Feminism is a shit test, and they are, in desperation, giving us the cheat code to pass it.
The “Handmaid’s tale” is a porn novel for women.
It is often described as fetish novel, biblical Christian sexuality being defined as a fetish.
The novel is set in Christian theocracy, where the theocrats enforce biblical policies on sex to raise fertility for everyone, and especially elite fertility. Albeit one of the measures they take to encourage specifically elite fertility (meaning elite males get more pussy, and chicks get more access to elite males) is to cater to the cuckquean sexual fetish under certain very restricted and limited circumstances, which the bible tolerates but discourages. (So this is not unrealistic for a Biblical theocracy, at least to some degree.) The novel is a cuckquean sex fantasy, and these feminists have dressed themselves as cuckqueans.
The cuckquean sexual fantasy is a threesome with the protagonist as low status concubine, the higher status wife, and the way, way, way, higher status husband. And these feminists are cosplaying the low low status concubine that got a whole lot of sexy sexy dicking from the high high status male
Cuckoldry is a disgusting perversion, being contrary to survival and reproduction. Cuckqueaning is not, it is entirely normal. It is just preselection up close and personal, and you see all women acting on preselection all the time. (Cinderella) So “the Handmaid” sexual fantasy is just Biblical sex roles plus pre-selection.
ICE Agent is the #2 on the world’s most popular AI sexual roleplay app.
I mean it’s true but we all know this. I await the post on basel iii PMs and bitcoin…
PMs?
Precious metals.
Jim, what would your ideal Government, your Government, do?
Organise and fund a military, collect taxes to fund the military, crush threats internal and external capable of impeding its ability to collect taxes, such as organised crime organisations that attempt to compete with the government in extorting protection money. It would delegate the job of dealing with small scale threats to order, unorganised crime, to local authorities.
So far, so simple.
But what is order? Obviously, without order, will not be much in the way of taxes, or even new recruits for the army.
Order requires consensus on who is entitled to do what. The sovereign has to make law, but should make it on the basis of social consensus, his interpretation of the consensus.
In practice. an apparatus for generating social consensus within the elite is something very like priesthood, and will always wind up looking like a state religion.
If the ruler does not have such a mechanism, he will wind up exercising more power than a man can exercise, which will stunt his society and impair its economy. He will also need a large bureaucracy, which he will find very difficult to control, as for example the infamous example of the Chinese bureaucracy.
So, you need throne and altar.
If you have open entry into the priesthood, then you are apt to wind up with ever greater forms of cheap performative holiness. The ruler must therefore ensure that the priesthood is selected on the basis of genuine virtue, demonstrated in everyday life to those who know the priest better than anyone, hence the Pauline requirement that priests be recruited from those who are married with well behaved children and only one wife.
You should add, send all unmarried women over 25 to “rape centers” to be forcibly impregnated by war amputees.
Yes, this would expand the government’s role into matters that were previously handled by family and church, but nations in extreme demographic collapse have no time to fix the culture. Russians think “traditional values” means the USSR; they have no memory of anything before that.
> crime
Jim, what is the maximal list of crimes that your ideal Government, your Government, would Sanction/Fine/Jail/Imprison/Execute, respectively, someone for?
Execution for gang graffiti, for aggravated shoplifting, when the shoplifter physically resists or credibly threatens to resist security, and stuff like that, and for murder or improperly unprovoked assault causing significant injury.
Public beatings for theft, ordinary graffiti, dropping chewing gum on the sidewalk, if the offender cannot make seven fold restitution. Also public beatings for improperly provoked assault that does not cause significant injury.
(An assault is improperly provoked when the assailant initiates bad behaviour, and then commits assault in response to other people objecting, when he should have reasonably expected that such objection was likely.
Example: Martin Trayvon’s assault on George Zimmerman was improperly provoked, because under the circumstances he should have expected hostile questions as to why he was there and what he was doing.)
Any violence ensuing as a result of wrongful acts shall be the fault of the offender who initiated the wrongful act and declined to capitulate to someone who did not like it.
>Public beatings for theft, ordinary graffiti, dropping chewing gum on the sidewalk
Yes, this sums up your real intelectual abilities and the depth of your “philosophy”.
Point and sputter. You make no attempt to argue that those things would be ineffective, or counterproductive, or anything; you harrumph and scold and assume that it’s obvious that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, evil, and uncouth.
It’s not obvious. Public beatings for “minor” offenses work. They deter the “minor” offenses, and people, seeing visible order, are better able to trust each other, follow rules, and maintain civilization. See Singapore. See every society on Earth before 1900 or so. See El Salvador before and after Bukele. Then look at what widespread tolerance of “minor” crimes has done to every major city in the West. You’re the moron here.
Jim said:
“Order requires consensus on who is entitled to do what. The sovereign has to make law, but should make it on the basis of social consensus, his interpretation of the consensus.”
Social consensus… in THIS country, with THESE majority idiots?
Off topic:
Jim: Is there no room in this world for those who do not adhere to your Christian beliefs, your holy books. Can you live side by side, in (absent) harmony, with some who just want to be left alone (and leaving you alone)?
is there room in your world for not moralising and cheap virtue signaling?
The left was suppressing freedom of speech and freedom of association with ever increasing severity from 1820 to the present day, with never a peep out of the libertarians.
Recall when in 2015 the courts injected gay scoutmasters into the boy scouts, who immediately set about sodomizing the scouts under the protection of the judges, with the result that parents stopped sending their kids scouting. Were you then leaving us alone? What did the libertarian party have to say about freedom of association in 2015?
There never was a leave us alone coalition, because the libertarian party just wanted to fuck other people’s children while snorting cocaine off fifty dollar bills. There can never be a “let us alone coalition” because the non breeders are never going to leave the breeders alone. We have to throw the gays off high buildings and enslave the karens, or burn a few of them as witches, or we will never get to enjoy love and family.
The faggots want to fuck our children, and the Karens don’t want younger and prettier women to enjoy love and family.
Remember “Me too”. All those women complaining about being raped ten or twenty years ago back when they were young and hot, but a distinct lack of young hot women complaining about being raped now. Where were the libertarians during “me too”?
The libertarian position is that relationships should be handled by contract, but that does not work for women, children, and men who are natural slaves. So what is the libertarian position on women? That men should not have relations with women? That was pretty much the position of the libertarian party in “me too”.
We have to make the wronged party and the complainant in rape the father or the husband, not the woman. Because women almost never bring rape complaints except they were not raped when they wanted to be, as for example “a rape on campus”, or some high status male who was regularly raping them stopped doing so, as for example “me too”.
And likewise all the Karens outraged by men hitting on younger prettier girls. Girls should be under restraint by their father until under restraint by their husband (de-emancipated), and fatherless girls need to be institutionalised and/or married off extremely young.
Harsh, but all true… except the association you imply with me. I am no libertarian by group affiliation; I would like to think of sovereignty, but that appears to impossible this day. Must there by labels? I am but a simple man, a few children, and looking forward to grandchildren – with a dream of no overlords. I am not alone, you know this. I am also not organized, which may ultimately be my downfall.
I do not recall, how do you feel about the Amish? Are they to be left alone in your future world? Do they not allow “foreigners” to co-exist – I really do not know?
Rules for the ignorant seems obvious, but I need no king, nor god. Is it not possible to know what is right and what is wrong simply by existing as an ethical human being? The old Golden Rule. I have no intention of forcing my views on you and yours, yet you seem to think that that is the only way – your way – the claimed righteous way apparently… forced on all?
>libertarian party bla bla bla
For the record, your comments on libertarianism are dishonest nonsense. You are completely unable to refute libertarian philosophy, so you make up bullshit about it.
Furthermore, as an advocate of government and taxation you are an advocate of organized theft and murder of those who resist. You are an enemy of private property and as such an obvious communist.
If that wasn’t bad enough you are a blatant imperialist, meaning your gang of commies violate property rights and murder people worldwide.
Your system of destruction – of communist, anti-property, “left wing” destruction, will destruct you.
On whose side was the libertarian party when the left was turning the big blue cities into nightmare shitholes?
What makes a big blue city a nightmare that people are fleeing is not primarily taxes and regulation. The libertarian party is the party of open borders, sodomy, abortion, and fentanyl. How is that working out in the big blue megalopoli?
this is a major problem of Jimianity, they cannot leave people the fuck alone.
Jimianity simply cannot comprehend that anti-pedo anti-fag anti-karen can will and does exist without Jimianity.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Does it exist just fine without Jimianity? Obviously not. Can it exist just fine without Jimianity?
We cannot live with these people.
If you watch Tucker’s “Why are you gay” interview with Milo, it revolves around a clip of a Nigerian politely asking serious questions about gay, and about controversies about Nigeria.
Why Nigeria? Nigeria is the one country in the world where the major Christian Church is, as organised hierarchical religion, fully Gafcon, old type Christian, old type Anglican.
Empirically, we cannot do it without old type Christianity as an organised institution exercising real power.
Without the existence of Anglican Church of Nigeria, that interview just could not have been be anything like what it was.
The priesthood of Anglican Church of Nigeria is entirely male, almost entirely married with children, and does not allow women to speak in Church, nor to teach men. And, of course, does not solemnise gay unions, and is, unfortunately, the core organising and funding force of Gafcon, though I hope and expect to see white Gafcon Episcopalianism in the US once Maga is forced to reluctantly embrace its Christian Nationalist wing, for lack of reliable people to carry out what needs to be done. Trump needs one hundred Pete Hegseths, if only to deport the non criminal illegal aliens and imprison the rioters.
Gafcon in the US is currently a bit too black, because black Episcopalian priests get the black exemption from being required to suck cock, and because of disproportionate Nigerian influence on Gafcon.
A reply to: Off topic:
Jim: Is there no room in this world for those who do not adhere to your Christian beliefs, your holy books. Can you live side by side, in (absent) harmony, with some who just want to be left alone (and leaving you alone)?
Jim has responded in detail about how so often the “people who just want to be left alone” will not actually leave other people alone, and therefore are not sincere. If they won’t respect our beliefs, why should we respect theirs?
But the general answer? Of course there is room in this world for people of other beliefs. Just not always in the same country or under the same government.
It’s like asking if there is “room in this world” for someone who wants to play the bagpipes at midnight when other people are trying to sleep. Sure there is: where we don’t have to hear it.
I figured you’d enjoy it.
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/what-women-want-2/#comment-2985149
Also https://blog.reaction.la/war/trumps-twenty-eight-point-peace-plan/#comment-2985353
> Gilead’s young war heroes get fourteen-year-old virgin brides, while older men of good standing,
> if their wives have failed to bear children, get surrogates. Cat-ladies and other useless people get
> sent to “the colonies” which are actually mobile forced-labor battalions.
I had no idea the plot was that amusing.
Several decades ago, Harpers carried a translation of a Saudi Arabian review of Atwood’s book, in which the reviewer either did not understand or could not admit that the novel was supposed to be dystopian.
There was an uproariously funny bearded-chad-vs-handmaiden cartoon that might have made the rounds here a while ago, in which the Handmaiden (dressed in the outfit) in which the Handmaiden makes groundless but increasingly pornographic accusations against the Bearded Chad with the last one being something like “you just want to drive your member into my fertile womb!”. Basically making Jim’s point in a funnier meme-ish way.
“ Harpers carried a translation of a Saudi Arabian review of Atwood’s book”
A link to this ?
It was pre-Internet, so probably not online. I would love to read it again.
For a very low status male, a limited cuckoldry is actually quite decent reproduction strategy: A low status male takes a former concubine of high-status male as wife after the latter got bored of her. He gets a hot woman and resources from high status male, neither of which he’d have realistic chance of acquiring. Worked decently well for biological children of Herluin de Conteville.
Of course that strategy is significantly less optimal in society where instead of being granted land and titles he’s saddled with child support, and the father of bastard he’s baby-ing is Jeremy Meeks and not Robert Duke of Normandy.
The guy who married Riley Reid gets mocked online, but his chances of getting a wife who wasn’t fugly, was rich, probably is horny all the time, and probably maybe even having any kids… well it was probably very low. He should definitely get a paternity test but I’m sure in his mind the negatives of his wife being a notorious whore were probably outweighed by the fact that his alternatives if any were 300 lbs or over.
Grim.
Jim, what do you think about Bruce Fenton (Muslim, Maxi) doing one of the Islamic things against Christians and Christianity by apologizing for the Leftist criminal Church attackers and demeaning the prosecution? Do you think he is “Libertarian” in doing this? Do you think he is “Bitcoin” in doing this? Do you think he is truly still of “Good Will / NAP” after having displayed such Islamism?
I don’t think of him. Don’t know who he is, do not care.
But you know what I think of Islam and the few remaining Libertarians, and therefore what I think of Islamic Libertarians.
Here is what I think of libertarians.
Old type Islam is an ally against Globohomo and feminism, but they will resume focus on murdering Christians the moment that Globohomo ceases to be the larger threat. Libertarian Islam is postIslamic, allied with globohomo and feminism, and never lost its focus on murdering Christians.
There is no libertarian left, rendering the Nolan Chart nonsense. The position of the remaining atheist and postChristian libertarians (there are no Christian libertarians) is “Just bake the cake, why don’t you.”
I refuse to bake the cake, [*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
We did not see any libertarians refusing to bake the cake, and the libertarian party position was “just bake the cake why don’t you”. And when the judges injected gays into scouting, their position was “yay, sodomy is going to fix all that toxic masculinity”.
Similarly, they somehow forgot all about freedom of association when karens were injected into every male only space, Jews into the country club, and niggers into every white space.
Until “bake the cake” there were some sincerely deluded libertarians but they were never a significant force in the libertarian party. After “bake the cake”, no sincerely deluded libertarians. We cannot live with these people, we have to eradicate them, or put them into ghettos and reservations that they are not permitted to leave. Lock all the Karens in the red light district. Or burn a few as witches to quiet down the rest.
Libertarians in New Hampshire are not as cucked as you are making them out to be. The problem really is not Libertarianism as an impulse, which most often is a healthy impulse, a drive to the rights and liberties of the freemen you might have found in a newly established township on the fronteir between Christian and Islamic Iberia. Healthy germanic man wants to be in a political state where he rules himself and his household, has a lot of say over his community but cannot outright rule over or be ruled over by others except in times of emergency, and finds the taxes light and the King very busy and far away. This is the state Libertarians seem to actually want, if you ignore their Stockhom-syndrome’d rationalizations about how this state of being is actually the most holy and leftist state of being there is actually. The problem is as always and everywhere entryist faggots arguing that this thing was actually about gay sex, in fact it was always about gay sex, and who cares about anything besides gay sex anyway, so let them come in your country, town, neighborhood, household, and we can have gay sex with them.
Men like Hoppe spotted the fags early on, and understood the problem they represented to actual freedoms, but being far removed from the rhetoric and philosophy of men like Sir Robert Filmer, and finding his audience even farther removed from such, had to cage his rhetoric in more benign philosophy. Instead of divine right of the patriarch, we get contractual rights of the community members, which is kinda sorta okay, except for the unprincipled exception thing, which kills it.
We do need libertarian rhetoric, because as it stands we’re looking at anarchotyranny of one kind of another, since we lack the IQ needed for a pleasant self-regulating society, but we need to coopt the rhetoric into the framework of a divine hierarchy instituted by Gnon, who wants his subjects to flourish under their full powers of being, rather than rhetoric of “let people enjoy things (AIDS bug chasing sex)!”. People are tired of the swings into police state of one form or another, into command economics of one form or another, which will reduce the legitimate state’s mandate to actually confront our problems, and we will instead see a sort of post-USSR demoralization and dysfunction and decay.
That, obviously, is the primary problem with the libertarian party. Which has been totally faggotized.
But there always has been another problem. The failure to appreciate the need for cohesion, organised violence, and coercion to fund that organised violence and enforce that cohesion.
When libertarian thinkers point at libertarian polities that have existed in history, they fail to notice that these had a quite forcible enforced state religion.
It was a lot easier for the sovereign to let people themselves enforce right conduct, if everyone agrees on what right conduct is.
If jaggard time travelled to one of Hoppe’s libertarian principalities and started preaching, he would probably be interpreted as a radical Hussard and executed for heresy.
Hoppe correctly points out that his libertarian principalities engaged in productive and constructive competition with each other, while failing to notice that when they engaged in violent, destructive, and coercive competition with each other, the Holy Roman Emperor was apt to take a dim view of it. His principalities were sovereign under the emperor, but there were unwritten limits to that sovereignty.
Bishop and emperor would organise meetings where powerful people representing each principality would talk things out and reach a consensus. They were not exactly legislatures, since it was never apparent how much authority they had, but if one failed to pay attention to the consensus, bad things might well happen. The limits to sovereignty were unwritten, elastic, varied over time, and people were never quite sure what were.
I would like a little more emphasis on the “Freehold” part of the “Throne, Altar, and Freehold” plan.
People fight for liberty. Liberty, under sane definition, close to the meaning of freehold. I see the attraction of the NRx project in material outcomes is dependant on the restoration of property rights as understood by our civilization before it started forgetting itself.
Focusing too much on Altar can lead to Iran. The very holy priests back in charge, running everything into the dirt but in a way that makes the society very holy. I worry even our based churches may be susceptible to such outcomes, because all the other churches are already like this. It’s clearly an easy path to go down, to turn everything into making sure women get everything they want, including making it high status to be a whore, so long as she says afterwards Jesus loves her (no apology or repentance needed, of course). Churchian morality is good on encouraging virtue in male cooperative endeavor but has failed miserably on encouraging virtue in male-female cooperative endevor. This seems structural to me, the Christian theology quickly breaks down property rights, the most important of which are property rights in family. Romans may have made it to today had they not messed with the property rights of the husand and father.
The rhetoric we see today is mostly fine and understands virtue in matters of how to treat neighbors and business partners, and it instinctively recognizes race and ethnicity and tribe. It does not understand property rights in family. Your kids belong to everyone else, but not to you. It is sort of coming around to property rights in wife, well after she “consents” to the “contract” between her and you, as equals in this business relationship. Is not coming around to you locking your daughter in the attic room while you look around for suitors.
To change subject but keep the topic, allow me to bring up political violence. It’s in the wind. What does Throne and Altar offer the average soldier? Why should he care who is king, and why should he care for one Altar or another? Post-Christianity was once attractive, and can be again. They’ll offer everything to the fighters. What will you offer?
Generations ago, when the Qing fell, everyone was looking around for the next thing. The Monarchists lost, because all the generals asked, “what’s in it for me?”; they joined the Republicans. Freehold is what’s in it for /our guys/, and if we want our guys to be of good cheer, to feel like they have something to win, we shouldn’t be squeamish about telling them all about the liberties they will enjoy. Liberties that actually matter, like not being crushed under 1000 party bugocrats, not “liberties” like anal sex with immigrant browns.
I don’t care about libertarians as a political force or entity. I do care about libertarian rhetoric being understood as a mutated form of something very healthy and on offer to those that embrace our set of ideas.
As I stated if I were head of internal security or at least counterintelligence for a hypothetical Jimian monarchy i would not generally be interested in hunting down libertarians and i outright like Hoppean libertarians. They would be fine if they aren’t loudly trying to denounce the monarchy as illegitimate, didn’t speak up for leftists and jesuits and didn’t try to teach that women are equal agency people who should have rights.
Whereas with leftists I would actively examine and profile everyone anyone who tests as a leftist gets assessed for redeeming qualities and degree of zealotry and depending you either go to a reeducation camp you might come back from or a camp in Alaska or Greenland you definitely wont come back from.
What would be the most accurate political compass then? Does the idea of political compass even make sense, or was it from the start just a libertarian attempt to gaslight everyone into thinking they weren’t fully on board with leftism?
The one alternative that I came up with would be axis of aristocratic/common power and centralized/decentralized power. That being said, I came up with it quite a while ago, and it’s more of an anecdote now than a serious attempt on replacing the “classic” economic and personal freedoms compasses:
aristocratic-decentralized are provincial nobles who want to rule their fiefdoms with weak central authority, aristocratic-centralized are court nobles who want monopoly on jobs in centralized bureaucratic state (Byzantium, Heian Japan), common-centralized are all the egalitarian “meritocratic” spawn of the French-revolution, common-decentralized are largely non-existent, but Jacksonian Democrats and the few genuinely misguided Libertarians would probably qualify as them.
In hindsight, a some sort of stratocracy/theocracy and Gnon/demonic axis would probably be more on point to classify underlining ideology rather than fine point of distribution of power between social classes.
> Most accurate political compass
I’m not sure but I can improve the accuracy of it. Left libertarian states have never existed and the very few people who sort of have politics like that (they tend to be hippieish girls who on a personal level tend to be very sweet natured as far as women go) its irrelevant. Right libertarians are slightly more relevant but not by very much.
Politics tends to be dominated by “authoritarians” since the group that wants to rule will over time beat the group that wants to be left alone. Being in the leave me alone group reminds me of what was said by the moderate parliamentarians during the English civil war. We could win 100 times and he would still be king but if we lose once we are hanged and are children are slaves, something like that. Cromwell then angrily demanded of the man that if this was the case why did we ever bother taking up arms against the king. Now I know we have monarchist sympathies here but I think most of us in the past have acknowledged that Cromwell was in many ways a very great man. Being in a leave us alone faction of politics puts you in a position where you have to win every time and the other side has to win once…
You have to be willing to impose your ideology and rule. Cromwell whatever his flaws was rightfully willing to take power and rule because as he correctly percieved it was foolish to be fighting if someone on your side isn’t willing to do that.
We win or we die. The time of Republics has ended.
Once again, I’ll ask about the Amish: are they to be left alone?
I, myself, would be even less of a hindrance to your cleansing of the country. Am I a threat in some way, or is it simply because I do not accept your lord and savior? You don’t need to quote your great books, but do they really say kill all non-believers? I do agree though, that many need to die – a massive purge indeed. Me though, there is no need. However, I also believe that you will never get to the head of the snake, and what ever entity is propelling this horrendous evil world will eventually re-establish its filthy control.
If I were the creator, and had [eventually] given homo sapiens sapiens (if you buy that lineage) the ability to “think” (after several trial species) and also handle what is commonly called “random mutations”, then I would have built in a failsafe – to wipe the slate clean. This is what is needed NOW. Yes, I accept I would likely die as well. This ELE we see cyclically at 2/24,000 years. Like my simple thinking, did the big man know we humans would turn to shit?
I personally would leave people alone unless active or former shitlibs or illegals. Former shitlibs need to have changed sides by the time im in power or they go to a camp they dont come back from. If it were up to me.
You seem worried that Jim would target irreligious people or something if not shitlibs. Not our plan as far as I know, you need to conform if you want a state or quasi state job. Certain hostile religions might be banned/made to gradually leave the country. Some will be tolerated (I see no reason to target Taoists and Buddhists).
I don’t think he is actually asking about the Amish. That is just a rhetorical flourish — implying that persecuting faggots for sodomy is like persecuting Amish for their faith.
His complaint is that Throne and Altar is not libertarian. OK. It is not. So?
During the twentieth and twenty first century, libertarianism did not cover itself in glory. As I said before: The faggots said that they just wanted to be left alone. Did they just want to be left alone? No they did not! No one wants to be left alone, except for some feral cats.
This is such a stupid question that I cannot believe you asked it in good faith.
Surely the answer I already gave should be clear enough for anyone, so I am not going to repeat myself yet again.
Tell me, what is there that makes you think they would not be left alone? What was wrong or missing about my previous answer that caused you disquiet?
You asked, and I ignored the question
Well, you do in fact need a king and a God, unless you are living alone in the wilderness like a feral cat.
In order to get by, you need to interact with other people. In order for people to have non violent interactions they need rules. From the standpoint of the individual, those rules are imposed on him from above and outside.
Obviously it is, but this does not suffice to avoid deadly conflict.
Bob does something Dave does not like, but he is arguably entitled to do. Dave does not agree with that argument, and does something back. And then it is on.
There are always grey areas, special cases, and exceptions to the rules, and people are going to disagree on them in favor of their own interests.
You are not going to be allowed to do what you want, because other people want to do what they want, and you are going to get in their way and they are going to get in your way. Suck it up, or we are going to whack you.
The faggots said that they just wanted to be left alone. Did they just want to be left alone? No they did not! No one wants to be left alone, except for some feral cats.
>> Is it not possible to know what is right and what is wrong simply by existing as an ethical human being?
>Obviously it is
Different people have different ethics, so what is right and what is wrong will naturally differ. Some people have shit ethics and are incapable of simply existing amongst a good and orderly society. Someone needs to exist to deal with that, otherwise you get California at best and Somalia at worst.
I’m detecting a strong whiff of snark in the way you use the phrases like “lord and savior” and “holy books”. Which makes me think, “F-tier omega atheist who was cast out of the New Atheist community for failure to worship the almighty vagina.”
This thing we call Nrx is composed of a great many former atheists, pagans, even Jews, who from a sober study of history, all arrived at the same inescapable conclusion that western civilization was built on Christianity, and essentially is just Christianity at scale, and that the west has suffered greatly and is now having a catastrophic meltdown largely due to its decline. Thus, “fake it till you make it”, those who don’t truly feel the faith will have to learn to either pretend they do or at least shut the hell up about it.
There is indeed going to be no place in society for the vocal atheists, the ones who snort and snark over “holy books” and “sky daddy” and make ludicrous comparisons to flying spaghetti monsters. They had their fun, but now those days are over and no one cares what they think, not even other militant atheists.
And Jim’s quirky version of Christianity is easily the least demanding of all denominations in terms of unverifiable, faith-based assertions and ritual worship. It accepts Darwin without reservation. It asserts that God works through material and effective causation. It only demands positive affirmations from those would apply to state or quasi-state positions, meaning, y’know, priests. Unlike judges and state officials, plumbers and programmers don’t really need to do anything at all except be decent to their neighbors.
If that’s not enough for you, then the answer is no, you can’t be in the club, because you still don’t get it.
DSKlausler
Exactly: So here is Reactionary Christianity 101 for Reddit atheists: Your only socially acceptable excuse for not worshipping the almighty vagina is going to be Christianity. You just are not going to get away with it without God at your back.
Neither you individually, or society as social organisation.
Sorry, missing Reply buttons on a number of posts made in response to mine.
The Cominator: “…worried that Jim would target irreligious people or something”.
Quite right. Mostly harmless people. I might add.
“lord and savior… holy books: just trying to be reasonably respectful of those here including mostly: the host.
Yeah, OK already Jim, the faggots wanted to be left alone, but THEY wouldn’t shut the fuck up and go away. How does that equate with my singularity, or family, or extended family… or all the like-minded people who KNOW how to shut the fuck up. In actuality, I don’t give a shit about your beliefs, they are YOURS and I have no intention of speaking against them.
I have nothing to say about the Amish EXCEPT that THEY leave others alone – for the most part… and they shut the fuck up. I just wanted to know if that was OK with you – THAT is all.
Daddy Scarebucks: “If that’s not enough for you, then the answer is no, you can’t be in the club, because you still don’t get it.”
It is enough, for you, and for me to leave you alone. I don’t want to be in the club, I just want to literally coexist – as trite as that may sound.
I must be missing something still, Jim, you address what I have said as if I am the only one, or one of a few… you’re a smart guy, surely you know there are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of those who might live as a community, yet have no church, and no king. Leaving you alone, of course. “Alone” meaning you and your followers… just like when I say “alone”, I mean me and those like me.
“…unless you are living alone in the wilderness like a feral cat.” Come on, that’s it, be like you and yours, or I’m a feral cat?
“…and you are going to get in their way and they are going to get in your way”
Simply untrue. It will however, be my job to get far enough away not to get in yours.
“Suck it up, or we are going to whack you”
We, as in you and yours? Funny given you know little of me… except a few words.
Pax: “Different people have different ethics…”
How right you are, and that is difficult, but not insurmountable.
I am no more going to answer that insulting and absurd question than you are going to answer my question about the cum all over your face.
Asking the question presupposes that I have said, we have said, what we have explicitly denied over, and over, and over.
That is not a question. It is a claim. And the claim is manifestly untrue.
When you say “Amish” what you actually mean is “faggot schoolteachers transitioning your children without your knowledge or permission”. Because obviously actual Amish are going to be just as fine in a reactionary society as they are in Singapore or Dubai.
The question is not a question, it is assertion, a lie. By presupposing an untruth, you assert that reaction is the opposite of reaction, that it is the opposite of what we have told you over and over and over that it is. You lie.
Libertarianism is “everyone shall bake the cake”. Because libertarianism has to be intolerant of “intolerance”.
Reaction is the opposite. Intolerance is mandatory, and tolerance will result in unpleasant social pressure, and in extreme cases, violent legal coercion.
No one wants to be a feral cat. So, certain rights and liberties must unavoidably intrude into other people’s rights and liberties, and by taking an extremely broad view of certain rights and liberties, libertarianism must unavoidably and necessarily take a very narrow of other rights and liberties. We think you have a right to a safe, clean, and harmonious environment. Which means that some people need a public flogging. Let us take a look at some cities that are safe, clean, and harmonious. Are they libertarian?
Because gays and druggies act as they act, libertarianism in practice is necessarily and unavoidably men in the girls bathroom, hypodermic needles on the pavement, and tampons in the boys bathroom. It is necessarily and unavoidably the destruction of every male space, because the existence of any male space anywhere is “intolerance” that impairs the inherent rights, freedom, dignity of women. A male space is, you have told us “disdain for women”. Well, we cannot let “disdain” impede the liberty of a woman can we?
>Libertarianism is “everyone shall bake the cake”.
Nope. That’s a ridiculous lie. The only way you can pretend to argue againt libertarianism is by blatantly lying about it. And that is because you have no real argument against libertarianism.
In a free society people who want to sell cakes to faggots are free to do so, and people who don’t want to sell cake to faggots are free to not sell cakes to faggots.
Our empirical experience of libertartians in the twenty first century and late twentieth century has been that you refuse to merely coexist.
Nobody wants to live like a feral cat. So, we have to live together, and in practice the question then inevitably arises, how shall we live together. Your way, or our way?
We think that people have the right to a safe, harmonious, and clean environment, and in practice every city that has exemplary success in providing a safe, clean, and harmonious environment does so by means that most libertarians vehemently object to.
Conversely, every society that provide a social environment that to some degree corresponded to anarcho capitalism or voluntarism had a conspicuous lack of safety, and indeed a conspicuous lack of cities. The Hebrews do not seem to have been able to urbanise while they had judges, and their cities remained insignificant or nonexistent until they had Kings. From which may conclude that under judges, their cities were very far from safe, clean, and harmonious.
No nobody is going to fuck with irreligious people who want to be left alone who aren’t leftists, or harmless anabaptists, or Mormons (though ex Mos tend to be leftists and being an ex Mo will paint a target on your back for surveillance). As far as religious groups go Catholics wont be targeted themselves but their clergy will be in for ruthless treatment… Jesuits immediate arrest mandatory interrogation under full torture followed by execution. All other clergy examined to see if homosexual or leftist (death in either case) vacant churches to become “American Orthodox”. The aim would be to erase Catholicusm from the country gradually without actually targeting lay Catholics as just more and more catholic priests and churches would disappear.
You need to be a member in nominally good standing of the state religion for state and quasi state jobs with exceptions requiring an individualized dispensing order from the monarch.
Again: no Reply button available.
Jim: “When you say “Amish” what you actually mean is “faggot schoolteachers transitioning your children without your knowledge or permission”.
Actually, no I don’t. I mean the Amish as a separate somewhat differing religion based group – that is all. Mine would be non-religious, of course.
Jim: “Because obviously actual Amish are going to be just as fine in a reactionary society as they are in Singapore or Dubai.”
Thank you; that’s all I wanted.
I was cast out of no group. You like labels; I’ll use one of yours for convenience. I became an [atheist] more than half a century ago. I chose to separate myself from the preposterous “teachings” in blind faith, blind obedience, and blinding ignorance of a world once more easily fooled – and weak.
Yes, Jim, I was waiting for you to get back to this, like me, you save everything:
“A male space is, you have told us “disdain for women”. Well, we cannot let “disdain” impede the liberty of a woman can we?”
Would you believe me if I said that I have changed my mind – with information from you, and the participants here? My son, a more astute, and introspective individual than I, also guided my thinking. On minorities as well – although those were more obvious, to me… first hand. [I do love a few terms that I read here (first): “Street shitter”; and “plains ape”.] I have been suspect of “feminism” for a while, but clearer now is that it was a designed program to purposely destroy the family – men of course, as the head. But to the women: yes, I was way off. I bought much of the bullshit for a long time – complacency. Sometimes you need to be kicked, hard, to wake up. Ditch the liberty of women entirely.
YOU WILL NOT BE LEFT ALONE IN YOUR IMPOSSIBLE LIBERTARIAN FANTASY, BECAUSE BAD PEOPLE WHO COORDINATE WITH EACH OTHER WILL DEFEAT GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON’T COORDINATE WITH EACH OTHER.
AND HAVING A COMMON IDEOLOGY/RELIGION/BELIEF SYSTEM IS ONE OF THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR COORDINATION.
There. You can continue to argue against this if you like, but you cannot pretend that you aren’t aware of the argument being made on our side.
>BAD PEOPLE WHO COORDINATE WITH EACH OTHER WILL DEFEAT GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON’T COORDINATE WITH EACH OTHER.
So libertarians need some kind of defense, like anybody else. Have libertarians ever denied this? Of course not.
>AND HAVING A COMMON IDEOLOGY/RELIGION/BELIEF SYSTEM IS ONE OF THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR COORDINATION.
Yeah, and the common ideology happens to be known as libertarianism.
>you cannot pretend that you aren’t aware of the argument being made on our side.
What argument. You are arguing against something that is not libertarianism.
Which libertarian tells us what that ideology is?
Presumably the libertarian party, which tells us “just bake the cake, why don’t you.
On issues such as this there are enormous differences between one libertarian and the next — which in an anarcho capitalist or voluntarist society would necessarily result in people fighting each other. Bob says Dave is aggressing, Dave says Bob is aggressing, so they have to fight it out.
A whole lot of libertarians are faggots with an out of control drug habit. This irritates other people, who would presumably do something to restrain them. Aggression!
Let’s take a look at your C.V. Jim – What’s the connection between the nonsense you constantly say about libertarianism and the fact that your website has a large collection of libertarian literature? That’s very very odd isn’t it.
Why would a third rate authoritarian like you keep a library of libertarian literature? That’s a plainly absurd action if taken at face value. But pretty much what a “fed” sowing confusion would do.
And what about the fact that you’ve roleplayed for a long time as a “cypherpunk”….when in reality you are a mouthpiece for techno oligarchs and their police-surveillance state? Wait, wouldn’t pretending to be a cypherpunk be a typical “fed” move.
Your obsesssion with “shills” is pretty entertaining if we look at what you actually are…
Can I call ’em, or can I call ’em? Less than a day to transition from:
to
Listen up, you retarded fedora-tipper: you can cry all you want that you just want to be left alone, but no one cares anymore. The left doesn’t care, because micromanagement is simply part of their programming; We don’t care, because we don’t believe you, and your actions continue to prove us right.
You say you will leave us alone, but you won’t. You are going to screech about prayer in schools. You are going to screech about witness oaths in court, and replicas of the ten commandments. You are going to screech about “One Nation Under God”. You are going to harumph and make exasperated noises every time someone mentions their church, or Sunday school, or trying to be a Good Christian or raising their kids Christian. If the local church organizes something as innocuous as a bake sale, you are going to be complaining to everyone who will listen that it’s just a facade to proselytize, and try to organize a boycott.
You are of the type that never, ever shuts up; what we call a public nuisance, not quite so bad as the Karens you deplore but not very far off either. An atheist who knows how to shut up and leave other people alone is usually going to call himself “agnostic” and we have no quarrel with him, much like we aren’t very interested in closeted faggots who manage to live more or less as if they were straight. The ones who shove it in our faces, though, are going to get public beatings, or worse.
“You have me all wrong”, I hear you saying. “I’m just an inoffensive hermit who eats, works and sleeps, I get along with almost everyone and never bother anyone unless they’re committing or threatening violence against me.” Well then, you have nothing to worry about, do you? No one in or near power is even going to be aware that you exist, aside from a few county clerks and tax collectors. What do you care even if every single person in the government, media, entertainment and academy becomes Born Again? You don’t interact with them anyway.
But you wouldn’t be here demanding answers to these questions if that were true, would you?
Truly, you are a freethinker and intellectually superior
Also, what is this latest lolbertarian attack vector? As if we haven’t rebuked libertarianism for over a decade now.
The problem unambigiously with libertarians is that people who don’t want power are almost always ruled by those who do which is the great disadvantage of the fight against the left. Hoppean monarchy (not his more ideal anarchy) is the most libertarian system that could plausibly survive.
So go seasteading with all the other libertardians.
If your ideology worked, you wouldn’t have to blather on about it, you’d just hook up with some other fellow travelers and set up your own ancap utopia. Problem solved.
But you can’t, because other people want to take stuff from you, and you can’t stop them. If your ideology requires the rest of the world to change its basic nature, then it can’t ever work in practice.
Hoppe came closest to a practical blueprint, but Hoppe’s solution is coup-complete, and Hoppe never successfully contended with the fact that any individual or collective able to carry out such a coup would have little interest in deploying Hoppean libertarianism as the new state religion. The very best of you were never able to advance beyond mere thought-experiments; and you are far, far from the very best.
No amount of vitriolic huffing and puffing is going to make you right, and your unfathomably abrasive and frankly abusive presentation suggests that even other libertardians have a hard time putting up with you, which I assume is why you take out all your aggression here. Have you ever considered that maybe the problem isn’t the rest of humanity, it’s you?
Hoppean libertarianism would be great for an Empire if you could setup a vassal kingdom with it as a special economic zone. For a large kingdom/empire at the center i think it would have stability problems unless you were really zealous about the physical removal part…
Yes, Hoppean libertarianism would unquestionably work great as a special semi autonomous economic zone within the empire, and a whole lot of principalities within the Holy Roman Empire did in fact work great as libertarian economic zones, if one accepts the Hoppean principle that property rights in people are legitimate.
Which most libertarians do not: Self ownership for everyone, even those innately incapable of exercising self ownership. But what do you do with women, children, and what do you do with people who are no damned good? Most women are biologically maladapted to self ownership, because their ancestral environment of successful reproduction was as property.
In the Hoppean system, people who were no good tended to wind up as serfs, and people who were seriously no damned good tended to wind up as lay brothers in isolated monasteries where they worked on the farm and were not allowed to leave, which made them better than slaves, but worse than serfs, because a serf is owned by his lord, but owns his land, while lay brothers owned neither themselves, nor the land that they worked.
And, if you are a voluntarist or anarcho capitalist, how are you going to resolve such disagreements among libertarians?
Lethally.
In the Hoppean system jaggard probably would have been executed as a heretic, probably they would have interpreted him as a radical Hussard. (The radical faction of the Hussards was losing its religious coloration, and turning into something very like late twentieth century revolutionaries, and the entirely valid Hussard criticism of heretical Roman Catholic doctrine was turning among the radicals into something very like twenty first century reddit atheism, so there is a considerable resemblance.)
Me: “HAVING A COMMON IDEOLOGY/RELIGION/BELIEF SYSTEM IS ONE OF THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR COORDINATION.”
Jaggard: “Yeah, and the common ideology happens to be known as libertarianism.”
That won’t work, because “Everybody do your own thing” is not actually coordination.
If I may paraphrase Captain America, in The Winter Soldier: There is a difference between an army, and a bunch of guys with guns.
LOL, at least you’re amusing now. The answer to your question is that Jim used to be a libertarian. And before that, he was a Trotskyite in his dissolute youth, which I also find incredibly hilarious, but that’s another topic.
I am still a libertarian, in the sense of a Hoppean libertarian.
But Hoppean liberty only existed, and only could exist, under the protection of the Holy Roman Emperor. A fact that Hoppe tends to overlook. When the emperor’s hand weakened, conflicts ensued, in which states that were very from libertarian came out on top.
jaggard is horrified by Hoppean libertarianism. I was never horrified by it.
Hoppes vision is the Holy Roman Empire without an Emperor. There is an obvious problem with that. The peaceful competition between principalities he describes worked because the emperor would bang some heads when it became unpeaceful.
Replying (belatedly) to Neurotoxin
>That won’t work, because “Everybody do your own thing” is not actually coordination.
“Everybody do your own thing” is just a partial description of libertarianism and ignores the framework behind it : rights to life liberty and property. And libertarians are well aware that those rights need to be defended, and confused libertarians even want a state to do it.
So what did you just do? You misrepresented libertarianism again.
> The answer to your question is that Jim used to be a libertarian.
I asked why this site poses as a “libertarian” site today. Jim allegedly being a libertarian in the past is not a reason for him to keep the library/libertarian advertising now. So your answer is wrong and ignores my point.
And even more important, Jim was never a libertarian. At best he was some kind of “conservative”, always subverting political economy to defend big business and the rich and their state privileges. Mercantilism in a word.
> And before that, he was a Trotskyite in his dissolute youth
That sounds a lot more plausible since Jim is clearly a totalitarian. Right wing totalitarian or left wing totalitarian, or techno totalitarian, it all makes little difference.
Not to mention, technocrats and commies are especially close if not identical. And to top if off trosktytes are of course fucking joos. So everything aligns…
>jaggard is horrified by Hoppean libertarianism.
More nonsense. Even Hoppe is still libertarian enough to make minced meat of the jew-neocon-trumpists.
Empirically, Libertarians do not agree on what those rather vague and broad rights are. So, assuming everyone is a libertarian, and there are no organised hostile groups proclaiming “property is theft!”, how do you enforce them.
Well, you need consensus, which empirically libertarian organisations fail at miserably, and you need one man to authoritatively declare what the consensus is, and enforce it. Or else men will have to fight. There are always gray areas, and one man aggressively pushes up to what he thinks is the very edge of the line, and the other man thinks he has stepped over the line, and fights.
And, in an issue that is now becoming extinction level urgent, you need family. Which means some kind of property rights in people, and libertarians definitely do not agree on what those rights are. You seriously object to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s and Peter Wilson’s view on that — they rather liked not just patriarchy, but serfdom and all that, and their views on religious tolerance are similar to my own. Those who deviate from the official religion should not forced to convert, etcetera, but denying them equal rights is OK.
Not only do libertarians not agree on property rights in people, they don’t even agree upon property rights in things — recall the terrifying violent and oppressive “anarchists” of Catalonia.
I am a Libertarian of Hoppe variety, and my unkind words about libertarians are because in practice libertarians, and in particular the faggot libertarian party, are now aligned with the oppressive and aggressively intrusive faith of Woke. “Just bake the cake why don’t you.” The trouble with all libertarians these days is that they are fine with the demonic state religion of Woke enforcing highly unequal rights, but violently object to prayer in schools and identifiably Christian Christmas trees in the public square.
So where on that slippery slope are you located? And wherever you are located, it is going to be different from where other libertarians are located. You call me a totalitarian because I agree with Hoppe on how a Libertarian polity should be organised. You also call me a totalitarian because I like the Holy Roman Empire and claim Hoppe’s libertarian polities could not exist except under a Holy Roman Emperor capable of preventing one of his polities from gobbling up another — which is very much Peter Wilson’s position. Is Peter Wilson not a libertarian?
And wherever you are located on that slippery slope, it is far enough down that slope that it denies my right to a safe and clean social environment.
>I am a Libertarian of Hoppe variety, and my unkind words about libertarians
You are not a libertarian of any kind. You are a third rate neocon. And again, even Hoppe completely destroys trumpist neocons like you since even Hoppe still has some respect for libertarian principles.
Your pretense to be a “libertarian” while being completely opposed to any sort of libertarianism is pure PSYOP warfare.
Oh come on. I am well within the tiny and insignificant faction of libertarians who have not sold out to Globohomo and “bake the cake, why don’t you.”
I asked you were you are on the slippery slope. WHERE ARE YOU?
It is easy to be libertarian about such nebulous pomposities as liberty. Who opposes liberty? And then you highly selectively apply these nebulous pomposities against the right. Since when do the Cubans and Nicolás Maduro have a property right in Venezuela?
You think Maduro has a sacred property right in Venezuela which Trump violated for the oil, but you don’t think I have a property right in my wife and children.
Venezuelan oil was keeping Cuba running, and Cuban troops were keeping Maduro in power. If your ruler has a body guard of foreigners answerable to a foreign power, you are a puppet state. Venezuela has far more real independence as a satrapy of Trump’s Holy Empire of the Ocean Lands than it had under Maduro Cuba.
When Trump and Hegseth snatched Maduro, a whole lot of his bodyguards were killed, and those nearest to him were Cubans.
>I asked you were you are on the slippery slope. WHERE ARE YOU?
I am laughing my ass at you. I made it pretty clear that I am an actual libertarian so I’m not anywhere on your “slippery slope” or anywhere else on any of your dishonest nonsensical categories.
Here’s what I said a month ago
https://blog.reaction.la/faith/feminists-cosplaying-character-from-porn/#comment-22987279
“In a free society people who want to sell cakes to faggots are free to do so, and people who don’t want to sell cake to faggots are free to not sell cakes to faggots.”
And the only thing I got from you and your pack of 3 retarded lapdogs was retarded lies about what you claim “libertarianism” to be. You tirelessly set up men of straw and knocked them down. What an amazing feat.
Also your retarded lapdogs say libertarianism is a horrible thing. Funny, they don’t seem to realize that you are a “libertarian”…
That is an evasive non answer.
What is “actual libertarianism”?
Actually existent libertarianism is “bake the cake, why don’t you?”
Until libertarians will commit themselves to a definition of liberty that will allow sex, family, and reproduction, they are enemies of liberty and deserve destruction.
Libertarianism always was confused and contraditory on sex, family, marriage, children, and all that, and was always criticized for this. Libertarian utopias are childless, as with Ayn Rand, or have children only small decorations, but as woke became ever woker, the problem became obvious and painful.
This was always the fatal crisis of libertarianism, that libertarians do not agree on what their vague and pompous pontifications about liberty actually mean, and with the crisis of sex, family, and reproduction upon us, this has become completely fatal for libertarianism. The school will transexualise your children without informing the parents in the name of liberty.
How can libertarians say the schools are wrong, without dropping their pompous nebulosities for some hard positions?
You say that Trump violated some pompous nebulosity in Venezuela. This seems an absurdly extreme definition of liberty in one direction, while you refuse to commit yourself to any definition of liberty that is salient to the crisis of sex, family, and reproduction.
>That is an evasive non answer.
Your answer was in the rest of my post, which you ignored, like you ignore anything that is real and you can’t counter.
But let me repeat it for the third time. Libertarianism explicitly allows people to tell faggots to go fuck themselves. There is zero obligation to “bake cakes” for anybody under libertarianism.
(here’s teh correct link
https://blog.reaction.la/faith/feminists-cosplaying-character-from-porn/#comment-2987279)
And in case you asked me about personally, I personally do not bake cakes for faggots. I used to ignore them, but now I regard them as anti libertarian scum. And I regard faggot marriage as lunatic nonsense.
>Until libertarians will commit themselves to a definition of liberty that will allow sex, family, and reproduction,
What part of libertarianism disallows sex, family and reproduction? Yeah that’s a rhetorical question.
>Hoppean principle that property rights in people are legitimate.
First, Hoppe never says that kind of nonsense. Second, even you don’t believe in that kind of nonsense, because when I show to you the logical consequences of your nonsense, you deny them.
If property rights in people are legitimate, that means you can, for instance, execute your wife and children when you feel like it. Because by fucking definition you can do whatever you want with your property. But of course you’d say that no, you don’t think you can do that, in which case you implicitly admit that your idea of “property rights” in people is invalid.
To top it off you have no respect for actual property rights as proven by your support for taxation-theft. And have no respect for personal rights as proven by this kind of lunatic nonsense :
“Public beatings for theft, ordinary graffiti, dropping chewing gum on the sidewalk, if the offender cannot make seven fold restitution.”
Oh but you’re not a totalitarian clown. You are a “libertarian”.
All of it, including you, indeed especially you, because you will not make any commitment on the number one burning issue of our day.
You cannot have a long term relationship without each having a property right in the other, the man a right to obedience, respect, and sex, and the women a right to care, maintenance, sex, and to be cherished.
That is why there are no children or marriages in libertarian utopias, such as Galt’s Gulch. It is an issue that libertarians are unable to address, or even think about. Too controversial for them.
And, as is painfully evident in today’s social environment, you cannot raise children without a paternal property right in those children.
A cloud of evasion and empty generalities was in the rest of your post. It might have been possible to guess at one particular meaning, but you clearly have no desire to be pinned down.
If I cannot be forced to bake the cake, how much gayness in my social environment can I be forced to accept? Where does tolerance of gays end, and where does tolerance of straights begin? I say tolerance of gays should end at the closet door, because gays have no shame, and if allowed, will vigorously inflict their gayness on everyone. As, for example, the movie Elmo.
We have a social environment of mandatory tolerance for gays which is intolerant of straights, as, for example, men in the woman’s bathroom, and tampons in the boy’s bathroom. This is all stuff in the gray area where libertarians will not give you a straight answer.
You say you will not bake the cake. But is pressure to bake the cake that is not quite state violence unlibertarian? What of a social order that will give you various kinds of grief short of direct state violence if you do not bake the cake? Nominally private violence like cancelling, deplatforming, demonetising and debanking?
In the later Soviet years, they did usually not send dissidents to prison. They just lost their jobs, and various state benefits. Pretty similar to today’s America.
Let me finish this (you) off.
I already listed the facts proving that you have absolutely no respect for any kind of property rights. You don’t even understand what property means as illustrated by your absurd idea of “property in persons”.
And your complete disregard for property, and even worse for life and liberty, is more brutally proven by your support for the jew neocon “american” empire. You are just a jew neocon Jim. A repugnant, anti human criminal.
>I am a Libertarian of Hoppe variety,
You think you can piss on me and tell me it’s raining. But you can’t.
I note that you continue to dodge your position on the slippery slope.
And instead of explaining why it is wicked on vague noble libertarian pomposities for the Holy American Empire of the Ocean lands to take Veneuela’s oil from Cuba, you just point and splutter.
I just repeat these questions to draw attention to the fact that you continue to evade them. Having received no answers, I expect to continue receiving no answers.
How was what Trump did wrong according to vague noble libertarian pomposities, other than that he is, like every other head of state, a government, and governments use force to take stuff? Please explain what these pomposities actually mean, and how they apply to the crises of today. Whatever they mean, you are, like any leftist, highly selective in applying whatever it is that they mean.
And where on the slippery slope of cancelling, demonetising, and debanking those who will not bow down to Woke do you stand? Just how intolerant to gays am I allowed to be, and what is the boundary between tolerance being imposed on straights, and straights being subjected to intolerance. What noble libertarian principles dictate how much gay I have to put up with?
Not that I expect any answers from you, you have not answered any question about how these noble, vague, and pompous nebulosities actually apply to the crises we now face, you have just continued to point and splutter.
Some time ago, not very far from where a now live, a bunch of gays decided to regularly go swimming, naked, and engaging in suggestive behavior, in a natural pond or small lake. Which effectively excluded the families who had formerly used it — they excluded straights not by physically removing them, but by grossly suggestive behavior directed at people of all ages. Where are do your noble libertarian pomposities stand on this absolutely stereotypical gay behavior, which I care about rather more than which government has Venezuela’s oil in its pocket.
>I just repeat these questions to draw attention to the fact that you continue to evade them.
Nah. You repeat the questions and then repeatedly ignore the answers. You do that to then accuse me of not answering. You are infinitely dishonest. Any retard who reads the exchange can see that I answered your questions.
And the really important thing is this :
You also ask stupid questions to change the subject and divert attention from the fact that you are nothing but a jew neocon. A murderous criminal who has no connection to humanity.
You fucking scumbags are about to start world war three while you rant about “marriage”, like the dishonest lunatic you are.
>I am a Libertarian of Hoppe variety,
Nah. You are a jew neocon. The only thing you have to offer is mass murder.
Gold at 5k. Waiting for you to complete your self-destruction program.
You are not answering. You are pontificating vague nebulous platitudes, which vague platitudes could equally well be used to condemn any society that has ever existed, and applying them in a highly selective manner with no explanation of why they apply one case, and not in cases of far more urgent concern. Much like the selectively passionate leftist concern for some kinds of equality and not others.
Parents transitioning their children is obviously evil. Care to give a libertarian explanation of why it is evil? If you cannot, you are way down the slippery slope.
Schools transitioning children without parental knowledge or consent is far more evil, and where we are now on the slippery slope that started with gay marriage. Care to give a libertarian explanation of why gay marriage was on a slippery slope, and what is wrong with us now being at current position? Why is it wrong for schools to transition children, and why more wrong to transition without regard to parents? If you cannot explain, then you, and all the current libertarians are now at the current bottom of the slippery slope, and when the next stage, public human sacrifice and cannibalism, comes around you will be at the new bottom. Because freedom of religion is a sacred principle, that libertarians will be (selectively) unable to criticise.
In the unlikely event that you give a meaningful reply, it will probably be something about government schools funded by taxes, but these days even Christian schools are generally postModern and postChristian, and they are doing it also.
Of course I have a libertarian property rights explanation: That husbands and fathers have a property right over wives and children for respect and obedience, and wives and children have a property right for care and protection, including, indeed especially, protection from themselves, and transitioning a child is not protecting that child from himself. You don’t have an explanation.
If Trump stealing Venezuela’s oil was a move towards World War III, was not Cuba, proxy for Russia, stealing Venezuela’s oil a move towards World War III? The primary justification for a state, is that there are other states swinging their dicks around, so your society also has to do some dick swinging also. Trump wants Russian dick swinging to stop at the oceans, while his dick is free to swing in the ocean lands. This seems like a good formula for world peace, given that he is trying to get the Ukraine to wither on the vine.
Now if he was trying to win in the Ukraine, and also win in Venezuela (Cuba is up next) then yes, neocon move towards world war three. But since he is trying to lose with dignity in the Ukraine, and now its just Europe funding and arming the Ukraine, seems like a good move way from World War III. If, as is likely, the war on Russia’s borders goes to nukes, it will be Europe going up in flames, and not us, which is like containing a forest wildfire with burnback fires. If it goes to nukes, Europe and Russia will no longer be problems. And right now Trump has a bigger Europe problem than he has a Russian problem, and is not too distressed about the possibility that these problems are going to solve each other. He would prefer a more pleasant solution, but given European war censorship, a more pleasant solution may well be unattainable.
And the primary justification for stuffing gays back in the closet is that if they are not stuffed back in the closet, they will act as they were acting at the swimming hole not far from where I live. So how would you address the swimming hole problem?
>Parents transitioning their children is obviously evil.
BUT WAIT. In your non-philosophy parents own their children so it follows they can do whatever they want with their children. And furthermore, interfering with the parents’ “right” to mutilate their children would be “bad” and “lefty”.
>Care to give a libertarian explanation of why it is evil?
Pretending to change the sex of children by poisoning, mutilating or brainwashing them is an attack on their most intimate nature. And no child is giving “informed consent” to be treated like a thing that can be altered at will by…their alleged owners.
>Schools transitioning children without parental knowledge or consent is far more evil
But you have no real argument against government, so don’t complain.
>Care to give a libertarian explanation of why gay marriage was on a slippery slope,
There’s no libertarian explanation. There are lunatic progressives (like progressive technocrat musk) and state fanatics who are responsible for your slippery slope. Gradualism and the fabian society and all that. And you keep pretending that libertarianism is to blame since you typed this
>Libertarianism is “everyone shall bake the cake”
and I pointed out that no, libertarianism explicitly says that you are under no obligation to bake cakes for people you dislike.
>Now if he was trying to win in the Ukraine, and also win in Venezuela (Cuba is up next) then yes,
You fucking psychos are at war with Persia, Russia and “commercial war” with China. You are following the jew plan to get complete control of the middle east to a T, so you are at this very moment considering an all-out attack on Persia.
Today’s headlines from the wapo-CIA-pentagon :
“Vance visits Armenia, Azerbaijan as Trump eyes deals in Russia’s sphere”
“Trump mulls second aircraft carrier off Iran, as Netanyahu flies to D.C. for talks ”
So unexpectedly shocking.
Anyway, I answered your questions again while you mostly ignore my points. To your credit you didn’t delete my posts…
…Instead you just pretend that reality doesn’t exist and that allows you to be a jew warmongering “hoppe libertarian” ranting against libertarianism, which of course makes zero sense.
I’ll quit for the moment.
PS: gold at 5k – bitcoin crashing.
As I predicted, you dodged the question yet again. pointing and spluttering instead of attempting to reason from your empty meaningless pompous generalities. It is also evil when a private school does without parental knowledge and consent. And you are unable to explain why.
The left are selectively and arbitrarily applying your principles in favor of faggots, as you are selectively and arbitrarily applying them against Trump.
I am a real libertarian, of the Hoppe variety. All the regular libertarians are in the pocket of the faggots.
The libertarians wind up in bed with the faggots, and the libertarian party is the party of men in women’s sports and transitioning children.
Because our enemies are reasoning from your own principles, and taking those principles places you do not want to go, yet you have no explanation of why your principles should be selectively applied for the outcomes you want, and selectively not applied for the outcomes our enemies want. You can point and splutter when our enemies are (selectively) more libertarian than you. But you cannot explain why and are being equally selective, arbitrary, and capricious about applying your vague and slippery noble pomposities.
You can point and splutter, but you are strangely unable to explain how your noble vague pomposities actually address the crises we now face.
Every time you point and splutter on an issue, you are admitting your pomposities are empty and arbitrary.
I said you would say something like this: I said:
Libertarians are as defenseless against the ideas of our enemies, as they are defenseless against enemy states.
Because when the teachers get boy to agree he is a girl, they are being more libertarian than thou — they are protecting the child’s rights against “bullying”. And you can have no explanation of why this is a problem. He cannot decide you rightly say. But if he cannot, who can?
You point and splutter, yet have no more coherent rationale against the left than you do against Trump.
They are selectively and arbitrarily applying your principles in favor of faggots, as you are selectively and arbitrarily applying them against Trump.
.
A good quote on Libertarians.
https://xcancel.com/infantrydort/status/2016178332107182294#m
Jerry Pournelle came up with this one in 1963: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
Two axes:
“Attitude toward the State” as in “state worship” vs. “ultimate evil” labeled State.
“Attitude toward planned social progress” labeled Rationalism.
He said it didn’t necessarily make sense except in being able to uniquely plot people.
It doesn’t work at all. The Spanish revolution is categories 1 and 4 versus 2 and 3 despite the fact the opposite squares are supposed to be diametrically opposed.
The problem here is that leftist “Reason” in this context is just another kind of religion that refuses to call itself what it is.
Why does it matter the lie you believe so as to remove you from Gods grace?
God has defined success. Man has observed this and created morality.
Either you are on the way or you are in the way.
There is one left faction, and many right factions. One right faction for each applecart, and one left faction that wants to upend all applecarts and grab the apples rolling around, starting with whatever applecart happens to look shakiest right now. At any one time, the dominant ideology of the left is whatever justifies knocking over the shakiest applecart, but if the applecart does not fall, and another applecart looks shaky, the ideology will turn on a dime. One day it is socialism, the next day Covid.
Before World War II, leftists were predominantly nationalist, and were industriously inventing nations, and there were lots of academic studies turning pidgins, creoles, and dialects into national languages. Right now in the Ukraine, the Nazis are at it again, inventing new words and new placenames, and imposing at gunpoint a language that is still being manufactured right now.
What Azov is doing right now is what much of Academia was doing before World War II.
Azov have women and children though, even a Faith. So I’m not going to be propping up EuroFags or JewZenskyy over Azov. Of course it would be better if Azov turned against those two. But Azov has been slowly building its own thing for a couple decades. Everyone else isn’t trying to build shit anymore, so I’m inclined to see where Azov can go with that.
Do they now? Ukrainian fertility is the lowest in the world, and the Ukrainian National Orthodox Church was manufactured in 2018 by a bunch of Jews and pagans, and is staffed by a priesthood that views Christianity as ridiculous, obsolete, absurd, and embarrassing.
In every political compass meme the bottom half can be safely ignored.
The very idea of the political compass seems to come from the same dark recesses of the left-wing mind that came up with gender “spectrums”.
To wit: “You can’t cast me into these simplistic categories, I’m special, I don’t fit into your so-called binary.” Usually, almost invariably, asserted by types who qualify as NPCs, who are totally unremarkable in every way and march in lockstep with all the others claiming to be special.
If we’re going to insist that one dimension isn’t enough, then what’s so special about two? What factual or logical basis is there for a Cartesian graph? Why not 3 axes, or 4 axes, or 400 axes? It’s a hole with no bottom.
I am increasingly of the mind that even the left-right spectrum isn’t really a spectrum at all, and that all leftists are basically of a single archetype, like faggots. They differ in their lifestyles, and their explicit rationalizations for their behavior, but it all boils down to a single perverted impulse, a single misfiring cylinder. For leftists, it’s the feeling (not necessarily the conscious belief) that they are entitled to a better life than the one they have, and that it is fundamentally OK to either take from the ones who already do or destroy what they already have. All their behavior amounts to infinite variations on this basic spite and envy, and all their ideas amount to elaborate rationalizations for same.
There are no Moderate Leftists, though there are of course many Havel’s Greengrocers, who do not have the leftist programming at all, who are merely conforming to what they perceive to be the social norms, and vary in their degree of conformity. That is the real spectrum we see, not leftism itself, which is just the same basic evil copied and pasted into ten million different contexts.
Yes.
Perhaps the top-level spectrum should be between the Faustian spirits who measure and classify the innumerable complexities of nature and the human mind through open scientific inquiry, and closed-minded zealots like you that need simple explanations.
Every political ideology believes this to some extent, since government is zero-sum.
For example, the majority of white men actually *are* entitled to a better life than they currently have, and would be rightfully employing destructive means to achieve it, if equality cults like leftism and Christianity hadn’t driven them to slavery and self-sacrifice.
No, government is not zero sum. Goverment is about cooperation. Government can make cooperation harder, even impossible on large scales, or facilitate cooperation.
Cooperation is not zero sum.
There was a time on Twitter when people were posting their political compasses. These compasses also had some political parties on them for comparison.
A straight line through the points for the political parties was a very good fit; the point for each individual political party was always on or very close to the line. Further, the point for each individual person was also always on or very close to the line.
A single variable accounts for the pretty much all of the variation in both the social and economic axes. You only need one axis: left-right.
I’m not the first to point this out, but it’s notable that they always dress in the red handmaid outfits and never in the gray outfits the infertile slaves wear. Apparently, in the novel, human fertility is tanking due to pollution and disease, so they enslave the few fertile women to reproduce with high-status men. The more numerous infertile women from the lower classes end up as slaves too, but they just do menial work and don’t get raped by Chad the vampire billionaire. It’s unsurprising who the protestors invariably dress up as.
ICE/Soldier is a lot more attainable life goal than vampire werewolf billionaire.
https://notthebee.com/article/a-bunch-of-republicans-in-congress-just-voted-with-democrats-in-favor-of-abortion-gender-affirming-care-and-dei
This stuff is so perverse that a single RINO would make the Republicans like a glass of water with a drop of sewage, ie a glass of sewage. You can throw it all out.
But when you see numbers like this, you can figure out that there was never any water in the first place. Trump and Musk and Pope Leo had better be prepared for Thermidor, which will probably involve minting trillion dollar coins and disbanding congress, and this will probably increase the value of the dollar at this point, ironically. Declaring Barron Trump to be America’s Emperor would go unbelievably hard, and Vance and Rubio and Carlson etc are all smart enough to accept it.
I suspect modern politicians do not understand the wimminz problem because they are all sodomites. The former queers like Milo understand.
Normies submit to sodomites because [*deleted for all the usual reasons*]
Empirically, gay employees show up for work late, drunk, and stoned. Normies submit to sodomites because of HR, not because sodomites are productive and industrious. Empirically, karen purchasing officers commit the company to highly unfavorable deals with young handsome salesmen, and gay purchasing officers with salesmen who share with them cocaine and young boys purchased from Haiti and Child Protective Services.
Pope Leo is not our friend, he is not based, he is a gay race communist.
Thinking about the requirement for the universal virtual machines, so that we are sharing fully platform independent programs, as easily as we currently share a JPEG. So I could a paste a program into a comment or a text message as easily as I can paste a raster of pixels
Can stay high level, while still having high hash overlap
What would be shared and accessed are tokens, that is, bytes
The shared bytes would deterministically compile into flat, numerous, forth-like VM instructions by the client reading the bytes
The shared bytes would correspond to simple, infix, high-level tokens, pretty much still human readable, particularly with a cypher
Something like an arbitrary variable label would compress into a single token slot in the scope
myVarName1=myVarName2
would look something like (say 33 is an assignment operator)
115,33,116
which in ASCI would be visually M!N, but we’ll say the reader looks at any unicode mod 256, so that people usually share from a section without whitespace characters, making it easier to copy and paste chunks, so may as well look like ◎◐◑
Being focused only on tokens, no other compile stages, it should be easy to have a 1:1 relationship between the labelled text and byte tokens. Two boxes, as you type in one, you’d see the bytes fill in the other. If you added a yet-unused number directly to the bytes, it would insert a generic label string into the appropriate place in the first box like ‘label1’ or ‘var1’
Reverse engineering should still be easy by design. The high level logic would be kept. It would just be a case of applying one’s own labels to the logic that is already there
The idea with removing labels is to minimise characters so that programs can be transferred with tight strings, and maximise hash overlap, for maximum code reuse. But within those constraints, easy ‘reverse engineering’ would something to encourage and embrace
You are reinventing WASM and RISC-V. Both of those are fine VM specs, and anything else is specific to particular domains.
In the crypto space, everyone for years was using either EVM or WASM when you needed a standard VM to build a consensus on. Now we have zkVMs, which have different requirements in that you need some extremely clever prime number jiggering to make efficient enough to run outside of a datacenter, but are extremely useful and just plain interesting tools of coordinating compute.
Computing as software engineering and frontier applied mathematics is still working as a domain of knowledge, is not yet destroyed like the physical tech industry. We don’t need to have utopian schemes to reinvent it, these are not helpful. The tools are mostly good, and making them better is mostly polishing what already exists.
After Trump won in ’24, and somewhat before then but definitely after, much of the smarter but not powerful left decided that free private speech and transaction was actually important all along. The right was already there for a while before, having been resisting persecution for decades. Now we have bilateral support for building private internet tools, go forth and enjoy the open field before they start squeezing again.
Jim, what do you have to say about the Armenian Genocide?
Islam. What do you expect?
Only voluntary societies are ultimately sustainable (and maximally just).
History demonstrates that they are entirely unsustainable.
All our plausible examples of a reasonably successful voluntary society had a state religion, a state religion without a state, or without much of a state, and a state religion that was coercively and lethally enforced. Without which they suffer intolerable levels of clan conflict and lawless misconduct.
The great weakness of these societies, which ended them, is that a sovereign that can coercively summon an army and coercively provide the logistics for that army is going to win, and that society is going to lose.
Holy war is coming. Time to sign up with a King.
What do you mean with “voluntary”?
Every society controls some land. If you live there, you better obey whatever laws and rules that society has or face punishment. The souvereign imposes the laws on his subjects whether they want it or not. That is necessary for any sucessful society.
People join a society by being born into not. There is nothing voluntary about it.
A society may allow men of a certain status to emigrate. Slaves and women could be prevented from travelling, but the percentage of slaves in a society was always limited. If a man can emigrate, but does not do so, you might say he stays voluntarily and therefore that the society is “voluntary”.
Some emigration is tolerable for a society. Exile was a punishment in ancient times. Successful societies can be voluntary in the sense that some men are allowed to emigrate.
He is using the word with a special meaning — there is a political theory called “volunterism”. Which can only work if every single person in that society voluntarily accepts the far from clear rules of voluntarism, there are no ill defined messy grey areas, and there are no organised hostile groups.
In actual practice there have been societies where the official religion clearly defined what was aggression, killed anyone who declined to accept the official religion, and adjudicated unclear cases, and coercion was then applied by the wronged parties on an individual basis, not by the state. No taxation, no state except for the state religion, no police, individual enforcement with judges seldom involved except in genuinely unclear cases. Except that the religion did forcibly impose a consensus on what was right conduct, and then let people enforce that consensus themselves. But this tended to involve some highly coercive operations like massacring entire villages that declined to accept the religion.
Might the Amish be an example of this? Those who do not accept the Ordnung can go live with the English and don’t you come back.
Recently read Socratic Memorabilia by Hamann, where he criticises the Enlightenment and makes this argument, which immediately reminded me of Jim and his excellent blog policies — in the end, it’s all about not accepting the “presupposed untruths”:
“Let us assume that we invited an unknown person to a game of cards. If this person answered us, “I don’t play,” we would either interpret this to mean that he did not understand the game or that he had an aversion to it which arose from economic, ethical, or other reasons. Let us imagine, however, that an honorable man, who was known to possess every possible skill in the game, and who was well versed in its rules and in its forbidden tricks, but who could like a game and participate in it only when it was an innocent pastime, were invited into a company of clever swindlers, who were known as good players and to whom he was equal on both scores, to join them in a game. If he said, “I do not play,” we would have to join him in looking the people with whom he was talking straight in the face, and would be able to supplement his words as follows: “I don’t play, that is, with people such as you, who break the rules of the game, and rob it of its pleasure. If you offer to play a game, our mutual agreement, then, is that we recognize the capriciousness of chance as our master; and you call the science of your nimble fingers chance, and I must accept it as such, if I will, or run the risk of insulting you or choose the shame of imitating you. If you had proposed to me that we hold a contest to determine which one of us was the best sleight-of-hand artist at cards, then I would have wanted to answer differently, and perhaps to join in a game in order to show you that you have learned to fix cards as poorly as you understand how to play those that are dealt to you according to the rules of the game.”
this is not on the topic
but Taliban officially ban female education pass primary.
field data show tfr are 5.5 in 2025.
this is decisive.
for any nation to survive female education has to be abolished.
no one will do it even the most right wing party can’t stomach it.
Actually the Taliban has not banned female education, though they have banned mixed classes, and have ended compulsory education of girls. They don’t think the state should step on the toes of the head of family in either direction.
When the anti Taliban videos say the Taliban has banned this that or the other, what they usually mean is that this, that, or the other, seems to be deemed socially unacceptable much of the time in much of Afghnstan, Dad does not permit it, and the Taliban backs Dad’s authority.
What women can get away with in practice is pretty similar to a good girl in 1950s America as depicted in 1950s family movies. Except that in 1950s America the cops did not haul bad girls back to Dad.
Jim
Is the global fertility collapse if continue into the midcentury 2050s , will result in Bronze Age collapse like event ? in which large number of countries and even continents will be depopulated if current trend continue . Or something else will happen.
I just don’t believe tfr of 2.1 , so called replacement tfr is enough because it made by evil people , what the optimal tfr for a race to continue and expand , I usually think 6 is good.
It is obvious that Europe cannot defend itself right now. At some point a high fertility culture, or several such, are going to conquer the world.
Afghans are peacefully doing legal migration, illegal migration, and unpeacefully doing martial invasion of neighboring countries.
Large scale Afghan illegal immigration results in efforts by the target country to impose their way of life on the migrants. The migrants don’t like it and fight, sometimes they get some support from the capital, sometimes they do not, but fight anyway.
“high fertility culture, or several such, are going to conquer the world.”
With the exception of afghan, are there other high fertility culture?
People note sub Saharan Africa but even they are collapsing, plus they can’t feed themselves so probably Malthusian trap.
Are the Amish, Mennonite or Mormon examples of high fertility culture.
The closest to a national recovery is Kazakhstan. They bottomed out at 1.9 in 2000 and have since gone up to around 3. Nearly everywhere else is a constant downward trend; even Israel is ‘went from 4.8 to fluctuating between 2.8 and 3’
In another coincidence, there was a post Soviet “increase in religiosity and restoration of traditions and customs among ethnic Kazakhs”
“Restoration of traditions” would suggest that the increase in religiosity was in whole or part old type Islam. Which would group them with the other two holdouts, Nigeria and Afghanistan. In white countries, there are a few old type Christian pastors in the Anglican or Episcopalian churches, but they are waging a guerrila war against Globohomo postChristianity of their Bishops. Nigeria has the one Anglican Church with an old type Christian hierarchy
Nigeria has had the most robust film industry in Negro Africa, known as “Nollywood”, for decades now. It’s 80% romantic comedies and melodramas about a couple falling in love, one from the Christian south and the other from the Mohammedan north. The films as films are tremendously weak, but worth checking out at least once to see what’s what in that part of the world.
Films: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi8vPG6uMxIjoZMhLLX2BkQ
I was going to just share a Nollywood gossip link, but man, the moment I opened it the first article is advice from a lawyer to the locals: “if your wife somehow suddenly dies don’t instantly go on the lam and don’t wipe away the blood”. https://www.nollywoodtimes.com/2026/01/if-your-babe-dies-in-your-home-dont-run.html
Daily newspaper: https://thesun.ng/
Many of them are collapsing, but Nigeria is not. Which I attribute to old type Islam and old type Christianity. It does not seem like a coincidence that the one major established Anglican Church in the world that is still old type Christian is the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
Liberals (In this case an Iranian progressive entryist) know, and they are seething.
https://archive.is/4cecK
“when women are denied education, they contribute to higher fertility”.
They know, and they are doing their usual spin. “hail, fellow muslim, Islam is not Acthuahlly about reckless breeding. Now, let me tell you how crippling Afghan fertility rate and send women to progressive schools will benefit Afghanistan the most”
https://x.com/BlueskyLibs/status/2016035578522013969
https://x.com/ScooterCasterNY/status/2015997160270012759
https://x.com/WomanDefiner/status/2015983886040195273
https://x.com/WomanDefiner/status/2016015310818554084
Did Walz and the MN democratic apparatus actually cave to Trump?
This is all very out of character for them.
I didn’t even think this was possible in theory. You’d expect such orders would be ignored anyway.
Democrats are declaring victory.
Antifa has been told to cut it out.
Either the Demoncrats caved, or the permanent Minnesotan government just flat out mutinied.
They have in fact been mutinying for some time, with the democrat leadership demanding that Ice be arrested.
Many were, yesterday, before the crackdowns on protests when it seemed like Trump was gonna fire Bovino. Some of them still are but after that happened the ones on bsky and X seem to be screaming betrayal. I haven’t seem them celebrate.
To quote Kurt Schlichter, “If you think sending in Tom Homan is evidence of backing down, I cannot help you” Bovino may be OK at what should be his job of rounding up illegal, and Team Trump is denying the Atlantic report of demoting him prior to a near term retirement, but you need someone like Homan to effectively fight in the sphere of information.
> BOVINO FIRING WAS PR STUNT TO HEAD FAKE DE-ESCALATION
Or Team Trump changed their minds, or they might even be running a canary trap. They really need a general effective counterintelligence effort against the moles in the Administration. Hegseth is the only one serious as far as I can tell, and that was after getting burned.
> Anti‑ICE protesters surround Tim Walz’s office after he signaled openness to President Trump & Tom Homan.
An example of the holiness spiral trap. Walz even signaling a bit of potential agreement with the other side puts him in jeopardy, of status at minimum. He’s also counter-signaling before the meeting, like:
> To be very clear, there’s a change in tone, and we’ll see. I’m going to meet here later today with Tom Homan. I understand Greg Bovino is gone, you know, and that’s a good riddance, one. But it doesn’t change the fact that the posture is still the same, that this is a unorganized, untrained, dangerous force on the streets that has nothing to do with either immigration or law enforcement.
But even meeting Homan for anything other than discussing the terms of Team Trump’s surrender is apostasy.
More of his remarks here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/wth-tim-walz-declares-victory-bashes-ice-trump/
https://x.com/InsiderWire/status/2016251859325874459
https://x.com/MysteryGrove/status/2016269698153820400
https://x.com/KyleKulinski/status/2016243426782532040
What I conjecture (and we will not know the truth for a few days) is that the radical left drank their own koolaide on Pretti, and upon discovering that the permanent government was not willing to arrest the cop who shot Pretti, not the permanent government in Washington, nor the permanent government in Minnesota, got cold feet, and decided to declare victory and get the hell out.
If you look at the expression on Good’s face moments before she was shot, she was clearly confident that she had the backing of what she thought of as the real cops, and that Ice were therefore not real cops.
The Pretti momenent may well have been the left realising they did not have backing from the cops and were not going to get any.
Pretti and Good thought the cops were on their side because the leaders of the cops were in the signal chat with them egging them on.
Plenty of evidence if anyone in the agencies want to rollup a domestic terror network thats done way worse so far than any glowie op against a Michigan governor. Somehow I doubt this will happen, but more purges will be on the way. This is not the beginning or the end.
I do think that Trump offered Walz a scalp and moved out Bovino. Waiting to see if the deportations continue. Taking Trump at his word that he wants three things. Criminal illegal aliens out. The fraud in MSP investigated, and Ilhan Omar on a plane back to Somalia.
Both Trump and Homan have been in talks with Walz/Frey which they describe as productive. All of a sudden they are willing to cooperate with “nazis”? If they saw a scalp being offered, why aren’t they declaring a victory and continuing “the resistance”? What I’m seeing is some sort of leverage being used against them. We likely won’t know what for a while, but I suspect it has to do with RICO/Fraud money.
Whichever the legal threats that might have been made against Frey and Walz, I suspect Bondi’s apparently serious and ongoing attempt to arrest “holy Black gay man” Don Lemon is having a salutary effect. They, being of much lower status, cannot now assume they’re protected by whatever has previously kept Bondi from seriously trying to arrest any pretty much any Democrat who didn’t physically attack a Federal official or officer of the law.
Current status is formal complaints against five perps denied by the assigned magistrate judge, same with a request for a writ of mandamus from a district judge and then an appeals court panel. Now, likely going on in parallel, is the required in any case grand jury indictment which takes more time to arrange.
“What I’m seeing is some sort of leverage being used against them. We likely won’t know what for a while, but I suspect it has to do with RICO/Fraud money.”
Or it could be evidence of Walz doing something disgusting to young boys. If anyone ever had gay pedo face, it’s him.
I’ll tell you what I think it was these idiots were admitting to all sorts of crimes in a really dead to rights way on signal chats thinking the government can’t read signal chats.
You really should never ever ever assume the government can’t read your electronic communications… Especially if its priority for someone high up to want to read them. I think Walz or someone directly in his office was read some transcripts of signal chats and they pissed themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba6_uEjv8gA
If you’re going to be doing crimes people on a high enough level in the government are going to be interested in going through your electronic comms you should basically be like Paulie.
Ireland and Canada have big problems.
https://x.com/MickOKeeffe/status/2015933761855037876
https://x.com/rationalposts/status/2016106202589958523
“Europe is the values of the Talmud” says VonDerLeyen in video.
Part 1 on The Catholic Problem.
The American Right’s (Lack of) Aesthetics Problem
In the Jewish ceremony of Kaparot, a chicken is waved over their heads three times to pass their sins onto the bird in the belief that God’s retributions will be on it rather than the misbehaving Jew. It is then killed. Another rule lawyering lawsuit against God’s Laws. Yet much of what presents as Christianity today is no different. Whether it’s various sects of Protestantism’s “Once Saved Always Saved” theology or Catholicism’s “just say 12 Hail Marys”, we see much fast and loose ‘get out of jail free cards’ use to avoid actual repentance of sin. Functionally this is no different from Judaism’s failure to uphold virtue. Once untethered from actual repentance, they are apt to guilt free devolve into endless sin.
While the Protestant sects who played such games are being displaced demographically, socially, and politically by Christian Nationalists, Catholicism, due to demographic shifts and right wing Gen Z conversions, continues to grow in America, and the Church is in no hurry to excommunicate sin. Biden in a meeting with pope Francis stated: “We just talked about the fact he was happy that I was a good Catholic and I should keep receiving Communion” in sharp contrast to actual Church doctrine on how abortion proponents should be treated. As American Catholics shift to the right and gain political influence, this poisons foundation of the next state religion. i.e. the fundamental long term problem with Vance should he be king isn’t who he married to (a short term problem), but that he is Catholic.
This boils down to an aesthetics problem, or a lack of. Nick Fuentes is right when speaking of younger gen sensibilities, ‘the uniforms look cool’, and while he was talking about the Third Reich, the same can be said of the Vatican. While those of us here well understand there is nothing beautiful about the giant pile of gay bodies that constitute the Catholic priesthood, by historical inheritance they do have a lot of beautiful aesthetic art, traditions and ceremonies, and indeed uniforms. The lack of competing and superior aesthetics has created an aesthetics trap where the prospective right wing are enamored into a false tribe. Unlike Russia which can default into Orthodox art and Church building traditions, American Protestantism lacks corresponding competitive allure. Instead it houses itself in repurposed modernist office space, bland and bare minimalist buildings, or tacky mega buildings that artistically scream theater or colosseum rather than anything divine. On face value who wants that? Certainly it may appeal to the masses, but elites have more discerning tastes.
Trump was right about wanting to make America beautiful again, but he falls short in mainly speaking of making secular governance of America beautiful again. Christian Nationalists must seek the divine not merely in scripture but in material expression. The next state religion must appear ready to guide in the same way a monarch looks dignified on the throne to rule, otherwise it won’t capture the passion of the upholders of the next regime.
If an aesthetics thing I don’t understand why not go Orthodox. I would agree Orthodox priests look a bit strange and Catholic priests dress a bit better but the aesthetics of Orthodox church art and iconography are IMHO generally superior in appearance to that of the gothic/stained glass aesthetic of Catholicism.
The Main Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces is stunning and powerful. A rebuke of the idea that traditional can’t look modern, or the modern can’t look traditional. It’s also obviously Eastern and not American. Copying aesthetics cedes legitimacy to the authentic owner.
Thought experiment, if you TC dressed up in Samurai armor, would you feel like the legitimate owner, or maybe a little bit of a fraud? We need to feel comfortable in the uniform we wear, otherwise we subconsciously submit ourselves to those we feel are more authentic and thus more legitimate. That is not good for spiritual security. You do not want to have a state religion that is ultimately run by foreigners who at best are indifferent to you and at worst actively hate you. Hence why we can’t simply take the Catholic look either.
That’s not to say we can’t copy a lot from either, we should, but ultimately it needs to look distinctively American.
Funny enough, we do have a ready made solution and aesthetic should we defrocked the current priests inhabitants. Harvard. Alas, unless Tanks on Harvard Square, a bad idea to copy the look if we don’t have control of the original for reasons stated above.
Anyone wearing samurai armor today even if he was a pure Japanese descendent of Tokugawa Ieyashu would merely be wearing a costume. If I had an Ironman level power suit in samurai style and could use it I would feel powerful and not a fraud.
My point is that if you don’t memetically own the aesthetic, others will set the vibe for you. Conservatives can larp as Trad Caths all day, but ultimately gay cardinals will groom their minds.
Jim continues to offer no path to achieving his white world again,[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Sure I do. De-emancipate women and coverture, therefore restoring high white fertily.
What is wrong with my solution?
The future belongs to those that show up.
The reason black African fertility remains high while everyone else is collapsing is old type Islam and old type Christianity. Everyone else except for Afghanistan, where the state religion is very much old type Islam.
> De-emancipate women and coverture
> What is wrong with my solution?
Your solution is not a solution, all the above words are doing is stating your two end-state ideals, which are really combinable into the latter, which will let you own and rape your women into pregnancy again.
However you still offer no actionable path whatsoever toward actually acheiving those end-state ideals.
Thus anyone who “shows up” has exactly nothing to do, no way to actually get from today, to your futarchy.
>> Jim continues to offer no path to achieving his white world again, let alone a high fertility one capable of rebalancing the world in its favor again, let alone in a lifetime.
>> Therefore the browns will continue to wipe him out.
>> Not my fault for pointing out the obvious.
>> Of course I know how to make room for that.
>> But I’m going to make Jim do his homework for himself.
>> See if he’s capable of uttering the unutterable and only path available.
Sure I do. We always have a state religion. The current state religion is incorrigibly revolutionary, ever lefter, ever faster. The sovereign needs to put tanks in Harvard and install a different state religion. A state needs a state religion, and an army needs a state religion.
If that state religion is old type Christianity, we solve both the fertility problem and left singularity — and the left singularity is going to kill us all a whole lot faster than the fertility problem.
Trump and Tampon Tim have been edging closer to Civil War II, but neither of them wants to go down in history as the one who started it. Well maybe Tampon Tim was willing to go down in history as the one who started it, but his police force and national guard chickened out on him.
The solution is: Trump or Vance realises we are already on the other side of the Rubicon, and the left intends to kill us all. Arrests the legacy media and purges the judiciary. Pete Hegseth rides into Harvard in a tank, replaces the Board of Regents with men of his own faith. (He has already made a start on that with military chaplains) Downstream of that, cultural change. Porn written by women for women has repeatedly depicted the solution, notably “the Handmaid’s tale”. It is a popular trope, particularly in japanese chik lit. Often combined with with the aristocratic trope in Japanese chik lit.
The time of Republics has ended, for lack of the requisite virtue. An aristocratic republic might still work, if it had a virtuous state religion.
Jim I was hoping I could get your opinion on two cryptocurrency projects:
Sui: https://docs.sui.io/
Team comes out of Meta’s Libra project. The smart contract language, Move, looks interesting, clearly heavily inspired by Rust.
Nockchain: https://docs.nockchain.org/
“Built as the first ZK-Proof-of-Work (zkPoW) protocol, already the largest proving network in the world.” Their staff seems associated with the Nrx or dissident right on Xitter.
Sui had great and interesting ideas and it’s great they got funding to build them out. Unfortunately they misunderstood what the whole point of having a public blockchain was, and tuned their protocols to maximize ease of scaling throughput inside of massive, controlled datacenters. I would like to see the same approach of modularizing the different datastreams and objects that they used, identifying what txns need global atomic ordering, and which can be more trivial CAS-like ops, separating consensus from dissemination, and so on. MoveVM is interesting but the underlying object model that allowed it is moreso, and allows greater parallelism of parties inside the network.
Ultimately, sui is obseleted as an L1 because we do not need all that bandwidth and complexity anymore; we have zk rollups for that. Zk rollups allow for a whole ecology of specialized blockchain-like things that can afford, for example, trading away decentralization for low latency, without worrying about the fundamental security and resilience of the network. The L1 needs to be able to have a node just about anywhere, the rollup can live in a particular city, if it wants. Web3 ideas are now reasonable, when they were not before.
Nockchain…
They’re being misleading on purpose. Proof of work is inherently proof of how much energy you have burned. What they seem to be claiming is that their consensus is based on L1 nodes proving they generated zk proofs for some set of circuits, not how many hashes per second you managed. In the end, if it becomes a store of value as an L1, you would see “wasteful” burning, because the energy cost of increasing participation in consensus would be less than the gain of nockchain tokens.
Besides that, they’re talking about “data availability”, which is a sure sign they’re either morons or not on your side. Data availability is a fake problem. It’s a real problem, in that if you want unilateral exit, you need to prove that according to the rules of the game, you actually own the coins you want to withdraw. It’s a fake problem, in that you don’t need — or *want* — a massive open database of every transaction youve ever made. That’s what the “data availability” “problem” is, how do we create a massive database of every user transaction. How do we take an inherently privacy-preserving technology, and still get spyware out of it.
Anyone building something serious figures out how to keep the merkle paths with the client, not the big public database. That these guys talk about the “data availability problem” as if it were anything other than an attack on user privacy, signals to me they’re scammers at best.
Thank you for your detailed reply.
So do you see the future of an actual cypherpunk chain being a minimal L1 which is very robust and decentralized, to basically store ZK proofs, and all the complexity happens on an L2? Or something more like Jim’s rhocoin? I guess that could also be considered an L2 on bitcoin? I am vague on these concepts.
Your assessment on nockchain seems inline with Jim’s. And yes I see ZK terminology being thrown about as a buzzword but none of the benefits it’s supposed to bring.
Where are the actual cypherpunk these days, still Bitcoin? I think the main value prop of crypto is evading tyrannical governments, but it seems like everyone in the industry treats crypto like a casino and or enhanced payment rails for globohomo skynet. Nobody gives a shit or understands the spirit that Bitcoin was created from.
Since 2016, work on zero knowledge proofs seems to have been substantially motivated by the privacy and scaling blockchain crises.
So, if not private and with at least a roadmap to scalability, a zero knowledge blockchain is just playing buzzword bingo.
Ethereum rollups are zero knowledge scalability with the potential privacy eliminated by too clever by half workarounds, which workarounds force centralisation in giant data centres and furtively result in centralised control. So a genuinely zero knowledge crypto currency should at least handwave in the direction of rollups without loss of privacy.
The way an Ethereum rollup works is “here is our zero knowledge proof that the data corresponds to valid transactions — if you want to see the data, you can, it is all available from our giant data centre, but you don’t need to see it to know that it is valid”. I don’t want my data to need to be collected into a giant data centre.
Depressingly hard to find.
cypherpunks
Ah, I remember Timothy May and J. Orlin Grabbe and that crowd from the 1990s. That takes me back…
Until Jim admits that Pretti’s gun was removed, [*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Show me a frame where a gun has just come out of Pretti’s pocket.
Don’t show me a video title “gun removed” and a voice over telling me that I see a gun, but in which there is no gun,
If the frame existed, surely someone would have posted it on this blog by now, rather than just telling me with ever greater confidence that they can see it.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*] Pretti’s Gun isn’t the stake you want to die on, bro, it just isn’t, give it up.
Then show me and the readers of this blog the frame in which a gun is coming out of Pretti’s pocket and we can actually see the gun, with the image being a link to the source video, and information in the still frame as to where in the video the frame came from.
View the html source code of my comment showing a still, and do something similar, only with a still that shows a gun.
Sui is part of the alarmingly centralised and state sponsored Ethereum ecosystem, in which I am not interested.
Nock?
I am confused. The whole point of zero knowledge proofs is zero knowledge. Privacy. That the data is not available, but the parties who know what it is produce a proof that it is valid. Which can provide unlimited scalability
Yet I, on reading the Nockchain docs, do not see any information about privacy. They are using technologies that were created for privacy and scaling, but do not actually tell us anything about the privacy and scaling characteristics. Instead I see numerous references to data availability. I don’t want my data to be available.
The whole point of zero knowledge, the original design objective for the entire technology, is blockchain privacy and scaling. Not seeing any documentation on privacy and scaling.
Thank you for your reply.
Re sui, alarmingly centralized sure due to resource requirements, but how state sponsored and related to Ethereum?
Re nockchain yeah that makes sense. That was the impression I was getting as well but wasn’t sure if I was missing something.
I’d like Jim’s opinion on this.
https://x.com/amuse/status/2016662504428949940
So, they tried to stop the FBI from getting to these ballots by not complying at first, despite court orders. Now the FBI storms them and they’re making a big scene out of it?
Thinking they can somehow storm the office and stop the FBI (which is insane even for leftists to believe, especially after the raid already started)
So, what am I to make of this?
Because I cannot picture an outcome where the FBI raids this office, and finds some smoking gun unambiguous proof of large scale fraud, after nearly *six* years.
Our enemies are not that incompetent usually, nor do they make things this easy.
Is this just them digging their heels in out of principle, or perhaps fearing some other ridiculous outcome that is disconnected from reality?
Our enemies are grossly incompetent. They increasingly rely on just gaslighting their opponents and themselves ever more stridently. All you have to do is say “the emperor has no clothes”
As I said at the time, the fraud was arrogant, open, incompetent, blatant, and careless. Obviously our enemies really are that incompetent.
I find it hard to believe, not that a Democrat-run election office would be incompetent enough to keep evidence of election tampering, but that the FBI would have enough interest in investigating it to stage a raid.
That would imply that Trump actually has at least part of the FBI on side, and I am not that optimistic. ICE, yes; the military, yes; maybe even some factions of the State Department and CIA. But not the FBI.
I don’t see any reference to the FBI in print, and I am not going to watch a 3-hour long video to find what might end up being just some guy saying it happened without any evidence that it happened.
I’m tired of slop. “What to make of this clip of this guy saying that this thing happened based on a 3 hour long video of some other guy who might or might not have said that this thing happened”. Let’s see actual links with actual information, not mystery tweets. If the FBI actually staged a raid independently, or even complied with a federal order to raid the place, then that is the real news, and calls for evidence.
If the FBI really did raid the place, I consider it far more likely that they either went in on a federal order with intent to explicitly avoid finding anything incriminating, or went in on their own initiative with intent to “accidentally” destroy or misplace any evidence they found. Which makes the ICEwatch leftist interference stupid, but then, they are deeply deluded and stupid people.
Claim seen here https://poa.st/@sickburnbro/posts/B2ms8z9uMwACdHRL1M is the driving force is Tulsi Gabbard (intel) not FBI who are just there to serve the warrant; that if she’s involved there’s likely a foreign connection; that to get a warrant at all they’d have to have so much other evidence in hand that whatever they’re going for now is additional weight not the real initial investigation.
I’m not myself endorsing this claim yet, I’m more in the I Want To Believe ufo poster stage, but I do find it intriguing.
If Gabbard is on the scene its a good thing anyway. Bondi has a record of incompetence from what I’ve seen (though its hard to tell whats going on in spook world) Gabbard seems to be a rare unicorn of a woman who is actually effective (though I imagine she so hates foreign actions she was not too happy about the Venezuala and Iran things even if they worked out, I was worried she might resign). I prefer Gabbard and her people looking over the shoulders of the DOJ people who I don’t trust at all.
Jim what if a girl seems to like you but by all redpill logic she should not… what is usually going on. Really hot female lawyer chick (i know i know but surprisingly extremely sweet natured i her personal life, she says shes often a bitch at work but she swears she doesn’t like playing that role and refuses to let it overwhelm her personality) in this case. There is no way im a good fit for either the beta provider box or general butt naked (as a female lawyer who is also really hot she’s probably gotten a couple boots calls from general butt naked)…
I cant figure this one out but she does seem to like me and i get on better with her in casual conversation probably better than any chick ive known in years.
> any other red flags besides female lawyer
Raised by grandparents. Mother was basically a serious hard drug addict and papa was a rolling stone with a legion of illegitimate kids. Highly intelligent for a woman graduated law school young because skipped two grades.
Not a constant alcoholic smoker etc but she seems to hardly drink and not smoke most nights out (which are sporadic) but when she does drink and smoke she goes hard. She seemed to greatly warm up to me on one of her chain smoking nights because I gave her a light probably at least 7 times.
See how hard it is to get her alone. If you pass her shit tests she’s yours.
Well, you are there, and General Butt Naked is not there. Sheer proximity works wonders.
On the other hand, there is a high risk she regards you as pleasant beta orbiter who is harmlessly friendzoned. Which is the failure mode of a strategy that rests too heavily on mere proximity.
Which is what I thought too but after going no contact after a couple plans were cancelled (she didn’t ghost no text/call no show, but she did cancel) when I ran into her last night she was fucking basically intensely begging me to try to get her on the horn again (but she does want me to initiate which is the one thing I don’t like). Also in my experience the friend zone is more fragile than most guys think, girls who friendzone you will generally always turn you down if you ask for a relationship but if you ask them to fuck and they are in a good mood and you’re alone they are a lot more open to that especially if they think you’re good about keeping your mouth shut (and maybe if they like the sex enough they’ll reevaluate other things). Friendzone is not impossible to turn into friends with benefits. Also for the first time in years shes probably a chick I genuinely enjoy conversing with (I think the problem is so many of the hot crazy chicks nowadays which used to be the ones I get on with they put them on those horrible SSRIs nowadays which makes them frigid shut ins and the whole lockdown period didn’t help either) so… whatever the odds I want to make some effort even if its probably doomed.
All women are always going to force you to initiate, and if you do not initiate, you will get no pussy.
Initiate with a devil may care, don’t give a $#!% attitude that conveys the impression that if she recoils in horror, breaks off all contact with you, and calls the police, you are scarcely going to notice. Should she run away screaming, that is actually a good indicator she will be back soon enough.
Yet it’s the one thing you must obviously do.
For all the theory in the world there’s no substitute for practice. If she’s into you, she’s into you. Sometimes girls just have a type which happens to be you and you start the match 3-0 ahead.
But yea, you have to initiate.
The first time I made a move on a girl and got rejected was in retrospect one of the best things that ever happened to me, because I realized it was not a big deal. After that I made more passes at girls, and while my ratio of successes dropped, my absolute numbers went up.
You go in for first kiss.
Her, pulling back: “Cominator, I just think of you as a friend.”
You: “Oh, okay. Well, I’m going to go hang out with my friends now.”
She is going to pull back if you give her every chance to pull back, because a girl’s absolutely instinctive reaction to a man making a move is to shit test him. (Unless you are really good looking and have established pre-selection)
So just go right in and kiss her thoroughly, and then give her a chance to pull back.
“She is going to pull back if you give her every chance to pull back, because a girl’s absolutely instinctive reaction to a man making a move is to shit test him.”
In my experience the shit testing happens before this stage. YMMV.
If you have already passed a shit test, you are golden to make a move. But the Cominator has not yet been given a shit test. If she does not give him one, he will have to manufacture one.
Would canceling plans a couple times (not ghosting) and then not messaging her until she basically begged me when I ran into her in person to ask her again count as passing.
Do you fit the “bum” archetype for her, the guy who doesn’t really care and has no problem getting other women? Might help explain the status disparity.
Not really no I don’t exactly easily get women even if I hacked the stripper code (which also is not as good as it used to be). The only thing I have going is despite my normal awkward sperginess is we hit it off conversation wise very well. I’m sure shes higher on the crazy spectrum than most women (which is almost universal in women who like me) because female lawyer (almost always a sign of not just crazy but bad crazy, but shes surprisingly sweet), inconsistent but episodic heavy use of legal and probably not legal substances as well (I doubt she’ll tell me about the latter because I’m very against that), unusual upbringing, non midwit intelligence range on a non asian chick (rare and almost always wedded to higher than usual insanity)… Maybe her attraction circuits are a bit out of whack as well and I’m just temporarily lucky. IDK I’m just trying to understand.
Cominator:
Well there you go — you do “easily” get women then. So what if they’re strippers. As you well know, strippers can be pleasantly unguarded, honest, and fun-loving. I well know that myself.
Perfect. This high-status corporate cubicle woman yearns to bring forth her inner stripper. You’re a master of women like her. You’re not like the fluorescently lit conventional bores in her orbit. You’re the mysterious guy who wants free helicopter rides for evildoers and doesn’t care what anyone thinks, least of all her. You’re not the type to budge when she interest-tests you.
I love conversations like that but stay in the moment and speak slowly and sparingly. If you work to keep her then you’ll lose her interest. You’re already the guy with whom she can be a little wild. She sees that you have momentum in life like an oil tanker, so she feels safe being playful.
1. Does have a personality with the characteristics of a certain kind of stripper (tend to be the fun ones).
2. Doesn’t work in law cubicle stopped doing that to go independent. Also at least used to do criminal defense even if she does estate law more now so presumably has met lots of general butt nakes types. Jim has said that female defense attornies ussually are at least sporadically banging some of their criminal clients. Still perhaps like with strippers perhaps this paradoxically makes Butt Nakeds less appealing.
3. Yeah as I’ve said I haven’t contacted her since a couple plans got cancelled (I’m not too bitter because not ghosted, also one time someone else we both know was partially to blame) I’ve seen her a couple times she was friendly and we talked a little but not super super warm or begging me. Wednesday night run into her out she tells me I look great (I really didn’t but whatever) basically begs me no text me again we should hang out. Grabs my arm too… seemed almost passionate.
I just find the whole situation extremely surprising. I don’t check either box (beta bucks or general butt naked) well certainly not compared to others she knows given her profession (I did mention I was a pretty good high school friend of perhaps the most high powered non judge lawyer in the country I’ve dropped the name before I won’t again. But I don’t think shes digging for a character reference because after all I could tell the guy shes pleasant in her personal life, because shes already said she assumes a much less pleasant persona at work at least when she has to). And I attritibuted the canceled plans in the past as indicators of a chick who isn’t that interested (and why should she be)… but idk sometimes wires get crossed in girls heads so perhaps I’m just temporarily lucky. I have seen a couple inexplicable relationships before even considering how females reckon status (the most lopsided was an extremely hot blonde goes with a short skinny broke not musician who me and at least one other guy I knew thought was gay before her) and I don’t know how they are doing but she was with him for years (she got fat though afterwords) so I suppose I should say if this works out its not as lopsided as that…
My dude, come on, you’re sounding like a smitten 14-year-old. This “I’m so lucky” crap is ultra cringe and has gone on long enough.
Like Alf said, chemistry be like that. Some people don’t think it be like that, but it do. Speculating day and night on the potential reasons is not only not going to improve your outcome, it’s going to orient your mind in a simp frame and that is going to show through in your interactions.
It sounds like you haven’t even done anything physical, you’ve just talked. And you canceled a date which means literally nothing, positive or negative. Sometimes ghosting is a valid and useful response to a particular shit test, but if she never gave you a shit test, then you’re just circling random answers on the multiple-choice quiz.
You need to actually make a move, and then you will find out right quick whether she is really into you. Either she offers no resistance (thus, no problem), or token resistance with a light shit test (you’re still fine, but she needs proof) or you get the “let’s be friends” talk (she thinks you’re low-value and a means to some other non-sexual end). That’s it. It takes less than a minute and you’ll have your answer.
Literally nothing else matters. She either submits or resists, and if resists, then either you breeze through it or you’d have to resort to General Butt Naked tactics.
Exactly. To hell with reasons. Girls just wanna have fun and she thinks you’re fun. You are the reason. She wants fun? OK, careful what you ask for lady.
Don’t be like George Costanza who lost the hottie Danielle because he couldn’t stop obsessing over how she could possibly prefer him over her boyfriend Neil. Take this advice here from a fellow (ex-)sperg whose own father should’ve given him a clue when it really counted. I forgive you Dad.
Thinking about it is low status, an indication of low value, and an indication of scarcity.
Female alpha radar is stupendously sensitive. You cannot get anything past them. If you think about it, it will show.
Just do it.
You are thinking this through far too much. Doing everything right does not matter. What matters is just doing it.
Women just love outcome indifference. You should just do what you feel like doing, and if she flees screaming, well, there are plenty more fish in the sea, and she will probably be back soon enough.
Time with women beats timing women.
This is why I point out you guys are incoherent when it comes to advice on actually forming families and having children.
Just spam whores, but don’t grow too attached, or even care about banging them, because whores don’t like that.
Also imply with some level of convincing realism that you are willing to irrationally go against society and state to violently keep her in line should she cross you.
It’s schizophrenic nonsense and not replicable. It makes far more sense to do what Elon does. If you cannot afford the cost of paying the higher level escorts to stick around, like Elon, outsource the early years to cheap labor economies and just buy the eggs. Its now becoming a trend among the very wealthy to do this, furtively, except they don’t bother outsourcing to cheap labor countries because they don’t need to. They apply this strategy because it works, it’s coherent, and doesn’t require a bifurcating life strategy where you simultaneously pursue a life strategy where you look like a drug dealing pimp but also participate enough in regular society to afford resources for children and a reasonable lifestyle.
For men capable of upper class incomes, even just upper middle class, unless and until we de-emancipate women, expected offspring improve in both number and genetic quality by just paying for it directly. This is evidenced by the fertility minded very wealthy going ahead and doing this already, with success.
It’s not society optimal and is going to continue causing massive problems. It is individual optimal, I would argue even for those with 2-3m USD net worth based on napkin math. If expected earnings under that, it does make more sense to attempt your strategy, even if incoherent, but 2m working age earnings is a rather low bar for high IQ high conscientious man, whom in general has the most trouble with modern social environment women.
I was happily married, she died, and I, after running through a few women, all of them considerably younger than myself, then happily married a much younger second wife. So I seem to have replicated it.
Alf reports he is doing OK. How are you doing?
Men conquer, and women surrender, but men perform and women choose. We must all perform the pimp monkey dance.
If you want prosocial behavior to win a fair lady, you will need a society where you have to impress her father, not her.bel
The female fantasy is that she wants a cad, who eventually and very belatedly, reveals his dad side to her, but she has to struggle hard to get to that part of him.
Really not psyched to get into this debate again.
Spending millions each year on lawyers fighting over custody of your kids is not ‘a working strategy’ in my book.
Spending so little time with your eldest son that he transitions into a girl just to spite you, not a working strategy.
Yet we speak in unison.
To you.
There is no spending millions on custody battles, there are clear and well established legal channels for this that were set up for the fags to use. Hence my napkin math of 2-3m being the line where it becomes a clear winner. About 50-100k combined for surrogacy, embryo selection, and buying quality eggs. Live in wet nurses are under 15k/year, and regular nannies even cheaper.
This is not speculative, people are already doing this. Does not require fishing through whores, plate spinning, and long running psych games, with a limited pool of candidates as higher genetic quality women in general are less likely to find themselves not alpha widowed and capable of sustaining marriage and children.
Your given advice is not internally consistent, I pointed out one of the inherent inconsistencies. It is only consistent and applicable for short term strategies, for getting a fuck. When it comes to long term strategies, it becomes a new game that requires different approaches. You both were just advising Com to signal low investment, and yet Jim has written posts on “mate guarding game” that deliberately signal the highest, most irrational form of investment. The reason you do this is because your strategies are bifurcated, and require this funnel of raw numbers that filter into long term games where you signal totally different things at different stages.
Pursuing the short term game seriously, unless you are already self-made, is costly socially and particularly costly financially, as you have to invest a lot of time into peacocking the status frame of a drug dealing pimp. This is what Andrew Tate looks like, and it works.
Pursuing the long term game is unreliable, even for the high status, because changes in social environment and just chance and just dumb missteps or misunderstandings of underlying psychology will blow up your family. Do you wish to tell me Erik Prince is a loser, socially or in terms of implied violence or in any way that makes internal sense? That man is independently wealthy through entrepreneurship of his own business of violent mercenary training and contracting, and ended up divorced. You want to tell everyone here by following your vague Laozi-like advice, this fate is avoidable. Perhaps it is, but it’s not *reliable*, which is my point.
You are not a fag, and if you try to use those channels you will encounter some two tier policing.
Elon’s oldest son trooning out comes after a divorce and custody battle. This is what happens when people follow your advice — which is vague and reads like Hericlitian fragments bundled together, which is understandable because you are trying to instill mindset frames and not actions — and make missteps because of some personal failures *or just unfortunate life circumstance* causing their status to fall. You suggest walking a tightrope where missteps cause total blowup.
I suggest pursuing the strategy Elon does now, where the traditional arrangements are not even pretended, and you furthermore use well-established legal channels that give you full rights to your children, so they will not be legally separated from you by a spiteful woman that wishes to purge her insufficiently-alpha offspring in a hysteric fit of self-harm.
I suggest strategies that mitigate the outcome you are decrying, the opposite of your implication.
We were telling him to stop acting like a giddy 14-year old, stop overanalyzing, and just try and set up a date.
Analysis paralysis. There’s a million ways from here to Rome, and those who seek shall find. Andrew Tate sought wealth and pimping, and he found it. If all you seek is one wife, not the same as dismantling an atom bomb.
I barely know him. But experience teaches that every marriage is happy in the same way, unhappy in the same way. Does Erik Prince understand what makes a marriage work? Or is he married to his work?
To those who have ears, let them hear.
Women and children are maladapted to anything but the traditional arrangements. Women will cause no end of trouble, as Elon’s concubins cause him no end of trouble, and his children lack positive rolemodels to emulate when they want to form their own families. Elon may be a father of many, but grandfather of few.
I brought up Tate as an example of what it looks like to successfully signal well enough to bang lots of women looks like, not because I thought he was a good example to follow, or even successful in any other domain than impressing some subset of normie youth and banging lots of women.
Following Tate’s memes can get you laid. You can point to this as an empirical phenomenon. I see no example of an equivalent figure mentoring men into successful marriage. This is my point, and I will keep repeating it. If your method were able to be replicated, it would be, and some influencer would be bastardizing it for tiktok shorts. No influencer is doing this, because the only replicable phenomenon is banging. The influencers with knowledge of women’s nature don’t even try, because they know inherently the situation, which is that it really is a game of raising your own status, and then playing games of chance. They instead advise for rolling back sexual lib, and point out the various failures of sexual lib.
Erik Prince as the leader of a PMC would have had no choice, in the event of serious conflict, except to be “married to the job.” However, I am pretty sure he got divorced well after, not soon after but long after, Blackwater was destroyed by bugocrat fiat. It’s bizarre to me that we can find an example of an exceptionally talented man, and by all public appearances and public speaking exceptionally virtuous, and then say that this is not enough. This is not necessarily directly relevant to the discussion here, except to say strategies of being high status and masculine and family oriented, the man had lots of kids, mean nothing if Erik Prince can find himself divorced. I am not the man Erik Prince is, and I find the fact he failed to keep his wife despite success in other domains business and social and familial to be a massive red flag advising against pursuing traditional strategies.
I agree with you that this is an unstable strategy, and will not repeat across generations. It only makes sense in the here and now, before the time when cults political and otherwise start enforcing monogamy again, or society collapses into more rudimentary forms.
I would like to point out that everyone used to have some level of emulatable example in the household directly or close to their social position, and it did not matter, we still are here today. We live in starkly unusual and badly adapted times, and even providing a good example at home seems of limited utility when the social circles you involve yourself and your family in will be maladaptive. Ideally in the next 10-15 years the breakaway religious colonies that are nascent now will be mature enough you can send your sons and daughters away to live with, should they be accepted, or the time of sexual lib will have passed and we do not have to worry about such things.
In our society, getting laid is a necessary precondition to successful marriage. If you want to marry a good woman, you are going to have to bang a lot of bad women.
We have no choice but to play the cards we are dealt. It is not God’s will that good men should die childless and alone. It should not be the way that it is, but here we are. All is fair in love and war. Love is a battlefield. All men must dance the pimp monkey dance. Men must conquer. What else can we do?
What? No, of course not. When you do this right, you don’t want to reveal your power level. The whole thing about Tate is that he revels in the criminal badboy image so time in prison did not hurt him as much as it would hurt a man who is actually trying to be a good husband and father.
Which is not to say there’s not an infinite amount of shorts that advertise exactly what you say. They just don’t reveal the secret sauce, even though the secret ingredient is always obviously Christianity.
Browsing through his website Erik Prince notes ‘the myth of Capitalism’ as a favorite book, which is typical leftist tripe on how government must interfere in corporations. So the extent to which he shares our virtues is already debatable.
But of course the bigger issue which you point out is that, indeed, being a talented man does not equate to a successful marriage. This is for the same reason that being a talented man does not equate to being a good car mechanic. A talented man might be an excellent car mechanic if he studied how a car worked and spent some time in a garage, but by merit of his talent alone – nah.
It can certainly feel degrading and stupid but you still have to do it. Think of some foolish bird doing its mating display in a David Attenborough feature and just go with it.
I will face my silliness and I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the silliness has gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Every time I bring this up I feel as if I rehash the same points over and over without them being addressed.
Game is not *reliable and repeatable* for managing a stable familiy. If it were reliable and repeatable, there would be people reliably repeating the strategies, and there wouldn’t be the massive market that exists for tangent red pill ideas — because the market would converge quickly on the working strategy, like it did for getting laid; game advice does work for short term — and I wouldn’t be here telling you it wasn’t. I clearly have read and attempted to apply your strategies, I’ve been lurking for years now. So have others. I’m not naming names, because then we get into this stupid back and forth nitpicking about how no one is *really* actually factually applying your method and failing, because by definition your method is the one that works. If it worked reliably and repeatably, this discussion would not have been spurred. Therefore it is either unreliable, unrepeatable, or unteachable.
>”What else can we do?”
I opened up with the alternative. Game for short term fucks, save up at least 2M USD, preferably more, and buy eggs, surrogates, third world wet nurses and a somewhat remote compound. This is reliable and repeatable and teachable. You can argue about desirable, I wont disagree. It’s suboptimal, but we are not working in a world with an abundance of choice.
The ideal is monogamy enforced by your social circle and even more ideally the state. We have a dearth of this. You say “game and fake it until it works.” I say, “this is unreliable and likely to not get you the highest genetic quality and quantity of offspring, compared with the direct surrogacy route.”
Here is where we go into the back and forth where it is simply reasserted to follow the advice on game, but except really serious for really real on God, because just normal advice on game doesnt work, but with the magical ingredient of Jesus Christ, a miracle occurs.
I’m being uncharitable. It’s more like, “play game, but with a mindset that you physically mentally spiritually own the woman, and God wants this.” Well, this is unteachable. I believe in Gnon, Gnon is much more cold hearted, Gnon tells you what is and what is not, nothing more, nothing less. So I will have to pursue the strategy that looks far more likely to have the material outcome, and then I can send my children off to Sunday school.
And you are having a conversation with people who have reliably repeated the strategy.
The nature of woman is to marry an alpha backed by a higher alpha. God is the highest alpha around. If state and society is against you, God is behind you. God gives me authority to tell my wife the nature of marriage, to overule state and society. Under my roof, I am King and High Priest
To the extent that marriage and family is still happening, it is happening by the authority of God.
If you look at population groups that still have high fertility, the girls went to a religious school that taught old type religion.
If you look at countries that still have high fertility, the official religion is old type. They teach a God that backs the authority of father and husband.
Empirically, Tate’s advice works, and the Bible’s advice works. Deploy both of them.
I have raised a family. You have not. Game is repeatable and reliable for managing a stable family. You have to game your wife hard. Shit tests get easier each time you pass them, but they never go away, and failing a shit test remains disastrous.
@Alf
I see flashes of it here and there, except none in direct real life experience. In real life experience, every time I scratch a little at the history behind the family, the woman was an outlier that came from a real family, and wanted that from the beginning. Which seems to me more like looking for a unicorn than applying a strategy. You claim otherwise, we will go back and forth forever on this, I will just say I must be stupid, ignorant, and incompetent.
The book is bad, but so is anything else published since 1945, to varying degrees. It’s not as bad as you say, and talks about the “revolving door between regulator and regulated” as a massive part of the problem.
Society seems strangely hostile to single men using a surrogate to make a family, even with a nanny. You probably have a better shot if you’re two men going for two babies.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-chinese-billionaires-having-dozens-of-us-born-babies-via-surrogate/ar-AA1Siy0B
Filtering for women who have both parents still married and, preferrably, a number of siblings, is not a bad idea. Asking about the family can be done early without a lot of drama.
The problem indeed is that God cares for you, Gnon does not, and while a caring master makes for a caring servant, a cruel master makes for a cruel servant.
Some things in my family life I have succeeded in because I have done exactly as advertised here: date women, learn game, transition into a relationship. Even, it might surprise you, teach my wife how to manage a big family – she comes from a small one.
Other things I have succeeded in despite my actions, in the sense that I made stupid decisions that would’ve wrecked me and my family-forming chances if I hadn’t been forcibly corrected and indeed guided by what I can only perceive as higher forces. At the risk of sounding even dumber, I will double down and say that God gives signs daily, and the older I get, the more I try to spot them.
>”Society seems strangely hostile”
I do not advise setting up shop in California, or alerting the local Anglophone journo whore as to what you’re up to. If you want to be very discret, legally marry the pinay nanny. Give a little money as salary to her snd her family, she’ll be overjoyed. Then go through surrogacy channels not in California, repeating this, not in California or Boston or NYC or whatever other hellhole, and have your dozen(s of) white kids out somewhere far from the public eye.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? It’s like you just inserted yourself into a conversation you heard the tail end of, without knowing anything about the participants involved or what they were discussing. But this is the internet and it takes only a few seconds to look up the context; all you have to do is scroll up and read.
He is talking about a girl he met at a bar, presumably, or some other social setting, maybe; not some pre-screened egg donor from Ovo-Frozo Magazine. He has not even kissed her, does not sound like he has even gone on a real date with her, never mind had time or opportunity to think about “managing a stable family”.
“Relationship game” and marriage game, regardless of whether you call them “game” or think they deserve some other name, happen after you start the relationship and marriage, respectively. In fact, we explicitly told Com that he was being silly trying to conceptualize his one or two date cancellations in a game/shit-test frame before he’s even made a move on her or established whether or not there’s any physical attraction as opposed to friendzone.
Your interjection here that “this is no basis for a relationship/marriage” is incoherent and retarded. Nobody said that it was. There is no relationship at this point, and potential marriage is such an abstract concept that we might just as well be discussing asexual cell division as a reproductive strategy. If this were the 17th century, he’d merely be a suitor, trying to impress Dad instead of the woman herself, but still without the opportunity or the balls to just straight up abduct her.
You are sperging about some random debate that we weren’t having and which supposedly applies to people who clearly aren’t in the room right now and don’t sound like typical people that any of us know in our own lives. “Elon Musk did it”, ok, and are you Elon Musk? Even putting aside the question of whether any of us want Elon Musk’s romantic/family outcomes, this is as insipid as the business advice I used to hear saying e.g. “Apple did it”. Yes buddy, that’s great advice if you’re Apple.
We are telling a guy to stop letting his imagination run wild, get his head out of the clouds and just make some rudimentary effort to actually get the girl. Aside from a few particular admonitions about mindset, there’s been hardly any discussion of cad-game strategies at all, no one has been telling him to start ghosting or negging or play jealousy games or whatever. We have been telling him to go on a freaking date already and either start something, or get rejected and move on, which is just the standard centuries-old dating advice for beginners minus the garbage “man up” flowers-and-chocolates pussy-worshipping additions of the 20th century.
People aren’t listening to you or addressing your points because you aren’t making any goddamn sense. If you think you’ve cracked the code on how to build a successful family, then first try it yourself, and then give the benefit of your smashing success to people who asked for it.
My God, man! Sometimes I am eating food, and sometimes I am not eating food. You seem to think that good advice must consist of either “never eat”, or “always be eating during every one of your waking moments.” Sheesh!
When it comes to chicks, there’s an optimal ratio of nice to not-nice. Early on, it’s close to 100% not-nice. Later on the optimal mix changes.
Like many men here, I have actually USED long-term relationship game in reality. We’re not speculating. In fact I find it easier than Jim and others say it is. Jim often talks as if hooking up or being in a marriage or whatever is an unceasing Wagnerian opera. I don’t find it to be remotely that difficult. One of the glorious things about long-term relationship game is that it’s quite instinctive, after you have uninstalled the poisonous feminist software from your brain. Sometimes I tease my wife, sometimes I’m tenderly affectionate with her. I don’t find that I have to calculate the optimal mix; it’s not remotely that complicated.
Yes it most certainly is. It is down to science and engineering, and has been for about two decades. My experience with game has been fucking textbook. If you experience otherwise, you’re doing something wrong. That’s a not a dig on you; it’s advice to review your experience and see what you might need to do differently. Don’t expect it to work for you on 100% of women; there is such a thing as personal chemistry. Or maybe she’s 6’1” and you’re 5’6” and she just won’t go there, etc. This is science like quantum mechanics; it’s probabalistic.
I am a lot older than you, and for some time been pushing uphill. Hooking up is a lot of Wagnerian opera for me. Long term, it gets a lot quieter after a while, but drama happens from time to time. Shit tests still happen, less and less frequently, and passing them gets easier and easier.
I was born and raised in the fading breath of an older culture. When the game movement got started, it consisted of a bunch of blue pilled people wandering around empirically testing things and say “Huh, how come this stuff works. It is very strange. I don’t understand women.” Women never seemed strange and incomprehensible to me. I always knew women were different to men. In time the game movement rediscovered old wisdom and evolutionary game theory, but I was reading the game groups when the realisation had not yet dawned.
I know a young man who has been paid money for putting his face on people’s products. He just stands around and women show up and start talking to him. I doubt that it is non stop Wagnerian opera for him, but he still has some rough dramas. Probably considerably less than me.
And, reporting from very long ago. Women are worse, much worse, these days, because state and society encourages their worst aspects and their most wicked and dysfunctional potential. But there never has been a time, nor will there ever be a time, when men had it easy. Many an emperor with a thousand conservatively raised concubines and the unquestioned and unquestionable power to put any of them or all of them to death for any reason or no reason has had far too much drama. It has been rightly said for a very long time that fortune favours the bold and faint heart never won fair lady.
Fidelis, notice that Jim’s response to me also makes the point that game works differently for every man, depending on individual circumstances.
There are 8.4 billion people on the planet and half of them are female. If she runs screaming, just give the girl tree another shake.
For what it’s worth … You have to show your strong interest, but not too strongly. She’s like a cat, at first she will run away if you get too close too quickly. Though an amiable slut (like a stripper) might not run away since she knows what’s going on and is habituated to it.
If she thinks she’s above you, she will often reject you outright. I think this can be quite a problem in the modern world. If you are too disparate, princess will get mad at your presumption. Money and assets don’t seem to count for much anymore because she already has a well-paid sinecure; you will have to be at some ridiculous playboy/prince level to really impress. You still need to impress her in some other way.
One of the ways is this: women are pretty flowers, admired by many but fundamentally passive and scared. Men are not pretty flowers (except 1/33) but make good and interesting things happen. So make things happen. It doesn’t always have to be extraordinary when she’s fundamentally passive and scared, but you do have to show her you are her better.
(Attracting a tomboy is a different matter. You will have to be a better rock climber or her coach or someone else visibly above her in the local hierarchy.)
I tell people to try going hard PUA, hard Bible, hard shit-test passing, hard whatever… try to play and win the game, spank her ass, at least once, early on.
Old School Trad is best, and normal.
Her: throws some shit
You: “You do that again and I’m going to spank your ass, lol ;)”
Her: does it again
You: spank her ass, swift/hard, as soon as you can get or make angle on it, even lead her with fun, or a gruff voice, into physically turning around or bending over. sooner the better, don’t wait to do it beyond the second meet after.
You: “I told you I was gonna spank your ass ;)”
But if she’s too alpha [1], or hot (which is a dumb reason to yield), or is wealthy (this can be *very* good reason to yield), and if her ovaries are interviewing your nuts for the dad job… then fucking take the job bro ($).
Sign a mutual prenup “for her”, but that at least prevents you from getting cleaned out. Plus get whatever else you want like the kids shall always know your name and number, you can talk with them whenever, they can visit and stay with whoever they want.
Then start popping out the kids.
Ain’t nothing wrong with the cuck stay-at-home-dad life, provided you get what you want too.
Which for many Men is exactly that… 1) kids that know your name, 2) enough money flowing and securely saved to survive until you die, and 3) one room and garage and basement in the house to call your man cave.
Myself, I cannot tolerate smoke, smoker mouth, smoker hair, smoker skin, smoker breath, smoker tics jitters rage paranoia jonesing, smoker cancer, smoker filth, smoke coated walls furniture clothing, smoker culture, smoking zones, smokers smoking friends/family/coworkers, $moker co$t, and smoker fire hazard.
[1] Beta guys can play too, they’re not all stupid, they know their nuts and service have certain transactional and ongoing value to the Alpha woman, these women have to cut deals to get them… either outright deal$, or in some combination of negotiating roles/services/functions both inside/outside the home. And let’s just be honest, one category of these Alpha women will pay anything to keep a guy in the house just to lick her pussy when she comes home from work. So if that’s your thing, leverage it.
She hasn’t really shit tested me other than canceling something on me which I guess I passed by not contacting her for a while so maybe a shit test comes later. That being said yes almost all girls love being spanked (and at least lightly choked).
> bitching about girls smoking
You have to be a zoomer. Women were happier friendlier and mostly thinner (though recently fatness has declined) pre 2015 when almost all girls of good looks and attractive age smoked (like over 80%) at least in any parties or nightlife setting. My view of drug use in society is that it is neither created nor destroyed but only changes form. Vapes may not have the smell but are less social (and seem to make women anxious closed off and jittery perhaps because every vaper is the equivalent of a nonstop chain smoker in terms of nicotine intake and perhaps because the delivery doesnt quite work the same) and SSRIs & weed are much worse than tobacco. Bring it back to the lesser evil.
Standard game: Elicit a shit test and pass it. Or interpret innocent behavior as a shit test and pass it, as in the neg.
You are unlikely to get anywhere without a shit test.
The problem with lawyerettes is not that they are all ball busters and bunny boilers by nature (although far too many are), but that they are almost always going to perceive you as lower status than they are.
If she says she doesn’t want kids, that’s the tell. (Because it means she doesn’t want your kids.) And, per Jim, you can project alpha to any woman, including a lawyerette, it’s just harder and requires tighter game.
Maybe. But you seem to say this about any girl who pays attention to you outside of a transactional situation.
That’s not necessarily a reason not to hook up, but worrying about her motives is insecure beta frame and a waste time even within that frame. Doesn’t matter. Just follow through and don’t be a simp about it.
You only need to worry about honey traps if you’ve got something to lose, and she knows you have it.
She seems surprisingly humble about her status. After giving her a light I commented she was young to be a female lawyer (I had already expressed surprise that such a seemingly sweet natured girl way a lawyer and she had gone through she tries to keep the bitch act at work and that she definitely doesn’t want to become that girl in her personal life) and she admitted she got skipped two grades… so i said you must have a high IQ. She said yes I guess im smart almost apologetically she was also even hesitant to say she was an attorney before.
She’s not like the other 5 million empowered, hard-charging hot lawyer chicks who got corner suites while still associates, ahem, and still keep Ally McBeal posters at home.
[I wonder who McBeal was the Ally of? Not Jesus I expect.]
Your lawyeress is not greedy, grasping, false, and astonishingly solipsistic like the others. No. SHE likes you for who you are, you’re just that damn magnetic. And the elegance with which she smokes and drinks (always moderately) is like something outta a Fifties movie.
The more that time goes on, the more I realize that The Cominator is right.
https://x.com/Anarseldain/status/2016887094464172457
Indians are the real foreign threat. Modi makes it a point to include the export of Indians to White nations in trade deals. Reports from every major tech company that Americans are being laid off and more Indians are being hired. Cutting H-1B isn’t helping since they’re just hiring them to work in India.
The Trump Administration needs to make a serious pivot to save the American tech sector and preserve jobs for its base. The lack of deportations of Somalis on explicit ethnic grounds is disappointing, but if something is not done with Indians, the consequences will be even greater.
I would quibble on a minor point that in the long term hiring them in India wont be nearly as big as a problem since attempts to outsource things to India will fail miserably. But priority one stop them from coming here, followed by deporting almost all of them, then closing off outsourcing. Really it would be best if India were run by a regime that practiced strict Juche…
This whole Pretti situation is dumb and is resulting in a whole bunch of people finding out they have eggs on their faces because they are doing armchair conjecture over technical details which are so far ambiguous, unknown, and perhaps unknowable. Such conjecture has dominated discussions everywhere from this forum to the media to even the Trump administration. These details are completely irrelevant for whether this was a legal justified shooting or an “execution”.
The undeniable facts are:
1) That Pretti illegally obstructed law enforcement from carrying out a legal operation. (If he was smart he would have not been doing this)
2) Law enforcement legally acted on the obstruction by pushing him away.
3) Pretti continued to illegally obstruct. (If he was smart, he would have walked away at this point)
4) Law enforcement proceeded to legally detain him.
5) Pretti illegally resisted being legally detained. (If he was smart, he would have gone limp at this point)
6) In the scuffle one of the officers found he was lethally armed and informed all the others.
7) Law enforcement now knows they are dealing with a potentially lethal situation. (If Pretti was smart, he really, really should have gone limp here but he continued illegally and actively resisting arrest)
8) Due to the tangled mass of bodies in a highly fluid few seconds, it is reasonable for most of the officers to not know if Pretti has his hand on the gun, or not, or if he’s been disarmed.
9) Pretti’s continued illegal resistance while armed created a situation where law enforcement had to decide in seconds how to deal with a situation that they reasonably perceived to have escalated to legal use of lethal force.
This was by no means a clean execution of law enforcement, it was incredibly messy and tactically executed in a terrible way, but it was legal and no sane court will prosecute those officers.
Exactly so.
My objection to Handi overinterpreting a confused and blurry video of confusing actions is that this overinterpretation airbrushes away the illegal and active resistance to arrest and the general confusion and dangerous chaos.
If Handi’s overinterpretation of some blotches is correct, then we may also conclude that that Pretti’s active resistance disrupted the effort to disarm him, and the cops could not know during the ensuing fraction of a second whether the disruption was minor or fatal.
The big takeaway from this is that some of Trump’s cabinet picks were completely the wrong personnel for the jobs they have. Soft men who have never been in a fight, and women, do not understand violence, and putting them in charge of the enforcement arm of the law has proven embarrassing. Trump should have dragged Joe Arpaio out of retirement or found someone of similar capability (Gregory Bovino is fucking wasted in Border Patrol). Trump could’ve been dragging criminal Judges out of their positions by now if he had the paramilitary arm of USG under control, he clearly doesn’t. At this point it’s all going to come down to Hegseth alone, which is the scary nuclear option Trump is understandably going to be hesitant on pushing.
>no sane court will prosecute those officers.
We haven’t had sane courts since SCOTUS pulled judicial review out of its rectum in Marbury v. Madison.
In normal situations, 9 out of 10 times, law enforcement officers are not even charged with a crime in similar situations because courts feel safe to be sane. In the few times they are charged, usually not found guilty.
Getting shafted like Chauvin is the rare situation when it catches political attention and either a specially selected Judge and prosecution is chosen to not be sane, or mob violence is used to make the court and prosecution insane. It boils down to who controls the justice system. In the current situation, it’s Trump’s DOJ which is headed by a woman… we shall see.
Chauvin was at best really really retarded though even if Floyd was a nigger scumbag criminal and dying of fent. I dont understand why all the cops together couldn’t cuff the nog and throw his ass in the back. I support ICE, supported Rittenhouse, supported Daniel Penny, supported the Uber driver in Texas (cant remember), but I still dont see why we should care about a retard cop (at best) who gave the left a narrative by being retarded…
The cops diagnosed Floyd as potentially having excited delirium, which meant per training they needed to restrain his movements so he’d generate less internal heat while they waited for the paramedics to arrive and be able to get to Floyd.
Well thats an explanation for why they were retarded but still retarded. Restrain him in the back of the cruiser. Cops should not have such confidence in their medical assessments they are sitting on the neck for that long.
As per training, restraining him like they did was standard operating procedure. As for the knee on neck, watch the video carefully, it was never applied so forcibly that Floyd couldn’t move his head. It was, as per training, used to control head movement, and even if full weight was applied to back of neck, would be very uncomfortable but not dangerously lethal. Autopsy found neck compression was not cause of death. Heart failure from excited delirium was, but that was politically incorrect and so the autopsy conveniently did not say that.
https://www.startribune.com/alpha-news-liz-collin-defamation-lawsuit-minneapolis-police-department-derek-chauvin-george-floyd/601218841
Because he was innocent, and Fentanyl Floyd was guilty.
Because if one cop, even a “bad” or “retard” cop, can be singled out and destroyed by the mob merely for doing actual police work, then any cop can.
Because in the friend/enemy distinction you so often opine about, he is a friend, or at least was acting in the capacity of a friend at the time.
Because if and when the war gets kinetic, we need people like that, brutes willing to crack skulls, on our side.
Because it hurts the left’s morale to see their designated heroes torn down and their designated villains let go.
Take your pick.
For someone so concerned with the friend/enemy distinction as yourself, you have a really peculiar and off-putting blind spot here. I’m not advocating “back the blue” griller idiocy, but you need to learn to put aside whatever bad experiences you’ve had with cops in the past, understand they are a necessary evil for keeping thugs like Floyd and Brown off our streets, and help potential allies even if they aren’t your favorite people or you don’t have an absolute guarantee of reciprocity.
“Because in the friend/enemy distinction you so often opine about, he is a friend, or at least was acting in the capacity of a friend at the time.”
He enforced lockdowns for Tim Walz so I disagree on this point.
Was he supposed to quit the police force? You ask far too much of the normie cop.
People who claim to know that Pretti was disarmed during the scrum are misrepresenting the situation. They are very likely right that he was disarmed, but we do not know, and the cops at scene of the action knew even less.
What the cops did know that was that a hostile violent person with a gun was creating chaos and committing violence.
If Handi is correct that a cop had removed the gun from Pretti’s holster, something went wrong during this operation, and at the time the shots rang out, chances are he did not yet know who had control of the gun — when something goes wrong during a struggle, the enemy probably caused it, and very possibly things are working out in accordance with the enemy’s intent.
The vibe I am getting in my blue state job is excitement: not despair, not panic, but righteous outrage and anticipation of victory. The Left is loving this. They cheer, and they boast, they rant, and they’re full of energy. They think this is the turning of the tide (of course, I think the tide has been flowing with them the whole time, despite a few eddies moving small bits of flotsam the other way).
Not a representative sample of the country, obviously, but probably a representative sample of the mid- to low-level bureaucrats who operate the government: the people who decide what laws actually get enforced, how, and on whom.
Well of course they are. They also think that Putin is falling, falling, falling, that Covid is deadly, the jab is safe and effective, and the North Pole is going to melt, flooding the coastal cities and creating nine billion climate refugees by
199020002010202020302040.Notably, what Neet is asserting now is (1) something that is allegedly going on at his workplace, which we cannot observe ourselves, and which (2) is merely leftists’ emotions. They feel that they’re winning. Allegedly.
Maybe he is telling the truth about his coworkers and maybe he’s not. It doesn’t match what I’m seeing, which is social media lefties saying, “Oh my God, Trump arrested a journalist! You know who else arrested journalists? Nazis!”
And “The arrest of Lemon is a horror! We now live in a fascist dictatorship!” etc.
https://babylonbee.com/news/chilling-if-they-can-arrest-don-lemon-for-something-as-simple-as-breaking-the-law-imagine-what-they-can-do-to-you
Where is our resident Eeyore?
I’m right here, Tigger. We shall see what happens. I’ve been wrong before, and I’d like to be wrong on this one, but I doubt I will be.
Neet, watch the Karen’s disbelief. She was wrong.
And it really does not matter if she is sentenced to jail. The process is the punishment — that was the primary mechanism for punishing the J6ers. The sentencings were the least of it.
The left is melting down wonderfully over the arrest of Lemon. He is a real journalist you see, unlike all the right wing journalists who have been arrested under previous regimes.
Long ago, I watched video of “real journalist” being physically removed by security at a Trump rally. His outraged disbelief was wonderful to behold.
“North pole is going to melt”
The North pole is mostly floating sea ice. If it did melt it wouldn’t make much difference it terms of sea level, but it would make a BIG difference regarding shipping! In fact, they should submerge a few thousand nuclear reactors in the arctic sea, whose sole purpose is to generate heat to eliminate Arctic Sea ice. Maybe fewer if you’re just interested in some fixed, navigable channels.
>>flooding the coastal cities and creating nine billion climate refugees by 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040.
The cities that they continue to live in, and aren’t making plans to leave, despite “believing” that those places will be underwater in (moving date) years?
J. Orlin Grabbe’s blog is where I first learned about Bitcoin.
I’ll add my 2 cents on dating to find a wife in today’s age. I have been dating for a few years now (post divorce). Dated lots of whores.
The best girls I have dated are either from a central/south American/Caribbean country, or their parents are. Darker skin is easier. The poorer the country and the more war torn the better. Additional points for countries with a long list of human rights violations.
Western white women who do not fall in love and marry their high school boyfriend are trash. Stop looking for a white woman in America.
Currently I am dating a girl 20 years younger than me, and I took her virginity. She is not white and mostly black. I have kids so I am not worried about that part. Pretty face, ridiculous body. She is the best one of them so far and probably I will marry her.
Find the girls that are attracted to you in return. Girls that are raised old type religion will appreciate it if you are too. Your game has to be tight though, nothing should get by you. Daddy/daughter game works great with these girls. They will not be instantly turned off if you accidentally cherish them.
Every woman will say and believe that she wants a man who is kind and respectful blah blah blah etcetera. But we all know what they actually want. AWALT. All women are like that.