I am disappointed and surprised that we did not see a red wave. But the loss of the house changes little. Trump did not have a majority of Trump Republicans before the election and he now has a slightly larger minority of Trump Republicans. And in any case, the house has had no real power since FDR.
With better control of the Senate, Trump can get judges and appointments through better, and this makes a big difference, since personnel are policy.
Augustus could kill his opponents, and Duterte can kill his opponents, but it took Augustus over ten years to get real control of the Roman government, and Duterte still has no real control of the Philippine government. (Rome continued to suffer from anarcho tyranny, government by mobile bandits, until 11BC.)
Hitler, on the other hand, took real control of the German government in two years. Roman emperors continued to have problems controlling their government until Constantine got a religion in his pocket. Warriors need priests in their pocket in order to govern successfully.
As Charles the first said “No Bishop, no King.”
The reason why it is very bad that we lost the house is the Dems would have torn themselves apart and the far left would likely have launched stupid and doomed uprisings in urban areas. The crisis would have likely handed Trump effective absolute power.
Now however the war goes on…
Yes, a red wave would have been a huge move towards Trump governance. I am very disappointed.
But the Democrats will continue to tear themselves apart no matter what.
I think they can hold themselves together for now with their common enemy “orange man” and repeating to themselves “orange man bad” and having the media repeat “orange man bad”.
We actually need the far extreme insane leftists to rise up in poorly planned violence proclaiming socialist republics in major cities. I don’t think that happens in the next two years now.
Paul Ryan the weasel and Jeff Sessions the traitor are the two people most to blame for this setback.
Hillary’s lunatics shoved Michael Moore’s Eurosocialists aside post 2016 with the fake news about Russia, and have been vindicated. They now own the left, entirely, without reservation.
FISA declassiciation is coming, and no Dhimmicrat can say they weren’t gleefully complicit.
Trump has two years to begin arresting his enemies.
Dhimmis can’t block Trump’s budget because Trump doesn’t have to play fiscal conservative with Dhimmis abandoning Eurosocialism.
They can prevent him from passing any new laws and pass impeachment every day. Restoring the First Amendment on the Internet doesn’t really need new laws, though.
Is that what Q told you would happen next or your own analysis? “Trust Sessions” lol.
I’ve heard that Sessions resigned so that he could testify.
Pelosi was demanding he resign a year ago; now she’s crying foul at his resignation, as interference with Mueller.
I’ll continue to trust Qanon, Trump and Sessions.
Or you know, the voters in the cities who never vote Republican didn’t vote Republican, just like they always do. Sessions and Ryan have nothing to do with it. If you are going to blame it on someone, blame it on the idiocy of democracy where people switch between the two parties on a whim every election cycle for no other reason then (((to try something different))). AS long as democracy exists, we will continue to see the elections swing back and forth every cycle just due to people thinking that changing their vote changes outcomes, when in reality, unless you vote for the trumpist republicans, literally nothing changes.
This.
Democracy is a seesaw. GNON’s forbidden fruit. One thing I find rather disappointing is how few NRx/monarchish/alt-x folks seem to have actually read Maine’s Popular Government. It is the predicate for moldbug’s canon and absolutely essential reading IMO.
Completely agree on Maine. I finally got around to reading it a couple of months ago and was shocked by how comprehensive and how prescient it was, especially for something apparently written during the Presidency of James Blaine.
[…] Election outcome […]
The results were pretty much in-line with polls. A strongly divided House and Senate limits Trump’s ability to do much. I think he’ll be reelected, but I’m not too optimistic about his second term either. We know democracy does not work yet we fooled ourselves into thinking this time will be different. Maybe he can do an executive order on immigration soon. Maybe try to secure funding for wall.
We hoped what some on the left (and the cuck right) feared that Trump could manage “The True Election”.
It might still happen but this is a considerable setback. Not because the House is in itself that important (the Senate controls appointments) but because the left would have been so demoralized if they didn’t take the house that the far left likely would have decided to screw Bill Maher’s optics and go in. And if they did that Trump would have managed the True Election.
If can’t afford wall: build a fence. Call for volunteers in MAGA hats to reduce labor costs. Something like this can be done with volunteer work under $1M per mile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slovenian_border_fence_in_Griblje.JPG
Trump had no legal power to do anything anyway. America is not a democracy.
What happens now Jim?
War is unpredictable until one side gains a decisive strategic advantage.
Nothing much has changed, so nothing exciting as result of this election. Mueller will release a report that Trump is guilty of being guilty, and regardless of what is in it, Democrats driven ever leftwards will unpredictably launch some new craziness, but that will be holiness spiral driven, not election result driven. Interesting times ahead caused by general trends, not specifically caused by this election.
His Majesty did rallies to win the Senate and won the Senate, while everyone assumed we wanted and expected a general red wave.
Along those lines look at this:
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1060220852447444992
Trump listing all the R losses that were anti-Trump Rs in the House. The only upside to putting those guys back in the House would be if the left reacted insanely – but even then those guys would be there to cover for the left.
An anti-Trump House could give Trump some basis for calling 2020 as a true election. A subversive Republican one maybe has less of a chance to do so.
A bad day for Republicans, but a good day for Trump. He has the most important thing, the ability to appoint the people he wants, starting with the Attorney General.
And he wants a Trump Party in place of cuck party, and losing the house is a good step towards a Trump party taking the house.
We had hoped for considerably better, but the Democrats and all the mass media were predicting far worse.
Getting the Senate is a big step towards investigating Democrats.
True point. I’ve maintained pre-election that it’s better to have Dems rather than anti-Trump (even if secretly but genuinely anti-Trump) Repubs in the House.
My only sadness comes from the fact that Trump has only one term left. Not enough. And it does not look like he is going to change things too drastically over the next 6 years. Unless the Dems do something utterly crazy. Utterly.
Utterly crazy is in the cards.
Six years remaining assumes that the Republic lasts that long.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Trump’s mere candidacy was the Republic’s deathblow. (Or is it even still Republican America? Pretty Imperial already in most ways…)
If Trump didn’t get elected Red America would have learned that democracy cannot solve their problems, or even meaningfully address them. Since Trump did get elected, Red America is thoroughly learning that democracy cannot solve their problems.
If Trump somehow got his wall, then Blue America would have had a seizure and smashed their head open on that wall. Since every government institution is staffed by Blue America, that would have meant the physical end of elections due to the breakdown of their hierarchy.
Since Trump isn’t getting his wall, speaking both metaphorically and literally, Red America is learning POTUS has no power. A wall that large isn’t cheap, but it is very simple. They could put the wall up themselves if such a thing were legal.
The only reason Blue America even still bothers with elections is legitimacy. Once Red America – AKA competent America – checks out of the system, they are well and truly fucked. At best the system will become too expensive to run. At worst the side with no guns and no aim will attempt to conquer the side with all the trained marksmen.
Patriot Trump knew that getting too uppity about election rule violations would likely have destroyed the Republic. He almost certainly did win the popular vote, as vote fraud was very easily in the millions of votes. He might have risked it if he didn’t get in, but he did, so…
Also, it’s not like Republicans refrain from election rigging. You can tell because they win elections ever. They’re just not as anvillicious as ‘finding’ votes in someone’s trunk. I imagine quite a few dead people vote R, or something with equally delicious irony.
Unfortunately for Trump, some of the minions he inspired aren’t as far-sighted. They think vote fraud is limited to one or two counties. Having seen how the sausage is made, the simple patriots think it can’t possibly be made this way everywhere.
—
Trump is capable of ignoring local incentives in favour of nonlocal incentives.* It’s a very rare capability. There has been no politician in my lifetime with a similar ability, for example.
Proggressives don’t have anybody like this. If they did, they could have recovered from Trump’s candidacy.
*(Which is the essence of every system of morality, by the way.)
I’m not getting too down about this. The cucks are gone. The supposed Dem agenda is a bunch of tail chasing. They’re starting to look like fake opposition.
Plus when the new Dems inevitably get nothing done over the next two years, their voter enthusiasm will be down in 2020. Think of the fake two party playbook they’ve been running for 50 years.
Difference for us is the demographic clock is ticking. We’ve got maybe 2-3 more election cycles before the deluge.
Trump will now co-opt the Dems as he co-opted the GOP.
Watch the Maestro work.
They hate him way too much.
The GOP hated him far more…what was the outcome?
Politics is Power.
Trump has power. They covet his power.
Trump is his own party and they’ll be drawn to him.
Consider his record: he has run for one public office and he won first time.
Trump will now bring the Red state Rust Belt Dems into his orbit.
He’ll make them his creatures – for you see those Rust Belt voters simply did not go and vote for the Rust Belt GOP – rather sad creatures you know.
What Trump offered the Rust Belt and congenital Democratic working class voters in America was the Centrist old Fashioned working class Democrat most of them had grown up hearing about but never seen nationally. They’re going to vote for Trump in 2020 and the Red State/Rust Belt Dems know it.
Trump knows it too and he’ll draw them into his orbit. They can deliver the infrastructure spending he wants and they will.
On the backside the GOP will learn to deliver something besides Tax cuts and might even get behind building the wall once they’re back in power and analyze the election returns. GOP does better as mostly in opposition party occasionally in power anyway.When they’re comfortable in power they rule more Dem than the Dems.
Trump will now capture much of the Dems as he captured much of the GOP.
The GOP will either learn to get behind the wall and ending immigration or cease to exist as a real rival to the Dems. If the GOP does go into permanent minority status *then we MUST have the Democratic Party as the Party of White Working Class Men* and Trump is the man to do it.
We MUST have POWER. If the GOP can’t keep it and won’t use it then we take the Dems back for the working man- or enough of it to check the Left into their natural self destruction and marginal freakish impotence.
PS and the Civil War is both closer and farther away….do organize.
Cheers, vxxc
Trump ran for president multiple times before 2016.
Seeking nomination and running for president are not the same thing. This is so basic a concept that I question your intentions behind posting this comment…
Before 2015, Trump was described as having run for president.
Sperg on, autist.
And gays are called married.
Trump never appeared in any primary or any election, until 2016. He explored appearing in the Reform Party presidential primary in 2000, but did not do so. He applied to run in two presidential primaries of the Reform Party, but did not run in those primaries.
If people are drawn to power and Trump is power, then he will need to start shaming and imprisoning his opponents, instead of merely mocking them.
Trump has not tarred and feathered his opposition nearly enough. They embarrass themselves constantly, but that’s not really effective.
Trump tarred and feathered CNN today at the presser.
Looking for it on YouTube now.
Did you used to have, or still have, a blog, or do I recognize your handle but from where I can’t remember. If so, would you mind posting a link?
Probably you saw vxxc on Twitter before I sanitized.
I never had a blog under vxxc.
I had a wartime blog 06/07. Some of it is inside jokes.
Different handle.
Here’s a sample. Remember this is Iraq 06-07.
http://free-our-fobbits.blogspot.com/2007/01/soldiers-need-immunity-if-its-good.html
Top fucking kek.
https://youtu.be/4ghTxVOhHMU
This. Watch him push health care or some Dem friendly project right out of the gates.
Right on queue: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/conor-lamb-donald-trump-impeachment-taxes-cnntv/index.html
“Moderate Democrat urges cautious path forward in House”
Have a look at what the “Democrat” looks like:
https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/conorlamb_03112018_0.jpg
New Dems election were either Somalis or tall, handsome white men preaching pragmatism…
Republicans had 2 years to close the borders and start deportations, no one on the left could have stopped them. Instead, tax cuts. Derp. Probably not going to get another chance. OTOH, Obama had a fawning media and huge ratings, but he lost 80 seats. Trump had everything stacked against him and only lost 40.
One other thing, the way democrats pushed early voting makes me suspicious. How hard is it to mail an extra 1000 Somali ballots to every district with the name Muhammad? Who is going to seriously check all of those?
We can’t begin to take our country back until we have a revolution in our character.
Tax cuts are important. But the tax cut wasn’t all good for us.
If we had won the House, Christcucks would have demanded not just repeal of divorce and restriction of abortion, which are needed, but more money for the barbarians inside the gates, no change to domestic violence law (a womn can hit her man as many times as she wants, a man can’t so much as raise his voice, and leaving means Ali money, i.e. his money goes to her new Muslim pimp).
Neocons might have came back and demanded more evil wars.
The revolution in our character must come first.
Sodom must burn. We must see not only subhuman dung and heroin needles everywhere in the cities, but they must burn and their Boomer and pre-Boomer leftist inhabitants must be murdered by their pets before we can come in and clean and civilize again.
Only when we are united behind a shared American culture of faith and family, and disavow Boomerism in its entirety, can we have our manifest destiny.
Hear hear.
No Boomer shall enter the promised land!
As long as the GOP remain the party of cucks it’s not gonna happen.
Well 40 cucks retired this year didn’t they? Seems good.
Based on what the media is saying, sounds like suburban white women broke hard for the dems. That’s the results of them being browbeaten by the media and Jeff Sessions policy on child separations that Trump foolishly embraced. Showing women that a caravan of strong virile military age brown men was headed to the border was just icing on the cake when it came to appealing to women voters. We can’t vote our way out of this mess.
The way to punish them for their betrayal is to legalize prostitution.
The only opponents to that are sentimental Boomers, who failed, so they deserve to be ignored and ridiculed.
Unlikely. Trump appears to have pulled the ladder up after himself.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/11/donald-trump-cracks-down-online-sex-trafficking-it/
If he was going after the enemy’s services, he would try to look puritanical.
If he was being puritanical, and accidently taking out the enemy’s services, they would complain loudly and bitterly about the sex workers being oppressed.
Are they?
Your frame is wrong. He is purging the brownshirts.
Prostitution is basically legal if you know that strip clubs are basically brothels.
Let me put it another way. Trump’s policy has had an impact on the ability of certain hardened players to play on the fantasies of naïve young women.
Your periphemism is politically neutral. The Q theory asserts His Majesty is going after the enemy’s child sex trafficking which pretended to be anti-child sex trafficking NGOs and normal black market sex workers.
The enemy’s response has been to hush it up instead of staging slutwalks for the rights of child prostitutes.
Or maybe you conjecture that Trump is going after our side’s supply of child prostitutes, the most disgusting and blackmailable of vices, and furthermore that it harms our side for that supply to be cut off. In other world we’re led by blackmail and treason.
Then, as a good leftist, you will launch into the thought experiment, if orange man traffic child prostitute, is orange man bad? Then you get a resolution out of us, if orange man bad, then orange man bad.
No. We are not conservatives.
There is plenty of evidence that the enemy has been doing the things Q accuses them of, and Trump has been arresting them for it.
>Implying that I care about inconsequential leftists and children from shitholes
I work in a cubicle. In the cubicle next to mine is an SJW. He spends his entire day on the phone or in meetings with other SJWs plotting to destroy the careers of other people in the organisation for what I can only see is his own sick pleasure.
It is only a matter of time before he identifies me and the mobbing begins.
The world is still moving leftwards.
“There is plenty of evidence”
In your imagination.
What you should care about is how the enemy operates and how to degrade their capacity.
Everyone knows the enemy’s high level operations are based on a supply of children to rape.
Therefore, we need to cut them off.
This is the problem with conservatives. Merely surviving and not being turned into one of them is admirable, however, it is not enough.
To win, we must deny them things we have no interest in.
From children to rape, to political poses, anything they want, we need to be there to make them pay for it. It doesn’t matter that Taylor Swift is another old celebrity Dhimmicrat because everyone knows she’s a secret Nazi.
Look at what Trump said about Pelosi for Speaker.
I’ll do some research and get back to you.
Please don’t use obvious fallacies like “everybody knows.â€
I have spent three days going down this rabbit hole and found nothing. If what you say is going on is really going on, it is either not widespread enough to matter, or does not cause enough impact on its victims to matter.
You have given me the black swan problem.
Post evidence, or get out.
Hollywood is run by child rapists.
Which is covered up by… who can be relied on to cover for child rapists?
The reason that “everyone knows” that group X is full of child rapists is that everyone is subconsciously aware that there is a lot of sexual aggression by underage females going on, so they blame males of group X, since it is forbidden to blame underage females.
There is a fair bit of evidence for Satanic rituals by the elite involving horrible, disgusting, and illegal things, but no very impressive evidence that these satanic rituals involve child sacrifice. There is also a lot of aggression by pedophilic homosexual males against young boys. However supply and demand means that most of the sexual aggression involving prepubertal children is pre pubertal females aggressing against adult alpha males, because females generally develop sexual feelings before puberty, and males generally do not until puberty, and alpha males apt to be busy with chicks who already have boobs. (Beta males being of course invisible to girls as soon as they reach nine or so.)
While I was delighted by metoo attacking left wing Hollywood Jews it was obvious that those were whores who were embittered that they could no longer sell their wares.
Say what you will about the girls, the father of the girl Polanski sodomized should have had the authority to kill Polanski but didn’t because of anti-family law, but the male child actors are all raped by faggots.
Which leaves them dead inside, which is why live action media can’t ever portray decent people even when it wants to.
Actresses are whores – the casting couch is well known, and actresses aggressively seduce directors hoping to be paid off in fame. She went to his house under her own power, and was probably encouraged to do so by her parents, and whether or not she was encouraged to do so, if the parents of a thirteen year old girl allow their daughter to hang out with that lot unsupervised, they surely knew what was going to go down.
It’s no longer 2017, Patrick boy. Your autistic screeching that “attraction to teenagers is degenerate” was very endearing a year ago. It isn’t anymore. Quit being a faggot.
“There is a fair bit of evidence for Satanic rituals by the elite involving horrible, disgusting, and illegal things, but no very impressive evidence that these satanic rituals involve child sacrifice.”
The McCann case. Emails put both Podesta brothers in Portugal at the time and the police sketches resemble BOTH of the Podesta brothers.
If the sketches resembled just one it could be a coincidence.
Combine that with the other pizzagate evidence it is pretty damning.
It has already been debunked, thoroughly. To sum up:
1. The efits purport to depict one single individual, not two.
2. The man (singular) was sought as a witness, not suspect.
3. The person was described as aged 20 to 40; John Podesta was in his late 50s when McCann disappeared.
4. John Podesta arrived in Portugal *after* McCann had disappeared.
5. The anonymous LEA source that supposedly claims connection to Podesta lacks supporting evidence.
6. The Podesta brothers had already been accused by the troofer community of bad stuff prior to McCann’s disappearance.
Reminder: everything that the sundry pizzagaters have dredged up has been shown to be either an outright fabrication or unrelated to whatever narratives they were trying to force.
Give it a rest. Of all the popular conspiracies circulating in the troofer community, pizzagate is the most blatantly false. It was a chan and reddit psyop all along; a forerunner of Qanon and the other ones. There are no credible victims. There are no credible suspects. There is absolutely no “there” there.
Let it go.
The McCann connection always struck me as dubious; I’m inclined to believe your rebuttal. It was never central to Pizzagate, which most certainly has killer pedo rapists at its center, and not the sort into horny pubescent chicks either. Qanon is real, but a fallible human being(s). Alefantis likes to roofie and rape twinkish straights, and runs with killer kiddie pedos.
The pedo mafia is for life; they have better cohesion than anyone else in Weimerica. That’s why they dominated. When you destroy marriage, other forms of social cohesion replace patriarchy.
>most certainly has killer pedo rapists at its center
>most certainly
Nope. The pizzagaters had 3 full years to produce one single shred of evidence for that being the case. So far, no evidence. And McCann is indeed the poster girl for pizzagate. Well, this poster girl is a bare-faced fabrication, which means that Jim’s rule applies here exactly as it applies to “rape on campus.”
You can passionately hate the Democrats without insisting on a cabal of killer-pedo-rapists operating in broad daylight. But hating your opponent without alleging that he is a killer-pedo-rapist is just not juicy enough, not sexy enough. It’s almost like pizzagaters *want* their high tales to be true.
Since you brought up horny pubescent chicks, let me divulge a hypothesis: the people who are telling you high tales about 5-year-olds are doing it precisely so that you won’t mind it that the men whom they actually hunt down are never involved with 5-year-olds, but are involved with 13-year-olds.
They are feeding you wild stories about 5-year-olds exactly because their real beef has never been with actual pedophiles, only with fake ones. God forbid you stop being outraged about “pedophilia,” for a moment or two.
Just look at Peppermint right over here: he knows damn well that the only cases of “pedophilia” he can point his sticky finger at involve horny pubescents. That’s exactly the point of his kvetching about Polanski. Peppermint is not trying to save 5-year-olds, because nobody’s fucking them. He is trying to save 13-year-olds, because he is blue pilled.
Wrong place to do it, I’d wager.
And the only reason it is thirteen year old girls and not nine year old girls is not because of any shortage of horny nine year old girls. It is because the younger they are, the more hypergamous they are. The only males they are interested in are alpha males with adult female pre-selection (Polanski, Cinderella’s prince). And adult alpha males with adult female preselection are seldom interested in girls with no boobs.
Repeating: In boys, sexual interest set in at puberty. Before puberty, he thinks that girls are icky, and sex is very icky indeed. The age at which sexual interest sets in in girls is highly variable, but is typically two years before puberty.
In almost all actual cases of sex between adult males and very young girls, she has boobs, and was trying unsuccessfully to get nailed for years, but finally scored when she grew boobs. That, or she snuck into bed with him while he was drunk and sleeping and rode him to a happy awakening, followed by a big surprise.
You’re lying. There is plenty of evidence. Jokes about kill-rooms and photos of creating child-size coffin and sexual innuendo jokes about guys with babies and children are evidence. So are deviant paintings and artwork from that network. Use of known pedo symbols. Etc.
Evidence is a word with a meaning. Look it up.
It is suggestive, but it is not proof. They are Satan worshipers, perhaps merely ironic Satan worshipers, might just be being edgy.
It’s not proof but it is *evidence*. There’s lots of evidence but no definitive proof without actual investigations with power.
>Evidence is a word with a meaning.
Half of the things you mention in your comment are internet hoaxes made by the pizzagaters themselves, and I won’t bother disproving them here because it’s troofer tier stuff.
The other half can’t possibly count as evidence.
A good rule of thumb is that the black-clad, Leviathan-emblemed edge lord who goes around talking about raping and cannibalizing babies has never done anything. Those who actually do wicked stuff do not need to constantly remind themselves of what they’ve, nor would they give outsiders any clue about it.
… to which the typical pizzagater response is, “Whatever – I WANT to believe.”
You are lying more. The purpose is in-group signaling to predate on the outgroup. Hence the need for it to be an “open secret”.
If you can debunk, go ahead.
Finally, I’ll add that the case of Anthony Weiner is all the evidence one needs that pizzagate is false, implausible, and absurd (hence, exactly like 911 troofers, pizzagaters assert that it proves the veracity of pizzagate).
If pizzagate were real, they wouldn’t take down a member of the elite, a Jewish Democrat’s Jewish Democrat, for exchanging sexual text messages with a horny 15-year-old slut. That a Jewish Democrat member of the ruling class goes down for sending a dick pic to a horny teen slut shows that pizzagate is a fiction – maybe even designed to justify taking down men for sexting with teenagers, which is now defined as “pedophilia.”
Won’t bother. It’s a waste of time and space, as pizzagaters fire lies more rapidly than one can handle, and respond to a debunking of one lie with a hundred or so more lies. You guys should stick to one lie. Stick to one lie which totally proves pizzagate.
> If pizzagate were real, they wouldn’t take down a member of the elite, a Jewish Democrat’s Jewish Democrat, for exchanging sexual text messages with a horny 15-year-old slut. That a Jewish Democrat member of the ruling class goes down for sending a dick pic to a horny teen slut shows that pizzagate is a fiction
It shows no such thing. It shows that text messages of dick pics are incontrovertible proof in a court of law.
You are the one rapidly firing lies.
Podesta’s emails put him as going to Portugal before she disappeared. They were initially looking for two suspects. The sketches looked very like both brothers. I know this still doesn’t prove anything.
Pizzagate was never debunked it was just never investigated and I’ve NEVER been a believer in Q.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GZFHLAcG8A
I’ll also add that I’ve never been a 9/11 troofer and absolutely agreed with Jim’s take on 9/11 troofers.
There’s the pedo-hysteria that leads men to think they can trust subhuman garbage like Roman Polanski and Larry Nassar with their little daughters. These subhumans say the girls are blasting out sexual energy and in they, being subhuman, will obviously take what they can get. It is shocking to me that the left was able to degrade our culture to the extend that Polanski remains alive, but we have trannies now.
The trannies people actually are worried about aren’t the tomboys who would eventually figure themselves out in a normal society. We’re worried about the little boys who are right now being horrifically mutilated.
Ironically, the hatred the enemy bears towards the Church was the vector through which normalization of kidfucking could be reversed. The enemy gleefully reported for the last two decades on faggot priests and bishops. This accomplished two own goals.
One was that people are now aware that pedophiles aren’t just non-Christians betraying the trust of Christian fathers and molesting their daughters, which people were content to quietly ignore, or sluts out of college with an “education” “degree” fucking horny boys in school, which people were content to furiously ignore.
The other is that it is now possible for the Church to get rid of all the faggots.
Typical.
Cominator writes:
>They were initially looking for two suspects.
While ignoring the fact that the e-fits do *not* purport to depict suspects! They purport to depict a (single) witness.
It’s not possible to debunk all of pizzagate any more than it’s possible to debuk all UFO abduction stories. No sooner than you disprove one bare faced lie that the pizzagater, without retracting his previous lie, will issue 10 or 100 fresh new lies.
I suggest that the pizzagaters here choose, say, 3 lies which can, if shown to be true, prove that pizzagate is real, that person X really is engaged in satanic pedo killer blahblahblaha activity, and defend those 3 lies. Stick to 3 lies you can defend, any one of which would be sufficient to prove pizzagate. Linking to fellow pizzagaters who all agree with each other doesn’t count.
Let’s start with Alefantis, whom pizzagaters usually consider to be their “smoking gun.” Let’s hear your high tales about him and his supposed “innuendo.” Go ahead.
Peppermint’s ability to twist the word “pedohysteria” to mean the exact opposite of its meaning would make even CR blush. It’s a sight to behold.
Alefantis is good.
His instagram was full with sexual gay innuendo, including children. Ostensibly he was the owner of a pizza place, so small fry, but for some reason Obama Podesta and Clinton all attended his place. I find that strange.
On second thought, I’m not interested in having this debate, because it would be as fruitful as debating 911 troofers. I’ll let you have the final word. Just one thing:
“They are doing this to build in-group cohesion” is standard pizzagater tactic, similar to standard 911 troofer tactics: it *presupposes* that it has been demonstrated that they, whoever that means, are doing satanic child sacrifice, and proceeds to argue as if everyone agrees that that’s the case.
No, it has not been demonstrated. You are trying to sneak this lie past the reader, arguing as if it’s agreed — “everyone knows,” “most certainly” — that pizzagate is real, when that is not the case. First, prove pizzagate, and *then* you can argue that “it’s for asabiyah.”
Sorry, I can’t help but respond just one last time.
Alf, let’s look at Alefantis’ Instagram. The main pizzagate argument was, “He is holding a little boy in his arms, and uses the hashtag “chicken lovers,” which is a gay code word.”
Wow, that’s a smoking gun, right?
Wrong.
Alefantis is holding his *daughter* (not a boy), and the gay code word is “chicken hawk,” not “chicken lover.” So the Instagram shows that Alefantis, and his *daughter*, love chicken. IIRC, the image was taken in a restaurant that serves chicken.
Do we need to continue?
https://alfanl.com/2017/03/01/pizzagate-for-the-hopeful-trumpists/
There’s the pic of a close-up of a child with the caption: hotard – a ho and retard.
There’s the pic of a child being duct taped the the table.
There’s the pic of 2 men having sex on a slice of pizza.
Weird stuff.
No I am not acting like a troofer (and I have NEVER been a troofer and sided with Jim on troofers) I am not throwing up additional lies I am sticking with the McCann case. You lied about the timeline saying the Podesta’s were in Portugal after she disappeared when the emails suggest that they were to arrive in Portugal prior to her disappearance.
I think you glow in the dark and that someone who glows in the dark is hear to lie about pizzagate makes me think its more likely to be true.
Cominator,
Here’s what I found:
“The information that the Podestas were in Portugal is solely sourced to “FBI Anon,†quoted in Victurus Libertas, a conspiracy-minded news site that suggests, among other things, that the Titanic was deliberately sunk and that the queen of England is a reptilian alien.”
Welp.
Alf,
Nobody claims that Alefantis is any kind of paragon of virtue. I asked for evidence that killer-pedo-rapist cabals operate as pizzagaters claim they do, and that Alefantis’ Instagram somehow proves it. None was provided, and none will. It’s just lies, backed up by more lies.
“The information that the Podestas were in Portugal is solely sourced to “FBI Anon,†quoted in Victurus Libertas, a conspiracy-minded news site that suggests, among other things, that the Titanic was deliberately sunk and that the queen of England is a reptilian alien.â€
It was in the Podesta emails. The link was found on 4chan.
FBIanon was a legit source (UNLIKE Q) but he at no time mentioned McCann. I saw his original thread on 4chan.
> I asked for evidence that killer-pedo-rapist cabals operate as pizzagaters claim they do, and that Alefantis’ Instagram somehow proves it. None was provided, and none will. It’s just lies, backed up by more lies.
You are picking a fight with an imaginary opponent. All I said was Alefantis is weird, which he is, his instagram pictures are creepy, which they are, and his connection with progressive elites is strange, which it is.
Even though there is plenty in the Pizzagate fever swamp that is nothing but fetid methane, I am dissuaded from trusting your judgments due to your repeated lies. For example:
> it *presupposes* that it has been demonstrated that they, whoever that means, are doing satanic child sacrifice, and proceeds to argue as if everyone agrees that that’s the case.
It presupposes no such thing. Elites and non-elites alike have always used signals to distinguish in-group from out-group. YOU gave a bad logical argument:
> Those who actually do wicked stuff do not need to constantly remind themselves of what they’ve, nor would they give outsiders any clue about it.
Which is both empirically false and logically risible. I rebutted. Then you complained about “presupposing”, as if I had made my point apropos nothing.
I conclude that you are a fundamentally dishonest person using probably-true details to refute non-central Pizzagate claims.
Spread over a lifetime, it’s easy to see who a person is. There exists copious evidence for my character and political inclinations, yet the sole illegal act of political violence in which I engaged was never and will never be prosecuted or proven. A subculture can surround and protect its pinnacle acts of deviancy from societal norms. Investigators will never penetrate the deepest secrets, but due to the volume of activity, enough evidence will out to convict and result in lengthy prison sentences and falls from grace. See Jimmy Savile as the canonical example. The elites he protected are still largely safe, but the conspiracy is now incontrovertible. The USA is no different. Prohibition always results in speakeasies, and sexual prohibition always results in fuckeasies.
Once Trump has his personnel, there will be some public prosecutions, and a lot more reshuffling has already happened behind closed doors. The fact that you are arguing against this conspiracy is serving his agenda, by putting the discussion in people’s minds. Just like Jesus prepared the Jewish masses for the early Church’s message by teaching them mystifying parables to be debated at home.
Play by the rules. Select three claims that are central, any one of which suffices to prove pizzagate. Then let us debate those three claims, and any reference to other claims by either side is forbidden and will be deleted.
Starting now: Any post by you that fails to state three central claims and defend them will be deleted. After you state three claims to be central, any post by you or others addressing non central claims will be deleted.
Presumably, consensual sex was claimed to be a victimless crime like drinking alcohol or smoking cannabis which are unreasonable to ban, but alienation of affection was still a tort and divorce was still not a thing and statutory rape a heinous crime.
The problem arose when consent was made the only factor to determine if sex is ok. Everyone knows a 13 year old girl is meaningfully capable of formulating the thought of consent, yet incompetent to make a good decision, and too young to be married off without a steep discount.
So as a collective we unconsciously formed the lie that young women don’t consent and it’s unusual to have to worry about strange men in positions of authority over young women, and men who bone them are the same as men who bone young boys.
At the same time we decided that faggotry could be tolerated to some extent, at any rate, we didn’t want faggots in public service to be blackmailed.
Consequently faggot pedos could hide easier, while the problem of pedos was pretended to be made up of Roman Polansi and Larry Nasser.
Yeah, I totally twisted pedo-hysteria to mean the opposite of what it means. No, the world is complicated and lies can have far-reaching unintended consequences, especially when they’re adopted unconsciously.
When parents send unaccompanied eight year old girls off to an Ariana Grande concert to watch a whore perform live, they are acting as if it was literally true that little girls do not consent.
To stop young girls from getting dick, you need to stop them from cruising for dick, not try to make the entire world dickless.
To enable late virgin marriage, girls have to remain under the authority of their fathers and the supervision of their families, until transferred to the supervision of their husbands. If they wander off and get nailed, the man that they wandered off to has committed no crime unless he subsequently lets them go. Then it is abduction, irrespective of whether she consented or not, irrespective of whether she wandered off under her own power or not. Consent should only be relevant in determining whether the girl has committed a crime, not whether the man has committed a crime. (Family law of the old testament, as interpreted and applied by King Solomon) If the girl commits such a crime, should be punished, and should find a husband immediately. If unreasonably picky, should be shotgun married. Consent to marriage should be normal and normative, but only for virtuous women. Consent to sex should be once and forever, not moment to moment, and should bind both parties, the woman to be always sexually available to that man and no other, to honor and obey, the man to always take care of the girl and to ensure adequate sexual gratification, to love and cherish.
The state cannot enforce honor, but can and should enforce obedience. The state cannot enforce loving, but can and should enforce cherishing. Honoring by women and loving by men should be socially enforced and the state should compel major media to socially enforce obedience and loving.
Jim there is no proof of pizzagate and I never made the claim that it was proven. There are a lot of very strange coincidences that would warrant an investigation.
The most concrete evidence tying specific suspects to a specific victim is the McCann case.
1. Emails placed both Podesta brothers in Portugal at the time of her disappearance.
2. There was at least one time in the case suspicion of multiple suspects.
3. One official police sketch has an uncanny resemblance to BOTH Podesta brothers. Something VERY improbable.
Cominator,
Unlike Koanic and Peppermint, you are arguing in good faith, so I’ll address your argument here.
>The most concrete evidence tying specific suspects to a specific victim is the McCann case.
Okay. Note that Koanic says the opposite: that the Podestas-McCann connection is tentative at best. We’ve seen the same thing happen with X and Yara, who both agreed that Mossad totally did 9/11, but used completely different arguments.
>1. Emails placed both Podesta brothers in Portugal at the time of her disappearance.
Not true. Show me those emails. I don’t want a link to an anonymous person, who quotes another anonymous person, who quotes 4chan. Give us a link directly to the specific emails (from Wikileaks, presumably) where it says that, on May 3, 2007, John and/or Tony Podesta were in Portugal.
By the way, McCann was a week short of 4 years old when she disappeared. Yep, she was a 3-year-old girl. Pizzagaters are using sad stories like that to argue that men need to be punished for “heinous” pubescent teenage sex, because undoubtedly, fucking a horny 13-year-old, or sending a dick pic to a 15-year-old, are just as outrageous, horrible, and evil actions as kidnapping, fucking, and murdering a 3-year-old. *facepalm*
>2. There was at least one time in the case suspicion of multiple suspects.
Okay.
>3. One official police sketch has an uncanny resemblance to BOTH Podesta brothers. Something VERY improbable.
The police sketch does indeed resemble both brothers. But: a) it depicts the same individual, not two different individuals; b) that individual was not a suspect, but, allegedly, a witness.
Ultimately, how does any of that prove the central allegations of pizzagate regarding “child sex trafficking” operated from Comet Ping Pong, etc.?
You think that I glow in the dark? Dude – no one benefits from pedo hysteria more than glow in the darks, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These things are the bread and butter of their propaganda. No, I don’t think that the feds are behind pizzagate. However, it doesn’t exactly harm their interests that people believe in tall tales about “child sex trafficking,” which in reality doesn’t involve children, doesn’t involve trafficking, and often enough doesn’t involve sex!
I apologize about the email claim I was misremembering what I saw on the chans at the time.
What Podesta did do was wipe his emails from around the time of McCann’s disappearance. I withdraw that point… while noting that him deleting those emails (or at least going dark for a while, you could argue he never made any) is highly suspicious. It was indeed an anon that placed him in Portugal at that time.
The police sketch also according to Snopes theoretically referred to the same guy but I don’t find this credible because the sketches are clearly of two different men.
I’m interested in pizzagate not due to pedo hysteria but because
1) It would involve high level people in our government being involved in a circle of mutual blackmail.
2) Its way darker then vanilla Polanski type pedophilia of post pubescent girls.
There is plausible circumstantial evidence of a substantial portion of the elite being united by satanic rituals and mutual blackmail. The evidence that these satanic rituals involve the sacrifice of children is weak.
It’s bigger than mutual blackmail.
It’s plata o plomo for the politicians and cops and journalists.
If you agree to keep quiet about boys being abused, they own you. If you don’t, good luck telling anyone about it, or doing anything, with these guys who are willing to abuse boys angry with you.
The only way to defeat this strategy is to have some means of communication that they don’t control.
The future hinges on kidfuckers not being able to take control of the Internet.
The term “Kidfucker” is an enemy term, because it conflates two very different things, thus falsely implies that they are the same thing.
The big important difference that the term evades and obscures is that the supply of male children interested in sex with adult males, is precisely zero, so gays predate on children, primarily on male children. The supply of female children interested in sex with adult alpha males with adult female preselection is enormously larger than the supply of alpha males with adult female preselection (Cinderella’s prince) so female children predate upon alpha males with adult female preselection.
The future hinges on white men not being sent to prison for looking at the wrong images. Anyone who promotes pedo hysteria — no matter how many layers of antisemitism you’re going to place on top of it — is an enemy of white civilization.
“There is plausible circumstantial evidence of a substantial portion of the elite being united by satanic rituals and mutual blackmail. The evidence that these satanic rituals involve the sacrifice of children is weak.”
My position was never that it was proven (though I’m pretty damn sure the Podesta brothers at least were into pretty terrible unspeakable shit but I don’t want to do the troofer thing of expanding the claims all over the map) my position is that I want a REAL investigation of these assholes…
We are not going to ingroup a left wing communist (I use the phrase “left wing communist” to mean what Stalin meant by it) because he sprays around accusations of people being Jewish.
And if you do accuse people of being Jews, provide evidence.
The revolution in our values requires chans.
Chans must be flooded with porn to piss off white knights and other joymops.
They must not be flooded with CP, because it’s disgusting and would drive away everyone sane. Then white knights and joymops could come back and ban swearing and speaking ill of women.
But yeah, since I oppose CP, I must be for prosecuting people for having an image on their hard drives. Which is an obvious way to joejob people.
You should not flood anything with actual CP, because illegal.
But CP is not disgusting, insofar as it involves horny girls, especially horny girls with secondary sexual characteristics, especially ages 14-17.
You are a big faggot, because the chans are 666% flooded with snuff and gore of the most obscene variety – and you know it. Sane people don’t go there for that reason, not because “Oh no, a teenager flashing her tits, the horror, the horror.” If you want sane people on the chans, do like Anglin did, and ban snuff and gore completely.
Legality aside, a 15-year-old flashing the “bobs and vagen” is not going to drive normal people away. Baby-brains splattered over charred amputated torture victims is what drives non-psychopaths away. And you damn well know it, and are lying when you conflate the two things.
The feds are going out of their way to chase down the last male with CP. You are supporting this anti-civilizational endeavor, because you like to pretend that strict teleiophilia is the norm, when it evidently isn’t.
As a matter of fact I defended you, but you want evidence, here it is:
If I say Jim is a Jew, he will absolutely NOT say “I am not a Jew”.
There, QED.
Now to JP: I’ll thank you to not invoke me again.
I was born and raised old type Anglican.
My 23andMe report (which is connected to a non political identity, and revealing that identity would expose my children and lovers to reprisals)
Also my paternal and my maternal haplogroups are both original Aryan, or as 23andMe euphemistically phrases it, “horse herders from near the Caspian sea”. So I am as Aryan as you can find in this day and age.
That’s literally the first time you’ve said that, ever. Your normal response is to pretend nobody asked.
That’s a huge black pill. It means not only are white gentile Leftists the scum of the Earth, but white gentile NRxers are also the scum of the Earth, willing to lie cheat and steal to score petty points while Rome burns.
Damn the lot of you.
No one ever did ask. You did not ask. You just called me Jewish, and since you call everyone who outgroups commies “Jewish”, I did not pay attention.
CR, Jim has already said that he isn’t a Jew – in 2015.
https://blog.reaction.la/politics/the-jewish-problem/#comment-1144110
I don’t mean jailbait selfies. Real CP is shockingly vile, maybe this isn’t the fist time child abuse has been part of the rituals of a parasitic society.
CP with actual little kids is unpleasant, though arguably less unpleasant than gore.
If you seek to restrict porn, be it of the 18+ type or of the 18- type, do not punish the men who view, possess, or distribute it. Punish the *females* who produce it. If you’re going to do puritanism, at least do it in a pro-male manner by clamping down on female misbehavior rather than on male unchastity.
There should be no difference between 18+ porn and 18- porn (for the most part, there is no actual difference), and if gore is allowed, which is legitimately abhorrent and shocking, then all the more so should porn be allowed. And if porn is not allowed, then go “right to the source,” which is the females, both 18+ and 18-, who produce it.
Porn, including CP, should be legal for men to view, possess, and distribute. Should not necessarily be legal for *females* to produce it. I believe this is a Jim-type argument.
> Select three claims that are central, any one of which suffices to prove pizzagate.
It’s been a while since I was interested in Pizzagate. My memory has faded, and it’s not that important to me. I suppose one central claim is that the Pizzagate clique surrounding Comet Pizza and the Podestas heavily signals pedophilia, homosexuality and Satanism. Another is that there’s reason to suspect they’ve killed some kids. And the third is that this network is closely tied to the power elite of the Democratic Party, which uses deviancy as a tool of social cohesion.
Yeah, that’s three. That’s why Pizzagate matters. I’m probably missing some stuff, but those make it matter.
Re the Podestas and Mcann, the fact that someone is sought as “a witness” is not an exoneration of guilt, and in fact a Podesta being nearby when the kid was kidnapped would be suspicious. However I suspect it’s over-pattern-matching, which always happens with these nebulous conspiracies. The tenuousness of this red herring detracts from the strength of the central findings, which is that America is substantially ruled by Satanic sodomites.
Those are indeed claims, but I was looking for evidence for those claims, not what people on the chans say to each other.
That is not a finding, that is a claim, a claim in dire need of empirical support. For all we know they may only be ironic Satanists.
But that is a self-evident conclusion. We just had 8 years of Obama, who is an Alinksyite (=Satanic) Communist homosexual. You’d have to be blind not to see it. Yet many cuckservatives are that blind, and for them Pizzagate is a big deal, finding out what rule by Satanic sodomites ACTUALLY MEANS.
This, however, does not provide support for the proposition that Gay Mulatto was a Satanic Sodomite.
Still waiting for those three key facts of pizzagate.
Ahem. Peppermint. We were talking about Trump and FOSTA.
You have not demonstrated how Trump’s policy is harming the enemy, I can see easily in the field how Trump’s policy harms me, and hence I am forced to conclude that Trump does not care.
How does Trump’s policy harm you?
Are you asking for proof that Obama is influenced by Alinsky, or that he is a homosexual, or both?
> Still waiting for those three key facts of pizzagate.
I gave three central claims. You chose not to publish them. So I’ll just publish it elsewhere. I don’t particularly care.
If you want Pizzagate to be about finding a dead kid, that’s fine. Maybe in your cultural milieu that’s the aspect of it that matters. In mine, all that matters is the stuff that’s already out in the open, and what it suggests about what else might be hidden.
Obvously President Gay Mulatto is an Alinskyte, and chances are he is a homosexual. But it seems unlikely he chases little boys, even less likely he chases little girls.
I published them
I was asking, however, for evidence supporting those claims.
> but I was looking for evidence for those claims
Ok, fair enough. I’m not your guy to go digging through the details again at this distant remove, because I don’t see anyone credibly claiming, “Alefantis doesn’t run with a pedo crew. This is all just a big misunderstanding.” The denials are too specific, like, “We promise we didn’t kill any kids in the basement of Comet Pizza.”
The three claims I mentioned help focus the discussion on what’s actually relevant for Pizzagate to be “debunked”. Whether the Podestas were the masked man kidnapping McCann is more like a speculative fiction spinoff, not the main point.
Tony Podesta has a giant golden Jeffrey Dahmer victim sculpture in his house. There’s a detail that’s central for me. Someone else can pick another two.
> But it seems unlikely he chases little boys, even less likely he chases little girls.
Yeah, I don’t see much reason to believe that, beyond the usual suspicion towards homos. The Clintons seem more closely connected to pedophilia than does Obama.
The Clinton circle look mighty creepy. But that might just be that they are cultivating the lavender mafia, and encouraging them to leak blackmail material. Similarly with the Satanism. Could be that they are cultivating two independent conspiracies, the lavender mafia, and a Satanist cult, without fully participating in either one, and without a great deal of overlap between these two conspiracies.
So your alternative hypothesis is that Satanic Sodomy is the religion of pinnacle of the Democrat party, but the Clintons themselves are impious congregants. I guess Max Beauvoir should give them a stern talking to.
It just doesn’t make much difference from my perspective. In my culture, most people mostly follow their religion. Once you establish that the Democrats are the party of Satanic Sodomy, the concept of sharing a civil society and a democracy with them ceases to be defensible. Your options are get nuked, get out, or get medieval.
Since no one with power to compel testimony has investigate all we have is suggestive stuff that’s public record and suggestive stuff from Podesta emails.
On Obama – Alefantis was a White House visitor a very high number of times – guy’s public role was just as a pizza place owner. That’s quite weird.
Lots of things are possible.
Seriously, what happens if you’re a bad Satan-worshipper? Do you die and go to Heaven, but not like it? 24/7 Baptist preaching, Praise the LORD!
Satanist beliefs about the next world are incoherent and inconsistent.
>The denials are too specific, like, “We promise we didn’t kill any kids in the basement of Comet Pizza.â€
That’s not what they are saying. The denial is simply that Comet Ping Pong *does not even have a basement*, hence the rest of pizzagate’s claims about the place being utterly ridiculous. I haven’t personally been to Comet, but lots of other people have, and all of them confirm the non-existence of a basement.
And when the non-existence of a basement at Comet Ping Pong is pointed out to pizzagaters, they never respond by saying, “Huh, I guess we were wrong about this central claims of ours.” No, they immediately switch to other lies, without retracting the lie that Comet Ping Pong has a basement. Because you are liars, and you know full well that you are lying.
Deleted because not actually a defense of, or support for, your three primary pizzagate claims, but rather a shift to a new claim, when a previous claim gets shot down. There is no end to that type of argument, thus, a waste of bandwidth.
> but rather a shift to a new claim, when a previous claim gets shot down.
If he gets to attack a point, I get to defend it.
I never claimed it had a basement. I quoted their defense referring to a basement; that’s it.
You can exercise your right to delete that comment, and I can exercise my right to hold your moderation in contempt, and lose interest in the thread.
But you were not defending it. You were moving on from the original claim and throwing out a bunch of similar claims. You should have conceded the point and shut up.
Your frame and context implied that Comet Pizza had been murdering children in their basement. You were providing evidence and argument that Comet Pizza murdered children in their basement.
Since I am most definitely not a liar, I will further correct myself that I doubt the Vox Day story about the server and the magic bullet from the Comet Pizza shooter. IIRC we only know it hit the server, I suspect the hard drive bit was embellishment, possibly by Ilk. And the tinfoil version doesn’t make sense. If you want to wipe your own server, why not just wipe it? Why shoot it instead? And how can the gunman be prepped in advance to shoot at the correct angle, etc, if he’s just some nobody actor? I think it was a legit nutcase, who happened to hit the server, thus spinning up the coincidence overdetection engine. Wouldn’t a server with a bullet hole in it be impounded as evidence, thus putting potentially recoverable data in police custody? Makes no sense.
Maybe it was a play for sympathy, and the server thing was just an accident. That’s also believable.
Aside from that, I stand by the rest. And I only said it amused me, not that I believed it.
Delete away, doesn’t matter to me, I save everything for later arrangement.
OK, Passing these because I let his point through, but it is obvious that further conversations with you about pizzagate are unlikely to provide interest or information, hence shutting down this conversation.
I remember gore on TV. I intentionally forget sexual content involving children because I don’t want to think about it.
As a culture we tried tolerating CP the same way we tried tolerating heroin and marijuana, but not as officially as we tried tolerating divorce and remarriage and sodomy.
Yes, the intolerable trauma induced by seeing a 13-year-old cam whore flashing her boobs… /s
If you were honest, you would say that actual abuse of actually little kids should be categorized as similar to snuff and gore, while anything involving *horny chicks* should be categorized as regular porn.
And if you were really honest, you’d agree that the proper way to stop porn is not to punish men for viewing, possessing, and distributing it, but to punish *females* for producing it.
Science fiction used to be run by pedos and their enablers. Vox Day published a book about it that I’d prefer not to read.
So if that’s the entertainment industry, where are the police and politicians?
The Q theory about Seth Rich is he was shot by illegal criminals who were then killed.
We know the illegals are kidnapping children to stay in America with.
I don’t know for sure politicians are in on it, except for the ones that we already found, they threw a Republican to the dogs to pretend it’s a bipartisan thing, which it is, Democrats and cuckservatives, both parties.
But these people have the means, the opportunity, the motive, promote ideology that legitimizes sexual abuse and sexual mutilation of children, legalized child prostitution in Caliphornia and giving children hormones to mutilate them, and the media, known to be covering for the entertainment industry, protects them as if they know they’re guilty.
Snuff and gore are different, eveyone’s seen videos of terrorists getting blown up. However, children can be traumatized by having gore shoved in their faces and women have strong reactions to it.
Which is why they shove gore and simulated snuff holy hoax propaganda in everyone’s faces in elementary school.
And then the creepy faggot James Gunn included brutal cold-blooded murder and torture in Guardians of the Galaxy II after Guardians I was fun for the whole family.
Aka shifting the goal posts, aka motte and bailey, aka switcheroo.
It’s no longer 2017, blue piller. In those halcyon days, you believed that pedo hysteria is going to last forever. You were and are wrong. Peak pedo hysteria is already behind us. The future is Jimianity.
Sure, it physically hurts you to not be able to milk the pedo hysteria cow anymore, as it finally ran out of milk. You thought that you’d be able to get away with calling horny teen sluts “children” forever, and to demand that white knights rush in to defend those poor 15-year-old “children.”
As the incels are so fond of saying: “it’s over.”
No, the 2000s was peak sexual content involving children. It was on boradcast TV and everyone was all like …I’m just going to pretend that never happened, because that’s what you’re supposed to do. And I’m not talking about the pottymouth teenagers/preteens from South Park.
“Pedo hysteria” means hysteria about pedophiles, or rather, “pedophiles.”
You are not going to destroy this shibboleth to mean the opposite of its meaning. CR has attempted shibboleth-destruction and failed, and you also will fail. I understand why you hate this shibboleth — it exposes you as a blue pilled white knight — but you are not going to invert it. Not here.
Peak pedo hysteria was 2017, and it’s never coming back.
And calling horny teen sluts “children” is typical rectification of names. They are not children. And you are a blue pilled faggot.
Jimality: 9 year olds girls and 11 year old boys are interested in sex. 13 year olds are theoretically capable of having sex, though women should wait until 19 for best results and in theory in a decent society men should wait until they have a career to support their family because no decent woman is going to attach herself to a man who can’t support her.
Thus there is a fundamental distinction between sexual content involving adults, teenagers, tweens, and children, and the natural reactions to observing that sexual content.
Because no one wants to talk about tweens having sex but everyone knows they’re going to try if they’re in the right kind of situation, Hollyweird and the entertainment industry could put tween characters in situations where they would do it, then run the reels, and normal people would be all …I’m going to pretend that never happened.
They did this because they are faggots who hate normal people and normal people’s children want to relive those moments normal people put behind them.
That’s distinct from the fact that at the higher levels the industry maintais itself through raping little boys. But related, because the entire industry is evil faggots.
You don’t speak for “normal people.”
You speak for white knights who think that the problem is that teenage chicks are having sex, rather than that they are having extra-marital sex.
And you don’t speak for Jimianity. Jimianity is teen marriage as a solution, even pre-teen marriage as a solution, not sperging about Hollywood kikes as a “solution.”
You’re not going to bluster away the physical and psychological difference between 13 and 19 by talking about jailbait selfies, which everyone knows exist.
The reason you and the Hollywood kikes can bluster away the fact that sexual content involving 11 year olds isn’t a thing normal people want to look at is that normal people don’t want to think about it.
Fortunately I’m not a normal person. Not that I like thinking about it, I just take copious notes.
The reason for the TRS meme “we live in a society” is that a lot of alt-right people have a perspective that doesn’t include the immediate presence of non-adults, and TRS wants people to be more normal and get married instead of ghettoizing a subculture and milking it for cash.
My son hit on a girl hanging out in a pickup joint that he and I reasonably assumed was in her early twenties. Turned out she was twelve. So I don’t think the physical differences are all that large in every case. Sometimes it is genuinely difficult to tell a twelve year old from a twenty four year old.
As for the psychological differences, just not seeing them. Girls never grow up, and they start to become interested in sex way earlier than boys.
It is normal for men to be attracted to females that are potentially capable of having children, and it is normal for girls to be attracted to alpha males before they are capable of having children.
The great majority of men who are attracted to very young targets are gays (See theDragon Con rap sheet) and the supply and demand situation for young boys is the opposite of that for girls. Gays pursue young boys. Alpha males with adult female pre-selection are pursued by young girls.
Again: you don’t speak for normal people, but for white knights who, in order to clamp down on male unchastity, rather than on female misbehavior, pretend that there is a “world of difference” between 13-year-olds and 19-year-olds.
No, there is no such immense difference between 13-year-olds and 19-year-olds. Anyone who claims otherwise is using the Feminism of the Society for the Suppression of Vice and the Social Purity Movement to punish males for female misbehavior. Yes, the AoC was Feminist in the 19th century, and it is Feminist now.
As society lost control of its females (due to Anglo-Saxon Puritanism), it invented fictions such as the one you are promoting. What scares you is that this fiction is about to end, as Feminism collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, much as Marxists predicted capitalism would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
Females aged 8 and 48 are similar, females aged 13 and 19 are incredibly similar, and anyone who claims otherwise is following white knight Feminism. Anyone who claims that there exists a world of difference between females in their early teens, and females in their late teens, is a Puritan and a Feminist.
Normal people accept whatever they are told to accept, and are outraged by whatever they are told to be outraged about. Come the restoration, the AoC will be abolished, to be replaced by patriarchal marriage, including patriarchal child marriage, and “normal people” will be as okay with that as they are okay with the current situation.
Can you explain why Milhouse, or Bart, shouldn’t try to bone Lisa? We couldn’t, so Simpsons incest porn comics were briefly a thing on /b/. We decided that regardless of consent, it’s weird, unmotivated, and creepy, and the most incongruous frames were clipped out and used as imagemacros for longer.
Straight shota is still a thing, because everyone knows it’s normal for 13+ boys to try to stick it in a whore. That’s the origin of MEGA MILK girl.
We had this debate a decade ago, maybe you weren’t there for it. A decade ago my gf at the time referred to when she was 10 as when she was a loli.
The feminists, or, really, the hostile faggots, meanwhile, are starting to say that changing your baby’s diaper should be consented to, and literally argue to parents and siblings that it’s inappropriate for adults to force little girls to wear costumes for Halloween, thereby creating creepiness in normal interactions where there used to not be any creepiness.
The world isn’t about you and your computer. It’s about my friends and their children. Remember that: we live in a society.
Males should not be punished for female misbehavior.
You are arguing for leftism, the leftism of blue pilled white knights.
Leftism won’t be high status for long, and after it stops being high status, the blue pill will fall out of fashion.
Ps. SS is a retarded fetish for omega males who have no concept of what motivates women. It’s also not really all that creepy, so MEGA MILK, et al. get reposted as the joke that SS is to normal people.
> Wouldn’t a server with a bullet hole in it be impounded as evidence, thus putting potentially recoverable data in police custod
Is the server owned by a cool, trusted person, or a normal person?
Every alpha knows what it’s like to have a charming teen try to charm you or accidentally get too friendly with jailbait (that’s why they’re called jailbait).
We’re talking about the future of the chans. Foul language, porn, and gore are used to keep smarmy moralizers away. SS is a joke. Creepy pedo stuff scares away the normies, which effectively makes the chans culturally irrelevant, which is arguably better for the System than outright banning them, like parading around the TWP clowns while cracking down on people with good optics.
The chans revel in creepiness. They are uncensored and anonymous, which on the one hand means that truth will out, on the other hand a cesspool full of lies and disgusting things.
A pseudonymous blog with good moderation is the best solution.
>How does Trump’s policy harm you?
It makes it more difficult to treat women as whores, which is the most effective way to have sex with them without paying, since they see themselves as whores, and see any man who doesn’t see them as whores as a sucker.
FOSTA makes treating women as actual whores, which is how they see themselves, illegal on sites where treating them as actual whores is the optimum strategy, and where treating them as actual whores has the paradoxical effect of making them less likely to be actual whites.
Actual whores are also a reasonable substitute for girlfriends and wives, and their supply, whether availed upon or not, helps keep the emotional price of girlfriends and wives to a manageable level.
Not seeing it. How is Trump’s policy making it more difficult to treat women as they secretly desire to be treated?
No they are not. A man needs to own a woman, and a man who does not own a woman winds up broken, as does a woman who never falls under the ownership of a man.
Trying to trade material benefits for sex never works. Life would be a lot easier if it did work. The way to use money is to use money to buy the appearance of status, and then use status to pull chicks. So you don’t make a big donation to the ballet dancer, you make a big donation to the ballet, get invited to the dinner, the guy organizing the ballet treats you as high status, and he is high status relative to the ballet dancer.
Treating women as whores in the sense of treating them as low value and readily replaceable works. Treating them as whores in the sense of giving them substantial material benefits fails. If chicks actually were gold diggers, they would be a lot better than they are.
whites = whores
Where autocorrected.
Lolikon stays on its containment board where I don’t have to look at it now. So I can pretend I’ve never scrolled past it and no one will know.
Every chantard knows that fan art and fan fiction involving underage characters is by women who need male supervision, the characters are tweens, not younger, and it being gross and creepy is where the meme “I can’t fap to that” comes from.
So when Jim says girls have gross and creepy sex drives, no self control, and everyone knows they can start to be interested in sex beginning at age 9-11 – because that’s when they show up in porn by women – chantards know he’s right.
Now I’m going to go back to pretending none of that existed.
I wonder what kind of records of the degeneracy towards the end of the 20th century crisis will be kept through the Great Forgetting.
3d printed gun dude got baited by jailbait in a CIA sting.
The only legitimate way to pick up whamen is OKCupid. Anything else is a way for glowniggers to entrap you and you get v&.
You can treat whamen like whores anywhere, though. They prefer it and will call HR on you if you don’t interact with them in that manner. It’s called respecting whamen.
Maybe you think you’re not important enough to get v&. Instead you’re going to get a 56%er or a White heroin whore, who will invite Tyrone, who will break your ribs and steal your playstation, whence I will call you a filthy console peasant.
>implying I engage in activities that would open me up to entrapment
>implying that I should be forced to feed the egos of the cat ladies of HR
>implying that I wouldn’t fuck with Tyrone for my own amusement
No man is naturally disgusted by teenagers.
Rather, men are reluctant to deal with the subject because they don’t want to be seen as “that guy.” Since I don’t care about being seen as “that guy,” I am telling you that men don’t find teenagers disgusting, at all. Quite the contrary.
You will notice that other people are reluctant to chime in to this discussion, and it’s not because they are disgusted by teenagers. No straight man with healthy t-levels, on this blog, on the chans, on the alt-right, or in general, is disgusted by teenagers. Not a single one.
They refuse to comment on the matter because they don’t want to be seen as “that guy,” which is why only people completely oblivious to group-think (like Jim, and unlike you) are willing to say un-PC things that actually matter.
All honest men say that females start becoming attractive, or at least “not disgusting,” around age 12, which is usually when they develop secondary sexual characteristics. That doesn’t mean that 12 is peak attractiveness. But that’s the beginning.
I can give you a list of individuals, some of whom you may be quite familiar with, who are all straight white Aryan men, who agree that females start being attractive around age 12 or so. But you never cared about facts; if you cared about facts, you wouldn’t engage in disingenuous tactics throughout this whole discussion.
No man thinks or feels that teenagers are disgusting. The suggestion that men find, or should find, teenagers disgusting is absurd, deranged, and evil. It is leftism. It is also aggressively promoted by ugly post-wall women, though that’s a whole ‘nother story.
No man finds teenagers disgusting. I’m repeating this point to break the false consensus that people like you, viking, and other puritans are trying to create. “Everyone knows that men are disgusted by teenagers.” No, not everyone knows it. It is in fact false, and were it not false, there would not be jailbaits.
Every straight man with normal t-levels is attracted to females with secondary sexual characteristics, which SSCs usually manifest by age 12. It is a scientifically established fact confirmed empirically in the laboratory, but scarcely discussed because politically incorrect, because it offends the fee-fees of men like you and post-wall women.
Not a single straight man on Earth finds females with secondary sexual characteristics to be disgusting, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying. They just don’t want to be seen as “that guy.”
I am that guy.
In 1890, you and viking raised the AoC from the 7-12 range to the 16-18 range, because you and viking were Feminists then as you are Feminists now. By the end of this century, what you and viking did in 1890 will be reversed. And that bothers you, because you’ve been a Feminist for 120+ years, and you don’t want the party to be over. Too bad!
Boobs are an indication that a girl is regularly experiencing high estrogen levels, hence probably ovulating. If a young girl has boobs, likely fertile. Hence our interest in boobs. Every man, if he could would bang every fertile woman. Disinclination to do so is a sexual deviation. Twelve year olds with nice boobs are hot. OK, most twelve year olds do not have nice boobs, but quite a few of them do.
Conversely, the wall is that age when a woman only has potential for about one child.
When girls become interested in males, they smell different. It is a quite strong and noticeable odor, which is briefly removed or reduced by showering. Maybe once upon a time we responded to that smell, but because it tends to set in before fertility, a less reliable indicator, so we don’t respond noticeably to it any more, if we ever did. No one acknowledges the existence of this smell. Males at puberty develop a similar smell, but girls usually develop it well before puberty. As with so many other very conspicuous sex related phenomena, no one seems to notice either phenomenon.
p. sure the kind of guy who would trust 1-800-RING-A-HO would also see the playstation as a viable gaming platform and has sex with Liara more often than in meatspace
it’s not dancing for the cumdumpsters of HR (remember when moot had enough of the thottery of the femanons and wordfiltered femanon to cumdumpster because regardless of whether AWALT the kind of woman who enters a male space to draw attention to her front hole is the kind of woman who does that?) to ignore them because they’re not interesting, which is how you treat a whore
that or proposition them to provide sexual services in exchange for maybe food in an appropriately polite manner
You cannot get satisfactory sexual services by exchange. Women want a man that exploits and oppresses them, they never desire a man that they exploit. Even whores are just cruising for yet another pimp. Gold diggers exist and plenty of them, but if they strike gold, then endlessly plot get the gold in exchange for less and less sex.
>appropriately polite manner
I rest my case.
hey jewish ephebophile, that’s the attitude of a man who hasn’t interacted with 13 year old girls since he was 13
because he has no friends or family
and masturbates into a sock in between arguing that when he was 13 he should have made babies with suzy from spanish class and gotten a head start on his career masturbating into a sock in between arguing that when he was 13 he should hav
joe, awareness of context is the difference between the man who “likes” pictures on normiebook in between masturbating into a sock and calling 1-800-RING-A-HO, and the man who can find whamen to have sex with, or be in a relationship in which she washes his cargo shorts and makes his mac&cheese with chicken tendies and fish cakes with chocolate milk with vodka with
>SJW talking points spraying wildly into the air
Hello, Commissar.
Your assessment of me is false, and would be irrelevant even if it were true.
My attitude is that young marriage is good, and that males should not be punished for female misbehavior. Your attitude is the exact opposite. And the realization that your Feminism won’t last forever bothers you, so you lash out.
And I concur with Jim that females become horny around age 9, but only score around age 13, because that’s when heterosexual men with healthy t-levels start noticing them.
“When all else fails, go for the ad hominem” is not something you can successfully pull off against people who call themselves “jewish pedophile” on alt-right affiliated blogs.
No heterosexual man is disgusted by teenagers with boobs. When you claim otherwise, you are lying. You and viking were Feminists in 1890, and you and viking are Feminists today. The difference is that now there is an internet, and your lies get exposed. Thus, you panic.
No heterosexual man is disgusted by teenagers with boobs. All heterosexual men would bang every fertile age female if they could, and those who claim otherwise are Feminists and liars.
You lost.
>Not seeing it. How is Trump’s policy making it more difficult to treat women as they secretly desire to be treated?
Spurned women now have legal justification for launching scorched earth campaigns against their rivals.
>Substitution of prostitutes for women
This is not central to my argument so I will concede this point.
How is that Trump’s policy? What has Trump done?
The average 13 year old would not score with me, because 13 year olds are derpy looking. Except for the ones that you notice.
Duh.
Do you know why there’s so much ugliness is on the inside propaganda aimed at 13 year old girls?
Because everyone knows they envy the teachers who all the boys are looking at most of the time.
Then one by one they get hot, and the boys are checking them out instead of the teachers.
And each of them wonders when, or if, it’s going to happen to her.
An example of what I am talking about:
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-46216847
And on a tangent but possibly related:
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/11/14/mike-pence-myanmar-rohingya-990748
>Then one by one they get hot, and the boys are checking them out instead of the teachers.
Finally you make a truthful statement.
But you have argued, and still argue, that they start getting hot around age 17, whereas in reality, women — not all, but many of them — start getting hot when they become fertile, which is around age 12, sometimes a year or two earlier, sometimes a year or two later.
FOSTA-SESTA. Trump signed it. His daughter sat on the round table.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/signing-allow-states-victims-fight-online-sex-trafficking-act-president-donald-j-trump-provides-invaluable-tools-needed-fight-scourge-sex-trafficking/
I may be missing some inside machinations but it really does appear that Trump supports this.
My understanding is that the practical effect of this is that you cannot text too plainly of financial matters on an international dating site. But video chat is safe.
But speaking too plainly of financial matters is very bad game anyway, because it instantly identifies one as thirsty beta bucks loser. Been there, done that, got burned. And if you really want to talk about topics that might cause FOSTA problems, chat them on video, or text on viber, WhatsApp, or Telegraph. Lots of chicks are on WhatsApp, and if they are not, tell them to get on it.
Yes, 17 is when the average girl is competitive, and there are plenty of 18 year olds who don’t look any better at 20 and feel like they peaked at 17 or younger when they were getting all the attention. I’ve explained to you enough times what everyone with a family or non-loser friends implicitly knows. Have fun being a loser.
Peak attractiveness is generally around peak fertility – about twenty four.
And seventeen is generally way hotter than thirteen, but there are plenty of way hot thirteen year olds.
No heterosexual man with healthy t-levels is disgusted by teens with boobs.
Teens develop boobs around 12, though there is considerable variation. They become fertile around 12, albeit they become horny themselves around 8 or 9.
Needless to say, 17-year-olds are more attractive than 12-year-olds. But 12-year-olds are in the process of becoming hot. That process starts at 12, not at 17, and anyone who denies that it starts at 12, and claims that it only starts at 17, is a Feminist liar.
Boobs take shape between 11 and 14.
No heterosexual man with healthy t-levels is disgusted by teens with boobs. If that sentence triggers you (it clearly does), it is because you are a blue piller. If you are disgusted by teens with boobs, you are a biological deviant.
Also,
>what everyone… implicitly knows.
Again: you don’t speak for “normal people.” You speak for blue pilled biological deviants. Unfortunately, there are many such cases.
Whenever you say “everyone knows,” it is something that most people don’t know and don’t agree with. You say that “everyone knows” that teenagers with secondary sexual characteristics are disgusting. No, everyone doesn’t know that. Feminists alone know that, including male Feminists like yourself.
Come the restoration, denying biological reality — any aspect thereof — will be regarded as blasphemy.
ps. to the observation that making money by drawing pornographic imagery is mostly a guy thing, I offer the explanation that there’s always a man better at anything, except making babby
think about who you knows who draws porn
its probably a woman
*forming babby lol
Now you really know I’m not a girl
(because a girl wouldn’t catch that mistake)
(ephebrew would and would gently explain it to a girl while assuring her that she’s just as smart as him (because she is) so she’ll eventually give him sex for free like joe)
”jewish pedophile”
Handle looks like a troll or a fed.
>The average 13 year old would not score with me, because 13 year olds are derpy looking. Except for the ones that you notice.
Maybe in Boston and the Northeast US, more generally: an unfriendly place abounding in TV-educated sarcastaball cuckold men and equally anti-male “sex-positive” chicks who actively work to repulse men in the name of stopping the rape culture or whatever.
Frankly, I’m finding more interest in life, light and flirt in the eyes of 15 y.o. girls than I see in the eyes of 25 y.o. and, certainly, 35 y.o. ones. And I keep wondering: why? Life doesn’t treat them so bad to be so bitter and unfriendly.
>you are beta
Maybe.
Patrick,
You are attributing to me blue pilled behavior which I do not exhibit. I triggered you, so now you will spend weeks talking (lying) about me, as you have previously spent weeks talking about others.
Info,
The handle was chosen preemptively. These days, speaking the politically incorrect truth gets you branded a Jew and a pedo. Sometimes it’s best to own the labels and move forward.
Eli,
15-year-olds are pre-IDF. 25-year-olds are post-IDF. After two years of military service, they lose their vivacity. There’s a lesson here somewhere.
Jewish pedophile,
“Leftism won’t be high status for long, and after it stops being high status, the blue pill will fall out of fashion.”
Very well said. Needs to be repeated more often, ’til more broadly internalized.
Many ‘right wing’ puppies are afraid to let go of leftist lies because are afraid of being unfashionable. When they sense the winds changing, as they obviously are, these followers will find the spine to see what is right in front of them.
Leftist orders are doomed because the dysfunctional – if they can’t right themselves – are always conquered by the functional (hard or soft). I doubt many readers here need elaboration on this point.
But as the Left spirals into more and more extreme positions the ideology is starting to collapse. Bullshit if fragile. It will never be as easy to censor bits as it was print. The NYT and its comment section is dull. The smart people are leaving. The competent, the clear thinkers, the virtuous are jumping ship and talking on the ‘intellectual dark web’ and IRL. CR and other blue pilled puppies imagine themselves fashionable. They are just the idiots last to see the shifting trends.
Jim> But you were not defending it. You were moving on from the original claim and throwing out a bunch of similar claims. You should have conceded the point and shut up.
You completely misunderstood my original point.
1. It doesn’t matter whether we can find a dead kid in Pizzagate. What matters is that US Christians realize that the Democratic Party is the no-kidding party of Sodomite Satanism. Look at the art, the jokes, etc. Then it’s time for war.
2. The Pizzagate “debunkers” don’t even try to rebut this. They just talk about overly specific details like denying that a kid was killed in the basement of Comet Pizza.
3. The Pizzagate debunker chimes in, “Aha, there was no basement! Debunked!”
He just confirmed my point.
> Your frame and context implied that Comet Pizza had been murdering children in their basement. You were providing evidence and argument that Comet Pizza murdered children in their basement.
No I wasn’t. That’s a stupid theory. It is a mythologization of reality, like how the parable of trolls under bridges teaches children to beware of strangers luring them into dark alleyways.
JP> You will notice that other people are reluctant to chime in to this discussion
It’s been hard to follow, because Peppermint is hard to follow, and you are being very aggressive in pushing Jimianity against his supposed heresy, but it is difficult to tell whether he is a heretic, and what his heresy is.
Girls with boobs are hot. There’s a grey zone where you could be attracted, but you know it’s better to wait for the hips to grow more before doing a pregnancy. No point in acquiring a taste for that grey zone, so I try to stay away. But conceivably there are situations where taking such a lover would be appropriate. Wouldn’t be a chore.
> “Everyone knows that men are disgusted by teenagers.â€
If Peppermint said this, I’m surprised, and disagree.
I don’t think there should be AoC laws. The Bible didn’t have any.
What I am saying about Pizzagate is, in my mind, not hard to understand:
Let’s say your neighbor is Jeffrey Dahmer. You notice he’s a creep who’s into art and jokes about necrophilia, pederasty and Satan worship. You tell your Neighborhood Watch. Jeffrey defends himself by denying that he’s ever killed a boy in his basement; he doesn’t even have a basement. You find this defense suspiciously specific, like when the Army issues a denial-non-denial. It makes you immediately suspect he is killing boys somewhere else, for example his shed with the large chest freezer. But either way, you certainly don’t want him running your school district cum CPS. You’d rather kill the creepy freak yourself first.
Interesting to see Peppermint get BTFO’d for once.
My initial inclination was to disagree with JP for two reasons: his handle is revolting and gives pedos a bad name AND I would like to believe that there is a fundamental difference between 13yo girls and 23yo girls. I waited to comment as I would have been punching out of my weight class and it would have been moral signalling in support of Peppermint.
Upon reading the whole exchange and having a long discussion with my wife, I am of the opinion that JP is 100% right. Though I am personally unattracted to wahmens under the age of ~22 (always have been), it would be completely false to say I don’t find any breedable* age woman attractive. I have (and continue to) trained myself to be hyper aware of the actions of “underage” females and to judiciously regulate my responses and actions. This is because circumstances have forced me into a parental role for a young girl being raised by a single mom with little to no capacity for motherhood. The girl is being raised by screens; trained in femininity by actors and engendered with expectations of males by actors. No real father present. She absolutely adores me because I am a real man who is unapologetically masculine, completely a responsible adult, and unflinching in my efforts to be a good man. Her little female brain needs my attention, and the only tools of expression she has are Lonely Child and pre-Slut. To interpret her otherwise is a disservice to her and a dereliction of duty.
I hate it so much. I hate that I have to view this child as a pre-Slut. I hate her deficient father and her lackadaisical mother. I hate Society for making her options so limited. But my emotions are irrelevant. Statistically speaking, this girl is a goner. The optimum outcome is that she may, against all odds, strive to be a not-Slut because I, the man of her dreams, would be disappointed. This is not fair to me and is not fair to her, but it is likewise irrelevant. Pretending I have until she is 17 to worry about her sluttiness is fucking stupid. GNON gives us challenges to make us messes of men into paragons of virtue but how I pray for this cup to pass unto another.
”In 1890, you and viking raised the AoC from the 7-12”
Dude AoC 7-11 isn’t acceptable not least those involving teens which historically involved the permission of fathers. Real pedophilia is evil. The Tanakh rejects all sexuality involving prepubescents. As well as the NT
In pre-feminist early church
”It is not only fornication, but also the giving in marriage prematurely, that is called fornication; when, so to speak, one not of ripe age is given to a husband, either of her own accord or by her parents. ”(Clement of Alexandria, IX.-Fragment of the Treatise on Marriage, Early Church Fathers – Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II
Even in non-feminist Ancient China:
姦幼女å二æ²ä»¥ä¸‹è€…é›–å’ŒåŒå¼·è«–. Fornication with a girl below 12 years old gets treated as forcible (rape), i.e. hanged, period. Not unlike what Anglo countries call “statutory rapeâ€.
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/10/29/patriarchal-sexual-law/
”Come the restoration, the AoC will be abolished, to be replaced by patriarchal marriage, including patriarchal child marriage”
Child marriage is evil period. Muhammad and his child-bride being a chief example.
Its for those who have sexually matured and become women in their teens and 20s.
You are telling us that the Old Testament, properly understood, is progressivism, that the New Testament, properly understood, is progressivism, and that old Chinese legislation, properly understood, is progressivism.
But you don’t like Muhammad, because even you are not disingenuous enough so as to pretend that he was a blue-haired community organizer.
No, child marriage is not evil. It is necessary to control some girls, who are prone to run away with their demon lovers at the first opportunity.
Abolish the AoC, institute young marriage, including (in some cases) child marriage. That’s the plan that Puritans and Feminists hate, hate, hate.
I see ‘Jim’ forgot to switch accounts.
CR,
I am not Jim’s alt. If I were, though, I’d post the following:
Reaction 101: men should not be punished for female misbehavior. To deal with female misbehavior, need to control females, not males.
Reaction 101: porn is not a primary cause of low TFR. But if you want to restrict porn, prevent women (including young girls) from producing it, rather than punishing men for consuming it.
Reaction 101: denying any aspect of biological reality — about race, sex, or age — is blasphemy unto Gnon.
Reaction 101: all healthy heterosexual men are attracted to female secondary sexual characteristics, which begin to manifest around age 12 or so. To deny that is to blaspheme against Gnon.
Reaction 101: terms such as “kid fucker” and so on are anti-concepts. Sodomizing little boys, and being pursued by young chicks, are wholly different things.
Reaction 101: to worry about what privately transpires in Hollywood is a waste of time and a distraction. Worry about what your own daughter is doing while you’re not looking.
You channel me accurately.
Lest I forget:
Reaction 101: 30-year-olds are no more qualified to make wise sexual choices than 13-year-olds. Both need to be under tight male supervision.
Reaction 101: “normal people” accept whatever they are told to accept, and are outraged by whatever they are told to be outraged about. Come the restoration, they will believe what we tell them to believe as vehemently as they believe what globohomo now tells them to believe.
Jim has a more nuanced understanding of the situation than you, because he has friends and family, which you lack.
I can remember the last time I was attracted to a 13 year old. I was 12. She was the single hottest girl in the school that had like 300-500 or so. I can remeber how I felt about her and the others.
There are secondary characteristics and secondaru characteristics. Lump them all together and puberty lasts until the early 20s. Separate them out in the usual way and notice that most girls aren’t competitive until the end of high school.
Everyone knows there are exceptional cases. They are called jailbait and have high status because all the boys pay attention to them and they can try to hook up with college men. Their fathers are very frustrated with the way our culture tells them to do what they feel like doing, but marriage has been entirely destroyed, so it’s not like they have a future either way, unless we win and restore marriage.
Which we’re not going to do as long as you keep sperging about how if there’s grass on the field play ball, Ephebrew.
Since you are a biological deviant, it doesn’t matter what you are attracted to.
When there is grass on the field, and/or when there are boobs, men *will* play ball. Always, absolutely. That’s nature, and only blue pilled deviants deny it. The question is what is to be done. You and viking told us in 1890 that men need to be punished whenever they play ball.
No. Women need to be controlled, need to be married off young. Some even need to be married off prior to full puberty.
Stop saying “everyone knows.” There are plenty of hot 13-year-olds. Whenever you say “everyone knows,” it is something only blue pilled white knights know.
Jim agrees with me, and is in fact more extreme than me.
“No. Women need to be controlled, need to be married off young. Some even need to be married off prior to full puberty.”
This I can’t agree with. They need to be married off shortly afterword.
A large proportion of girls start having sex well before puberty. A small minority of girls become uncontrollable well before puberty. Societies that attempt to control this frequently take disturbingly drastic measures, such as infibulation. If not infibulation or early marriage for problem cases, what do you propose?
I have suggested that we might delay andrenarche with some drug or other, but I am not at all sure what the consequences of a drastic intervention in natural female maturation would be, nor at all sure that andrenarche is closely linked to the development of sexual inclinations in very young girls, though my nose suggests that it is.
By the way, they are called jailbaits not because they are the exception. Just the opposite: they are jail baits because men *will* take the bait, usually.
Stop lying.
I thought I was a biological deviant because I was attracted to the teachers, not the students, up until the second half of high school. I tried to be attracted to the students, since everyone knows men who are attracted to older women are weird, and eventually I could, because they became hot.
13 is the end of middle school. One or two out of the entire school were passably as hot as a normal 16 year old and I wasn’t even particularly attracted except for one who I thought was cute.
You have no memory or social contact, so you have to go by a laughably simplistic view of adolescence, Ephebrew.
I remember age 12 like yesterday. We were all horny for each other.
I see teens today. Those with boobs are hot.
Your account of your past confirms your biological deviance. You are a degenerate, in more than one way. Failure to be attracted to teens with boobs is a sign that something is deeply wrong with you on the biological level. Hence your blue pillery.
Cavalier told us that being a “late maturer” is good for men. Given its high correlation with blue pillery, not likely to be very good.
You are, or pretend to be for signalling purposes, a strict teleiophile. That is not the norm. Whenever you pretend that it’s the norm, you are lying through your teeth. Strict teleiophilia is the exception, not the norm.
Teens with boobs are hot. Teens develop boobs between 11 and 14. Instead of blaspheming again Gnon by denying biological reality, stick to subjects about which your judgement is not impaired. Stick to video games, Simpsons, and “dude weed lmao.” These are subjects about which you are certainly qualified to pass judgement.
You won’t win this one.
Our goal here is to
* restore waifudom: a man has an irrevocable responsibility to take care of his gf, his gf has the obvious duties, revocation of contract only upon death or grave breach
Coveting is forbidden because if betrayal is on the table then betrayal is on the table.
* encourage women to become waifus of men equal in rank. This means taking high ranking men out of the market a bit early.
* encourage men to rise in rank. This implies waifudom as late as practical
To accomplish this, we need a better understanding of puberty and the various goals and strategies that people have at various stages in life than ‘if there’s grass of the field, play ball’
If there is grass on the field, and/or boobs, men will play ball.
Hence early marriage, marriage before, during, or shortly after puberty. Hence shotgun marriage. Hence controlling women’s behavior rather than men’s behavior, as women are horny since 9, but score at 12 or 13, when some of them become hot.
This is getting repetitive.
Ephebrew, men and women who start dating at 13-15 and 15-17 are early bloomers, 15-17 and 17-19 are normal, senior year of high school and college are late bloomers.
The fact that you don’t know that is more of your narrow-mindedness.
I mean, it’s pretty normal for 14 and 16 to claim to be paired off in school, but I wouldn’t really call it dating.
I would call it fornication. When fourteen year olds hold a party, children disappear into the closets and such, and then take a shower when they reappear. And I well know that that fucking starts before the girls have secondary sexual characteristics, and before they claim to be paired off. Pairing off represents the development of secondary characteristics sufficient to hold an alpha male around. Girls always claim a late start date and a small count, but it is seldom true.
Nice Talmudic hair-splitting, fag.
I will repeat the relevant points from above, and hopefully won’t have to do it again:
Men should not be punished for female misbehavior. To deal with female misbehavior, need to control females, not males.
Denying any aspect of biological reality — about race, sex, or age — is blasphemy unto Gnon.
All healthy heterosexual men are attracted to female secondary sexual characteristics, which begin to manifest around age 12 or so. To deny that is to blaspheme against Gnon.
Worrying about what privately transpires in Hollywood is a waste of time and a distraction. Rather, worry about what your own daughter is doing while you’re not looking.
And I will add:
There won’t be any restoration until what you, Cavalier, and viking did in 1890 is fully and permanently reversed. You committed a crime against humanity, against men, and against the white race, whose TFR has plummeted as a result of the imposition of chastity on men in lieu of patriarchal law.
Game’s over.
The whole “men should not be punished for female misbehavior” thing is a bit of an oversimplification.
Obviously women are the gatekeepers of sex and women are far more damaged by fornication than men, so the brunt of the disincentive should be on women.
But it still takes two to tango. The mating dance is conquest and surrender, it’s not all that difficult to refrain from engaging in conquest. Fornication is not simply female misbehavior, it is misbehavior of both parties. Both should be punished.
I have about two or three contentions with the Jimian worldview and this is one of them. You guys act like men have agency and women have no agency, but suddenly once sex is involved, women have infinite agency and men are basically objects. Even when the girl is twelve and the man is in his forties. It’s nonsensical blame shifting.
Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. You guard what is precious, not what is cheap. You cannot bullet proof the entire world against girls cruising for dick, and an ever escalating attempting to do so creates a world intolerably emasculating and hostile to men. If you successfully deter the high ranking wealthy alpha male who is alpha in the male hierarchy from fucking her, you will not successfully deter the local bikey drug dealer and gang leader from fucking her. When you try to make the world bulletproof against girls cruising for dick, all that you will do is teach her that bikey gang leaders and drug dealers are sexier and more manly than high ranking wealthy alpha males, that the male status hierarchy is bullshit.
What you can do is stop girls from cruising for dick. What are unaccompanied eight year old girls doing at Ariana Grande concert? And if they manage to find some dick anyway, you shotgun marry them.
I have repeatedly urge old testament rules and family law. as interpreted and applied by King Solomon, in which both are punished, irrespective of the age of the girl, and which permit shotgun marriage, and have no lower age limit on marriage. The Old Testament did not prohibit seducing or abducting an unbetrothed virgin, regardless of age. It prohibited letting her go afterwards, implying that the normal remedy was not execution, but shotgun marriage. And in a society that did not practice purdah and infibulation, but which has the death penalty for fornication, I would expect a whole lot of shotgun marriage at ridiculously early ages, well before female puberty, well before the development of any secondary sexual characteristics, a minority of all marriages, but a substantial minority.
Nikolai,
If a big boobed jailbait rides on top of you (or, to be as edgy as Jim: if a flat chested prepubescent girl rides on top of you), you should not go to jail for it – rather, you should marry her without delay.
And if that’s not on the table, then it is she who should receive the beating with the stick by her father, not you. Because it is she who is out of control, not the man she happens to lose control with.
I remember which people claimed to be in a relationship with which other people and when.
It just isn’t true that everyone ruts in closets at parties starting at 13.
The fact that there will always be enough cum for the cumdumpsters doesn’t mean that everyone is doing it.
There are lots of White men who follow their biological programming to get settled in a career before finding the perfect woman, estimating that no decent girl will want them until they prove themselves.
And they wait, and wait, and wait, while the women who should be married to them go from fast life history guy to fast life history guy, and ruin their health with partying and contraception and abortion and stds.
Saying everyone does it in a closet at 13 ignores the entire problem with our culture, that decent men aren’t reproducing themselves. Fortunately, they’re now being excluded from the job positions that they need to be in, causing everything to fall apart. If a competent man had been the last Democrat President instead of Obama, we would be in a vastly worse position.
Pretty sure a lot of them start rutting in closets well before age thirteen – otherwise, why take a shower afterwards? But they start claiming to be paired off after the development of secondary sexual characteristics.
Not everyone does it in a closet. Obviously beta males do not get any. You are denying reality by using language that fails to distinguish between the sexes. Men perform, and women choose.
Yes, not everyone is rutting in closets at age thirteen, but a hell of a lot of the girls (and considerably fewer of the boys) are.
And the reason decent men (hard working beta males who pay taxes and play by the rules) are not reproducing is that all the virgins got popped early. This whole program of punishing men for early female sexual misconduct a reaction to the horrifying early female misconduct that ensued when we abandoned any effort to control female misconduct, which misconduct people are aware of and unaware of – they see it, and they do not admit to seeing it.
You talk exactly like him but you’re perhaps slightly more blatant and shameless.
Nikolai writes:
“The whole “men should not be punished for female misbehavior†thing is a bit of an oversimplification.”
That’s putting it rather mildly. At best it’s an attempt to be edgy. At worst it’s cover for something much darker.
Reality is it’s probably somewhere inbetween, but it’s neither healthy nor helpful.
Nuts.
You are utterly out of contact with the sexual reality that is right in your face and kicking you in the balls.
>It just isn’t true that everyone ruts in closets at parties starting at 13.
>Saying everyone does it in a closet at 13
Strawmans.
Not everyone gets to have sex at age 13. I never claimed that, Jim never claimed that.
Rather, when girls start getting hot, which is often enough at age 12 or so, they acquire the option to fulfill what they’ve been beating themselves off to for 3 or 4 years: sex with an attractive male.
And so, that’s what they proceed to do: have sex with various attractive men.
You, being blue pilled to the bone, blame the men. Blue pillers always blame the men, categorically. That’s what makes them blue pillers.
In contrast, Jimianity, being red pilled, says that these girls should be married off. To prevent them from eloping, should sometimes be married off before puberty (that’s in particularly problematic cases), but certainly, should be married off once they’ve completed puberty and have fully developed secondary sexual characteristics.
Teenagers are horny, but not all teenagers get to score. Duh. The problem is that when girls do have sex, it is non-maritally. Jimianity wants virgin brides. Virgin brides means young brides, indeed, *very* young brides. Or, alternatively, shotgun marriage.
We’ve already been through this.
“If a big boobed jailbait rides on top of you… you should not go to jail for it – rather, you should marry her without delay.”
Well, yes illicit sex with a virgin should result in a shotgun marriage.
But your hypothetical presupposes the woman has agency and the man doesn’t, you literally made me the object of the sentence. That’s not how sexual dynamics actually work. Women generally don’t hit on guys, much less start riding guys while they’re unconscious.
The way it works is that women give subtle, or oftentimes not-so-subtle, indicators to men that if they were to attempt conquest, she’d enthusiastically surrender. And if you don’t do anything, she’ll just display greater and greater interest until she perceives your lack of action as rejection and then she’ll just be pissed at you for a while and move on.
More realistic scenario: If I were at a party and a 16 year old virgin with double Ds strikes up a flirty conversation with me and I am unable to resist temptation, I should be shotgun married to her. If her father does not want me as a son in law, she should get a public lashing, and I should get around 75% of the lashings she received and pay her father a hefty fee and suffer maybe a tenth of the dishonor she suffers.
That is a blue pill, or at best purple pill, account and interpretation of courtship. You are not seeing a whole lot of in your face female bad behavior.
Men conquer, and women surrender, but men display and women choose.
What I see in the workplace is that chicks act more like Kate in “Taming of the Shrew”. They disruptively, passive aggressively, and obnoxiously shit test men, and subconsciously hope to be defeated and overpowered, subconsciously hope to elicit a display of conquering male dominance. This gets worse in the art department and in HR.
With very young girls, pre boobs, then their approach is more like what you describe, the balance of supply and demand being different. But this sometimes goes all the way to more aggressive approaches, like creeping into bed with a drunk and sleeping alpha male who has been performing the alpha role for the benefit of her aunt or older sister.
Yes, I missed out on rutting in closets at 13. No, I didn’t miss out on virgin popping.
But did I really miss out on anything by not rutting in closets or gain anything by virgin popping? Not really.
I correctly followed my programming, mostly, to get a career first and then get a woman, however, anticipating interminable schooling and slim pickings in the future, I conjectured that if I wanted to end up with a woman I needed to get some options on a booty call list, and, well, I found some options.
And I screwed everyone over, because if I had been able to understand that I should pick one and leave the dating market, the other men could have then gotten the other women. The other men even asked me to pick, in a semi-verbal way, and by then I was too caught up in my sin and progressive justifications for it that I had no idea what they were saying.
The real problem is degree inflation and credentialism used to keep competent men out of the workplace.
The 13 year old girls rutting in the closet, it’s their father and family’s problem that their important property is being damaged and they need tools to protect it, but honestly, I don’t think it’s worth mateguarding a girl from 13 to marry her 6 years later on top of building a career. Quantify the difference in her behavior versus the opportunity cost of dating instead of working. Maybe if she could start to serve as a wife, but if that’s possible, so’s her family watching her.
It’s only natural that the hottest guy gets first pick absent fathers negotiating directly, which the Boomers failed us on.
What you did miss out on was marrying a virgin. I married a virgin. Every man should marry a virgin. It was hard in my youth, and is a lot harder now.
Exodus 22:17 makes completely good sense though. Imagine that I, through little fault of my own, dropped a wallet with my name and address written clearly on it. Anyone who picks it up and uses money in it, is, therefore, using my property without my authorization. I have a right to demand restitution.
Of course, the Pentateuch makes this provision only for the father of a co-national, co-religionist. If I go to war and take a woman from a different nation, her father has no claw-back provisions of any sort. See Deuteronomy 21:10
Rather than talk about a virgin I popped precisely so I could tell other men about a virgin I popped, a faggy act I’m going to hell for, let me tell you about one of the virgins I didn’t pop.
Her father, seeing me with his daughter, made one last ditch effort to shake my hand and get to know me, meaning nothing more than a first name and occupation.
She wanted me to take her and own her. I just wanted a booty call and option to call back later.
Maybe I’d been able to lie to her and imply that I own her only to potentially abandon her later, I might still be with her. I think that’s actually the way normal people do things, the ones who ever even try. The ones who don’t, well, they don’t.
The Boomers will pay for the abomination they inflicted on us. Men under the age of 25 have no chance to not follow their biological programming plus instructions they’re given, and men under the age of 35 still don’t know what anything really means.
Inb4 you don’t know you have a virgin unless you’re willing to fuck a 13yo girl so you can say you fucked a 13yo girl. Because seriously, 13yo boys don’t want them and neither do 15yo boys. That there are enough who do is true and irrelevant to the fact that they are useless except to say i popped a 13yo, but relevant to the fact that if girls aren’t controlled they are programmed to throw themselves at the alphaest man they can find.
>seriously, 13yo boys don’t want them and neither do 15yo boys.
Blue pill lie.
Teenage boys do, absolutely, desire teenage girls. Very much so, very passionately so. That’s all they think about.
But teenage girls usually want older men.
Which means that we don’t have a male problem, but a female problem, to be solved not by punishing men, not by inflicting chastity on men, but by controlling women, which means — among other measures — marrying them off young.
Yeah, I missed out on having a virgin wife. But no one in my generation gets a wife raised from birth to be given to one man without divorce and thottery on the table, and the girls I know who left college single had a high rate of getting markedly more attached to the next man than the one before him. It’s not as simple as you get a virgin or a slut anymore and if you can find one who hasn’t had her butthole ruined that’s really what to shoot for.
I believe, you wanted to quote me, but instead posted your response as me. It’s your blog, obviously, but I think it’s better to correct it.
And yes, “utterly” is a pretty strong conditional, which implies active paternal action and, probably, overall communal support. I mean, if a daughter who is a whore goes whoring around and father doesn’t do anything, it’s quite uppity of him to claim her back.
That was a mistake, which I will attempt to rectify.
I hit the edit button rather than reply button, and failed to notice I had done so. I do this a lot to many people, but fail to recollect doing to you.
Which is the comment that I mucked up?
Found your comment that I mucked up, fixed the attribution, but was unable to rescue your original comment.
On the other hand, consider Israeli law and custom as expressed by Tamar after her rape by her half brother Amnon during the days of King David. Tamar does not suggest that Amnon have a talk with King David.
“If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.†– That the father “utterly refusesâ€, rather than merely “refuses†implies that the father is being unusually and obstinately difficult, that this is not the normal outcome, that mere ordinary refusal does not count. Also, the abductor or seducer does not get executed, which implies that if he is willing to marry, and marriage does not ensue, it is a substantially lesser offense – that mere ordinary refusal should just be ignored if you can get away with it. Which, in ordinary cases of elopement rather than abduction, you probably can – even if the chick’s father is King David.
“That is a blue pill, or at best purple pill, account and interpretation of courtship. You are not seeing a whole lot of in your face female bad behavior.”
The type of courtship I’m most familiar with is I act like an overconfident, offensive, mildly threatening jester and eventually a girl in my vicinity goes to great lengths to display her willingness to surrender. But I suppose you’re right that there are other forms of courtship and this is not exactly the most common one.
“They disruptively, passive aggressively, and obnoxiously shit test men, and subconsciously hope to be defeated and overpowered, subconsciously hope to elicit a display of conquering male dominance.”
Admittedly, I have minimal experience with women in the workplace. Most of my jobs have been in almost all male departments. Though at one point I worked with two middle aged married women. Didn’t see them shit test any men, did see them endlessly complain and gossip about their children and in-laws instead of working.
I did have this minimum wage job in college. There was this one sorority girl who really had a thing for me, always striking up flirty conversations, laughing a little too hard at my jokes, giving my lustful stares etc. At one point I was talking to someone else and she rubbed her hand down my thigh to get my attention. I’d flirt back a bit, but never hit on her as I was kind of an autist and didn’t want to lose the job. Eventually she interpreted my lack of action as rejection and became a little passive aggressive, but nothing ridiculous. If she was a few cup sizes bigger, I likely would not have been able to resist.
The only women I see behaving the way you describe are women who are married to betas and resent their husbands. So they treat their husbands like shit, much in the way you describe, hoping eventually to be overpowered.
Completely agree with your previous comment. 8 year olds should not be going to arianna grande concerts unaccompanied, I just think there should be some disincentive on the male side as well. As Spandrell shows, men were beaten for fornication just as women were. And if local bikey gangs even exist, that’s a rather grave concern and should be remedied Duterte style.
Ancient Chinese law is not a valid precedent for avoiding emasculation.
The world’s oldest servilization…
peppermint’s account might be less inaccurate when applied to east asians.
Some evidence that jap schoolkids bully their classmates who have european-normal libidos.
Look at the girls’ status heirarchy. Who has high status and why?
13 year old girls don’t think they’re hot, except for the ones who know they’re hot.
The fact that cumdumpsters can always find cum is irrelevant to which girls are how hot.
Do you know why the effort to make being a cumdumpster high status?
Because cumdumpsters are naturally low status, except in the chance that they get a commitment out of a good man somehow.
Because everyone knows that cumdumpsters can always find cum.
Some 13-year-olds are hot, and what makes them hot is their secondary sexual characteristics, which begin manifesting around age 12 or so. They would be hot (or ugly) whether they are cum guzzling nymphs or chaste frigids.
When there is grass on the field (pussy hair), men will play ball.
When there are hills atop the plateau (boobs), men will play ball.
You are not going to change millions of years of evolution because of what you and viking did to humanity in 1890.
Every non-deviant heterosexual male with healthy t-levels would bang every fertile female if he could, as is the biological imperative. Gnon told us to be fruitful and to multiply, or to perish. You are perishing, and your race is perishing, because of what you and viking did in 1890.
You cannot wish millions of years of evolutionary programming away. You cannot wish your lizard brain away. You cannot wish your hind brain away.
And anyone who says that millions of years of evolutionary programming can be willed out of existence, and that the hind lizard brain can be willed out of existence, is a liar, a white knight, a puritan, a feminist, and a blue piller.
You know what you are, and you know what you did. The modern dire state of the Woman Question is *the direct result* of what you did in 1890. The coming extinction of whites due to failure to reproduce is *the direct result* of what late 19th century Feminism told us about ourselves.
You cannot weasel yourself out of it by playing dumb. The internet has changed the rules: we know what you did, why you did it, and what the results are. It’s time to stop.
I have once compiled a very extensive list of white Aryan men who agree with this position 100%. I don’t have it here, but at the top you can find:
James C. Weidmann (Heartiste), father of the Manosphere and the Red Pill, whose IQ is definitely higher than yours.
Andrew Anglin, father of the alt-right in its current iteration, whose IQ is at least no lower than yours, and probably higher.
Jim, father of the Restoration – no need to elaborate here.
Reflect on the fact that Heartsite, Anglin, and Jim — all of whom are more intelligent, more talented, and more interesting than you — are telling you that your position is blue pilled to the bone.
You cannot save your race and your civilization by doing 1890 all over again. You definitely can’t save your race and your civilization by doing 2017 all over again. If ever a restoration occurs, it will necessarily include that aspect of the Red Pill that Heartsite, Anglin, and Jim confirm, and that you, Cavalier, and viking deny.
Reaction 101: all healthy heterosexual men are attracted to female secondary sexual characteristics, which begin to manifest around age 12 or so. To deny that is to blaspheme against Gnon.
Reaction 101: denying any aspect of biological reality — about race, sex, or age — is blasphemy unto Gnon.
> Every non-deviant heterosexual male with healthy t-levels would bang every fertile female if he could
(1) The real alpha would take the hottest for himself and give the rest to his friends in exchange for their undying loyalty
(2) for best results using a teenage girl to reproduce yourself, leave the teenage girl with her father until she’s 19, then demand a dowry
(3) the fact that fat chicks can find men to fuck them doesn’t imply that fat chicks are hot
When there is hair on the pussy, men will play ball.
When there are boobs, men will play ball.
When a horny girl creeps into an alpha male’s bed and starts riding him to “a happy awakening, followed by a big surprise,” the ball has effectively been played.
The purpose is to have virgin brides and high fertility, which necessarily entails young marriage, sometimes shortly after puberty, sometimes during puberty, and sometimes prior to it.
Some 13-year-olds are hot, because their secondary sexual characteristics are developed enough, specifically, because their boobs are big enough, and their hips are wide enough to have an appealing waist-to-hip ratio. To deny that is to deny biology, which is abominable.
Men will play ball, and chicks will crawl over broken glass to fuck their Chad demon lovers, starting at age 8, though unlikely to succeed until age 12. Thus, the solution is to control women, to control eggs rather than controlling sperm – and controlling eggs is mighty hard, because they are very powerful indeed, as nature intended.
Which leads to early marriage, and to shotgun marriage.
Consent does not make sex good, nor does lack of consent make it bad. The AoC is evil, Feminist, and detrimental to marital life. Abolish the AoC, institute patriarchy as it existed until the late 19th century, that is, until the faction made up of you and Cavalier and viking got the upper hand and started imposing chastity on men rather than on women.
Teens with boobs are hot, are both sexually interested and sexually interesting, and since they are both sexually interested and sexually interesting, will proceed to have sex. Which is why they need to be married off young and virginal, or, alternatively, to be married off to the man who deflowered them without delay.
Teens with boobs are hot, and to be disgusted by teens with boobs is unnatural, degenerate, deviant, and a symptom of something gone awry on the biological level.
White knight manginas are afraid to say all that, because they don’t want to be seen as “that guy,” which means that only men willing to be seen as “that guy” ever speak the politically incorrect truth. I had no choice but to become “that guy,” because someone needs to urgently stop your faction from pushing all of us off a cliff. So I became “that guy.”
And I won.
P.S.
Anglo-Saxons are the undefeated master race, and the war for the future will be fought over by red pilled Anglos versus blue pilled Anglos, with Jews playing auxiliary roles on both sides.
> necessarily entails young marriage,
There are historical records that show marriage at 19-24 in a functioning culture capable of keeping records.
Marriage should be as late as practical so young men can focus on proving themselves instead of babysitting derpy girls.
And no, “men” will not play ball. Unless the girl is jailbait. 13 year old girls look derpy, they’re not adorable like they were when they were 9, they’re not hot like they’re going to be when they’re 17, they’re derpy looking, and they know they get less attention than they did a few years ago, right when they want attention. And sometimes they also get pizzafaced.
When you say 13 year old girls are hot, you sound like a chubby chaser.
All healthy cultures allow marriage at a very young age, even if marriage is usually at later ages. Typical age of marriage in Republican Rome, girl was twelve with no lower limit. Typical age of marriage in classic Greece, girl is fourteen with no lower limit. Upper Class England in the time of England’s greatness was a bit of an outlier, in that 19-24 was normal and normative, but much younger was legal, and far from rare. If a very young upper class girl lost her father, tended to get married right away.
All societies that successfully had late virgin marriage, for exampleEngland from the Restoration to the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline, deployed disturbingly drastic measures to keep them virgin, and these disturbingly drastic measures frequently ran into disturbingly drastic resistance. Today, the Somalis deploy astonishingly drastic measures, and still have problems.
Keeping girls virgin for marriage is like keeping a glacier from advancing or a volcano from erupting, hence early, sometimes extremely early, marriage has to be an option, even if it is not the norm.
More importantly, female sexuality is the big problem. Male sexuality is not the problem, and we have to start thinking about early, often very early, female sexuality as a big problem, rather than denying the frequent in-your-face sexuality of very young girls. The problem is keeping virgin females virgin, not keeping males from having sex. We don’t even want to stop virgin females from having sex. We want to stop them from having sex with one male and then moving right along and having sex with another male, and the solution to that is to compel them to always be sexually available to the first male they have sex and always obey him. We don’t need to restrain males from having sex. We need to compel them to continue to look after and sexually gratify virgins that they have had sex with.
For late virgin marriage to be the norm, virgin marriage has to be the norm, and for virgin marriage to be the norm, you have to either kill or marry girls that start fucking early, you have to recognize female sexuality as a huge and uncontrollable problem. With some girls, the patriarchy is just going to have to arrange sexual gratification for them, sometimes long before puberty, or kill them.
If you want late virgin marriage, and you refuse to allow very early marriage, you are just going to have to execute quite a lot of female children.
Some thirteen year olds look derpy – which reflects the fact that some thirteen year olds are not yet fully fertile.
Some thirteen year olds look way hot, reflecting the fact that some thirteen year olds are fully fertile. If you are not attracted to a young fully fertile girl, you are a deviant.
The overwhelming majority of fourteen and fifteen year old boys are overwhelmingly and powerfully attracted to the majority of thirteen year old girls – both the ones that are fully fertile, the ones that are marginally fertile, and the ones that show signs of being about to become fertile real soon. And every normal adult male is overwhelmingly and powerfully attracted to the substantial proportion of thirteen year old girls that are fully fertile. If you do not get a boner, time to check your T levels.
The reason you can’t compete is you’re operating on the level of a chinaman. Well, Mencius say PUA rhyme with gay.
Use your Aryan creativity to integrate data on your own. The worst you can be is wrong, which is more interesting than boring.
I don’t even know what “derpy” is, because unlike you, I don’t talk like a fag and my shit is not retarded.
I know that it’s not only that men will play ball, but that men *do* play ball, are playing ball right now, and have played ball for as long as humanity existed and counting, and that to deny that is to deny observable empirical facts right in front of your face. Horny 8-year-olds do not usually score, while horny 13-year-olds score pretty darn easily, especially if — as is often the case — they have developed large boobs, wide hips, and a womanly demeanor.
Stalin was by far more alpha than both of us, and he fucked Lidia Pereprygina when she was 13-years-olds. Since super-alpha male Joseph Stalin fucked 13-year-old Lidia Pereprygina, who was not even exceptionally hot judging by the pictures of her, every man would bang every fertile age female if he could, with emphasis on *if he could*. When 13-year-olds teens with boobs have sex, it’s usually with alpha males, not with betas. We’ve already been through this, Jim has already explained that at great length, and your inability to see that suggests crimestop.
It is the same crimestop that is preventing you from observing that hot 13-year-olds are no “rare exception,” but quite common, hence jailbait is a term that recognizes that men are naturally attracted to females whom puritan legislation deems off limits, because puritan legislation deems very many hot fertile females off limits. They are “jail baits” not because they are uncommon, but exactly because they are very common, so common that they are a culture-wide phenomenon recognized by the entire society as prevalent and basically unavoidable. You are inverting the truth, because crimestop, and because you’re a biological deviant.
It is as obvious as the nose on your face that plenty of 13-year-olds are hot, because plenty of 13-year-olds have large breasts, wide hips (attractive waist-to-hip ratios), and so on, and denying that is denying biological reality, which is abominable.
You always resort to inaccurate and false name calling when you lose the debate, thus you now call me a “chubby chaser,” previously called me a “loser with no friends and no family,” and would have called me a “jewish pedophile” had I not called myself that. You can’t silence someone who is willing to proudly embrace every insult in the playbook in order to get the truth out. Every time you try that, my determination increases a hundredfold.
It is as obvious as the nose on your face that teens with boobs are hot, sexy, and attractive, especially if they are in shape and not overweight. Teens with boobs who are in shape and not overweight, fertile age teens who fit that description, teens with high waist-to-hip ratios, give every sexually healthy man a boner. Your reported failure to experience a boner around sexy teens with boobs shows that your sexuality is deeply deviant.
Every fertile age female (with the exception of immediate family) should give you a boner, and if she is in shape, has nice tits, and a decent waist-to-hip ratio, should give you a raging and visible boner. That doesn’t happen because you aren’t sexually healthy.
There are plenty of 12-year-olds with nice beautiful tits, which is not to say that they won’t become even more hot when they mature – I do not deny the superiority of 17-year-olds to 12-year-olds, merely note the fact that teens with boobs are hot, and to be disgusted by them is unnatural and deviant.
There are plenty of 12-year-olds with nice tits, which is not to deny that their tits will become even nicer when they grow a bit older. There are plenty of 12-year-olds with great waist-to-hip ratios, which is not to deny that their WtH ratios will become even more splendid as they grow a bit older.
It is as obvious as the nose on your face that your experience does not represent that of “normal people,” but of blue pilled white knight deviants, though unfortunately there are many blue pilled white knight deviants today, perhaps because of estrogen in the water supply or something similar.
Stalin fucked 13-year-old Lidia Pereprygina, and Stalin could beat the shit out of you, and while looking for my list of Red Pillers, I may as well also look for the list of historical figures — and alphas at that — who actually had sex with hot teens. Both lists are long.
For the record, I would not throw a chubster out of my bed without banging her first, nor would I throw a teen with boobs out of my bed without banging her first. That does not mean that I chase either group.
> fourteen and fifteen year old boys are overwhelmingly and powerfully attracted to the majority of thirteen year old girls
That doesn’t lead to dating behavior in most cases, but, if there’s a closet to bone in, which is so far from historically normal that evolution couldn’t have prepared a proper response to it, it can lead to closet boning behavior.
There was one girl in 8th grade who was hot enough for me to dream about, in ninth grade there were several. Having standards is a problem if you can’t end up with something, which is supposed to happen many years later.
Come the restoration, it will be common for 15-year-old males to have 13-year-old females for wives, and both parties will see it as perfectly natural, harmonious, and conducive to their respective interests.
Horny 15 year old boys will unironically discuss inventing fleshlights to bone and talk about boning each others’ mothers and grandmothers. When I was 15 this hot 16 year old’s friends wanted me to agree to date her. She was all smiles until they told her to spin around to show me the goods, at which point she got shy, because she wanted me to give her attention in exchange for kisses and teasing, and secondarily wanted to lord over the other girls that she had a bf, but, it being the time it was, showing the goods might have caused a reasonable me to have further expectations.
There are levels of attraction. Her friends successfully convinced me to be attracted enough to engage in dating behavior.
If a woman crawls into my bed, and I don’t have any other responsibility, then yeah, and if I was Stalin, that would happen, but I’m not alpha enough to grab just any chick by the pussy. A woman once invited me into her bedroom (actually her bf’s, lol) and got me drunk, but I felt responsible to some other people (not her bf, I don’t know him) and didn’t want to cause drama.
No matter how much drugs I do, there’s a decision point when it comes time to insert weenus into bagana, that I’ve never crossed not conscious of what I’m doing, presumably because it’s historically normal for that to result in forming babby and getting married. Everything is about sex, and sex is about reproduction.
We can’t make a crime of seducing, young or old, because restrictions on high ranking men voids their rank, women are naturally soullessly manipulative from 4 to 40, and keeping a 13 year old girl out of trouble until her man is ready for her is properly her father’s stretch challenge. Thus, a high ranking man should, but can’t be required to, have the nobless oblige to refrain from boning peasant girls without marrying them.
>When I was 15 this hot 16 year old’s friends wanted me to agree to date her.
>Her friends successfully convinced me to be attracted enough to engage in dating behavior.
You are a freak.
Sexually non deviant 15-year-olds males need zero convincing to fuck (and to do everything possible in order to be in a situation where sex is likely to occur) teenagers, be those teenagers a few years younger, same age, or a few years older.
Sexually healthy 13-year-old boys are madly, passionately, extremely horny for 13-year-old girls. That’s all they ever think about. Okay, 90% of what they think about – the other 10% being status competition among peers, which evolutionarily is designed to lead to procreation. They fap to their classmates every single day, sometimes several times a day, or actually fuck their classmate if alpha enough to score.
Ditto for 15-year-olds, only more so.
Teen marriage, and in some cases pre-teen marriage, was commonplace before, and will be commonplace again after the restoration and after the faction represented by you, by Cavalier, by viking, and by the “My Posting Career” forum is finally uprooted from the seat of power and reduced to cultural insignificance.
Are you GenZ, chinese, or both?
Viking has the bluepill idea that women are divided into tirebiters without paternal control and good women with paternal control, but in our age there are only the ones who can get older men and the ones who have to settle for the attention of boys their same age.
But you seem to think that sex in middle school is a foregone conclusion, which, being a norm, makes it normal to have an interest in middle school girls.
The average 13 year old is neither an adorable 9 year old nor a fertility goddess 19 year old, and she is painfully aware of it, regardless of who she can get nailed by.
GenX women, so I hear, were Lesbians Until Graduation. My peers saved it for senior year of hgh school, some saved it for college, some started a year or two earlier.
>But you seem to think that sex in middle school is a foregone conclusion, which, being a norm, makes it normal to have an interest in middle school girls.
You are lying, and are blue pilled.
I never said that “sex in middle school is a forgone conclusion,” nor did I imply it. Stop telling me what I am saying, or what I seem to be saying – my comments are straightforward enough to be understood without your upside-down interpretation.
I say that, starting at age 12 or so, females start developing secondary sexual characteristics, which allow them to do what they wanted to do since age 8 – get nailed by men, including alpha men like Joseph Stalin.
I did not say that all or most 12-year-olds have sex. And you are blue pilled when you speak about “sex in middle school” as if the condition of females is identical to the condition of males.
Females in middle school, at least the ones who have nice boobs and a decent waist-to-hip ratio, can score pretty darn easily with pretty much whoever they want – and many of them do, though not all of them do.
Males in middle school would very much like to score with their female counterparts, but usually only Chads get to do that, because of reasons that have already been explained at length back in 2008, and need not be repeated here because reader bandwidth is limited.
It is perfectly normal for men to be sexually attracted to teenagers with boobs, as nature intended it to be. Anyone who denies that is blue pilled and a biological deviant. The very words “teenager with boobs” are sufficient to give some men a slight penile blood flow increase. When a teenager with nice boobs, decent hips, and a non flat ass — there are many such teenagers, contrary to your assertions — passes near a group of heterosexual men who possess healthy t-levels, all of the men check her out. The guy who doesn’t check her out is called a faggot.
Heterosexual men with healthy t-levels who aren’t deviants always check teens with boobs out, and given the option, would do much more than checking them out. I know enough women who got nailed in middle schools, and enough men who nailed middle schoolers. It is common, it is according to nature, and the problem is that it occurs outside marriage rather than inside marriage, which is what Jimianity seeks to solve by getting the girls married off young.
Reaction 101: all healthy heterosexual men are attracted to female secondary sexual characteristics, which begin to manifest around age 12 or so. To deny that is to blaspheme against Gnon.
Chinamen sew together other people’s arguments as they taste good because they are natural tailors and chefs.
Loose womyn attract extra attention by offering sex.
Womyn want alpha attention while men just want sex, so men will pay a certain amount of attention to any womyn offering sex.
The other womyn who aren’t trying to get byned immediately view them as cheating. Thus the famous intra-womyn slut shaming.
Yyu’ve made your pyint that you’re a trve neyreactiynary and I’m unorthodox in many ways. Fyrtunately this isn’t a priesthyyd yet.
>Womyn want alpha attention while men just want sex, so men will pay a certain amount of attention to any womyn offering sex.
This is not about “attention.”
Attention is behavioral, erection is physiological. When a teen with boobs passes next to a group of healthy heterosexual men, they automatically check her out, and concomitant to their checking her out, they have boners, or at least the initial stage of the boner.
Do not equate behavior with physiology. Physiological processes are innate and usually pre-behavioral, and it is usually behavior that derives from the physiological condition and not vice versa.
Sure, physiological processes are prone to be influenced by conscious behavior or “social conditions,” but when it comes to raw sexual arousal, it is first the lizard hind brain that is activated, and only later the mammalian fore brain. Raw sexual arousal occurs in a split second, and is automatic, being conditioned by millions of years of evolutionary programming.
Hmm, I think I may of forgot to say why a GenZ young man in middle school would consider the middle school girls interesting.
For the exact same reason that a paralyzed senile 95-year-old on his death bed finds teens with boobs attractive: they possess secondary sexual characteristics.
What’s going on in the lizard brain of a chubby chaser? Is it she has a vadge, or is it theres a ho i can bone? Attraction isn’t a binary, nor is the objective attractiveness it sort of proxies.
When I was 10 an 11 year old asked me if I wanted to see her butt. So I assume it isn’t too atypical for womyn to start looking for attention at that age, and if I had been GenZ like you, I would have been conditioned to say yes.
Oh come on. Pretty sure that it was not just attention she was looking for, that she was hoping for a brutal and cruel ravishing, and went on to find someone better able to deliver.
Yesterday I was at a party, at which I ate and drank far too much, which I regretted on weighing myself in the morning, and I was talking about women to a blue pilled normie, who is, predictably, raising two boys who are not his own, their actual father, predictably, being in jail, and the normie, predictably, being childless.
I attempted to start a conversation about our past misadventures with women. He fearfully remarked “Women don’t like that” – meaning women don’t like men talking about their past women and he did not want to upset his girlfriend.
To which I replied: “Women love what they hate.” His girlfriend supposedly likes nice guys like himself, but somehow during a protracted fit of absent mindedness wound up bearing two sons to a violent stoner with no job who spends all his mysteriously acquired money on drugs.
And did I mention that when she was with the violent stoner, she had a job and he did not, while now she is with the nice guy, he has a job and she does not. I have no information as to what their sex life is like, but under the circumstances, I suspect she gives it up infrequently. Never saw her hug him, or look at him admiringly, at the party, even though he was by far the most handsome man at the party, and except for myself the most intelligent. He was a fellow engineer, so has to be at least 120 IQ and probably more, and talked like it, while the rest of them were normals. Handsome, wealthy, intelligent, kind, and he predictably gets another man’s leavings.
>Attraction isn’t a binary
I never said or implied that it is binary. Do not put words in my mouth. I left here enough comments that anyone can clearly see what my position is, so misrepresenting it cannot avail you.
Age 12 or so is when female teens begin manifesting SSCs, and therefore raw sexual attraction (as indicated by, among other things, erections) of males towards females starts when the female reaches that age or thereabouts.
That does not mean that it will remain the same next year or the year after: when she is 15-year-old, she will become even more attractive, and when she is 26-years-old, her appeal will begin to wane.
Every heterosexual man with healthy t-levels would bang every fertile female if he could (minus immediate family), and whoever denies that is a Feminist and a liar.
>So I assume it isn’t too atypical for womyn to start looking for attention at that age
Females look for attention since age 0. They cruise for dick since age 8, and are apt to score at age 12 or 13, due to reasons explained here at length.
…which brings us back to the TRS meme we live in a society, with multiple men and multiple wyme. “If we could” is a hypothetical that occurrs to 14 year old boys while they fantasize about 16 year old girls.
Pretty sure that when I was fourteen, the girls I fantasized about were thirteen.
There is nothing hypothetical about any of it. You are in denial about the facts.
It is not that men would hypothetically in a parallel universe play ball – it is that they do play ball, as nature commanded them to do, and as women — who play men like dancing monkeys — want them to do, which is why society needs to abolish the AoC, and forget about “consent” altogether, and institute patriarchy as it existed until 1890, when you and viking decided to impose chastity on men rather than on women.
Thus, early marriage, and shotgun marriage.
I am starting to suspect that TRS is poison.
Whenever CR and you bring up “TRS memes,” they are never good memes. The only good meme to come out of TRS was the (((echoes))), which are legitimately useful to identify cases of “How do you do fellow whites, let’s flood our countries with infinity niggers.”
If TRSodomites are in denial about raw sexual arousal of men towards female SSCs which begin to manifest around age 12 or so, TRSodomites are blue pilled about the WQ.
TRS does not represent “normal people,” Sven does not represent “normal people,” My Posting Career does not represent “normal people,” and you do not represent “normal people.”
> ching chong ling long ding dong
That’s what I thought you’d say. This isn’t a MMORPG where you can farm. This is a MMOFPS and attention is a resource to be paid, and 13 year girls aren’t attractive enough, not now, not when we were 13, as evidenced by the lack of dating behavior.
Girls don’t date until they have lots of men dancing to their tune and performing for their attention, and they don’t have lots of men dancing to their tune and performing for their attention until they display obvious signs of fertility.
Fucking, however …
If I were ching chong ding dong, my first instinct would have been to tell you, “Hollywood is Whorrywood,” because they pronounce the letter L as the letter R. And I would have been correct.
>13 year girls aren’t attractive enough
Lie. Some of the are, as evidenced both by the sex they have, and by the types of men they have sex with. (Usually alpha male Chads) You are again going back to your deviant blue pilled falsehoods.
>as evidenced by the lack of dating behavior.
One can’t openly date 13-year-olds today, only secretly fuck them and hope not to get caught, because of the revolution in sexual morality you initiated in the late 19th century. Come the restoration, it will be once again possible to date *and marry* 13-year-olds, which was commonplace throughout all of history both within and without the Hajnal Line.
Dating in the modern sense is fucking or hooking up (not counting beta orbiting, also called dating) Come the restoration it will be impossible to date anyone. You will be able to go to chaperoned ballroom dances with them and do dancing that has a lot of intimate physical contact, and attend chaperoned parties with them.
Women called it dating so that parents and beta orbiters would not know what was going on.
I’ll be back on monday to continue discussing the nature of adolescence and society.
Don’t go after TRS. TRS are good people with open minds who want what’s best for our people wherever it leads them.
I’m going to double down: JP is Jim and Jim faked the genetic nonsense and is in fact a Chosenite.
I’m not interested in the paedophilia question because no normal man has the slightest interest in anything like anything to do with anything remotely like that, and would become violently angry if he found out someone he knew thought otherwise. That’s quite sufficient for that subject and there’s nothing more to be said.
Where there IS a lot to be said, the host will bend over backwards to stop his readers from encountering it.
I’m talking about fwd dot us and the fact that it is capitalism in the fullest possible sense that wants our nations flooded with aliens.
Nuts
Predictably, you tell us whosoever doubts Marxist class theory and blue pill sexuality must be Jewish. If you cannot get us to ingroup commies and demonize manliness, you will try to get us to outgroup each other.
The position that teenagers with boobs, wide hips, high waist-to-hip ratios, and round asses are “not attractive enough to sexually arouse men” is blatantly and obviously false.
The position that there it is “uncommon” for horny 13-year-old chicks to score sex with men, including and especially alpha males, is blatantly and obviously false.
The position that society should impose chastity on men by various statutory measures, rather than imposing chastity on women by marrying them off young, is what got us into the mess we are in – it is Feminism and blue pillery.
If you go back to pushing these positions, I’ll go back to refuting them. Instead, I suggest that you recognize and internalize what Heartiste, Anglin, and Jim tell you about the WQ.
Top fraction 16yos go on dates and with the college guys who ignore bottom fraction 22yos, who write and draw creepy stuff about 12yos. When was the last time those 22yos got as much attention as average?
Enough with this effeminate “dates” nonsense, Peppermint. Men only go on dates as a prelude to sex, otherwise it’s friendzone stuff. We are not interested in friendzone stuff.
Reaction 101: 30-year-olds are no more qualified to make wise sexual choices than 13-year-olds. Both need to be under tight male supervision.
Females with boobs, wide hips, high waist-to-hip ratios, round asses, and hair on their pussies, can always find sex, and in fact, *do* always find sex and/or sexual attention. These erection-eliciting physical features start developing around age 12, sometimes a few short years before, sometimes shortly thereafter.
In typical fashion, you call me an “ephebophile,” just as your predecessors called Jim a “pedophile.” You are telling me that I am projecting my own perverted and twisted desires onto pure, angelic, asexual teenagers.
No, you are just a blue pilled deviant who can’t see what’s right in front of his nose: girls are horny since before puberty, but usually score after they become pubescent, around age 13, because — for the trillionth time — that is when they, or at least lots of them, develop boobs, wide hips, high waist-to-hip ratios, round asses, and hair on their pussies.
Enough, Peppermint. Your lizard brain malfunctions, but that’s no excuse to do what you did in 1890. We now need to clean up after the mess brought about by late 19th century Feminism. Don’t stand in the way.
Peppermint, my experience corroborates Jim’s (and is from 6 years ago, not 6 decades). When I was 13, I fantasized about fucking nubile 13 year olds with budding yet not insubstantial breasts. And the prettiest girl I know, a beautiful, cheerful, high-IQ slut, started fucking at 13.
I don’t think we can condemn Peppermint too harshly for sexual heresy. He smokes a lot of weed, which reduces maleness on several dimensions. It is probably a necessary coping mechanism for many men of his generation, for whom maleness is environmentally selected against and maladaptive. I’m an early Millennial who left the country in large part because of this. I could picture myself staying and coping by smoking weed, which would allow me to resist in snarky ways that did not involve illegal violence. A man of historically normal testosterone in the USA must be tempted to murder most of the men around him, and the non-fertile women, then roughly enslave the non-disgusting ones to reacquaint them with the realities of patriarchy. This is the overripe cloying scent of civilizational decline, an irresistible lure for the barbarian hordes pouring across our unwalled and unmanned borders.
Peppermint is trying to rebuild normal normativity from within a bong cloud, when an ash cloud from Boston’s burning would be more bracing.
“and that old Chinese legislation, properly understood, is progressivism.”
Well, actually, it is. Confucius believed in the innate goodness of people, and his main philosophical competitor, 法家, taught that society could be moulded any way you liked if you just used punishments that were harsh enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
法家 would tell you that you should simply smack the little bitch up everytime she horndogs thirty-something men.
Also, child marriage is not enough. If you marry off your 10-year old daughter to a 28-old beta, she gets bored after two years of marriage, and will seek out a 52-year old alpha who happens to be the employer of her beta husband. If hubby complains, he charges him with Virtue Signaling or holyness spiralling, which means the Royal Inquisition will burn boring beta cuck at the stake.
To have any chance on controlling hypergamy you need polygyny:
https://ahvalnews.com/kingston-brothers/polygamous-organised-crime-family-associates-erdogan-face-federal-fraud-charges
Innate philosophical goodness is essential to the nature of sin.
Innate philosophical goodness is the result of centuries of executions of the criminally inclined.
”You are telling us that the Old Testament, properly understood, is progressivism, that the New Testament, properly understood, is progressivism, and that old Chinese legislation, properly understood, is progressivism.”
Let’s see. Ancient China put all pedophiles who fornicate with those under 12yo to death check the source to see I am not making it up.
And even in the Ancient Near East the age of marriage is 12 years and up(which they consider to have matured and have become women).
And there is no such thing as a child marriage as you propose in the Tanakh.
But you little good progressive love to be in opposition to biological fact and reality. Like the leftists you claim to oppose.
”But you don’t like Muhammad, because even you are not disingenuous enough so as to pretend that he was a blue-haired community organizer.
No, child marriage is not evil. It is necessary to control some girls, who are prone to run away with their demon lovers at the first opportunity.”
I know right. Having a sick desire for little children who do not even resemble women in any way is totally healthy. People like that belong in the ocean with a milistone around their neck(Matthew 18:6)
And having admiration for a destructive death cult headed by a demon possessed pedophile is totally good.
What you propose is the same degeneracy as the gay pride parade exposing their genitals to small children. How very progressive.
Source?
Evidence?
I am unaware of any age limit among the Israelites, nor among Romans before the Republic started to collapse, nor among second temple Jews until they came under the dominion of Imperial Romans.
I will speak for the Hebrew case at least that is consistent with the Tanakh:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm
”That is, one that is arrived to years of maturity, is ripe for marriage, and is what the Jewish doctors call (trgb) ; who, according to them, was one of twelve years and a half old F20, at which age virgins were judged fit to marry: hence that saying of theirs F21
“if thy daughter, (hrgb) , “is ripe”, or come to the flower of her age, make thy servant free and give her to him.”
Moreover, according to their canons, such an one was no longer under her father’s power; for so runs the canon F23,
“(hrgbv Nwyk) “when she is at the flower of her age”, she is no more under her father’s power”
Maimon. Hilchot Ishot, c. 2. sect. 2.
T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 113. 1.
Misn. Nidda, c. 5. sect. 7.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-7-36.html
I don’t know how to trace further than those references.
Those references appear to be twenty first century, not Roman Republic. Can you find something pre Roman Imperium?
At the very least the Patriarchal Law expounded in Spandrell’s post set the AOM at 12. For anything below that is punished with hanging.
So there is a moral sense that even in pre-feminist times at least in China. That this limit cannot be transgressed.
Age of fornication. No mention of age of marriage, indicating marriage permitted at any age. Until communism, child marriage was legal in China
Jim is correct.
The Mishna explicitly states that a Hebrew maidservant (assuming she is not betrothed to the master or his son) is emancipated whenever she first shows signs of sexual maturity. No age is given.
Later Talmud (early 4th century Rav Safra) imposes the limit of 12 y.o. plus signs of maturity.
https://www.sefaria.org/Kiddushin.16a?lang=bi
When you say that I am correct, do you mean that these age restrictions are, as far as we know, after Roman Imperium?
Rav Safra was a sage who legislated in the early 4th century, in Babylon. It’s possible that some of these norms that he discussed were already perceived as good. It is impossible to establish whether said norms were established by R. Safra himself or, possibly, were already practiced de facto decades before.
Keep in mind, that the late stage amoraim (of whom R. Safra is a representative), especially, those in Babylonia, are already Exile mode Judaism.
Mishna (written in Hebrew, as opposed to Gemora, which is in Aramaic) was finished in later half of 2nd century, and is the official law of the Land of Israel.
If Mishna has no mention of age of puberty, it is likely that the Sages didn’t think anything of it. This puts a pretty good boundary on when concerns about minimal age of puberty became prevalent.
The other thing I should add is the context of the Talmudic discussion. The rabbis are discussing when is a Hebrew maidservant emancipatable. The concern here is that the master might lose her too soon (if she shows signs of maturity, say, at 10 y.o.). Hence, R Safra came up with a certain guideline.
This guideline was also taken by later rabbis (including medieval rabbis) as minimum age of marriage.
”Those references appear to be twenty first century, not Roman Republic.”
”Maimon. Hilchot Ishot, c. 2. sect. 2.
T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 113. 1.
Misn. Nidda, c. 5. sect. 7.”
I don’t think those references are 21st century.
You are not quoting those anno Domini fourth century texts and seventh century texts. You are linking to twenty first century people torturing fourth century texts utterly beyond recognition.
And even if their interpretations of those texts are accurate, the fourth century was after five hundred years of domination by a morally depraved and sexually decadent Roman Imperium. The Roman Republic and temple Israel had no age limit on girls, probably because of the sexual depravity that ensues as a result of such an age limit. An age restriction on early sex does not stop pre pubertal girls from fucking around. Rather, it results in them fucking criminals in their pre teens and not getting married till their thirties.
Trying to stop pre-teen girls from fucking is like trying to stop a volcano from erupting or a glacier from advancing, even with the drastic measures applied by Somalis. You have to be able to deal with it by shotgun marriage.
@info: Do you actually bother reading the sources you quote? Mishna 5:4 says this:
“בַּת ש×Ö¸×œ×©× ×©×Ö¸× Ö´×™× ×•Ö°×™×•Ö¹× ×ֶחָד, מִתְקַדֶּש×ֶת בְּבִי×ָה. וְ×Ö´× ×‘Ö¼Ö¸× ×¢Ö¸×œÖ¶×™×”Ö¸ יָבָ×, ×§Ö°× Ö¸×ָהּ. וְחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּ××•Ö¼× ×ֵש×ֶת ×ִיש×, וּמְטַמְּ×ָה ×ֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ ×œÖ°×˜Ö·×žÖ¼Öµ× ×žÖ´×©×ְכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן. × Ö´×©Ö¼×‚Öµ×ת לְכֹהֵן, תֹּ×כַל בַּתְּרוּמָה. ×‘Ö¼Ö¸× ×¢Ö¸×œÖ¶×™×”Ö¸ ×ַחַד מִן הַפְּסוּלִי×, פְּסָלָהּ מִן ×”Ö·×›Ö¼Ö°×”Ö»× Ö¼Ö¸×”. ×‘Ö¼Ö¸× ×¢Ö¸×œÖ¶×™×”Ö¸ ×ַחַד מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת ×”Ö¸×ֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה, מוּמָתִין עַל יָדָהּ, ×•Ö°×”Ö´×™× ×¤Ö°×˜×•Ö¼×¨Ö¸×”. פָּחוֹת מִכָּן, ×›Ö¼Ö°× ×•Ö¹×ªÖµ×Ÿ ×ֶצְבַּע בָּעָיִן:
A girl three years and one day old can become sanctified [for marriage, i.e. engaged] through intercourse; and if she had relations with a yavam [one obligated to perform leverite marriage], he has acquired her [as his wife]; and one is liable for [having relations with] a married woman on her account [if she is married]; and she renders one who sleeps with her impure [if she is a niddah] such that he renders impure that which he sits upon, the lower [layer of bedding, even if he does not touch it directly], just like the upper [layer of bedding]. If she marries a priest, she can eat terumah. If someone invalid [for the priesthood] had relations with her, she becomes invalid for the priesthood. If any one of the illicit relatives stated in the Torah had relations with her, they are put to death on her account, but she is exempt. If she is younger than that, it is like putting a finger in an eye.”
Do you understand what the written, agreed upon by Sanhedrin, Law of Israel (2nd century AD) actually, literally says? A girl of 3 years (and one day) can become sanctified via *sexual intercourse*
In other words, by inserting a penis into a 3 y.o. girl’s vagina (no idea how it would be done back then, don’t ask me), the girl becomes betrothed to the man who did it.
I don’t think that it’s something that the Mishna encourages, but it obviously says that if a rape or ritualized possession like this were to take place, it is a legitimate betrothal.
The 12 year old limitation, introduced a century and half later was about emancipation of *unbetrothed maidservant.* It was some of the latter rabbis (like Maimonides of medieval times) who called for later marriage basing themselves on that and Mishna 5:7, which merely stipulates (again, for *unbetrothed* virgins) that, once the virgin reaches sexual maturity, she can leave her father’s house and do her own fucking. Her is Mishna 5:7:
“The Sages analogized women through a parable: an unripe fig, a fig in its early ripening stage, and a fully ripe fig. An unripe fig [refers to] while she is still a child. A fig in its early ripening stage [refers to] while she is in her adolescence. During this and that [stage], her father is entitled to that which she finds, and to her handiwork, and [the right] to the annulment of her vows. A fully ripe fig [refers to] once she matures, her father has no longer any right over her.”
Maimonides was way too liberal, by the way, and was pro-female emancipation in general, relatively speaking. Many Modern Orthodox love him exactly because they are on the path to cuckoldry. If you want to see genuine Judaism, Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam — both contemporaries of Maimonides — should be your sources. These guys are much closer to the Second Temple truth when it comes to females and family.
One more thing. Betrothal could be conducted earlier than that. Betrothal could be done also via purchase or a deed. So, a father could simply agree to betroth his newborn daughter (at age 1 day old), via a deed. No need for anything crazy.
I quoted Mishna merely to illustrate that the Sages were willing to contemplate and make conclusions from things that we, moderns, perceive as unthinkable thought-crime.
@Eli
I don’t know how to access those sources.
”Do you understand what the written, agreed upon by Sanhedrin, Law of Israel (2nd century AD) actually, literally says? A girl of 3 years (and one day) can become sanctified via *sexual intercourse*”
That is sick and evil. Given that its obvious from a scientific viewpoint that sexuality at such a young age involving a prepubescent child would be utterly harmful.
With Aisha as a historical example of one who has been negatively impacted:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
That does appear to be in contradiction to the passage in Ezekiel:
””I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare. When I passed by you AGAIN and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.” Ezekiel 16:7-8 ESV”
There is no age for love until sexual development has taken place.
And NT:
“And if any man guesseth himself to be seen foul on his virgin, that she is full waxen [that she is well old] (hyperakmos), and so it behooveth to be done, do she that that she will; she sinneth not, if she be wedded.†1 Corinthians 7:36 Wycliffe Bible
”By the flower of her age he means the marriageable age. This lawyers define to be from twelve to twenty years of age. ”
-John Calvin’s commentary.
Their is no indication that Aisha was harmed by this, and it is common, alarmingly common, for female children to become aggressively and disturbingly sexually active well before first menstruation.
This is one of many examples of in-your-face female misconduct that I see, which seems mysteriously invisible to everyone else.
Sometimes I wonder if I am insane. Why is everyone walking around like zombies and not noticing. But I was relieved to see that the statistics on workplace misconduct support what I see, rather than what I am told. (The greater the ratio of females to males, the greater the proportion of females who claim to have been sexually harassed, indicating that “sexual harassment” reflects primarily frustrated female desire, rather than frustrated male desire, consistent with what I see in front of my nose. Similarly, the failure rate of businesses with women in top management is as close to total as makes no difference, consistent with what I see in front of my nose.) So if what I see very young girls doing is very different from what everyone else believes that they see very young girls doing, that is unsurprising since as what I see women doing in the workplace is very different from what everyone else believes that they see women doing in the workplace, and statistics are consistent with what I see in the workplace, and inconsistent with what everyone else sees in the workplace.
I do not believe that God who handed down the Perfect Law.
Would over look this egregious evil of 3yo being “sanctified” by intercourse without rebuke in the time of the Theocracy.
He would have been put to death for this evil like the Sodomites and those who commit incest.
So this practice never happened.
I don’t believe that it happened either. I do believe, however, that at first signs of puberty, the girl could and often would get married off, irrespective of whether it happened at 13 or 12 or 11 or 10 or 9.
Also: betrothal right after birth was common across many cultures. A father would either sell or arrange the right of marriage to his daughter while the daughter was still a baby. There was no need for any crazy rituals or sexually deviant activity. The girl would already be considered consecrated to a future husband. Any sexual violation or hanky-pankie with any man/boy other than the one she was consecrated to would then be considered adultery or something close to it.
>I don’t know how to access those sources.
http://www.sefaria.org
Some have translations, some don’t. Mishna (written in native Hebrew of 1st and 2nd centuries of CE) and Gemara (in Palestinian Aramaic) both have translations, and that’s the most important.
“Sometimes I wonder if I am insane. Why is everyone walking around like zombies and not noticing. But I was relieved to see that the statistics on workplace misconduct support what I see, rather than what I am told. ”
Jim personally I see very few cases of women behaving very badly before 13 or so.
Some become almost uncontrollable around 13, very many become uncontrollable around 15 and by 17 I’d say they all do.
I’d put the marrying off minimum age around 14…
If you were preselected and putting on a plausible performance as alpha male, perhaps for the benefit of the child’s aunt or older sister, you would see considerably more.
Also, female sexual misconduct is usually passive aggressive, while male sexual misconduct is aggressive. You may be discounting passive aggressive sexual behavior by very young girls.
That is what happens in the workplace. A woman shit tests a coworker, and when he fails the shit test, revealing his betatude, denounces him as a sexual harasser. But the woman initiated the interaction and provoked the sexual elements of interaction.
The adults used to bantz me saying oh you must be looking for attention when I acted out, while at the same time saying womyn are people too and better than people and there is no difference other than they’re pretty. So, I dismissed out of hand the notion that people might act out because they want attention.
When does a womyn start trying to call attention to itself and say creepy and weird things?
“If you were preselected and putting on a plausible performance as alpha male, perhaps for the benefit of the child’s aunt or older sister, you would see considerably more.”
Badly behaving early post-pubescent girls just aren’t that subtle (I’m not discouting that they might do more limited things before this but the earliest you ever really see this kinda bad girl type behaviour is 12ish) they sneak out drink smoke etc.
They basically behave like the girls in the move “Thirteen” but I think the most common age for them acting that badly is probably 15ish. Girls who start acting badly in such a way before 15 tend to be fatherless (but the funny thing is fatherless girls when they are older tend to make slightly less bad mating choices if left to their own devices then girls with fathers)/
@Eli
Thanks.
I also had trouble knowing what the abbreviations of those sources are actually referring to and the full name of those sources.
Oftimes, the horniness of young chicks is difficult to control – hence the practice of female circumcision. Early marriage is a more humane solution for uncontrollable female lust.
”Oftimes, the horniness of young chicks is difficult to control – hence the practice of female circumcision.”
Wasn’t needed among the ancient Israelites.
The ancient Israelites executed misbehaving women. They also had no age limit on early marriage. What makes you think they did not marry off children when the alternative was likely to be execution? If one drastic remedy, likely the other.
Even full infibulation isn’t enough. Somali has a word for “slut”, “dhilo”, which IS used for Somali women (Incidentally, Somali has a word for “negro”, “maadow” AND “adoon”, which ISN’T used for Somali people). Also, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was interpreter in an abortion clinic. In all likelyhood, she didn’t interpret Tamazight.
No we won’t vote our way out of this mess.
Won’t talk, blog, shitpost or tweet our way out of it either.
Won’t wish our way out of it neither.
(King, Bishop, Emperor, Unicorn…)
We’ll have to fight. War always swims right.
ORGANIZE.
To organize effectively, need an alliance between warriors and priests. You are a warrior, you build alliances with other warriors and fight. But also need priests to give warriors the mandate of heaven; talking, blogging, shitposting and tweeting is useful for this purpose.
>We won’t blog out of this mess
>tells you ORGANIZE in a blog comment
The Anglo-Saxon race will go the way of the ancient Greek and Roman races, because they need to go full 1488 to avoid it.
Jim, your link to Bloody Shovel doesn’t work.
Thanks, fixed.
Conservative types have very little fighting spirit in my opinion. The boom-era elders are infected with inaction bordering on cowardice and this flows through to the younger generations. Trump still has not built the wall.
He couldn’t deliver because he’s seriously not in power.
A bunch of crumpled up barbed wire is not a wall.
Democrat and Permanent Government operatives running around committing numerous treasonous acts with impunity is not rule of law.
Antifa running around terrorizing average citizens is not order.
I’m not convinced a wall is sufficient. Giving the finger to people outside the United States clamoring to get in is not enough. If Trump can’t produce a decent set of photos of important members of his opposition in handcuffs, if he can’t produce video of Antifa members getting their asses beat soundly in the streets, he will not win re-election (there have been a couple of those, but not enough).
Trump needs power and power needs moral authority. Moral authority needs a bishop, but it also needs to repudiate and discredit the moral authority of the opposition.
I agree we will not vote our way out of it.
Anymore than we voted our way out of the civil war.
Athens never voted its way to victory either.
Voting simply is our political process for office holding.
It’s what we’ve got to pick leaders.
When you have a political system of centuries and no successor you use it.
As democracy picked Trump fine.
Had it picked Hillary we’d already be at war.
But no we don’t vote, talk, shitpost or blog our way out of this.
I’ve been saying that for years.
All in all this is a good thing. The complacent are rattled.
Good.
Sessions is out too.
Good.
Another coward in the test gone.
Sessions has been shit canned. Roll here for who’s next on the hit list.
With politics criminalized, Attorney General is the most powerful job in the US. When Trump starts investigating Democrats, then he will be in power. Maybe five extra senate seats is enough to get a Trump man to attorney general.
But it is uphill to investigate the party of the permanent government.
Sessions had a chance to put them all in prison with the Awan case.
The way that went proved 100% Sessions was a traitor and Q was a fraud.
He had an opportunity to take down DWS, embarrass a few others, and the fake news would have run with Awans did it because racism and we need foreign IT to be welcomed more. Then business as usual would have continued.
Do you think Bannon will reemerge for the 2020 campaign? I can’t remember where I saw it, but I would almost swear he referenced Yarvin back in the halcyon days of 2016…
I know you and I may disagree on Social Matter and other formalities of organization, but of late I have grown quite despondent over just how much “we” dropped the ball on having 1000 good men ready for GET to install. I get that he seemed like a long shot, but one of the lessons I learned in the (((industry))) is that every endeavour of the heart must prepare for failure and plan for success. We did not do that in 2016, and 2020 approaches. I’m tired of sitting on the bench and waiting for organizations to get organized.
We don’t have people who we know are our guys and our enemies don’t know are our guys. In the future, people who bought a hat in 2016 will be considered trustworthy and everyone else will keep their participation a secret.
McCarthy did nothing wrong. He was stopped when he tried to go after the enemy’s youth organizations. Consequently they can have youth organizations.
This isn’t intended as a hot take. I don’t know enough to comment intelligently beyond the usual:
– Trump is about much more than the GOP and those things are still in place
– The Dems will co-operate on infrastructure spending, and there are Talmudic ways Trump can co-opt that to great effect
– Trump has always been the accelerationist candidate and a dem HoR will further accelerate
– Hopefully no more gay tax cuts
– Any future military adventures are no longer solely to be blamed on the GOP
OK with that out the way, my lukewarm take is this:
– Dow +545 (2.13%)
– S&P500 +58.44 (2.12%)
– Nasdaq +194.79 (2.64%)
– Russell 2000 (small cap) +26.06 (1.67%)
Best day in a very long time, for large cap very much so and tech/FANG most of all.
So the capitalists, or at the very least their proxy stockbrokers, are not wringing their hands much at all.
Treasuries sold off a little, but not spectacularly – 2yr not quite at 3% yet, but heading that way. 10yr above 2.2%, so investors are expecting some kind of situation involving higher yields in the future, rather than fleeing bonds expecting disaster.
So if this was such a good day for capitalism: WHY?
I won’t offer an opinion, I’m just stating facts. No doubt the implications are so obvious that the host will deem it hate speech and censor it anyway.
Remember that everyone expected a blue wave, and it did not happen. Thus, good day for capitalism.
We had hoped for much better, but Trump now has a lot more power, which is a lot better than a blue wave, for personnel are policy, and the Senate was blocking his personnel.
The Republican Party has less power, but the Republican party is no friend of ours, and no friend of capitalists either. Recall Trump listing all the Republican cucks that lost their seats and telling us he was not sorry to lose them. Looks like wall street not too sorry either.
Watch Trump’s press conference. He is happy with his wins, and even happier with certain Republican losses. Looks like Wall Street happy also, probably for much the same reasons.
Your reply presupposes that we agreed with what we just disagreed with, a scripted response to a comment not covered by your script.
That’s what I was visiting to post, glad you’re more upbeat about this result!
https://gab.ai/PNN/posts/40376345
Everyone was scared that there would be a blue wave. Now they can relax because business as usual can continue.
The House is actually not all that relevant.
2020 is the next election. It’s probably going to go well for us, unless we lose everything. Either way, businessmen need to have assets to be able to panic sell after the 2020 election and run to Brazil.
So, I would put my money in stocks instead of personally held previous metals or money market accounts.
You are repeating the comment that Peppermint already replied to.
Yes, owners of stocks are happy with this result, more willing to invest in stocks, and therefore less willing to invest in gold and bitcoin. We heard you the first time. We know. Telling us what we already know several more times is a waste of bandwidth.
Heaven forbid anyone disagree with (((Peter Schiff)))
It was NOT a repetition. The people who buy gold in large quantities are governments and government mints.
The only reason someone (((like you))) wouldn’t want that comment to stand is that you’re gaslighting the goyim on your pet rock strategy.
It is not relevant in context who buys it, and the rest of your comment was repetition mixed with similar irrelevance.
Whosoever buys gold is demonstrating lack of confidence in the US financial system. Whosoever sells gold is demonstrating confidence.
It was obvious that you were giving a scripted response to the word “gold” appearing in a comment, like a video game NPC, not a response to the actual comment.
You quote Peppermint, but then respond as if he said something covered by your script, as usual failing to respond to what he actually said.
I have a question for you, peppermint
Who was CR in his previous, “authentic” life? Sometimes I suspect that it was Hitler; oftener still I surmise that it must’ve been Marx. You being NRx’s supreme necromancer, I’d be very interested in hearing your take on this subject.
One correction: GoDaddy is down >8% today. Paypal up >4% but GoDaddy is down.
I guess tossing a $250k contract for no reason might have consequences after all.
Selective censorship applied once again in the interests of misleading the reader.
Wetherspoon’s was down 13% for supporting Brexit.
Liar
Deleting everything you say about capitalists, for the same reason as I delete stuff from the 911 Troofers – you can make up lies faster than anyone can check them, and refuting a lie is a waste of bandwidth, when you can just make up fifty more.
ROFL
You think nobody’s gonna click ‘1 week’?
The claim you censored was made yesterday, when the stock was down better than 13%.
Today it recouped about a sixth of that so far, and I expect a reversal before close.
Weatherspoon supported Brexit two years ago, during the Brexit campaign, very loudly, spectacularly, and publicly, putting campaign stuff in every one of its pubs. Did the shareholders only learn about this two years late? Or did the shareholders love Weatherspoon enthusiastically supporting Brexit every day for the past two years and only change their minds about it today?
The reason I posted a three year graph is that the Brexit campaign was two years ago, during which Weatherpoon was very much in the face of every shareholder and every beer drinker telling them how great Brexit was.
From here on, reflexively deleting everything you say about the bad deeds of capitalists, and only allowing this stuff through and bothering to refute it so that everyone will know that anticapitalists are lying about capitalists and capitalism, just as they lie to right wingers about being right wing, and to conservative Muslims about being Muslim.
You gave a scripted response to a comment that your script failed to anticipate and provide for, like an unhelpful call center worker manning an unhelpful help line.
I’m not lying about capitalism. It’s touted as a strength: we stockbrokers maximise the return on your investment and nothing else.
Tom Woods would say that’s the absence of corruption: the good, peaceful, optimal society will emerge as the market optimally allocates resources in order to meet the most urgent of the as yet unmet needs of the largest number of people.
It could be a sermon about liberty, equality and fraternity.
(In fact that’s exactly what it is.)
No, it is pretty much the opposite of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
And in fact the inequality of capitalism, and the authority that capitalists exercise over workers and that entrepreneurs exercise over other people’s capital does meet people’s needs, as demonstrated by the famines and darkness of socialism, as for example recently demonstrated in the North Korea that you enthusiastically defended a short while ago.
You hate capitalism because it is inequality in favor of competence instead of holiness, and because it is authority of the competent over the incompetent.
That socialism fails to meet people’s needs is visible from space. When they run out of other people’s money, the lights go out. The lack of light is visible from space. The lack of food is visible on the ground. When I visited Cuba, they had enough flour and sugar, but were so short of meat and vegetables that there was an epidemic of blindness caused by malnutrition. They had plenty of sweet bread, but were starving. Venezuelans are fleeing Venezuela, and voting in other countries to do those countries what they did to Venezuela. Socialism fails every single time. The British tried socialism during and after World War II, and in 1949 backed off from socialism, because Britons were writing to their relatives in Australia asking for food parcels, and the lifts in the British Treasury building stopped working. We have had thousands of tries at socialism, always with the same result.
If bankers maximized something other than the future value of their capital, they would maximize the amount of migrants who have houses and working American men who don’t have houses, because anything else would invite your liberal comrades to start ruining lives.
As a non-liberal ghoul, you encourage them to try to get in the crosshairs of the liberal ghouls, why? Because you’re on the same side, looking for the same status, in the same way.
Allowing you any prestige because don’t worry we still have dominance was the evil treason of the pre-Boomers. The Boomers responded to your prestige.
You have no prestige here. You are an annoying artificially stupid ghoul, made of a man with above average intelligence and leadership ability. We can’t mourn the loss of that man properly until his mess is cleaned up.
“Hello fellow socialists, I too am a socialist” works because socialists only care about how many noses they can count as socialist secure in the knowledge that true socialism will win out once they defeat the capitalists. Thus antifags think they’re going somewhere in life and so do journalists and more respectable liberals.
“Hello fellow reactionaries, I too am a reactionary” doesn’t ingratiate yourself to us. It makes us horrified and disgusted. No man could possibly come so close to the truth and then reject it. You’re a ghoul, an abomination, needing study to secure the world against.
>a man with above average intelligence and leadership ability. We can’t mourn the loss of that man properly until his mess is cleaned up.
Say it, peppermint. Say, “CR died in 1945.” Your heart is strong enough.
Don’t tell us what we are saying. It is never what we are saying. And never what Trump, etc, is saying either.
I offer a modest proposal.
There is this style of Internet commentary called “fisking.” Without going into the history of it and who Fisk was, it is basically quoting or paraphrasing someone else’s blog post or comment in separate snippets, and interspersing those “sound bites” with one’s counter argument.
Jim, I don’t know about you, but I hate it, hate it, hate it. People who do this (cough, a comment posted above, cough) are lame. They are one step removed those for whom the words “cherry pick”, “debunk” and “spew” (along with “debunk”) constitute conclusive arguments in a debate.
Your reader in question is not a political Web troll in the traditional sense, such as Tiny Duck over at Sailer’s blog. I get the sense that this participant here is earnest in beliefs and attempting to persuade, not discourage as is the mission of the mode of trolling that I speak of.
But Jim, it is not just you. I am beginning to find certain repetitious too-long:didn’t-read participants, tiresome.
You know, it is not that hard or even expensive for someone with that much to say to get their own fine blog and cultivate their own fine community of readers.
@Carlylean Restorationist
Communist Revolutionary is a vermin that advocated banning airplanes and aerospace technology… thus imprisoning human civilization to the Earth. Fuck him.
You said that already. We did not agree. And instead of responding, you just say it again.
I know you don’t. That’s why you’re of no use. You want to roll society back to the time of real monarchs (kind of), but you want to keep all the personal freedoms intact.
Can’t happen.
I put my finger on the point at which you triggered me: it was the East German thing.
This is Peter Schreier in my man Schumann’s op.24 Liederkreis to your co-tribalist (((Heine)))’s lovely poems. Your people will have a place in the restoration, it just won’t be lording it over us: not in government, not in academia and not on the stock exchange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQoVY3SSTc8
I notice that you presuppose that people were less free in the time of real monarchs – revealing yourself to a progressive, immersed in the progressive world view of progress. You use our shibboleths inappropriately and out of context, while taking progressive shibboleths to be entirely uncontroversial and universally accepted, like an Ephraimite who hears shibboleth as sibboleth.
The reason we want to roll things back to the time of real monarchs is that back then people were considerably more free.
When Charles the Second re-instituted the official state religion, people celebrated by doing all the pagan stuff that the Puritans had forbidden.
When Roman Catholicism was forbidden under Queen Elizabeth and Anglicanism compulsory, Shakespeare was able to put on plays that presupposed the Roman Catholic account of the afterlife (Hamlet), paganism (a midsummer nights dream) and the materialistic universe, while today, you cannot depict Hans Solo as a manly hero, due to masculinity being toxic. All entertainment today has to be all preaching all the time. Obviously people were far more free to speak their minds under Queen Elizabeth and Charles the Second than people today, and when Charles the Second was restored, the people publicly celebrated the restoration of liberty.
Rule by priests tends to restrain freedom more than rule by warriors, and when they go into a holiness spiral, the holier they get, the more they restrain freedom, and right now they are restraining freedom with ever increasing severity.
Jacob libertarianises:
“you cannot depict Han’s Solo as a manly hero, due to masculinity being toxic. All entertainment today has to be all preaching all the time. Obviously people were far more free to speak their minds under Queen Elizabeth and Charles the Second than people today”
Nope. Under Elizabeth if you’d portrayed Han Solo as he’s portrayed in 2018, you’d have had a pretty bad time of it.
Nobody was ‘openly gay’ and nobody was a ‘furry’ either.
We were certainly better off when the fringes knew to keep their fringiness to themselves, but the idea that the difference consists in freedom is just a Whig revolutionary shibboleth.
Equality is not the way.
Fraternity is not the way.
LIBERTY is not the way either. It sounds good on paper: so do the other two, until you see them for what they are. The difference between a reaction-leaning libertarian and a rejecter of modernity is the latter see liberty the same way.
You imagine you are telling us you agree with our views, when you tell us you agree with the hostile ignorant angry parody of our views held by progressives.
People are now free to be gay etc, but they are not free to be married in the sense that marriage was understood until very recently – we have lost freedom of contract. Similarly, employees have an ever going list of rights, but not the right to form a binding apprenticeship, with the result that the young are unable to acquire the skills of the old, which skills are lost with their retirement or death. Loss of marriage and loss of apprenticeship is a huge restriction of liberty, imposed with terrible violence.
People were free to depict people like the 2018 Han Solo, and frequently did so, for example Chaucer’s Pardoner, but were apt to depict them as villains, not because forced to, but because normal males, the vast bulk of their intended audience, are unlikely to identify with unmanly males like 2018 Han Solo.
It was not that the holy Church then forbade the depiction of unmanliness the way it now forbids the depiction of manliness. They were free to depict unmanly male characters and regularly did so. It is that unmanly male protagonists do not sell books, so the protagonist always manly, unless an anti hero. Back then you would not get in trouble with the Church. You would get in trouble with your audience.
And the freedom to be gay restrains the freedom of men to express love for other men. Progressives have destroyed the liberty they hate, that you hate, the liberty of the vast majority, in the name of liberty for tiny minorities that no one cares about. And, being immersed in progressivism, hating us, hating liberty, and hating humanity, you fail to notice.
Our freedom of speech is far more severely restrained than it was under the monarchs. Instead of Lese Mageste, it is now Lese Black and Lese Jew, enforced with far more vigor and effect. But I would not mind the loss of freedom of speech, the worst of it is the loss of freedom of contract, in particular the right to contract to marriage.
And the fact that you failed to notice Lese Jew tells me that you are not actually the anti Semite you pretend to be – you are just trying to signal ingroup affiliation – badly.
The priestly classes crushed freedom of speech because they do not want anyone to contradict them, smashed apprenticeship because they wanted a monopoly on the transmission of information to the young, and smashed marriage out of hostility to a warrior aristocracy. These are very big losses of freedom.
And you tell me that the way Han Solo has been reinvented, 2018 Han Solo, is freedom of speech! Nuts.
It’s a shame you parody me instead of talking straight like a man. We’re really not so very far apart and as I may have said before, we almost certainly have more in common than in contest.
Jacob the Jacobite writes:
“You imagine you are telling us you agree with our views, when you tell us you agree with the hostile ignorant angry parody of our views held by progressives.”
That’s just false on its face. I have literally nothing in common with progressives. Even where we superficially agree on economics, the underpinning is radically different. They want to lift up the working poor so the working poor can splurge more on dinners and holidays.
I want to abolish the labour market so that the working poor vanish from the face of the Earth.
Where Roberto wants that through statistically illiterate and historically ignorant eugenics, I want it by restoring what they used to have: positions of permanent employment as someone important’s staff.
“People are now free to be gay etc, but they are not free to be married in the sense that marriage was understood until very recently – we have lost freedom of contract.”
Agreed.
“Similarly, employees have an ever going list of rights, but not the right to form a binding apprenticeship, with the result that the young are unable to acquire the skills of the old, which skills are lost with their retirement or death.”
Agreed.
“Loss of marriage and loss of apprenticeship is a huge restriction of liberty, imposed with terrible violence.”
Agreed, but you’ve been fighting me precisely on those grounds.
“People were free to depict people like the 2018 Han Solo, and frequently did so, for example Chaucer’s Pardoner, but were apt to depict them as villains, not because forced to, but because normal males, the vast bulk of their intended audience, are unlikely to identify with unmanly males like 2018 Han Solo.”
Your problem here is you assume I was saying that as a criticism of the past. On the contrary, the lack of freedom to be ‘openly gay and proud of it’ is a very, very good thing and we need it SO badly as a society that it’s hard to spell out just how much we need it.
That is a BAD freedom, a freedom that erodes and wounds our civilisation.
“It was not that the holy Church then forbade the depiction of unmanliness the way it now forbids the depiction of manliness. They were free to depict unmanly male characters and regularly did so. It is that unmanly male protagonists do not sell books, so the protagonist always manly, unless an anti hero. Back then you would not get in trouble with the Church. You would get in trouble with your audience.”
Agreed: culture is, to use the shibboleths of NRx, ‘downstream’ of power.
“And the freedom to be gay restrains the freedom of men to express love for other men.”
Agreed, and we’re both thinking of the same Social Matter article about Azerbaijan compared to the modern West.
“Progressives have destroyed the liberty they hate, that you hate, the liberty of the vast majority, in the name of liberty for tiny minorities that no one cares about. And, being immersed in progressivism, hating us, hating liberty, and hating humanity, you fail to notice.”
This is true to a point. However, the people pushing liberty today are not progressives: progressives long ceased to agitate on those grounds. The people agitating for liberty today are Whigs of Bastiat’s time: liberalists, libertarians, classical liberals, even Burkean conservatives.
Progressives do not agitate for liberty in the Lockean sense: only for liberty in the Carlylean sense, and they agitate for it precisely backwards.
They see Locke/Bastiat’s victory as permanent, and want to patch over it to secure the positive rights that were lost thereby.
Carlyle sees Locke/Bastiat’s victory as DEFEAT, and want to reverse it in order to secure the positive rights that were lost thereby. Not by granting resources to emancipated workers, but by UNEMANCIPATING them.
“Our freedom of speech is far more severely restrained than it was under the monarchs.”
Agreed.
“Instead of Lese Mageste, it is now Lese Black and Lese Jew, enforced with far more vigor and effect. But I would not mind the loss of freedom of speech, the worst of it is the loss of freedom of contract, in particular the right to contract to marriage.”
Agreed. Freedom of speech is important in 2018 precisely because of who rules us and how. As an abstract, eternal principle, it’s worthless. We crave (you and I both) Metternich on steroids and we (unlike many on the supposed right today) are open about that.
“And the fact that you failed to notice Lese Jew tells me that you are not actually the anti Semite you pretend to be – you are just trying to signal ingroup affiliation – badly.”
I’m neither anti-semite nor anti-negrite. I just don’t want a tiny élite of powerful Jews to run my gentile state.
I admire many blacks, many Asians, many Pajeets and many Jews. My life would be greatly impoverished were it not for Heine, Mahler, Mendelssohn, yes Rand, yes Mises, yes Block, yes BERNSTEIN, yes Larry David, yes Rick Hoffman lol
I look on John McWhorter with fondness, and on Jessye Norman and Willard White. I revere Thomas Randle and Vernon Henry Jr and I exalt Avery Brooks and Tim Russ.
“The priestly classes crushed freedom of speech because they do not want anyone to contradict them, smashed apprenticeship because they wanted a monopoly on the transmission of information to the young, and smashed marriage out of hostility to a warrior aristocracy. These are very big losses of freedom.”
Broadly agree, although apprenticeship was always incompatible with a free market in labour and always will be. I used to work in government and one of the ‘issues’ that continually came up was funding of postgraduate university study and how to contractually keep them long enough afterwards. There is no solution to such problems.
“And you tell me that the way Han Solo has been reinvented, 2018 Han Solo, is freedom of speech! Nuts.”
It is with respect to the healthy society that prevailed from the time of Charles the Hammer to Charles the First of England.
With respect to 2018, it’s a glowing example of power made manifest, of point deer make horse, of the tyranny of the grey oligarchy.
The only thing we disagree on, ultimately, is that you think Disney do it because they’re forced at the barrel of a gun, while I think Disney do it for the money first and foremost, and the power to shape society in directions they WANT a close second.
Ultimately it’s your blog and I have no wish to impose my view on you.
If I were you, I’d censor this in a heartbeat.
2018 Han Solo was not openly gay – he was just unmanly and cucked. The claim that earlier writers were not free to depict such characters is a hostile parody of our past. Writers have been getting less and less free since about 1865. I want to restore the freedom of Restoration England, the liberty that Englishmen celebrated when Charles the Second was restored.
Carlyle wants to restore apprenticeship, serfdom, and slavery, in which system the economy has many many property owning gentlemen each freely and independently making economic decisions – a capitalist economy. You want to destroy the capitalist economy. Carlyle wanted to bind those ill suited to economic freedom. You want to bind us. That is the big difference between you and us. I want to restore the corporate capitalism that Charles the Second founded.
I am very glad indeed that I am able to fly all over the world, and I want my children and grandchildren to fly all over the solar system and inherit the stars. Which is why I want to criminalize peer review, restore the scientific method to the high status that Charles the Second gave it, and I want to return to the institutions and social order that gave us science, technology, industrialization, and world conquest. You want to destroy industrialization, complete the destruction of the economic order that gave us industrialization, and deny us international flight.
Carlyle wrote when slavery and apprenticeship had quite recently been legal, legal within living memory, legal within his memory, and feudalism was still quietly functioning in the area where he was born even though theoretically abolished long ago (Feudalism, like capitalism, has a habit of appearing even when abolished.) He, like myself, wanted to restore an economic order that resembled that which existed from the time of Charles the Second to the early nineteenth century, existed when he was a young man. He wanted to restore the social and economic order of his youth, and I want to restore the social and economic order of Carlyle’s youth.
That makes him a reactionary, and me a neoreactionary. He wanted to restore what existed in living memory, and I want to restore what lives only in old books and has to be reconstructed from theory and old records. You, on the other hand, recently told us that North Korea was doing fine.
I have not been to North Korea, but I have been to Cuba, and it was not doing fine. A government that in principle guaranteed that everyone would have enough to eat was in practice causing widespread malnutrition, and the same thing was starting to happen in 1949 England, forcing them to back off from command economy socialism.
That’s a neat trick.
First, make your identity rest heavily on obscenity.
Then, anti-obscenity law makes your identity impossible to express,
And the first amendment, which requires freedom of political speech, is in contradiction with anti-obscenity law.
The correct answer was always kys fgt.
Obscene identities are thought experiments for dullards and perverts.
Oh, but we can’t commit faggots to mental institutions, because they are controlled by our enemies and a process to commit would be used against us.
The problem was ever having given one CR the least bit of prestige. We’ve gone from being dominated into saying one thing to the next for centuries now. And here’s a CR to tell us that, since we hate liberty so much, he’s going to make us all slaves.
Progressives want the non-working poor to have what the workers have to humiliate the workers.
CR wants the workers to have what the non-working poor deserves to humiliate the workers.
Oh, but CR isn’t a liberal. It hates freedom, meaning it’s one of us freedom haters.
> [progressives] want to lift up the working poor so the working poor can splurge more on dinners and holidays.
That’s not at all what they want, although it’s exactly what a prog would say they want.
Deleted for misrepresenting the positions of numerous people
Try doing multiple shorter comments. There was a lot of material in your comment that I would have let through, and should have let through, but I did not want to waste space refuting your version of history and your version of past discussions, so I cut the whole thing. I will not cut part of someone’s comment, because I inevitably will wind up misrepresenting the comment. So had to cut the whole thing, which I regret, because large parts of it were responsive, relevant, and appropriate. The longer your comment, the more likely it is to contain something that will cause me to cut it.
But I am going to cut any comment that contains stuff that is going to lead to “No, I did not say X, I said Y”, which no one else is going to want to read.
Deleted for purity signaling and for repetition. We who are out of power are unlikely to be persuaded by this tactic.
A divided Congress lowers risk of possible regulation.
Perhaps this will be appreciated by the readers of this blog: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/10/29/patriarchal-sexual-law/
Sessions is go, as expected. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns-trumps-request/story?id=59037350
One small step towards Trump taking power.
Actually investigating illegal activities by the FBI, the Democrats, leakers, and Mueller would be a very big step.
One very good thing about this not mentioned is it looks like this will make the far left chimpout anyway despite getting the house. Its not AS GOOD as them chimping out because they’ve become blackpilled about the system but it looks like they might screw Bill Maher’s optics and go in anyway.
And that is in a very good thing, just any of you who are known rightist keep a low profile in major city centers for a little while.
Antifa threatening Tucker Carlson’s house right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55fyqcZFHGg
He still thinks he can pull the trick he pulled in North Korea on the American Progressives. Getting too confrontational would blow that possibility, if such a thing existed.
Rosenstein next.
God damn how ugly and dramatic is this going to get? My stomach churns.
But Don isn’t heartless. He loves his kids.
He also isn’t a pushover.
He also isn’t stupid. He remembers being called “Hitlerian” and “Romanov” on the news after his inauguration, and he knows how things ended for those people.
Therefore, prepare yourselves for some seriously creative full spectrum inside baseball problem solving.
All in all, this might have been the best outcome. Trump is now free to fire Mattis and start purging the Poz from the military, something needs to happen if the nation is to survive. The Dems will continue to go insane in the house, and their mob actions are already back in force, this time threatening Tucker Carlson. If Trump can get the military in working order then by the time war comes it’s going to be a very short war with the left going down in flames.
Can you elaborate on why Mattis has to go? I thought there was a general and enthusiastic support for Mattis within the rank and file, the Kshatriya, and the vet communities.
Pentagon stops calling deployment of troops ordered by Trump to the Mexican border ‘Operation Faithful Patriot’ because Mattis hates the name
That is just the most recent hit. There is a pile of stuff like that.
I’m torn on this one. As a student of military history (with no record of service-purely civilian observer here) I can get the optics argument. At the same time, it is a silly, pedantic worry. The president ordered the army to deploy; the commander in chief must be obeyed. The name is irrelevant. Quibbling over the optics is a pussy move.
I am interested in the perspective of active or former military on Mattis’ conduct and choices; our views as civilians are largely irrelevant, or at least secondary. I trust they GET will make the right choice regardless.
Mattis Pozed the Marines with Lezbos generals and women in combat. Do you need to know anything else?
While I am hesitant to get into a protracted shit fight, laying the feminized state of the US military at Mattis’ doorstep is at best disingenuous and at worst purity signalling of the most pointless variety.
The shit state of the USM began in the 1950s subtly, overtly in the 1970s, sped up in the 1990s, and progressed to 3rd stage cancer under Obama (though Bush letting politicians do what they did during Iraq II was obscene). The military lost its way when the USSR evaporated, still reeling from the pretend loss of Vietnam. Generalship appointments have always been a political matter, and the politicking accelerated dramatically with globohomo entryism into the civilian bureaucracy at DoD. Women do not belong in the military. Illegals do not belong in the military. Any blacks, browns, or whites with gang affiliations do not belong in the regular military. Open gays just don’t belong. All of these worthless types being included (welcomed?) significantly contribute to the massive array of complex problems facing the neutered USM. These social issues are just one piece of it; with no real conventional enemy and at least two generations of Junior and Senior grade officer corps with no military experience being the bulk of candidates, a dangerous malaise and “parade prioritization” (too complicated to explain here; read this: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Rules_of_the_Game.html?id=5CAbEgeGkdIC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button ) inevitably sets in, fucking up cohesion, discipline, and force readiness. All of this in addition to a massive widening of the scope of operations (peacekeeping, SoF fireworks shows, regime stabilization, maritime saber rattling, responsibility sharing with PMCs, automation, and a lot more) serve to leave ample opportunities for any fuckstick with an agenda and a little bit of juice the chance to insinuate and molest.
I like McCrystal and Petraus much more, but real generals are thin on the ground globally and we haven’t (yet) got the option to William of Orange any Russian generals into the USM, so on balance, I will take a Mattis over a Carter any day of the week.
Trump barred transexuals in the military. Mattis resisted and opposed that decision.
Too much danger of some court creating a positive right for trannies to serve. Its better to say subject to mental and physical fitness and unit cohesion (which trannies don’t have) etc.
BTW I think I know why Trump has been so nice to the courts now, the Democrats are trying to very blatantly steal the Florida and Arizona Senate elections… need SCOTUS for now to shut that down.
Torn too. Mattis is kind of a liberal as Trump said himself. OTOH he tends to not be very in favor of new Middle Eastern wars and with Pompeo and Bolton (both neoconnish types) there I kind of want someone like that around…
Wow. I would have never predicted Mattis is a liberal, because he has literally the opposite of that sanctimonious type of personality. “So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
Well I suppose Trump didn’t predict he is a liberal either, or else he had never chosen him. I suppose it is a big surprise when a man who talks like this turns out to be a liberal. Hard to predict this.
How does that old caste-based model cover this case? Someone who absolutely looks like a full-out warrior who loves to kick ass turns out to think a lot like a priest?
Interesting, perhaps the first part of that “quite fun to fight them” gives us a clue: “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway.” Hmmm.
Proggies normally love shooting people. However, they’re normally too chickenshit to say so. Every time you see, “I hope you die” what they’re imagining is helping you do so, personally. Occasionally this concealment is due to political adroitness.
“Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in April that U.S. troops are in Syria and Afghanistan for the long haul to leverage a diplomatic solution to the ongoing conflicts in both countries.”
He’s worse than useless.
On our Generals actual Politics and their duties and constraints.
The first duty of a General is to be selected – or he can’t do any good now can he?
Mattis is a very political animal not ideological.
His politics are Mattis, USMC 1st, what’s best as opposed to WORST for the military and America; none of the above are in any particular order.
He takes the long view. Let me explain the actual parameters especially constraints we in the military operate under as best I humbly can.
*Above All: we lose wars since Korea as a check by the Permanent Government upon the Military Leader-the Commander in Chief- POTUS.
This has been a constant since Korea in 1950. The motive is power, not ideology. The Permanent Government, the un-elected are in a natural tension with the elected government and its Executive. Constantly stalemated or losing wars is the most effective check by a hostile court to any Executive in History; another First for America. As POTUS is not King he cannot imprison or hang them, as POTUS is elected by all the voters majority decision they cannot depose or hang King POTUS. Mattis certainly knows we lose wars at table and on purpose and the traitor at table is always the State Dept – not because they’re communists but just part of the normal human struggle for power.
Again; we are stalemated or defeated at table since Korea by the Permanent government to keep the Executive POTUS in check.
MacArthur publicly questioned inane orders to only use air-power on the *southern half of the Bridges over the Yalu* and was relieved. Any Commanding General denied use of air power to degrade and destroy enemy logistics and reinforcements is being denied strategic victory, it is the equivalent of being told to not use bullets just bayonets against machine guns. **However IF Chinese territory was off limits to American Air-Power to avoid broadening the conflict THEN MacArthur should have been informed of this constraint months earlier at the Conference with Truman, or at some point before the Chinese attacked.**
AGAIN if a constraint on the Commander is to avoid broadening the conflict and that rules out air power then the Commander must be informed of same constraint prior.
MacArthur and of course the American Military were allowed to advance to the Yalu under the false assumption they could use air-power to check any Chinese intervention. Air-Power was critical to checking and reversing the North Korean advance as it has been critical since WW2. This was crippling and – it worked. MacArthur questioned these inane orders and was relieved. Yay Team Constitution.
Every General since has known the deal including Mattis and the rest.
Now a word about our military leaders: any warrior must be ‘closeted’ that he’s a warrior or he’s either topping out at Colonel at best, same now with senior NCO’s. SGM of the Army Troxell just went down as ‘under investigation’ for who knows what nebulous charge…but we all know he went down for saying ‘kill the enemy.’ That’s a NO NO. Oh you can do it…you just can’t reveal you’re a warrior.
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2018/01/10/isis-must-surrender-or-face-death-by-shovel-top-enlisted-leader-tells-troops/
Troxell was finished as soon as he said Kill ISIS with a shovel.
So to return to Mattis’s actual politics: the first duty of a General is to be selected – or he can’t do any good now can he? So he must say the right things…he may even believe them. Mattis is an actual warrior and understands the real deal. On balance he has done far more good than made mistakes. Absent someone to replace or better kindly do not undermine him ; it’s like Trump. Imperfect but he’s a leader and we don’t have an alternative.
For more examples of Warriors must remain closeted until the moment of truth: Petreaus. Petreaus was a consummate careerist who played the game superbly and THEN in the real test did the right thing- he came up with the surge and bullshitted the progressives that counter-insurgency was ‘Graduate Level Warfare’ and ‘we can’t kill our way out of this.’
Counter-Insurgency is the back alley abortion of warfare and we exactly killed our way to victory during the surge. And BTW yes we won “The Surge” [TM]…and then the State Dept and Bushie gave it all away at table to Iran.* Now Petreaus should have retired and ran like Hell once he won – cuz you can win ONLY once. Then run..cuz they’ll get ya.
*which may have been the price of the deal we made with Iran prior publicly for them to stop killing us enough in Iraq to let us destroy our common enemy the Sunni Salafists.
See also Tommy Franks. Won in Astan, then won in Iraq invasion – then ran like Hell from the occupation. Some hate him for pulling out his staff that knew the middle east and replacing it with GEN Sanchez and his V Corps staff that only knew occupation from the Balkans. Well..I don’t.
Franks was in Vietnam and could see what State was gonna do a Diem and make the military mired in a hopeless case – and State did with Jerry Bremer and his “De-Baathificaiton” that threw 500,000 dangerous, highly trained and organized people into the Sunni insurgency. Bremer also gifted us with setting off Iran and it’s proxy Moqtada Al Sadr at the same time – then his work done Bremer skipped town in 2004. We had a peaceful country in the summer of 2003 where Americans we’re going out to dinner in Iraqi restaurants and homes …when Bremer was done we couldn’t move in groups of less than 100 with tanks and air support.
Odinero: This was the guy who killed our way out of this in the surge.
King Dave** sold Congress on his magic bullshit show, General Odinero green lighted us to exactly kill our way to victory in “The Surge” [TM].
Then he got shelved.
McMaster: Brilliant, courageous and I don’t give a fsk about his public politics or alliances. Like Trump never mind what he said…what did he DO? Well his record of doing is Brilliant….AND he would have topped out at Colonel except King Dave Petreaus reached down and put him on the Generals list. The knives were out for McMaster as soon as he won in Tal Afar … “he has no ‘Purple Time’ meaning joint assignments. I remarked at the time that in history he might well have worn the actual purple when we the legions raised him on our shoulders. Ahem. But the c*nt careerists had the knives out.
Cont’d: what’s best as opposed to WORST for the military and America;
What’s best above all is that we continue to have a military that can fight and win wars and battles – and militarily we do. It is true we cannot win the peace as truly winning the peace means making Browns into White Liberals. Then again we haven’t been able to do that in America either have we? We don’t lose gunfights, battles or wars. We consistently win them then are betrayed at table or given Mission Impossible: make non-whites into white progressive liberals.
what’s best as opposed to WORST for the military and America;
That we still have a military as opposed to NOT having one.
That it keep all the respect of the Common Americans that it can – for America has in the long view need of us at home…not an Empire we don’t need, don’t want and can’t possibly control given the constraints of success is making them into white progressives SWPLS and don’t kill people in a way that isn’t telegenic.
No my Dears. We take the long view. America needs an Army to protect our people – not a progressive and dangerous replacement that will be a danger to our people. We’re in it putting the work in, the hardship, the suffering, the danger and yes the degradation of mouthing PC platitudes gritting our fucking teeth. Same with the cops. We’re all gritting our fucking teeth hoping for clearer skies…and lo and behold it’s getting lighter [Trump] If our imperfections chafe you consider your own, consider the choices the voters were making until very recently.
We’re in the real world making real hard choices. We’re still somehow here and it’s not a miracle…it’s decades of hard work by many, many people.
As I’ve pointed out before we’re the same families and same people as the Cops now – the real cops not cannabis boogeymen.
We’re here hoping and praying we’ll have the leadership to save America.
As it happens the skies are clearing – we have some leaders.
Sorry to tie up the bandwidth – a full explanation was needed.
**King Dave explained: the jealous and sarcastic within the military called him King Dave when David Petreaus was riding high. None were more overjoyed when he fell to pussy.
Pussy is irrelevant to duty. But the truth is these male menopausal cunts will seize on anything.
My God Nelson was fusckng another man’s wife openly.
Patton was fuscking his niece, Eisenhower was fuskcn the Brit aide whoever she was…..we can go on infinitely.
I’ve seen a Brilliant Colonel in War fall immediately after…pussy again.
We just lost a good Commander to be replaced by an administrative perfection type ..yes…he had a few beers and hit on a woman.
Bullshit…all of it. Our own Sharia cannot come fast enough.
As a civilian who studies the military, I always find it awkward talking to vets, particularly enlisted and noncoms, about conflict and strategy. There is always first hand experience bias (with good reason) as well as a sentiment that they Know more than anyone else what has happened, why it has happened, and what is/was at stake. I have yet to find a good strategy to contend with this delusion. And it is indeed a delusion. It isn’t a failing on their part, leastways not one of commission; their’s is not to reason why after all. But it is, in my opinion, a mistake to ask rank & file about grand strategy. There is a marine vet in one of my classes who absolutely loathes me for my perspectives on GWT, WWII, and any conflict because “you weren’t there.” It is true, but trivial, a point I made to him, where upon he became extremely combative (we were discussing PRTs and FOBs and the efficacies thereof). Same university, different context: a retired general who now runs the Global Affairs Masters program makes incredibly broad statements about warfare, politics, and the interplay between the two. I try to be respectful, but the man is so cucked it is disheartening; it seems like he is trying to absolve himself of the sin of serving.
Do you have any advice for me (us) on the best ways to discuss touchy topics (like PTS, strategic interests, racial demographics of forces) so as not to incite anger and resentment?
I, like many others around here, am much in love with my own thinking and would never stoop to saying I agree 100 percent with what someone else is saying.
That I said, I found what you wrote refreshingly original and reflecting a lot of what I am thinking but not saying, largely because it is “cool” to rag on generals, even President Trump’s generals, and even on Jim’s Blog.
If no one else around here replies positively to your post, there is me. I hear what you are saying.
Amazing writing. Thank you.
If nobody is convicted of a large vote fraud scheme, it merely means they got away with it. This fact is not specific to this election, but might be particularly relevant this time.
Wouldn’t surprise me if a journalist gets involved in a plot to make a violent attempt on Trump. Not at all.
Even cowards can find their spine if given enough time and encouragement.
Here’s an interesting take on how we select our generals that makes one question why we shouldn’t junk the whole process and start over:
https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-blog-about-military-matters/60879683-the-u-s-military-s-marathon-30-year-single-elimination-suck-up-tournament-or-how-america-selects-its-generals
Great read – thanks.
Highly recommend that everyone read the whole thing.
Also recommend reading.
Public funding is incompatible with a sane selection process.
If that’s true then we should give up and accept that our present government is the best we can do.
The problem isn’t the funding source – it’s the feedback on the system – there’s nothing that makes the military want to select the best leaders as generals and lots of incentives for them to avoid that. Fix the incentives and the problem is solvable.
False dichotomy.
That there exists less bad insane incentive structures doesn’t mean there exists a sane incentive structure compatible with public funding. There is no such structure. It’s been proven exhaustively.
The king picks the Minister of War, who picks the general staff, and so on.
Public funding only means no responsibility when it comes from a committee.
Kings are famously vulnerable to flattery, and their incentives are still wrong. Napoleon shouldn’t be thought of as an exceptionally great general, but as facing particularly mediocre opponents. Someone who raised their own armies vs. appointed officers.
That’s a nice argument to implicitly defend sucking up to 30 ppl for 30 years
No, but good try.
Problem: people overfit any exam they’re given
Solution: don’t use exams, use rank prejudice
We didn’t want aristocrats. So we got aristocrats like no name, a traitor who could crash planes with impunity because no one could get rid of him after what his father and grandfather did, and jews.
We need the king’s warmaster to pick the best war heroes as his generals and then if they’re good their children get a shot at warmaster.
I too want to be ruled by angels. Unfortunately there is only game theory.
Yes, game theory. Who has the incentive not to jealously drive Medal of Honor recipients out of the 30 year single elimination tournament? The man who isn’t threatened because he knows his position is secure on good behavior.
Deleted for telling us what someone else is saying. When you tell us, it is never what they are saying.
Deleted for being unresponsive – looks like a script fired off by a script trigger in response to a single phrase without regard for content or meaning.
OK you’re not allowing true statements, how about a controversial one?
You want to roll back the sexual revolution? Ban smartphones.
I was around before smartphones, quite a long time before smartphones, and their effect on the sexual revolution has been marginal at most.
To roll back the sexual revolution, have child protective services taken out and shot.
Jim I’m curious as to your prediction on the fraud thing plays out.
Do you think they’ve pushed it too far in Florida by being so blatantly and obviously criminal or do you think they get away with everything? It seems like even the conventional GOP (much like with Kavanaugh thing) has grown some balls.
Historically, Democrats have always gotten away with blatantly criminal activities. But with Trump in the Whitehouse, and Sessions fired, things have changed.
This flagrant effort to steal the election after the blue wave failed to materialize is the equivalent of Tiberius Gracchus violating term limits.
Tiberius Gracchus (Populares, Roman equivalent of the Democrats) proposed a number of reasonable but alarmingly radical reforms, which were legalistically obstructed, the Roman unwritten constitution making it easy to obstruct change, especially radical change. So, he decided to openly violate the constitution. Open violence ensued between Optimates (Roman equivalent of Trump Republicans) and Populares, which continued for over a century, ruining the Roman economy, eventually resulting in rule by emperors.
In retrospect, should have gone directly to rule by emperors once the civility necessary for democracy collapsed.
It took over a century to go from open political violence to Imperial rule. Everyone, even Augustus himself, kept trying to restore the Republic. Would have had better luck raising the dead.
Yep. As Machiavelli said, the hardest problem in politics is how to restore virtue to a corrupted people. God Himself despaired of it at Sinai.
This is definitely an escalation. I tend to agree they won’t win (at least in Florida).
Historical quibble.
I think initially the Gracchi were initially people I’d support as a common Roman.
I would have pissed if I fought in the wars and got back to find out that aristocrats had replaced my jobs with slaves. In the sense of being anti slave labor taking jobs the Gracchi were initially more right wing populist then left wing.
I totally agree that the Gracchi reforms were good, and resisting them was unreasonable. But Optimates resisted by legal and customary means, to which the Gracchis responded by illegal and extraordinary means.
And then the proverbial hit the fan, and everything went to hell in a handbasket. And things stayed very bad indeed for over a century.
It is leftism. Farmers lost the land because they were being conscripted for military service and farmers were still being conscripted for military service. So taking the land away from those who have it and giving it to the farmers means the land eventually ends up in the hands of the rich again except this time it is Gracchus and friends (since they can expropriate the land from the enemies).
Jim glad you agree here. I believe in monarchy, capitalism, sound state religio, females being if not property something very close but I disagree with the NRx view on slavery and even if slavery is allowed it certainly should not be putting victorious veterans out of work to the point where they have little choice but to adopt some form of radical politics.
To the extent the Gracchi (at least the 1st brother’s) reforms were radical, they were about the least radical you could expect battle hardened men who got severely fucked over when they got back to adopt. They didn’t want gibsmedats they wanted honest work.
Catiline’s conspiracy was close to REAL leftism in the modern sense (though without the religious utopian delusions). Marius after he went mad in his last few years shifted to REAL leftism.
I repeat. I agree the Gracchi reforms were good, and should have been accepted by the Optimates.
But the Gracchi were not killed for reforms, but killed for violating the constitution. It was when they acted illegally that the proverbial hit the fan.
The optimates should have accepted the reforms, but the populares should have acted legally.
When you want to let your woman know she’s a good girl, you put your hands on the sides of her head, squeeze her cheeks with your thumbs, and tell her she’s a good girl.
The Nash equilibrium of a Republican system is Emperor Augustus. They will continue to use more and more effective strategies until an Imperator appears. That is, they will stop deliberately crippling their own strategies.
As a bonus, the Nash equilibrium of an Imperial system is the year of five emperors. However, this event was apparently so traumatic that the peasants still remember. The Imperial system has been permanently de-legitimized. At best you get an unconscious modification of the political formula. Looks Imperial, but isn’t in some important way which everyone very carefully doesn’t talk to themselves about. At worst they try to return to Republicanism, but it immediately fails again, repeatedly.
Smartphones and OKCupid are the solution to getting men and women of equivalent social standing paired off efficiently.
Thus, CR wants them banned, so women will have to date cool men only to discover they have no substance, like him.
Come the revolution, CR wants to be sexy, just like a fat chick.
No they aren’t because women aren’t all that competent at picking men, and American women with feminist media making them a bunch of super entitled and selfish princesses who hate men in general are especially bad at it. American women in particular have the attitude if the guy isn’t the perfect combination of the evil vampire billionaire from a romance novel + occasionally the beta wet blanket when she is in the mood for it she’d rather keep looking.
Father should pick the woman’s husband in the early teen years, if he doesn’t do his job along those lines from the ages of 14-20 THEN its time to give the girl a chance to elope on her own.
Quite so. The conspicuous incompetence of women at making mate choices reveals that, among those humans that we are descended from, women have not been making mate choices for a very long time.
That women find apes sexually attractive and men do not indicates that out ancestors did not permit women mate choice since the days that we looked rather like gorillas – probably because peoples, cultures, tribes and religions that emancipated women died out through failure to reproduce and disinclination to make war.
But cell phones did not cause this problem, and female mate choice via social media is probably on net slightly less dysgenic.
I well remember female conduct long before the internet. Bad then, bad now.
Now if only millennial and genz fathers could even if they had the desire to find suitable mates for their daughters
Now the Dems are attempting to steal the FL and AZ elections with the standard method of not counting votes until enough fake votes can be ginned up…Trump had better do something, or this tactic, which previously had only been used in Democrat controlled States like IL, MN, and WA, will spread to every State.
If not, I’m taking what assets I have and leaving the country, whence CR will call me a fast food eating traitor, before being eaten by the other ghouls.
They are going to get BTFO’d doing this. Benedict Sessions and Rosenstein are out and even Rubio (a worthless closeted homosexual establishment cuck) has called them out on this.
They are accustomed to the rule that anything is legal when leftists do it. But we have a new Attorney General in town.
An Attorney General who has to be confirmed in two hundred days, and can only be confirmed if he stops Democrats from stealing the Senate.
Good point.
Another thing I was thinking along the lines of 4D chess.
Rick Scott was a pretty early Trump guy and he knows and Trump knows all about the Florida fraud. They still allow this Snipes broad to stay in place…
Do you think they probably had people secretly monitoring everything the whole time. Even with Benedict Sessions it may have been possible.
Things are about to get interesting.
“…and can only be confirmed if he stops Democrats from stealing the Senate.â€
Pow. Good notice. Thanks for that. And who knows WHAT this dude had going on all this time up until last week either.
Literally Benedict Session’s chief of staff apparently but he doesn’t seem compromised, being the AG’s chief of staff means he knows probably better then almost any other human on the planet the Justice Department bureaucracy and how to get control over it.
“Warriors need priests in their pocket in order to govern successfully.”
I’ll say it again, warriors cannot have priests in their pocket, it’s always the other way around. All power flows from religion. In fact, a warrior is nothing more than a religious fanatic.
While I think there is some chance that Trump and Bolsonaro know what they are doing and simply appear to be weak, as Sun Tzu recommends, I think the odds are much higher that they are simply not “our guys” and will go down in history as the failed attempts of a decadent civilization to hold itself together.
This is ahistorical and wrong.
Japan from the era of the 1st Shoguns (way before the Sengoku Jidai) up until the end of WWII always had the warrior class over the priests. Even the Mejii restoration was the outsider Daimyo of the Shogunate revolting against the Shogunate. The Samurai as a seperate caste briefly lost status (the Outsider clans used mainly non Samurai troops trained to fight like American Civil War soldiers) but quickly ended up being the officer class of the newly formed Imperial Armies and Navies.
There was a lot of tension between the warriors and priests in Europe… but outside of Germany and the Papal States the warriors generally dominated over the priests (and in England the warrior class dominance was almost absolute from the time of Alfred until the Crimean war).
China and India are civilizations where the Priestly Mandarins and Brahmins tended to have more power then the warriors. In Ancient Egypt the priest tended to dominate as well.
OCCASIONALLY you’ll get a civilization where the capitalists tend to really rule it long term (these tend to be small states). The Most Serene Republic of Venice and the Dutch Republic were like this. The ruling class might have been part time warriors that is true but they considered themselves full time capitalists (whereas in most of Europe a member of the aristocracy would at least pretend that caring about money was beneath his dignity, of course a lot of them would secretly care a great deal about money).
How about we start by defining our terms. What exactly do you mean by warrior? By priest? By religion?
Warriors being the dominant group in most of these old states meant some kind of martial aristocracy being the dominant group. True in Japan and true in most of medieval Europe. Even when martial aristocracy doesn’t exist Moldbug talks about the nature of militarized societies (your social status even in peacetime is closely correlated with your reserve rank).
Priest can mean literal priests but it can also mean in modern terms (where the state church is progressive) lawyers professors and bureaucrats. Since WWII all major powers are priest dominated. Putin has been moving away from that in Russia though.
Were these martial aristocracies ever detached from a shared, strong, religious tradition? You cannot have war without religion. The most you’ll get is small bands of hunters. Actual war depends on a religious framework.
They tended to operate together but the power relationship varied.
If the warrior class holds the guns, why would they ever have less power than the priests?
Because priester are better at long term meming. A warrior can instruct his son, maybe his grandson, but grand-grand son and further not. Priests create memes that stick around longer.
social cohesion
Priest dominated societies have the meme of civilian and/or party/proleteriat dominion over the military. Yeah the army could always takeover the government but in such societies generally most of the military is horrified to even think of the idea of taking over the government.
In a warrior dominated society the king/dictator head of state will often be seen in public wearing a military uniform in priest dominated societies this is nonexistent or very rare (there are exceptions Stalin wore a military uniform a lot but communism always had the priestly principal that the party was supreme over the military).
to Yudkowski and Aaronson, the function of their religion is so they’ll be able to eat at https://youtu.be/sj7B0Y___c4
and maybe it is for them
You’re saying the New Atheist goal of abolishing religion cannot succeed. True. A-religious societies lack the military will to sustain casualties.
However, the NRx point is not about that. It is about whether archbishops can replace kings, or kings can replace archbishops.
It is un-Biblical to have an archbishop who can replace a king. The way it works is, the prophet anoints the mighty man in an inner chamber, and then runs for his life. Then the mighty man tells his band what happened, thinking it a joke they played on him, and they all acclaim him king.
God handles wayward kings, sometimes by unkillable prophets, often by killable ones. That is what prophets are for – to tell the truth to Herod, and wind up on Salome’s platter. Would be too disruptive for the archbishop’s head to wind up on Salome’s platter. His hat would fall off.
Wayward kings are above an archbishop’s paygrade. The only exception is when the king tries to offer sacrifice in the church, and gets struck with leprosy – then the archbishop can shove him out.
Areligious societies do not lack the will to suffer casualties. They lack coherence. What is the fundamental nature of an archbishop and a king? Moses was for all intents and purposes the supreme priest, prophet and king of the jews. The Pope was in effect the reincarnation of the role of roman emperor, with the protestant reformation and then the liberal revolutions completing the fall of the roman empire. Politics is the process of converging the human will and religion, in its various levels, the core means by which this convergence takes place. Those who cannot be converged have to be exterminated. Without religion, even the will of a single individual becomes disorganized. True kings are nothing less than the supreme religious authority of a nation, any king that does not rise to this level is a pawn.
Moses appointed Aaron high priest, because the duties of a political and military leader are apt to conflict with the duties of a high priest, and vice versa.
Priest Kings, like the Maccabees, and warrior priests, like the Icelandic Godar, are apt to lose the the religious struggle to full time priests. The sadducees, the heirs of the Maccabees, lost out to the pharisess, and the Godar lost out to Christians.
Moses was clearly on top his high priest, and Solomon clearly on top of his high priest, but they were equally clear not high priests.
Also, Moses is an exception, in that he talked with God as a man does to his friend. He was not really the direct ruler – God was. “What are we? You do not murmur against us, but against God.” His successor Joshua was clearly not a priest.
And at that time, Israel was united. The Jews were not a distinct entity.
Solomon, however was not an exception.
The rule is that Warriors and Kings are on top in matters of politics, war, and coercion, but priests nonetheless have considerable power in their proper sphere. The King gets to appoint the High Priest.
Solomon is pretty much the canonical example of the NRx king. Fount of all honors, dealing with archbishops, building temple, etc.
I fail to see how Moses, or Stalin, or Mohammed, or Hitler, were not in fact high priests. Or how you can call those who rule over priests anything other than high priests.
Moses not a high priest. The fact that Moses appointed Aaron high priest, and decreed that only those in the male line of Aaron could be priests is a big hint. Started as a priest, became King and High Priest, then handed off his priestly duties so that he could properly perform his Kingly duties.
Stalin, yes, a priest King.
Mohammed, a priest King.
Hitler rode the holiness spiral to power, and then shut it down restoring power to the military, so a priest King transitioning to King. Brownshirts got to be scout troop leaders, Blackshirts got to be the secret police.
Charles the Second, the merry monarch, ruled over priests. Clearly a King, clearly not a priest.
Solomon executed one high priest and appointed another. Clearly a King, clearly not a priest.
Charles the Second and Solomon appointed the high priest, but did not meddle in those matters that are properly the domain of priests.
“I fail to see how Moses, or Stalin, or Mohammed, or Hitler, were not in fact high priests. Or how you can call those who rule over priests anything other than high priests.”
The 1st two are both founding prophets of religions and political leaders which is very rare in history.
Moses was priest and warlord. Monarchial Israel was ruled by warriors (the kings could and sometimes did execute the high priests) but exile Judiasm is ruled by priests and modern reform Jews are natural priests.
Mohammed personally was like Moses both priest and warlord. Islam as a religion after Muhammad promotes competitive purity signalling in religion but also martial rule by holy warriors… I would say in most Islamic states the warriors ruled but often risked revolt (by those claiming to be more Islamic then thou) if they deviated too far from Islamic law.
Stalin was 100% a high priest (communism explicitly had the meme of party supremacy over the military, any society that has a meme of any civilian group always be dominant over the military is priest ruled) even though he liked to wear a military uniform.
Hitler… its hard to say… the creed that National Socialism promoted was extremely martial in nature and Nazi Germany was a militarized society (complete with your social status generally being equivalent to your reserve rank) but Hitler was IMHO more priestly in nature despite espousing a warrior dominated society, having combat experience, and fancying himself a warlord. The SS was eventually sort of intended by Himmler to become an elite warrior-priest ruling class over the Reich (and after the war Christianity was intended to be suppressed) though Heydrich and Hitler both preferred them to be more warriors then priests (Heydrich explicitly wanted SS training to be a lot of competitive sports and intense physical training, and not too much political indoctrination).
I still don’t see this clear distinction you are making. I don’t know much detail about jewish/biblical political history but on what grounds did kings execute “priests”, if not either a claim of higher purity, or a short lived rebellion against the religion itself? Warriors are always acting out a religious faith. As was already said, most of the population cannot be ruled by the sword. Well, those who cannot be ruled by the sword are by definition warriors. Warriors are ruled by religion. It isn’t some preacher that overthrows the king, its his zealots. Capitalism itself is impossible without a religious framework.
Andre you’ve certainly read about conflicts between the Holy Roman Emperor’s (the warrior ruler) and Pope’s (the priests).
Now imagine the priests lost because in many other places and times in history they did lose.
If you want to identify “priests” in the modern day…
Intellectuals in general are “priestly” , people who preach “official truth” are even more priestly, intellectuals who form “official truth and are the most priestly at all. If in India a Brahmin would have that job then its a good bet its a priestly job.
What is the purpose of a high priest?
If the high priest defines the official truth and the king can overthrow any high priest that he disagrees with, who is the real high priest?
Pretty sure Solomon would not allow anyone to tell him he was the real high priest, and Charles the Second positively reveled in not being the Archbishop.
It’s already been posted on this thread, a priest uses prestige and fights over who’s the most prestigious by driving a prius and drinking coke zero and cant even ing at a slave border.
And when warriors don’t say, no, you’re gay, I will hit you with a stick for fagging up the place, they get gayer and gayer until they start to convince each other to steal everything from everyone and hand the country over to the nation’s enemies.
In this terminal phase, in the cities, everything gets worse and worse, and no one is allowed to notice. So the priest children would say, well, mexicans are better than blacks, or let’s have a 15$ minimum wage to ban employment of bad people as if it would get rid of them, or we need effective altruism to ensure that all the money poured into charities isn’t stolen by the older priests, all kinds of things. Moldbug went a bit too far, Scott Alexander is as far as they’re allowed to go.
Priests don’t have to be gay. They can be the most moral people, provided they have legal support from the king. They need the king”s law to keep them tied to God’s law. If they can interpret God’s law as they see fit, and compete for attention with other priests, inevitably they will learn contempt for God’s law and teach that contempt to their congregations. God isn’t going to possess them, God doesn’t vouch for any man. He gave us brains and rules and a Church and His Son and 2000 years of saints.
Satan is not the god or king or prince of this world. God is and God says God’s green Earth is good. We can either follow God’s rules, or we can live in sin.
Oh. Sort of like how, because the king can every pizza shop they can’t call their product pizza if they don’t use 00 flour and a 500 degree oven, the king is actually the head pizza baker.
There’s a title worthy of a king. Now I want to go be a war hero in the hope that some day my great grandson can be in the cabinet.
What is the fundamental attribute of a high priest and how does it differ from that of a king?
Andre thing of Tokugawa Japan.
The highest priest was the Emperor and theoretically (until the end of WWII) held absolute power. But the Emperor was (until the end of WWII) in reality a powerless figurehead. During the Shogunate the Shogun (the chief warrior) held all the power, an Emperor who opposed the Shogun had bad things happen to them (and this actually happened a few times).
The Mejii restoration did not really change the Emperor being a powerless figurehead, it was in reality a successful revolt by Outsider Daimyo in Western Japan even though they used the Emperor’s name as a rallying cry.
That does not answer my question. If the high priest cannot contradict the king, how is the king not the actual high priest? What is a high priest (what is his fundamental attribute)? What is a king (what is his fundamental attribute)?
This question has been answered many times by many people, and all the answers look to me good and convincing.
If you have a problem with those answers, you are going to have to give a lengthy and thoughtful response to them explaining why you have problems with those answers, rather than saying “this does not answer my question”
Does so answer your question.
“If the high priest cannot contradict the king, how is the king not the actual high priest?”
If you are talking about Jim’s ideal Throne Altar and Freehold government I believe he sort of answered a similar question about disputes between the king and powerful “magnate” freeholders.
This is a lawyer’s type question about royal power vs other powerful people that as Jim has said in the past we don’t want people asking generally.
The king ambigiously has absolute power (this will be somewhat limited by custom in the West but not by written law) but others are ambigiously supreme in their domain unless coming into conflict with the king.
King: implements and enforces man’s law.
High Priest: implements and enforces God’s law.
If everything works well (not in our day and age) God’s law serves as a guide for moral intuition. Man’s law would approximate it, taking into account various contingencies, with deviations that are not way out of line. Oftentimes, when things are OK, the High Priest concentrates solely on the religious rites and leaves out the actual legal framework and its enforcement completely to King.
The two, however, are inherently in tension and, depending on the place and time and culture, the boundary separating the two can be quite blurry, and sometimes the two roles can be taken on by one person.
Moses, like Joshua ben Nun and Muhammad, was most definitely both the High Priest and de facto a nomadic King. This might work out for nomadic pastoralists, who lead very traditional, oft-warring, patriarchal existence very naturally in a culture of honor, but is problematic in settled societies, where there are more temptations that lead the society and its executive, i.e. the King, astray, from God’s law. Agrarian and modern societies that are free of war-imposed duress *need* demarcation of the holy and the profane.
Some examples of High Priesthood and Kinghood being combined and leading to troubles: In ancient Israel, King Uzziah wanted to perform rites that traditionally were performed by High Priest. He paid for it. Taking ancient Israel again, the Alexander Yannai was both a King and the High Priest. This was, an unstable situation.
Of course, what can also happen is that the religion (and, hence, understanding of God’s law) can go completely astray. In this case, people’s understanding of the Holy is perverted, and, in fact, the real-life profane is closer to real Holiness. This happened in Central American religions, in a certain way (people sacrifice and torture). In our day, this happens also, though in a different way (witness Trump being a normal man and having female paramours and being castigated for it by all the cuckolds and stupid evil prostitutes of today). In such cases, paradoxically, the priests/High Priests are the evil ones and need to be taken out by warriors who are closer to the God’s law, even though they should not be, ultimately, its enforcers.
As you can probably see, I believe in God’s law that is absolute, albeit contingent, through space and time.
Are you ignoring my question because you simply do not know what is meant by king or high priest? I’m writing this on a cell so don’t want to go too deep into how I see things.
As Peppermint sarcastically observed, if the pizza maker cannot contradict the king, is the King not the cook?
The King should avoid meddling in certain matters, and the high priest should avoid meddling in certain matters.
Both should have enormously broad authority which necessarily overlaps in principle, but is seldom applied in actual practice, so that collisions are unlikely in practice.
LeMaistre proposed absolute religious authority for the King, and absolute temporal authority for the Pope, which sounds absurd, except that he had in mind an absolute divine right monarch who could not raise taxes or conscript.
The reactionary prescription on feudal absolutism is that the lord owns his fief, and the King should not meddle, unless there is an exception, in which case the King owns everything and everyone, and the King decides the exception. But if he decides on too many exceptions, power will slip from his hands into the hands of a faceless horde of bureaucrats dangerously close to the throne. Something similar should apply with the high priest.
Eli, I do not understand your distinction between God’s law and Man’s law or why you need two castes, one for eacha. Can you explain it to me?
>Eli, I do not understand your distinction between God’s law and Man’s law or why you need two castes, one for eacha. Can you explain it to me?
This is something that rests on understanding of good vs evil as absolute and not made-up categories.
In essence, God’s law is a notion of the perfect law. I.e. the right, perfect arrangement for the society. Practically, it rests on custom and moral intuition, as imperfect as these might seem to us. A lot of customs in today’s secular societies are no longer in use or understood, so the notion of a “perfect law/law from Heaven” seems preposterous to a great many people, educated in the values of Enlightenment, where Man is the Creator of reality.
I recommend reading books by Sir Henry Maine’s and, perhaps, J.D. Unwin for a better understanding. Knowledge of history, including ancient, helps.
Jim, if the king decides how pizzas are to be made, then yes, he is the chief pizza maker.
If the King is chief pizza maker this is likely to interfere with his Kingly duties. Also likely to result in second rate pizzas, as in every socialist economy.
The King has the power and authority to meddle in pizza making, but should not do so.
“Jim, if the king decides how pizzas are to be made, then yes, he is the chief pizza maker.”
You are acting very much like CR on this question.
If the king decides to interfere in petty ways in the market he is likely to lose power to a bureaucracy (and lose the confidence of responsible male subjects). A king who does this is going down the road of throwing his crown away.
A king could I suppose prohibit fatty junk food altogether and MAYBE there is a reactionary argument for that (need men in good shape for war or something) but even then enforcement of laws that would arouse such strong and distributed opposition would likely require an enforcement apparatus the king would lose power to. There is definitely no reactionary argument for REGULATING fatty junk food.
You mentioned Hitler, Hitler as Jim said rose to power more as a priest but in power acted more like a warrior. Transferring most of his priestly functions to Goebbels. In the Nazi state Hitler was more like the warrior king and Goebbels was more like the high priest.
What is the purpose, as far as you conceive, of the priesthood?
“Priest can mean literal priests but it can also mean in modern terms (where the state church is progressive) lawyers professors and bureaucrats. Since WWII all major powers are priest dominated. Putin has been moving away from that in Russia though.”
You forgot journalists. And also, those ARE literal priests. The question is, what is their defining characteristic? What makes someone a member of the “priestly class”?
Journalists are very low in the priestly hierarchy generally despite being very visible, they take orders and do what they are told by their superiors.
Tucker Carlson is kind of an exception given that hes more like a rogue American aristocrat broadcasting as much crimethink as he thinks he can get away with.
That he is paid for being moral.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/matt-yglesias-12-million-house-stokes-class-envy-conservatives/317056/
h/t Heartiste. Did not expect priests that stupid to earn that much.
Or perhaps more to the point, answer me this: If warriors can exist without being subject to religion, why do they ever allow priests to rule over them?
Because warriors are only able to cower about 20% of the population through naked force. Beyond that, you need some sort of religious identity to get people to cooperate. This is why civilization formed around religious centers and when those centers go away, people go right back to living in small villages while the cities slowly destroy themselves.
LOG IN
Sling TV
Image TitleBe the 1st to know. Get the FREE USCFootball.com Newsletter today
Image TitleThe War Room – Inside the USC Trojan football program
Image TitleTop visits from prospects out West this weekend
Image TitleKevin Porter Jr. had butterflies before his impressive debut
Image TitleUSC vs. California extensive game preview
Off Topic Board
History of the World! Beer made liberals and conservatives
hot – Replies: 2 – Views: 642 – Started By: sec13graphics +0 from 0 users
sec13graphics 9456 posts
Jan 5, 2017
A Good friend sent this to me. And I thought I would pass it on.
How beer brought about Conservatives and Liberals
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel.
Beer required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture.
Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while the early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.
The wheel was invented to get man to the beer and vice versa. These two inventions were the foundation of modern civilization and together, were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals
2. Conservatives
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were less skilled at hunting (called ‘vegetarians’ which was an early word meaning ‘bad hunter’) learned to live off the Conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hairdressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men evolved into women. Others became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, gluten-free foods and the concept of democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.
Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.
Modern Liberals like lite beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and vegetarian food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting evolutionary side note: many liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men.
Most college professors, social workers, personal injury attorneys, actors, journalists, film makers in Hollywood, group therapists and community organizers are liberals. Liberals meddled in our national pastime and invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink real beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are members of the military, big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, airline pilots, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other Conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide how to divide up the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when Conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today’s lesson in world history. It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to this post.
A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be shared immediately to other true believers and to just piss-off more liberals.
And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self, so I’m going to grab a few beers and grill some steaks.
jim, do you think the Left will achieve success in stealing Arizona/Florida?
The Gracchi brothers were killed, so I expect the Democrats to be stopped. But killing the Gracchi brothers did not solve the problem, only made it worse, because it accelerated to collapse of civility and law abiding behavior by elites. If Republicans arrest Democrats for nakedly illegal acts, then when Democrats get back in power, will arrest Republicans for perfectly legal acts, teaching anyone stupid enough to permit genuinely free elections that this is a suicidal bad idea.
If, on the other hand, they fail to arrest Democrats for nakedly illegal acts, same outcome.
The only effectual remedy for naked rule breaking by elites is naked rule breaking by opposing members of the elite, and when the elite drops into defect/defect mode, the elite is screwed. There is no one above them to enforce good behavior. They drop into a Hobbesian war of all against all.
[*deleted*]
Deleted for being unresponsive – you are replying to something different to what I said, like an unhelpful help call center worker working from a script. I am not going to explain my meaning to you, when other people get it clear enough the first time.
“If, on the other hand, they fail to arrest Democrats for nakedly illegal acts, same outcome.â€
I disagree! It make a difference WHEN those assholes get the whip hand back. Things are happening so fast now that just six more months of Trump keeping the top of the mountain can make a big difference as to where and how and how fast the boulder rolls down the other side.
Surely I’m projecting, but my chief worry now is that Don and his people might just become exhausted at the sheer volume of in-your-face bullshit that they’re throwing out. It’s like a human wave of blatant illegality, just to overheat the good guys’ gun barrels and jam their firing chambers. Intimidating frankly.
“The only effectual remedy for naked rule breaking by elites is naked rule breaking by opposing members of the elite, and when the elite drops into defect/defect mode, the elite is screwed. There is no one above them to enforce good behavior. They drop into a Hobbesian war of all against all
OK please confirm whether I understand you correctly:
When the illegality is coming in so much, and so fast, then eventually a courthouse just won’t do the job and you have to go out and meet them at Bull Run instead?
Yes, eventually have to meet them at Bull Run, but does not necessarily mean we drop into civil war tomorrow.
It was forty five years of disorder and increasing violence between the Gracchi violating term limits, to Sulla marching on Rome. If attempting to steal the Senate is equivalent to Tiberius Gracchus defying term limits, would mean that civil war is many decades away.
On the other hand it was only seven years between bleeding Kansas and the Battle of Bull run – which if mobbing Tucker Carlson is equivalent to the start of bleeding Kansas, would put us in civil war in 2026. I think that the holiness spiral makes our current situation more similar to that leading to the civil war, so inclined to bet on 2026.
The Romans were much less willing to go into Civil War than Americans.
Note how much more quickly the American republic went into Civil War than the Roman Republic.
71 years for the American republic.
400 years for the Roman Republic.
The Romans had enemies who would crush them if they were weak. The United States did not- the worst is that the country would be permanently divided.
That’s pretty much the opposite of the truth.
On the contrary, everyone saw the Roman Empire taking over everything in spite of how shitty they were, and while they were dismayed, there wasn’t a lot they could do to stop it.
Roman Republic took over everything. Then for about a hundred years was in trouble due to internal conflict, starting with Tiberius Gracchus defying term limits, as the elites cut each other’s throats, oppressed the masses, and the masses rebelled. More than once during that period it looked as if Rome would fall, every male Roman be killed, and every Roman woman enslaved. Sulla saved the day.
Then the emperors rose, starting with Julius Caesar, and the empire rapidly expanded under Caesar and Augustus to its natural limits, and stayed roughly at those limits, shrinking eventually as decay set in.
Interesting about the natural limits of empire.
British Empire showed no sign of slowing down until it got priest-couped. I suppose that with modern technology, then, the natural maximum of an empire easily encompasses the whole Earth?
And in due course, the solar system.
But one universal empire will always decay, so we need the stars.
If all goes well, two empires, one Chinese and Confucian, one Holy American, and by the time they become one Holy Solar Empire we will have gone beyond the solar system.
The imperial expansion was one of the major causes of the empire’s death.
Nah, empire did fine for a couple of centuries after expanding. Failure of elite reproduction resulting in eugenic decline is what killed the empire.
Will be hard to fail at reproduction once cloning is online.
The Roman Empire and British Empire collapsed due to failure of elite reproduction. That is the natural limit on the depravity of civilization. So what if cloning and gengineering remove that natural limit? Then civilization may build the Babel machine of perfect totalitarian slavery, AI solving by neat thermodynamic equations the problem of socialist calculus, making planets the natural unit of economic organization, planets being to silicon substrate what the domestic household is to the hominid cortex.
In such a system, if fleshy bipeds exist, they will no longer be human in any sense we consider essential, such senses being superfluous to the senseless machines who prune the artificial womb. Earth’s 6th mass-extinction event is man-made, and the crafting of machines deadlier than oneself can only have one conclusion. Kasparov was the last human chess player; there will be a last man.
> solving by neat thermodynamic equations the problem of socialist calculus
like in the houseplant feeding fantasies of the houseplant feeder Asimov, anything that indistinguishable particles can do, so to can indistinguishable goyim
today I was going to call a guy a confirmed bachelor but then I crimestopped because that’s a dangerously obsolete euphemism and the correct form is incel
To Asimov, this is a sociological discovery that can lead to the Second Foundation of sniveling houseplant feeders comfortably ruling the galaxy and driving it towards the Empire of Ficus. To me, the collapse of the houseplant feeder – incel alliance gives us an opportunity to sieze the means of production of coolness and proclaim fun-loving internet intellectuals with their Japanese cartoon porno the benevolent lords of the outer wilds.
@Koanic:
“So what if cloning and gengineering remove that natural limit?”
The West is likely to collapse before that. And then the Caliphate takes on China. And the Caliphate by then is likely to have high IQ whites who pulled a Houllebecq and converted or accepted being a dhimmi and thus cannot entirely be outsmarted by China, and win, but it has important cultural biases that hinder it from utilizing said few high-IQ folks to the extent it is required for such a technology.
If someone could invent a “technoislam”… like purging Occasionalism, which is deadly to science… but cannot, because Occasionalism is super holy, of course, how best to revere God than to say God does absolutely everything and no other causality exists?
“We will not fade.”
– Prince Nuada
I depict a doom to avoid it. With weapons old and new, we shall prevail: by fighting on God’s side.
His Majesty is old. No young man could do what He did. His clone won’t be old enough to rule by the time He dies, and we can’t have a regent with this war. We need His sons Don Jr and Barron to be next in line. Meaning we will be ruled as long as America exists by His Majesty’s descendands, not His clones.
Now, for all the capable men who are shut out from the labor and dating markets, their labor will be needed, but there won’t be enough good women for them. They will need clones, partial clones, donor eggs, and surrogacy from war brides. We could, today, if we had the will, offer them donor eggs and war brides, with cloning and partial cloning tech to come.
It won’t be hard to convince them to do it since that’s their only option. But it will be hard to convince them to like it since the naturally born are likely to form the natural aristocracy and rule over the descendants of the tech-born of the 20th century catastrophe.
Speaking as a Southerner, I have no desire to share a country with Yankees, surnamed Trump or otherwise. A lot of my hatred for the USA was actually hatred for Midwesterners, of whom Abraham Lincoln is faggot in chief. I would never spend enough time around Northeasterners to decide how much I hate them, much as I would never watch CNN enough to decide how much I wish them dead.
I am hardly alone in this sentiment among Southerners. I don’t think the disaffected Alt-Right sons of the Northeast realize how determined Southerners are to not have anything to do with them, and that applies even when everyone is nominally Alt-Right. For the sake of harmony I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say this attitude is adamant.
Mere contact with Alt-Right or even NRx concepts does not a common culture create. The South ditched democracy and the North reimposed it with fire, steel, and negro suffrage. If the South nuked everything between Harvard and Washington DC as its declaration of secession 2, I’d call it cauterizing a stump.
If the Soviets had nuked NYC and SF and Washington and Boston in the 70s, we would all be better off.
We’re where we are.
The South has the same problems the North has: Weev doesn’t have a wife or a job. Blame who you want, but we need a solution that we could find the will to implement, and the Southern solution will only be different if the South can rise again.
Can it, or are you just blustering?
I don’t blame the North; the South was wrong too. I’m just pointing out there are major problems with the concept of an imperial USA.
I wouldn’t live in South now. I’m not claiming anything about the South, except that it hates Yankees.
Timeline
509 Rome founded
272 Rome finally conquers Italy
264-201 Punic Wars 1, 2
146 Conquest Greece, Carthage
133 Gracchus
It was only 70 years from a life or death struggle (the Romans were starving people to feed their army) that the Republic feel apart
Hm… Peter Turchin is using Rome as a prime example of cliodynamics and sounds convicing to me. He is saying the trick was that Rome was located at two metaethnic frontiers. The first was Latium vs. Etruscans, the second largely Gauls vs. everybody else. In both cases, being on the frontier and thus having constant vicious warfare created the kind of cooperation and cohesion that made it easier to dominate everybody on their side of the frontier. This is his main theory.
The War between the States was retconned into a civil war by the victorious Boston scum who subsequently killed themselves and were replaced by the Boston Irish and Italians, but not before setting the whole continent on the road to perdition.
The civil war to come will consist of Boomers dying in droves. They thought they had everything and could do whatever and it would come out okay for them. Now they have houses and 401k’s, but it’s all worthless to them, because they forgot what has always been actually important.
Tell me more about these Boston Scum people, please.
I presume we can start with Harvard Anglos and the greater Holier-than-Jesus crowd in general. But can you flesh them out for me a little more?
I ask because comparing us today — who we are, who our elites are, what they think they’re doing, and what then happens to both us and them after they do it — it’s like we’re repeating this fractal from 1860 all over again.
I can win converts with patterns like these.
You caught my attention by saying that the Boston Scum were childless holiness-signaling Ur-Merkels themselves, also in the middle of being replaced by gutter immigrants.
This is the good shit! Let me have it!
“Because I could not stop for Death, he kindly stopped for me to bring a friend”
My interest in your perspective is genuine.
That was an example: Emily Dickinson was ugly and wrote garbage poetry. Girls everywhere are taught about her amazing talent and bravery and told to try writing poetry like her.
Thoreau was holier than Jesus and wrote absurd self-indulgent digressions. Steven J. Gould also likes self-indulgent digressions, but Gould and Pinker use them to try to sound smart, while Emerson wanted to sound worldly and manly.
Abe Lincoln was basically a pantyfa NPC.
Meanwhile, there are entirely too many documents in CS that pretend to be math with pointless notation. Once upon a time manuals were made fun of for looking like scientific apparatus blueprints and labeling “insert tab A into slot B”, but scientific apparatuses aren’t cool anymore. People prefer looking at equations instead of experiments. Soon they will prefer Aaronson’s text instead of equations instead of experiments, unless we can stage a revolution in our character, against the fake and gay. Call it the America Under God movement.
Americans in the late 19c wanted public intellectuals. They got what they could get for money. CR says men shouldn’t be allowed to buy pizza because it might harm them.
This is where my instinctive hatred for books lets me down. I don’t actually know who in the late 19c provided a counterpoint to Thoreau. Whoever he was, however, he failed, and poetry is garbage.
You know full well that’s not the case and you argue against a position I have not defended because you cannot argue against the one I have.
Don’t invoke me again you horrid little twerp.
Is the case, and you have argued for that position, by posting true claims that presuppose that position, true claims that presuppose untrue claims and that take untrue claims for granted as self evidently true and mutually agreed.
Lincoln was a free-soiler semi white nationalist who did not want blacks in the territories.
Abe Lincoln and the free soilers did literally nothing wrong.
In Bleeding Kansas, the free soilers did a great many terrible wrongs, and a politicized judiciary let them get away with it, after the fashion of Antifa today. All the free soilers needed killing, because all were complicit in what went down in Bleeding Kansas. All the free soilers should have been killed, and their women enslaved, save for those that resisted what went down in Bleeding Kansas, and, fearing the holiness spiral, none of them resisted what went down in Bleeding Kansas, as near to none of them as makes no difference.
America would have been far worse off if “the institution” was allowed to spread.
Lincoln offered the Southerners an unamendable amendment protecting slavery in their states for I think 100 years in exchange for no expansion of slavery into the territories.
You did in fact argue that commercial pizza should be banned or regulated to death, and it was your primary example of evil capitalists oppressing the masses through their nefarious mind control capabilities.
You said that already, and no one believed you the first time.
If you want your repetition to not be deleted, try repeating with evidence and explanation added.
Absolutely not.
You’re attempting to draw me into another ‘debate’ so you can misattribute me once more.
I propose aggressive CLOSURES of particular corporate chain restaurants on the grounds that they’re bad for the white working class. This is a fact. Sure they do have negative health impacts but they also have negative social impacts and negative economic impacts.
While the white working class in Britain is living paycheck to paycheck and simultaneously handing over £30+ per person per meal to these predators, no progress can ever be made in restoring our nation to health and wealth.
The simplest solution is to ban them outright.
Not pizza: Pizza Express.
I have no interest in ‘debating’ this proposition. I am only defining it because you’ve tried to MIS-define it.
If you censor this then you are most certainly a fucking kike, you fucking kike.
Everyone who sometimes eats pizza can afford it, as near to all of them as makes no difference. I eat out with working class people often enough, and I know what goes down. I also, less frequently, eat out with wealthy people in places I cannot afford, and food costs are insignificant for the people spending money in both places.
Not everyone who goes to the pub or gambles can afford it, but these things are not the major cause of economic stress.
The major cause of economic stress is not working class vices, but housing costs escalated by ethnic cleansing of whites from areas that they build, and degree inflation. You are blaming the workers for the suffering the progressive state inflicts upon them.
Deleted for being unresponsive and telling us what we are saying. It is not what we are saying, thus is unresponsive.
Bull shit.
Do not invoke me again, any of you.
Re bleeding Kansas.
I’m no expert but looking on wikipedia (yeah I know) it suggest that a pro slavery man named Charles Dow drew first blood by shooting a free soiler 9 times in the back.
Excuse me Charles Dow was the victim and a pro slavery settler named Frank Coleman drew 1st blood.
Not only that but the territory was promptly invaded by a pro-slavery Missouri militia looking to eradicate the free soilers. This was prior to John Brown’s campaign of terror.
So it sounds like the pro-slavery faction were on the whole the aggressors.
Charles Dow was killed over a land dispute, not over slavery, and Charles Dow, unlike the free soilers, was then handled in accordance with law. This unrelated incident was then immediately recast into the first battle of Bleeding Kansas in order to justify the criminal activity of the Free Staters and their legal immunity for their innumerable crimes. The man who killed Charles Dow was prosecuted. The Free Soilers committed organized and collective criminal and warlike acts under government protections. One was private individual criminal violence, the other was organized and collective war.
The Free Soilers should have all been killed and their women enslaved. The problem with city of Lawrence was that the government of Lawrence was turning a blind eye to warmaking by the Free Soilers, which necessitated the pro slavery faction organizing for war and making war. The armed and organized conflict started with purportedly unofficial violence from officially protected bases and officially protected organization in the city of Lawrence, much as the City of Portland protects Antifa.
The only possible deterrent for war is war. If one side starts war, then the other side should make war until one side or the other surrenders conditionally or is utterly crushed.
Jim,
If your source on bleeding Kansas is not a book can I have a link?
My position on the free soilers though remains that regardless of whether they were bad in bleeding Kansas their winning was for the best as otherwise we might have a lot of blue plains states right now with a high crime rate.
The former slave states are all red.
“One need not be a chamber to be haunted; One need not be a house; The brain has corridors surpassing Material place.”
This is pretty deep TBH. Sounds like she lived very much in her own head. Can’t judge too harshly, people in glass houses and all that.
However…..This sort of behaviour by these kinds of people is very familiar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabel_Loomis_Todd
Todd never met Emily Dickinson in person,[15] and though the two women exchanged letters, it has been said that “Mabel effectively destroyed the Dickinson family”.
Todd’s relationship to the Dickinson family was complicated. She had a lengthy affair with Emily’s married older brother William Austin Dickinson. In preparing Emily’s poetry for publication, which was also marred by family controversies, she freely edited and adapted the writing to suit her own style.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wentworth_Higginson
Thomas Wentworth Higginson (December 22, 1823 – May 9, 1911) was an American Unitarian minister, author, abolitionist, and soldier. He was active in the American Abolitionism movement during the 1840s and 1850s, identifying himself with disunion and militant abolitionism. He was a member of the Secret Six who supported John Brown. During the Civil War, he served as colonel of the 1st South Carolina Volunteers, the first federally authorized black regiment, from 1862–1864. Following the war, Higginson devoted much of the rest of his life to fighting for the rights of freed slaves, women and other disfranchised peoples.
In 1854, when the escaped Anthony Burns was threatened with extradition under the Fugitive Slave Act, Higginson led a small group who stormed the federal courthouse in Boston with battering rams, axes, cleavers, and revolvers.[3] They could not prevent Burns from being taken back to the South. Higginson received a saber slash on his chin; he wore the scar proudly for the rest of his life.
I found the last paragraph very interesting. The 19th cetuary Antifa?
John Brown was more like the 19th century Osama Bin Laden. Anthony Burns was in bed with John Brown, thus in bed with terrorists and murderers.
Thanks guys! I’m smarter now.
And I apologize to Peppermint for being too lazy to copy-pasting “Because I could not stop for Death, he kindly stopped for me to bring a friend†into DuckDuck and figuring out it was Emily Dickinson my damn self.
I honestly wonder how much of the art/culture around me is gas-lit crap. Or rather, how much of it isn’t. Like when’s the last time I heard or saw something and just reflexively wondered “wow that’s beautiful”.
I once saw a married girl at church, maybe 20 years old or so, carrying a baby. I nearly passed out.
Socialists, Communists, falling from choppers
Globalists, Zionists, hanging from crosses
Hundreds of did-n-dus strung up with string
These are a few of my favorite things
Mudslimes and Mexicans stopped at the border
“Sieg Heil” mein Führer sprech’ “Das ist ein Order”
Tiananmen massacres, neng nang nong ning
These are a few of my favorite things
When the ___ bites
When the (D) stings
When I’m (((feeling sad)))
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I don’t feel
So bad
Bombs replace bobs for those Indian lusters
Fun times at Summer Camp for Social Justice
Priests and their Warriors; Bishops and Kings
These are a few of my favorite things
When the ___ bites
When the (D) stings
When I’m (((feeling sad)))
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I don’t feel
So bad
The Democrats have stolen Arizona. I bet they get Florida too.
It is not over till its over. There is a new Sheriff in town.
I want to believe. I think my millennial ennui primes me to just expect that the good will falter and the evil will overcome.
Look man. Think of me as the oldest millennial on earth.
Watch Don fight. Watch how he inspires his people to fight with and for him.
How does he do this? He does this by speaking and acting from masculine instincts, impulses and principles from which “our fellow millennials†have been ruthlessly alienated. Watch and learn, watch and change.
Seems that someone has been reading your comment section, Jim:
https://parallaxoptics.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/on-woke-capital/
I recommend this article, and can confirm his account through extensive personal experience. In one particularly spectacular case, the women was entirely open about using sexual harassment charges to get a position that she was incapable of performing, and had absolutely no inclination to actually perform, and no one could see or hear – or if they did see and hear, no one could mention or talk about what they saw and heard.
She was in due course transferred to my supervision, with spectacular consequences, which spectacle remained strangely invisible to everyone else, despite the fact that I never interacted with her except in front of numerous witnesses. It turned out much as you would imagine from reading this blog and Vox Day’s blog. I managed her successfully, in that she “resigned” and I did not get fired, nor did the company get sued. Transferring her to me was a risky measure, and I did not handle it well, but the boss seemed satisfied with the outcome.
Of course, that she did not go to jail was in a sense unsuccessful management, but in a hostile society, what can the company do?
Forty-something woman complaining that beating up a “paedo” is severely punished (Dutch):
https://www.ad.nl/helmond/dochter-cherlaine-14-geschokt-over-veel-hogere-straf-voor-wraakvader-mario~a603c707/
“Haazen, die ontevreden was over het volgens hem lakse optreden van de politie, spoorde de veel oudere Jack S. op, die zich op Instagram als een 17-jarige jongen had voorgedaan tegenover zijn dochter. Hij postte bij zijn huis en ging hem achterna, toen S. in de auto stapte. Op het terrein van de Grote Beek in Eindhoven nam hij hem te grazen.
De rechtbank legde hem aanvankelijk tien maanden celstraf op wegens zware mishandeling. De aanklager ging in hoger beroep voor een zwaardere straf. Voor poging tot moord was tegen hem zes jaar cel geëist. Hij kreeg dus 4,5 jaar.”
https://www.metronieuws.nl/Columnisten/2018/11/vrede-opkomend-nationalisme
“Even denk je dat het een grap is: een vader die de 49-jarige belager van zijn veertienjarige dochter neerbeukt en daar vierenhalf jaar celstraf voor krijgt. Als je als ouder (m/v) je kind niet meer mag beschermen omdat de politie het niet doet, wie moet het dan doen?
Na het opgegeven vertrouwen in politici, zijn nu de rechters aan de beurt. Het valt niet uit te leggen dat Volkert vrij rondloopt en zo’n vader celstraf krijgt. Het valt niet uit te leggen dat Jenny Douwes en co 240 uur taakstraf krijgen en We are here-criminelen een verblijfsvergunning. Het valt niet uit te leggen – althans, niet aan mensen met ook maar een greintje rechtvaardigheidsgevoel in hun lichaam.”
No one cares to read a language that’s going to be extinct by 2050.
It was a cruel thing that Britbongs and Americans did to whoever it was who taalked liake thaat, but it’s oÃ¥ver.
Usted hablas Espanol?
vėtë pára eł coņo đe tu madřė, märįçôņ
As a faggot, I won’t enter ANY cunt!
However, you can prove your cishet credentials by placing a dental dam against the chasm of Ruth Bader, and start licking…
I just realized that the reason I never wanted a wedding is because of what an embarrassing farce all thise thritysomething and second weddings I attended as a child were.
We’re going to transition towards 3d waifudom, towards irrevocable exclusivity, we are transitioning, but we’re not going to all have weddings when we do. Only the pussywhipped will have them, or 18 year old boys.
Having issues with trying to comment here — comment keeps not appearing.
Okay, that one showed up, but one with quotes from Jim didn’t. Trying in parts:
Jim, on Feb. 8, 2017: “So, yeah. I expect that if the we ever allow the Democrats to retake the house, they will kill every Republican” in Congress.
Feb. 26: “As for the wall, I expect that ditches will be dug and concrete poured by 2017 May first, and that Trump will take a victory lap around a largely complete wall in the 2020 election”
Feb. 27: “Give him time. I predicted he would start to move around March or so. I would not get worried until some time in August.”
Mar. 12, about Ryancare: “We have not seen Trump’s plan yet. It is not over till it is over.”
July 23: “The wall, his number one promise, is not yet happening, but what is happening is that the men who will man the wall are acting with authority and energy.â€
Dec. 12: “observe that the great rape crisis in our universities, where toxic masculine white heterosexual males raped half the coeds, has quietly and mysteriously vanished” and “The left can no longer bring the masses onto the streets to murder, destroy, and terrorize.”
Dec. 23: “After so many disappointments, I hesitate to say “this time he is definitely going to do itâ€, but announcing that everyone is very angry with the FBI at the same time as he grants himself draconian new powers to punish his enemies by presidential proscription is considerable reason to be hopeful.”
Nov. 1, 2018: “He just tweeted three election ads: jobs, patriotism, crime, invasion.
Democratic ads are healthcare. Hang on guys, remember Obamacare?\\
Should be a red wave.”
Nov. 14: “It is possible that after the mid terms, the permanent government will attempt to arrest Trump. If they succeed, shortly thereafter will arrest Pence and three supreme court judges. If that happens, likely a Jehu will appear.”
Still standing by these predictions, Jim?
Or are things more in line with these:
Oct. 16, 2018: “If, on the other hand, the FBI ignores criminal acts by senior democrats, we have taken one more step towards Civil War II, but this time a rather large step, which will be in due course followed by even bigger steps” and “But if it is 指鹿為馬 blood will flow very soon.”
Oct 27: “The whole purpose of 指鹿為馬 is to see if you have enough power to kill anyone who notices the deer.
And right now, it looks disturbingly as if they do. But betting against Trump has seldom been wise.”
Nov. 1: “If, on the other hand, does not get away with exposing Democratic complicity in the fake bombs, probably will not get away with ending birthright citizenship.”
Well, undeniably, I have been disappointed, events have fallen far short of my predictions, and things have turned out depressingly unchanged for the most part: Except that the left wing singularity continues to roll.
But ditches have been dug, concrete has been poured, and a line of barbed wire entanglements has gone up along the Rio Grande, which is a good start on a wall. If Trump can get away with using the army to put up barbed wire entanglements, he can get away with using the army engineers to pour concrete. Barbed wire entanglements emplaced by executive order is a good start on a wall built by executive order.
Trump keeps telling us the wall has started, which is not entirely true, but has not entirely false. It is certainly true for some values of “started”. So still predicting a wall suitable for a victory lap in 2020.
Criminal acts in Democrats delivering bombs to themselves have been swiftly followed by blatantly criminal and obviously illegal acts in stealing the senate. If they can get away with the one, they can get away with the other. If they cannot get away with the one, probably cannot get away with the other.
The dead have always voted Democrat, but they are escalating it and are increasingly open about it. And Republicans are getting restive about it. This is the first time that they have called out Democratic voting fraud, which is a mighty big change. If someone in power calls out an unlawful act, he probably thinks, or reasonably hopes, he can stop it.
If Trump can stop them stealing the senate, can probably deal with innumerable other illegal acts by Democrats. If he can, then he is in power, and has a pretty good prospect of being King Trump the first.
Duterte has death squads, and still cannot bring the government under control. Victor Orban took ten years to get the government under control. Trump has only eight years. And I had hoped for, and expected, considerably better progress.
With the house in their pocket, Democrats can bring articles of impeachment against Trump, but were they to do so, would be shot down in the Senate. Having the house but not the senate makes it difficult to simply arrest Trump. If they arrest him, people are going to say “hey, surely impeachment is the remedy”. So, definitely retracting my prediction that they will deal lethally with Republicans starting now. An inconclusive mid term puts that out of reach unless they succeed in stealing the senate. If they steal the senate, then likely impeachment, followed by arrest of Trump, followed not very long thereafter by arrest of Pence, followed by arrest of his picks for the supremes, followed not very long thereafter by a bloodbath.
If, on the other hand, not allowed to steal the senate, then the left singularity is paused, not because of the balance of votes in the senate, but because it would signify that Democrats cannot engage in illegal acts. The continuation of politics as normal will itself be a dramatic change, much as the Mongols stalling in Hungary presaged European domination for Europeans west of the Hajnal line.
>Well, undeniably, I have been disappointed, events have fallen far short of my predictions, and things have turned out depressingly unchanged for the most part: Except that the left wing singularity continues to roll.
I knew we were in trouble when Trump didn’t call out the Red Hats to beat the shit out of Antifa at the inauguration. We would have come in the thousands and Antifa would have slunk away. He would have been the leader of warriors we’ve been waiting for. Instead, we got a capitalist trying to play Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus in an age or holy war and white genocide.
Trump caving to the Counts ordering him to re-instate Acosta is the end of him. No religious power, no military power, and now the courts have cucked him publicly after a reporter assaulted a girl. He bent over and took it like a bitch despite having them dead to rights.
Wow, I never knew the Trump lovers were so deep-rooted! Eye-opening!
Poker online
Election outcome « Jim's Blog