Don’t use enemy words, you will not be understood.

Enemy words are always understood as enemy meanings. And they will always be understood in this sense even if we hold the megaphone, because their official definition always conflates two very different and incompatible natural kinds.

Don’t use the words “racist”, “psychopath”, “sweatshop”, “sociopath”, and “pedophile”, among many others equally evil.

When someone says “Democrats are the real racists”, he is using the word “racist” correctly and in accord with its official definition (“racist” means badwhite), and he thinks he is being understood, and it superficially looks as if he is being understood, but instead of being understood as saying that we need to shutdown affirmative action and stop blacks from shooting cops and burning down the shops in their neighborhood, is instead understood as saying that the Democratic Party needs to purge its remaining whites and go brown.

Using the word “racist” in accord with its official definition (badwhite) fails to communicate, because the natural kind of evil anti correlates with the natural kind of white. Whites are the most good race, the least evil race.

If you say Arkan is a psychopath, you are using the word correctly and in accord with its official meaning (evil warrior), and people will seemingly understand you, but you will be understood as saying that Army First Lt. Clint Lorance was also a war criminal, and that the prosecution was right to cook up whatever crimes and whatever evidence for those crimes were necessary to convict him, and that Trump was very wicked to pardon him.

If you say Trotsky was a psychopath, you are using the word incorrectly, since psychopaths are supposed to be calm in the face of danger and resistant to coercion. Trotsky was not resistant to coercion, and it is hard to tell if he was calm in the face of danger, because he always ran away from danger. You will be understood as giving credit to his story that he was a successful and effective military officer in the civil war, which in a sense he was, but Trotsky administered the military from an embarassingly safe distance, while Stalin headed off to where the action was.

Using the word psychopath in accord with its official definition (evil warrior) fails to communicate, because the natural kind of evil anticorrelates with the natural kind of warrior. The virtues of calm in the face of immediate danger, and determination in the face of immediate harm anticorrelate with the vices of short term manipulative lying, short termism in interpersonal skills, and the pursuit of short term goals. cluster B is toxic masculinity, psychopath hardcore toxic masculinity, and sociopath is a toxic husband who loves his wife, his children, his kin, and his friends.

You need a word for courage and manliness, and you need a separate word for evil. When you have a word for something that is not a natural kind, but a combination of the characteristics of two natural kinds that are by nature contrary to each other, its sole function is to create confusion between natural kinds. Actual usage necessarily collapses to referring to one kind or the other.

If you are white, you are a racist, if you are brave, you are a psychopath, and if you love your family, you are a sociopath. And when people attempt to use these words in other meanings, as with “Democrats are the real racists”, they just fall flat on their faces.

Just flat out does not work. It is laughable to even attempt to say it. When a black gang roams the streets looking for white kids to beat up no one calls them racists, because they are not racists, and if you call them racists you sound crazy. No one understands what you are talking about.

The official definition of “racist” is not “white”. It is “badwhite”. But simply having such a definition necessarily collapses in practice to “it is not alright to be white”. And the official definition of psychopath is not warrior but evil warrior, which is in one sense plausible, since warriors regularly do terrible things. On the other hand, because the warrior virtues are in fact virtues, does not make sense, so in actual usage necessarily collapses to “it is not alright to be brave or manly”

Because the characteristics used in the official definition of a psychopath, a sociopath, a pedophile, or a racist anticorrelate, actual usage necessarily to collapses to one cluster or the other cluster

If you have one word for both, then priestly types can never be evil, and warrior types can never be good. So the actual usage in practice necessarily collapses to a hateful word for warrior.

Official definition of racist: “Badwhite”; Actual usage and what happens if you attempt to use it in the official sense: “Whites are evil”.

Every attempt to use enemy words in accordance with their official enemy definition simply fails every time. “Democrats are the real racists”

Communication just does not ensue.

The intent of words that do not correspond to natural kinds is to lie and confuse, and trying to use them to tell the truth just fails. They are words with a lie at their core built into them.

“Sociopath” is a hate word for love and loyalty. If you care about your wife and kids, you are a sociopath, and again, no one is going to understand you if you attempt to give it a non standard and unusual meaning. Trying to use these words is like calling blacks and democrats “racist”. Just does not compute. No one is going to understand you.

If capitalism and poor work conditions were a natural kind, if the word “sweatshop” referred to a natural kind, that would imply that capitalism is poor work conditions, or causes poor work conditions. If injustice motivated by racial difference was a natural kind, that would imply that noticing racial difference is injustice.

Tags: ,

393 Responses to “Don’t use enemy words, you will not be understood.”

  1. […] on their back”. Being mortals, we imperfectly embody the Tradition we represent, as well, and often accept enemy words and terms and definitions. Our knights too often mechanically fall into the cookie-cutter and […]

  2. […] raises a good point about not using the words your enemy uses, lest your meaning end up being attributed to their meaning. To follow through on his advice is to […]

  3. Oak says:

    Not sure if it’s an anti-concept, but I think the term ‘virgin’ to describe a male should be avoided as much as possible. Whether a man has had sex yet or not does not mean the same thing as whether a woman has. No physiological or life-changing psychological effects as with females.

    There’s really no such thing as male virginity.

  4. The Cominator says:

    One thing I am surprised Trump has not pushed is a student loan reform plan along the lines of the one Tucker Carlson proposed (I swear I had the idea before hand but the 1st public figure to my knowledge that proposed it was Tucker) which would really cut the balls off of the Cathedral… Harvard would probably be fine unfortunately but it would absolutely fuck over most of the schools and the ones that survived would have to eliminate everything except business and stem.

    Tucker Carlson proposed simply making student loan debts dischargable in bankruptcy and passing any taxpayer cost from such bankruptcies 100% onto the colleges themselves the debt was incurred to pay. The implications of doing this in all its aspects are an epic win in every way. It would absolutely nuke the academic priesthood and sap the support for leftism among millenials.

    • Not Tom says:

      It has to be done right, he’d have to be absolutely certain that the cucks wouldn’t cuck it up.

      Specifically, it needs to make the banks and universities responsible for the debt, not make the government responsible for the debt. Congresscritters would defer to lobbyists who would try to make government responsible for the debt, and that would effectively become a handout/bailout for our enemies instead of an assault.

      • The Cominator says:

        The student loans involve generally the government (Sallie Mae) and not the banks…

        If the banks were involved we probably would have had to back them up to SOME degree but that is a small price to pay, the objective is to nuke the colleges and get millenials away from leftism.

        • Not Tom says:

          And having the government pay off the loans using taxpayer money doesn’t achieve that, it only improves academic cash flow resulting in even higher tuitions and more loans.

          If “loan forgiveness” means that anyone other than banks and universities have to do the “forgiving” then it hurts our friends and helps our enemies. Do you trust the current Congress to pass a bill like that? Or will the bill instead say that you and I have to pay off the debt while the colleges continue their usury unimpeded?

          • The Cominator says:

            You misunderstand what i am staying, its important to not let the colleges go as the objective is to nuke them…

            Getting the banks otoh is not part of the objective of this proposal if they need a guarantee to get this through… Whatever the important thing is to break the colleges and ease things on millenial college debtors. The banks should be addressed seperately.

            • Not Tom says:

              I understand. I think everyone understands. The point is that this is not achievable except as a coup-complete action. Under the current regime, it would have to be implemented as a law, not an edict (“regulation”). Laws are written and approved by Congress, litigated by lawyers, and validated by judges. The Cathedral currently writes the legislation, supplies the lawyers, and largely controls the judges.

              There is absolutely no presently-available path to implementing a student loan forgiveness program that places financial responsibility on the universities instead of the taxpayers. If such a path were available, then the much easier path of simply cutting off state and federal funding would probably be much simpler to implement and more effective.

              Thus, Trump will not do it. Tucker’s heart is in the right place, but he still thinks in terms of the nominal system and not the actual system.

              • The Cominator says:

                There is huge optical value merely in proposing it though, it would put the democrats in the position of opposing millenial debt relief and it would unmask the cathedral…

              • jim says:

                Trump could try it, but if you think Harvard is mad at him now, wait till you see their reaction to the proposal to make student debts dischargeable in bankruptcy and a liability to the university that gave someone a master of arts in advanced lesbian intersectional basketweaving for ninety thousand dollars in student debt.

                When the deep state is safely in prison, then he could try it.

                Making student debts dischargeable in bankruptcy but not a liability to the university would just mean we get ten times as many masters of the arts in advanced intersectional basket weaving vying ten times as hard for even more priestly jobs. It would be a catastrophe. And attempt to push through the proposal would result in that catastrophe.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Good make them angrier they will make even more mistakes and they are already trying to overthrow him.

                • Halion says:

                  What about the word patriarchy? Our enemies use it a lot … how do we recover it?

                • jim says:

                  Done already.

                  Our enemies are shooting themselves in the foot.

                • alf says:

                  I like the word patriarchy. It describes reality pretty accurately. The only difference between my enemies and me is that I find patriarchy good, being a patriarch good, and they find it evil. Since patriarchy is a natural outcome, that makes me good, them evil, so no objections from me.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Good make them angrier

                  Typical high-time-preference thinking. “Accelerationism”, “heighten the contradictions”, etc.

                  Progressives know how to boil the frog. A certain amount of sensationalism actually benefits Trump’s strategy, but there are limits.

                  Every time Trump loses a major battle – and he’d lose massively on this one – it demoralizes his base and weakens his hold over the party. Now is not the time to be picking that particular fight. I am quite certain he’s aware of the idea, and will follow through on it if and when he (or those who advise him) believe that there is a viable path to victory or at least stalemate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not an accerelationist but the angrier the left gets the more mistakes they make. As Jim says they already are fucking up though.

                  I just think there is immense value in forcing them to oppose a proposal at millenial debt relief that doesn’t burden taxpayers but maybe im wrong.

                • jim says:

                  You are still thinking of politics in terms of who gets the votes. We are now in the politics of who gets imprisoned, and likely not long thereafter moving to the politics of who gets killed and who does the killing.

                  Unwise to smack the professoriat around until the deep state is safely in prison.

    • info says:

      This explains why female soldiers are utilized by kurds.

    • jim says:

      Translating from leftese:

      and since guerrilla war against Kurdish tribalism could not be avoided, the feminists in the PKK deployed women’s emancipation as a tool of destroying Kurdish tribalism, which had traditionally placed women at the bottom of the tribal hierarchy. Kurdish patriarchy prevented political recruitment and the military hegemony necessary for the emergence of a new society in which women would take part equally. Ethical and effective organization fused in this savvy strategy.

      crush Kurdish nationalism by murdering Kurds

      strengthened the perception of the revolution in Rojava as a “Kurdish-led,” “American-sponsored” project

      mounting regional hostility only increased Rojava’s reliance on the US for protection

      Obama and Cathedral intervention was too hamfistedly obvious. The Rojava leadership looked like the NGO entryists that they were, not Kurds.

      The Dark Enlightenment has entryists, and the Kurds have even more entryists – and probably higher ranking, more important, more competent, and better paid entryists than we do.

      Culturally, the radical imaginary of a revolution that had set itself the task of ending war in the Middle East by changing men was reduced, through the dictates of the US-led strategy, to that of a security instrument that saw ISIS as nemesis and dialectical other.

      Trump focused on crushing Isis, abandoned the operation to impose progressivism on the Kurds at gunpoint, and threw the Kurdish Cathedral operatives to the wolves. Which is part of the impeachment indictment – that Trump is not following “American” foreign policy.

      As a businessman, Trump favors spinning off money losing operations – abandoning the unprofitable parts of the US empire, which is most of it. This horrifies the Cathedral, which wants to rule in order to save souls, regardless of the cost in blood and treasure, and the risk of nuclear war.

      the recent drop in expressions of international solidarity with Rojava, which previously won Rojava its media war against the Turkish occupation,

      The Cathedral is now focused on the threat of loss of power closer to home, and is no longer paying much attention to empire on its border lands.

      • info says:


        Even from its very beginning as an offshoot of the PKK? It was never kurds in leadership?

        • jim says:

          I don’t know what happened in the beginning. I just read one leftist post, and it is consistent with what I saw happening during the Obama and the early Trump period, before Trump got control of what was happening in Syria. Brutal, ham fisted, and heavy handed Cathedral astroturfing.

          • info says:

            Rojava existed as early as 2013

            Prior to US intervention in the affairs of the syrian kurds
            and the ypg/pkk existed since the 70’s. Did women actually take on frontline duties as their videos show? Or is that also fake?

            • jim says:

              Obama was elected in 2008, and immediately began instigating color revolution throughout the middle east, and the poisonous fruit of that poisonous tree became ripe in 2011, Rojava being one of those fruits.

              Women larping as warriors began shortly after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, and the Kurds started cruising for Harvard sponsorship to replace Soviet sponsorship.

        • Allah says:

          What happened is this:

          Kurdish nationalists needed allies to fight Western allied Turkey, so they pretended to be commies to get Soviet support. When their former pimps, the Soviets disappeared, they had to reinvent themselves quickly.

          After recent events with Turkey sliding out of the West’s control, they immediately took the opportunity to present themselves as the alternative to Turkey. Just as they had to present themselves as commies to get Soviet support, they are now presenting themselves as progressives to get Western support. YPG, SDF, etc. are all PKK. The different names exist to confuse and misdirect enemies and supporters alike.

          The founder of PKK said “if you can’t grab a rifle, grab your wife”. They are nationalists who kill and die to take control of the lands they see as their birthright. I’m guessing most of them believe having some strong womyn around is worth the propaganda value. If Taliban was a great power instead of the Soviets, they would piously show off their multiple wives and dozen children instead. Any Western attempt at turning Kurds into progs is unenthusiastic and unconvincing, if it happens at all. They need Kurds to fight the enemies of Israel in the region, that takes priority.

          • jim says:

            Progressive agents in the Middle East are not a tool to protect Israel. Israel is a tool to protect progressive agents. The Israeli supreme court wants the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. A truly progressive Israel is the one state solution.

    • ivvenalis says:

      lmao this is great.

      Revolution and Pussy commune is established; its fortunes exactly mirror the commitment of US JSOC, the most masculine arm of the atypically masculine American military. The author, a butthurt priest who refers to himself as “consul general” on social media, complains repeatedly about the unfairly high status of the “military councils” who actually keep this charade functioning via coordination with JSOC and other actually potent external entities.

      These “military councils”, when conducting offensive operations, discard gay feminist ideals in exact proportion to their military success, even adopting “state like” (hierarchical) characteristics despite being nominally anarchist (egalitarian). After an operation is successfully completed, women in camouflage clothing and carrying rifles pose for selfies while guarding rear areas, DESTROYING the patriarchy. They also femur from imposing gay anarchy on the territory these offensives gain.

      When JSOC support ebbs, third-rate state militaries begin figuratively and maybe literally gangbanging the pussy paradise. These militaries, despite having far less money to hand out than JSOC, are amply and effectively aided by reactionary “tribals” who hate the homo anarchist free love commune out of reactionary backwardness and will have to be dealt with as soon as the Revolution happens for real.

      The author criticizes the “military councils” for ceding territory in an ordered manner rather than handing the patriarchal invaders their dialectically inevitable crushing defeat.

      At the same time, the Fouâd Oveisy (Google him) blames the apparent tactical superiority of the paradise’s military adversaries on the enemy’s “monopolization of postcolonial discourse” rather than, say, their ability to produce and employ battalions of assault troops, artillery, air strikes etc.

      He closes by expressing hope that, someday, if he and his ilk are given sufficiently high status, they can usher in Real Communism.

  5. info says:

    What do you think of AC method of determining the real personality of the person by splitting down the face in the middle and creating a symmetrical version of each half.

    For the majority of right handed evil people. Often the left side of the face shows their real side.

    Asymmetry may be a sign of a deceptive personality.

  6. BC says:

    Thus the American Republic dies.

    • Aldon says:

      Quit being melodramatic. Trump needs to actually go through the whole process to be barred from office (aka, a trial). The Dems know that they don’t have any actual evidence that would convict him before he could run again. They’re bluffing him into making concessions.

      • jim says:

        Impeachment makes no sense, unless the trial in the senate is interrupted by color revolution, and concluded when the Democrats can arrest as many Republicans as are needed to secure a conviction.

        Which does not necessarily imply a color revolution will happen, they are recounting heads right now, but if a color revolution fails to happen, or is attempted and fails then Trump gets acquitted after a trial that is as spectacular as greatest of showmen can make it. He then looks like the strong horse, Democrats look like the weak horse.

        When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.

        Attempting impeachment without a two thirds majority in the Senate or successful color revolution is political suicide

        • BC says:

          Apparently Dems are not going to send the articles to the Senate and just hold it over Trump while they get the Color revolution going.

          • jim says:

            Which suggests that the after the last minute head recount, conducted as the articles were being put the vote, came up short.

            If they stick to the color revolution script, then the next step is a mighty protest where the supposedly enraged masses of astroturf demand the immediate removal of Trump. But it takes the government three weeks to organize a cup of coffee, so that cannot happen until February at the earliest. Absent the mighty protest of supposedly enraged astroturf, the articles will gather dust forever in the house.

            • BC says:

              I think it might have been part of the plan. Defangs Trump’s ability to use the trial to attack the Dems and gives them time to build their protests. All the while they can declare anything Trump tries to due as illegal because impeachment is hanging over him.

              • jim says:

                Perhaps, but I think they are too incohesive to have a plan and stick to it.

                They are going to claim that Trump governing is illegal, because impeachment, that articles of impeachment effectively remove the president immediately without the need to send them to the Senate, as if color revolution had already happened on schedule. Then Trump just goes right on governing, and nothing happens, because that part of the plan is not actually in place.

                Which is to say, will likely act as you predict, but not because that was the plan. Rather it is what will happen as the plan falls apart.

                • BC says:

                  Perhaps, but I think they are too incohesive to have a plan and stick to it.

                  Upon review, I think you’re right. The Senate can just hold the impeachment trial without the house now that the vote has been recorded. This is probably just Hail Mary because the the head count came up short.

              • Aldon says:

                Election 2020 will come and Trump’s first term is largely done with him successfully seeing the appointment of officials who aren’t feral Leftoids (namely judges). The Dems’ leaders would only have until then to see Trump out of office.

                The more they drag this along, the more they look desperate. Desperation isn’t attractive in men and not a sign of strength.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              I’m sure the spooks have some cards which can convince the legislators to change their minds if need be.

              My interpretation of this is that the Cathedral realizes that democrazy will look too fake if they proceed with the full impeachment. Otherwise, I doubt Trump would do better than Nixon. He certainly doesn’t have any more control over the agencies that count.

              • The Cominator says:

                “I’m sure the spooks have some cards which can convince the legislators to change their minds if need be.”

                Generally no and Trump has his own faction of spooks…

              • Not Tom says:

                Otherwise, I doubt Trump would do better than Nixon.

                Rubbish. He already has done better than Nixon.

        • Aldon says:

          >Impeachment makes no sense

          Sure it does. The Dems are so used to dealing with cucks and/or dishonest Leftoids among Repubs that they expected Trump to be someone who’d fold and do whatever they want once they started applying pressure to him (checking for signs of degenerate behavior for one). The Impeachment Farce is just the latest form of this.

          The point isn’t to drive Trump from office. The point is to bluff him into making concessions or stall him so that they could make moves.

          • jim says:

            I am seeing powerful people act as if they have inside information that Trump is about to be removed from office very soon. I think they are wrong, and are getting information from inside the bubble, but inside the bubble, people think that this will work. And it cannot work without color revolution.

            What I conjecture is that people in the State Department counted heads in the Pentagon, and asked, in deniable euphemism, whether they were on board with color revolution, and got the head count for “go”. And then, after “go” had circulated through the bubble, Pentagon top brass counted heads among the praetorians, and asked what would happen in the event of color revolution, and got the answer, also in deniable euphemism, that they would die. And this news is only now starting to percolate through the bubble.

            • jack boot says:

              what is your definition of praetorian

              • jim says:

                He carries a gun. His job is hurting evildoers and breaking their toys. He is nominally of low rank, a army private, a cop, or a merc grunt. And he is located in or near the centers of power, or his job description means he can be sent there at any time. As for example the president’s security men. There was an interesting event at one of the presidential rallies when a pressman got out of the press corral, and security laid hands on him. His disbelief and outrage was spectacular. How dare lowly warriors lay their impious hands on a priest!

                He is a warrior of nominally low rank who is already on the interesting side of the Rubicon.

    • The Cominator says:

      Fuck the republic long live the God-Emperor and the Trumpenreich.

      • BC says:

        Long live the Holy American Space Empire.

      • Aldon says:

        While the House was doing the impeachment house, the Senate confirmed 13 new Federal judges.

        Young, less cucked/degenerate judges, who will serve for life.

        The 2nd, 3rd, and 11th Federal Circuit Courts have been flipped to a GOP majority, and the infamous 9th Circuit Court is close to being flipped as well. Not to mention the Supreme Court, as soon as when RBG dies.

        This is surely a significant factor in the impeachment junk. President Trump is targeting the Leftoid’s notable source of power: Activist judges.

        They have no other way of stopping him or at least slowing down short of the current farce, and scant chance of taking back the White House or Senate in 2020.

        By the time President Trump leaves office in 2025, the GOP will have a 7-2 majority in the Supreme Court. As well as a majority in almost every Circuit Court of Appeals.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          What is the risk that Democrats will stuff the SC a la FDR?

          • Not Tom says:

            When? How?

            I’m not apt to put all my faith in judges, but to the extent that the strategy of packing the courts is effective, it would take Democrats another 20 years to tip the balance again if they were in power, and they aren’t in power and aren’t going to be in power for a while.

            • jim says:

              It will take them no time at all. They have already declared the intention to appoint twelve additional supremes.

              • Aldon says:

                They won’t be able to do it before Trump finished his 2nd term.

                • jim says:

                  His second term is well short of twenty years, though if the 2020 election is conducted with the deep state in prison rather than Trump and numerous Republicans in prison, he may well be in power for twenty years.

              • Not Tom says:

                I wonder how that would go. If they try to “appoint” a bunch of partisan judges to SCOTUS beyond the nine, and the existing nine (or at least the majority) say “nope, can’t do that” – who wins?

                Seems like it would quickly become a military matter.

                • jim says:

                  Depends on the commander in chief. If Nancy Pelosi is commander in chief, they will have no problem.

                  And, in any case the constitution is absolutely clear on this matter. A simple majority can shut down the entire court system, except the supremes, and replace it with something else, at will. I favor the system created by William the Conqueror, which resembles the system employed by the Australian Border Patrol, except that the Australian Border Patrol uses databases and remote procedure calls, instead of bits of slate coated with beeswax. A simple majority and the will to use it suffices to close the courts.

                  A majority does not have the power to fire judges, except for bad behavior, but that is a lot easier standard to meet than the standard for impeaching presidents. If they get stroppy about it, I am sure that sufficient bad behavior could be found to fire almost all of them, and in any case, can simply close down any court inferior to the supreme court and leave them with nothing to do. I am sure all supreme court justices have done far worse than Trump, and in any case, don’t need to fire them, just appoint a dozen new justices.

                  The constitution gives the house and president total supremacy over the courts. The power of the courts is just Harvard having the upper hand over the legislature. Shut down Harvard, and the courts will wither on the vine.

                  All judges engage in private conversations with the lawyers, off the record, of which the other party is unaware. This is a blatantly corrupt practice, and the whole lot should go to jail. We should, and constitutionally a simple majority with the president behind them has the power to, clean them all out and start over with a system based on William the Conqueror’s writs, and the Australian Border Patrol’s databases.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Eh, the salient point is “except the supremes”. Appointing a dozen new SCOTUS justices is something the current SCOTUS could refuse.

                  Don’t know if they would refuse, but they could, and could instigate a civil war. They wouldn’t refuse if Democrats controlled all 3 houses, but if Republicans controlled either the Senate or the White House? I could see it.

                • jim says:

                  To instigate a civil war, you need forces. Tony Abbot demonstrated that an air force commando outranks a high court justice.

                  The democrats have cops and gangs. The commander in chief has the military. What have the courts got? They have got Harvard. And Harvard is going to totally support appointing a bunch of barely literate browns and childless women to the supremes.

                  Constitutionally, the legislature with the president behind them have total supremacy over the courts. Physically, the Democratic Party and the president have total supremacy over the courts. If Harvard disavows them they are lost.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The constitution does not limit the number of SCOTUS judges but they are limited now to 9 by statute (the Judiciary Act of 1869) so to pack the court the Democrats would need both houses of congress in addition to the president because they would have to change the law.

                  I think events in the fairly near future will make the courts not so important though.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If Harvard disavows them they are lost.

                  True, unless some other institution then takes ownership of them, like the Federalist Society, further backed by the armed forces.

                  It is certainly not the #1 scenario in my mind, but one way I could see it play out is that the Trump faction packs the courts with so many friendly judges that Harvard gets nervous and tries to incite a rebellion within the judiciary by their own faction, leading to mass arrests by the Executive branch and subsequent military takeover. The courts could function like the Senate did in Augustus’s time, a fig leaf over the Executive (which is actually how the Constitution wanted them to function, so the Originalists of the Federalist Society could be on board).

                  It looks bad to storm in and arrest a bunch of judges when the judiciary is just business as usual, regardless of how awful said business really is. But if the Harvard faction can be provoked into “mobilizing” the parts of the judiciary they still own, and the factionalism becomes obvious to a majority of the population (most of whom, sadly, still think the judiciary is totally objective), then several other political opportunities open up for the reaction.

                  Replacing the priesthood has to start somewhere. What better place than the judiciary? In reality, Harvard controls the judiciary, but in the nominal system, the judiciary does not answer to anyone. If the judiciary mysteriously stopped taking orders from Harvard, the Cathedral’s ability to mobilize public support, stage mass protests, etc., would be severely limited, because it would appear that the judiciary is doing what everyone knows the judiciary is supposed to do.

                  Same as the Cathedral complaining that Trump is violating American foreign policy. They can yell that ’til they’re blue in the face, but the average American goes “Huh? That makes no sense”. It’s a losing argument that forces them to show their hand.

                • jim says:

                  If Trump in power, and he gets a friendly court, then yes, judicial rebellion will end badly for the judges.

                  But, if the Democrats in power, and stack the courts with vast numbers of additional judges, judicial rebellion will also end badly for the judges.

  7. ten says:

    Fully off topic:

    tl:dr; 37 year old woman uses full make-up team to pose as 11 year old girl, among other ages, to observe behaviour of men on instagram. She openly states to the men to be 11, even though i much would like to see how good of a job the make-up team did to make it seem believable.

    The men, of which there are plenty, instantly start fishing for nudes and send dick pics and masturbation videos.

    Reading this shakes my acceptance of the recently discussed anti concept, male heterosexual pedophilia, actually being an anti concept, which is why i bring it here. I would like to see what you have to say on this very annoyingly written article.

    If instagram is prowled by men looking for girls looking like children and saying they are 11, are these heterosexual pedophiles and the few that exist, or are they homosexuals finding a replacement for young boys who to their great sadness do not put slutty selfies on instagram, or are they normal men, albeit weird losers, seeing an adult women masquerading as a child and not being fooled by neither mask nor attached number 11?

    Recently the MAP (minor attracted person) community had an exodus from tumblr to twitter, and they probably were the reason tumblr put a choke on its porn content even though doing so killed the site. Their existence also seems to be evidence of the nominal meaning of pedophile. Many, most of them it seems like, indicate little girls exclusively, not boys, and not close to puberty, as their preference. They sure seem like faggy outcasts, maybe they are some sort of fag. Is there a sort of faggot who is exclusively attracted to little girls?

    If faggotry in essence is unlawful fucking, and lawful fucking is reward for manliness, one might imagine all manner of strange obsessions, kinks and delimitations as to what precise unallowed object one wants to fuck, yet it still is the same basic phenomena.

    Takers? Objectors? Am i just retarded getting fooled by moronic enemy propaganda? Where is shaman? Answer me, shaman!!

    • jim says:

      Let’s see the instagram photos and videos she used to pull those men.

      Some time ago, I an my son were in a pickup joint, and encountered a twelve year old girl who appeared to me to be early twenties.

      Stating your age to be X does not affect biological response.

      • ten says:

        I would also very much like to see those photos – regardless, i don’t think the loop is “instagram picture of adult woman -> biological response -> communication” but instead “drive for socially unacceptably young girls -> search for such girls on instagram -> communication, which does not stop but is indeed enthused by claims of elevenyearoldness”, ie, lust for prepubescent girls.

        I know you consistently concede the existence of these people – but when i see the MAPs on twitter, and the comment feeds on childrens youtube channels, i see very many men going after very many and young girls, they do not seem to be sidesnacking gays, or a minor subset, the men after girls seem to be the main group.

        I wish to believe the official position here, for the record. But i find it hard since i see what looks like pedophiles after girls while not after boys, girls meaning prepubescent kids.

        • jim says:

          > but when i see the MAPs on twitter, and the comment feeds on childrens youtube channels, i see very many men going after very many and young girls,

          The two poster boys I see in this thread are men hitting on a thirty seven year old woman implausibly claiming to be eleven, and a bisexual asking for sixteen and fifteen year olds.

          Poster boy principle applies. If that is what you have got, you don’t see many men going after many and young girls, if “young” means before fertile age. While I do see very many young girls going crazy and making nuisances of themselves over adult alpha males with adult female preselection way before they have reached fertile age.

          I am sure there is some demand from men. But the supply is overwhelmingly larger than the demand. It is a supply problem, not a demand problem. It is often said that sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. Well girls who don’t have eggs yet are cheaper than either.

          • ten says:

            Yeah the posterwoman is a terrible one. Molyneux who is thoroughly purple pilled did a video on the “youtube pedos”, showcasing men lusting for little girls. I haven’t rewatched it but i think that is a good poster, and shows the better poster boys that i have seen in comment fields.

            Sadly i have been permanently suspended from twitter and because of this i fail to relocate the “MAPs” i would otherwise display as also better poster boys.

            TBH i regret including, mentioning the article at all, it’s a stupid nonsensical quack job where their main thing was posing as teens and pretending it is weird for men to lust for them, only once posing as a child. Most likely they included interactions from the teen accounts in the kid account and it was ridiculous of me to at all consider the contents of such an obviously deceitful hack hit job.

          • info says:


            Perhaps classifying teens as “child” is another one of those conflagrations of unlike categories together.

            One imagines a little girl or boy with this word. Not teens who possess adult features and act in more adult-like ways.

    • Pooch says:

      Consider Jared from Subway as perhaps evidence of the specific littler girl fucker theory.

      • jim says:

        “In these text messages, he also expressed sexual interest in young boys”

        Gay – just a gay who discovered it was easier to get young girls than young boys.

        • Pooch says:

          Maybe, but he seemed to be fucking lots of girls for a gay.

          “Do you have access to any young girls? Like 15 or 16?” Fogle asked one escort.

          “Why, baby?” The escort replied.

          “Cause it’s what I crave! … I would hook you up nicely if you did,” Fogle said.

          • jim says:

            Bisexual. Fifteen or sixteen is fertile age. Nothing wrong with that.

            And to the extent that he was interested in girls below fertile age, he was interested in boys. And there is something wrong with that.

            What we have here is a bisexual who is interested in young boys and fertile age females.

            Men who are specifically interested in pre-fertile age females exist, but it seems to be less common that specific interest in boys, and vastly less common than specific interest in young fertile age females with boobs and functioning reproductive systems.

            And, vastly less common than nine year old girls taking an excessive interest in adult alpha males with adult female pre selection.

    • Not Tom says:

      You cannot make up a 37-year-old woman to look like an 11-year-old girl. You can’t even make up a 37-year-old woman to look like a 27-year-old woman. If makeup could do that, we’d have a lot fewer post-wall box wine aunties wailing about fake rape on social media, instead they’d be going out and chasing alpha dick like they did in their twenties.

      There are some photos in the article, and while I assume those are not the photos her victims saw – and indeed, they were her victims – nothing in there suggests to me that she could ever pass as 11. Just look at the skin.

      Ask yourself, what kind of “mom” would even consider signing up for a stunt like this? Obviously not a happy mom in a happy marriage.

      What this proves to me, if anything, is that heterosexual men are conscious of sexual signals from women, and attaching an arbitrary number to it doesn’t fool the hindbrain.

      (Side note: 11 is often pubescent, and certainly doesn’t categorize as “not close to puberty”. Many 11-year-old girls have started puberty, almost all have hit adrenarche. Most men do not find them attractive at that age, but again, we are supposed to take it on faith that this woman actually looked 11. Show us the photos to prove it.)

      • Not Tom says:

        In addition: there is a well-known phenomenon in Japan of adult women deliberately trying to look and act childish, not just younger but actually infantile, through their mannerisms and accessories like backpacks. And then there is the fetish all across the world (don’t ask how I know this, I’ll just say I was never personally involved) of “diaper play”.

        I’m not quite willing to say that these are absolutely healthy and normal, but sexual tastes vary, and the one common theme with these is that they involve adult or post-pubescent women who are essentially role-playing, and usually this is not a first-encounter sort of thing, said role-playing begins after regular PIV sexual relations are established.

        There appear to be a decent number of men who are turned on by adult women role-playing as children, which does not extend to actual children. It can probably be encapsulated by the phrase “who’s your daddy”, a phrase which taken literally implies both “pedophilia” and incest but in reality has nothing to do with either. It’s kinky, it’s a little uncomfortable, it is supposed to be a little uncomfortable because that makes it exciting (for some guys), but has no real relationship to the genuine article.

        • jim says:

          All girls with a strong father, but particularly girls who knew that father but were deprived of him, are keen on a man who resembles and substantially performs the role of that father. And they are often keen on men whose age is comparable to that of their father.

          This has a resemblance to role playing incest, but does not mean that they wanted to fuck their father. They want to fuck a man who fits the imprint of alpha male that their alpha father imprinted on them. This is particularly the case when that father had numerous children.

          Girls like this tend to be responsive to an alpha male with more prosocial behavior. They still like the dark triad, but not quite so dark. Your beta provider game will work, provided you establish alpha credibility first, and do not let your beta provider game undermine your alpha game. You are still going to lose her if you let beta provider game get out of hand. I lost a really hot chick that way. She was so hot, it made me weak. I needed perfect game to keep her, and my game wobbled. Too much beta provider game, and then one morning I notice she has started treating me as a wallet on legs. So I tried to re-establish alpha frame, she responded with one hell of a shit test, and then I wobbled again and failed her shit test.

          A rape charge ensued, based not of course on rape, but on failure to rape, which I got out of without a stain on my character by turning up charisma to full. She melted in the cop shop because I treated her sternly and courteously amoged the cops. (Don’t try discourteously amogging a cop. It will fail disastrously.) I walked out of the cop shop sternly ignoring her and she followed me like a lost puppy. But the relationship never recovered from too much beta provider game followed by failure to rape. (Also I had let myself get fat again, and did I mention she was way hot.) Following the incident, she started looking for someone more alpha than me.

          • Yul Bornhold says:

            How precisely does one ‘courteously amog’ a cop?

            • RedBible says:

              The general rule is that a “courteous amog” is one that is done by “being polite” and therefore the only way a man can counter it is to behave rather uncivilized.

              Example from my life:
              Dude (who is rather fat) is giving me and my female roommate a ride to an event (the two of them have been dating for awhile now). I didn’t have access to my car at that moment so that’s why I was hitching a ride. Anyways, he proceeds to open up the car door for her, and then the car door for me.
              This is an example of a “courteous amog”.
              Of course, know what I did of stuff back then, I went for the simplest solution to “counter” the amog, and closed the car door, then re-opened if for myself.
              Needless to say, this pissed of both of them quite a bit.

      • jim says:

        Real eleven year old girls cannot pass for twenty two, but it is not all that rare for real twelve to successfully pass as twenty two. Real thirty seven cannot possibly pass as real twenty two, let alone real eleven. Chances are that with full makeup, careful posing, careful lighting, and careful choice of camera angle, she could just barely pass for twenty five. Those men were responding to the sexual signals emitted by an obviously fully adult woman, regardless of what she claimed her age to be. They probably thought she was role playing, which women often do. Chicks often want to relive the naughty stuff they did when they were nine or so, now that they are old enough for that stuff to get a more sexual response.

        It is really common for a chick to role play a much younger girl. This phenomenon primarily reflects female desire, rather than male desire.

      • ten says:

        Nah, you can’t. But instagram has small pictures, and with clothing, lighting, angles and photoshop, i think it might work.

        “not close to puberty” was about the twitter MAPS, often stating their AOA age of attraction to be 2-5.

        Most all women have fantasies of being the age when they started being sexual and getting banged by powerful men, yes.

        • Not Tom says:

          First of all, don’t use the term “MAP”, that’s enemy propaganda.

          Second, I don’t believe those accounts are real. We know that the fed shills pretend to be underage girls. Why wouldn’t there also be fed shills pretending to be guys who like underage girls? Both help to promote the narrative.

          It’s all stage-managed BS. Show me an actual arrest of a single heterosexual man who went after a 6-year-old girl. It doesn’t exist, except in the fevered imaginations of neopuritans.

          • ten says:

            Fair enough, but referring to an “actual” (online) community of people referring to themselves thus, what should i call them instead?

            There was a youtube account called kino of an asian in america who got arrested for diddling girls and he afaik said he was a heterosexual man – the account is gone, don’t know the name, he looks like a fag. I can’t prove any of the MA–.., err, the previously mentioned community, are heterosexual men, but most of them claim to be.

            My entire case here is shit weak and falls apart on any level of pressure so until i find some actual evidence to the contrary, i abandon my case.

            • jim says:

              It is absolutely obvious that the deviation (heterosexual men lusting after preteen girls) exists. But it is not big enough to be a huge problem the way gays lusting after pre-teen boys is a huge problem.

              In anime, it is related to the monster girl sexual preference. The audience thinks no normal girl would have a little of a social life as they do, so fantasize about a monster girl to whom they would be the one embedded in society. And the audience for little girls does not think they could have the normal relationship of male authority with a normal girl, so fantasize about dominating a child.

            • jim says:

              > but referring to an “actual” (online) community of people referring to themselves thus, what should i call them instead?

              Put their preferred (enemy) name in scare quotes, or put qualify it by the actual content of the community “sodomites and sodomite allies”

              It is primarily men who want bang nine year old boys using men who want to bang sixteen year old girls as cover. The guys who are actually keen on nine year old girls are watching anime, which depicts females the size of nine year old girls, performing the social role of nine year old girls, but with boobs that could function as flotation devices at sea.

        • jim says:

          The term “MAP” is an enemy word, because it links very different kinds of people: men sexually attracted to fertile age young women – which is every normal male, men sexually attracted to small boys – which is almost all gays, and men attracted to pre-fertile age girls – which is rare, and women sexually attracted to pre-fertile age children of both sexes – which is uncommon.

          It also defines out of existence the other side of the problem: That there are precisely zero small boys sexually attracted to adult males, while every nine year old girl is apt to go crazy when she encounters an adult alpha male with adult female pre-selection. If a gay has sexual contact with an underage boy, he coerced the boy. If a nine year old girl has sexual contact with an alpha male with adult female preselection, chances are she molested him while he was drunk and/or sleeping. If he was some anime watching omega nerd, maybe he molested her, but that is not what normally happens.

          • Scortum says:

            >and women sexually attracted to pre-fertile age children of both sexes – which is uncommon.

            Men love differently than woman. A man can feel love based on loyalty, based on comradery, or based on shared understanding (of e.g hierarchy, ownership, virtue, truth, purpose, God).

            Feminine love is sentimental, cuddly, receptive. I also think there is an element of sexuality there. Not the same depth of sexuality triggered for a nude Chad beating up her boyfriend, but there nonetheless. Women will naturally kiss babies and dogs on the lips; naturally prefer to cuddle naked; find baby Cupid cuter without his diaper. It goes across cultures and does not need to be taught; although it can be suppressed. I’m not saying that it is bad – or that we should even link it to the more intense sexual desired to be conquered – just saying that, while low intensity, it is common and existent.

            While not super important, I point this out because I think it is important for men to be brutally honest with themselves and with each other about women’s sexuality.

            Civilization is a safespace – built, maintained and protected by men. Men are the construction workers, the farmers, the computer scientists and the warriors. Wherever there is an interface between the safespace and nature (or God), woman want a man standing in between. And a woman fighting with God or nature is not feminine and not beautiful. Women face men and men face the world. Men get their confidence from God: from effectively ruling nature. Women get their confidence by being loved well by a worthy man. Women do not want emancipation to face nature; they want emancipation to a more broad or more exciting part of the safespace.

            It is important for men to be brutally hones about woman’s sexuality because cucking here often leads to worshiping women’s sexuality instead of God. I often see these cucked men undermining groups of cooperating virtuous men — underming them to follow some woman’s quixotic (often sexual) whim. When the men fail because of their lack of unity, the woman finds them ugly — and they are.

            Men are often afraid to view women’s sexuality honestly because they are afraid to trigger women and they are afraid of rejection. But a kind of autistic, brutally honest view of women’s motivations and sexuality is not for — and should not be discussed with — woman. Female sexuality should be left pure and unselfconcious — and woman should exist in spaces where it naturally flourishes into something beautiful. Do not adulterate your woman by trying to red pill her. Secondly, strong virtuous men that cooperate well are attractive. Follow God not pussy and you will get pussy.

  8. BC says:

    I’m astounded that anyone here is defending psychiatry. It is and always has been a garbage science.

    • The Cominator says:

      I’ve defended certain aspects of it but I recognize that its not a hard science and that it is full of frauds, but I’ve known too many people who would definitely fall into the cluster B categories.

      Ev. psych is also the most based and redpilled social science.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Ev psych is still a limited hangout.

        Ignores differences between human species – they conduct sincere debates about what some African hunter-gatherer tribe tells us about human nature.

        Takes survey data seriously in areas where women are extremely likely to lie.

        Conducts experiments like having a man directly proposition women and count how many yeses vs how many men say yes vs a woman doing the same and concludes that women aren’t as interested in uncommitted sex than men.

        • The Cominator says:

          Cathedral commissariat limits what they can say and how much digging into the truth of female nature they can do. It still expresses a lot of the truth and digging into it you can see the real truth…

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Tomato / tomato – individuals are under control to not produce truths that are too shocking for the commissars the result is that the field is under commissar control and exists to serve as a limited hang out.

        • jim says:

          A limited hangout is a big improvement on what usually comes out of academia, which is total lies.

          The Horowitz report was a limited hangout, and you could easily read between the lines.

          And when reading evopsych, you of course have to read between the lines. The good stuff is of course never in sections labelled “Key points”, “Abstract”, “Summary”, and “Conclusions”,.

        • Aldon says:

          >Ignores differences between human species – they conduct sincere debates about what some African hunter-gatherer tribe tells us about human nature.

          Noble savage.

  9. ERTZ says:

    (I reply here because there is no room/reply option above)

    >>Because, for the upper class, Negroes function as what I termed “profit pumps”, or “profit guarantees”:

    >You are demented.
    I hope not.

    >The man who gets is income from capital got rich by allocating his capital to stuff that created enormous
    That created wealth in form of companies/shares he owns.
    But his income from that capital – profits, dividends – is from people who buy the stuff his companies sell.
    For example, Nike sells shoes to Negroes and lower class; those can’t or won’t work, and receive their money as welfare, from taxes other people paid.
    The Negroes and lower class people have a RIGHT to that money as welfare.
    The more of them exist, the higher the demand for those shoes – AND therefore the higher the amount of shoes Nike sells, and the higher the capital income for the shareholders of Nike.
    The same applies for, say, McDonald’s, Coca Cola or those huge beer monopoly or sugar (MARS) companies.
    The more lower-class people live of welfare exist, the more those companies sell, the more they profit, the more their owners receive as capital income.
    Imagine what would happen if the US took in another 100 million poor people, and all of them ended in welfare.
    Who profits, who pays?
    Those additional 100 million people will all increase demand almost 1:1 for the products of the companies of the upper class – and the middle class will pay for it with their taxes (REMEMBER: The middle class is, quantitatively, the only class that works, that produces surplus).
    More people supplied with welfare = more profits/capital income for the upper class.
    (Even the upper class will want to spend only income, not wealth=substance=shares, for their own luxury – they will not cut into their cow’s meat, only trade its milk – the super-rich don’t spend their wealth little by little, they spend at most their capital income from it.)

    > and eighty percent of that wealth that he created gets taxed away
    Not the absolute amount of tax matters, but the absolute amount of capital income.
    If taxes are increased, then a great many people must pay more taxes; including the super-rich.
    But the taxes of the great many people are together MUCH more money than the taxes of the relatively few super-rich, and because, as explained above, the taxes of the great many people flow ultimately over proxy welfare and companies back into the pockets of the super-rich as capital income,
    the super-rich, up to a certain point, gain more ultimate net income from having higher taxes than lower taxes!
    The higher taxes will only reduce the net incomes of the less-than-super-rich!

    >And you tells me he benefits from handing it out tothe people who beat up his children.
    Yes, I do.
    The super-rich’s children are also very unlikely to even get socially near people who beat up rich children,
    and surely not past their body guards.

    • jim says:

      > But his income from that capital – profits, dividends – is from people who buy the stuff his companies sell.
      For example, Nike sells shoes to Negroes and lower class; those can’t or won’t work,

      I buy shoes also, and if you look at the stuff that billionaires are investing it, it is usually high end stuff that negroes would not touch. Not shoes. There are no really rich people associated with low end stuff, except for Sam Walton’s family, and if every negro was sent back to Africa, it would only marginally affect Sam Walton’s bottom line, and would improve every other billionaire’s bottom line.

      So for most billionaires, every penny taxed away from them and their mostly middle class customers is a penny they will never see. You think negroes buy Musk’s stuff? The customers of billionaires are people who pay taxes, not people who get tax money.

      Sam Walton’s competitive advantage is to directly connect the factory to the display shelves, with goods bypassing the big and expensive central areas, being trucked as directly as possible from the factory to the shelves, which means that most of his stuff tends to be sold in areas that are not in the big bicoastal megalopoli, where most of the handouts to voter banks, and most of the fake government jobs to employees who profile as Democratic Party voters go (notice the lack of road maintenance in Democratic areas, despite the fact that they supposedly spend far more on road maintenance and stuff than in Republican areas – you can see the road suddenly deteriorate as you drive across the political line)

      So most of the money Sam Walton’s family pays in taxes goes from places where they live, and where their customers live, to places where their enemies live, and their customers do not live, because the competitive advantage that made him rich is less in the bicoastal megalopoli. Walmarts revenue tends to come from flyover country, not where his taxes are spent.

      And for most billionaires, it is an even worse proposition than it is for the Walton family. The people who buy ads on Facebook and Google are not selling stuff to negroes. They are selling stuff to the people whose taxes provide the negroes with drugs and beer.

      The people who develop tracts of land are not selling houses to negroes. They are selling houses to people who pay taxes to support the negroes who drive them out of those houses and take them over.

      Reflect on the Gillette ads denigrating and insulting their customers, and encouraging men to cut their dicks off. You think Gillette profits from men cutting their dicks off?

      • ERTZ says:

        Look, all I try to explain is that the super rich gain more net income from generally (all people are higher taxed) higher taxes, if those taxes are paid out as welfare and spread out among more consumers (welfare recipients), than they lose from paying higher taxes themselves.

        For example, if practically all welfare recipients drink Coke, and then there are 100 million more people from immigration, who receive income from welfare out of increased taxes, say, 10% higher tax rate, then the additional demand=profit for Coca Cola can mean more after-tax net income for Coca Cola/shareholders, because the additional profits overcompensate the higher tax rate in after-tax capital income, because the higher taxes are paid by all people, but the higher incomes from those taxes end up not with all people, but only the company/shareholders.

        • The Cominator says:

          Most tax money does not go to shareholders (even when spent on say defense) it mostly goes to government bureaucrats a part of the progressive priesthood.

        • jim says:

          > Look, all I try to explain is that the super rich gain more net income from generally (all people are higher taxed) higher taxes, if those taxes are paid out as welfare

          But this obviously absurd. Look at the ads. Any money that goes from taxpayers to illegals and negroes is money that is considerably less likely to come back to rich people. How many negro customers do you think Musk has? The super rich are invested in businesses that largely sell higher end stuff. The rich do not benefit from money spend on booze, drugs and trashing the neighborhood. OK, Phil Knight benefits, but his business is atypical of billionaires.

          Billionaires are apt to be heavily into real estate, even if they made their money in some other way, and real estate certainly does not benefit from taking money from taxpayers and giving it to criminals, and they surely do not benefit from HUD section eighting thugs into the places that they built. Even if the people who got Phil Knights money spent all of it on Nike shoes and section eight housing in his real estate, he would still be losing money on it.

          Not even Phil Knight is going to hand over seventy percent of the wealth that he created so that he can get five percent of it back on the markup from Nike shoes, and every time the government section eights his real estate, he wishes that they would drop bombs on it instead.

          • Not Tom says:

            It makes a certain kind of sense for companies like Google and Facebook. They make money from ad impressions. Ad impressions are generated by people sitting at home doing nothing important. Welfare supports minority indolence, and Diversity causes even the white people to turtle up at home and consume more “content” and therefore more ads.

            But to point out that a certain type of company (not nearly all, or even most of them) benefits from this, is not evidence that it is part of their conscious strategy, and certainly does not prove they are orchestrating it. The very simple, parsimonious explanation of why these companies support those things is that the Cathedral wants Democrats, Democrats want votes, diversity and “free” stuff get them votes, and CEOs know it is in their best interest to give the Cathedral what it wants. Woke virtue signaling and Democratic donations are both forms of protection rackets.

            • jim says:

              > It makes a certain kind of sense for companies like Google and Facebook. They make money from ad impressions.

              They make money from selling ad impressions. Take a look at what the ads are for. The ads are generally not for the stuff that people on welfare buy, apart from all the ads for absurdly overpriced makeup.

              • Not Tom says:

                This is correct, but they get paid for the impressions regardless of how likely the viewer is to purchase. They’re not rated on turnaround or CTR, and in many cases (think YouTube ads) there isn’t even a CTR to measure.

                The whole ad economy, in my opinion, is massive fraud and mass delusions of efficacy, but in such a system, the ad seller profits from impression inflation.

                Again, though, this doesn’t prove intent; if it hints at intent, does not prove conspiracy; and if it hints at conspiracy, does not prove successful conspiracy. There are too many logical leaps in “corporations advocate for policy X because it increases profits through an obscure and difficult to control chain of consequences”. There are many simpler, more efficient ways to make a buck, and if one doesn’t believe they are interested in efficient profits then there is really no reason to believe they are motivated by profits at all.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:


                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  You are presupposing that an implausible Marxist claim is true, without providing evidence or explanation. Argument by fake consensus.

                  Appeal to consensus is not allowed on this blog, even on matters of faith and morals.

                • jack boot says:

                  pelosi has 100 million and no one knows how or why but somehow it’s a marxist conspiracy theory to notice that the business with the highest roi is politics

                  and a snappy seig heil to you too, comrade.

                • jim says:

                  That politicians mysteriously acquire immense wealth is not evidence that the rich are in power. It is evidence that they are out of power.

                  She gained that wealth by theft and extortion. Therefore, the people she is robbing and extorting are powerless. And they act powerless. Observe the fear in Zuckerberg’s eyes when the priesthood took over Facebook. I suppose he is genuinely a leftist, but if so, his leftism failed to protect him. Still less did his wealth protect him.

                • alf says:

                  Mark Zuckerberg is licking the priesthood’s heels. To which AOC’s predictable response is: lick harder!

                • jim says:

                  When we are the priesthood, he will lick with equal enthusiasm, and scarcely notice the change in personnel. He probably is not Havel’s Greengrocer, but if he is not, he will be.

                • ten says:

                  It is spelled sieg heil. It is a very famous slogan. Why is it so hard to get it right?

        • Scortum says:

          If you care enough about your argument, make a back of the envelope calculation (after looking up the relevant numbers and making a couple estimates — assuming you haven’t done that in a post i didn’t read up-thread).

          Mckinsey CEOs think quarterly; most billionaires by the decade.

          The big picture is that billionaires (like Jews) need to pivot from cuckservatives and the left: from cuckservaties because cuckseravtives always lose and from the left because the left will soon take their stuff and kill them.

          Also want them on our side: rich people tend to be competent; tend to be smart about interesting things; and while their capital still has value and is still theirs: valuable.

          • >The big picture is that billionaires (like Jews) need to pivot from cuckservatives and the left: from cuckservaties because cuckseravtives always lose and from the left because the left will soon take their stuff and kill them.

            >Also want them on our side: rich people tend to be competent; tend to be smart about interesting things; and while their capital still has value and is still theirs: valuable.

            I like to think thoughts like that. And that is precisely the problem. Because I like them, it could be just wishful thinking.

            How about this: billionaires will always pivot to the strongest leaders, either strong priests or strong warriors. If Trump or another Real Right leader does not get strong enough to draw them away, they will buy into hard leftism, donate them their wealth and hope they will not be killed if they join them.

            • Scortum says:

              I didn’t say they would pivot, I said they needed to — which is likely true and smart to say. Secondly, It is dumb to ‘wish’ for billionaires to save things. Not because they wouldn’t, but because they can’t. At least not much more than any other competent person that wants to try their hand at wielding political power (Not buying: if political power was as for sale as claimed Warren would not be openly advocating her wealth ‘tax’.)

  10. TBeholder says:

    Add “privilege” (fuck the Romans), “experience” and now also “epistemical” (
    Or maybe if you’ll try to avoid every word some retard used in retarded nonsense, you will have to communicate with inarticulate sounds and gestures.

  11. Jsd says:

    One word that I have been hearing a lot is “neoliberal.” This seems like a commie word used to retcon the failure’s of yesterday’s Cathedral into being the fault of too much free market.

    • ERTZ says:

      They also like assure each other about their “solidarity”.
      In practice it means less than when a Christian announces “I’ll pray for you.”

    • Jan Martense says:

      “Neoliberal” is just a more pejorative version of “classical liberal.” It’s not an “enemy word” at all. If you think criticizing liberals is a communist thing you’ve yourself fallen into the commie trap of assuming that markets are a modern (e.g. liberal) invention, when in fact they have existed since the invention of currency.

      • jim says:

        Condemnation of libertarians (previously known as Classic Liberals, before that Liberals, and before that Levellers) coming right up in my next post.

        That the left wing of the left wing is throwing libertarians overboard does not imply that we should take them on board. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Let them drown. When aging whores #metooed Harvey Weinstein because he would no longer sex them up, I had no difficulty containing my sympathy for him.

  12. The Cominator says:

    Re Cathedral psychology and the cluster Bs. What is true and what is a lie. While realizing that headshrinkery is far from an exact science I think that there is some value in so called cluster B as personality categories. There are also some positives to some cluster Bs.

    Lets start with what I think is the most common cluster B personality disorder in the US, narcissistic personality disorder. I think this is VERY common in the US (amateur psychologist often accuse Trump of this but that is total crap) but the big cathedral lie is that it is more common among men, whereas in reality it probably fits very well with as much as 1/3rd of at least millenial American women. NPDs have no real strong loyalty to anyone or principles but they do have a need for occasional worship and praise from people they consider somewhat worthy of them… and this is how very very many American women are. There are very few real positives with this personality disorder except that a woman who has it will at least be more motivated not to get fat than an ordinary woman, but even this does not always hold up.

    Histronic personality disorder basically describes compulsive and dramatic attention whoring. Its rare among non-fags (there are a few women who have it but its rare) but with flaming type faggots its like their default personality. My only real experience was I had a faggot co-worker (who was useless too) who had this and I thought about beating his brains in every day.

    Borderline personality disorder I’ve only seen in women… like most of the cluster Bs they have an evil reputation but in my experience not so much for reasons complicated to explain I’ve known a couple extremely well and the 1st chick to ever give me the time of day romantically was BPD (and unlike most such chicks I did NOT end up hating them in the end).

    In essence they exhibit higher than normal female irrationality and mood swings (and in a good mood they tend to have an extremely fun to be around personality and they take care of their appearance) but they also lack the female rationalization hamster to allow them to be totally blind to their own bad behaviour. So when a so called borderline really treats a guy badly instead of rationalizing that they were right they actually feel guilty and sometimes even dramatically apologize and admit they were wrong. They are far more likely to THREATEN to do horrible things to you than a normal woman (like THREATEN to accuse you of rape) but far less likely than a normal woman to actually carry them out. More so than normal women prone to extreme depression and self destructive behaviour absent strong male ownership.

    Psychopaths/antisocials… lets clear up that the fearless warrior trait of such people only manifests itself if they are put into a war situation but they are not per se more likely to join the military (especially if the military is low status and mostly boring) than normal people. They are only fearless warriors because they don’t really feel fear the way normal people do it has nothing to do with their profession.

    • The Cominator says:

      I hit enter before I could finish but ill get back to the psychopath thing as I’ve seen it later…

    • jim says:

      Some time ago I was in hospital. I could not walk, and was not sure whether I would be able to walk again. (I am fine now) My wife was dying, and I could not look after her.

      And a doctor showed up by my bedside and started asking me a bunch of psychiatric questions. I quickly realized he was fishing for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact he was not just fishing. It turned into a high pressure interrogation in which he demanded that I confess to the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

      I simply did not have any of the symptoms in the slightest degree, and said so, and he would double down, pressuring me to say that I did, and getting quite snippy when I kept on truthfully denying that I had any of the symptoms. It turned into something like a police interrogation.

      Immediately following him, a second doctor showed up, a woman, much friendlier and nicer, and she was fishing for depression. She was much nicer about it than the PTSD guy, but it was all a bunch of leading questions, manipulative questions, that if answered in a truthful, helpful, and cooperative fashion by any normal reasonable person would have given them grounds to drug that person to the eyeballs and give them electroshock therapy.

      Bad cop, good cop.

      It was the depression checklist, but manipulatively framed and spun, not neutrally framed, framed so that no normal truthful helpful cooperative person could fail to give all the depression checklist answers, framed so that if one gave the checklist answer, one was being nice and helpful, and if one declined to give the checklist answer, one was being unhelpful and uncooperative..

      After a few of the questions, which at first I answered truthfully and cooperatively until I realized where this was heading, that the questions were loaded, I said “I am sick and my wife is dying. I am rationally, appropriately, and proportionally depressed, I will get over it.” and shut down further questioning. It was getting to the point where I felt like saying “I want my lawyer present during this testimony”.

      It was obvious to me that the shrinks were just going up to random vulnerable people and trying to force fit them into random psychiatric categories, and that with sufficient determination, anyone can be force fitted into something or other. Maybe I had pissed someone in the system off and they were fishing for grounds to put me under restraint. Maybe the crazy bin was short of customers and was looking for customers with good private insurance.

      When I used the word “depressed”, she acted like she had been caught.

      They are manufacturing madness by fitting people into categories that do not in fact fit.

      And that is the sum total of my personal experience with being on the receiving end from the psychiatric profession, from which I conclude that they are a bunch of crooks who belong in jail. When you tell me they observe correlations, I tell you that they manufacture pre defined categories.

      • ERTZ says:

        >Fortunately I am not a cooperative person.
        Hear, hear – that from the promulgator of the cooperate-cooperate equilibrium.

        And the docs probably just wanted revenue.
        I was once in a hospital due to a liver problem, and a nurse maloperated some bed-folding mechanism and hurt my knee. Next day an orthopedic surgeon arrived and tried for 20 minutes convince me I’d need knee surgery, I rejected, and he left very angry (even smashed the door shut).
        To be sure, a month later I checked with an orthopedic in another city, and his checks acknowledged my knee was perfectly fine; I asked, and he indirectly confirmed that the hospital wanted to sell me a 100% unnecessary knee operation that could have had no benefit for me, only risks.

      • TBeholder says:

        And that is the sum total of my personal experience with being on the receiving end from the psychiatric profession, from which I conclude that they are a bunch of crooks who belong in jail.

        They mostly fill the niches of either confessor (for people got serious problems and want to deal with them, but have no idea as to how) or fortuneteller (for people who don’t). Someone always will, as long as there are people who want to talk about their problems, but have no close friends, and those who want to be duped, respectively.
        The only real problem is that since it’s a pseudoscience, some of psychololgists are also allowed to speak as “experts”.
        Either way, do the specific forms (while often annoyingly retarded, sure) matter at all?
        Talking to people about problems is not very mythology-relevant and effect (if any) depends purely on personal conflict-solving skills (if any), fortune-telling in a gypsy tent is generally harmless (however useless), augury allowed in a court of law (or instead of proper medicine where it’s really needed) is obviously dangerous. Nothing new in either.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        And your conclusion is completely right, one only needs to read about the DSM and its history to start to understand.

        If progressives are the priests behind the Cathedral, psychiatrists are progressives on steroids in their modus operandi, and in many ways they are the priests behind progressivism as is today as well as the first ones who engaged in war against Christian priests and their parishioners. Every argument against religion by a progressive will be grounded on some ridiculous and arbitrary psychology or psychiatry concept.

        Where does the blank slate concept come from even? And it goes all the way back to Pavlov and his dogs.

      • jack boot says:

        > Maybe I had pissed someone in the system off and they were fishing for grounds to put me under restraint.

        how likely?

    • alf says:

      Narcissistic personality disorder is one of those typical ‘cold read’ disorders, which, when people first hear about it, they go: ‘wow I totally know people like that!’

      But then you think about it deeper and you realize it says nothing. Typical description of narcissism is: ‘someone who imagines they are the main character in their movie, everyone else is a side character.’ Yeah, that’s literally everyone.

      As for borderline personality: that’s just a dogwhistle for feral female behavior.

      • jim says:

        > narcissism is: ‘someone who imagines they are the main character in their movie, everyone else is a side character.’ Yeah, that’s literally everyone.

        Everyone can be fitted with narcissistic personality disorder, women more so than men, and though not all men can be fitted with psychopathy, any normal man can be fitted with sociopathy.

        A psychopath supposedly has the behaviors and character that should result in him being friendless and alone, but mysteriously, he is not friendless and alone. Which must be because he is a clever deceptive heartless manipulator. A sociopath supposedly has the behaviors and character that should result in him being friendless and alone, except that he is a good husband to his wife, a good father to his children, and a good friend to his friends. OK, with everyone else, he must be a clever deceptive heartless manipulator.

        • TBeholder says:

          Try “The Psychopath Code” by Hintjens. He wonderfully demystifies “the dark triad” and other vagueness and distills it into something that actually makes a sense.
          For examples, see shrink4men, she paints essentially the same picture, except have seen more examples and got no good theory on which to hang them. After all, while the Freudist theology (and post-Freudist that usurped it) is retarded, it’s not what matters. The “confessors” of psychology work in the field and deal mostly with problems that exist. Those of them who got working brains may be minority, but they can collect a lot of observations, generalize and draw conclusions just like everyone else with working brains, just don’t have a ready theory half as good as they used to think.

          • jim says:

            > Those of them who got working brains may be minority, but they can collect a lot of observations, generalize and draw conclusions just like everyone else

            Their observations are necessarily subjective, so it is easy to see whatever theory, politics, or the need for more loony bin customers with good insurance, tells you to see.

            Shrinks are priests, priests tend to not be manly, and to dislike men manlier than themselves. Hence “psychopath” and “sociopath”.

            • TBeholder says:

              > Their observations are necessarily subjective,
              Everyone’s are, so? The signal adds up more than noise. It’s a good thing useless “smart sounding” theories are shuffled now and then, too.

              > so it is easy to see whatever theory, politics, or the need for more loony bin customers with good insurance, tells you to see.
              Well, yeah. Hence specified “with working brains”. At least, enough to see how reality is nastier than they were told. And the first filter is giving any attention to those who try and talk to the interested public about specific problems rather than preach “how kind of cool we are” or publish for the circlejerk of humanities.

              >Shrinks are priests, priests tend to not be manly, and to dislike men manlier than themselves.
              Well, yeah. Hence “she“. ;]

              • jim says:

                > > Their observations are necessarily subjective,

                > Everyone’s are, so?

                My observations are objective. I am good at this, and as I got older, got better.

                > The signal adds up more than noise.

                The signal fails to add up when you keep cooking the signal. And I saw them cooking the signal right in front of me.

                As I said earlier: A psychopath supposedly has the behaviors and character that should result in him being friendless and alone, but mysteriously, he is not friendless and alone. “Which must be because he is a clever deceptive heartless manipulator.” A sociopath is a psychopath, except that he has come through for friends and family, shown he is a good husband to his wife, a good father to his children, and a good friend to his friends. “OK, with everyone else, he must be a clever deceptive heartless manipulator.”

                • TBeholder says:

                  If you read psychological theory, it will be watery nonsense, no matter about what.
                  Which is why my heuristics are: good data comes from those who actually deal with real world cases and don’t philosophize on them too much (rubber stamp collectors and other idiots need to be disregarded, but they are fairly obvious), while good theory comes from those used to meaningful thinking work and via tools demonstrably useful for solving problems (either of which excludes humanities).
                  Hintjens was a programmer, and used established facts of zoology as the foundation, which is why his musings stay solid (while far from perfectly lined up), rather than collapsing into theological smoke and mirrors.

                • info says:

                  I am talking about the same type of people who torture animals in their youth.

        • The Cominator says:

          Not everyone can cleary be fitted with narcissism and the Cathedral’s official truth is that it is more common with men than women but of course like many cathedral official truth that is an obvious lie at least in regards to American women.

          The very fact that they conceal the staggering % of american women this would fit. and absurdly claim its more common with men means that the diagnosis itself is likely to have some basis in reality. If you are going to make something up why make something that implicates the holy american roasties for the maladjusted selfish lunatics they are… And then lie to conceal this inconvient fact.

          • Not Tom says:

            Sometimes the Cathedral accidentally tells the truth. Here it is in effect saying that narcissism is perfectly normal and totally unremarkable in women (true), but considerably more unusual and sometimes concerning in men (also true, because men need to cooperate).

            I think it is one of those things that is carefully packaged so as not to alarm progressives, but in fact points to what everyone knows: all women are solipsistic, so it is not really worth discussing “treatment” or behavioral modification, it’s just how their brains work.

            • The Cominator says:

              I don’t think its true of all women i think its true of if not most a very very high % of american women especially american millenial and younger women.

              • jim says:

                All women are like that. That is why women cannot do large group cooperation.

              • Not Tom says:

                It can appear not to be true of women who are subject to a strong alpha. Take away that alpha and narcissistic behavior will resume almost immediately.

                Beta males can cooperate and communicate effectively without an alpha leader. If you have ever overheard a conversation between two or more women, however, it is like the sound of an orchestra tuning up, but instead of tuning instruments they are tuning moods and emotions. Absent male leadership, I don’t think I’ve ever seen women seriously think about matters that don’t involve them personally.

                And this isn’t a bad thing, in the right context. It’s not meant to be disparaging to women. It is just is the way it is. If we weren’t constantly subjected to propaganda telling us men and women are exactly alike, I don’t think anyone would really question it or feel the need to jump in with NAWALT. Maybe some aren’t (if so, I’ve never met them) but it’s generally unimportant in any serious analysis – it’s within the statistical margin of error.

        • info says:


          Maybe not friendless or alone necessarily. But destructive nonetheless as this man describes:

          Sociable and very charming but nonetheless ends up destroying people with gaslighting and so forth. So like a predator with good skin.

          The phenomenon if not the words that are wrong. What is it?

          • jim says:

            The man giving this talk is a priest, a university professor, priestly power using the state to impose priestly power to intrude on merchant power. Of course he is going to discover psychopaths in the workplace. Or witches. Or whatever justifies priests taking merchant stuff.

            I suspect that “psychopaths” he discovered were good friends to employees who did their job, and damgerous enemies to employees who used state power against them.

          • alf says:

            Notice also that profman denounces bullies, whereas we are of the opinion that bullies fulfill an essential function in male hierarchies. Likely profman was bullied himself but never learned from it.

            • BC says:

              Being bullied in the first grade was the best thing that happened to me before 10. I learned to fight and to this day I’m always ready deal violence when violence is aimed my way.

            • Thales says:

              Bullies are enforcers of orthodoxy, like cops, their morality predicated on what doctrine they’re acting on. If punishing male weakness, doing good; If punishing male strength, evil.

              • alf says:

                Bullying is a display of male strength – I’ve never seen it used to punish male strength, only male weakness.

                You’re thinking of leftist bullying, but that’s not really bullying. Works quite different. When you are bullied in the shoolyard, you are pushed around and they take your pencils. When you are ‘bullied’ by leftists, you never notice it directly, only indirectly, in the sense that you hear whispers of accusations, until without further warnings certain doors close. It’s different.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I suppose he is thinking of SJW bullying, accusations of “transphobia”, etc.

                  Here’s a good test for whether something is genuinely bullying, or part of some other phenomenon: Does the so-called “bully” act alone, or seem capable of acting alone?

                  Or, as in the case of the typical SJW, do they have to edge up carefully to the target, start with subtle openings such as “what do you mean by [some term with obvious meaning]?” or “so you’re saying that…”, and only point and shriek when they are absolutely certain that the rest of the fish are swimming in the same direction?

                  Bullying is the killer ape coming out. Probing and swarming is insectoid behavior.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Leftist / SJW bullying is female bullying / priestly bullying.

                  Behind closed doors everyone tacitly coordinates on a story as to how the target is an outsider and should be cast out of the herd.

                  To women, this is the only deadly evolutionary threat.

              • The Cominator says:

                Natural boyish bullying has some positive aspects, within the prison like confines of Cathedral public schools its often a horrible thing though. Bullying should also always be one on one.

                • BC says:

                  Bullying with whites is typically 1 on 1 where the bully leader will attack you while his friends watch. If you win, they leave you alone. Not blacks. If the bully leader loses, they all join in the attack.

      • TBeholder says:

        Most of the psychological stuff is so vague it resembles horoscopes. As it should, of course.

      • BPD is “hot bitch crazy”. Shit tests from really hot chicks who demand the most dominant men are diagnosed as clinical insanity. BPD boils down to “shit tests only Genghis Khan could pass”. I define female insanity as “shit tests disproportionate to her SMV”. Sometimes a 5 will shit test like a dime. That’s insanity.

        • The Cominator says:

          I’m not sure about your theory on shit tests (and I’ve had one scream at me on the phone for an hour and a half straight) but BPDs have a diminished female rationalization hamster, after a time delay when they’ve been acting like a cunt they have to live in the knowledge that they acted like a cunt. Its kind of a very endearing quality actually as they will actually try to make amends but the depression and self destructive behaviour gets worse not better over time in most cases as the guilt for normal female cuntish self defeating behaviour builds up and they can’t rationalize it.

          • jim says:

            Hits wall. Realizes, far too late, that Ghenghis Khan is not going to haul her off to his harem and General Butt Naked is not going to kick down the door.

            • The Cominator says:

              Okay its hard to explain for people who haven’t known any well so…


              This is typical borderline personality behaviour taken to an extreme. Normal women would rationalize this that somehow her boyfriend was the bad guy here, and how she never actually liked him in the 1st place and would end up feeling no guilt or shame over this… but probably wouldn’t be screwing around while she still felt like she loved her boyfriend. BPD will fairly cheerfully screw around on a boyfriend she still likes but won’t delude herself into thinking its his fault.

              They DO fear hitting the wall quite consciously and will even talk about it (which normal women never will) but their lack of a rationalization hamster is a seperate issue.

              • jim says:

                “stress of college”.

                Which stresses seem curiously similar to the stresses that one would expect of whore school.

                Sending him the message was an obvious shit test.

                ‘Mr Guy said the messages conveyed to Jack were “for attention”‘

                Which he passed by dumping her. Had he failed, she would have instantly forgotten his face and his name.

                Seems to me that the red pill account of what was happening – whore school, brutal shit tests, the one that got away, describes events much more accurately than “Borderline Personality Disorder”.

                Whore school teaches girls that they are entitled to men who can pass shit tests that Genghis Khan and General Butt Naked would have trouble passing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Normal women don’t feel guilt or shame in the modern West and even if they do its a minor passing thing that certainly would never lead to actually killing themselves (maybe a fake suicide attempt if they were really embarassed)… the rationalization hamster makes them all faultless heroines of their own story.

                  This one obviously was not a faultless heroine in her own story.

                • jim says:

                  Women are only indifferent to the damage they do to betas. They feel guilty about the damage they do to alphas.

                  All Women Are Like That.

                  Psychiatric labels are misleading. It is not that she has some psychobabble syndrome, it is that she sees nearly all men as betas, and therefore their pain is insignificant.

              • ten says:

                Having also been with a BPD woman i’ll sort of back the cominator on this one.

                Sudden explosive out of nowhere anger, blocking me on all messenger apps and social media and deleting my number, to sadly and ashamedly creep back the next day with promises to get her shit together – it’s not a shit test, it cuts me out of the loop completely, except if i would run after her, which she never even gave me time to do. If i don’t have time to fail the test, it’s at least a very poorly designed test, and compared to sane woman shit tests who are often eerily precise and difficult to pass, i don’t see how they are similar.

                It’s not radically different from normal female behaviour, but it’s polar, it switches between utter insanity and hostility to gentle sweetness on its own without your input.

                The degree of change, rapidity and binary lunacy is not something i have ever seen in a sane woman.

                • jim says:

                  Explosive anger out of nowhere is always a shit test. She wants a spanking. All Women Are Like That.

                  If you are not up for a spanking, which is likely to be followed or accompanied by rough sex, give her a time out. Physically remove her, especially if she is in your office, or any other part of the house where you usually spend time without being distracted by her (which she usually is when she has anger out of nowhere) and then ignore her for an hour or a day. They love physical removal almost as much as a spanking followed or accompanied by rough sex.

                • The Cominator says:

                  With normal females its a shit test but one did the exact same thing to me, explosive anger (over the phone no spanking possible) with communications cut off followed by her reestablishing them followed by her being nice. There is also never really any passive aggression about it either. The other bizzare thing is girls who hate you or are angry with you generally don’t put in good words with their hot friends… BPD girl apparently and through observed behaviour when she was mad said only good things about me to her friends.

                  “It’s not radically different from normal female behaviour, but it’s polar, it switches between utter insanity and hostility to gentle sweetness on its own without your input.”

                  And unlike normal women they’ll go back to being sweet even when you are depressed and low status… BPD girl was generally better to me when everything else was going shitty and apt to explode into the monster when everything was going well.

                  Thats why I kinda have a huge soft spot for them for all their flaws I thought there was more genuine sweetness and real loyalty with them than with normie women… and as a sperg BPD girl was the 1st who ever really showed any interest. Too bad she destroyed herself later…

                • jim says:

                  She cut off communications? You should have cut off communication the instant the phone call became unpleasant. By meekly allowing the phone call to continue, allowing her to continue to berate you, you showed the weakness she was probing for.

                  Chicks love being put on time out for bad behavior. Especially if her dad was fond of using timeouts.

                • The Cominator says:

                  BTW Jim I know this isn’t a PUA site but it might be good to post and as comprehensive list as possible of female shits and how (legally if possible though sometimes it probably is not legal) to pass them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  She reestablished them quickly but that instant was one second into the phone call in this case…

  13. Bruce says:

    Agree 100%, don’t use their language – they’ve already won if you do.

    Somewhere, I saw the claim that the word “racist” was invented after WWI. It was a translation (into French initially) of the word “volkische” a word invented by the German far left to describe the German nationalist right.

    I think it was Peter Frost who made this claim.

  14. ERTZ says:

    “If you have one word for both, then priestly types can never be evil, and warrior types can never be good. So the actual usage in practice necessarily collapses to a hateful word for warrior.”

    Leftists hate everybody who is more powerful, as those are an obstacle to taking power themselves.
    Leftists are more anti-competitive in masculine ways –
    war, physical strength, psychological strength (self-discipline, impulse control, self improvement), sports – but
    more feminine –
    less muscular, detest bodybuilding+martial arts, less interest in manly sources of power like weapons –
    in the way they try to achieve power: through social manipulation and reputation attacks on people and ideas.

    Leftists seem to be men who attempt to take power by a mix of masculine and feminine strategies, in sum are men who are more feminine in their thinking and actions – and who often even look more feminine due to a lack in muscles and an aversion to get them by exercise.
    They primarily engage not in physical conflicts, but in social ones, like women do – by reputation warfare, the attempt to manipulate reputations, incl. reputation assassination – they try to invert vices and virtues, bad and good, to fit their agenda.

    Therefore they try to destroy the reputation of enemies and enemy concepts:
    Warriors, masculine men, capitalism, honor, courage etc. – everything that is associated with power, strength, masculinity, success, hierarchy.
    They tend to avoid to confront their enemies openly – exactly like women do, exactly as it suits the weaker side in any conflict.
    Changing definitions, the underlying meanings of words, is a way they try to win conflicts.

    “Soldiers are murderers” was a major shibboleth of leftists in (West) Germany,
    where leftists were not in power.
    But right next door at the same time, in the GDR, ruled by leftists, soldiers were propagandized as the great heroes of the people and models for boys and men to emulate!
    As soon they were in power, soldiers, masculinity and military suddenly became a good thing.

    Also, when not in power, leftists seem driven to fight gun ownership by any means, any argument they can get hold of.
    When in power, they switch suddenly to be pro-gun – not as private ownership, but public training with guns to stabilize their power (GDR+UdSSR offered marksmanship training and gun handling courses for AK47 etc. in schools regularly).

    In general, leftists seem to fight with feminine strategies against every idea or group or person that has more power than them and is an obstacle to their taking of power, as long as they are not in power themselves;
    as soon as they are, their pacifism ends and they propagandize masculinity and militarism to stay in power.

    They switch around the meaning of words and ideas for that purpose as they see fit – if words were money, they’d be counterfeiters.

    • TBeholder says:

      > “Soldiers are murderers” was a major shibboleth of leftists in (West) Germany,
      A form of anti-militarism, yes. Moldbug identified it as one of the 4 primary commandments of Progressivism.
      He also noted their hypocrisy about it. As did Kipling (“Russia to the Pacifists”) and everyone else who bothered to look what many participants of Red October were doing before it happened.

  15. ERTZ says:

    Jim, you wrote that priests rule, and the merchants never do.
    I think that is incorrect:
    There is a lot of evidence that very successful merchant-class members, who rose to the very top, engage in politics and ruling, because the highest ranks of business and politics overlap functionally.

    The Rothschilds centuries ago influenced politics by their lending practices, probably by other means as well.
    Bernhard Baruch, exceedingly successful speculator, was actively engaged in WW1 and WW2 poltics in the US, and also in Europe (he seems to have been the man who relieved Winston Churchill of his debts and helped to make him rich again).
    A lot of billionaires are known today who, after becoming rich, expanded their attention from business into politics as well, for example Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Bloomberg; Trump, too, is a merchant who made the transition into politics.

    Merchants as a general class, and elite merchants, are just not the same type of people, do not the same things – one cannot put them into the same category.

    • jim says:

      > There is a lot of evidence that very successful merchant-class members, who rose to the very top, engage in politics and ruling, because the highest ranks of business and politics overlap functionally.

      No they don’t overlap. Wealthy merchants buy their way in, trying to buy status. It is like rich people endowing a monastery.

      The man who takes the money is in power. The man who pays the money is a supplicant.

      Trump crashed his way in, but there is no way you can say “Trump is powerful because money is power” Trump is powerful because he is good at political persuasion. His Twitter account matters a lot more than his money, and during the campaign, Hillary had plenty of money because she was shaking down rich people.

      Bill Gates has no power. He is just a milk cow for people who have power.

      • says:

        who was in power: Sackler or AEI

        who was in power: Paul Singer or Republican voters

        who was in power: Adelson or Trump

      • TBeholder says:

        Not leading from the front does not equal not having power.
        Paying the pipers to play the desired tune is exercising power via tools. Even if Bill Gates does not request music at all personally, he does exercise power to choose what the pipers play whenever he decides to throw his money on requests of someone else, or which piper to play.
        The lowly task of interacting with the pipers is done by personnel from Gates Foundation and “ONE Foundation” (the one behind Gretins).

        • jim says:

          > Even if Bill Gates does not request music at all personally, he does exercise power to choose what the pipers play whenever he decides to throw his money on requests of someone else, or which piper to play.

          What is he throwing his money at?

          Mostly he is throwing it at holier than thou people who are going through the motions of helping black African children in Africa.

          That is not power.

          When Trump decided he wanted power, he did not hire a piper, and if he had attempted to hire a piper, would not have been obeyed. Even as president, is not obeyed.

          It is absolutely obvious that the people receiving the money are not doing the bidding of the people giving them the money. Rather it is the other way around. Those who pay the piper are not calling the tune. They are not getting what they want, even less than Trump is.

          What Bloomberg wants is a Democratic party that leaves rich people alone even though it enthusiastically supports gays, blacks, illegals, transsexuals, and transsexualizes nine year old boys. Is he getting it?

          • ERTZ says:

            >Mostly he is throwing it at holier than thou people who are going through the
            >motions of helping black African children in Africa.
            >That is not power.

            It IS power, it is brilliant, it is the new colonialism:

            Effectively the West (here: Gates Foundation), is feeding Africans and administering basic healthcare.
            AND they make sure Africans get education.
            Sounds friendly, leftist, naive?
            No, it’s ruthlessly selfish and clever:
            What really happens is that the US (and the EU begins to learn the trick, too) administers, through “education aid”, basically cognitive tests, IQ tests, to the Africans.
            The smartest (they exist, also quite a lot, because there are so many Africans, even if the average IQ is dismally low) Africans are identified, and receive scholarships or immigration permits from the US.
            Effective outcome:
            The US scans the African gene-pool for smart subjects, removes them from Africa (often including their families, which also should carry some of those genes), thereby condemning Africa for future failure and hopeless stagnation, and transfers those genes, and their carriers, into the US.

            Brain drain, but with a turbo pump.
            One could call that genetic-cognitive reverse colonialism.

            • jim says:

              > > Mostly he is throwing it at holier than thou people who are going through the motions of helping black African children in Africa.

              > > That is not power.

              > It IS power, it is brilliant, it is the new colonialism:

              China is the new colonialism in Africa. White are the new genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sure does not look like power.

              > The smartest (they exist, also quite a lot, because there are so many Africans, even if the average IQ is dismally low

              And the contributions of these smart Africans to science and technology?

              There are no smart Africans. There are smart Africans that are smart enough to be a low level middle manager in a white company, but very few even of those.

              • ERTZ says:

                >China is the new colonialism in Africa.
                Yes. But all they do is building infrastructure, influence, and extract minerals and farmed food.
                The US extracts the strategically far superior resource:
                Cognitive potential, the only critical resource now and in the future.

                >White are the new genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sure does not look >like power.
                Again, the effect is that whites are driven out – mostly back into the US/EU. Africa loses potential, the West gains it.

                >There are no smart Africans. There are smart Africans that are smart enough to be a
                >low level middle manager in a white company, but very few even of those.
                There are a few very smart Africans (Thomas Sowell, for example).
                Even if it’s just 1 in 1000, that should amount to up to a million of them – important, valuable human capital. And Africa/China will never have it, instead the West will profit from them.
                Africa is full of different tribes, peoples – who also differ greatly genetically.
                We don’t need bushmen (those seem to be retarded without exception), but
                apparently there is a lot of untapped genetic potential to extract:
                Even if it’s just 1 in 1000 that emerge as cognitively gifted, after good nutrition (choline, iodine etc. for brain development, a lack of those/malnutrition can cause loss of dozens of IQ points) and healthcare, they are valuable human capital to harvest for the West.

                • ten says:

                  I met hundreds of black students fluent in mandarin in china – they are doing the brain drain thing too, but their open racism and occasional abuse might make them less attractive than the US

              • jack boot says:

                i’ve met some very smart africans. they’re good people. some good technical, all personable. and gov wants all it can get.

                • jim says:

                  There are no competent black engineers. None. Zero. There are quite a few moderately competent chocolate colored engineers who doubtless consider themselves black, but a lot of blacks would not consider them black.

                  If there was one good black engineer in the entire world, he would be on a poster.

                • Not Tom says:

                  and gov wants all it can get.

                  Why? Is there a shortage of smart white people?

                  And if not, then who really has the power here?

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:


                  You invoke evidence that “the international community” is in power, as obviously it is, and assume, without evidence or argument, that everyone knows and agrees that the “International Community” is not the state department, but the capitalist class. Supposedly Capitalists rule, because capitalists rule.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            This is a very challenging point for me because I fantasize every day about the cool naughty stuff I could do if I had loads of money. But then I’m only thinking of what I could afford to do myself, rather than pay other people to do.

            But then I think hey wait a minute:

            Could Bill Gates pay an army of Pepe Enthusiasts to staple “It’s OK to be White” posters all over college campuses, even if he wanted to?

            Could Bill Gates pay someone to do sociological research into how female subjugation (monogamy and paternal child custody) correlates with standard of living and crime rates, even if he wanted to?

            If I signaled transsexual and yelled louder than anyone else for infidel blood and green energy, Bill Gates would have to pay me, wouldn’t he?

        • Not Tom says:

          You’re actually inadvertently describing the exact reason why mercenary armies are a bad idea. If their only loyalty to you is the money you’re paying them, then anyone else could turn them against you by paying them more. You don’t command their loyalty, therefore you are weak. The mercenaries are the ones with the power, they are simply lending it to you in exchange for resources. A minor tweak in mentally (i.e. defection) and they could be forcing you to pay protection money instead.

          Exchanges between merchants are uninteresting from a power perspective, because both are essentially free men making a voluntary transaction. This is the libertarian paradise where all men are merchants and women don’t exist. All of the interesting stuff happens when merchants interact with warriors or priests, or priests interact with warriors. Warriors and priests are both power-oriented, not transaction-oriented.

          We continually hear the argument that merchants are “in power” because they exchange money for goods or labor, but this is not power – or if it is power, it is extremely weak compared to priestly or warrior power. A merchant pays another merchant, that means nothing because both get something of definite callouts value in return. But a merchant pays warriors for protection, or pays priests for indulgences, that is interesting because the merchant has actually gained nothing of value, rather, is offering tribute to avoid losing something of value (his social status, or even his ability to do business).

          And that is exactly what you see today. The ever-present implied threat to business owners is: get woke, or at least look woke, otherwise the priests will organize massive boycotts and perhaps deny you your ability to do business altogether by cutting you off from essential vendors. Jeff Bezos bends the knee, Mark Zuckerberg bends the knee, Sundar Pichai prostrates himself and Jack Dorsey offers to suck, but all of them are powerless, land-owning commoners paying tithes to their church.

          • jack boot says:

            but where is the power?

            google burned a five-star general

            • jim says:

              Google burned a five-star general because Obama wanted him burned. They were carrying out orders. It is absolutely obvious that they got word from on high “look for any dirt you can find on General Petraeus”

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                White knighting for whores and adulterous women when they are attacking your own soldiers, is evil. Petraeus deserved to get burned.

          • FrankNorman says:

            A couple of fringe examples come to mind:

            1) Televangelists. Are they priests or merchants?

            2) People back in the late Middle Ages who could become bishops by simply buying the position. (This is called Simony, and it’s considered bad, bad, bad, but it did happen at times)

      • ERTZ says:

        >No they don’t overlap. Wealthy merchants buy their way in, trying to buy status.
        Some do, yes.
        Others do much more, they actively contribute to ruling.

        Bernard Baruch, for example, influenced politics not just by donations,
        but much more so by his economic expertise , in WW1+2, for example by co-formulating rationing laws (rubber, etc.) for domestic US use.

        But let’s have a contemporary example:
        Warren Buffett. I’ve read a lot from the man, and carefully register what he has to say.
        In his biography he mentions “elephant bumping” – once he rose to prominence purely from his financial success, he started to meet other important people – not just from business, but from politics as well.
        Top business and politics DO share concerns, because at that level political decisions are as or more relevant to business than business competitors (labor laws, tax laws, foreign policy in trade, tariffs etc.).
        Actual strategic ruling in the US/Europe seems to work so that ideas, plans and decisions are informally discussed in circles of the top upper class, elite owners and managers, economists etc., more so than politicians, who seem to be more concerned with the tactical aspects of ruling and party politics as well as public relations.

        Two things stand out:
        1. Buffett mentioned long before the women-preference politics noticeably started, that this will happen.
        2. Buffett mentioned long before the climate movement started that this will happen and be economically revolutionary.
        “Energy deregulation will be the largest transfer of wealth in history.” – Warren Buffett
        From other sources deduce that they have identified untapped potential for additional growth of the economy by ending the underutilized capacity of women to work.
        They seem to be determined to get much more work out of women by instilling overconfidence in them, by going all-out on feminism and pro-woman politics – so that even the most shy, insecure girl and woman will feel motivated to work more (I read over a decade ago that women were identified with being intimidated by men and therefore avoid competition with them, which sabotaged efforts to get more women highly qualified and added to the work force – and now we see exaggeration of the value of women, girl power etc. to an absurd degree everywhere – politics
        TV series, movies, video games – suddenly there are Mary Sues and super-strong, -competent women everywhere.
        If the architects of this are right, then the economy will grow, a civilization greatly benefit from the added female work.
        The effect of men seems also beneficial for increasing their work output:
        By artificially increasing the status of women, giving them well-paying jobs and educational degrees, men must work even harder, earn even more,
        to get sex and families: The work output from both men and women is thus increased, to pay for an aging society and its pension and healthcare costs, and to compete with a rising China.

        My comment gets too long again, sorry, but I think “climate change” is about two main objectives:
        Skimming off excess income due to productivity increases.
        This may seem counter-intuitive, but real average net incomes must be capped, because if people earn too much, they will work less;
        because most people only work because they need money, their constant need for money must be carefully engineered into the economy;
        otherwise the constant rise in productivity would lead to higher net incomes, and many people would decide they’d rather work less than to
        earn more, if the money is already enough to pay for their costs. The costs, therefore, must constantly rise with productivity, for example by higher rents and higher taxation, in order to maximize people’s work output.
        You can see the problem here:
        The rulers decided in the early 70s that real wages cannot be allowed to rise anymore, otherwise people’s work output would fall, and that would lay the axe at the root of prosperity and productivity gains.
        One way to keep real net wages down despite rising wages and and productivity gains was and is student debt – the huge amount of it (a trillion $ or so) effectively works like another tax – and helps keeping real wages down, therefore maximizing work output and contributing to government income.
        CLIMATE CHANGE POLITICS DOES EXACTLY THAT, TOO – by artificially rising energy prices, another tax – which rises the costs of practically all goods and services – is introduced, that prevents harmful real wage increases despite productivity and average income gains.
        This is a perfect tool to keep real wages low, even in the future – if need be, we can always find cause for higher energy taxes to “save the planet”.
        Strategically ending capital exports of the West to pay for energy (oil, gas) – right now, our wealth flows out to Arabs, Russians etc. – it would be better to keep that wealth in our own economies by ending energy imports.
        This serves multiple functions:
        Stimulation of renewable or other energy sources in the US/EU – those will be more costly, but will keep the money spent for energy inside EU/US, instead of draining it to foreign countries; the added energy costs help to neutralize productivity gains so that they will not lead to higher net wages and therefore prevent damage to the economy; renewable energy production, storage, and transfer will produce hopefully millions of new and stable jobs.
        Foreign policy bonus:
        Significant strategic economic weakening of strategic competitors like Islamic countries and Russia; they will still sell their oil+gas, but not against valuable Dollars and Euros.
        The tech now is feasible – electric cars, grid-level electric energy storage etc. – it will be expensive, but it will keep the economy going+growing,
        and hurt our strategic enemies.
        There is the real potential to stop all energy imports, and greatly benefit from it.

        Those complex reasons cannot be politically communicated, thus a simpler message, with sound emotional base, is needed, a pretext:
        And this is nothing else than the climate change hysteria, the carefully orchestrated PR campaign to achieve the objectives above with a trivial, but powerful propaganda message.

        Technological breakthroughs (lithium batteries for eCars, advanced fission/new fusion plants, wind energy storage by high efficiency water electrolysis, etc.) now begin to make all this possible, and that it will be expensive is critically important feature, not a problem.

        In short:
        The economic future will be great, because engineered feminism will kickstart women’s work output, and engineered energy autonomy will kickstart and keep the economy going and growing.

        • jim says:


          None of this is power. Warren was thrilled that those that actually were powerful gave him the time of day. That he was actually talking to people who actually had power blew his mind.

          • ERTZ says:

            Yes, in the beginning.
            But then he contributed to ruling by contributing to strategy.
            His expertise was mainly in finance and economics, so he mostly dealt with that.
            But economics is complex, you cannot only change a single factor, you always influence more or less the whole system. And he is cognitively gifted to deal with such problems, including psychology etc.

            He accurately not only predicted investment success by becoming rich;
            he also predicted the woman-are-great campaign of today and the climate change revolution.

            To my current understanding, the priest class is today more of a service class of the ruling class/upper class, than an independent source of power; they only are conduits of power;
            and this being the reason why they act so in unison, change their opinions and declarations with the Zeitgeist.

            • jack boot says:

              > and this being the reason why they act so in unison, change their opinions and declarations with the Zeitgeist.


            • jim says:

              > But then he contributed to ruling by contributing to strategy.

              Warren proudly boasted that he, a mere lowly billionaire, was permitted to talk to those on high about strategy. There is no reason to believe that they paid the slightest attention.

              Bill Gates, who is a better strategist than anyone except perhaps Trump, does not tell us that he is permitted to talk to anyone about strategy, and I am sure he would tell us if he was permitted.

              Warren boasts that he is so important, he is allowed to talk to members of the priesthood. Members of the priesthood do not boast that they are so important that Warren talks to them.

              Bill Gates is not important enough to talk to members of the priesthood, even though he writes their checks. If he actually got to talk to them, it would blow his mind.

              • ERTZ says:

                >Warren proudly boasted that he, a mere lowly billionaire, was permitted
                >to talk to those on high about strategy. There is no reason to believe that
                >they paid the slightest attention.

                Well, I don’t know the truth, I can only try to deduce it from the evidence:
                They talked with him about strategy at least once;
                then, they kept inviting him/asking his advice, which suggests influence.
                And he correctly predicted with short and sharp one-liner comments things that would happen in the years to come.

                Also, it’s not even certain that he cared much about ruling and exercising power: I think it plausible that he looked at how things are run and who does it in the US, and found it much to his liking, seeing no reason to want to change anything much. After all, the ruling class made their nest long before he grew important enough to participate, and knowing the US a bit, I’m certain the nest is well-made.

                • jim says:

                  > They talked with him about strategy at least once;

                  No, Warren talked to them about strategy at least once, and was honored that they did not shut him down.

                  The money goes through foundations, who are second rank members of the priesthood who protect the higher ranking members of the priesthood from any demeaning contact with mere billionaires.

                • Dave says:

                  And who exactly are these “higher ranking members of the priesthood”? There’s definitely more than one, but there can’t be more than a hundred because second-tier priests wouldn’t be able to remember all their names.

          • jack boot says:

            the power to tax isn’t power?

            the power to engineer society so that people choose more work over more leisure isn’t power?

            then what is power?

            • jim says:

              The rich are taxed far beyond the Laffer limit. That is not power.

              Being forced to hire women for jobs for which they are inherently ill suited is not power.

              • ERTZ says:

                There are different categories of “rich”.
                Taxing those that are “rich” from high wages (medical doctors that earn 500,000$ p.a., for example) is something very different from taxing the rich who get their incomes from capital income that dwarves, no, atomizes, the individual incomes from the first group.

                To clarify, I repost (sorry I am dead tired now) a comment I made years ago at Spandrell’s blog:

                I will end this long comment with my understanding how the economy works in terms of politics:
                (I’ll explain what the refugee phenomenon in Europe is really about, too.)
                Envy – and greed – by European, especially German, upper classes, compared with what they see their US counterparts enjoy: A sizable low-IQ, mostly Negroid underclass.
                Because, for the upper class, Negroes function as what I termed “profit pumps”, or “profit guarantees”:
                The only class that really produces surplus is the middle class (MC) – skilled workers, above that doctors, engineers, small businessmen etc.
                I repeat, for this is important: The middle class is the only class producing meaningful amounts of surplus wealth.
                The upper class (UC) wants that money from them, naturally.
                Middle class is too smart to simply being tricked to give their work’s profits to the UC;
                and this cannot be changed, because the MC must be kept rather smart, because the nature
                of their work as a profit source needs to keep them smart.
                How did the UC solve this problem?
                MC has a weakness – they lack capital,they are not really, independently rich – they fear unemployment, illness and falling down the social ladder because of that.
                Therefore, they agree to pay high taxes – for a social welfare system, because of their deep-seated
                fear that they would need it one day themselves.
                Their tax money, therefore, goes to the lower classes (LC) – White Trash and Negroes, in the USA.
                But does their money END there? Not at all – LC people immediately spend it – specifically for stuff the MC would never spend it for (as they are too smart, saving, conscientious for that), like huge-margin/profit goods like branded sports shoes (Negroes actually kill each other for those and crave them – MC parents would scold their kids for buying things like shoes for 500$ that last few months before being worn/ugly and cost 3$ to make, the difference being profits for the UC owners of industry).
                So how can the UC route the money flow from the MC to themselves?
                By growing the immediate-gratification, money-squandering LC, ideally Negroes (as those have lowest IQs and act like easily impressionable – by advertising – kids even as adults and therefore can be perfectly controlled through media and advertising, which is not so easily possible with the MC).
                Thanks to the welfare system, the more LC people live in a society, the more money is forced from the MC to flow to the UC (by proxy of LC).
                This is also the reason the UC enforces “anti-racism” rules – as any questioning of importing more LC people the welfare tax-based system would immediately endanger UC’s vast profits from the work of the MC!
                This is also the reason for the UC pushing “racism” ,“equality” and “social justice” and all those “leftist” concepts – the higher MC is taxed for the welfare system, the more the LC consumes of the MC’s money, and the more profits are forced to flow to the UC!
                Therefore, I think it appropriate to think of the welfare system not longer merely as just that –
                it actually has been modified into a weapon to enslave the MC by the UC.
                And this is what happens in Europe – the native population is too MC, too conscientious, they tend to save too much and squander not enough of their income and savings for consumer trash, therefore limiting UC’s profits. This is especially relevant in connection with the rise of China, as more and more wealth of Western societies flows out towards there because more and more products and services are made and based in China – moving profits and wealth also there; to limit the threat to themselves, Europeans UC’s now mass-import a future LC, their own versions of US Negroes so to speak, to enforce and secure future profit flows from the productive MC to the UC.
                This would allow the European UC to keep their wealth, or even increase it, even in a future where average European wealth would decrease due to Chinese competition and an aging population.
                Demography is a weapon, tool, profit and status foundation for ruling.

                • jim says:

                  > Because, for the upper class, Negroes function as what I termed “profit pumps”, or “profit guarantees”:

                  You are demented.

                  The man who gets his income from capital got rich by allocating his capital to stuff that created enormous value, by being an angel investor in new projects, and eighty percent of that wealth that he created then gets taxed away – corporate tax, then income tax on top of that, in California state income tax then sales tax on top of all that. And you tells me he benefits from handing it out to the people who beat up his children. If he bought a bigger yacht, more of the money he expends would come back to him than handing it out to people to get stoned on.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Can you learn to use paragraphs and in general write in a style that could be described as anything other than “wall of text”?

                  I know you’re thinking “oh, you must have no argument if you’re criticizing my style”, but I honestly don’t know if I have an argument because I honestly find your posts completely unreadable.

                  Long content is fine, but long, rambling, unstructured word salad with no obvious direction is not; it’s a chore to read and an even bigger chore to respond in kind.

                  This isn’t your blog, it’s Jim’s blog, if you can’t stay reasonably on topic then write your own blog.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  It’s just CR-like walls of Marxist text.

                  They want the negros for profit because the middle class will support welfare out of class fear and that money then goes to the poor and stupid who spend it and Jeff Bezos collects it from people who can’t even get amazon packages because their neighbors will simply steal them. Or it’s the giant diaper and infant formula manufacturers who are pulling the strings. Somehow the middle class never sees through this scheme and always supports welfare even though they don’t support welfare and are the voting block against it.

                  Nonsense and not even internally consistent except as a way to stick with Marxist “are ruled by capitalists for profit”.

        • alf says:

          The work output from both men and women is thus increased, to pay for an aging society and its pension and healthcare costs, and to compete with a rising China

          What? No the opposite, women workforce participation not only ruins women’s role as caretaker of the family, it ruins male productivity by having to constantly deal with female shit.

          The economic future will be great, because engineered feminism will kickstart women’s work output, and engineered energy autonomy will kickstart and keep the economy going and growing.

          You imagine a secret illuminati that is in complete control. Wrong on both accounts – it is not secret, and it is losing control quite rapidly.

          You are a nut and an idiot and I wish shaman was here.

          • ERTZ says:

            >No the opposite, women workforce participation not only ruins women’s role as caretaker
            >of the family,
            Women now don’t rise families, they party, fornicate and travel.
            When they stop doing it, they are too old for a proper family and not attractive enough anymore for good husbands, and too old for a proper education and well-paying job.
            If they don’t enthusiastically breed anyway, they should at least work much harder;
            the glass half-full is better than the glass empty.

            >it ruins male productivity by having to constantly deal with female shit.
            Yes, but also relieves men of low-level work, and freed their potential for more demanding work, and it increases their incentive to work even harder, because they must out-hypergamy women’s incomes to become attractive providers, at least.
            If we cannot make it perfect, we should still make it as good as we can:
            “Politics is the art of the possible”-Bismarck.

            >You are a nut and an idiot
            Perhaps I am, at least more than at other times, because it’s 1AM here and I am dead-tired.

            Who is the idiot and who not is ultimately decided by prediction quality;
            intelligence is worthless in itself, only successful decisions (incl. their execution) matter, and those are like investments, they are about correctly predicting aspects of the future.

            My prediction about what is and will happen is laid out in the post above, and I am betting on it, the prosperous future of the US (and partially the EU), not just with words, but also my own money and future.

            • Starman says:


              I think I asked you a RedPill on women question before and you refused to answer.

              I’ll ask you one again. It’s multiple choice, so you CANNOT OBFUSCATE OUT OF IT:

              “ Should we make pornography illegal?
              [a] No, because male desire for sexual gratification is not causing society any problems. Now, we should ban gay, tranny, and cuck porn. And we should ban romance novels, i.e. porn for women. But heterosexual porn, especially if it depicts violent rape, will be allowed, and documentation of little prepubescent girls fucking their dogs will be required material for anyone who wants to be a member of the priesthood, not because it is nice to watch, but because it is incredibly red pilling.
              [b] No, because pornography allows us to learn about various fetishes and alternative sexual practices, and that is valuable knowledge.
              [c] Yes, because pornography is how the (((Synagogue of Satan))) destroyed our TFR. Before the advent of pornography, there were fecund marriages and stable families, but then we let in these Semitic parasites, and they singlehandedly turned all our women to porn sluts and all our men to incels. Were it not for Jewish pornographers, we would all have big families, just like we had in Hitler’s Germany. Similarly to Brave New World, the Jews are using our own desires to control us – so it’s more like a Brave JEW World, am I right?
              [d] No, but Child Porn should still be illegal, because whenever you look at an image of a child being abused, you are both encouraging the production of more CP, and repeating the original abuse.
              [e] No, but we should require all porn actors to wear condoms, in order to protect the actors and actresses from venereal diseases, and to teach the viewers — who are often our own sons — to use contraceptives. Porn is spiritual poison, but it’s not realistic to ban all of it, so we should focus instead on protecting the sex workers — who are often our own daughters in college — from exploitation and bad working conditions.”

              • ERTZ says:

                I am not 100% in line with any answer, but if you insist on me choosing any single one above, I’d choose option a.

                • Starman says:


                  Why the need for the caveat about “not being 100% aboard” with the answers when you’re posting under an anonymous handle?

              • info says:

                I remember those sets of questions asked by people of different handles.

                Pornography is nothing more than whoredom. Something to be defunded. And an addiction for many to be weaned off of.

                It is a wicked industry had women like August Ames commit suicide because she refused to rawdog with an HIV positive sodomite pornstar.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, it is a wicked industry, and we intend to radically reduce the supply of whores, but we are not going to try to anything about the demand.

                  The Romance industry, however causes far more damage. When we are in charge, we are going to make sure that Romeo and Juliet always wind up dead, Sir Lancelot and Guinevere die in the fall of Camelot, with the fault for the fall being entirely on Sir Lancelot’s shoulders, and a middle aged divorcee with children in tow never winds up with a billionaire vampire king athlete.

                  McLintock is going to be OK, Fifty Shades will be banned.

                • info says:


                  Indeed I would like the same proposal of defunding and systematic dismantling done to the romance industry as well.

                  And on the demand side. The nofap subreddit and sites like shows us the way forward.

                • info says:

                  Among other things porn in all its forms degrade the prefrontal cortex, messes up the reward system and reduce enjoyment of the regular pleasures of life and regresses the brain to a juvenile state

                • Not Tom says:

                  porn in all its forms degrade the prefrontal cortex, messes up the reward system and reduce enjoyment of the regular pleasures of life and regresses the brain to a juvenile state


                  Porn addiction does those things, and many men do get addicted, but every addiction does those things, and many men get addicted to many things.

                  If there is evidence that a single viewing of porn, or monthly or weekly viewings, has this effect on an otherwise healthy male, and that the effect is either sustained or cumulative, please post that evidence.

                • info says:

                  @Not Tom

                  This website references many studies on porn:


                  “Yes, it is a wicked industry, and we intend to radically reduce the supply of whores, but we are not going to try to anything about the demand.”

                  And the guys responsible for pressuring August Ames into the wicked act with HIV positive sodomite and the gays and pro-gays that made her life such a hell that she committed suicide.

                • jim says:


                  The pimps are emasculated by whores searching for new experiences in deviation and an ever more brutal pimp. Maybe August Ames was different, but that is not what I have seen.

                  That she chose the career she chose shows that she was self destructive, and probably had to search mighty hard, emasculating one pimp after another, to find her destruction. The pimps are victims also, dancing monkeys like myself.

                  She should have been shotgun married to someone able and willing to restrain her, with his restraint backed by state power, as soon as her career choice was detected.

                • Not Tom says:

                  This website references many studies on porn:

                  And have you read them, or are you just impressed by the big numbers?

                  I’ve seen that site, and generally discounted it because it conspicuously contains quotes like:

                  over 35 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views

                  Not impressive.

                  Most of the halfway-legitimate research I’ve seen indicates that porn addiction works just like any other addiction (which I already said, above), and in some cases the authors consider this especially significant – because porn! But video game addiction and alcohol addiction work basically the same way; both are more addictive than porn and yet hundreds of millions of people use them every day without serious problems.

                  Women flooding the market with porn is a problem, like Mexican cartels flooding the market with opioids is a problem. Men looking at porn and jerking off to porn is not a problem. Again, if you think there’s evidence that men watching porn is a problem outside of the rare context of a serious addiction, then post that evidence; don’t post a link to a feminist critique of porn that cites studies which (a) never use controls and (b) assume that correlation = causation.

                  For instance, one of the so-called studies has this garbage in the abstract:

                  frequent users of pornography were more likely to be living in a large city, consuming alcohol more often, having greater sexual desire and had more often sold sex than other boys of the same age

                  I am shocked, SHOCKED that men living in big cities tend to be more lonely, consume more alcohol, and watch more porn! SHOCKED! Clearly the root cause of all this is the porn! And the part about “sold sex” doesn’t even make sense; boys don’t sell sex. This is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that’s peddled as evidence for how terrible it is for men to watch porn. Just complete garbage.

                • alf says:

                  Obsessing over the impurity of porn is a puritan thing. Sometimes you just wanna nut over some random whore.

                  But yeah, the oversupply of whores is not something to be proud of.

                • info says:

                  > “That she chose the career she chose shows that she was self destructive, and probably had to search mighty hard, emasculating one pimp after another, to find her destruction. The pimps are victims also, dancing monkeys like myself.”

                  May be true. However even after she refused her role.

                  The sodomites went after her hard plus her mental state no doubt resulted in her death.

                • jim says:

                  > The sodomites went after her hard plus her mental state no doubt resulted in her death.

                  Our enemies devour each other.

                  Save your sympathies for the families destroyed by child protective services and the boys that they sell to sodomites.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Who cares? A pack of pozzed faggots bullied a degenerate whore into killing herself, it’s like complaining that blacks kill each other too much. Just trash taking out other trash.

                  Sure in a reactionary world she would have been beaten into submission and been a faithful wife, but her wasted potential is just a drop of water in a ocean of tragedies that is leftist society.

                • info says:

                  “Who cares? A pack of pozzed faggots bullied a degenerate whore into killing herself, it’s like complaining that blacks kill each other too much. Just trash taking out other trash.”

                  God desires all to be saved. And she is made in his image.

                  Didn’t Jesus hang out with degenerate whores who he didn’t reject?

                • jim says:

                  They have to save themselves.

              • polifugue says:

                >documentation of little prepubescent girls fucking their dogs will be required material for anyone who wants to be a member of the priesthood

                I have to ask, where do we find this sort of thing going on? Not that I’m denying that it does happen, but that there’s a part of me that still finds it difficult to imagine. Sources?

                Also, I’m wondering…if I have a little girl, and a male dog, what should I do?

            • alf says:

              es, but also relieves men of low-level work, and freed their potential for more demanding work, and it increases their incentive to work even harder, because they must out-hypergamy women’s incomes to become attractive providers, at least.

              Flagrant disconnect with reality, which demonstrates that instead of working harder, emancipation makes men drop out of the workforce and play vidya games in their 4mx4m room instead.

  16. Dave says:

    I think it’s good to be racist. Racism is essential for long-term survival because if you think your DNA is nothing special, why bother having children? Bias in favor of one’s own phenotypes is so normal and natural that we didn’t need a word for it until 100 years ago.

    • ERTZ says:

      (I wrote that years ago, originally in German):

      I am a racist, and I think racism is something good and proper.
      I checked and there are many different definitions for what racism actually is, quite a few even contradicting themselves. I’ve heard that even math or physics is racist, or that “ableism” is racist and
      so on – I think all such makes no sense and I am going to ignore it.
      In current discourse “racism” seems to be universally used as an derogatory word for people or concepts some do not like – they often can’t define clearly what they mean by it, other than that it is to be
      immoral or “evil”, and, curiously, is meant as an universal accusation that is somehow expected to end all meaningful discussion by rhetoric defeat of those who are accused to be “racists”.
      Like “hate-speech” it is used as a subjectively-applied, universal tool to shut down any further discussion by anyone who is only able to utter that word.
      I offer a different view:
      Generally, racism is about genetic difference/similarity:
      The more different another human is to our own genetic setup, the worse, the more unfriendly, the less altruistic we treat him, the more we discriminate him negatively.
      Is this a bad thing? I think it is a thing most good;
      because this racism is the exact foundation of family bonds and even motherly love:
      The preference for ones blood relationship, children, siblings, parents, grandparents and so on – compared to all other humans is based only on genetic similarity!
      Imagine a situation you can only save one of two children in time from drowning – another human’s child, or your own child – then you decide obviously to save your own child. This is discrimination of the highest degree, for
      you sentence the other, from your perspective “racially inferior”, child to death, just because it is genetically less similar to you!
      By discriminating our own genes and their carriers, our own blood relationship and kin, positively, we discriminate all other humans negatively. And exactly this is what racism is about.
      I welcome this; I am thankful that my parents discriminated all other children negatively by preferring me to invest their resources in.
      This is also true for the extended family, relatives, and in a certain sense also for “my people” as in “nation”, because I share more genes with other Whites than I do, for example, share with Black people.
      Notice that this is not about skin color or other superficial trait – it is about the general principle of kinship by genetic similarity.
      And from this follows that I am much rather willing to assist or feel close to anyone who shares more of my genes, and that just happens to be other white people mostly – just like with family, by discriminating those
      people more positively, I logically must discriminate other people more negatively, as I am not willing to treat all people equally, because I insist to treat my family, and other people who are genetically closer to myself,
      better than everybody else: I am much more willing to altruistically give help to a German, Polish, French, British etc. human, I feel much more secure and comfortable close to these people, because I share much more genes with them,
      I feel much more secure and comfortable with them as neighbors than with people who differ from my genetic setup much more, for example, Black people.
      Why? This is an instinct to spread one’s own genes – an instinct all humans have, and the emphasis is on ONE’S OWN genes – human nature being what it is, having more people of different genetic setup close by will hinder the spreading of
      one’s own genes – called reproduction, which is a human right for everyone. This is exactly what it is about: Spreading one’s own genes, for this reason we evolved preferential treatment for our own family, this is the reason we chose
      genetically similar reproduction partners whenever we can – we don’t want to have sex with organisms of different genetic makeup, be it a horse or a human with very dissimilar genes.
      Especially white men often feel uneasiness from, for example, Arabs and Blacks living near them – biologically, those feel threatening like conquerors who take (according our male territorial instinct) our own “tribal lands” away from us,
      our “gene spreading sphere”, we feel threatened by them to some degree on these grounds – in the end they will indeed to some degree have sex with “our” women, “take them from us”, to spread their alien genes, from our perspective – thereby
      negatively influencing the spread of our own genes (generally, all humans underlie natural and sexual selection, which means trying to spread one’s own genes as wide as possible in competition with all other humans – this is one of the most basic
      motivations humans have).
      Our instincts tell us that we are only safe if those “gene invaders” stay far away from us.
      This is of special import because Africans’ genes are mostly dominant over Whites’ genes – mixed race children resemble always much more Blacks than Whites. If Whites obediently allow this it will lead to the extinction of many of Whites’ genes.
      Just like family preference or motherly love are nothing but genetic egoism – for our highest, life-supporting benefit – racism is the same kind of advantageous instinct towards our genetic egoism.
      Otherwise motherly love would be something bad, “racist” as the word is used by some, and this can’t be true.
      It goes without saying that the same is true for all other humans – Asians, Blacks, Eskimos, whomever.
      All of those, everybody, humans of any kind of phenotype, all have the same right to be “racist” in that sense, to prefer their own genes by preferring their own kin, their own family, to those who are of more different genetic setup, like, for example, me. I see nothing wrong about a black mother saving her black child, but not a white child, if she can only save one from drowning.
      To speak in more political terms, I as a White person am racist against Blacks, and I am convinced that Blacks have the same right to be racist against me. This does absolutely not mean more than that (for example, of course, all “races”, or if you want to call it phenotypes or whatever, should have the same rights before the law) but also not less.
      Who tries to forbid racism therefore also forbids family bonds, preferential treatment of family members, motherly love toward one’s own child (and not someone elses’ child) – without that kind of racism we all would be really more equal – because families would cease to exist. I do not want that, I want racism, because I see it as a foundation of humanity.
      I want the right to discriminate my children, my family, and as their extension, my people, over others.
      I not only consider that something good, but also my natural right.

  17. Cordell says:

    I just realized that I was conflating “psychopath” and “sociopath” but the conflation is pretty common in popular usage, so I don’t think it affects my point much. Probably people tend to reach for “psychopath” when discussing serial killers.

    • jim says:

      Serial killers are evil, and are commonly manly, but their evils seldom fit the psychopathy grab bag, which is a random collection of evils more typical of clinical psychologists than serial killers.

      The shrink throws any shit that comes to hand and sees what he can make stick, and the shit that is closest to hand is his own shit.

      • info says:

        What is the better word for this?

        • Snowdens_jacket says:


        • Ron says:


          • info says:


            Pretty easy to diagnose an evil action and take action against it. Death penalty.

        • Ron says:

          The priesthood is condemning the psychological mechanism, not the actions

          Calmly illing a human being sounds evil, bc we automatically associate an innocent human as the object to the actions, and we associate a human with no murderous motivations (ourselves in the middle of a friendly discussion) to the actor. So the unconscious reaction is horror.

          Calmly killing an enemy soldier intent on raping your son, otoh, is quite possibly the kindest action you can take.

          We see therefore that capmly killing a human being is not, in and of itself evil or necessarily good.

          But bc the priesthood has defined the means, while not explicitly stating that means as evil, rather only implying such, theyve supplanted the actual word, “murder”, which explicitly defines the act and circumstance. (That is, the intentional killing of a human being innocent of causing harm to others.)

          To elaborate, “murderer”, which explicitly defines the act of killing an innocent, has been supplanted by “psychopath” which only explicitly describes the mechanism, and merely implies the negative connotation of murder.

          Thus, in order to resolve when the implied negative connotation applies, we have to turn to the priesthood for explanation.

          Its an old trick. Give poor definitions for an illiterate populace so they will need to turn to the priest to explain what the holy text actually says. Another favorite is to do the opposite: demand people read through so much of the minutiae of the law, that they throw up their hands and walk away.

          Obviously the minutiae are important, equally obviously we cannot sit an explicitly define every word in one sitting. There must be some level of trust. But that critical understanding is left out, and thats the trick.

          Similarly for “sociopath” and “racist”. A better word for sociopath, might be parasite. I suppose a positive aspect of the word would be “ruthless”.

          I am not aaying that one should always be ruthless, any more than always compassionate. There is a tine an place for everything

          But by using words which imply rather than explicitly define harm, the priesthood has gotten is to lose the ability to determibe when and where those actions are appropriate

          Both a murderer and an effective warrior/killer are psychotic. One destroys lives and society, and the other is the dearest friend to humanity as a whole. “Psychopath” makes them the same. To determine which is benedicial and which to be stamped out, we need to the definers of the word, which would be the priesthood. This giving them more control.

        • FrankNorman says:


          • jim says:

            Yes, projection. The pschopathy cluster consists of manliness plus evils typical of clinical psychologists projected onto men more manly than themselves. Psychologists fake sympathy all the time, so manly men are accused of faking caring about people they like, and people they love. That being the number one evil projected into the psychopath cluster of characteristics.

            In fact, of course, this is the evil least characteristic of evil warriors.

  18. Cordell says:

    A psychopath may be calm in the face of danger, but I don’t think anyone is claiming that that’s a trait confined to psychopaths or on its own an indicator of psychopathy. As for attachment to one’s family, the usual claim is that psychopaths can at best only counterfeit it because they don’t actually feel emotions the way non-psychopaths do. That may or may not be true as a clinical fact, but again, I don’t see anyone claiming that if you’re attached to your family, that’s an indication that you’re a psychopath. Jim, would you regard “pathological narcissist” as an enemy term as well? Or is it really a matter of context—functioning as an enemy term when used to discredit, say, Gen. MacArthur, but not when applied to Hillary Clinton?

  19. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    Racism as currently used is one of several synonyms for “unauthorized”.

    Blacks are authorized to do various things, including things that are Racist in the older obsolete sense, both in general and against whites. Whites are not authorized to do the equivalent to blacks, therefore their actions are racist.

    For clarity in our discussions it would help to follow the upper/lowercase distinction as in Communism (form) versus communism (function). Leftists are not Satanic or Satanist, in that they don’t worship a personified anti-deity who demands evil deeds, but they are most definitely satanic and satanist, in that they behave as if they so worshiped.

    Blacks are Racist (nominal form) if they say Kill Whitey, but not racist (function, actual usage).

  20. Dan says:

    There is a class of individual who do not feel sad when they see other people sad or in pain. A sub-class of those feel happy when they see other people sad. Most of those people go through life without committing any felonies, but when they do it’s spectacular. More commonly though, you can have a relative or “friend” who sabotages you at every turn, even when it gains them nothing or even costs them something.

    That’s a real category, and we need a name for it in order to think about it and do something about it. Sociopath seems to fit the bill. If you don’t like that though we need an alternative, and not just a claim there’s no such thing. Could be narcissist. Can’t be “evil” because that’s too loaded a term, you’d be forever trying to define it as your definition but being misunderstood. “Defector” is technically accurate, and less pre-defined than evil, but still has the problem of having to define it every time you use it.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Enjoys hurting others even if it costs them” IS the ur example of evil.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Maybe “evil” is more the anticoncept than “psychopath”. An oversimplification useful for regulating behavior of the masses, but not as useful for understanding the world.

        I vaguely recall a semipopular book called THE LUCIFER PRINCIPLE years ago making essentially that point — that the classification of many things as “evil” just because not-nice, is at odds with biology, evolution and game theory. In some respects the word describes positive things (pro-Gnon, avant la lettre), and in general it does not, as Jim might say, cut reality at the joints.

        • jim says:

          The word “evil” belongs to us, partly because of millennia of good usage, partly because our enemies have abandoned it – abandoned it largely because of millennia of good usage. They prefer to coin new words, such as “sociopath”.

          The word “evil” cuts reality at the joints.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Evil as a catch-all shorthand for everything we don’t want done, and do want established and maintained as a social antinorm, is a label, not a concept. “Carving reality at the joints” would mean doing what e.g., cluster B diagnoses claim to do, which is to describe, define, characterize or otherwise provide nontrivial information about some property of the world out there (in this case the human brain and behavioral tendencies), which we could then spell with the letters E-V-I-L.

            • jim says:

              > Evil as a catch-all shorthand for everything we don’t want done, and do want established and maintained as a social antinorm, is a label, not a concept.

              I gave a clear and uncomplicated definition of the concept in my post On Good and Evil:

              In the cynical game theoretic language of the Dark Enlightenment, Good is acting to attain cooperate-cooperate equilibrium through means that the other guy should expect and understand, Evil is defecting on the norms and social technology that sustain cooperate-cooperate equilibrium.

              It is not that hard to understand in terms of game theory, and even without game theory, people intuitively understand. Refusal to understand good and evil is like refusal to see female misconduct in the workplace – self induced blindness and artificial stupidity.

              We make what is very simple very complicated, because we do not want to know what we in fact do know.

              If you don’t like game theory and don’t like the Dark Enlightenment, here is Constant on Good and Evil.

              These equivalent definitions, and many more, carve reality at the joints. By their fruits, ye shall know them.

      • Snowdens_jacket says:

        Call evil what it is.

        No one does what you think of as evil just to cause harm. They cause harm, and to themselves, and to their loved ones, then they are evil.

        You think psychopath means a man seeking for himself, that incidentally causes harm to you. Because you are weak, and you think it you redefine his bravery, you then redefine your own cowardice, and you make good evil and evil good. And rather than call out the actual evil, you cower, and call the bravery you lack evil, because you lack it. Hence it must be evil. And then you don’t see where the evil actually occurred.

    • RedBible says:

      Just tryin to get the wheels of ideas moving, maybe something along the lines of “Emotionally Inverted”, or maybe “Failure Junkies” who never can get enough of other people failing.
      “Anti-teamwork” seems a bit off, but might spark an idea in someone else.
      “Success Parasites” wanting to suck life/success out of a person so they fail.

      I’ll see if I can think of some others.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      That category of sabotagers is definitely narcissist. It is already baked into the malady. Anonymous Conservative has a great blog post on how to recognize and deal with narcissists. I found it very eye opening.

  21. The Cominator says:

    You really think psychopath is an enemy word?

    • jim says:

      The definition of psychopath is a conflation of two contrary natural kinds, therefore an anticoncept, which always has the effect and actual usage of that the person using the word is either claiming, or going to be understood as claiming, that the two natural kinds are the same kind.

      • The Cominator says:

        Can you explain further I don’t get it…

        Most of the type of people who shrinks would deem psychopaths tend to be glib con-artists, abnormally crooked lawyers or true wolf of wall street types… not fearless ruthless warriors (that is the more positive aspect of psychopathy).

        • jim says:

          Then why is courage and determination part of the definition of psychopathy, and family virtues part of the definition of sociopathy?

          • The Cominator says:

            I’ve NEVER read that family virtues were part of the definition of either.

            Courage yes in that they process “fear” differently but never family virtues.

            Also the psychopath spectrum is not totally a modern cathedral thing… they called it “moral insanity” in the 19th century and such types of people were even depicted in older literature (Iago in Shakespeare was clearly intended to be a portrayal of one such type, as was Lady Macbeth though not Macbeth himself despite the bad things he was ended up doing) though these were cartoonish portrayals that didn’t show any of the positives.

            Ian Fleming’s James Bond (especially in the books) is clearly on the psychopath spectrum (though not a pure psychopath) but Ian Fleming’s Bond (as much as Bond is not realistic at all about what spywork really is) portrays the positive aspects of it.

            • jim says:

              Checking wikipedia for the official definition of psychopath: “low fear”. “High stress tolerance”.

              So supposedly only warrior types are charming manipulators, never priestly types.

              sociopath, anti social personality disorder, same as psychopath, but cares about family and kin.

              • Not Tom says:

                I must admit I am also confused. What part of what definition of sociopathy relates to caring about family or kin?

                • jim says:

                  Part of the definition of psychopath is no close attachments. If he does in fact have close attachments, must be a charming manipulator. Sociopath is a psychopath who has conspicuously come through for friends and family.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I know you’re trying to deconstruct the definition but what is the actual definition you’re deconstructing?

                  To me it feels as if someone is saying “they are telling you that pennies are made of gold, that’s a lie, pennies have never been made of gold” – ok, but who is telling me that and where? I just don’t understand how your redefinition relates to the nominal definition. I’m sure it does, of course, just not seeing the connection myself.

                • jim says:

                  The official definition is calm in the face of danger, stubborn in the face of coercion, plus a random grab bag of evil characteristics.

                  But people who are calm in the face of danger and stubborn in the face of coercion usually have the opposite characteristics. Evil warrior types are uncommon, and when a warrior type is evil, he is not evil in that way. He has different evil characteristics.

                  The way it works is that if he is manlier than the shrink, he is a psychopath. If he has good friends, must be a charming manipulator, if he has conspicuously come through for friends and family, he is a sociopath.

                  The point and purpose of the original and official definition is to demonize being calm in the face of danger and stubborn in the face of coercion, and any attempt to use it for any other purpose is going to result in miscommunication.

                • jim says:

                  As I said before, a psychopath supposedly has no close attachments. If he has close attachments, must be a charming manipulator. If he has conspicuously come through for friends and family, must be a sociopath.

                  The typical sociopath is the man whom they have framed up to make him rat on his friends, and he refuses to invent any crimes for his friends.

                  “Hmm, calm in the face of danger, stubborn in the face of coercion. Obvious psychopath.”

                  “But he refuses to perjure testify against his friend!”


                • Not Tom says:

                  I am just not seeing it. You are giving us a “true meaning” but I cannot see any connection to the nominal meaning.

                  With other anticoncepts like psychopathy and pedophilia, the true meaning can be explained in terms of the nominal meaning, i.e. the word pedophilia refers to any sexual contact between an adult and a minor, therefore implicitly groups together pederasty, heterosexual attraction to fertile-age women, and pre-fertile girls’ sexual advances on older men.

                  I’m asking for an explanation of what you consider to be the true meaning of “sociopath” in terms of the nominal definition, but not seeing anything that resembles the nominal definition. If it has anything to do with family or friends, I don’t see this definition in common use, either explicit or implied.

                  Apparently it is used as a deflection when someone wants to say “psychopath” but can’t show consistency with the anti-social implications? But I’ve just never seen it used that way. Maybe it is actually regional, like someone else said. Can you point to an example or two so that we might better understand? Because most of what you label anticoncepts is inherently clear and obvious to me but this one is not.

                  I am not implying that sociopathy is a real thing, by the way. Just that I cannot remember having heard it used to mean what you are saying it is used to mean.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m asking for an explanation of what you consider to be the true meaning of “sociopath” in terms of the nominal definition,

                  Psychopath is defined as someone who is brave in the face of danger and obstinate in the face of coercion, plus a grab bag of random evils that are obvious projection, since they are atypical of the warrior personality, and atypical even of evil warriors.

                  Sociopath lacks any coherent definition. A sociopath is simply a psychopath whose loyalty to family, kin, and friends is obvious and impossible to deny.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Bravery implies an act of will. It is a virtue. Psychopaths actually have the empathy section of their brain disabled, turned off, or missing. They are wired differently. Even when they try to be charming, most people feel something is “off” with them. The difference between a psychopath and a narcisissist: the narc has that part of the brain still functioning, but turned inward like an ingrown toenail. The psychopath hurts others in an attempt to feel anything at all; the narc hurts others in an attempt to stop their own non-stop internal pain.

                • jim says:


                  The claim that courage is indicative of, or can be caused by, lack of empathy, makes no sense except to cowards and traitors. If the “psychopath” could not identify with himself, he would not get far.

                  That the term “sociopath” is so widely used indicates that most people diagnosed as psychopaths display undeniable and demonstrated loyalty to family, kin, and friends, as is typical of the warrior personality.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Made no such claim. Behavior similar to courage can be caused by mere stupidity; so why is it hard to believe it can be caused by a deficient or disabled part of the brain?

                  Tests have been done on psychopaths where their physiological responses to stimuli don’t show self restraint and self control; they show the stimuli was never even processed. Cool under pressure is a warrior virtue that takes training. A psychopath has a handicap that can look like warrior virtue, but without a warriors honor code, you just end up with a mad dog that needs to be put down. And guess what, in the Old Testament we have a suitable warriors honor code.

        • jim says:

          The glib con artist is in real life more the priestly type than the warrior type. A psychopath is someone who is manlier and more badass than the psychiatrist.

  22. Peter Whitaker says:

    Racism means you think your race is better than other races and that you want to punch down at them. Attacks against whites are always considered to be punching up. Instead of calling blacks racist, it is more correct to say that they hate white people. Instead of saying there is widespread racism against whites. it is more correct to say there is widespread antiwhite racial hatred.

    • jim says:

      Observe that there is no such thing as a black hate crime, and that Muslims think they are better than us, and their race is better than our race, and yet crimes motivated by hostility to “kaffirs” (non Muslims, and people of a typically non Muslim race) are never racism, and never hate crimes.

      • Peter Whitaker says:

        Thank you, I was mistaken. On further consideration, hate crime is a word of the enemy that means badwar. When blacks commit hate crimes against whites, they are waging war. Using the word negates the possibility of a just war.

  23. FrankNorman says:

    The way the Left uses language is muddled and deceptive, yes – so one cannot speak to them with any certainty that they will actually understand what one is trying to tell them.
    But that doesn’t make their definitions of the words the correct ones!

    A sociopath doesn’t love anyone. Calling someone willing to kill to defend his wife and children a sociopath is Orwellian doublespeak.

    I’ve seen another example of this – the word “dictator”. Educated people know what the word originally meant – being a dictator meant that the Roman Senate had given you absolute political power, including the right to have anyone put to death on your say-so, as a means of resolving some crisis. Dictatorship was an emergency measure, but one fully accepted as part of the rules of the res publica.

    Ask a Leftist to define the word though? What you’ll get will probably boil down to “political leader that we disapprove of” when you strip away the fluff and emoting.

    “Racist” on the other hand is a word invented by the Left.

    • jim says:

      > A sociopath doesn’t love anyone. Calling someone willing to kill to defend his wife and children a sociopath is Orwellian doublespeak.

      The term “sociopath” is a demonization of caring for one’s wife, one’s family, one’s kin ,and one’s friends, in the same way as “psychopath” is a demonization of the warrior virtues. As the warrior virtues are part of the definition of “psychopath”, the warrior virtues plus the family virtues are part of the definition of sociopath.

      “Psychopath” is a conflation of two contrary natural kinds Evil, and Warrior.

      “Sociopath” is a conflation of three contrary natural kinds, Evil, Warrior, and family man.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        I have never heard sociopath or psychopath used in these ways you are saying, jim. You must be in some pocket of the Anglo-sphere I haven’t come in contact with. I admit I am low caste. In my experience sociopath is a heartless backstabber, and a psychopath is a sociopath who might literally stab you in the back. Both categories treat the rest of humanity as their personal hunting reserve.

        • FrankNorman says:

          “You must be in some pocket of the Anglo-sphere I haven’t come in contact with”

          Quite a lot of what Jim describes in his posts makes me glad that I don’t live in the same pocket of the Anglosphere that he does.
          I think they are too well-fed and safe over there. Maybe a little bit of physical hardship might shock some sense into them.

        • jim says:

          > I have never heard sociopath or psychopath used in these ways you are saying, jim

          Look up the official definitions. The official definition requires that someone display the warrior virtues,

          If you are a priestly type, rather than a warrior type, you officially cannot possibly be a psychopath.

        • Snowdens_jacket says:

          Look up the Duluth model of domestic violence. If you care about keeping your wife to yourself, to be a mother to your children, and not a free for all for any man what are you? If you use your power to control your wife? What do you think people will say?

          “you are controlling your wife!!!”

          Yes, of course I am.

        • jim says:

          Projection: Clinical psychologists are often heartless backstabbers. The “psychopath” is the warrior type, and a warrior stabs you from in front.

          The psychopathy cluster consists of warrior characteristics and warrior virtues, plus undesirable characteristics and evils characteristic of clinical psychologists.

          The sociopathy cluster is the psychopathy cluster except that someone is a sociopath and not a psychopath when it is impossible to deny that he comes through for friends and family. Hence clinical psychologists tend to get incoherent when defining the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath.

          “the sociopath has conscience, but he just turns it off for some people”. Yes, he turns it off for the people who framed him to force him to give perjured testimony against his friends, and the employee who uses state power against the company to grab power within the company.

      • info says:

        “The term “sociopath” is a demonization of caring for one’s wife, one’s family, one’s kin ,and one’s friends, in the same way as “psychopath” is a demonization of the warrior virtues. ”

        It seems that such terms were subject to term abuse. Thereby making their meanings as you say.

        Messing with the association of words with observed reality.

        Although I believe such words are meant to describe the same phenomenon originally.

        The heartless empathy-less charming predator.

        No matter how much for example numbers may be misused in the same way those words are misused the phenomenon doesn’t cease to exist.

        So yes I agree with the misuse of words away from original intended definitions meant to describe an original phenomenon.

        However that phenomenon will not cease to happen nor the observed pattern.

        • jim says:

          The heartless empathyless charming predator is seldom brave in the face of danger and resistant to coercion. To be a psychopath you have to be both evil and have the warrior virtues.

          In reality the heartless empathyless charming predator is normally a priest by nature, not a warrior by nature.

          The official definition is a lie, since the charming manipulator is typically priest type, not warrior type.

          • The Cominator says:

            “In reality the heartless empathyless charming predator is normally a priest by nature, not a warrior by nature.”

            If you want to look into historical personalities that checked nearly all the boxes there are a couple from the 3rd Reich (I hate to bring it up because its overused but it works here).

            Goering and Heydrich (though NOT Hitler or Himmler) were a pretty textbook psychopath cases they in that they could be fearless warriors, glib con-men, and ruthless institutional white collar criminals and both prone to thrill seeking behaviour of various kinds. Heydrich was a more pure psychopath than Goering as Goering was genuinely devoted to both his wives and to Hitler (despite realizing that Hitler kind of went mad in 1938). Heydrich did not seem to display any real loyalties though.

            • jim says:

              Heydrich was a charming manipulator?

              I don’t think so.

              Heydrich was an unreliable friend?

              I don’t think so.

              Heydrich engaged in short term lying and pursued short term goals?

              Clearly false.

              Stalin manipulated Heydrich successfully. Heydrich attempted to manipulate Stalin and failed dismally.

              Heydrich fits the intended target of the psychopath definition, evil warrior. He was indeed and evil warrior, but he lacks all the supposed characteristics of an evil warrior, other than being evil and a warrior.

              Warrior types tend to be not evil. If someone is calm in the face of danger, and resistant to coercion, that is a good indication that he will be a good friend. And if someone is evil and is a warrior, as Heydrich was, his evil is dissimilar to the evil attributed to psychopaths.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Heydrich was a charming manipulator?”

                Got thrown out of the German navy for instance for screwing the wrong officer’s daughter (she wasn’t the first one) and refusing to get shotgun married when her father made a stink about it. Womanizer’s who aren’t particulary high status (and he was just a juniour naval officer at the time) tend to be very high in dark triad traits.

                And he was certainly breaking the Naval honor code in acting that way, as female relatives of fellow officers were supposed to be off limits unless you intended to marry them.

                “Heydrich was an unreliable friend?

                I don’t think so.”

                Not quite sure he had too many friends (Goering was as I said known as a generally reliable friend). He was definitely plotting against his original patron Himmler at the time he was killed.

                “Heydrich engaged in short term lying and pursued short term goals?”

                He was in addition to his vast responsibilities as head of the 3rd Reich’s security state was flying fighter missions on the side until Hitler found out got really pissed off and ordered it to stop. The reason he got assassinated was that instead of following security protocols in Prague he was riding around in an open top car (Hitler discusses this in the Table Talks).

                He was a very very capable intelligent guy but also he fits nearly all the psychopath boxes.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Heydrich was a charming manipulator?”

                  > Got thrown out of the German navy for instance for screwing the wrong officer’s daughter

                  After refusing to marry the chick for quite a while, showing the classic warrior trait of resistance to coercion, he eventually decided he wanted to keep her around, and married her, which is not at all the psychopath profile. The psychopath profile would be to say he was going to marry her and then neglect her. He followed the reverse process.

                  > > “Heydrich engaged in short term lying and pursued short term goals?”

                  > He was in addition to his vast responsibilities as head of the 3rd Reich’s security state was flying fighter missions on the side until Hitler found out got really pissed off and ordered it to stop.

                  That is not short term lying for short term goals.

                  As I said, actual warriors are seldom evil, and actual evil warriors are not evil in a way that fits the psychopathic diagnostic criteria.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No he married someone else, he got thrown out of the navy for refusing shotgun marriage to the one he was supposed to marry.

                  “That is not short term lying for short term goals.”

                  Between being the 3rd Reich’s head of counterintelligence and a lifelong womanizer (even when he was a low status cadet and ensign) I have to imagine he was a pretty good liar.

                  Flying extremely dangerous fighter missions when you are the head of counterintelligence seems like impulsive thrill seeking behaviour (although I suppose one theory is that Heydrich wanted to succeed Hitler some day and thought having genuine warrior credentials would help a bit) to me.

                • jim says:

                  Sure it was thrill seeking behavior, but it was not short term lying for short term gains, nor was it impulsive.

                  The psychopath is what priests imagine the evil warrior to be, not what the evil warrior typically is.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Sure it was impulsive thrill seeking behavior, but it was not short term lying for short term gains.”

                  But I think his fucking around with the daughters of superior officers while in the navy was…

                  Heydrich was obviously an extremely high functioning type of “psychopath”. So hes obviously not going to be full retard on any of their most self-destructive traits.

                • jim says:

                  I have done similar stuff, and it was not short term lying for short term gains. Betas think you get the chick by telling her nice promises. That is not how you do it.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                Right. The upper Nazi leadership were high functioning, high IQ middle class bureaucrats; not a lot of psychopathy in that. Heydrich was alpha, not psycho. The death camp commandants were more questionable (eg, Wirth), and the ones selected to be guards at the camps were much likelier to be disturbed sadistic types.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Heydrich was both alpha and psychopathic but high functioning psychopathic (as I would argue was Goering but less pure on the spectrum). Himmler neither natural alpha nor actually psychopathic.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Himmler was the smart beta who ends up working in the Mafia. The soft family man, bothered by cruelty to animals, who happens to run a giant killing machine during business hours. James Comey in an overtly communist regime would have been similar.

      • info says:


        What is the solution to this hijacking of definitions? We may soon run out of words as they each get adulterated into newspeak.

        • jim says:

          The definition was never hijacked. It was poisoned from the beginning, being a conflation of two contrary natural kinds.

          We still own the words “good” and “evil”.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            We may own the words good and evil, but I’ve noticed lately a lot of people claiming good and evil don’t even exist.

          • info says:

            There are many instances of actual good being demonized as evil and so forth.

            As in morality that is contradictory to actual good and evil.

        • RedBible says:

          Any and all definition hijackers should be shamed and ostracized, and probably be called evil. They are evil since they wish to confound the language of the people. They are evil since they wish to create lies in definitions so that before any argument happens they have “already won”.

          The long term solution (once warrior rule is restored) to those who intentionally hijack definitions is mental institutions to reform them, or a long helicopter ride.

  24. Anonymous 2 says:

    I mostly agree, though with the proviso that tirelessly attacking these maldefinitions could be a nice entry-level mission, much like fulminating against “canards and tropes” in other parts of the media.

  25. “Just flat out does not work. It is laughable to even attempt to say it. When a black gang roams the streets looking for white kids to beat up no one calls them racists, because they are not racists, and if you call them racists you sound crazy. No one understands what you are talking about.”

    I have to disagree. Those living deep in the belly of the beast will not understand it, but those living somewhat backwards on the same curve will understand it. Say, Russians. Say, a 75 years old Southern US redneck grandpa. They will understand it.

    You are overdoing this official definition thing, Jim. Yes, today racist means badwhite but there was a period when it really did mean things like people beating up others for their looks. And while that was the official definition, it is important to notice that even back then the unofficial definition was badwhites, because even back then the elites did not care about blacks beating up whites. But they did not admit it officially. Racism as people beating up people for their looks is the motte. Racism as badwhites is the bailey.

    So today you can say blacks beating up whites for their looks is racist is something the Russian will understand, the Southern US grandpa will understand, the later because it was the official definition in 1950, the whole reason he was convinced in 1950 that racism is bad is because of that. The badwhites bailey has already been there but they needed the official motte to convince him. Yes, a radical liberal today will entirely abandon the motte and say blacks cannot be racist. But even a moderate lib of the Scott A. type will feel uncomfortable about it and try to squirm out of stating an opinion. Because he remembers the motte.

    I suppose you are using the term “official” differently than I do. If you are using it in the sense of “what lib elites really want” then of course racism has always meant badwhites, that was the baily they always wanted. But that is not how I understand “official”. Official is the motte sold to moderates, official is the dictionary, textbook definition, the excuse, the position that sounds moderate. Some, many now profess the motte openly and say blacks cannot be racist but the baily still lingers somewhere, because people remember when that used to be official.

    • jim says:

      > there was a period when it really did mean things like people beating up others for their looks.

      Were you alive during that period? Blacks have been beating up people for insufficient blackness since they started coming to America, and have never been called racist, nor has it ever been called a hate crime.

      • Snowdens_jacket says:

        Blacks keep killing each other for insufficient blackness to this day here.

        How much blacker can they get?

  26. Mycroft Jones says:

    Capitalism is as badly defined as Socialism, and is itself an enemy word.

    Going back to the Old Testament regarding family and marriage does not work by itself. It is a whole system, with interlinked parts. You need Old Testament economics too. Capitalism is free market without the protections on property ownership and citizenship that the balanced Old Testament provided, and therefore it does indeed lead to bad working conditions.

    Is economic opportunity and freedom for all, a good thing? Yes. But not everyone is cut out for it, and society needs them too. Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Corporatism, these are all constructs that circle around the Old Testament, none daring to get too close to it. They are wizard words, keeping people off balance. A balanced system is sweet and easy and produces the most happiness for the most people.

    In the Old Testament, land ownership is the key. Of course, corporations have always existed. They are called “tribes” or “merchant houses”. But only real live individuals could own land, and the land owner is responsible for what is done in his name. Corporations exist, but they should never have the right of land ownership, nor should liability be limited. Prosperity accords with responsibility and opportunity working together.

    The statement that the Commons were badly managed is a modern legend to justify de facto enslavement of most “citizens”… by putting land ownership out of their reach unless they trade the best 20 (now 30) years of their lives. Under the commons system, there may not have been physical fences, but there were extremely strong property rights. The commons was a way to easily get into owning and managing property. If you had the right to run 5 geese, you couldn’t run 10. The other commoners would get up in your face, because 5 more geese than your allotment perhaps means another commoner can’t exercise his right to 20 chickens, now the land only supports 16 chickens. By having multiple uses of the land, the land is maximally productive, since the different plants and animals feed and enable each other. Enclosure was a step to monoculture.

    The so-called benefits of Enclosure and Clearances is not a net benefit in terms of overall production; it is a benefit to a Lord who wants something to export for sale, leaving the peasantry to go to the cities and enjoy the smog and coal smoke before their shortened lives end with a cough in a cold garret.

    After the initial economies of scale in production are done, the economies beyond that are an illusion; they are economies benefitting one person, not the whole. The “economies” come from looting and parasitising, not from per capita production.

    If you want to go Old Testament, you have to go the whole way and stop dancing around it like a virgin wallflower at her first ball.

    • >and is itself an enemy word

      Bingo. While not invented by them, it was popularized by Marxists. “capitalist” is simply an older word for “investor”. When Wyatt Earp was kinda ashamed of his bio, he registered his profession as “capitalist”. Capital investor.

      It is a very important aspect of Marxist thinking to say that private property in the capitalist era under which they mean a new era functions differently than in the past, that in the past the artisan has made a product, exchanged it for money and then exchanged the money for another product he wanted to consume. While the capitalist has money, exchanges it for a product and then exchanges that for more money, making profit.

      So Marxist say there is a big joint in reality between the old kind of market economy and the industrial, incorporated kind of market economy.

      This makes capitalism an enemy word. When Jim says capitalism is old he means private property, market exchange, paid labor and all that are old. But it is not a good idea to use the word capitalism for it as it was invented by socialists precisely to express that they think there is an entirely new kind of private property, market exchange, paid labor based system going on. So it is not terribly useful to reuse that enemy word for saying no, it is actually old.

      Perhaps a parallel. Say, some people say gunpowder revolutionized warfare, and this new category of weapons, called guns, changed everything. So they keep saying guns, guns, guns, guns. Suppose you disagree. In that case it is not such a good idea to say “no, guns are old”. What you actually want to say is that *weapons/ are old, or you could even say non-contact weapons like longbows are old, and war is old, and guns did not change it that much. What you want to say is gunpowder warfare is not so much different from longbow warfare. And if you want to say that, saying “guns are old” is the wrong way to go about it. In this parallel, guns = capitalism.

    • jim says:

      > Capitalism is free market without the protections on property ownership and citizenship that the balanced Old Testament provided, and therefore it does indeed lead to bad working conditions.

      Compare working conditions anywhere that is to a greater extent capitalist, with anywhere that is to a lesser extent capitalist. What happened to Venezuela when it became socialist? What happened to China when it ceased being socialist?

      The restrictions a land sale and purchase in first temple Israel were not protect the proletariat, but to bind a nomadic people to the soil.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Protect the proletariat, protect the nation. Land ownership restrictions prevented the land from being sold to foreigners during times of dearth, and prevented tribes/houses from making joint stock ventures to buy up the land and thus enslaving the citizenry. Remember, maximizing freedom and opportunity for everyone works best when everyone has SOME patch of land at their disposal. Gives you a starting point. Starting out as a slave, for most people, just means you are a genetic dead end. This is easily observable, and a big demotivator in societies that don’t protect the bottom caste. Guaranteed minimum income is a terrible idea, but not for the reasons most people think. It is terrible for the same reason that food banks and the welfare office are terrible. Gleaning rights are the right solution.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Limiting land ownership so foreigners and corporations (houses) can’t own it, eliminates a source of competition that is so huge that it demotivates a large section of the population. Not everyone is a genius, and it takes a lot more than the few smart people to reproduce the manpower of the nation. Individuals competing with corporations and foreigners leads to all sorts of anti-social skulduggery.

        • jim says:

          These don’t seem to be observed problems in existent capitalist societies. Not seeing any giant foreign owned agricorps around where I live. Farms are owned by families, who live on the farm.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            You don’t live in North America, I take it.

            • jim says:

              I live in many places, North America among them.

              Do a google earth flyover of the American countryside. It is dotted with small houses here and there.

              From a few thousand feet up, does not look like a landscape of giant agricorps. The only large area I noticed with no small houses was a giant pasture on a flood plain, where it would have been unwise to build a house.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Google earth flyover doesn’t show the network of social relationships. The houses were built during the era of family farms. Often the original family still lives in them. But they now live in them as cattel to the banks and to the agribusiness corporations that monopolize distribution and set prices, etc. Because of this, the organic growth of the countryside into a network of villages with people of various social strata, hasn’t happened. The same hollowing out/dearth the hit the Roman Empire is hitting North America.

                Ten years ago I was going to buy 40 acres with a house on it for $40,000. While I was tangled up in court and so not able to do this, the laws that protected the native born were lifted, Chinese and Indian buyers flooded in, now those sorts of opportunities are gone, prices having gone up almost ten-fold (10x). Native born who want to get into the farming game can no longer afford it in a timeframe suitable for family formation. So the peasants go to the cities again, even those who WANT to stay in the country.

                • jim says:

                  > Google earth flyover doesn’t show the network of social relationships. The houses were built during the era of family farms. Often the original family still lives in them. But they now live in them as cattel to the banks and to the agribusiness corporations that monopolize distribution and set prices,

                  Not what I observed on the ground. My observations may be atypical and, for America, out of date, but I suspect you are getting your story from commies in the big city who, unlike myself, have never been in a farm in their lives.

                  What is the basis for your story – how do you know it to be true? Have you been there?

                  How many degrees of separation between your story and the people actually living in those houses. Do you know any farmers? Ever visited any of them?

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Boots on the ground. Family and friends. I’m at an age where the family members who grew up without electricity are just starting to die off, and the Amish cousins are still in the background. When the Grand Solar Minimum stuff started popping up on Youtube, I was able to call around to confirm. It checks out. Also what I was saying about land price increases, foreign influx into the formerly protected province of Saskatchewan, and chattel indentured farmers. This dismantling of the Saskatchewan Wheat Board just traded one monopoly on the cooperative model, with a worse monopoly on the predatory parasitic Wall Street model.

                • jim says:

                  Deulling anecdotes.

                  According to your anecdotal evidence, farmers are the oppressed proletarian masses crushed under the heel of wall street yearnign for the party commissar to liberate them to work on the collective farm.

                  According to my anecdotes they are proud free men with land, guns, and dogs, and their dogs do not like blacks or commmunists.

                  So, since anecdotes are in conflict, let us look at statistics.

                  the ERS found that 99 percent of U.S. farms were still structured as family farms in 2015, and they account for about 90 percent of farm production.

                  The report further noted that the few farms organized as nonfamily corporations generally have less than 10 stockholders — in other words, they are more Main Street than Wall Street.

                  Sounds like the proud free men of my anecdotes.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Short answer, yes, I call my farmer friends directly. Known them for years.

                • jack boot says:

                  they’re up to their eyeballs in debt, all of them.

                  and mostly they’re just smart enough. their smart sons have been leaving for generations.

                  it’s sad.

                  you live in an alternate reality.

                • jim says:


                  None of the affluent farmers I know are up their eyeballs in debt. They own stocks, bonds, and land. That is what affluence is.

                  Some farmers, quite a lot of farmers, are struggling, but by and large, most of them are not. Or at any rate the ones that throw parties to which I get invited are not. They have some cool toys.

                • jack boot says:

                  > Or at any rate the ones that throw parties to which I get invited are not. They have some cool toys.

                  screw you, got mine.

                  maybe you should feel the hand around your throat. it might change your mind.

                • jim says:

                  You suppose, without evidence or argument, that the proles are on your side. The working class, the deplorables, is on our side. They vote for Trump because he dog whistles to the deplorables. It is the ever growing army of people on welfare, child support, or, what amounts to the same thing, government jobs, who are the Democratic vote bank.

                  You have been telling me the farmers long for the party commissar to liberate them onto the collective farm and that the peasants hated to enclose the commons, which is nuts. They wanted to enclose the commons partly because the Lord’s stinting irritated them, and they wanted their own land to do with what they willed, and mostly because the frequent failure of the Lord to do an adequate job of stinting meant that all the other peasants were interfering with their use of the commons.

                • jack boot says:

                  i am not a proud man. if becoming a farmer gave me millions in stock, bonds, land and nice toys, i would become a farmer.

                  but i can’t become a farmer because all the land is already owned and the land that in a sane society would’ve accrued to me was pissed away by my female relatives.

                  while you and boomers like you piss on me and call it rain, i feel the hand around my throat. it’s cold like ice. i feel its squeeze.

                  and while you have been telling me i should be oh so grateful to those poor persecuted “angel investors” for producing so much “value”. (for their shareholders)

                  the formal definition of an angel investor is someone one or two handshakes away from the infinity chocolate waterfall of zirp cash.

                  where do you think the value of all that zirp cash comes from? it comes from your precious “deplorables” on whom trump pisses and calls its rain

                  surely the economy is doing better than ever before. the job numbers are lower than ever. the african-american unemployment is the lowest its ever been!

                  and don’t even mention the pervasive tech conspiracy to suppress engineer wages to a tenth what they should be. rah rah capitalism. muh free market.

                  p.s. fuck your mod.

                • jim says:

                  > while you have been telling me i should be oh so grateful to those poor persecuted “angel investors” for producing so much “value”. (for their shareholders)

                  No angel investors, we would have no transistors.

                  You cannot make a pencil except the boss provides you with custom made tools and direction on how to use them.

                  The introduction of the limited liability for profit corporation with publicly traded shares immediately led to the appearance of Ayn Rand’s entrepeneur engineer CEO, who makes technology widely available.

                  As I said before, when Lenin found that all the Russian capitalists were dead or fled, he had to pay US corporations to send experts to re-open the factories. The proles and the vanguard of the proletariat could not do it.

                  The warrior class fights, the priestly class is supposed to build consensus on right conduct and asabiyyah, though getting stuck in a holiness spiral results in them doing the opposite, and the merchant class supports everyone by creating value.

                  When you attack the merchant class, you are not speaking for the proles or the farmers, you are speaking for a swollen priestly class that is intruding into the activities of the other classes, and preventing them from doing their job.

                  The proles hate you, and the farmers have been setting their dogs on agents of the priestly class for three hundred years.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The solution to the problem of too much unproductive owned land is not socialism but reorienting the tax on Georgist lines.

                  Trump didnt piss on his voters assuming you are not a shill things are MUCH better under him than under Obama. You wanted shit handed to you it doesnt happen like that, no one gives it to you you have to take it. The remaining problem is that American women are still generally evil and insane…

                • jack boot says:

                  > The proles hate you, and the farmers have been setting their dogs on agents of the priestly class for three hundred years.

                  don’t outgroup me just yet, lol

                  > When you attack the merchant class

                  if and only if your definition of “merchant class” is investment bankers and vulture capitalists lending unlimited zirp funny money to bright young things constructing the utopian libertarian panopticon.

                  > No angel investors, we would have no transistors.

                  interesting point. so no angel investors, no transistors…

                  and no transistors, no smartphones, no antisocial media, no genetic scanning, no internet, no data brokers, no “smart” cities, no facial recognition, no ubiquitous surveillance.

                  does technology free or enslave? some technologies free and others enslave. the rifle freed. the auto freed then enslaved. what will be the record of the transistor?

                  you’ve convinced me. sign me up for the no angel investor no transistor steampunk world.

                  i want to go to the neighborhood library of marble and wood and glass and leather bound books and paper library indices. i want ma bell and expensive long-distance telephone calls. i want MEN to drive cars and sail ships and fly airplanes.

                  unplug the computers human war now!

                • jim says:

                  Technology frees. I have lived in places where running water comes from a hand operated pump, electricity is unreliable, and the internet barely usable when it was usable at all. Not long term, the longest period was a couple of months, but it did not take long for it to suck, and I kept making long trips to access the internet, and sometimes to recharge the batteries for my flashlights.

                  The holiness spiral is unrelated to the internet. The internet was great till the priestly class intervened, and we have had holiness spirals long before we had electrical power or industrialization. The holiness spiral always wound up looking like this, just not displayed on social media. As for example, the Jewish Zealots. The internet is irrelevant to the holiness spiral.

                • jack boot says:

                  > reorienting the tax on Georgist lines

                  i like you.

                • jim says:

                  You would. Is his desk near yours in the FBI building?

                • Starman says:


                  No transistors means no fully reusable rocketships. No rocketships means mankind is confined to Earth until extinction. Your position is anti-natalist and evil.

                • jack boot says:

                  what a time sink tbf

                  > You would. Is his desk near yours in the FBI building?

                  things must look pretty rosy as a boomer bitcoin trillionaire. give me a billion or two and maybe i’ll have a change of heart.

                  otherwise i’ll demand my god-given right as an aristocratic son of the revolution to a fraction of all monopoly rents. i’ll accept a commission and a sword and a ten million dollar stipend thanks

                  as you know fbi doesn’t hire my class any more. too sympathetic to the settlers, i.e americans.

                  unplug the computers human war now

                • jim says:

                  The FBI is, I hear told, hiring dot com Indians, though Jews get the visible jobs, and all the dot com Indians are low rank, so it is said. What are your racial origins? And you are obviously of the priestly class, probably low ranking, not quite elite university, degree in bullshit.

                • Not Tom says:

                  my god-given right as an aristocratic son of the revolution

                  Has anyone else noticed that people who frequently claim to have some great and noble ancestry well-deserving of both status and tribute tend to be Le 56%?

                  Stop being mutthurt, boot. Come the reaction, you’ll have to earn your keep like everyone else. If you don’t have any useful skills (protip: shitposting isn’t a useful skill), then you’ll be a farmhand or stockboy or some other shit-tier job making even less than the welfare payments you currently collect. I am definitely not a boomer, but all of your whining makes me want to join them and “squeeze” harder.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. Don’t tell us that Marxism is true with double the confidence. Attempt to explain why our arguments that Marxism is untrue, evil, and a scam (which are centuries old and predate Marx) are incorrect.

                  Marx was dodging, rather than responding, and you are dodging, rather than responding.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing agreement on the unquestionable truth of Marxism.

                  As I said, you are free to argue for Marxism on the basis of evidence and reason, but I am mighty tired of people just assuming that Marxism is the unchallenged, unchallengeable, and universally accepted consensus.

                • jack boot says:

                  [deleted because of an excessively improbable unverifiable factual claim]

              • Mike in Boston says:

                I have no anecdotes from the USA to contribute to the duel. Here however is firsthand testimony from Hungary:

                After the Sovietunion collapsed our canning factories were quickly privatised (->stolen) and sold to foreign companies who shut them down all, one by one, clearing their competition out from the region. Orchards were cut out as nobody wanted to buy our fruits in raw, ripe form, which is understandable given the high cost of transportation of cooled produce.

                This situation was only good for the big distiller companies, who bought up tons of ripe fruit for literally buttons and continued to produce inferior liquors from it that were unacceptable on Western markets. Fruit-producing villages and towns were left empty for gypsies who looted the leftovers, thus full regions of rural Hungary started to decay and sink into a state closer to anarchy than to order. People who worked in agriculture for generations on such a rich land with black soils fled to the cities to live.

                To slow down the death of villages the current government decided to legalise cooking up to 100L of pálinka per household.

                Orbán is no reactionary, but I am glad to see a conservative actually do something right.

          • Dan says:

            Foreign investors driving up property values is huge in the US. It drives up residential prices especially, since smaller Chinese investors are willing to take a chance buying single homes. It’s made the news in Seattle at least, but it’s an issue in California as well. Given people moving out of California to escape high prices, but willing and able to overbid in the place they move to if they’ve just sold a home in California it puts a general pressure upward nationwide.

            And agricorp farms are huge in the US. I didn’t know that foreign-owned was an issue, but a quick google shows that foreign-owned farmland in the US is larger than the size of Tennessee. That has to put upward pressure on prices, and encourage family farms to sell to make taxes.

            We still have a lot of family farms, but only in the sense of “zoned farmland, has a big garden and some chickens and maybe goats” than actually supporting themselves by selling farm produce and no day job.

            • jim says:

              Foreign investors driving up housing prices is a problem, but it is not the problem. The problem is that everyone wants to live close to the regulatory revolving door – the problem is a swelling bureaucracy, and the need to have one’s business close to them.

              • Snowdens_jacket says:

                Where I live property values keep going up because people want to live in a “good school district”

                • Not Tom says:

                  Which is code for a white (or sometimes Asian) district, but they will not admit it in polite company.

        • info says:

          Gleaning also is a form of work. In the OT society it resembles hunting/gathering.

      • Why only contrast it to socialism and not also to distributism? 5000 people working for 500 family businesses would clearly be happier, albeit less productive, than working for 5 megacorps.

        There is of course the little problem that distributism is not really such a clear-cut political goal that could be achieved with a clear set of steps, it is more of an ideal.

        Well, I can at least recommend the first step. You see when one corp has 50 shoe stores and the price is the same in all of them that is okay, but when a guild of 50 family business shoe stores would agree on the same prices that would be slammed as cartelling. So first step: remove anti-cartel, anti-price-fixing laws for small businesses, thus, make guilds legal.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          The Old Testament rules work to encourage progress toward the ideal, a steady persistent pressure, rather than outright mandating “everything must be perfect all at once”. The Land rules allow that some people will accumulate power and land, and it gives them headroom. But over time, land blocks get broken up and redistributed again, through the inheritance system. Since most people enjoy sex, the redistribution is just a natural consequence of people doing something they enjoy: getting married and having sex. And since it benefits your offspring, how could you object?

        • jim says:

          One can distribute political power. (Feudalism, localism, and subdiarity) Redistributing merchant power is difficult, unimportant, and is going to involve confiscating stuff, which inevitably tends to concentrate political power.

          Trump’s national capitalism is already distributist, in that he favors American businesses, and creates regulatory obstacles to foreign takeover bids, and favors businesses in flyover country, when Obama favored businesses close to the regulatory revolving door.

          No one doubts that Trump’s national capitalism is capitalism, because he says that businessmen create wealth, and acts in accordance with that belief.

          Any distributism that is actually in some important sense not capitalism is going to look remarkably like the most concentrated political power of them all: Socialism.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            With the Old Testament laws concerning ownership of land and chattel, there should never be a “redistribution” of merchant wealth or power. It will redistribute itself according to the merchants own character in a type of free market of ideas and commodities. The Old Testament restrictions on chattel and land ownership give maximal freedom for all other types of trade and merchant adventurism, without allowing it to metastasize like the current corporatocracy.

    • Jack Boot says:

      > If you want to go Old Testament, you have to go the whole way and stop dancing around it like a virgin wallflower at her first ball.


    • jim says:

      > The statement that the Commons were badly managed is a modern legend

      The organizational form of the commons made them apt to be badly managed. When the cat is away the mice will play.

      If the Lord is absent, weak, or lazy, the commons are going to be abused or misused.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        I think you underestimate how vigorously the lower class English were wont to defend their rights from those who would encroach on them. They were not neglectful of said rights, and generally enforced them with fists, boots, cudgels and a well aimed brick thrown at the enemy. The Lords treaded carefully when visiting the Commons. The commons were never abused or misused for long, because doing so involved one person encroaching on everyone elses scarce and precious property rights.

        • jim says:


          Fact is that every enclosure in the eighteenth century was voted for by peasants who wanted to enclose the land and wanted to be able to set their dog on unwanted guests.

          Further, abuse of the commons was always the Lord neglecting his duties. Rules on stinting always came from the Lord, never from collective action by the peasants to restrain abuse of the commons. The people who are telling you what a good job the peasants did regulating the collective use of the commons hated the peasants and their dogs then, and hate them now.

    • >If you want to go Old Testament, you have to go the whole way

      I can’t speak for Jim but I for one have little interest in cutting off my foreskin and converting to Judaism. Last time I checked there is an extended (though not replaced) user manual called the New Testament for people who like to keep their dicks intact, amongst other considerations.

      Granted, I do not yet have a clear picture of NT economics. But Mark 12 saying private property is to be protected (vineyard) but the private property of the poor is especially sacrosanct (widow’s houses) is a good start. Or Paul on yes do help the poor but those who refuse to work not. If you are capable of working, earn your living. Sounds like a balanced view. But I admit I have to look deeper into it.

      • jim says:

        New Testament economics is sound and balanced.

        Old Testament economics is sound, and attempts to cast it as socialist or anticapitalist are false.

        The Old Testament had restrictions on the sale or purchase of land. Mortgages and leases were supposed to expire – the intention being that land should remain in the original patrilineal line of descent, the objective being not to impose equality, but localism, to prevent capitalism and the market from creating mobility and dissolving local bonds, not to prevent capitalism and the market from creating inequality.

  27. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    > psychopath

    The salient characteristic of psychopath is not “ruthless warrior” but a ruthless warrior with a tendency to attack his own tribesmen and not only the enemy. Other than that, it’s very positive.

    • jim says:

      That is the definition. But the definition contains opposed characteristics that are rarely if ever found together.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Perhaps rarely at your level of society. Cassanova was classic narcissist. I don’t consider him manly. He was a self centered bitch. And within a week, everywhere he went, the alpha males of the area sniffed him out and pressured him into fleeing. If you see it rarely, it is that you drive them away before they can even start their shit. Or other people around you make sure they don’t even get in your circles for long.

  28. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    >combination of the characteristics of two natural kinds that are by nature contrary to each other

    That’s the whole point that justifies a diagnosis. Traits that should be independent of each other or even anticorrelated (i.e, the functions seem dissimilar and in some ways opposite to each other) actually positively correlate in striking ways. Out of an inventory of 10 seemingly not very related criteria, if you have a few of them you are not much more likely (beyond population baseline) to have the others, but if you have 4-5 then you are very likely to have the whole set.

    Not everything in psychodiagnostics actually works out like that. A lot of stuff is just giving fancy names to behaviors that exist in the population and are deemed to be bad — just as you say. But you focused on cluster B disorders, and for some of those the weird correlations between divergent traits are what makes it convincing that there is some underlying neural scrambling such as interference between systems that are normally unrelated, or some chemical that affects multiple systems at once.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      To take an example of the opposite, a bogus diagnosis like “depression” is one-dimensional. Reduced function on a lot of indicators one would expect to correlate, no weird combination of seemingly distant behaviors. So “depression” is just a name for some behavior we see that many people manifest from time to time, with some more prone to it than others. I’m sure extreme and persistent forms of the behavior are real, but at thresholds far beyond what psychiatrists current used to define (or rather conjure) the condition.

      • I keep having to defend psychiatry… because it is important to criticize them actually correctly, like, actually read up a bit about it first. So for depression, there is thing called Cognitive Behavior Therapy. It attempts to fix certain thought patterns that are thought to be both overly harmful and factually untrue. Such as catastrophizing:

        So depression consists of thought patterns like that. (It is an interesting question what happens if it is harmful but factually true.) Other patterns exist like overgeneralization or personalization:

        So when a depressed student worries he is going to fail an exam, he thinks he will have never success in life, he is going to fail in everything, he cannot do anything right (overgeneralization) and it means he is a worthless peace of shit (personalization) who should kill himself because he is no use to anyone whatsoever (Scott Alexander saying all suicidial people say “I am a burden to others.”)

        This is a real thing. Where psychs go wrong is that it is a spiritual disease. This is a form of guilt, of inability to forgive oneself. Strangely enough libs promised people that the elimination of Christianity will make people feel less guilty but in reality people feel deep inside guiltier than ever. Inwardly they are judging themselves extremely harshly while outwardly proudly saying no one can judge me I just do what I want.

        I think it requires a spiritual cure. For example, confessing to a priest and interpreting the forgiving of our sins as a permission to really forgive to ourselves.

        There is another way to see how depression is real. The root of the word, which is interestingly the same as the root of the word “oppression”, is that some people just look like they are carrying a big invisible burden. Bent backs, head handing, sometimes sighing without noticing it. What is that burden? Guilt? “Oppression” is when leftists are saying it is the burden of social “injustice”. “Depression” is when it is interpreted psychologically and medically.

        There is a common misunderstanding that depression is only a problem of the leftists. Pill-popping 45 years old childless feminists feeling guilty over their sins against nature, God and themselves. But in fact it is perfectly possible for a conservative family father to be depressed, it is just he is less likely to notice it and even less likely to pop pills. But you can notice he is carrying that invisible burden. What is that burden? Where does that come from?

      • jim says:

        Depression is nature’s way of adjusting your status. Someone who is depressed feels, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly, that he is in an indefensible high status role. The cure is to do good work in a lower status role, and earn appreciation for it.

        • Llonganissa de Payès says:

          Always thought depression is your brain’s way to isolate you socially so you can spend all your time thinking and working on the serious problems that just hit you. No time to socialize now that you found out you are in serious trouble!

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Dude. Just a Jimmian deeper dive into the word/concept “depression” would be very rewarding for many.

          Something can be depressing. Sure.
          Someone can be depressed over bad news. Sure.

          But now you’ve got me suspicious that “depression”, like as a long-term fact of life, might actually be an anti-concept cooked up to scramble my thinking and sell me pills.

          (Like in 1850 they probably didn’t have the word “depression”, but I bet they did have the term “whinging faggot”, for instance.)

          • BC says:

            > But now you’ve got me suspicious that “depression”, like as a long-term fact of life, might actually be an anti-concept cooked up to scramble my thinking and sell me pills.

            Depression is both real and a made up concept. It’s real when it comes to status loss as Jim described, I’ve experienced that myself. It’s not real in the way they’re always trying to treat it like a disease.

            • jim says:

              Studies of electroshock therapy, pills, etc, tend to converge to levels of effectiveness suspiciously close to no treatment whatsoever and suspiciously similar to each other.

              If you have a depressed wife, tell her to get off her ass and do some housework, then check on what she has done, and if you have any plausible excuse for saying she has done well, tell her she has done well.

              If someone is depressed, it gives them an excuse to be lazy and fat. Being lazy and fat will worsen their belief that they deserve status loss, and will worsen their belief that they will suffer status loss.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                For youngish women, the main consumers of SSRIs unless I’m mistaken, I would guess depression also comes from still not being pregnant.

              • Llonganissa de Payès says:

                Depression isolates you socially, that’s key. You need it when you are depressed. You have lots to fix.

              • Llonganissa de Payès says:

                Afaik exercise will work just as well as SSRIs.

              • Llonganissa de Payès says:

                Key is: course correction requires social isolation.

                Sorry for rapid fire response.

                • Llonganissa de Payès says:

                  Course correction requires deep introspection requires social isolation. Depression conveniently forces you into social isolation.

                  Sorry again for the response format.

          • I did this on my blog a couple posts back. If you feel sad and unmotivated because a family member dies, not depression (i.e. pathological sadness). It’s a normal reaction to one’s environment. Mental illness is necessarily an unnatural response to stimuli. If you have a good job, family, etc and still feel depressed all the time, then it’s pathological.

            Most depression is normal psychology and not illness, because most depressed men’s lives suck. They are depressed because their lives suck, and this becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. Then Jim’s idea that the successful man who feels depressed is that way because he realizes he is not cut out for his high status, does not feel comfortable being high status, fills in the rest.

            If you have a fever because you are sitting in a hot tub, you’re not sick. Get the fuck out of the hot tub.

            The vast majority of female mental illness is “unowned woman crazy”. When women are feral, they slowly go fucking nuts. When owned by a strong man, their pathologies evaporate like the morning mist unless they have gone unowned for so long that the crazy become deeply rooted. Young girls start going crazy at the age of twelve to shit test their fathers into either owning them properly or finding a husband who will, and these shit tests are usually illegal to pass.

            • Yul Bornhold says:

              I know a fellow in pharmacy. He thinks congressmen should be held accountable in the same way as pharmacists. Tried to explain that Congress doesn’t run the country but he couldn’t grasp the concept.

              His sixteen year old daughter behaves as described above. The fellow and his wife are planning to send her off to college. They can’t fathom it will transform her into an NPC whore. Would tell him he needs to marry her off, but if he can’t swallow the Moldbug pill, the redpill won’t do him any good.


              • alf says:

                I have also found it disheartening how many people throw away their or their children’s lives on stupid shit like this. I’ve come to the conclusion that that’s just the way it is, and it’s one those things where ‘if you’re so smart, where’s your awesome life?’ Eh, point taken.

        • EH says:

          Status insecurity is part of some cases of depression, but the “learned helplessness” model covers more cases. One might despair about being seemingly doomed to low status, but often the despair is not over others’ opinions directly but the possible consequences – fired, expelled, evicted, impoverished, imprisoned, etc., which are still potential worries in themselves apart from status. The root cause of shame is status anxiety, and shame exacerbates depression, but depression comes from a belief that no matter what they do, it won’t help. Hopelessness or despair are more precise terms for depression.

          The way they get a rat to be “depressed” is to throw it in a deep tub of water with unclimbable sides and force it to swim for its life until it gives up. How quickly it gives up is used as a measure of how depressed it is. It learns that nothing it does will help, so it might as well save the effort, and that giving up is what gets it out of the water.

          Schools, institutions and corporations elicit much the same effect as the tub of water to those forced to swim in them.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Schools, institutions and corporations elicit much the same effect as the tub of water to those forced to swim in them.”

            Quite profound actually… especially as far as school goes.

    • jim says:

      But we do not in fact see these weird correlations between opposed traits.

      The diagnosis of psychopathy is as political as the diagnosis of racism.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        > do not in fact see these weird correlations between opposed traits.

        Depends on which diagnosis you mean, but generally, yes we do and yes clinical psychologists kept seeing it which is usually how the diagnoses got to be proposed and accepted. The several-percent rates of cluster B disorders both as estimated and as diagnosed in psychiatric patients is orders of magnitude higher than what you would get by multiplying the frequencies of the supposedly independent or anticorrelated components. If you have ever encountered these types in real life you can then look on online psychiatry forums to see how precisely predictive (and retroactively descriptive) it is, with everyone’s stories being the same down to fine grained details.

        • jim says:

          > clinical psychologists kept seeing it

          Clinical psychologists kept seeing men manlier than themselves and proceeded to demonize them.

          In another forum, there is a reactionary clinical psychologist, himself a manly man, successful marriage, reportedly good friend to his friends, who declined to go along with this, and was promptly himself so diagnosed, so I have this direct from the horse’s mouth.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            There is a lot of overlap between the criteria for antisocial personality disorder and the traits of high IQ (almost always quantitative/theoretical) scientists, programmers, engineers, mathematicians. The overlap is high for me, probably also for that reactionary psychologist. I had trouble in academia because of its lack of manliness and his case sounds similar.

            So of course it’s easy to twist the criteria to include rogue scientists when they go off the reservation. Shockley the posterboy for that.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              This is well attested in fiction, by the way. The Aspergery STEM figure as a warped inhuman antagonist is practically a stock character.

        • jim says:

          Cluster B does not in fact correlate or cluster. A cluster B personality is someone the clinical psychologist resents. Usually for being manlier than himself.

          Cluster B defined as is manliness plus evil, but not the evil typical of manliness, but rather the evil typical of clinical psychologists.

          The claim that Cluster B correlates, that it is a real cluster, is the claim that manliness is evil, and manly men are evil. Social Justice Warriors always project.

          What correlates is not cluster B, but that when a clinical psychologist throws shit at someone to see what he can make stick, he tends to throw his own shit.

          • The Cominator says:

            Certainly there are female cluster bs, ie probably a very very large % of American women probably would fit the definition of narcissistic personality disorder.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              NPDs are usually men, the analogue in women and gay is Histrionic PD which is probably the most solid (in terms of reality and accuracy of the concept) of the cluster B diagnoses, with the basic archetype being recognized since antiquity.

              • The Cominator says:

                They say NPDs are mostly men but this is one area i strongly disagree with the cathedrals official truth…

                Histrionic is basically a huge attention whore, which imho is def. not most women but is most fags.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  *slow clap*

                • Snowdens_jacket says:

                  Narcissism is not being able to look past yourself. Being in drawn and not being able to think past yourself. We now call this solipsism, and it is a chronic trait of a woman, who does not have children. Their is no point a woman can think about a man, nor care about a man, except as a helper who supports. She can not care, but she can support, and she will not be able to think how to help so you must tell her. You help me when you do X. Surprise, she now does X, every day, and starts to obsess about doing X very very well. You help me by making me breakfast. And now she’s obsessed with making your over medium eggs perfect.

                  But at no point will she be able to see and realize that she could be making you breakfast until you tell her, because she can’t care about you as a man. With no children, and no man who tells her you help me by making me breakfast, she will sleep in. You may say, I’m hungry, and she’ll push a box of cereal to you. You tell her? She can’t do it until you tell her.

                  She can’t see outside of herself, but through her children. Or through your commands.

                  Now narcissism means confidence. Rational or even better total and irrational confidence is so attractive to women, it is such a masculine trait, that it is now a “disorder”. A man says, to any problem, “I’ve got this”, he says to any woman, “I’m better than you”, he has confidence in any situation because he will win, no matter what, what does this have to do with an inability to see outside of yourself? No you know you can win because you *can*.

                  The prog definition of narcissism isn’t solipsism, it is the confidence of a male champion. Modern definition of narcissism, a male champion is a psychological disorder.

                  A male champion who makes sure he tells everyone what a champion he is? If he isn’t? Delusional gamma that will take your wife’s virginity anyway as women seek a champion. If he is? I’ll always win. I never lose. I fail, but I never lose. I always win. What you think of as losing is just a trial, where I win. I always win. I’m a champion you’re afraid to be. Don’t want to be a narcisst, like the gamma who crawls back after he takes your wife’s virginity and she leaves because he came back.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  >not being able to think past yourself.
                  > a chronic trait of a woman, who does not have children.

                  That’s actually a big dividing line between women who show ordinary female behavior (e.g. vanity, concern with appearance/attention) and women with cluster B: for those in the second category there is rarely any improvement from having children. Rather, they use the children, both directly and as a way of getting attention from others. If you’ve been around women who qualify for a diagnosis and see what happens when they raise the kids, it is disturbingly un-maternal, though often done with a tremendous show of (whatever they think other people think is) motherliness.

                • Snowdens_jacket says:

                  It is not vanity it is solipsism. It is an inability to think beyond themeselves. And it is normal like water is wet or gravity goes down. It is a thought process that starts with, “well I think”, and “well I want”, but is unable to think, “well I want, but those around me also want”.

                  So… If I want, but others also want, then?

                  And it is a female issue that can only be solved by giving orders, which a woman will call leading. Give orders and she’ll think, “oh my gosh he wants”. Hmm he wants, but I want, I want, but he also wants. Until you show her this she will honestly not know it. For real this is solipsism that you pathologize that is normal.

                  Their is no point in this pathologizing. What good do you think it does if other people were to declare that the way your wife thinks is hiss boo wrong and bad? Tell her, give her commands, simple ones. So she can think, I want, but wow other people want as well! She really doesn’t know.

                  In their girl minds you don’t want until you tell her you do. At which point she will test you to see if you actually do. Should she care about your children? Do you want her too? If you do then why not tell her, order her?

                  The natural state of a woman is to keep the child alive until age six. At which point her bond with that child fades so a new lion can mount her. Everything you see past that the man has created.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  I think we’ve got a live one, Omar. Discussions of narcissism triggers the narcs hard.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  >The natural state of a woman is to keep the child alive until age six.

                  For a normal woman. Even (indeed, especially) at child ages 0-6, there is a disturbing negligence, lack of normal concern for the kid’s safety, and other such problems, apparent in the cluster B moms. That these disturbing tendencies derive from the diagnosis but are not used to assign it, is part of the evidence that the diagnoses describe a genuine phenomenon and are not just random psychobabble.

                • Snowdens_jacket says:

                  Calls for help. *help!!*

                  Help proclaims his father a failure, blames the woman, thinks she should be a ninja girl with male agency. Heck she’ll fuck me, I don’t even have to fuck anymore. She should want to do it.

                  Forgive your father for his failure it is the only way you can accept his failure and learn from the pain. I’m sorry for that pain I felt it as well. Don’t mistake a champion for a failure, because your champions have been failures.

                  Diagnosis: weak man.

                  New diagnosis: their is no weakness! The weakness is a lack of weakness!

                  Prognosis: Real men are weak and lack confidence.

                  I wish you and your fellow bucket crab the best but like always, I will not stick around in your bucket.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              I’ve bumped into a fair number of Cluster B people, mostly women. It is real. And they are not manly. I’m no fan of clinical psychologists, they are government prostitutes working to deplatform and lock up dissidents, may their crotches rot with 100 diseases. But they aren’t wrong about the existence of Cluster B. Now, if you want to find skulduggery, look up the definition of schizotypal. It covers everyone who is a member of a religious minority, or who goes against social pressure to follow their principles and ideals. Schizotypal is an evil term invented to be such from the beginning.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                > Cluster B people, mostly women. It is real.

                Anyone who has slept with them understands they are a different species.

              • Snowdens_jacket says:

                Cluster B is another one. A man with irrational confidence is a champion. And women will love him. A woman with irrational confidence doesn’t exist. A woman with an irrational belief that she will be safe no matter what situation she puts herself into?

                I could analyze this idea much deeper. Because it’s nonsense and it means a male champion is a psychological disorder. You make other men feel bad

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  So far, your “analysis” just consists of you displaying your ignorance and lack of experience.

                • Snowdens_jacket says:

                  I’m not sure what more I could tell you. Don’t blame a confident man for his confidence, but for his failure. Don’t hate the confidence you don’t have because other men did. You don’t see what you are taught to hate? By weak men? You are taught to hate the best you could be, your best you could ever be is now evil, and hence the inversion just occurred.

                  Compounded by teenage beliefs helped along by a superhero myth where those that succeed do so by magic. Their is a lot of failure in success, even by those you think just succeed in what you want. Or a part of what you want.

      • The Cominator says:

        Having met a few types who would probably be considered psychopaths by shrinks i think its real enough myself…

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          It is real, perhaps Jim has noted that the terms have been twisted fairly frequently to make life even harder for the victims of said disordered individuals. Just like anti-bullying rules are used by bullies to victimize their targets more, I remember long ago hearing terms like “codependant” etc tossed around and realized they were enemy words being used inappropriately. That is why I ignored them until recently when I saw the article on Anonymous Conservative’s site. Then I realized, it is real, even if the evil ones are twisting and using the terms inappropriately. Yes, anyone that prefers Truth to the approval of Man can be labeled anti-social, and throughout history have been. That doesn’t mean that the clinical definitions aren’t real or useful.

          And once I saw the terms were legitimate (in the clinical sense) I also saw that they are useful tools to describe a class of extremely dangerous and damaging people that must be excised from society. As we head into the new Mini-Ice-Age, the narcissists are the first who have to go, just as the honeybees toss the drones out, to ensure the hive survives over the winter. Look, even Prince Andrew is being thrown under the bus. Winter is here, and narcissists/Cluster B are low hanging fruit. And yes, anyone that is manly but not going along with the official narrative might potentially be thrown out of the hive too, because social cohesion is important in times of contraction and scarcity. But it doesn’t mean psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism and ClusterB aren’t real and useful categories.

          • Snowdens_jacket says:

            Yes toss your champions, get rid of them. They are the men who beat you

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              The rare occasion psychiatry does something useful in describing reality, and you hate it because it doesn’t SOUND nice? I suspect your objections (though not Jim’s, since he denies the underlying correlations exist) would be solved by a change of terminology, such as “dominant” in place of “antisocial”, or personality “type” instead of personality “disorder”.

              • Snowdens_jacket says:

                “the confident man fucked my girlfriend when she was younger and better”

                I hate confident men.

                He must have an antisocial disorder. Wait I mean he’s a dominant type.

                You ascribe the latter to me, so you can tell yourself the former, when I think none of these things and identify the evil as it actually occurred.

  29. Mister Grumpus says:

    Terminology is ideology. Change the terminology, change the ideology.

    This is how it works.

    (We’re breaking the conditioning!)

Leave a Reply