promotion of leftism and feminism, facebook is being sued for “discriminatory practices” but more so that they have to open up their books.

    Screw the blackpillers Trump is great.

    • Koanic says:

      And just think what he’s saving for his reelection drama!

    • jim says:

      Trump promised to do something about freedom of speech on campus, and in context he appeared to be referencing the academic practice of organizing a rentamob to beat up right wingers and burn stuff down, then billing right wing organizations for the damage inflicted by the rentamob in the course of attacking the right wing organization.

      But I have not heard anything more of this executive order. How is it coming along?

      • The Cominator says:

        I suspect it will be released when the left is distracted by so many other things…

        Other then stopping the invasion the left will be more opposed to the free preaching of “heresy” within their “monasteries” then anything else so expect a major eruption of Trump derangement syndrome.

        I also think we need Milo back for this… its a huge mistake to have moral standards for people on our side. When we win for real of course open homosexuality won’t be permitted but driving him away for honestly admitting the way homosexuals actually think was crazy.

        • jim says:

          Absolutely. Milo was great. Allowing him to be purged was a huge defeat for us.

          Of course, come the restoration, he will be forced to go into the closet or take the high jump, but he is still great.

          • The Cominator says:

            If the king were me (it never would be I’m a sperg with zero charisma) I wouldn’t want Milo to take a high jump. He would agree to announce that the new Royal Society had cured him and of course he wouldn’t be publicly homosexual but nobody would take too much interest in looking over his shoulder and would be discouraged from doing so.

          • Koanic says:

            I’m not sure I want to see things improve until the diversity has scalped, raped and eaten every last Boomer cuck. That’s how you make real Americans – by killing off all the pussies in gruesomely creative ways, adopting the badasses into your savage tribe, and then engaging the civilized survivors in constant warfare for a couple hundred years.

            Since Milo was a cuck whisperer, I don’t mind his fall.

            • The Cominator says:

              As nuts as the crap CR and Andre says here…

              War doesn’t spare the strong brave and smart it tends to spare the cowardly and if you attempt to get around this through conscription and red army style terror it spares the most creatively cowardly… who tend to be the kind of men who at least pretend to be true Cathedral believers.

              We want the leftists to peacefully get on the trains calm as Hindu cows with no resistance…

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                I’d rather you didn’t invoke me as the embodiment of all that’s evil. Your proposed programme is consistently sadistic and psychopathic. I disavow any and all association with you.

                The host on the other hand is often reasonable, when he’s not being a boomer conservative. It’s absolutely no surprise that he’s coming out in defence of a Jewish paedophilia apologist.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts. You are the embodiment of evil. You guys murdered over a hundred million during the twentieth century, and nearly all the people you murdered, you told them what you are telling us: “I am your friend, I am on your side, join me against our common enemy”

                  Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

                  It is fairly plausible that Bezos is our common enemy – but the guy you really have the hots to destroy is my local dentist and the man who owns my local Domino’s pizza franchise, which reveals that you have the hots to destroy me, just as when the trots told the peasant with one cow that he was being exploited by the peasant with two cows, that revealed that they intended to destroy both the peasant with one cow and the peasant with two cows.

                  Using what lefties think are our shibboleths does not create the appearance of being one of us. You say you are a racialist because you hate Jews and blacks, but you are incapable of acknowledging the biological differences between the races, or even hearing what we say about the biological differences between races.

                  To plausibly be one of us, to use our shibboleths correctly you have to show awareness and comprehension of reactionary views on the classes, of alt right views on human biodiversity, and red pill views on women, but because these are all heinous thought crimes you refuse to hear what we say no matter how plainly we say it.

                  I don’t call you a communist because of what you say, for what you say is not what communists say, but what lefties imagine right wingers to be saying. I call you a communist because of what you say I say. You interpret me as saying things consistent with Marxism, no matter how directly and plainly I contradict what you insist that I am saying.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Nothing sadistic about it, leftists are a plague that destroy nations. As Uncle Yuri says other then making them live under their own programme you can’t cure them (as you well prove, no amount of rational argument about why your policy ideas are terrible and consistently fail cures you) and they create more leftists if you keep them around. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. Leftists in power don’t tolerate other sects of leftists either. Sunni Muslim are like this too (though Sufis are not).

                  Unlike left wing ethnonationalists (which you claim to be though I’m not sure whether you are a pure leftist entryists playing “hail fellow racist” or a genuine Strasserite) I don’t want to kill people just because of their race.

                  I don’t think you are manically evil in the manner of sadistic killers but your beliefs in power lead to evil.

                  Also against me being a psychopath… I strongly argued against Jim’s view that the restored state should encourage the horrible mistreatment of the few bastards that slip through the cracks (there will not be many who are brought to term under us) particulary in the horribly sadistic manner the Catholic Church used to deal with them… that is truly evil and we shouldn’t have it, its not like it will be necessary. I also argued that adultery should be treated more leniently then he advocates due to it being more a result of common human weaknesses and in allowance that in our system most marriages will be arranged and that divorce will almost never be allowed.

              • Koanic says:

                Do you seriously not recognize the Indian wars against the early Americans in this sentence, or do you not recognize the difference between tribal eugenic warfare and modern dysgenic warfare?

                • The Cominator says:

                  The wars to come aren’t going to be like the wars against the Indians… its best they are finished as quickly and decisively as possible with the least possible effusion of blood.

                  Your kind of thinking resembles Hitler’s mad declaration in the Table Talks hoping that guerilla war in the Eastern Territories goes on for twenty more years. That kind of thinking didn’t work out for him and it won’t work out for us. Worse is not better, we do not want the left to lose the mask of sanity but we want them to be unable to wield power when they do it. So for now support Trump and avoid any of this worse is better bullshit.

                  We want a quick one sided victory let the blood of leftists run in post victory purges (should we win) not in a long war…

                • Koanic says:

                  You are wrong. The Western male death rate is way below the anthropological norm, leading to a degradation of our gene pool. Eugenic tribal-style war is the natural and only corrective. We will have it, one way or another.

                  Furthermore, I am not saying this as the leader of the country. I am saying this as an expat who has left his homeland to allow it to consume itself in its historically scheduled convulsions of sanguine idiocy. The nice thing about having a high IQ is that you get a participation pass. The wars resulting from the world’s largest immivasion times the West’s peak left singularity times the collapse of history’s greatest superpower and ponzi scheme will certainly not be either quick or decisive, but they should be entertaining when viewed at the proper remove.

                  I have always supported Trump, especially when the cucks and blackpillers were against him. Now that everyone is finally beginning to grasp his patriotic genius, I may point out the dark edges a little more often. It’s not like he’s going to lose his reelection.

              • The Cominator says:

                “You are wrong. The Western male death rate is way below the anthropological norm”

                Sure is mainly because vaccines and antibiotics mainly but the future wars are probably not going to be whites vs blacks and hispanics that is a stormtard myth and if they truly are then we will win regardless of numbers.

                Its going to be whites vs shitlib liberal whites with rioting starving unruly mobs of diversity behind the liberal lines who will generally be more of a problem to the shitlib whites then an asset. We don’t want a long war we a short war followed by us killing leftists in a way to beat Mao’s high score.

                • vxxc says:


                  1. Will be entertaining until you can’t reach someone you love on the phone.

                  2. Speaking of dysgenics why do we let shirkers return?

                  You might want to temper your words Sir.
                  This won’t be entertaining. Just Bloody Drudgery.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Will be entertaining until you can’t reach someone you love on the phone.

                  They made their choice.

                  > Speaking of dysgenics why do we let shirkers return?

                  That is amusing coming from a man without a territory. I am always in favor of right-wing exclusionariness, there is far too little of it. And I will never face a shortage of locations desiring my presence. So please do.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Koanic why exactly do you prefer a long war to a quick victory for us followed by a thorough Final Solution to the Leftist Problem.

                • Koanic says:

                  It takes a certain amount of dispassionate intelligence to ask that sort of question instead of reacting with knee-jerk outrage.

                  Obviously I would prefer to simply implement my program with a minimum of waste and loss. However, that is not within the realm of possibility. Neither is your desire for a “quick victory”. The only possible quick fix is a lengthening of the miscegenatory empire, and that is the worst case outcome for the white genetic interest. Nuclear war would be better, although not for me personally.

                  The sooner and sharper the savagery, the sooner the return to a K-selected cultural mode. The slower and gentler the slide into decline, the worse the genetic damage.

                  Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter to me. The solution I am pursuing will change the evolutionary balance of power between the IQ tranches and between individual and institution, by initiating cognitive transhumanism. Therefore I do not need to offer a solution to the insoluble stupidity of baseline humans. Therefore I may rhetorically indulge my desire to see Boomer cucks ripped apart by screaming cannibal mobs.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Obviously I would prefer to simply implement my program with a minimum of waste and loss. However, that is not within the realm of possibility. Neither is your desire for a “quick victory”.”

                  Its quite possible. If we have enough institutional control when war breaks out the left will only end up in control of a few large cities which require tremendous amounts of supplies and because of modern “just on time” delivery have no stockpiles for a siege.

                  Ideally we could finish the war within 3 months. Now I agree that is a best case scenario… but its not entirely impossible.

                • Koanic says:

                  Any “we” large enough to win the war would also be anti-racist enough to continue the miscegenatory empire.

                • jim says:

                  It takes remarkably few people to win a war.

                  Wars with mass participation are based on mass conscription, not on volunteers, and the group that is doing the conscription is quite small. In a civil war, winning side is the side that first grabs the capability to mass conscript.

                • The Cominator says:

                  As I said a pure race war is a Stormtard myth of course it won’t be like that. But nobody on the real right supports women’s rights anymore so under our system with arranged marriages interracial marriage between blacks and whites will be extremely rare. Whites and asians interracial marriage will probably remain at about the same level it is now.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think conscription only makes sense if numbers are decisive. If a few specialists with superior firepower can kill billions… not so much. The right will not have a problem holding territory outside of the cities so we don’t need numbers for that either.

                  WWI and the Civil War numbers were the decisive factor they were also decisive in WWII (but less so) and have been in decline ever since. During the age of the Horse Archer (Belisarius to the death of Timur) they were not so decisive as a few elite horse archers (combined with heavy cav, siege and foot archers as needed) could kill almost any amount of an opposing force.

                  Numbers today are more important in guerilla warfare but not IMHO so much in conventional warfare which is another reason why post victory we need to be ruthless about a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem.

                • Koanic says:

                  > It takes remarkably few people to win a war.

                  The anti-racists and Christ-cucks will fight on behalf of their mudblood pets. Even the warmup necessary to get the racists ready to slaughter their traitorous kin will bust Cominator’s killcount and duration cap.

                  There is no future in which the empire is preserved but racially purified. There is no future in which the empire quickly divides. Therefore Cominator’s desired outcome will not occur.

                  North America is where Asia and Europe meet for deathmatch, and South America is the loser’s ghetto. Vive la guerre.

                • jim says:

                  They will not fight.

                  Already tested this on the underage chick issue. It is all 100% pious posturing.

                  They will not fight to save their own lives, let alone those of their pets – will not even endure a socially uncomfortable situation even if the alternative to social discomfort is likely to be death.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The race problem is a symptom of the leftist problem and you are making it primary. Richard Spencer needs a helicopter ride, Hermann Cain does not.

                • Koanic says:

                  They fought for it last time, and will again. They are holier than thou, and are just as confident in their ability to crush the Nazis, as we are in our ability to crush the fags.

                • jim says:

                  Before crushing the Nazis, they put the emasculation of American men into full reverse starting 1933, and first wave feminism vanished without a dog barking.

                • Koanic says:

                  And they do fight for the underage chick issue – they are doing it in Afghanistan.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure it came as something of a shock and disappointment to the troops in Afghanistan to discover that they were fighting to teach nine year old girls to put a condom on a banana.

                • Koanic says:

                  The war in Afghanistan is now old enough for the draft, and enough soldiers still haven’t figured that out to end the war. It will be an entirely new set of lies to sell them on the Civil War 2. Cominator’s schedule does not allow for an 18 year war. Your admission concedes my point.

                  > Before crushing the Nazis, they put the emasculation of American men into full reverse starting 1933, and first wave feminism vanished without a dog barking.

                  Yes, and before crushing the Nazis this time, the Trump-right + alt-lite will gain concessions by defeating the batshit-insane Left fringe, as we are now seeing. The scenario you describe is the continuation of the miscegenatory empire, the worst case scenario.

                • jim says:

                  Soldiers follow orders – but they do not like those orders.

                  Does not follow that those who order them to fight will themselves be willing to fight.

                  Nor can the left make any concessions. If the movement ever leftwards slows, everything will blow sky high.

                  They were able to make concessions on women by escalating the war on capitalism. There is no room for that remaining now – escalating the war on capitalism means Venezuela.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Does not follow that those who order them to fight will themselves be willing to fight.

                  I’m talking about the dumbass conservatives I know who will sign up to fight the “Nazis” and preserve the Union. Obviously the loony left has no real combatants. They will fall without a dog barking. The revolution in Europe will be bloodless. Not so in North America.

                  > Nor can the left make any concessions. If the movement ever leftwards slows, everything will blow sky high.

                  Sure they can. They can concede pretty much everything as long as the miscegenation continues. And that is the Loyalist position.

                • jim says:

                  You are modeling the left as a single rational individual pursuing his rational self interest.

                  Not so.

                  They are trapped in a holiness spiral driving them to suicide, the only uncertainty being: will they take everyone else with them?

                • Koanic says:

                  After globalist immivasion collapses, the West will still suffer the following faultlines:

                  1. Anacyclosis
                  2. Racism vs anti-racism in North America
                  3. Christianity vs atheism + paganism, and internal divisions thereof
                  4. Socialism vs capitalism, both of which are wrong and unsustainable, powered by class envy and oppression
                  5. Intra-European ethnic enmity and incompatibility
                  6. Social conservatism vs libertinism

                  War is due in North America and nothing can stop it. More than war – chaos. The age of the barbarian returns!


                • Koanic says:

                  > You are modeling the left as a single rational individual pursuing his rational self interest.

                  No more than you are when you say the Left conceded emasculation to fight WWII.

                  > They are trapped in a holiness spiral driving them to suicide, the only uncertainty being: will they take everyone else with them?

                  We already passed that uncertainty point with the election of Trump, averting nuclear war with Russia. The cabal’s force is spent, as Trump mops up.

                  The longer wave of destruction is the miscegenation of whites in North America. This wave has not yet begun to crest. The question is Brazilification or Native American genocide 2.

                • jim says:

                  The left was more capable back then of acting like a single rational being.

                  Leftism is entropy, and leftists are the primary victims of leftism. The further left they go, the less they are capable of acting like a single rational being.

                • Koanic says:

                  When the loony Left is broken, and Trump or his successor is running the new Left, on the platform of interfaith God, Union, protectionist capitalism + reduced welfare state, and pan-American brotherhood, they will be highly capable of acting as a single rational being, within the limits of their coordinating creed.

                • jim says:

                  If Trump does that, institutes a relatively sane left, he is a rerun of Oliver Cromwell, and, like Oliver Cromwell, paves the way for the return of the King.

                  If he just stops the left from getting crazier by breaking its fringe elements, a rerun of Stalin, paving the way for the fall of the (anti)American Empire.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Sure they can. They can concede pretty much everything as long as the miscegenation continues. And that is the Loyalist position.”

                  Nuts and stormtarded. The sex pill outranks the race pill. Women of higher races wouldn’t generally be screwing NAMs if they were made into property again. We intend to make women property again.

                • Koanic says:

                  Jim didn’t publish my dismissal of your adjacent but separate proposal, probably due to the inclusion of excessive anti-Boomer sentiment. Anyhow, somebody’s never seen a genetic heat map. Caste system has been tried, go to India if you like it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Trumps position is not as unfortunately not as strong as Cromwells’ (who was with the possible exception of Henry VIII more an absolute ruler then any king in English history).

                • nasim fan club says:

                  > The nice thing about having a high IQ is that you get a participation pass.
                  not recently

                  > Whites vs Whites, with NAMs causing trouble behind the lines
                  War between libs and cons isn’t going to happen because cons don’t fight libs. We should dispense with the terroristic bluster. Aready we can feel the zeitgeist moving on, because of ideas and because feminism, and Jewish and Black power, depended on White Boomers, including boomercons who were never hippies and hate hippies as we hate hipsters, making excuses, and that power is fading, as slowly as Boomers can drag it out. Does anyone remember feeling sorry for Oscar Grant or the Holocaust survivor Cho of the Revolution bagged?

                  First, listen to this:
                  then, consider whether the culture wants to continue with

                • jim says:

                  > War between libs and cons isn’t going to happen because cons don’t fight libs.

                  Libs, however, fight cons, and fight each other. Eventually libs are going to kill very large numbers of libs. And, in the process, kill quite a few cons.

                  It only takes one side to fight a war, if the objectives can only be accomplished by extermination of the other side. As progressives pursue increasingly impossible objectives, they will deem an ever increasing number of people to be standing in the way of immanentizing the Eschaton.

                  We have already seen a cheerful willingness to pursue pious goals by genocidal means in various countries (Rhodesia, the Congo, Rwanda, and Syria). Can flyover country be far behind?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “War between libs and cons isn’t going to happen because cons don’t fight libs. ”

                  Cuck cons won’t fight unless backed into a corner but the newer Trumpist right will end up fighting the libs and it will mostly be white vs white. I’m not sure of the rest of what you’re saying.

                • jim says:

                  Backing into a corner is already happening. That is how Trump got elected. Eighty percent of evangelicals voted for him, because they expected their boys were going to be taken away from them, castrated, sex changed, and give to gays, among other things.

                • Koanic says:

                  High IQ grants the foresight to sidestep stupid conflagrations. Exercising it is still a choice.

                  There was no good side in the last US Civil War, and I doubt there will be one this time. But I reserve the right to change my mind. Remember the Alamo.

                • jim says:

                  The only people in a position to sidestep the coming war are people with more than one passport and so forth.

                  You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Backing into a corner is already happening.”

                  The Romney supporter muh principles types won’t see a corner until a leftist mob in their neighborhood is howling for their blood. The Southern Evangelicals are redpilled (and voted for Trump even in the primary) not so sure about the less reliable Midwestern ones.

                • Dave says:

                  “They will not fight.”

                  Our military is full of men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men. In the first hours of war with China or Russia, it will become evident that they were also pretending to be soldiers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Our military is full of men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men. In the first hours of war with China or Russia, it will become evident that they were also pretending to be soldiers.”

                  There are some real soldiers in US combat arms, but I’m not sure how much they want to fight for feminism, gay rights and the right of Muslims to blow up their barracks.

                • Ron says:

                  It’s below the norm because private property rights regarding women were effectively abolished by Harvard.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          “What the right needs for a leader is a charismatic degenerate married to a black man.”

          Sorry, Milo just reminds me of too many times eating dirt while the left cheers. He was mostly someone to disrespect the feminists anyway, and got taken out by a very stretched quasi-#metoo. His day in the media spotlight was done one way or the other, is my assessment.

          • The Cominator says:

            Milo understood how to properly mock the progressive religion and the Cathedral in a way that really caused people to lose faith. He also understood how to deal with leftists rent a mobs in a way that nobody on our side really does. He successfully beat the shit out of them in Berkeley let me say that again IN BERKELEY…

            He let the leftist mob rampage including attacks on small shop and innocent people (which of course the leftist city government withdrew the police) for a couple hours whereas he had a bunch of Trump bikers and toughs outside of town after public opinion even within Berkeley had turned against this vile commie mob he unleashed the Trump bikers and veterans and the mob was chased from the streets.

            Optically it was perfect the whole thing was just perfectly planned… we need him back.

  13. Neurotoxin says:

    I’ve only watched some of the first vid so far, but if anything it way understates what Asian chick shit testing is like. I have a small sample here, but in my experience it’s outrageously cunty, even for a shit test.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Here is an interesting write-up on US military tactical wall building. I wonder how quick they could run up a wall on the border if they had a free hand…

      • Vxxc says:

        The US military routinely builds cities from nothing in the middle of nowhere.
        So yes we could have it done in months without breaking a sweat.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Siege (and disease) is the most perennial form of warfare there is. Many modern critics of war like saying ‘modern war has no lines’, ruling out of hand from the beginning measures like siege due to their ‘disparate impact’; this of course is exactly what makes it effective, and highly efficient in it’s effectiveness. Not only a method of enforcing submission from the inhabitants of a given locale, but also that it tends to disproportionately affect the least worthy subjects in a given locale (as opposed to open combat between spearheads, which tends to disproportionately affect the most worthy).

  14. jim says:

    Western audiences react stridently to pixels, but the reaction does not carry over to real life.

    I would expect Chinese audiences to react to pixels the way that westerners react in real life.

    • Mike says:

      Jim, you mention that you shouldn’t pursue an “impassable shit test”. I haven’t heard you mention this before. What in your opinion, is a shit test not worth pursuing?

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        An impassable shit test, from my perspective, would be a test that, upon passing, would leave a man completely compromised in terms of either the pussy objective OR the man’s mission. In tactical/strategic terms, it is a phyrric victory; a win in which you lose more than you gain.

        Possible examples:

        •pegging and other definitive role reversal in the bedroom
        •social moral concessions
        •normalizing whorish behavior (accepting the habits/practices of her slut friends as OK)
        •giving up on solid opportunities to indulge her clit induced fantasies of artistic endeavour, pseudo-entrepeneurship, etc.

      • jim says:

        When passing it risks jail.

        • Mike says:

          Eh but the progs in power make tons of stuff that shouldn’t warrant jailtime, warrant jailtime. You must have to distinguish between what would be a “real” crime and what wouldn’t be.

          • jim says:

            You don’t go to jail or get fired for that stuff, because women do not complain about it.

            But sometimes they want you to do stuff in front of a bunch of witnesses to prove that you are more alpha than the witnesses.

      • St. Mandela II says:


        • jim says:


          You cannot have a relationship with a woman without passing fitness tests, and if you think one does not have to pass fitness tests, or that fitness tests are easy, you don’t have a relationship with a woman, nor a business that employs women – at least not a business subject to the constraint that it has to make a profit, nor a relationship where you get to nail her, rather than watching while someone more manly than you nails her.

          • St. Mandela II says:

            I literally just described deadpan game to you.

            Only a faggot laughs submissively and turns away.

            • jim says:

              The submissive laugh and turning away is for a family or work situation, to legitimize the following counter attack without getting summoned to Human Resources.

              Deadpan game is not going to work when something needs to be done, and she is not doing it, or you are trying to do something, and she is systematically sabotaging you, and if you tell her to stop it with the sabotage, she is going to run crying to Human Resources, sincerely and genuinely believing she was raped.

              To prevent her from believing she was raped when she goes to Human Resources, you cannot reprimand her in private. You are going to have to reprimand her in a loud voice in front of other people – hence the need for the initial submissive display. It needs to be obvious to everyone that she is making trouble.

              At some point, you have to make her do something, make her stop doing something, make her listen to something that she does not want to hear and does not want to understand. Because she will create a situation where you have to exercise authority over her, and she is going to make it hard for you to exercise authority over her.

              Deadpan game will work in a bar, because there is nothing at stake – but because there is nothing at stake, because it is an easy test, you are going to be hit with a subsequent fitness test where there really is something at stake. It is not going to work in the workplace or the family, or even between husband and wife. She is going to run the family or the business into the ditch to force you to exercise authority, and then she is going to call on outsiders when you do exercise authority. She is going to destroy the family finances and the lives of your children to make you take charge. Deadpan game is failing to take charge. A deadpan response means you lose. Lose your assets, lose your house, lose your children, lose your business.

              Fitness tests are hard. In the myth, Medea murdered her children to punish her husband for infidelity. In real life, they murder their children to punish their husbands for lack of pre-selection. Game is life and death. To win, you need to seem plausibly willing to kill.

              If there is an easy way to pass a fitness test, they will find a way to give you a fitness test with no easy way to pass.

              • Nikolai says:

                “At some point, you have to make her do something, make her stop doing something, make her listen to something that she does not want to hear and does not want to understand. Because she will create a situation where you have to exercise authority over her, and she is going to make it hard for you to exercise authority over her.”

                This has been exactly my experience, borderline prophetic. Things like deadpan game, outcome independence, absurd confidence and agreeing and amplifying work very well when you just meet a girl and they continue to work in the first couple months of a relationship.

                But once you’re in an LTR she’ll start hitting you with things that render the above strategies ineffective. You have to simultaneously tell her what to do (authoritatively, but not in a manner which shows you’re an overly invested beta) and pretend that you don’t care what she does (as you could supposedly find a girl just like her tomorrow). Very hard balance to pull off, and if you manage to pass it, she’ll hit you with something different in a couple weeks.

                How do you deal with such tests Jim? Could you expound on the subject a bit more?

                • jim says:

                  Not good enough at this to give expert advice, just that I am conscious of the problem, while I see other people not seeing it while their wife drives the marriage into a ditch, and their female employees drive the business into a ditch.

                  Women will grab any weapon that comes to hand, to see how you handle it, but especially the intervention of another alpha male within the family or within the business, for women love to see alpha males fight. And you just have to handle it using any measures that come to hand, any method that comes to hand, up to and including causing that other alpha male to mysteriously disappear because you buried him in the marshes below the high tide line, while handling it as if it is easy and no big deal, and as if you regard the whole drama as a storm in a teacup.

                  However I have never actually used the backhoe in the marshes solution nor needed to do so, yet. Worst that happened was that wife said “Other alpha male told us we should do this”, and I said “That is not what he said, and if he had said that it would have been stupid, we are doing it my way.” Whereupon she subsided quietly.

                  It helps if your wife thinks you might use the backhoe in the marshes, or a short trip to the deep blue sea, regardless of whether you actually would or not.

  15. yewotm8 says:

    Curious as to the Chinese audience’s reactions to the storyline with the pre-pubescent girl. I know how Western audiences would be programmed to react.

    • info says:

      Just like boys swing imaginary swords at each other. So it is with little girls. Its a pre-sexual behavior.

  16. Frederick Algernon says:

    Not to take away from an elaborate and well crafted post, but holy moly the various -spheres are on fire over the Trump/Russia farce being called out. Add to this the three semi-high profile suicides, Q predictions seeming to be somewhat relevant, and Avenatti arrest, this is turning into quite a week and it’s only Monday.

    • jim says:

      Yeah, yeah.

      Republicans are growing testicles.

      It was always obvious that the investigation was a scam, and a cover for an attempted coup and color revolution.

      Everyone, however, kept their heads down, for fear of being collateral damage in the coup. The coupists figured on a blue wave that would give them the Senate. The House and the Senate would then pass some bullshit that the docile press could then spin as legality, as somehow making the coup legal. When that failed to happen, the Democrats, who were supposed to provide the appearance of constitutionality for the coup, then got cold feet, and various prominent Republicans decided that it was safe to stick their heads up.

      • Vxxc says:

        DOD authorizes $1B for Army Corps of Engineers to build 98km of Fence.
        Its “counter-drug”.
        Counter Drug = free and clear to get results, whatever it takes.

        All good news.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        Republicans are growing testicles.

        Some of them are, at least rhetorically. (Lindsey Graham, e.g.)

        But we cannot afford to forget that 12 (!) of them in the Senate voted to overrule Trump on the emergency.

        • Alrenous says:

          That’s how it’s supposed to work: voting your conscience instead of the party line, and what with people being dumb their consciences are dumb and think genuinely random things. The problem is that D always votes the party line, plus or minus some fig leaves, so ‘conscience’ on the R side is merely an excuse to cuck out.

          • The Cominator says:

            The only one of that sorry lot with a genuine “conscience” is Rand Paul and he is wrong on this (though unique among those 12 he’d be spared a helicopter ride). Seperation of powers never worked for all the standard reactionary reasons. What is needed is rather unity of command…

          • Neurotoxin says:

            That’s how it’s supposed to work: voting your conscience instead of the party line…

            As far as I know, none of Obama’s emergency declarations were ever brought to a vote at all, and no Republican ever suggested that they should be.

            That includes the oh so dire emergency Obama declared to freeze the assets of people “Contributing to the Situation in Burundi.”

            So millions of people crashing our border aren’t a national emergency… but HOLY SHIT! We’d better get right on the Burundi Situation!!!

            … so ‘conscience’ on the R side is merely an excuse to cuck out.

            Of course. Except that “cuck” implies they’re caving in to the other team. Actually they’re simply on the other team.

      • St. Mandela II says:

        >docile press

        “Docile” isn’t quite the word I would use.

  17. Frederick Algernon says:

    Strange wavelength match up; I’ve been watching Chinese, Korean, and Malayan action/war movies for scientific purposes. The propaganda is so good, so ethno-centric. No hand wringing over Geneva bullshit. Asian militaries wrecking shop on Ayrabs, pirates, and drug dealers. As an active member of the Entertainment Industrial Complex, I yearn for Chinese bux and audiences.

  18. S.J., Esquire says:

    ***No, 1:12

    I looked at it again. How on earth you even noticed that chick, halfway to the back of the class, I have no idea.

    I*** seem to be able to detect female lust better than most

    It’s definitely an interesting gift.

    • jim says:

      You know what it is like approaching a hot chick out of your league. You are apt to stand there frozen between fleeing and hitting on her, and the longer you stay frozen the more embarrassing it gets. The female equivalent is to be paralyzed half way between attracting your attention, and not attracting your attention. In the case of this video at 1:12, the hand half way up and half way down, and staring at him with a bored sneer. If a chick actually finds you boring, she is not going to stare at you.

  19. S.J., Esquire says:

    > ***At 1:12 the pre fertile age chick is trying to attract his attention while simultaneously directing an expression of disdain and boredom at him. Obvious fitness test,

    Are you talking about more like 1:18? Holy hell, in what alternate sci-fi universe is that “obvious”? Man, in retrospect I saw that look from chics tonnes of times as a youngster.

    • jim says:

      > Are you talking about more like 1:18

      No, 1:12

      She looks disdainful and bored but she has her hand up seeking his attention. The inconsistency reveals it as a shit test. Also, that the hand is half up reveals a shit test. If not a shit test, all the way up, or all the way down.

      > I saw that look from chics tonnes of times as a youngster.

      Then chicks wanted you to pass the test and nail them good tonnes of times as a youngster. If they were really disdainful and bored they would not even notice you existed or remember anything you said or did.

      If a chick is seeking your attention, but trying to avoid being noticed that she is seeking your attention (the hand a half mast, the hand only half way up) it is an obvious shit test, or rather a sign of shit test incoming and imminent.

      I seem to be able to detect female lust better than most. I walk into a crowded room, and my subconscious rings a bell: “Alert, alert, horny female incoming, prepare for danger and opportunity”

      If I had been teaching that class, my subconscious would have rang the bell at 1:12.

      • eternal anglo says:

        I seem to be able to detect female lust better than most. I walk into a crowded room, and my subconscious rings a bell: “Alert, alert, horny female incoming, prepare for danger and opportunity”

        I am totally oblivious to signs of female interest, except she physically gets in my face and all but solicits me, which has only happened a handful of times. I must be missing lots of opportunities. Did you acquire this sense over a long time, or has it always been like that?

        • jim says:

          I got better as I got older, but I was never entirely oblivious. I noticed some odd female behavior when I was very young indeed.

          As with anything else, study helps.

          But I see a tremendous amount of willful blindness around me – women acting disruptively in the workplace, and not only does no one conclude they are motivated by lust, no one notices the disruption. It is as if I am in a parallel universe. k “Maybe women are behaving just like normal men in the workplace, and some kind of sexual deviation causes me to hallucinate them as disruptive and lustful?”

          But, I am not hallucinating the disruption, and I have reason to conclude I am not hallucinating the lust.

          • S.J., Esquire says:

            ***But I see a tremendous amount of willful blindness around me – women acting disruptively in the workplace, and not only does no one conclude they are motivated by lust, no one notices the disruption. It is as if I am in a parallel universe.

            It’s all very interesting, Jim, but I disagree quite strongly when you call it “willful” blindness. The whole paradigm is tremendously astonishing and non-intuitive to most of us – that’s why I said that what you have is a “gift”, for better or worse. I mean I do appreciate that you’ve shared your knowledge with us.

            • Koanic says:

              Just because you weren’t the one willing the blindness, doesn’t mean nobody was. Try communicating it.

            • jim says:

              > I disagree quite strongly when you call it “willful” blindness. The whole paradigm is tremendously astonishing and non-intuitive to most of us

              When a woman aggresses, she does not do it with the body language of a man.

              When men aggress, the body language resembles two billy goats about to butt heads over a nanny goat.

              When women aggress and disrupt, it is always superficially helpful and friendly.

              When a woman interrupts and talks over the boss, she is always superficially helpful, friendly, polite, supportive, and respectful – except that she is interrupting and speaking over the boss, and that what she is saying is distinctly unhelpful.

              As soon as you tune in to the passive aggressive way women do it, you will notice a lot of it.

              In a work situation or family, it helps to laugh and smile and submissively look away, and then when she runs out, call out her behavior, using male body language, and changing or segue the topic from whatever it is purportedly about (for it is never about the ostensible content of her words, and is only loosely related to whatever you were saying or trying to get done) to her verbal aggression, or her disinclination to do as instructed. No matter what you were trying to get done, it is not going to get done until you have first shut down the aggression and disruption, and whatever you were attempting to communicate, you have no hope of communicating it until you have first shut down the aggression and disruption. If you leave it unchecked, stuff just does not get done.

              While males sort out the hierarchy pretty quickly and get on with work, women never stop subverting the hierarchy and each other.

              • St. Mandela II says:

                In a work situation or family, it helps to laugh and smile and submissively look away


                The correct answer is to look at her with dead eyes before resuming what you were doing previously. Length of pause increases with subsequent interruption. After two or three you say something like, “aren’t you busy with [X]?” In case of further escalation, explicitly assign busywork.

                This isn’t hard.

                • jim says:

                  > This isn’t hard.

                  Is damned hard

                  If there was an easy way to pass fitness tests, it would not be a fitness test, and if it was easy, businesses would not be terrorized and disrupted by women and men would not be hiding in their mother’s basement playing video games.

                  Anyone who tells me it is easy to pass a fitness test is either:

                  1. Currently in prison for rape, false imprisonment, cannibalism, and murder.

                  2. Currently playing pornographic video games in his mother’s basement and lying to impress strangers on the internet.

                  3. About to ask me to pay him $100 for a training course in how to seduce women by hypnosis.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  Wrong reply earlier.

                  Literally just don’t react. That’s all there is. Unless there’s imminent police or legal action inbound, in which case you’re probably fucked regardless.

                  You can roll your eyes. You can say something irrelevant: “hey, do these cobblestones make you dizzy?” Or you can just look her dead in the eyes and say nothing for a few seconds.

                  None of this probably works if you’re a neurotic wreck.

                  If you’re asking why “businesses are terrorized and disrupted by women”, it goes back to one thing that was taught to every little schoolboy (probably the only thing that was taught to every little schoolboy): to take women seriously. Everything comes from that.

                  The principal difference between me and everyman in 1900, and the pathetic groveling husks of “men” today is that nothing any woman says, ever, elicits more than like 3% of an emotional response.

                  But, like, whatever, man. Suffer a woman to teach your kids if you want.

                • jim says:

                  Absence of response is a very good start, but if shit tests were that easy to pass, they would not be tests.

  20. Caught two flicks yesterday. Jurassic Park, Final scene Laura Dern doggy dish eyes for Sam Nell after he saved the kids.
    Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom Final scene: Indy wraps his whip around her and she melts.
    When are these coming back to American films,which are now unwatchable
    Check out Bahubali
    Indian films the best

    • St. Mandela II says:

      Masculinity will return to the Silver Screen upon such time as die Menschen running the joint decide that they need soldiers more than they need subjects.

      Or when they are, by the Eternal God, routed out.

  21. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Lmao Jim if you want to see right wing Chinese TV you should watch a palace drama, not this propaganda series.

    • jim says:

      The point is that their propaganda is procapitalist, correctly depicts how the economy needs to function, and, despite the prohibition on showing any actual sexual activity, depicts female sexuality more accurately than is allowed in any American videos, even porn.

      • Koanic says:

        The Chinese have had a long time to figure out female nature. It would appear their artists have not forgotten this tradition, although it is completely lost on the hapless man of the street.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Fair enough, I had an Anglo friend with similar views to me and this blog watch a Chinese movie I recommended to him recently and he enjoyed it greatly due to lack of empowered chicks / implicit HBD / general realism even though that movie was quite prog by PRC standards.

      • St. Mandela II says:

        That Chinese propaganda is realistic on the prospect of sexual relations says nothing whatever about its “procapitalist”-ism.

        Rather it says that the Chinese establishment is not waging total war on its native population.

        The American establishment waged propaganda war on its native population from 1913 until 1933, and from 1963 onward.

        Those are not accidental dates. On Christmas Eve in 1913, in a symbolic twist of the dagger, the Federal Reserve was established. In 1933, Hitler was elected. In 1963, JFK was debrained.

        And sometime starting in the 1990’s or so, the American manufacturing base was packed up and shipped across the Pacific.

        The only real question to ask is this: do you still believe in coincidences?

        • jim says:

          > That Chinese propaganda is realistic on the prospect of sexual relations says nothing whatever about its “procapitalist”-ism.

          The show is capitalist in that the show contains numerous lectures on economics, operating a business, and capital formation, one of which says to audience and the main character: “It is totally within reason for your brigade to be be rich”.

          The show is also capitalist in that it depicts socialists as rabble rousers who will smash up things of value and hurt people in order to steal something trivial.

          • St. Mandela II says:

            In a state of nature, there are only two conditions: subjugator, and subjugatee.

            This is too raw and uncompromising for we “civilized” folk, so we like to dress it up in fancy ideological clothing, but peel back the thin clothy curtain and you will find the same eternal paradigm hiding underneath.

            “Capitalism” and “socialism” are fake concepts, and the dialectic between them is a sham.

            There is only one way to be a rationally self-interested entity in the Darwinian landscape, and that is to support the “capitalism” alectic where it benefits you and the “socialism” alectic where it benefits you.

            Therefore, I support the massive accumulation of wealth inherent to “capitalism” inasmuch as I am advantaged thereby, and I support the redistribution of wealth inherent to “socialism” inasmuch as it finds its way from the pockets of my religion’s heretics, country’s foreigners, self-appointed enemies, and miscellaneous racial and intellectual inferiors, into my own.

            The astute reader will notice that both massive accumulation and redistribution of wealth are direct and inalienable functions of taxation, which is a wholly legitimate enterprise — and is regarded as such by everyone except libertarians, castrati that they are.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          In 1963, JFK was debrained.

          As if anyone could tell the difference.

          • St. Mandela II says:

            Steve Johnson, ever the Catholic basher.

            After visiting these two places you can easily see how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambition for his country, which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.

            Do these words resemble those of a man who failed to comprehend the nature of reality?

            And what is the comprehension of the nature of reality but intelligence itself?

            There is only one law: natural law. We will live or die by our adherence thereto.

            The critical hour is approaching.

            Embrace the struggle for life.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Do these words resemble those of a man who failed to comprehend the nature of reality?

              Was his diary ghost-written? I wouldn’t be against it.

              • Steve Johnson says:


              • St. Mandela II says:

                Maybe. But people forget that the general populace didn’t learn of the Jewish holocaust until the 70’s, and they mostly didn’t believe it until 1993.

                Without the Jewish holocaust, Hitler is just a guy who wanted to own Paris and seize the Reds’ oil.

                Hell, I want to own [Hollywood] and seize the [Venezuelans’] oil.

                I guess that makes me a very bad goy. #LiterallyHitler

            • The Cominator says:

              “Steve Johnson, ever the Catholic basher.” Catholic bashing is based and redpilled and Moldbugs worst trait was his inexplicable liking for Catholicism… International religions cause trouble and celibate priesthoods cause trouble. The papacy needs to be abolished and rolled into the Orthodox Church.

              • jim says:

                You should, of course, make changes in religion while denying you are making changes in religion. So we will roll him back into orthodoxy and demote him to Bishop of Italy, while still calling the him the Pope.

                Most people will hardly notice, as they hardly noticed when the Pope explained that Catholic priests having gay sex in a great big pile was not sinful because everyone involved was an adult, but Global Warming is the most terrible of sins.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The whole idea of the Gregorian Papacy needs to die… if you do it like that it will crawl back. Instead people need to be taught about how Belisarius deposed Silverius as Pope (according to Procopius he designated his wife Antonia as judge in the trial which ordered him deposed for treasonous correspondence with the goths) and that Papal Supremacy of the Gregorian kind is heresy.

                • Mackus says:

                  Easiest way to abolish papacy is not by demoting pope to archbishop, but by elevating some of other archbishoprics into papacies. Thus, Roman papacy ceases being special.
                  There were still some non-roman bishops titled popes way into late X century, until Gregory VII finally banned the practice.

                • jim says:

                  Ah yes, inflation is always easier to get away with than deflation. The Chinese already have in effect a Chinese Pope. So, we just have an American Pope similarly, and in accordance with formalism, actually call him Pope.

                • Koanic says:

                  Real Christians will not call him Pope, which means “Papa”, or “Father”, for we have one Father.

                • Alrenous says:

                  In theory you can lie about your change, then, after everyone is used to the status quo, relatively quietly change the doctrine as well.

                  In practice, Satan is called Father of Lies for a reason.

  22. alf says:

    lol u binge watcher u

    • Alrenous says:

      “It is a vice to concentrate on a task until it is finished.” You sure you want to say that?

      • alf says:

        I bet you’re fun at parties.

        • Alrenous says:

          The expected kind of response. Thank you for playing Alrenous games.

          • alf says:

            No, you don’t understand my response.

            When a man in your tribe does something out of the ordinary, something funny, it is good for tribe cohesion to point that out, in a way that pokes slight fun at that person yet is also respectful. That is what guys in a functioning male group do; they keep each other sharp, they use humor as social glue.

            And this is what my initial comment is: a small poke at Jim, who in the span of, what, 48 hours has watched 10 hours of a Chinese drama series and to top it off has written a review about it on his blog. I think that’s funny, is all.

            But then you go and take it way too serious, as internet spergs are apt to do. ‘How dare you disrespect our glorious leader!’ Nah man it’s just funny is all. It’s about having a good time, kicking the shit with a bunch of guys.

            • Koanic says:

              This is the official PUA-theory of male bonding. However in the Bible I do not find such a thing. Disrespect is not funny and is grounds for murder or putting a wife away. I like this way of thinking better.

              Just as no-homo jokes underline that Westerners do not have the guts to execute Sodomites, needling demonstrates that Westerners are sublethal slaves.

              I do not expect to have time to avenge personal slights within my lifetime, but in case my schedule clears up, I do keep notes. Perhaps a son will feel the need.

              • alf says:

                PUA did not teach me this. Back in the day, most of the PUAs I knew were backstabbing each other regularly and participating in all kinds of low-status power games, e.g. being crappy wingmen. And the gurues were doing the same. It attracted that kind of man, after all.

                My ideas about male bonding are based on my own experiences with healthy relations, which took me a damn long time to figure out.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  That sort of behavior is how fighting men form bonds. It is not disrespectful, it is playful, and useful. A man who cannot take criticisms from his friends cannot be corrected, and is a liability to the group. It is the same reason a man too easily swayed by women loses status among his friends because he has a stronger loyalty outside the group.

                  If you store up grudges, then your son is going to have a short, brutal, and unfruitful life.

                • jim says:

                  Teasing inside the ingroup, after friendship has been demonstrated, is fine.

                  Bullying without a prior history of favors and favors reciprocated really should be dealt with by terrible violence.

                • Koanic says:

                  Girls need teasing, men don’t. I cannot imagine a situation between male friends in which teasing would be better than plain criticism or nothing. In Proverbs, the mocker is a fool.

                • Koanic says:

                  Handling business is orthogonal to holding grudges. In fact, grudges interfere with business efficiency. In a world with Hell, there is no reason to hold a grudge. It is the hopeless powerless who seethe with frustrated fury… despite that the effeminate twist this truth to justify their honorless meekness.

                  The purpose of taking notes is not to hold a grudge, but to prevent forgetting the incident entirely. Action over time reveals character, but memory reconstructs from present mood. If God is taking notes, then so should we.

                • Simon says:

                  How many male friends do you have.

                • Koanic says:

                  You believe that because male friendships in the West typically involve teasing, particularly American ones, that therefore this is the historical norm. In fact, my observation is merely a restatement of the maxim, “An armed society is a polite society.” What is unusual and unsustainable is the removal of the honor duel and private warfare from society, the dysgenic and dyscultural effects of which inevitably lead to civilizational collapse.

                  Real brotherhood is only possible under patriarchy. Which is why soldiers often commit suicide after experiencing the synethetic variety, only to have it ripped away when the State is through with its toys.

                • info says:

                  ”“An armed society is a polite society.” What is unusual and unsustainable is the removal of the honor duel and private warfare from society, the dysgenic and dyscultural effects of which inevitably lead to civilizational collapse.”

                  All warfare involves the cream of manhood to the average man.

                  But never the genetic dregs of the male sex like those with inherited diseases and so forth.

                  It always ends up degrading the male sex as a result.

                • Koanic says:

                  This is an accurate evaluation of modern warfare waged by a monogamous society. However, Biblical warfare is eugenic. To the victor go the spoils, specifically the unspoiled pussy. Moreover, private warfare results in the eradication of dishonorable men, such as the Sodomites of Gibeah. The Law is both hyper- hygienic and eugenic.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Speaking of teasing, Jim, what are your comments on this viral video of a groom slapping the bride for playfully teasing him with the wedding cake?


                • jim says:

                  Notice that immediately after he passes her shit test, she tries to give him the cake genuinely.

                  But, over reaction to playful teasing – should not have allowed it, but should not have let her get to him.

                • Surreal says:

                  >this viral video of a groom slapping the bride for playfully teasing him with the wedding cake?

                  Did nothing wrong.

            • Alrenous says:

              I understand your response perfectly well. I would have explained it almost exactly like that.

              However, your joke is dunamophobic, not dunamophilic. No, you’re not supposed to know what those words mean.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Greek is a pauper’s tongue. Neologising with Chinese is the new hotness. Catch up, grandpa.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  I prefer neologizing with pre-norman aenglisk.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Someone reactionary-adjacent is supposed to find being called ‘old’ an insult?

                  My only regret is not being familiar with proto-indo-European.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I was teasing you, m8. Because that is what males do whenever a teammate acts silly or crosses over into excessive autism.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Yes, and I’m making fun of you for thinking those things matter.

Leave a Reply