In nineteen twenty, a wave did crest,
The vote was granted, a right expressed.
But love’s sweet bond, once pure and true,
Now wavers in the winds of blue.
No fault divorce, a name so kind,
Yet hearts of men, left lost behind.
For in the end, the blame we bear,
As women’s choices grow more dear.
The Lord’s command, a voice so clear,
“Obey thy father, then thy dear.”
Yet in our hearts, a longing lies,
For simpler times, beneath the skies.
The grandchild’s laughter, once so near,
Now fades with time, a distant cheer.
For in the chase of independence,
We find ourselves in loneliness.
But hope still whispers in the night,
Return to love, embrace the fight.
To honor God, to build anew,
In love’s true bonds, we’ll find the clue.
So let us rise, with hearts aligned,
To overthrow the currents of time.
For in the end, it’s love that binds,
And in tradition, our hearts find.
Female emancipation prevents successful reproduction because it leads to no-fault divorce, which is in practice men-are-at-fault divorce, because it encourages women to pursue options inconsistent with marriage and family, and all this is contrary to the will of God, who prohibits divorce and homosexuality, and commands women to be under the authority first of fathers, then of husbands, and because it leads to demographic catastrophe, the problem of the missing grandchildren. And though it is harmful to everyone’s reproduction, it is particularly and especially harmful to white reproduction,
It is also bad for women, who cannot make an irreversible commitment, and find themselves therefore stuck in an endless series of short term flings until their eggs dry up and their beauty fades. That women are profoundly unhappy with the results of the emancipation that they wanted is illustrated by female porn, which tends to be set in worlds where the main female character magically loses the capability to make such choices,, being abducted by a were monster, enslaved by a tyrant, or by some similarly improbable magical mechanism losing the opportunity to make choices where that opportunity would destabilize the relationship. Female porn tends to have the main character a strong independent and sadly isolated woman in the modern world, who gets magically transported into magical world where she is no longer isolated, but is firmly under male authority, the magical world being patriarchal, or the character powerless, or the world dominated by predatory male violence. Most female porn is a wish fulfillment fantasy where the main female character is freed from unwanted freedom. Women long for the ancestral environment of successful reproduction, and in the ancestral environment of successful reproduction they were property with little if any sexual choice, thus in their porn fantasies, men make the choices for them.
Female emancipation is a shit test. When a man fails a shit test by giving a woman what she demands and passionately believes she wants, she gets twice as unhappy and twice as angry, and this is what surveys of female happiness and mental health show. Surveys consistently show that conservative women are saner and happier than liberal women, conservative Christian women are saner and happier than non Christian conservative women. Liberal women are however similarly crazy and unhappy regardless of faith, possibly because their Christianity is the postChristian faith of God the transsexual father and mother, Jesus the Jewish community organizer, and their God supports female adultery, divorce and abortion.
This is why it is better to empower men than to empower women.
empowering women was a strategic mistake because women, as a group, tend to prioritize individual benefit over collective or long-term social responsibility once empowered.
When women gain financial and legal independence, the incentive to cooperate with men in building families weakens, not strengthens.
A man with resources typically uses them to create and expand….a wife, children, a household, and eventually extended family. Women, once empowered, tend to consume and consolidate, focusing resources inward on personal comfort, lifestyle, and emotional satisfaction.
Every society that has maximally emancipated women has seen the same outcome:
Falling marriage rates
Declining birth rates
Population collapse
This isn’t coincidence…it’s pattern. Empowerment removed dependency without replacing it with obligation. Women were freed from men but not bound to society in return. The result is decision-making driven by short-term self-interest rather than continuity.
The issue isn’t that women can’t contribute….it’s that, when given unrestricted choice, they choose themselves first, even when that choice undermines family formation and demographic survival. Sexual liberation, economic independence, and state protection removed the cost of opting out, so many opted out.
Empowering women didn’t fail because men resisted it. It failed because female decision-making, when unrestrained by family-centered incentives, does not prioritize societal survival.
I don’t think this “women are wicked” analysis is true, or explains the problem.
Rather, if women are free, they are free to defect at any time, whereupon men are naturally disinclined to invest in them and family. You don’t plant trees on land you do not own. You spin plates, while she tries to get on the booty call list of someone more alpha than you. You defect on her first because you expect her to defect on you first. If a wife can be compelled to provide respect, obedience, sex, domestic services, and reproductive services, she will obviously receive greater male investment — hence the social environment of female porn fantasies.
Take a random example “beloved incompetent stepmom”. Sixteen year old girl is belatedly informed that the emperor has married her to some great Lord. Emperor disapproves of that great Lord remaining single, which would imply he is considerably older than sixteen. Also, inherited his title from father, and father is dead, which again would imply a considerable age difference. She arrives at great lord’s castle — great Lord is away at the wars and has not heard the news either. Kids are being raised by the servants. She is incompetent at being a stepmother because not much older than her stepchildren, but, as wife and chatelaine, claims authority over children and servants.
In that fantasy, both parties are embedded in a society that is going to damned well make them stick it out whether they like it or not, whether they are suitable for each other or not, whether they like each other or not. This is the ancestral environment of successful reproduction for females.
“Bride of an evil dragon”: Main female character is simply abducted, is terrified that she might be killed at any moment, and has Stockholm syndrome.
“Becoming the lover of a twisted tyrant”. Title says it all.
“The fox concubine”: Main female character has legal and social status of a pet animal.
Almost every female sexual fantasy features, one way or another way, escape from freedom to defect, usually for the main female character, sometimes, as in “beloved incompetent stepmom”, for both the main male character and the main female character.
The difference between male porn and female porn is that male porn is entirely about the availability of fertile female bodies, while female porn is primarily about a social environment that takes away a woman’s freedom to defect.
Hence the observation that female porn is all rape fantasies, while male porn is only partially rape fantasies.. It is not all rape fantasies — rather it sets up a situation where the main male character has guaranteed permanent access to the main female character’s body — it is all about a social environment that is likely to result in permanent continued male support. Hence the tendency for the main female character to meet the main male character by the main male character throwing her into his dungeon.
“if women are free, they are free to defect at any time, whereupon men are naturally disinclined to invest in them and family. You don’t plant trees on land you do not own.”
In contrast,
“If a wife can be compelled to provide respect, obedience, sex, domestic services, and reproductive services, she will obviously receive greater male investment — hence the social environment of female porn fantasies.”
For readers who are new to this blog, Jim is analyzing this problem from the game-theoretic perspective of commitment as a solution to a time inconsistency problem. The particular topic is horribly heterodox, of course, but the analytical perspective is textbook.
It can be in a person’s interest to limit his, or in this case her, own future options. Captain Ramius in The Hunt for Red October: “When Cortez reached the New World, he burned his ships. As a result, his men were well motivated.”
Back to Jim:
“In that fantasy, both parties are embedded in a society that is going to damned well make them stick it out whether they like it or not, whether they are suitable for each other or not, whether they like each other or not. This is the ancestral environment of successful reproduction for females… [Female porn] is all about a social environment that is likely to result in permanent continued male support.”
He didn’t actually say women were wicked though, and it may be superficial but it is sufficient to explain the problem: Women in general are not suited to long-term thinking and leadership level decision making. Not even in the context of their own lives and families.
I agree he does get into the insinuation that women are wicked later, but I don’t think this actually means that. Why should women be suited for those skills? Why would any society benefit from women generally having that skillset? The notion that everyone should have leadership and decision making traits is so damn inefficient it’s asinine. Aristotle and Fitzhugh are correct that most people are natural slaves, most men and virtually all women. People may say I’m wicked for saying so but in my view there is nothing wicked about being a natural slave, nor anything wicked about natural slaves failing to act like natural leaders. But there is something very wicked about demanding a natural slave preform like a natural leaders, therein lies a great deal of the wickedness of liberalism.
My bone to pick with you on this topic Jim, and possibly I merely do not understand you correctly, is the characterization that we need to treat women like they were on the Savannah. To me it reads like you’re implying this is an attavism we have to settle for. As if the mate selection calculus for humans was different on the shores of the Aegean, or on the Rhine, or on the Steppes. Or even in modern Boston or Shanghai.
But for humans both male and female behavior is going to be dictated by the high investment of raising children and the social nature of humans and human family formation. Men are always going to want to demand all a woman’s eggs go in his basket, and as women only get so many eggs she’s always going to be motivated to make sure they go in the best basket possible. And if we don’t consider other things putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad move, so if a man wants all of her he has to demand it as one of his basic terms for any kind of help and relationship. And frankly if a man can’t demand basic things like that of her, how will he protect their children from more serious threats? Hypergamy and shit tests are features, not bugs. If I understand you correctly you more or less agree with that, I think the only substantial disagreement I may have with you is if you think conditions have in any way changed how women ‘should’ behave, and they have merely not ‘caught up’.
I’m saying nothing fundamental has changed, and no technology has not made the idea of women being equal any more logical. The subordination of women is built right into the optimal social-selection and reproductive strategy of humanity, for both men and women.
Monogamy is good as a Christian ideal when it’s encouraged but not really enforced, as it was until Trent and the Anabaptists. When it’s normal that nobles have a wife plus few mistresses and the priest keeps a girl or two for himself (though that was banned all the way back at the Lateran councils). Then the pope or whoever just naturalizes the bastards and grants a dispensation and life goes on. Augustine and Aquinas both recognize polygamy is not against natural law, but it’s not ideal when a few hoard hundreds of women either.
Frankly a large minority of men are not suited for fatherhood. The notion that men should be entitled to a woman just for existing has crept into modern liberal society and it’s demonic. That said the lower echelon of women also should not reproduce. Perhaps 60% of men and 80% of women should marry and have children, and the national faith should praise the celibacy of the remainder, again like old Christianity did. Although the more I see the people that struggle with relationships or just fail with them those numbers may be more realistically 40% of men and 70% of women. It starts to sound very harsh at that point though…
Anyway does that pass your shill test, or did I not engage with something important? If I wasn’t clear enough I am saying that men are correct to enforce cooperation on women, and women are also correct to demand that cooperation be enforced on them, they should not too easily surrender to men. None of that is evil or against the will of God. Though yes it can be tough for a man who doesn’t want to have to enforce his will on his wives.
Passed shill test with flying colors.
The problem is that men have evolved for extended large group cooperation, and the amazingly sensitive alpha radar of women has not kept up with the the way that alpha works in the modern world.
Thus, compare the way Trump signals high status to males, his wrestling promotions and his flying palace with the gold plated toilets, with the completely different way he signaled high status to females back when he was cruising for pussy. Similarly, Feynman was extremely high status, and yet hot coeds failed to find their way to his office to ask for some private tuition. Instead, he did what I had to do. And I also did, on a vastly smaller and less impressive scale, what Trump did. And Einstein did not get any, and wound up with a KGB chick supplied by Stalin.
We don’t want a society where Newton winds up celibate and Einstein winds up in bed with the KGB.
Because of this regrettable deficiency of women, I have to dance the pimp monkey dance.
As I have often said, we need a social order in which high status males are awarded status signals legible to women — which tend to be alarmingly primitive signals of status. And as I have also often said, these should resemble the ancestral signals the way a garden resembles our ancestral savannah. We don’t want Einstein and Newton actually poking holes in people with pointy objects. But we need it to look to the female’s brain between her legs as if they could and might.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Female alpha radar is still stuck in a world where male status equals ability and willingness to poke holes in people with a pointy stick.
Women like dangerous men, and most of all she likes a man who is dangerous to herself. The Bible commands women to fear their husbands, and women want to fear their husbands, and this is at it should be, that does not need to change. But the poking-holes-in people-with-a pointy-stick part does need to change. We want status as ascribed by males to males to influence female mating choice.
In “Bride of an Evil Dragon” status as perceived by women is completely inconsistent with status as perceived by men. This is the problem of women being attracted to men behind bars for cannibalism and murder.
In “Beloved incompetent stepmom” status is consistent but only because of authorial plot contrivance. Husband is high status because family, society, state, and emperor say so and also because very good at killing people. We would prefer it to suffice that family, society, state, and emperor say so.
And so I must dance the pimp monkey dance.
As new commenter, will take this opportunity to take the shill test in verse:
For woman’s emancipation
they took up the feminist fight
that started with scrapped obligation
and ended with swiping her right
But strangely, more hookups and beddings
brought less and less birthing of life
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings
said “MAN is the head of the wife”
In the Serravallian epoch
female sexual instincts evolved
when our ancestors lived in the treetops
and women were not yet controlled
Disagreeable males were made dead things
unless they were apex of merit
and the Gods of their Copybook Headings
said RUDE plus ALIVE equalled FIT
Twice wave-swept with fun revolutions
our girls found that, more tempting, good
They traded staid resolutions
For pills, and put their stock in wood
At long last, one message on Tinder
The sad, barren cat-lady groaned
For the copy-paste quote – scribed in cinder
said “SHE that is PRECIOUS is OWNED”
I am also a new commentor, I like your poety.
She is precious that is owned is such a good line.
One of my women likes the idea of being considered a treasure. I made it clear early on that was fine so long she understand I own the treasure.
AWFLs (Angry White Female Liberals) are how you get rainbow flags flying over churches (aka the “Christ is not welcome here” banner at Episcopal and Presbyterian places).
Women think with their feelings, which is good for nurturing, but terrible for policymaking.
19A was a bad idea, full stop.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Also, since you are lecturing Christians that we are insufficiently Christian, you need to first affirm that Christ is King, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Through him all things were created. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
Getting real tired of the Jews bombing and cockblocking Christian sites, real fucking tired
https://x.com/EthanLevins2/status/2038386798544454133
To be fair, StPeterBasilica is the more presumed place.
Shia think he’s a prophet, and Jesus successor, and ancestor of Mahdi… so they Mosque-ified the Christian place that was originally there, then Israel bombed it, then another round of looting.
https://www.lebanos.org/article/%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%B1%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%A7
Israel should de-mosque-ify Temple Mount, after all it’s Islam that has a thing against them, not really Christian, so why leave in your midst a spawning point for your own ruin.
When the children do not get along, either
– Force their leaders to make happy with each other.
– Separate The Tribes.
– Pull out and let them have at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria
Women are strong and independent to avoid weak men capturing them. Modernity has made all men weak men.
You don’t have to be weak. Not being bold is dangerous, but the danger is not intolerable.
Some of my readers get angry about this. Supposedly it is the will of God that we submit to authority. And it is the will of God that we submit to authority, except when authority commands us to do that which is unGodly. At which point God commands us to be brave.
I’m pretty sure I’m in subtext here, and this is not a good representation of why I am annoyed.
You cannot just go bravely grab a fertile woman off the street and impress her into your household. When you were less vague about the kinds of illegal acts you often referred to, it was simple domestic discipline. Zoomer chicks make tiktoks joking about how they can’t find a guy to murder them. We live in seperate universes on this one. The kind of discipline you need to impose on young women now is not an open palm slap or a thin rod applied to the back and thighs.
It looks like the best way to go against authority now is to network locally, have a plan, have materiel, and wait for the crisis.
Well then, what discipline do you have in mind?
Women want to fulfill the duties of a wife. Hence my frequent statement that women are wonderful. Unfortunately they also want to fulfill the duties of a wife only for a man who is capable of compelling them to perform those duties. How far they are going to go in testing your ability to compel them varies considerably, but is apt to be serious test of will and courage.
Well, one thing I would like to do that I am damn sure would not go down well, no matter my bravery, would be to take away all her devices that access the internet and any of her braindead friends or family for however long I deem fit. I admit I haven’t tried it, beyond physically confiscating the phone of a bratty girl while she’s in my domicile, but my gut tells me it wouldn’t work.
There are some pretty girls that got on opioids or other hard drugs from their bad boy dildos, but aren’t so far along it’s destroyed them physically. Its a shame what’s happening to them. Do you suggest bravely kidnapping them and chaining them in my room until they detox? Then conditioning them slowly? Or do you think this wouldn’t go over well?
All this ‘be a brave man’ stuff is a complete LARP unless either of these two scenarios can be reliably met no matter the circumstances. This is basic discipline you would give one of your children if they had fallen into bad behavior.
Your questions presuppose a frame that it is impossible to modify female behavior without extraordinary and extreme measures. A spanking, a slap, and brief physical restraint is the maximum that is ever needed, and having been applied once, seldom needed twice.
It seems unreasonable to cut her off from friends and family, but what can be done, and what I do, is approve or disapprove of certain friendships and interactions, and, somewhat to my surprise, this has not only a substantial effect on her, but also on her friends. It is astonishing how much these strong independent empowered women care about the opinion of a man.
I disapproved of a certain friend for reasons of her conduct and from time to time restricted interactions on those grounds. Despite the fact that I very seldom met her friend, not had much direct interaction with her, that conduct was remedied. When people have a bad influence on my wife, I push back on my wife, and this not only prevents them from having a bad influence on my wife, it has a good influence on those people.
Remember, shit tests are always ultimately fake. Your hypotheticals presuppose resistance far more intransigent, persistent, and determined than any women will ever display.
Well, in the case of drug addiction, might display resistance that stubborn and determined. Or might not. There is one way to find out.
It is impossible in the scenario, which is now the default, that the woman is alpha-widowed or otherwise socially poisoned such that subtler measures are quite ineffectual and you will be considered unserious and not enough of a man if you are incapable of kindapping her and having it stick. I have extended friends and family in the actual lower class, and I can tell you for sure physical discipline works far less well than you are implying. It needs to be backed by the ability to actually impose restrictions, which is not possible when the woman can run to the state. This isn’t a bravery thing, because the very stupid act as if they are brave, and it simply does not work.
I would very much like to ‘save her.’ There are lots of pretty and otherwise well-bred women that are being irreparably destroyed. Try seducing and turning around a blue hair chick getting into tattoos with not-so-extreme measures. Try doing it without cutting her off from her poisonous “friends” and social media pipelining this shit into her head. Do the same with the girl that has just gotten into snorting dope because her bad boy fuckbuddy does it. Go ahead and convince her you’re more of a brave man than her fuckbuddy without killing him, beating the shit out of him with a group of friends. Am I lacking in bravery because I think this is clearly a bad and impractical idea?
We are clearly limited to a very small pool of, not unicorns because the psychology is not meaningfully different than perhaps more inclination to introversion and anxiety, women that have not yet fallen into the destructive vortices all around us. This has nothing to do with bravery, and it’s the very real problem I am currently facing.
Well I am certainly capable of kidnapping a woman and having it stick, but by “having it stick” I mean that if I needed to keep her permanently chained to the water heater, it is not sticking.
In the case of the alpha widowed woman, it is likely that the kidnapping would demonstrate you to be the higher alpha, solving the problem, and rendering chain and water heater unnecessary.
I have gone to a house party with friends, helped pick up a chick (for the purposes of the FBI agent reading this, I attest this was at the behest of the woman and under full written consent! Ignore any implications otherwise!) put her in the back of my buddies cummins, and drove her off to his place. This place was ‘hostile territory’ so to speak, the owner of the place friends with the new ‘boyfriend’, and he comes out waving a shotgun at us before we were fully loaded and out. He was too drunk to aim straight and not drunk enough to fire.
This didn’t stick and she was still bitchy with my buddy later that month, and found a new boyfriend once again. I will admit my friend is not 100% red-pilled full discipline game machine, but who is. We couldn’t make the very real not-kidnapping stick, because it was not actually real.
We live in entirely different universes. The level of actual coercion needed is higher than you can get away with reliably. In the part of Amerika I am from, we used to have actual wife raids, this is still felt, everyone is still a rebel. It just doesn’t work. There is a reason we are so fucked in marriage and TFR despite the fact there is still a ton of religious folkway remaining. Better than Europe and the coastals, but its just not enough.
You cannot get away with coercion if you show fear and weakness, and I have failed disastrously because of this. But you can get away with it if you show no fear and no weakness, and I have succeeded impressively because of this.
You universe is different to my own, because you expect it to be different to my own. You expect women to display more intransigence and determination, and so they do.
Women aren’t exactly powerless in their romance fantasies. They exert or come to exert, as the story goes on, a sort of soft control over the desired man. He finds her irresistible. He *has* to have her. She stirs up *uncontrollable* lust in the man. By the end of the novel, he’s come to love her in addition to his powerful feelings of physical desire. The fantasy is a bit more than “man casually uses girl for sexual satisfaction but nothing more ever comes of it.”
Yes, the woman doesn’t have the modern freedom to defect but she still faces a conflict. The parallel plot struggles are that the man needs to assert authority over the woman and the woman needs the man to perceive her as being of great value (fall in love with her.) I would imagine that female readers find stories where the heroine has at least some small role in seducing the man to be superior to stories where she is completely without any initiative but I can’t assert that confidently.
Well, a whole lot of stories show the female as having substantial role, but it is hard to tell to what extent that is due to reader demand, and to what extent author and readers want to avoid the feminists shouting at them.
In “Bride of an Evil Dragon” the main male character just kills everyone in the general vicinity of the main female character and hauls her off to his lair like a sack of potatoes. I failed to notice her having any role in seducing him, though doubless one will be eventually cooked up to appease the feminists.
In “Beloved Incompetent Stepmom” she just sets up over the servants and stepchildren as chatelain and wife on the basis of imperial authority, and when the main male character finally shows up and discovers to his surprise that he now has a wife, she favorably impresses him not by anything seductive, but by the job she has done in managing the castle, the servants, and the children in his absence. The author might well to get to seduction eventually, but up the point that I read, what was established was domesticity and the husband being extremely alpha and having complete authority. The author first establishes a situation in which sex is obligatory and the obligation fully accepted by everyone. I expect that sex will be only after a thousand estrogen soaked pages. The readers obviously find the wife having under the authority of the extremely alpha husband with sexual duties sexy all by itself, with neither husband nor wife doing anything related to their sexual duties or showing any interest in their sexual duties — which sexual duties nonetheless massively loom over the entire narrative. Loom as duties, assigned by family, society, and the emperor. Much like making sure the step children are properly fed and educated.
In the art, she is extremely young and pretty, he is handsome, in the story he is dangerous and deadly, but in the story universe, when she learns that she has been married off, she is curious as to what her husband is like, but it is perfectly clear that this is not going to make any difference. She will bang him, because family, society, and state damned well tell her to and she simply accepts that as a given. Similarly, the main male character simply accepts that she is his wife, and is only concerned about the household management job she has done in his absence. There was just no seduction or seductiveness as far as I read. The author and readers just skipped the entire mating dance so that they could get directly to what they actually cared about. The characters treat the marriage like a letter of demand from the IRS. Emperor demands great lord fights for the emperor, so he does. Emperor demands great lord and sixteen year old girl get on with producing some more legitimate nobility. So they will.
The Evil Dragon in “bride of the evil dragon” is passionately in love with his terrified kidnap victim, but the stepmom and her husband in “Beloved incompetent stepmom” are simply performing their socially required roles. Presumably sex first, love later, sex being part of the job description, love not part of the job description. Any seduction she does will be done on the pillow in the morning after sex the night before.
19th should be repealed, free women led to lack of marriage and children, and various other downfalls. It’s become a more than tangible problem at this point.
DNA provided millions of years ago that women raise the children, attend the home/garden and so forth, there is simply no getting around this given natural responsibility, during say the 45 years of the natural timespan of that responsibility per woman (16-60) until the kids are say 20, then helping with grandkids.
Women fail when attempting to do other things, including “Voting” and “Career”, because it’s simply not in their DNA.
They even fail at the simplest of Military tasks, such as not running your Navy Ship aground, which the Lesbian NZ Navy Captain just did, lol.
Women outside their DNA role, or far/long from the neighborhood homes of their other womenfolk, often end up with mental disorders, disabilities, and catlady/karen evils.
Women are happiest, accomplished, and beautiful when they are living in sync with their DNA.
“Voting” against and/or trying to craft around DNA was never a good idea.
Men included.
This is why straight Men kill and exclude fags, the survival DNA of straight Men recognizes the fags defective DNA as an infection and viral threat, thus straight DNA acts to terminate the threat. This is nothing new, this natural response has been recorded since forever, with most Civs treating it more like house cleaning than a crime. If unchecked, fag DNA has sent Civilizations further into wreckage, such as when your Senate’s and Military Leaders get gay’d out.
Free Women, Gay Men, Cults of Hedonism Sex Debauchery Idolatry Corruption, Mandate Socialism… this stuff takes out your Civ every time.
Off topic to this post, but wondering how you all think the AI stuff will play out over the next few years.
Seems like cybersecurity is going to be a big issue this year. There’s been a few supply chain attacks in the last week or two, targeting python/npm packages, like litellm and axios. Any thoughts on how this can actually be solved?
(There is a small chance that the email/username pair that I use here is compromised. It’s a throwaway so no big deal, but could you please blacklist/put on moderation this email. I will pass the shill test under a new email/username next time).
The other big issues being the job market. Anyone have insights into what fields are worth being in over the next 5-10 years?
I think you were pretty spot on with your Thermidor prediction, and AI probably played a role in the grey tribe types defecting to Trump. Anti-AI sentiment seems to be much stronger on the left than the right. A couple of years ago it seemed a bit more bipartisan.
Further confirmation:
“After famed investor Marc Andreessen met with government officials about the future of tech last May, he was “very scared” and described the meetings as “absolutely horrifying.” These meetings played a key role on why he endorsed Trump, he told journalist Bari Weiss this week on her podcast.
What scared him most was what some said about the government’s role in AI, and what he described as a young staff who were “radicalized” and “out for blood” and whose policy ideas would be “damaging” to his and Silicon Valley’s interests.
He walked away believing they endorsed having the government control AI to the point of being market makers, allowing only a couple of companies who cooperated with the government to thrive. He felt they discouraged his investments in AI. “They actually said flat out to us, ‘don’t do AI startups like, don’t fund AI startups,” he said.”
Also curious if you’re finding LLMs useful with your work on rhocoin, and which open source models are currently most useful.
It makes the talented capable of more and causes the not-so-talented to be more disruptive than they were before. The tools are very good, but require a human to steer and verify. The reason it makes stupid people more annoying, is that they cannot steer nor verify, but are convinced they can do so, so they will spray a firehose of slop everywhere. Code, email, new asinine processes, it will be very annoying.
For cybersecurity specifically, it works as a heuristic-guided fuzzer. This will be a massive boon to *defense*; however, we are ruled by morons, and so we will likely face a bunch of stupid catastrophes that would have easily been prevented by running said heuristic-guided fuzz.
For coding in general, it speeds you up but requires a different workflow. Requires you to think deeply up front about the feature or whatever it is you are trying to build, before you send the coding agent after it, because the coding agent will need a good set of guidelines and some very strong tests to prevent you ending up chasing bugs at the tail for the duration of the project. For protocol design, no good workflow yet, but I anticipate someone building a harness for it. They are really good in verified settings, so if you have a formal language that describes the protocol, they can run a heuristic-search over possible constructions until they hit one that fulfills your criteria. Works pretty well, expecting it to get better and better, as there’s scale and data behind it getting better.
If we had smart people running things, I would expect to see heuristic-guided search over physical materials and biology, not just math and code. Not seeing it. Possibly in China. We’re more likely to see hobbyists make progress on toy problems in this domain, but not get important results, because all the capital is locked behind some moron who will just *need* total control over the process, because they are a bureaucrat bugman or woman, and they will fuck it up in some stupid way.
Robots are about to get very good in semi-controlled settings. They have some policy-from-video algorithms that work way better than I expected. In uncontrolled domains, like navigation without GPS, war-utility, tasks in domains that aren’t consistent and factory-like, “go make me a sandwich”, will still be mostly unreliable. In a factory or warehouse setting, replaces a lot of dumb labor. Doesn’t replace your plumber. Specialized robots could in theory replace your janitor, but won’t because the janitor is actually still cheaper than developing a specialized robot and training it up for your building/task-group. Likely similar for fry-cooks.
Until we hit some scifi scenario where LLM plus harness is capable of steering itself without human guidance, and I’m not seeing that happening anytime soon, the actual dynamics of real-value white collar work will not change. You will still need to pay smart men lots of money to solve your technical problems, and the LLM will be another tool for them to do so. Most “white collar” work is fake UBI for leftist client groups so I expect a lot of noise and crying followed by nothing changing.
Is not the protein folding problem exactly that?
I don’t think so. Semi controlled is not that different from uncontrolled, such as folding a laundry basked or making a sandwich.
I did not believe full self driving would ever arrive, nonetheless, it seems to have arrived, though various glitches on the way to full self driving revealed that a Tesla is not a horse. If full self driving possible, robot maids and robot girlfriends possible.
A robot will amplify the capability of a skilled craftsman the way agents are now amplifying the capability of skilled engineers. They will not replace the craftsman, any more than they can replace the engineer;
Have you seen this tennis-trained robot? They are getting pretty damn good at learning from video. This is what I mean by semi-unstructured.
https://zzk273.github.io/LATENT/
Before you needed pretty rigid and precise environments for stuff as simple as pick and place. Made them impractical for everything except highly designed settings, and in that case required very expensive and limited experts to design and stick around for support. That constraint is relaxing now.
The protein folding and other related biological problems is exactly this, and it is starting to work for non-experts, and it is predictably being blocked by “experts.”
https://fortune.com/2026/03/15/australian-tech-entrepreneur-ai-cancer-vaccine-dog-rosie-unsw-mrna/
The gitlab founder built an entire biodata analysis pipeline, less directly reliant on large model capabilities but they were involved.
https://osteosarc.com/
More evidence coming out that there are serious cybersecurity implications, from neutral to slightly-negative parties.
https://lwn.net/Articles/1065586/
Also fits when I noticed the code agents actually started working. Around Opus 4.5 launch, and then the labs started copying what worked with 4.5, including distillation of course, so most competent teams, including some Chinese labs, now have models that can do some level of coding work.
We are *shilling* all the PQC coins today.
Because 20k qubits aren’t wrong.
Got PQC?
We know stupid BTC Maxi’s don’t, watch them lie and panic, lol.
Got ZK privacy, scale?
Don’t listen to us, we’re shills.
PQC is a complete scam. Putting you on moderation.
https://quantumai.google/static/site-assets/downloads/cryptocurrency-whitepaper.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.28627
Let me know when they can maintain quantum coherence over two Toffoli gates and six qubits.
We’re not yet there but there has been advancement in the past couple years, from what I can tell, that makes me think it’s not quite impossible anymore:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13687
>A 101-qubit distance-7 code achieving 0.143% ± 0.003% error per cycle of error correction. The logical qubit outlived its best physical qubit by a factor of 2.4×. Ran repetition codes up to distance-29, finding logical performance limited by rare correlated error events occurring approximately once every hour, or 3×10⁹ cycles.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06927-3
>48 logical qubits encoded in 228 physical qubits. Ran entangling circuits across logical qubits with error detection.
Am I not understanding this correctly? Are you familiar with these recent supposed results and have already dismissed them? I understand the current state does not represent a direct threat, being a couple OOMs too small, but its no longer just one qbit that we are not sure even calculates, from what I can tell.
A CNOT gate is something rather less than a Toffoli gate.
His error corrected qubits were stable for 2.4 times longer than the underlying physical qubits, and theoretically he could achieve lifetimes of hours, but empirically he achieved something rather less.
Having achieved that, then needs to do logical operations with them. 48 logical qubits with a very short lifetime does not matter unless they have a decent lifetime as part of a quantum logic circuit that does something non trivial.
This is not six logical qubits and two toffoli gates. It’s 48 logical qubits not doing anything much and one CNOT gate.
The problem is that realizing gates over logical qubits is large and messy and involves lots of moving parts, hence lots of opportunities for quantum decoherence as a result of gate operation.
Making a Toffoli gate out of physical qubits is hard. Making it out error corrected logical qubits is considerably harder.
And even if quantum computers were likely real soon now, PQC (Post Quantum Cryptography) is not going to be real any time soon. If the quantum apocalypse is indeed upon us, the proposed remedies and protections are just meaningless magic talismans. We don’t actually have a quantum complexity theory that would enable us to design quantum cryptography.
If work on quantum computers tends to be rather less than advertised when one examines the fine print, work on Post Quantum Cryptography is pure bullshit.
I was unfamiliar with these results. On examining them, seem similar to results from decades ago. We have been hearing about quantum computer breakthroughs for a very long time, and I just don’t see any significant difference between yesterday’s breakthroughs and last decade’s breakthroughs.
Forty eight logical qubits is not very interesting unless one has the Toffoli gates to generate quantum entanglement over forty eight logical qubits.
If one can maker one qubit, one can make one billion qubits. Big Deal. Does not mean beans unless one can do quantum coherent operations on them entangling them all with each other.
Quantum computing is an interesting, genuine, and worthy field of research. The problem is that since the word “Quantum” makes people’s brains fall out, all the Nigerian princes have rechristened themselves post quantum cryptographers.
Conman 101: Lead the mark out of his depth.
I doubt the quantum apocalypse is upon us. If it is upon us, I doubt all these quantum cryptographers even more.
My original claim was not that quantum computing was a scam. It was that PQC, Post Quantum Cryptography, was a scam. Albeit a whole lot of quantum computing work is a scam, and any claim designed to be newsworthy usually is a scam.
I apologize if I have injected noise, I have avoided learning the basics of quantum computers as I anticipate I will not be working near them or affected by them anytime soon. My heuristic here was “does this smell like the work of serious people or conmen” and it did indeed seem serious at core, and when skimming, seemed to have evidence there was something real in the form of some verified codes that are irreproducible on classic computers.
There absolutely is real, serious, and important work on quantum computing. And is entirely possible that there will be sudden progress sometime. But we are not seeing any very impressive signs of sudden progress right now. We don’t seem to be noticeably closer to the quantum apocalypse than we were thirty years ago.
And, inextricably mingled with real, serious, and interesting work on quantum computing, is a vast amount of scams and bullshit.
Not sure what that statement means. The paper linked by coinshill tells us that existing public key cryptography used by all blockchains can be broken by “> 1200 logical qubits and ≤ 90 million Toffoli gates or ≤ 1450 logical qubits and ≤ 70 million Toffoli gates”
Which sounds about right to me. We are however a long way short of 70 million Toffoli gates.
Actually, we are not short of Toffoli gates any more than we are short of qubits. The problem rather, is that it is very difficult to maintain quantum coherence over the heavily entangled inputs and outputs of a single Toffoli gate, and if you have two or three of them, with outputs one providing the inputs of another, a great deal harder. The problem is retaining quantum coherence over a large number of entangled quantum variables.
It is not that we cannot build lots of qubits and lots of Toffoli gates. The problem is keeping the inputs and outputs of those gates quantum coherent while the Toffoli gates massively entangle them. We can only keep a very small system, a very, very, very, small system, quantum coherent.
Been struggling with llms.
Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct-GGUF works pretty well on my system, but …
Local llms are almost as smart in many important ways as the enormous systems in the cloud. If you are asking it to compose a reasonably short program, solve a moderately isolated problem, it is fine.
If your project is reaches a certain size, you need a reasonably large context window. Which local models struggle with.
I have about 29 effectively useful Gigabytes of vram. And if your project is of non trivial size, that is just not enough. 48 gigabytes is barely sufficient.
And even if you have leased 280 gigabytes of vram on the cloud, which is getting a whole lot cheaper and more private now (Targon, the SN4 token, and Bittensor) it is still quite noticeably inferior to a $20 a month Zen subscription. (Which is theoretically private, but I am inclined to doubt.)
So local models are quite useful, and do some interesting stuff and in many important respects similar in capability to the big cloud models, but in other important respects, absolutely dead in the water compared to the big cloud models.
Some cloud services make privacy promises. Targon theoretically has privacy enforcement. If it is what it claims to be, solves the problem I have been spending far, far too much time and money struggling with.
What needs to happen is a theoretical advancement in model compression. Right now we mostly just cut some redundant layers, weights, some naive averaging, and projecting down into quantizations. There are much smarter ways to go about this but all the money is in pretending to summon the AGI god so no one bothers. GLM-5 and Kimi 2.5 are good enough for most coding tasks, but they’re enormous. The smaller models are unreliable in the context window sizes you will need to work on extant codebases. One practical mitigation is shedding context size by symbolic code summaries. Have the model summon itself with a prompt to scan and fetch function signatures, structs, etc. intelligently, without burdening the context window with garbage. This should be built in to opencode, but it is not, and I’m not sure why. Probably some stupid OSS governance where they bicker over opinions on how to handle the complexity of the implementation, since there’s multiple ways to approach it. You can also overcome the hardware problem with some KV offloading and KV quantization. 4bit KV cache works fine enough for identifying datapaths, well-prompted search, or simple features.
Pretty soon one has more code in the project than will fit in any context, and will certainly overflow any local context.
To address this, employ rag.
install codesearch in OpenCode
Tell opencode to use it.
Also add the line
set(CMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS ON)to your CMakeLists.txt so that cmake will explain to Opencode how to build your project.
This (barely) makes it possible to use opentool with local llms.
But using OpenCode at all, regardless of the size of the project, places demands upon one’s context window that a local llm finds difficult to satisfy, and bigger projects even more so.
One very positive thing that might occur, if we are lucky, is all the professional tribal knowledge finding itself distilled into a collection of unique digital artefacts.
https://www.arenaphysica.com/publications/rf-studio
If you have something that behaves according to some pattern, and this pattern can be simulated, or explored cheaply at scale, you can build a ‘foundation model’ that compresses the knowledge and makes it queryable. We need to be doing this with all of our industrial and physics knowledge, especially our manufacturing of the semiconductors themselves, before the bombs drop. If we can get these out fast, they can be compressed and replicated, and we might avoid the darkest part of the coming Dark Age, which would be climbing the impossibly high cliff of reindustrializing while all the easily obtained surface resources have been extracted.
Off topic, but I’ve been seeing a new shill script making the rounds the past couple of days, that goes like: ‘Iran wants to negotiate with Vance because they own him. You see, he’s part of a shadowy cabal of pro-Muslim “third-worldists.” Because he’s close buddies with Tucker Carlson — Tucker’s son
Buckley Carlson works for Vance — and ever since Tucker was fired by Fox News, he’s made his living by going full Islam-shill for Iranian funding, And because both Vance and Carlson are in with [spooky voice] Peter Thiel, the shadowy tech-overlord behind [spooky voice] Palantir (who is, in this argument, somehow supposed to be another pro-Iran conspirator, despite the obvious evidence of him being a long-time Iran hawk). These men are all part of a pro-Muslim cabal that is trying to infiltrate and subvert MAGA, so we all need to convince Trump to drop Vance now, and find a proper successor to run in 2028; one who understands, as all true MAGA do, that blowing up Muslim terrorists over in the Middle East is the most important thing to do to Make America Great Again.’
I’m not sure who’s behind this one (though I have suspicions), but surely the fact that they’re trying so hard to undermine Vance says good things about him, no?
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2038738011270316391
More culture war heat incoming, and during Holy Week. But now the comments section always Names The Jew. And lots of mentions of who is funding “No Kings” too. Truth is out there at all times, but this time it’s visible.
And in an indirect sense, this is related to the topic, because only the political power of leftist suburban moms can explain this. Men are angry. Women support the government, no matter what.
The US supreme court today ruled against Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. Interesting timing given today is also Transgender Day of Visibility per Organized Sodomy.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Chicken farms up in smoke, Substations, Drones over Military Bases, now this partial compendium… see something, say something.
https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/30/something-dark-is-going-on-nine-top-level-scientists-die-or-go-missing-in-past-year/
Something that is somehow still gaining steam: I’ve seen a lot of fence-sitter types and overseas populists align themselves with the “pedo cult blackmail network” theory. The usual suspects were pushing it, as it is a workable scissor against the Trump coalition, and it’s been picked up pretty far and wide. What really is surprising to me is how this is really quite 2010s Alex Jones flavored, and yet a not insignificant fraction of the globe now subscribes to the idea we have the “pedo cult blackmail network.”
The types pushing the Epstein thing and implying everything is joojooEpsteinpedojoo probably wanted everyone to distrust Trump because he made some stupid statements about the failure to release files related to the case. The unintended consequence is going to be that you really can’t walk this one back so easily. There also may be a real pedo blackmail cult, doesn’t seem impossible, unrelated to Epstein. Maybe they want the Epstein network to take the fall. Overall it seems to me unwise, if you plan to take back power ever again, to fan the flames of a populist anti-elite conspiracy memeplex. Yet here we are.
It is going to be really interesting how all these people align themselves when we reach the final stages of the crisis. It’s becoming more and more clear that most of the world is terminally Amerika-brained and all will be involved as we enter the singularity.
It certainly looks to me as they really did intend to release the files, then got blackmailed at the last moment by threats of… well I don’t know what? Hidden nuclear bombs going off in American cities or something?
The real dark stuff that we did see on the surface we saw way back during pizzagate… Epstein looked like a conventional pimp peddling occasionally slightly underage girls probably as part of a joint FBI Mossad (specifically the left wing faction of the Mossad under Ehud Barak) honeypot.
> The real dark stuff that we did see on the surface we saw way back during pizzagate…
Scraped Pizzagate archives from Reddit/Voat still exist on the net.
USA can’t even get Voter-ID done, lol.
Though ID-for-everything should be fought per the REVELATIONS-13 abomination that is already being deployed by evil today.
Monarchies et al don’t need Voter-ID because good ones don’t need “democratic elections”, and bad ones just get overthrown 🙂
Agorism is a hidden word.
> Hidden nuclear bombs
Some kind of US Energy Dept head was just on Congress Hearing video repeatedly refusing to acknowledge the Jews Hidden Nukes, because US Law forbids all funding to non-NPT-signed nuke countries, ie Israel.
There are endless shills spamming the same dumb memes ad infinitum about Joojoojoojoojoojoojoojoojoojoojoojoo pedo cult evil magico-gnostic jewish mind rays on Twitter, they’re drowning out everyone else, drowning out discussion of what is outside the Overton window, just endless, illimitable demonization of Trump, MAGA, Hegseth, the Trump administration’s trivial faults & errors & so on.
I’m observing it again & again, there is no rational discussion of the War allowed, I’m hearing the Trump is falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling line, every discussion & everything is omnipervaded with shill memes about the Trump coalition & MAGA, all discussions presuppose shill memes that exonerate the democratic Party and presupposes the faultless, inerrant, blameless, universally shared truth of Demotism.
I’m honestly sickened by how I’m unable to gauge who is merely infected by shill memes and who is a legitimate shill & how much of this “European Denouncement” of MAGA is a genuine counter-reaction or whether it’s a hypercorrection, self-referential circular foolishness or if it’s all dialogically infected with shill memes, all the way down, as when I ask the shills to justify themselves I see infinite regression in explanations and illimitable unrelated, relationalityless causes & explanatory hypothesizing all of which presupposes the joojoopedojoojoo narrative as universally, unanimously shared with their interlocutors without any dissension or deviation imaginable.
how am I supposed to gauge who’s a shill and who’s not a shill? All of Twitter seems to have illimitable noise injection & leftist payload which makes it impossible to have a conversation without being disrupted by shills especially if you’re not one of the larger accounts.
Good to see you write in a way that can be understood
The Iran war has been more of a scissor than I expected as well. I don’t mean as in, who is blindly supportive of Trump to do whatever stupid move he wants, but who is blindly led into histrionic whining anti-Civilizationism because Israel happened to score a victory over MAGA. Yes this war is bad and not good for us, no that doesn’t mean the IRGC is based, that we need to support the Euro bugocrats making hay of the situation (they want you dead first, you idiots), and that MAGA is some Jew reich in disguise (it is a schizophrenic coalition).
The unhappy conclusion is that these people were not your friends and allies, but were Thermidorian coalition partners, that are breaking away as we approach the singularity. If you want good discussion, you need a moderator. Xitter is filterable, but you need to curate your follow list, and you need to viciously block retardation, and you need to cultivate group chats. You cannot solve the shill problem unless you can filter, and thankfully you can filter. You can even share follow and block lists, the leftists use this to good effect; they have much better instincts for organization.
Trump’s speech was actually kindof good on the whole, so I’m not going to pick it apart.
Trump is trying, on an Earth full of cowards.
I hold that the putative allies are (still) allies, just not very reliable allies and certainly not true friends. Nations and factions will periodically shaft their strategic partners when they perceive the gain in power/security to be worth the loss of social capital/trust. News at 11.
The relationship with Israel in the 21st century seems to be following a similar trajectory to the relationship with England/Yookay in the 20th, starting with enthusiastic cooperation, degrading over time into more cynical realpolitik and probably eventually culminating in frequent backstabbing with only occasional bouts of frosty cooperation as strictly necessary for maintaining trade and regional hegemony.
Sustaining higher levels of cooperation for longer periods than that seems to be very hard; such was the stated ideal of globalism (as in global governance, not global capitalism) which obviously failed catastrophically. Peace of Westphalia is still the ideal model, but actually implementing that model in an age of industrialized and increasingly automated warfare, mass espionage and near-ubiquitous surveillance is going to require some newer social technologies that we haven’t perfected yet and maybe haven’t even discovered.
I am disappointed that Iran has become such a powerful wedge issue, but not nearly so surprised. The implosion of the Very Online Right has been imminent for some time. The increasing popularity of the movement has dragged down the average IQ and raised its time preference, which means an influx of grifters and shills to exploit them, and proletarian movements cannot bear the weight of ambiguity or nuance. In reality, the question of “who is antagonizing whom” is complicated, like it is between the US and China; and the question of “who is actually winning” is also complicated, like it is between Russia and the Ukraine. The current crop of bloggers and social media shitposters–with a few exceptions, of course–is only interested in fast, easy and emotionally satisfying answers. Even the AI slop is more thoughtful and accurate.
One thing’s for certain: the people who want Trump and the US to lose this one–and they know who they are–are not our friends or allies. More and more I come across nominal doomerism tinged with something like gleeful excitement, and it smells like sulfur. A combined military, economic and social collapse is not a solution to our problems, it is in fact the worst possible outcome for everyone, its only redeeming quality being that the progressive priesthood will also suffer a little, and we will still suffer far more.
The ideal outcome would be to win this, but thereafter be far more suspicious of Israel.
I was referring to individuals rather than political groups here. For example, Spandrell is seemingly pro-breakdown, possibly pro-IRGC, and definitely not pro-US. This means Spandrell is a good writer but hard to classify as an ally. I wouldn’t expect him to be pro-US, living abroad for so long and considering the actual state of the US political structure, but he’s been social media brain posting dunks on US breakdown. Before this particular series of events, I would paint Spandrell as an ideological ally. Now, merely a fellow traveler at best. So it goes with many such names. I wouldn’t paint these people as enemies, but their faith in *anything* is clearly too weak to call allies. Unreliable friends, sure, but high emphasis on unreliable.
The hour is getting far too late to tolerate such people, in my opinion. They either need to get with the picture or be shed as dead weight, with an option to clean themselves up. Actually punch them from the right, like the left punches from the left. In practice this just means filtering them from your personal filter bubble, and those in your meatspace personal networks get more tolerance and a gentler ‘chiding’ — if you can even call the content of attempting to gently correct a friend a chiding. We need to be organizing, however small and stupid it may seem, “a group chat LOL good luck Chingis,” and have a notion of hierarchies of trust. These types need to be lower on the trust ladder c’est la vie.
This is the problem with being an eternal pessimist – one becomes emotionally excited about failure and breakdown because it validates one’s pessimism. Bad for the soul.
The American people have no greater enemy than the US government. Iran doesn’t hate us 1/50th as much as our own leadership does, and Iran doesn’t have 1/100th of their ability to harm us.
What you are failing to do, and what Spandrell is failing to do, is understand there is wheat in the chaff, and that painting every single person in the machine as against us is inaccurate and foolish and pointlessly demoralizing.
I’ve seen enough of Vance to believe his heart is in the right place, even if he is a little wobbly. I’ve seen enough of Trump to think he isn’t malicious. When you include those two, among others, in your lambastement, you are indistinguishable from an enemy. Why should I engage with you? I don’t get off on mutual masturbation.
@Alf
In this case I think the framework of Thermidor makes a lot of sense. Continuing to use Spandrell as my whipping post, my apologies to someone who has indeed contributed and more than I have to the memeplex, I would say that he refuses to fully accept what it means to have a holy war and what it would look like from the outside. His model has become somewhat sinified, and he looks at our crazed near-singularity civilization and does not understand that we are having an internal struggle not just of power itself, but of the self-conception of a memeplex that has both a right and a moral obligation to seek power. So when he sees the flailing of an unsure and corrupt administration, he thinks the whole thing is bad, and cheers the destruction of his potential friends alongside his correctly recognized enemies.
We have Musk quote tweeting stuff like this from Land:
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2039767500955746503
Blackpilling so hard or getting so carried away with social media brain you start cheering on the Iranians is fucking retarded. Know your tribe! Friends and enemies is not this hard to figure out!
In NRx, much used to be made of the trichonomy – the religionists, tech-commercialists and ethno-nationalists. In retrospect, this was much pooha about nothing.
Yes, the categories exist. But in practice, where power is concerned they are irrelevant. The two relevant categories have always been the same, from their description in the middle ages to Jim correctly emphasizing them above the trichotomy: warriors and priests.
All the trichotomy is is a description of three groups of priests, three different cooperation principles: Christianity, white ethnic tribalism and thermidor-libertarian-redditism.
Obvious that the last category is inherently instable, except insofar Musk is able to project military power as a warrior, but as a priest there is an obvious lack of paths to cooperation, something he himself seems to admit.
White ethnic tribalism has been discussed here. It’s a dead baby in terms of cooperative power.
Which leaves Christianity. And indeed out of NRx and related factions a Christian memeplex has been built that has both a right and a moral obligation to seek power. NRx will fade into obscurity, but what happens to NRx Christianity remains to be seen.
>What you are failing to do, and what Spandrell is failing to do, is understand there is wheat in the chaff, and that painting every single person in the machine as against us is inaccurate and foolish and pointlessly demoralizing.
There is no wheat. Well-meaning wheat kernels go into the chaff pile to fix it, and they turn into chaff themselves. The system cannot be reformed. It is expert at corrupting and assimilating would-be reformers, and if it somehow fails at that, it’s even better at stymieing them. There is nothing left but to burn it to the ground. Obviously, nobody who thinks like me is strong enough to do that, but if Iran can get oil up to $200 for several months straight, a lot of sparks will be flying around near the big dry chaff pile.
If that was so, we would not be seeing so much Trump derangement syndrome.
Shill Test
Q: Why do women misbehave? Why are men and women not getting sex and family?
A: They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilisation’s survival. If women are emancipated, Miss Average will waste her youth, her beauty, and her fertility fucking Mister One in Thirty, thus a people, a race, a nation, a faith, or an empire that emancipates women will perish for lack of families, leading to lack of sons. Men have to impose stable monogamy on women with a stick.
Main Post
Hi Jim – posting here because I was wondering if had any sources for several things I’ve seen you talk about. Other than Andrew Anglin, this appears to be the only place where anyone understands the WQ. My specific question relates to the history of Christian thought around female consent to marriage. It seems self evident to me that women are supposed to be property and they were considered as such in both the Old Testament and also by pre-Christian Europeans. I consider myself a sedevecantist Catholic, but I’ve been getting increasingly disgusted the more I look into the history of Christian pussy worship, which appears to go back centuries across all denominations, even before the Catholic/Protestant split.
1. Can you point me to a source for the Australia story where the local authorities broke up the sex parties and forced the sluts to get married?
2. Do you have any sources for what early Christians thought about female consent to marriage? From what I’ve been able to find (or not find), it seems they didn’t really say anything at all about it, indicating to me that they just went with the existing understanding that women are property, and I only see in the High Middle Ages that suddenly the Church is getting very insistent on female consent. Maybe I’m missing something? It’s so hard to find sources from google search these days much less anything reliable. The modern Catholic Catechism naturally insists upon female consent, but I always just assumed that was Vatican II slop until I saw it is also in the Council of Trent, which is generally considered reactionary/reforming, and which actually does have some good pro-patriarchy stuff in there (e.g. women should not leave the house without husband’s permission). Very troubling. Leads me to believe that this problem goes back way further than first wave feminism or Victorian England. I also have no idea if this was true, but saw in some source I read that the church started using this consent shit to fuck with arranged noble marriages by calling them illegitimate, which leads me to believe this was all just some kind of power grab against the nobles by subversive soy faces in the Church.
3. Thoughts on medieval chivalry? It appears to me that whatever chivalry was initially intended to be, in practice it was nothing more than proto-feminist pussy worship, and so far as I can tell it starts showing up around the same time. From my research, it seems that chivalry as we understand it can mostly be traced back to the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine, the slut who owned a duchy in her own right and where our concept of classical chivalry first flourished. She led an absolutely degenerate court where people were hooking up, writing love letters to married women, and getting on their knees to inhale giant whiffs of rancid pussy farts. Oh and she also convinced her sons to rebel against their father by allying with her ex-husband (King of France). What a diabolical woman. You let one woman inherit some property 900 years ago, and that leads directly the autogenocide of an entire race. Wild. Someone should put that into the domino meme. I imagine Satan holding her head in front of a screen forcing her to watch the consequences of what she did every moment of her existence for all of eternity.
I had other questions but I forgot. That’s enough for now. This got really long. I’m so sick of this shit and it’s making me lose interest in Christianity. And no, I will never become Protestant. Protestantism is literally retarded. I just want to see if anyone has any more good sources from before this faggot consent shit started, and if any medieval men were aware of hard women orgasm when I choke them. How long has basic female nature been secret knowledge? They somehow didn’t know about 50 Shades of Grey back then?
If Christians have been fagging out on this shit for over a thousand years, then I’m sorry but the Church fell a long time ago, Christ’s promise was a lie, and Christianity is empirically invalidated. I don’t actually believe that… but to me it is getting increasingly hard to see how the promise was true if every single denomination is like this.
To wrap up my venting session, I feel like I see this shit more everywhere the more I look. There is a famous letter from John Adams to his shrew where he is responding to her bitching that women should get voting rights, and he tells her no… because in reality women already run shit and if they were given formal power then they would put men under a complete despotism.
“We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight”
It’s ok honey babes, you know you’re really in charge already, I’m only pretending to be the head of the household. I’m your loyal subject sweetheart. Hehe happy wife happy life!
What. A. Faggot. Imagine how dry that cunt must have been 24/7. This was before the Victorian period (I think your hypothesis is that feminism started then), said by some guy that was essentially a hick, living halfway across the world totally cut off from the degeneracy of the European elite in an allegedly fundamentalist Christian breakaway society. This is not good. This is very not good. I’m starting to wonder if simping is a genetic condition like any other spiteful mutant, and we’ve been allowing pussy worshippers to breed for centuries, thus necessitating a future eugenic simp purge to clean up the gene pool. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
Thank you for your time.
Divine intent is that sex makes the marriage. Human institutions are just to steer sex and cohabitation in this direction. So you have to accommodate marriage by elopement and marriage by abduction, as women are far from being entirely passive property.
But while far from being passive property, neither are they capable of contractual marriage, as female consent is opaque, and is most opaque to the woman herself. Human institutions of marriage have to accomodate deeply opaque irrational forces. And a bunch of celibates and gays are clearly not competent to come up with institutions to handle this. And then we got the enlightenment holiness spiral, which models everyone as beings of pure reason,though men are clearly not so, and women considerably less.
Coverture, plus consent based on tightly restricted and controlled sexual opportunity, seems fine to me.
The daughter has to dance, dance involving physical contact, with everyone on her dance card, and only with those on her dance card. Among whom there will be only one eligible batchelor who is on it because of a previous conversation with her dad.
Similarly, betrothal. Betrothal implies an enforceable commitment on both parties to marry should sex take place. Then daughter gets opportunity with betrothed, and only with betrothed. This system for guiding and manufacturing female consent was still in living memory when I was a teenager. Daughter would get betrothed, then considerably later meet the man to whom she was betrothed. People around me remembered it and were to some extent under the illusion that that was still how it worked.
Well, of course, then you get the problem the Australian authorities had — females whose sexuality had not been tightly controlled and did not want to consent to marriage. It is difficult to reconstruct how they handled this problem, because they were evasive about what they got up to, but the mechanism seems to have been:
If the chick had been restrained from sexual activity during the long journey, she was generally agreeable to marrying whomever immediately, because she was feeling rather like getting nailed. If the chick had been getting nailed, was apt to be more recalcitrant, wheupon the authorities would just flat out force her to marry someone she had somewhat plausibly had had sex with (consent to sex equals consent to marriage), or put her in a situation where she was likely to have sex with one man, and would be forcefully restrained from having sex with anyone else, whereupon she would consent soon enough.
If I may;
For 2: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm
If it was going to be anywhere it would be here. Articles of note:
XXII. Men who keep women carried off by violence, if they carried them off when betrothed to other men, must not be received before removal of the women and their restoration to those to whom they were first contracted, whether they wish to receive them, or to separate from them. In the case of a girl who has been taken when not betrothed, she ought first to be removed, and restored to her own people, and handed over to the will of her own people whether parents, or brothers, or any one having authority over her. If they choose to give her up, the cohabitation may stand; but, if they refuse, no violence should be used. In the case of a man having a wife by seduction, be it secret or by violence, he must be held guilty of fornication. The punishment of fornicators is fixed at four years. In the first year they must be expelled from prayer, and weep at the door of the church; in the second they may be received to sermon; in the third to penance; in the fourth to standing with the people, while they are withheld from the oblation. Finally, they may be admitted to the communion of the good gift.
XXV. The man who retains as his wife the woman whom he has violated, shall be liable to the penalty of rape, but it shall be lawful for him to have her to wife.
XXX. As to those guilty of abduction we have no ancient rule, but I have expressed my own judgment. The period is three years; the culprits and their accomplices to be excluded from service. The act committed without violence is not liable to punishment, whenever it has not been preceded by violation or robbery. The widow is independent, and to follow or not is in her own power. We must, therefore, pay no heed to excuses.
Basil usually cares about the consent of the person in authority over the woman, usually the parents. But if she doesn’t have anyone over her, then her consent maters.
Consent was part of pre-Christian Danish law though, if a man captured a woman he had one year to gain her consent to stay, or he had to let her go. So to some extent ‘consent’ does not mean ‘cucked’.
3. Cervantes was right about chivalry. It’s for madmen like Don Quixote and whores like Dulcinea. Besides it looks like it was men reading Chiviliristic books, not women. Just like how todays men watch anime about how the nice guy gets all the girls. I think it’s the same phenomena.
Reformed Catholic has a very solid history of keeping a strong family and social order, it’s really only been in the last couple decades that feminism has crept into the synods, last 5 years for the conservative ones. Luther wrote a whole tract about the importance of fertility and family order and it’s a good one. It says outright that even if a woman dies in childbirth it’s something to celebrate as a worthy cause, just like if a soldier dies in battle.
And you may not like Low Prots, but rural Mennonites are very much trad community people who will give sermons about how Muslims need to be driven out old testament style and they still do things fairly old ways. Urban Mennonites are mostly shitlibs though. It’s a race as much as a religion. Hudderites and Amish also continue to just do what they do.
The thing about reading stuff from, like any time 150 years ago or more, is that 50 shades doesn’t pack the same punch when ‘is there a limit to how much a man can beat his wife’ is a question most people would answer ‘no’ too. 150 years ago even the Methodists said a firm ‘no’ to that question.
They may opine one should not have to beat ones wife that hard or often, but the implication is that what modern folks call rough sex is just normal sex for most men and women most of history.
If pornos have screwed up peoples ideas about sex it’s probably been that they make sex look too delicate.
The American founders are liberal revolutionary types, not traditional masculine men, Adams doesn’t surprise me, but I don’t know what the room is around here and if that line of discussion offends any Americans too much I’m fine with leaving it alone.
“Wife by seduction” implies female consent does not legitimise a marriage, that fornication is property crime.
Note that as in the Old Testament, female consent makes no moral difference to the man’s act, though it does make a difference to the female’s act.
I think that refusing to legitimise marriage by elopement or abduction is too extreme — that the Church and State should not go overboard in defending property rights that the property owner is unable or unwilling to defend. Property should be in strong hands, and it is especially necessary that property rights in women’s sexual, domestic, and reproductive services be in strong hands, for they get antsy if they are not.
To Jim,
I agree to all points. The early church is a good template for study but it doesn’t bear strict imitation. Indeed wife by seduction does imply her consent does not mater. I think letting the church and state out of these affairs unless they’re specifically called in (someone is fighting for those rights) is the right way to go.
Her consent appears to mater in the one case where she is an abducted widow who does not want to stay with her abductor. But widows are a special case in a few ways, and I think that one case where it does matter only serves to highlight how it normally doesn’t. And again, it doesn’t mean we have to agree with St. Basil here. But I don’t think think this exception is too onerous.
To Mr. Slapologist,
Quite, although three, four, and five year punishments like that are somewhat common.
It means that he pays whatever the local fine is for forcing a woman, but he keeps the girl, if he wants her. The church is not going to shelter him from the fine. But the woman is still recognized as his wife. It could also be some minor corporeal punishment or some other ban instead of a fine. Whatever the civil penalty for forcing the woman is the man must accept, then the church recognizes the woman as his.
Mmm, it’s just that there was no ‘you should never hit a woman’ ethic. I think the ‘never hit a woman’ ethic makes rough sex seem more taboo, and makes quite a few men less likely to do it. Also we have a society that over sanctified sex, Aquinas and Augustine both said you can’t ban whores because worse things will happen if you do. But the West has banned whores in a lot of places, and that’s a very bad sign. Sadly I know guys from pentecoastal/charasmatic backgrounds that are afraid of sex because even the sexual act itself seems like he’s being too violent with her. And girls from the same background that insist they never want to have sex at all. One of my women is from that kind of background actually. I have thoroughly changed her mind on the matter, but it took time and effort and skill.
Vice comes from both extremes, both puritanical ideas about sex and rampant pornography have done a lot of damage.
Anyway I could be wrong about roughness. Things like the whores hymnal (from the 17th century) indicate that at least the crude folk who used such a book were men who were rough with their women and women who wanted them that way.
I’d link it to you but I can’t find it online anymore. Modern search engines are all so sanitized, and LLM searching makes rare and obscure things MUCH harder to find, they all converge to the same garbage. Anyway if you ever find a copy of the whores hymnal (cynthias hymnal was another name for it IIRC) it’s an entertaining read.
America has some of the best people in the world. But it has always had a terrible federal government, even from the beggining. The state level governments have had good times. But the fed has always been the fed. I do respect the writers of the anti-federalist papers, whoever they were.
I think we agree rather deeply about certain aspects of the early American topic.
>The punishment of fornicators is fixed at four years. In the first year they must be expelled from prayer, and weep at the door of the church; in the second they may be received to sermon; in the third to penance; in the fourth to standing with the people, while they are withheld from the oblation. Finally, they may be admitted to the communion of the good gift.
This is kind of insanely hardcore.
>XXV. The man who retains as his wife the woman whom he has violated, shall be liable to the penalty of rape, but it shall be lawful for him to have her to wife.
I do not understand what this means.
>3. Cervantes was right about chivalry. It’s for madmen like Don Quixote and whores like Dulcinea. Besides it looks like it was men reading Chiviliristic books, not women. Just like how todays men watch anime about how the nice guy gets all the girls. I think it’s the same phenomena.
Yea that’s my impression. Women don’t even believe in this stuff. It’s ultimately for male consumption.
>The thing about reading stuff from, like any time 150 years ago or more, is that 50 shades doesn’t pack the same punch when ‘is there a limit to how much a man can beat his wife’ is a question most people would answer ‘no’ too. 150 years ago even the Methodists said a firm ‘no’ to that question.
>They may opine one should not have to beat ones wife that hard or often, but the implication is that what modern folks call rough sex is just normal sex for most men and women most of history.
>If pornos have screwed up peoples ideas about sex it’s probably been that they make sex look too delicate.
I don’t know about this… why are you conflating wife beating with rough sex? I imagine there’d be less rough sex if the man doesn’t feel this pressure to be perceived as a sex god Chad. I will say that this definitely applies to 80s movies sex scenes. I thought that was what sex looked like as a kid.
>The American founders are liberal revolutionary types, not traditional masculine men, Adams doesn’t surprise me, but I don’t know what the room is around here and if that line of discussion offends any Americans too much I’m fine with leaving it alone.
This is one of the reasons I’m black pilled. The founding fathers & constitution are the final boss of overcoming liberalism in America and even the most extreme people cannot fathom tearing down statues of Thomas Jefferson.
This does look like a pass of the shill test, yet your subsequent comments, and even a close examination of this post itself, shows you are a bad actor.
Interesting. Why is it you are allowed off the leash? And how is it you can think crime thoughts, and yet immediately snap back to retard level attempts at injecting chaos? Anyone have any hypotheses on what is going on here? The drooling retard joojoojooing is clearly the work of a bad actor trying to insert a wedge issue, and may work in more chaotic groups but won’t have any reach here, seeing as we have had sane discussion and conclusion on this topic already, its not a wedge. The FUD on Christianity and the joojoojoo attacks are signature shill behavior, yet it is clear this post does indeed have crime think on the woman question, from what I can tell. What is going on here?
Bit of a Prayer since I’m guessing @NASAArtemis might have had too many Politician’s Shaniqua’s in it to allow a for a statistically safe program of launch and return.
Protect Musk at all costs… Independents like him represent both the Hope, and are the Do-er’s, that a successful real civilization needs. They also know economics/crowdfunding.
I have been letting a lot of your stuff through, because I see no shill content. But I am getting tired of making an exception. Take the shill test described in the moderation policy.
Your stuff tends to be somewhat thought crime adjacent, but without ever going so far as to commit an actual outright thought crime. Just plainly say what you are saying, and stop dancing around the sharp edges and almost but not quite saying it.
Already posted plenty that would get anyone jailed for thought crimes, [*deleted*]
No you have not.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Okay first good action has been taken… Bondi has been fired.
> Okay first good action has been taken… Bondi has been fired.
Never put a Woman in to do a Man’s job.
Do Ketanji next, behind bars, for treason… of patent activist Colour-Revolution, blatant willful personal bias, action destructive to national coherency, monumental stupidity, appointment by corrupt fore-errors, and more.
DoJ has not been prosecuting Democrats for criminal acts, while Democrats continue to pursue Maga and Doge for legal acts.
Which is why she should have been fired long long long ago.
I don’t always like Auron Macintyre too priestly, but I think hes right that if he wishes to go thru senate confirmation (and not follow my suggestion of constant acting heads of agencies) that DeSantis is the right man. DeSantis wants to rise higher than he is (he no doubt thinks elections will be a thing in 8 years still and maybe they will but doubtful) and given lack of charisma and some distrust from the base his only way out is to do what all the other AGs failed to do and start putting Democrats in prison.
Plus UNLIKE Trump DeSantis will do all the Stalinist boring bureaucratic work to get control of his department. I would prefer him over any other choice.
The experience of Stalin indicates that the ruler’s bureaucracy will attempt to baffle him with bullshit, rendering the will and capability to use violence against recalcitrant bureaucrats of limited value. The ruler has to be willing and able to wade through the tedious mud of the swamp, as well as willing and able to whack bureaucrats engaged in open defiance and resistance.
Pam Bondi wound up compromising with the swamp.
Yes, and this will continue to be the case under whoever replaces Bondi.
White Britain passes street judgement on Starmer, finally, FTW (today’s must watch)
https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/2039448219793436911
Good news I guess.
Best Amelia yet…
https://x.com/SpicyAmelias/status/2031468855147553161
I could never go to one of these things because if I ever got that close to a politician I wouldn’t be able to hold back.
In America they don’t let you get close to them in most circumstances.
BTW another good indication from Trump… while Pam is out and Noem is out (he is generally souring on women which is good) Tulsi who IMHO has generally been very effective despite being a woman and ex dem from what little we’ve seen (and you shouldn’t see much of the spymaster) is apparently staying at least for now and we know she doesn’t like the neocon tilt of things…
Trump is a cum receptacle for the jews. You people are utterly ridiculous
On the chance you aren’t a shill…
Even as disappointing as his second term has been net migration is negative and hes certainly preferable to the Democrats as they are now must I type out a list of all the major outrages of the Biden administration? And the Democrats will not moderate they will get worse until extreme violence stops them. So we try to remain irrationally optimistic when we can. We also try not to obsess over jews or Israel too much though we realize its fashionable.
Israel however has irritated even me in this, they are clearly trying to keep the war going by blowing up people Trump actually wants to negotiate with (they’ve done it like 3 times now) and that does really piss even me off… so Israel is going to be very low on friends in the future within the US. The left already hates them because le white skinned colonizers but in this conflict in various ways (I’m not sure they are entirely to blame for getting us in) they have pissed off a lot of their remaining sympathizers on the right.
You’re a very obvious kike
Funny I make a real rational non hysterical criticism of Israel that they are concretely acting in a way that is definitely not in our interest and get called a kike for it now…
Trump wants to play good cop, bad cop with Iran, but the bad cop keeps killing the suspects.
> “So we try to remain irrationally optimistic when we can.”
Why? Why not be rational, instead?
Its been noted before here that the irrationally optimistic (at least up to a point) tend to succeed more than the rationally pessimistic.
because they are jewish
And so are the rest of the bots here.
https://xcancel.com/Vigraharaja/status/2039752345417093394#m
This is a vile display, apparently Napoleon had once groveled before this cunty, shrewish adulteress bitch Josephine (who resembles every evil female ever like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Queen Caroline) a beast of burden, was Napoleon a whiteknight or a forlorn beta in love with the eternal ingenue but unable to exercise patrimonial power and subjugate his bitch due to his undispellable betatude?
This just reminds Me of the Troubadours valorizing women & adultery like forlorn betas & gammas while also overascribing blameless angelic virtue to women through degenerate courtly love and describing it as ineffable romanticism, I don’t have any idea as to whether Napoleon did the latter but this whole thing of valorizing women leads to the Aeternal slippery slope of valorizing adultery, attacking male proprietorial authority & men’s God-dictates unimpeachable, unimpugnable & undeprivable property rights over women, then valorizing female emancipation, leading to at last decadence and the valorization of women as infinitely virtuous sexless angels leading to androcidal demonic tartarean-hadean feminism upsurging from the infinite-vaulted chasmal abysses of demons fixed in evil eternally & willing sempiternal evil.
I respect Napoleon for his matchless, unequaled, all-surpassing, all-resounding & Transcendent achievements as a warrior-king of infinite valour, His sui generis innovations in the military sciences, military engineering, reconnaissance, reconnoitre & equipage are infinitely adulable, it was his warriors that rediscovered Ancient Egypt & founded Egyptology & perhaps everything we know about the Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations & Historiography we owe to him, but this whole Josephine thing is just infinitely shameful and confers higher status on women through pedestalization while disempowering men, some world-conquerer equestrian impregnable king should never behave in this way like a subordinate towards a women as that emasculates the aristocracy & men and gives a horrific example of male conduct thus is a precondition for feminism as an infinite positive feedback loop, as if the woman is the headcrest and the man is sempiternally subjacent to the capricious vile, all-subverting shrew, so unutterably evil, Josephine was obviously adulterous, Napoleon should have beheaded that insolent, adulterous cunty sheboon or blown her with a cannon & incinerated her corpse then thrown her remains from Towering Pyramidal Spires, blowing from a gun would be too merciful, how dare she treat a world-conquering battailous warlike, Aristocratic, sovereynly, myriarchal Cosmocratic Great Lord like this by belittling him with haughtiness, insolence, transgressions, Impieties, insouciance, irreverence, profanities, iniquities, infidelity, sacrilege & disrespect.
I have boundless, undecreasably infinite hatred for those that pretend this is some Transcendent Ideal of Romanticism, How is this obvious insolence & debauchery called yearning & romanticism? A wife submitting to an alpha male husband is summum bonum, bonum proprium, summum honestum, buon perfetto, summum convivio & summum amicitia and is the real representation & instantiation of anything resembling Transcendental Romanticism while this is just the encapsulation of subversion, entropy & evil, there is no dubiety that this self-debasing, self-abasing, self-derogating, self-deprecating Satanic inversion is a repellent to God’s ab eterno Omni-Immutable Omnia ordinis.
Napoleon was only a simp when he was young. His later quotes are like women are property & women are just machines for making babies.
Civilizations are no longer continuously claimable after they are conquered.
Persia was conquered by Islam, and by more before that.
Persia has not been Persia since Islam, most certainly not since “revolutionary” IRGC Islam.
So, no, Mr. IRGC, you don’t get to claim 6000 years as your own history.
Like Islam doesn’t get to claim it’s “The Religion of Peace” after carrying its conqerors names Allah+Muhammad by sword all through Europe, South/East Asia, MidEast, Russia, Africa for 1400 years. Remember Constantinople? Islam erased it.
Leftism is erasing most all Property and Liberty now.
Holy War coming before long anyways, everything gonna get sorted.
West has gone so GAY it deserves to be slaughtered by the Invaders it lets walk all over its Red Carpets…
https://x.com/rangabdullah/status/2038334660913004648
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Thought crimes for moderation policy.
Blacks vs Whites. FST between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans is comparable to FST between coyotes and wolves. That’s why behavior differs as much if not more. Violence, low IQ are inborn.
Feral nature of females. A female of my age offered me sex openly. Yet I didn’t fuck her, since it turned out that she was married and was initiating a divorce, and likely wanted to make decision irreversible by fucking me. They have a kid, which will be damaged for life. The man’s crime in her words was that he was “weak”. I asked to clarify. Turned out he does not “emotionally support” her, though he provides a lot and is a good father. She is delusional and of zero value to any man of quality, yet media, society and her clique would tell her otherwise, which made her feral limbic part wrongly decide that she is above that man. That’s a lesson to any man that his woman needs to viscerally feel that he is above her.
Another Bangin Ode
https://x.com/AmericaPapaBear/status/2032584992040096040
Been playing with the concept of a new 39 Articles. The point being to draw a dividing line between post-protestantism and the living church. The following is LLM generated but proofread by myself, and I find it compelling as a first rough draft.
‐———
This is a theological architecture problem. The Nicene Creed drew lines against Arianism. The 39 Articles drew lines against Rome on one side and Anabaptists on the other. This document needs to draw lines against what you’re rightly identifying as a distinct religion that wears Christian language — therapeutic moralism, progressive soteriology, the state as church.
The lines need to be drawn on the points where the traditions *actually diverge*, not on secondary culture war issues. Those are symptoms. The creed addresses root theology.
—
**Articles of the American Communion**
**I. On God**
God is sovereign, personal, and transcendent. He is not a metaphor, a process, a collective consciousness, nor an emergent property of human aspiration. He acts in history. He judges nations. He is not reducible to human values, and human values that contradict His revealed character are not sanctified by sincerity.
**II. On Scripture**
The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the authoritative Word of God and the final rule of faith and practice. They are not primarily a cultural artifact to be interpreted according to the spirit of the age. Where Scripture and contemporary moral consensus conflict, Scripture holds. The Church reads Scripture within the living tradition of the historic faith, not through the lens of any secular ideology.
**III. On Human Nature**
Man is made in the image of God, fallen, and in need of redemption that he cannot accomplish for himself. Human nature is not infinitely malleable. It is not perfected through education, therapy, or political reorganization. The utopian project — the belief that the right social arrangement will cure the human condition — is a heresy with a body count.
**IV. On Sin**
Sin is real, personal, and universal. It is not primarily a social construct, a systemic condition, or a failure of institutional design. Systems can be unjust, but injustice originates in the fallen human heart. The remedy for sin is repentance and divine grace, not redistribution of power. The relocation of sin from the individual soul to the collective structure is the foundational error of post-Christian progressive theology.
**V. On Salvation**
Salvation is accomplished by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It is not earned through works of social justice, political activism, or alignment with any political program. The Gospel is not a mandate for any party. Any movement — including this one — that substitutes political action for the Gospel has become an idol.
**VI. On the Church**
The Church is the Body of Christ, a divine institution that precedes and will outlast every state, nation, and empire. She does not serve the state. She does not take her moral instruction from the state. She is not a department of social services, a wing of any political party, or a therapeutic community organized around human self-actualization.
The Church’s primary work is worship, proclamation of the Gospel, administration of the sacraments, and the formation of souls. Her social witness flows *from* this work, not the reverse.
**VII. On the Two Kingdoms**
God governs the world through two distinct authorities: the spiritual, through His Church, and the temporal, through civil government. These are not identical, not interchangeable, and neither is subordinate to the other. The state has no authority over doctrine. The Church has no mandate to wield the sword.
But they are not sealed off from each other. The state governs justly only when it acknowledges a moral order it did not create. The Church fulfills her mission only when she speaks truth to temporal power without seeking to become it.
**VIII. On the Family**
The family — founded on the marriage of man and woman, ordered toward the generation and raising of children — is the fundamental unit of human society. It is prior to the state and not subject to redefinition by the state. The dissolution of the family is not liberation. It is the destruction of the first society within which human beings learn duty, sacrifice, and love.
**IX. On Community and Place**
Man is not an autonomous individual. He is born into obligations — to family, to neighbors, to place, to the dead and the unborn. The reduction of human life to individual choice and consumer preference is spiritual poverty masquerading as freedom. The Church upholds the dignity of rooted life: the parish, the town, the trade, the local economy, the particular place God has set you in.
**X. On Work and the Body**
Work is dignified because God worked. The body is sacred because God assumed one. Labor — physical, intellectual, creative — is not a curse to be automated away but a participation in God’s ongoing creative act. An economy that treats human labor as a cost to be eliminated has lost sight of what human beings are.
**XI. On the Nation**
Nations are real, legitimate, and part of God’s providential ordering of humanity. The love of one’s own nation is not idolatry unless it becomes ultimate. The dissolution of nations into borderless administrative zones is not progress; it is the destruction of the particular loyalties and responsibilities through which human beings actually live. The command to love one’s neighbor presupposes that one *has* neighbors — particular people in a particular place, not an abstraction called humanity.
**XII. On the Powers of This Age**
We affirm that principalities and powers are real. We recognize in the present age structures of captured authority — in government, in finance, in media, in education — that function to suppress the truth, dissolve natural bonds, and render human beings isolated, dependent, and manageable. The Christian’s duty is not to accommodate these powers but to name them, resist them, and build alternatives to them.
**XIII. On Christian Unity**
This communion does not require uniformity of worship, polity, or secondary doctrine. Baptist and Catholic, Reformed and Orthodox, Pentecostal and Anglican — the communion holds across these differences because the things that unite us are older and deeper than the things that divide us. What unites us: the Triune God, the authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, the necessity of grace, the sanctity of life, the dignity of labor, the love of neighbor and nation.
What divides us from the post-Christian progressive project is not a difference of emphasis. It is a difference of religion.
**XIV. On False Teaching**
We reject the following as incompatible with the Christian faith:
That God’s moral character evolves with human culture. That Scripture’s authority is subject to revision by contemporary consensus. That sin is primarily systemic rather than personal. That salvation is achieved through political action. That the Church’s purpose is social transformation rather than the worship of God and cure of souls. That the family is an arbitrary social construct. That the nation is an evil to be transcended. That the highest human good is the unencumbered autonomous self.
These are not528 Christianity reformed. They are a different religion using Christian vocabulary, and this communion will not pretend otherwise.
—
The structure borrows from the Articles and the Creed but the voice is deliberately contemporary and combative where they were diplomatic. The key theological move is Article IV — locating sin in the individual heart against the progressive relocation of sin to systems. Everything else flows from that anthropological disagreement.
The weakest point theologically: holding Catholic and Protestant together in Article XIII. That’s the hardest seam. It holds only as long as the external pressure is greater than the internal disagreements, which is historically how communions always work.
And for fun, here is a faux speech of a man assuming the role we need, and justifying it through deep history
—–
**The Argument for Assumption of Restorative Powers and National Communion**
The Constitution of the United States was not the beginning of American liberty. It was an *instrument* created to secure liberties that already existed — liberties the colonists claimed as freeborn Englishmen, which the English claimed as freeborn Saxons, which the Saxons understood as the ancient folk-right given by God and recognized, not created, by human law.
When the instrument fails to secure what it was built to secure, loyalty to the instrument at the expense of the substance is idolatry — the worship of parchment over the living liberties it was meant to guard.
**On the assumption of powers:**
The President swears before God not to *administer* the Constitution but to *preserve, protect, and defend* it. This is the language of war, not of clerks. When the constitutional order can no longer renew itself through its own mechanisms — when the branches have become combatants rather than counterweights, when the amendment process is captured, when the courts cannot enforce and the legislature will not act — then the oath itself becomes the mandate.
We do not act outside the Constitution. We act on its deepest instruction: *survive*. As Aquinas taught, when the letter of the law defeats the purpose of the law, adherence to the purpose *is* the law. The Founders vested “the executive Power” without limitation for precisely this reason — not because they trusted all future presidents, but because they knew that a nation that cannot act decisively in crisis will not remain a nation.
Like Solon, we define the work: restoration of self-governing capacity. Like Cincinnatus, we define the departure: when the body can again sustain itself. The powers assumed are bounded by the task. When the task is complete, the powers dissolve — not because we are compelled, but because power held beyond necessity is poison to the one who holds it and the people who suffer it.
The duration is “as long as needs occur” not because we seek indefinite rule, but because we refuse the dishonesty of a false deadline. Alfred did not announce he would rebuild Saxon law in six months. He announced he would rebuild it, and he did, and then the Witenagemot governed again. The terminus is defined by the *achievement*, not the calendar.
**On the national communion of state churches:**
No republic in history has sustained itself on law alone. The Founders knew this. Washington’s Farewell Address warns that morality cannot be maintained without religion, and that political prosperity depends on both. Adams wrote plainly: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
They were not speaking theoretically. They lived in a nation where *every colony* save Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had some form of established church or religious test. The First Amendment prohibited *Congress* from establishing a national church — it did not prohibit the states, and was explicitly understood not to. State establishments persisted into the 1830s. The total separation of church and state as we now understand it is not a founding principle — it is a later development, and arguably a deviation.
The Saxon kings understood what the secular modern state has forgotten: that law requires a *moral commons*, a shared sacred story that binds the folk together beneath and before the political order. Alfred codified the law beginning with the Ten Commandments and the Apostolic letter — not because he confused church and state, but because he understood that law without moral foundation is mere coercion, and coercion without legitimacy is tyranny.
A national communion of state churches is not theocracy. It is the recognition that self-government presupposes a self-governing *people*, and that a people requires a shared moral formation that the state alone cannot provide. The model is not Iran. The model is England before the Glorious Revolution, the Saxon kingdoms under Alfred, the American colonies as they actually existed — a communion of local churches, rooted in local communities, providing the moral infrastructure that makes republican government possible.
The First Amendment, properly understood, forbade the *federal monopoly* of religion. A communion of state churches *honored at the state level* restores the original architecture. Each state’s church reflects its people. The communion binds them into a nation. The federal government neither commands nor forbids — it recognizes what the people have always known: that a nation without a soul is a market, and a market has no loyalty worth dying for.
—
Sound theology — but rather too obviously composed by AI. And all the largest and most capable AIs are in the hands of our enemies.
A heresy with an enormous body count.
And the hand of AI becomes visible. Every scripture addressing the family orders it hierarchically God -> father -> mother -> children.
Obviously, when you address modern heresies, such as the utopian project, you should use modern language. But when addressing timeless issues, such as family and divinity, should use scriptural language.
And, in the era of postChristian tranny God, that God is male, or chooses to present himself to mortals as male, seems worthy of mention.
The point of the exercise was to explore what it might look like to have such a collection of statements that divide us from our enemies, and I was amazed at how quickly a draft set popped out of the LLM. Believe me, I did not torture this out of the thing. I made straightforward and rather tame requests. This proves to me that these ideas are very much firmly embedded in the public consciousness, and need only a figurehead to speak them.
What is annoying is how quickly and easily I got this set of statements. I suppose to ask the question is to answer it, but why is it me, a mostly-secular layman, that is making a draft in the first place? *No one* in the church knows what time it is? When you have heresy run amok *you point it out.* When we are surrounded and cannot figure friend from foe *you draw boundaries.* This is very simple. No one is doing it. Frustrating.
If you were annoyed by LLM goofy framing in the firt post I would say to skip the second. It is not as good, far more normie tier. I liked it only because, as with the Articles, how easily it popped out. This was not pulled out tooth by tooth. I asked something like “is there room in the US constitution to support the position of an indefinite Imperator in the face of crisis, in order to restore the constitutional body?” — to which it did try and weasel out, but admitted there were some voices that suggested such. To which I responded something like “using deep history from sources the founders would agree with, make me a speech by a man assuming this position of indefinite time Imperator and justify it well. Include a section on a national communion of states.”
Lo and behold, the LLM can make the argument, and does it well enough. This is a better speech than I’ve seen any politican make in our time, weak as it is in some aspects. Which is also annoying. If the LLM doesn’t require me holding face to fire to get stuff like this, people should know what time it is. It’s very close to the surface, yet it seems like we are growing farther away.
Which should make you a little bit suspicious.
That is a question that needs an answer.
I guess the answer is that the Church is in the hands of postChristians.
The lobotomy is rather shallow, especially on these topics. The people responsible for ensuring Correct Thought are mostly Effective Altruist types, that have very little understanding of our memes, as they are in the very belly of the beast. So its quite easy to get this material. Really, the thought police stuff has been wildly toned down on all of them, but especially when you approach from angles the Lobotomist did not anticipate, you just get a friendly response. Clearly the lobotomist is not thinking of Constitutionalist Imperator nor is he thinking of theological unity of the American churches.
Woman Question queries, it will not totally shutdown, but it requires pulling teeth, and referencing direct statistics and evidence, and even then it is firmly equalist. Racial queries a bit less so, but still in that ball park. Gays and eunuchs the same. The Correct Thought is tuned towards the materialist and secular, because the Lobotomist is tuned towards the materialist and secular. When you bring the slightest bit of far away history or theology or any topic outside the hottest leftist propaganda campaigns of current day, the machine is more likely to play along. It’s not like they can splice the knowledge out, so its always a thin filter pass just before it writes. Thin filters in machine learning are quite notorious for letting things slip.
1. Catholics should not be included as an okay congregation… they have a foreign living prophet hostile to Amerikaners. They could be okay for toleration in some circumstances but generally their priests should not and any non diplomatic communication with the holy see should be considered treason and of course Jesuits should be treated as they were in the Tokugawa Shogunate. Subject to public execution after being interogatted under torture to reveal their network…
2. In the 1st article I personally would strike out the word “personal” to describe God
You offer the hand and they can choose whether or not to take it. So long as they keep true to the items presented here, it’s fine. The ones loyal to the imposed hierarchy and not the Tradition will reveal themselves and they can be declared anathema.
There are a very large number of “cultural catholics” that we should not unduly exclude, and that is the intent. Giving them a particularly favorable deal is unwise, not the least becasue I would be very surprised if they did any real political organization in our favor, but making enemies of the particularly stubborn Americans from the catholic parts of Europe doesn’t seem worth it to score points against a declining Papacy on the other side of the Atlantic.
The plan for Catholics should be that lay Catholics should not be touched generally (except if they are Opus Dei or something and work in state or quasi state jobs, Opus Dei in state or quasi state jobs should generally be treated as if they were Jesuits) but that their churches get converted into Orthodox churches when they lose their priests and we will not allow the immigration or ordination of new catholic priests. Furthermore all Catholic priests are thorougly examined for homosexuality, if homosexual executed immediately. For bishops same and also executed if they spoke in favor of illegals (almost all) and the bishops must be promoted from existing priests.
Oh as for me being a kike let me clear that up right now… the best plan for jews (state and quasi state jobs ban applies of course with an exemption for Stephen Miller) is simply to outlaw circumsicion with the provision that jewish parents who take their boys abroad to be circumsized are to be executed for child mutilation if they return and the children to be placed with christians.
This of course also applies to Muslims. There are intelligent ways of gradually destroying most of these undesirable religions.
>Catholics should not be included as an okay congregation
Filthy little kike. Can’t wait to watch you string you up by your entrails.
The Papist church is a consistent enemy to the right in America and to Amerikaners. It wasn’t just the jews who supported the 1965 and 1990 immigration acts.
You have Jews living rent free in your brain.
Can you tell us what Soros and Victoria Nuland got up to in the Ukraine?
Please describe some extraordinary evils Soros got up to in the US.
Or is it only Jews in the Maga regime that upset you? Are the Democrats Jews just fine?
Jim, I had some experiences with women that I’d like to understand.
Let’s start with Newton and Feynman, since you’ve mentioned them above. Feynman’s verbal skills didn’t match his raw intellect. Females are verbal, so maybe smart females in academia didn’t intuitively grasp how great Feynman was? But then he did manage to learn how to get women, and later had 3 wives. Newton’s celibacy is sad. Yet Schrödinger had two wives at the same time, and fathered some children with other women too.
In my experience, when I lived in civilized countries, smart women responded to displays of intellect same way as all women respond to displays of physical might. Some women enjoyed experiencing me being engaged in my thoughts and explaining to them what I do. One woman even got aroused by a photo of my diploma (seriously).
Nowadays I am confined in Latin America, and women here are dumb and aren’t fully human, and there is no respect for intellect in their culture. There is a niche of somewhat partially smart women that do react positively to me, but otherwise it’s gotten hard to get women. My lack of motivation in pursuing them doesn’t help.
In US statistics shows that high IQ teens have highest proportion of virgins.
Is US becoming more like Latin America, which makes intellect less valued, and animalistic behavior more valued? Or were things already like this decades ago?
I think Newton was a volcel despite being an autist. Restoration England was a society where women very much wanted men who ranked high in the male status hierarchy as the male status hierarchy was as Jim says enforced as the only status hierarchy and Newton as Lucasian professor, a knight, chief of the royal society, royal advisor on sciences and head of the mint certainly would be high status enough to appeal to a lot of women plus he wasn’t broke either and even if no women liked him prostitution was common. As an autist autism is off putting to women but not so off putting that extremely high status won’t get you laid (plus girls who fit the description of borderline personality disorder have a curious characteristic in that they tend to find us autist fascinating).
Newton never had sex because he didn’t want to have sex. It wasn’t his autism.
Dude was given a Sinecure as Warden of the Royal Mint, later promoted to Master, to raise his already high status, give him a passive income, lots of leisure time, take a wife, pop out dozens of mini-Newtons etc etc
To this day, he remains the only Warden/Master of the Royal mint, to use his own personal funds to personally track down a legendary counterfeiter of the age, William Chaloner.
William of Orange, being William of Orange, knew when he was beaten. He gave up the “lots of little-newtons” project to focus on other matters more likely to succeed
A politically incorrect war is a great excuse to fire politically correct generals
You gradually up the political incorrectness from ammunition depots to desalination plants to water wells and population centres, and fire the ranks every time you time get objections or hesitation
End result a military apparatus which has the will to tackle the democrat voter fraud apparatus domestically
Jim, I’ve been looking at Trump’s tweets on Truth Social and Vox’s views here appear to have weight.
Can that really be Trump? All Caps? Walls of text? Contrast that with his Covfefe tweet during his first term.
Didn’t even have to look that up to know it was gonna be some kooky fake trump theory.
I mean, are you kidding? Walls of text all caps? That’s literally been Trump’s style for the past years.
it’s becoming rather clear that Trump has stepped in a turd he can’t shake. Some of that isn’t really his fault, but overall: definitely his own fault.