Make women property again

Women are different.

Very different.

This is not a game post. This post is about the application of Game and Evolutionary Game Theory to religion and political organization.

If you look at the landscapes we create everywhere, it is apparent that we long for our ancestral savannah, the lightly treed environment we entered when we came down from the trees and stood off the lions. And women long for their ancestral environment of successful reproduction. Women reproduce most successfully as property, men least successfully as property, and their behavior makes no sense unless you understand this.

As I have so often repeated: If a man is defeated, conquered and subdued, perhaps because his tribe and country is conquered and subdued, he is unlikely to reproduce. If a woman is defeated, conquered and subdued, she has escaped from defect/defect equilibrium, escaped from prisoner’s dilemma, and also been transferred from weak men and a weak tribe to strong men and a strong tribe, and is therefore likely to be highly successful at reproducing.

Women are always shit testing you. That is why they are so disruptive and destructive in the work place. But they are not really playing to win. They are playing to be subdued by a strong man.

Female aggression against men, shit testing, is fundamentally different from male aggression, because a man is playing to win, and if it looks like he is going to lose, seeks a compromise to lose without losing too much face, while a woman immediately heads out on a thin limb hoping it will break under her. Thus a woman is most apt to dig in her heels bitterly, stubbornly, and utterly intransigently on an issue where her position is completely indefensible, stupid, self destructive, and illegitimate. If on the other hand she has some legitimate issue with you, she will get angry with you without telling you what her anger is all about. You are supposed to divine it by mental telepathy, whereas if a man has some legitimate point giving rise to a dispute with another man, he will lay it out so plainly that a dog could understand it.

The only time a woman will plainly tell you her grievance is when it is absolutely ridiculous and completely illegitimate.

A man is playing a conflict with a man to win by getting the issue resolved in his favor. A woman plays a conflict to discover who is the stronger, to discover if you are capable of frightening and intimidating her, and thus will always play a conflict more intransigently than a man ever will. This is why men and women can never be friends. When you have a buddy, you will engage in mutual domination and mutual submission, as for example friendly insults and the slap on the back. With women, it is dominate or be dominated. That is why if they have grievance with you, will not tell you what it is, but will instead command you to divine it by mental telepathy, or perhaps by confessing to a long, long list of your sins, hoping for her to tell you which one is the right one.

Women are incapable of performing sexually, of enjoying sex, or even of performing the courtship dance, unless they are at least a little bit dominated and intimidated. Not all women are into outright bondage and beatings, but all women without exception are into subtler forms of domination and submission. All women are like that. No woman will get it on with a man that she is not afraid of. No Women Are Like That. They just physically do not respond unless they feel that they could be compelled. There are no women as the blue pill imagines them to be, no women as they are depicted in very single video of courtship and mating. None. Not in our society, and not in trad conservative societies. This is the big lie from the media that everyone is immersed in from childhood.

Many an emperor with a thousand conservatively raised concubines, and unquestioned authority to execute any of them or all of them for any reason or no reason at all, has had women troubles, and many an empire has fallen from women troubles.

A woman will always attempt to top from the bottom, no matter how much she is into domination and submission. A game of pretend domination and pretend submission just is not an adequate substitute for the real thing, so if you are playing a domination and submission game, she will always test and provoke you into making the game a reality by topping from the bottom.

Women have not been subject to selective pressures on their sexual behavior since we looked rather like apes, because populations that allowed female sexual choice disappeared. The men were disinclined to invest in children, or defend land.

Long ago we came down from the trees and out onto our now beloved savannah. If you don’t have some handy trees, need to be able to stand off lions, so you need reasonably sized group of males with strong male/male cohesion. And the males need to have to have some mighty strong motives to defend females and young. And, out on the savannah, no fruit, or considerably less fruit. The stable isotope ratios in the bones of all our hunter gatherer ancestors that walked, rather than swung through the trees, shows that they ate high on the trophic chain, deer, fish, and other predators. Humans do fine on an all meat diet, die on an all veggie diet. (Vegan without fish, eggs, cheese, and milk)

We seem to be adapted to eating a substantial proportion of other carnivores, hence the health advantages of fish. We are not true omnivores, because we cannot survive on an all vegetable diet, and we are adapted to getting a significant portion of our meat from other carnivores. We have been top predator for a very long time. The stable isotope ratio in old bones generally shows that we ate higher in the food chain than wolves or big cats – possibly we ate fish, which ate other fish. Most of these bones long predate the invention of nets and fishing lines, so possibly we ate wolves and lions.

Only males hunt, because adult males are pre-adapted physically and psychologically for violence. So women and children relied on the mighty hunter bringing home the bacon. And if you have defect/defect equilibrium, a society of players and bitches, well, the women can eat by whoring themselves out, until they are past fertile age, whereupon they starve or get eaten by lions, but out on our beloved savannah, their children are going to die. From the isotope ratios in old bones we can infer that women have been property for a very long time.

And the simplest way to end defect/defect equilibrium is that the males assign the women according to deals they make with each other, and let the women think that the top alpha assigned the women. If the women get a say in it, defection is on the table.

point deer, make horse, 指鹿为马

Senator Roark in “Sin City”:
“Power don’t come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you’ve got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true you’ve got ’em by the balls.”

They are sons of the father of lies, and their shibboleth is always a big lie.

So we need to make our big shibboleth a big truth that contradicts one of the big lies. The biggest and most shocking truth: That the sexual nature of women is maladapted to emancipation, that emancipation prevents them from reproducing and makes them unhappy. That as individuals, and as a society, we need to make women property again.

Each man must be King under his own roof.

And we need a national sovereign, and a national high priest, that backs the sovereign and high priest under every roof.

That women need to be property, for the good of society, and because each of them is individually seeking a man strong enough to make her property, that men need to make them property, is the best shibboleth to organize around. All faiths that support that can work together. All conflict between males is always ultimately conflict over women, so faiths that fail to support propertization of female sexual and reproductive services will always suffer internal and external conflict, leading to holiness spirals, while faiths that support male property rights over women and support propertization of loose women, are less apt to get into internal and external conflicts.

vive la différence

The largest difference between men and women is inside. We pursue very different reproductive strategies, which shapes everything we do in life.

The evil form of this strategy is players and bitches, defect/defect equilibrium, the lek mating pattern. The virtuous form of this strategy is husband and wife, marriage 1.0, eighteenth century marriage, which is now illegal. All happy families are quietly and furtively eighteenth century. All happy families are alike. There is only one way that works, only one form of cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women. Women and dogs need a master, and are never happy if they lack a master, will always behave very badly if they think they are the alpha of the pack.

Proscribing honor killing is unwise, because good men will engage in honor killing anyway (there is always a handy swamp or ocean) and because you are pressuring men to adopt the player strategy so that they will not feel the compulsion to kill adulterers.

If state, church, society, and family, do not impose strong control over women’s sexual and reproductive choices, we get defect/defect equilibrium, resulting in failure to reproduce and dysgenic reproduction, and resulting in only a small minority of men getting all the pussy, thus demotivating the vast majority of men. If you own a woman, you want a nice house and a nice garden. A third world peasant with a wife and children is apt to live in a very nice mud and bamboo hut (it is very impressive what can be done with bamboo and a machete) with a very nice garden while a first world involuntary celibate is apt to live in a tiny, but high tech, box with crap furniture, even if he has a very high salary. The third world peasant with a wife and children has a much larger, more comfortable, and more attractive living space with nicer furniture than the first world webmaster in his little box, because the involuntary celibate, despite his affluence, does not care about his space and his furniture.

Christianity and sexuality

Everything in the bible about sex is a commentary, explanation, or clarification of the final commandment’s application to sex, marriage and children:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

And nothing the bible says about sex makes sense except in this context. If people jump on a line somewhere in the bible and start holiness spiraling on it so that it swallows and destroys the commandments, they are doing what the Jews did to get themselves exiled from Israel.

In a social environment where women are unowned and are frustrated by lack of ownership, old type Christian rules are inapplicable to banging any women you are likely to meet, because old type Christian rules are intended and expected to apply to women in the possession of some man. Fornication is making use of another man’s daughter without his permission, adultery another man’s wife or betrothed. But in today’s society, if a father attempts to restrain the sexual activity of his nine year old daughter, Child Protective Services is apt to take his children and his house away, lose track of his daughter, and sell his sons to a “married” gay couple. (Demand for prepubescent children to sexually exploit is primarily demand for small boys, so Child Protective Services cannot get much of a bribe for whoring out his nine year old daughter, so they leave it to her to whore herself out.)

Furthermore, the Old Testament does not make clear, but the Lord Jesus Christ does make clear, that the law and the prophets are to be interpreted and applied in such a way that they work, that they accomplish their intended purposes, have the intended effect. The spirit, not the letter. By their fruits you will know them.

Incel and female immorality is not the intended effect, is the grossest possible violation of the commandments.

Christianity leading to inceldom, is like the Jews getting so fussed about the commandment on contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, they coveted and seized the land that the landord had leased to a Greek, and when the Roman cops came to restore order and respect for property rights, they got themselves covered in the wrongfully spilt blood of a Roman cop who was impartially doing his duty to enforce a fair and necessary law that protected Jew and Greek alike. And thus it came to pass that for holiness spiraling the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit, the Jews got expelled. As prophesied, they were expelled for violating the Lord’s commandments. The spirit and intent of the law on contamination by blood refers to kind of contamination by blood that contaminated Lady Macbeth. References in the Old Testament to this law, as for example: “their heads were covered in blood” are in context referring to the kind of blood that Lady Macbeth had on her, the kind of blood you get on you by killing a cop who is performing his duty in the face of danger, not the kind of blood that gets spilled on the ground when you kill a chicken.

Incels are usually incel in part because they are violating the laws of Gnon, and if they invoke Christianity to justify their inceldom, it is usually because they are weak and afraid, not because they are Christian.

Christians who apply old type Christian rules, intended for a society where a woman’s sexual and reproductive services were clearly under control of some man, intended for a society where patriarchs acquired wives for their sons from other patriarchs, are in our collapsed society, violating, not, observing, the commandments.

In a society that does not respect or protect ownership of land, a farmer must still grow potatoes, and to do so, has to anarchically and illegally take possession of some land, breaking numerous erratically, unpredictably, arbitrarily, and infrequently enforced laws and regulations in the process.

And we must anarchically and illegally take possession of women.

Old type Christian law on sex prohibits acting as if in defect defect equilibrium. But we are, in fact in defect/defect defect equilibrium, and a man can only get out of it by conquest and taking possession.

The only way you can start out with a woman in cooperate/cooperate is if your patriarch is acquiring her for you from another patriarch with whom he is in cooperate/cooperate, which was typically someone who was close kin, or in the the same hierarchy of authority.

And, since you are starting out in defect/defect, it is impossible to conquer and take possession, except by successfully acting within the defect/defect rules. You have to bang them, or else they are going to move on. All women are like that. Including all supposedly good Christian wife material women.

In an orderly society, you first acquire a field, and then you plough it. In a disorderly society, you first plough it, so that other people will know you have a reason to defend it, and think you have a decent chance of succeeding, and then you eventually own it when no one manages to take your crops away from you, or graze his horses on your standing corn. Which likely requires you to have a weapon handy during ploughing and harvest. Gnon does not intend you to starve, and he does not intend you to be incel. You are required to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile, but by the time that it is time to plough that field, you are already out of cheeks and have walked far too many miles.

Fornication is a particular application of the final commandment.

When you apply those commandments, and read people applying them to sex and family, then unless those people are moderns you need to read them in the social context that the unit of society is the household not the individual, and that men are not women and women are not men.

The prohibition of incest and divorce do not follow directly from the ten commandments, but adultery and fornication does.

And the trouble is that giving fornication a meaning that does not follow from the ten commandments leads directly and immediately to breaking them, as when the Roman Catholic Church before the French Revolution so easily ruled that a marriage was nullified because the woman had not really given consent, or when it encouraged daughters to defy fathers and wives to defy husbands.

This parallels the Jews of the time of Jesus holiness spiraling the law on blood, so that they could wrongfully spill blood, and claim they were acting in accordance with the law of Moses.

To understand what old type Christians meant by whoring, fornication, and adultery, we cannot look at their words, for the meaning of their words has been changed underneath us. We should instead look at what people of that faith who had power, who had legitimate authority, who used that language actually did, in order to understand what those words actually meant when the faith was live and in power.

They did not suppress men from having sex with unowned women, or even suppress unowned women from having sex. They suppressed unowned women from being unowned. The biblical penalty for sex and/or abduction of a married or betrothed woman is death. The biblical penalty for abduction of a virgin is indissoluble shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for abduction of a unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgin …

The story of Tamar and Jacob makes no sense at all if we suppose Tamar was going to be burned alive for prostitution or sex outside of marriage. Makes perfect sense if we suppose she was going to be burned alive for sex outside of and in defiance of the framework of male property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive services.

Similarly, consider how the authorities in late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australia dealt with the problem of a whole lot of casual sex going on. They applied swift shotgun marriage, and supported the authority of the husband in those marriages with disturbingly drastic means. They did not punish men or women for having sex in a beach party. They made women get married, and punished them for speaking back to their husbands.

If you give the biblical laws on sex and family, the biblical condemnation of adultery, fornication, and whoring, an interpretation that presupposes that men and women are interchangeable, and that families do not exist, only individuals, you are turning the Law upside down, resulting in a blue pilled Christianity that tells men that God does not want them to have wives and children.

Tags: ,

1,098 Responses to “Make women property again”

  1. Noname says:

    Free speech is the foundation of all other rights. Without the ability to talk, you couldn’t argue for any other right or challenge any other opinion. We learned over this past week that Trump will still be suspended from social media. An elected president suspended from using free speech. How is this even possible? How did we get to this point?

    The courts have decided that your First Amendment rights apply to government infringement but, private entities are free to abridge your free speech. Biden even says your rights are not absolute. Who gets to decide when you’ve crossed the line? Where do your rights end and where does someone else’s hurt feelings begin?

    Suppose the phone company could monitor your conversations then cut service the moment your speech hurt someone’s feelings or challenged their opinion. How about electric, gas and water service as well? Or the bank or even grocery stores? Ridiculous right? No, it will happen because of the law of the slippery slope.

    It must stop! The only thing these people understand is loss of money and social status. You must fight fire with fire. Humiliate them, file lawsuits against them, shut them down. That is how you survive.

    • Seems like you are a shill.

      • Noname says:


        Look, this blog is all about getting and keeping a woman. Restoring marriage 2.0, right. So how are going to do anything, if you can’t even say anything. You have to plow the field before you plant. I believe in speaking directly and providing solutions. I have stated the obvious because I believe it to be the root if the problem.

        If you want to spread Christianity, you must be aloud to speak.

      • jim says:

        He is not a shill, and the time for war may well come sooner than expected.

        But war needs a legitimate leader, and Trump cucked out.

        • Noname:

          You must fight fire with fire. Humiliate them, file lawsuits against them, shut them down. That is how you survive.

          As Jim has said, that cannot be done without legitimacy and a leader. And in any case, fighting the state religion and those backed by them with lawsuits is a losing battle as Trump discovered.


          But war needs a legitimate leader, and Trump cucked out.

          As far as I am concerned, Trump’s failure is a huge setback. With Biden and the Establishment Left, we’re already seeing the American Empire cracking down globally on those they consider enemies. International war might also be on the cards in a few years.

  2. Ace says:

    If this is the idiot in charge of the military purge it’s unlikely to be successful:

    More likely he’s just a front man.

    Anyone know how the purge is going? The stories on it seem to have dried up.

    • Pooch says:

      They can’t purge yet. Combat operators are still overwhelmingly white male from red southern states. They are chipping away at it with indoctrination but likely need several more years of immigration to replace them.

      • Dave says:

        They could replace all white soldiers with immigrants right now, and I hope they do. I fear that they’ll start a war with Russia or China just to get rid of young white Christian men, like the French high command did in WWI.

        • Pooch says:

          Yes. Been doing that since the sand nigger wars. Sending rural whites to die over seas is no skin off the regime’s back.

          • suones says:

            Almost as if the rural whites are Innocent Aryan Babes sent to the Slaughter with no knowledge or culpability in the evil acts they’ve been perpetrating for centuries now. Just like the rural whites Eisenhower deployed in Little Rock for Truth and Justice amirite?

            The last American soldiers to have fought for Freedom wore grey1[1].

            [1] I’ve stolen this line from something I read.

    • Pooch says:

      From that article, looks like they are still in the planning phase on how to address the too many conservative whites in the military problem. It can’t be solved overnight. They still draw too much from the old Confederate white south.

      Short term, they can make the whites sit through struggle sessions and start making the recruitment process a way to filter out new enlistees (“Check yes if you think America is fundamentally racist”).

      Long term, as they get more non-whites to join they can start purging the whites directly from the ranks. I don’t know if it’s coincidence but a Join the Marines billboard just went up in a majority Hispanic area near where I live. that seems consistent with their long term plans.

  3. Bowie Knife says:


    Could you explain what you mean by the “Blood Diamond Attack” that will likely happen to Bitcoin that you talked about in the comments of your “Where we go form here” post. I would love to understand what that means exactly, thanks.

    • jim says:

      The “International Community” was deplatforming, demonetizing, and cancelling various African movements it did not like, among them the Tutsis in the Congo.

      Uncut diamonds had long been popular as money, because you can transport a lot through airport without being caught.

      Although the International Community failed to genocide the Tutsis in Rwanda, despite making a good start on it, they were going right ahead with genocide of the Tutsis in the Congo. The actual massacres were carried out by Congolese troops, with ground and air support from the blue helmets.

      Because the Tutsi resistance in the Congo had been demonetized, they were using diamonds to buy arms.

      Hence the propaganda attack on this form of currency, followed by restrictions on people buying and selling diamonds without chain of provenance.

      Which had the effect of causing diamonds to cease to be money.

      Whereupon uncut diamonds ceased to be money – there were lots of groups, some of them armed and dangerous who were getting up the international community’s ass, and using diamonds as money, but the timing of events suggests that the proximate reason for demonetizing diamonds was in order to genocide Tutsi in the Congo.

      Some Tutsi minorities were wiped out, but the ones near Rwanda, which was by this time Tutsi ruled, did OK due to covert logistic support, and eventually there was a peace deal between the government of the Congo, the government of Rwanda, and some leaders of the Tutsi in the Congo.

  4. Ace says:

    Jim, how does one talk and act with the backing of Gnon and the god of the old testament to back you up? I don’t have a good feel for religion despite being well studied in it. I want to speak and act in a way that reflects that the Ultimate Alpha has my back but I’m not sure how to do it.

    • jim says:

      No words available to directly explain in words.

      As with game, one must give anecdotes of particular situations, and anecdotes fail to convey.

    • Joe says:

      As with pickup, the key is in inner game. You must believe without question that you are the spiritual descendant of Jesus Christ Himself. And as with game and its routines, Jesus gives us a few to start off with. You are:

      > the salt of the earth

      > the light of the world

      > a city on a hill that cannot be hid

      He also gives us the Lord’s prayer (Our Father…), which encompasses most things that one would normally worry about. This is a good night time prayer for before you go to bed.

      To this you can add totems, icons, and symbols, which you can visualize or touch or hold in your mind.

      Then add breathing exercises and meditation.

      Finally add knowledge and understanding: the contents of this blog and the wisdom of the ancients.

      Practice these things always and regularly. When the storm hits, your mind will automatically reach for them, and you will remain calm as the storm passes over you.

      When you have these things within you, you can extract yourself from James Fields-like situations, resist and turn around attacks by agents of the state, and congruently put women in their place.

      Again, the key is belief. If you believe, truly and fully, that God is within you, then he is, and you will speak with His words.

      • suones says:

        Again, the key is belief. If you believe, truly and fully, that God is within you, then he is, and you will speak with His words.

        Well said. I cannot emphasise this enough. Your god will only help you if you let Him. You have to choose your path, but having chosen it, you must stick to it with 100% tenacity — it may be the “wrong” path that might not lead to success (fate and luck also play roles), but believing only 99% will guarantee failure. This is the trap even great men like Hitler fell into.

      • simplyconnected says:

        That is great advice.

  5. Ace says:

    Just as the deep state tries to take away SpaceX’s NASA funding the Star Prophet delivers another miracle. All Praise to the Star Prophet and his holy mission to bring man to the stars.

  6. Garjesh says:

    For all the guys invested in crypto here, how are you cashing out? You have a bunch of monero. Where do you take it? Offshore shell company? Where?

    • jim says:

      Why cash out?

      I spend cryptocurrency on various things. It is becoming more spendable, as cash becomes less spendable.

      Normally one accumulates assets that seem likely to appreciate, and disposes of assets that, in the long term, underperform.

      Crypto has, in substantial and important part, overperformed.

      But if you really want to cash out: Bisq.

      Use separate Bisq wallets on separate machines for each of your identities.

      • Garjesh says:

        I agree with you there. The only reason I would be looking to cash out is to buy land. As far as I am aware not many places would accept crypto for a house.

      • Garjesh says:

        What kind of places can you actually use crypto safely? Apart from gift vouchers. I know you can buy plane tickets and all kinds, but are these purchases likely to raise suspicions?

        Bisq does looks promising.

        • jim says:

          Crypto currency is popular for all sorts of international transactions. Good way to buy domain names and lease servers.

      • Joe says:

        Use Qubes if you can’t or don’t want to use multiple physical machines.

    • suones says:

      Offtopic: Your nickname is almost Sanskrit. Girijesh would be Lord of the Mountain (presumably Sri Shambhu), while Garjanesh would be Lord of Thunder (presumably Sri Indra). Is it really so?

  7. Jimbo Jones says:

    Critical race theory zealots – basically a group of affluent women in my community – are pushing their propaganda on our public elementary schools. They’re holding meetings, organizing, trying to pressure, guilt-trip, and browbeat people in our community to participate. Thoughts on how to counter?

    • onyomi says:

      Hold meetings, organize, pressure, guilt-trip, and browbeat them and others in the opposite direction?

      • jim says:

        This would require coming out publicly in your local community as red pilled, based, and possibly old type Christian.

        You would be killed or imprisoned.

        • onyomi says:

          There recently seem to have occurred a number of successful local and state efforts to push back against crummy school boards, critical race theory in curricula, etc.

          Admittedly so-called “anti-wokes” are not using full-on Jimian red pill rhetoric to support their counter-narratives but are instead engaging in a degree of “dems are the real racists,” “we’re all in this together,” etc. but it’s still a success of sorts and part of the weakness of woke is that it’s already so extreme (and, behind closed doors, disliked) that even a weaksauce rebuttal is enough to inspire some passionate push back.

          Or do you think Ms. Hannah Smith will end up killed or imprisoned?

          • Pooch says:

            I saw a video of angry moms forcing the school board to resign so they could remove the mask mandates in Vale, Arizona. I’m not sure if it ultimately will work for them but an angry group of women probably has a better chance of not being arrested than an angry group of men.

          • jim says:

            Or co-opted.

            Based females are apt to turn and become debased. Happens all the time.

        • Jimbo Jones says:

          So, I believe there may be old social technology, that I do not fully understand, in the myth of Perseus and the Gorgon.

          My working theory is that I track this group – wait for something monstrous to be said – and take those words and actions and display them to discredit that agenda.

          Again, not a social technology I fully understand, not certain reading the myth as social technology right at all. But I suspect there is something there that needs to be known and used to ensure some level of functioning in my community.

          For me, keeping a group of women activists – who seem to be local housewives with weak husbands – from turning our schools, and even the broader community, upside down, is a box marked “known unknown.”

          And given old stories about the ‘loathly lady,’ and its many variations, I suspect I may need to grapple with these things in order to keep some small semblance of order in my environment.

          There are, for me, many social technologies that, looking at the past, I see were used. ‘Known unknowns’ – that I need to understand. And more still that I likely do not know I need to know about, but need to know, or ‘unknown unknowns.’

          Have had some success in some efforts in my small town, where an essential service has been derailed. Now preparing for another round with CRT.

          Perhaps the best strategy is not to engage at all – avoid bruising my shin on a stool that is not really in my way – or perhaps this is an issue that will be interested in me, as a man with an intact family, whether or not I am interested in it.

          But I need more, better tools, clearer thinking than I have for this, which brings me here.

          • jim says:

            The nature of women is to utterly intransigently go out on a thin limb hoping it will break under them.

            The group you are attempting to engage are cruising for a man capable of putting them in their place. Unfortunately that man may well be General Buck Naked. You are not General Buck Naked and may well have difficulty giving a credible General Buck Naked impression.

            Any attempt to restrain them that does not have General Buck Naked showing up will merely result in them doubling down further.

            To do a credible Buck Naked impression needs a man with an entourage of manly men. If a group of males with one man clearly the leader of that group of males shows up and gives them a stern scolding, they might well subside. Unfortunately, it is possible some spankings might be needed, which in the current environment are too dangerous to apply.

            In a sane society they would be dragged back to their husbands on leashes, the local top dog would tell their husbands to keep them in line, and if their husbands failed to do so, those husbands would be exposed to ridicule. This solution would be suppressed in our current society.

            • onyomi says:

              You frequently bring up General Buck Naked but I’m not sure I fully understand what this means beyond what I can glean from the wikipedia article; does it mean a charismatic man very unafraid to use violence to attain his means?

              Actually what you are describing doesn’t sound terribly difficult unless it is your opinion that slightly milder methods would be ineffective. Namely, if you can get together several like-minded men in the community and, with them, push back in an unashamed, forceful way, you might not actually need a terribly great number to be highly effective, in some part precisely because such a thing is so rare.

              Based on my limited experience observing such phenomena, it seems not that a group of dedicated, like-minded, unapologetic men get shouted down and defeated by bitchy women. Rather, men are either uninvolved with activities like school board meetings, or the ones who are are highly pozzed, henpecked, easily shamed and guilt-tripped, etc.

              It’s the weakness and apathy of men that’s the problem (not that I claim to be particularly good at sticking my neck out or taking the lead in such efforts, though I’ve also never found myself in a situation quite like OP’s yet either).

              • jim says:

                Men are afraid.

                And rightly so.

                What is causing the dramatically falling testosterone levels and falling sperm counts is fear.

                Similarly, police killings. Police have more hostile encounters with black people than white people, but kill vastly fewer blacks than they kill white people. They know killing a black man has vastly more serious consequences than killing a white man.

                Approximately one black who is not a felon and was not engaged in felony at the time per year is killed by a white man, any white man, not just cop killings. That is an unreasonably low number. There are lots of people, of all races, but disproportionately black people, who need killing even though they have not been formally charged with a felony. If you are white and need killing, likely you will be killed. If black and need killing, likely to be killed by another black, but not a white, which contributes to the bad behavior of blacks against whites.

                In any conflict, violence is possible. Men will back off, or find a formula that saves everyone’s face. Women will not. And blacks just don’t believe that whites will escalate to violence.

                And if you are always the one that backs off, it shows up in testosterone levels and sperm counts. You buy an anime pillow and weep into it.

                A Christian is required to show the other cheek, but showing the other cheek should be a threat, not a capitulation.

                > Namely, if you can get together several like-minded men in the community and, with them, push back in an unashamed, forceful way, you might not actually need a terribly great number to be highly effective, in some part precisely because such a thing is so rare.

                Yes, will work, four is all you need. One leader, three wingmen. But there is an overwhelmingly likelihood that several sluts and bitches will scream you down non stop, hoping to be physically shut up, or physically removed. Physical removal is likely to be required. Not of all of them. One might suffice.

                The leader should not participate in the physical removal. If he participates in the physical removal, he is going to end up needing to remove all of them. If two of his wingmen remove one of the screaming sluts at his command (which will have to be non verbal under the circumstances, pointing at one of the bitches), the remainder will stop screaming.

                It is going to go physical. This is why the men in the community are rightly afraid. You need to have a plan for going physical while arguably remaining within the bounds of legality, and with good optics and theatrics. Carry concealed but legal weapons, and only deploy them if things go totally pear shaped, you have to make an exit in a hurry, and they will not let you make an exit. If its all women and weak men, don’t carry even legal weapons.

                You don’t need many men, but you do need to expect and be prepared for the likelihood of completely over the top escalation. There will be a very determined effort to silence any disagreement.

                • onyomi says:

                  I’m not sure I fully subscribe to the “politics is downstream of culture” worldview, but as I see it, white men being unable to defend themselves and their neighborhoods against black criminals is downstream of crummy education of white boys, which is downstream of a million and one school board meetings getting dominated by shrieking SJWs (the product of the school system of years past). The more downstream problems are more dire but also harder to solve without mass, coordinated violence. We can look for a Napoleon to come along and coordinate, but in the meantime I think recent events show much smaller victories are still possible.

                  The school board meeting problem, as you suggest, might be solved as easily as four tough men standing their ground. Harder than it sounds in this day and age, and also not without risk in this climate, but also a lot simpler than our enemies would like us to believe.

                  Put differently, Zoom meetings about “fortifying elections” and the like have clearly revealed that conspiracy theorists were right about many things because leftist elites are, in fact, conspiring. But rather than blackpilling, this could be whitepilling: given how effective conspiracy among a small number of dedicated activists can be even when pushing nonsense everyone hates, imagine how effective “conspiracy” to fight back can be?

                  It’s not that right wing conspiracy has recently been tried and found lacking, nor even tried and found hard; it’s that it’s not been seriously tried at all because Western men have, on some level, internalized much of the guilt narratives about slavery, colonization, segregation, etc. used to soften them up, such that when SJWs start shrieking at them they don’t stand their ground and haven’t been expecting it because they think “I’m not one of THOSE badwhites.” We’re in a position where a little backbone and organization could go a long way, I suspect.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No the reactionary view is that culture is downstream of power.

                • jim says:

                  This was illustrated in the stonewall riots.

                  Had the puritans succeeded in breaking up meetings of the Royal Society, formerly the invisible college, the scientific method would have remained low status.

                  Making the invisible college “Royal” would have had no effect if Charles the Second’s men at arms had failed to show up when needed.

                  The Puritans knew well that culture is downstream of power, and the left in the Stonewall riots knew well that culture is downstream of power.

                  The Puritans would have demonstrated that had they succeeded in breaking up the Royal Society meetings, and the Stonewall riots did demonstrate that.

              • alf says:

                ‘Charismatic’ is a slightly reverse-engineered term. The leader in Jim’s story is per definition charismatic, because any man who succesfully orders the removal of women is per definition charismatic. The proof is in the pudding, so to say.

                The not afraid to use violence part is spot on. But you want to use violence, or the threat thereof, in a way that de-escalates the situation, and does not spiral it out of control. Which is risky, and requires preparation, and cooperation among men. It is a way of thinking and acting that in some ways is completely forgotten and supressed, but in other ways comes very instinctive.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Going back down the etymology, a man with Charism is a man who is acting with the authority of God.

                  That is to say, a man who mantles God, becoming an avatar, a conduit through which divine law is instantiated.

        • orochimaru says:


          (though for now mostly imprisonment. killing has not started in earnest.)

        • Joe says:

          He who cares for his life dies a dog’s death.
          – Samurai saying

          Death is lighter than a feather. Duty, heavier than a mountain.
          – Japanese Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors

          For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

          – Jesus Christ

    • The Cominator says:

      Do anything you can to get your kids out of the child prisons…

      Otherwise make demands and threaten lawsuits.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      >Thoughts on how to counter?

      Kidnapping and distribution as concubines amongst the bund, which is what they are asking you for.

      Excepting that, think about what sorts of behaviors are not that, but are of like essence as that.

      • jim says:

        > > Thoughts on how to counter?

        > Kidnapping and distribution as concubines amongst the bund, which is what they are asking you for.

        Yes, and the problem is that we are unable to deliver what they are seeking.

        I can pass an individual shit test, because I take all the risks and reap all the rewards. Societal shit tests are harder, because you need men at your back, and what is in it for those men?

        Well, if kidnap and distribute, there is something in it for those men. But the time is not yet ripe for that.

    • Joe says:

      What would Genghis Khan do?

      • Ace says:

        Make allies, get his wife back, build up his own clan/army, and then conquer all before him.

        • suones says:

          Temujin did all of the above in the following order tho:

          Build up his own clan/army,
          make allies,
          conquer all before him.
          get his wife back,
          change name to Genghis Khan

  8. Bluecar says:

    There is no way to ‘pass’ shit tests.

    Our legal policies give women legal rights – to spend, to sign contracts, to divorce – they can’t handle; businesses market products to women with this power that they cannot handle on an intellectual or emotional level.

    Men with guns will back up your wife’s ability to destroy the conditions required to have a family. You can tap dance around it if you’re strong and capable for a few years, but over the long term you can’t out alpha the fact that the full force of our government and the police will let our women ruin the financial and emotional foundations we need to build families and a society.

    The torpedo has already been sent down our society’s tailpipe, and, given enough time it will explode every family built upon its foundations.

    • jim says:

      You are talking to a man with unexploded families.

      Shit tests are tough, and frequently cannot be passed without breaking the law. Pass them anyway.

      I am alpha, backed by God.

      One of my sons is really alpha, and so far gets by without backing from God.

      One of my sons is somewhat less alpha, but manages with backing from God.

      It is tough and dangerous. It is very tough and very dangerous. But there is no alternative but to do that which is necessary.

      • Bluecar says:

        Indeed, I am. No better person to put this to, then.

        But does the chances of family explosion approach 1 given enough time in this environment?

        Does ‘Alpha’ behavior – and luck – only slow the half-life of family decay, in our current environment? Or halt it?

        • jim says:

          Decay comes from failing shit tests, which in the present environment are difficult and dangerous to pass.

          If, on the other hand, you keep passing shit tests, then the effect of the debased environment seems to be neutralized. If you are a convincing alpha and based, they start to see debased as not alpha.

        • jim says:

          Reverses it.

          The problem is that our society is hostile to men passing shit tests. The collapse of marriage, reproduction, and the family is downstream of that.

    • onyomi says:

      If we accept Jim’s argument that women would rather their men be defeated by stronger men who will own them than be left at liberty, arguably policies supporting third world immigration/destruction of Western civilization are a kind of civilizational shit test whereby (mostly) white women invite white men to either man up and get them back under control or else do battle with/be replaced by third world men who will?

  9. Noname says:

    On the subject of women being different, looks like the Gates home is no longer happy. Other than money, I would say it’s a plus. On the one hand, her face would be hard to look at all day, and on the other, his voice would be hard to listen to for 27 years. Hopefully, she’ll cream pie him and post it.

    According to Leo Fong, this is yet another example of bad girls gone worse in that even high status males can’t hold a marriage together with todays woke white woman. Perhaps… But could it be that the break was purely to separate assets thinking the Gates’ are about to be tossed under the Covid scam bus? Something to think about. It was a common boomer maneuver in 2008 to break up and let the other take the bankruptcy hit.

    • The Cominator says:

      Degenerate because Russian orthodoxy right now is pretty based and this is some sort of Russian equivalent of wignats (they are not fednats in Russia because the state doesn’t sponsor them, but maybe the US does) holiness spiraling to muh ancient barbarian religion…

    • polifugue says:

      Slavic Native Faith is one of the many religious movements that gained traction during what my Ukrainian friend describes as “the wild 90s.” In Russia, there are surprising numbers of Southern Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists as a result of American missionary activity during this time.

      Orthodoxy is the strong horse. My priest tells me the Russian church is desperate for clergy because of the massive influx in church attendance. Because the Communists destroyed most of the churches, there are not enough parishes to properly administer the growing number of faithful Christians.

      In the United States, baptisms on Great and Holy Saturday are big events, but in Russia mass baptisms are commonplace. Most Russians do not attend church regularly, but even if many more wanted to the church does not yet have the necessary infrastructure.

    • suones says:

      Any movement with “neo” in its name usually turns out to be degenerate. Inasmuch as Russian “pagan” movements were instigated by Marxists to decrease the power of the Orthodox Church, degeneracy must come naturally to them.

      A true grassroots return of the Old Gods of Russia is all but impossible due to lack of traditions and scholarship from the era. Sts Cyril and Methodius are the OG Year Zero of Russia.

      I know of a way to awaken the gods ex-nihilo (read my reply to Virtus for an overview) but the process is difficult, unreliable, and equally likely to awaken some long-forgotten demon like Moloch or Baphomet instead. This is the trap Nazi occultism fell into.

      That said, I read their propaganda materials, and I like them. But their “collectivism” vs “individualism” is a huge Red flag. This reads like a Marxist exegesis of Upanishads. Unfortunately I cannot read Russian so that’s it.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        As I said, Old Church Slavonic is the intermediary between Sanskrit and Russian. This also works in reverse.

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes BAP harped on this in one of his shows a year ago (I don’t know whether he was a fag or not his show persona is not but his old forum persona was), though the main focus of his rant on this was Rubio. That Rubio was a cheap cuban rent boy originally.

      • Ace says:

        I’ve heard there’s a video of Rubio getting fucked in a Miami bathhouse that’s been used to twist his tiny balls for years.

  10. Pooch says:

    Feds want to use third party private companies to do their shilling now. Next wave of shills to this blog may look a little different in the future.

    • Ace says:

      I’ve dealt with the sort private paid for shilling operations on reddit forever. They’re strictly script kiddies. This sounds more like the FBI legalizing what they’ve already been doing since at least 2012 with the NSA database.

    • orochimaru says:

      google amp is evil

  11. Hollyhock says:

    I found this article to be interesting, submitted for your approval:

    • jim says:

      Briggs suggests that an unsuccessful rising by someone in authority will be the trigger that starts the white genocide.

      I don’t think so. A rising by someone in authority is likely to succeed. We are not facing the Bolsheviks (yet). Our enemies lack competence and cohesion.

      More likely, absent a Cromwell or a Thermidor/Napoleon, they will holiness spiral all the way to genocide without external stimulus.

      • Pooch says:

        Briggs suggests that an unsuccessful rising by someone in authority will be the trigger that starts the white genocide.

        I don’t think so. A rising by someone in authority is likely to succeed.

        Did not first succeed in Rome when Marius rose. Not only did he lose, but anyone who supported him was put on a list and mass murdered.

        • Pooch says:

          vaguely supported him*

        • jim says:

          Marius, towards the end, fell under the control of holiness spiraling leftists, who invited the Samnites to the walls of Rome and armed the slaves.

          Sulla’s purge was a purge of the radical left, not the populist right, and it was a response the radical left holiness spiraling to mass murder – it was a response to a purge of rightists carried out in the name of Marius.

          • Pooch says:

            Not seeing a left-right dichotomy in Rome or any holiness spiraling. Rome’s state religion was still the Roman pagan gods. Looks to me as purely a political conflict between the Populares (some of whom were radical) and the Optimates (the elite). Seems like Sulla winning and purging the Populares was the elite consolidating power with mass murder of their political opposition and plebeian class. But I’m sure I am not as well read on Rome as you are.

            • Pooch says:

              Caesar himself was almost mass murdered and it was only intervention by elite on his mother’s side who persuaded Sulla to reluctantly spare him.

              • jim says:

                Caesar was a true populist, not a holiness spiraling radical leftist.

                But he was a warrior priest politician – a significant potential threat to Sulla’s optimate restoration. He was a literal priest, the high priest – the pontifex maximus, though his warrior characteristics overshadowed his priestly characteristics.

                Caesar was not some random populist. He was the most important populist. Hence Sulla’s remark “Many a Marius in Caesar”. Sulla had an understandable allergy to priests to the left of him.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Caesar at the time was Flamen Dialis not pontifex maximus.

                  Sulla helped Caesars career immensely by declaring him to not be a valid Flamen Dialis as the flamen dialis could not leave rome or touch metal… so no military career.

                  Its probably doubtful sulla was ever thinking about killing caesar.

              • The Cominator says:

                Pooch there were good and bad populares and cinna and carbo were bad populares…

                Marius was just senile by the time he was being used as a mascot against sulla.

    • polifugue says:

      > Whatever the “final” incident is, it won’t be from the anarcho-tyranny our rulers wield.

      Not necessarily given the propensity of our demon-worshipping elites using flash events in legitimizing political outcomes, such as in the Ukrainian color revolution. There can be multiple revolutions as well as multiple “final incidents” in our future killing fields.

      21st Century Killing Fields Example:

      1. Oppressed victim dies while attacking unholy racist

      2. Oppressed victims kill and burn in peaceful protest

      3. Oppressors terrorize peaceful protesters because of hate

      4. Mass killings by governmental and/or non-governmental forces

      It would work the same way as the Rwandan genocide, in the short and long term:

      Rwandan Revolution of 1959-1961:

      1. Oppressed Hutu Dominique Mbonyumutwa is attacked by unholy Tutsis (flash event)

      2. Oppressed Hutus kill Tutsis in peaceful protest

      3. Oppressor Tutsis terrorize peaceful Hutus because of hate

      4. Belgians help Hutus overthrow Tutsi monarchy giving power to Hutu republic, 300,000 Tutsis flee the country and set up RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front)

      Rwandan Genocide:

      1. RPF invades Rwanda in 1990, suffers setbacks against RDF (Rwanda Defense Force)

      2. RDF, backed by Western powers, begins accelerating Hutu Power Movement

      3. Assassination of RDF leader Juvénal Habyarimana during peace negotiations (flash event)

      4. RDF commander Théoneste Bagosora takes power, genocide of Tutsis ensues, RPF eventually conquers the Hutu Republic forcing RDF into Zaire

      Today Rwanda is governed by a de facto Tutsi dictatorship under Paul Kagame. Forgotten to history is the Western support of the Hutu regime. The genocide weakened the RDF, more importantly its Western backing, to the point that the Tutsis could reconquer the country.

      The question remains, given our political climate, what will be the end of our killing fields?

      • suones says:

        Forgotten to history is the Western support of the Hutu regime.

        I remember Susan “acts of genocide” Rice, Bill Clinton’s bitch.

    • Zach says:

      Briggs > Every leftist that has ever lived.

    • Joe says:

      I like his reader Tom’s comment.

      I remember visiting the Killing Fields in Cambodia many moons ago. To my amazement, the dead weren’t capitalists or enemies of the government, they were “Comrades” that the Khmer Rouge had turned on. Similar thing happened in the Soviet Union when Stalin turned on the old Bolsheviks or Mao on internal party enemies in the Cultural Revolution (Hitler turning on the Brown Shirts also comes to mind).
      Point being, the Left might turn on each other and kill themselves off soon. We need to hold tight and wait to pick up the pieces.

      Certain smart people survived even within Cambodia itself by smashing their eyeglasses and pretending to be peasants. It can be done.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist. Cham Muslims were targeted for destruction. Based?!

      • Dave says:

        Jim, you’ve been in Cambodia or the vicinity — what is their attitude toward leftism today? I would suppose, after what happened there, that any foolish child who says something leftist gets a beating, and if that doesn’t set him straight, a dirt nap.

  12. nils says:

    “I have whimsically wondered from time to time, is Afghanistan where empires go to die or is Afghanistan where dying empires finally go?” the Vox’ voat/ r/altright Jim cross-over that exists is good, the quotes are awakening to the point of new religion, the zeitgeist/sightglass is whatever you can stumble upon.

    • suones says:

      I have whimsically wondered from time to time, is Afghanistan where empires go to die or is Afghanistan where dying empires finally go?

      Neither. Afghanistan is an exceptional example, as it has a very high-quality racial stock — Indo-Hellene, that gave up its Divine Patrimony in favour of temporal power, became mired in moral and societal decay, fell to Baphomet, started LARPing as the Semites who are the children of that god, and thus receive Baphomet’s bounty — becoming goatherders.

      When Gandhara is purged of evil demons, then you will see its glory.

      It is a cautionary tale I recite to race-obsessives — merely having good genes isn’t enough.

      (“Afghanistan” is a fake country — only southerners are real Pathan/Pashtun. Northeners are Uzbek/Turks that deserve their own country/merger with Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan).

      • The Aryans in general seem to have suffered a lot of ancestral curse[1] over the ages to be where they are now. Abandoning the old gods is one cause/aspect of the decline.

        [1] I view racial decline as an ancestral curse for which the punishment is a loss of identity. Giving up the old gods is another sin that has not gone unpunished in the long run, whatever may have been the short and medium term gains.

        • jim says:

          We abandoned the Old Gods a long time ago.

          Subsequently we conquered the world, created science, technology, and industrialization.

          The curses of the Old Gods are, as Cortez pointed out, impotent before the risen Christ.

          The curse under which we are now laboring set in when we allowed Socinians into the Church of England.

          • Yet, today the West is facing its biggest existential crisis yet, while the East, having abandoned the old gods and racial purity has fallen victim to the same Progressive demons and in the process of being consumed.

            Obviously your solution for the West/White races is a return to old orthodox Christianity, which is a very different religion from the Christianity that exists today.

            I am not calling for all peoples/races to return to the old gods, which, given the historical context, is next to impossible. But races/peoples that still have links to their old gods must go back to the old gods en masse before it’s too late. A region that comes to mind immediately is South East Asian Islamic countries where, despite increasing radical Islamization, a semblance of the old gods still exist.

            • jim says:

              Mexicans are returning to their Old Gods, who are demons.

              • suones says:

                The spell of Cortez the sorcerer is broken, and the terrors are now free. And they are very hungry. For Blood.

            • suones says:

              I am not calling for all peoples/races to return to the old gods, which, given the historical context, is next to impossible.

              Semites never left their Old Gods. Israelites still hew to Yahweh their Father, and Ishmaelites seem to have rediscovered Baphomet, the Spirit Father of the Desert. The hilarious mystery is Aryans who have been LARPing as Semites for so long they think themselves to be Honorary Semites at least, and then promptly get offended/surprised when actual Semites (sons of Abraham) plot to destroy them.

              The only god who is ever going to help you is the God your Father, and none other. Praying is not a transaction with the gods and the “power of prayer” is an illusion.

              A region that comes to mind immediately is South East Asian Islamic countries where, despite increasing radical Islamization, a semblance of the old gods still exist.

              When I read the recent news of the loss at sea of an Indonesian submarine, the fact that jumped out at me was that the name of the submarine was Nanggala, named after Sri Balaram’s legendary spear (with a matching logo to boot) and the class was “Chakra”/”Cakra,” the name of Sri Vishnu’s characteristic weapon. This is definitely not a land of Baphomet — suddenly Suharto began to make sense to me.

              • restitutor_orbis says:

                Suones – I was intrigued about your posts about the need to find our “old gods”, and recently started researching the ancient cult of Hypsistarians. This cult worshipped Theos Hypsistos (God Most High) also known as Zeus Hyspasist.

                Previously, Jewish writers (who of course insisted they were the only “real” monotheists) claimed that the Hypsistarians were really Jewish-influenced Yahweh worshippers, but recent scholarship based on archeological recoveries has shown that the worship of Hypsistos actually arose in the context of Greek, Roman, and Scythian thinking. (I’m Greek, Italian, and Transylvanian/Dacian by ancestry.)

                The cult’s traditions certainly seem to be Indo-European rather than Semitic. He is associated with light, and worshipped at dawn and dusk with altars bearing a torch or flame. He is symbolized by an eagle and by a hero on horseback.

                Like other ancient Indo-European gods, Hypsistos seems to have bound existential evil or chaos: “The most high god, who encompasses everything and is not seen, looks upon terrors so that the plagues of mortal men might be warded off.”

                An inscription in an Apollonian Oracle explains his relationship to other gods: “Self-begotten, un-taught, un-mothered, undisturbed, not permitting a name, many-named, dwelling in fire, this is God; we messengers are but a small portion of God. For those asking this concerning God, who he is, he said that the all-seeing Aether is god, gazing upon which you pray, at dawn, looking toward the sunrise.”

                That’s quite interesting in that Apollo and other pantheonic deities are conceived of as aspects or sub-divinities of Hypsistos. It is also compatible with the view of God held by the greatest thinkers of the pagan philosophers, including the Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics.

                Goethe, one of the greats of Western civilization, said this of the cult:

                “The Hypsistarians declared that they would treasure, admire, and honour the best, the most perfect that might come to their knowledge, and inasmuch as it must have a close connection to the Godhead, pay it reverence. A joyous light thus beamed at me suddenly out of a dark age, for I had the feeling that all my life I had been aspiring to qualify as a Hypsistarian. That, however, is no small task, for how does one, in the limitations of one’s individuality, come to know what is most excellent.”

                I haven’t yet found Goethe’s primary source for this, though I have seen it in secondary sources. But it confirms a Greek-style admiration for Arete or excellence that is absent in Semitic religion’s emphasis on humility and meekness.

                Some sources claim that Hypsistos continued to be worshipped until the 9th century in Cappadocia. He was certainly worshipped there long after the rest of Rome had switched to Christianity.

                So this seems like the strongest of the “old gods” of my ancestors.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, that is our ancestral religion – not Judaism. And Judaism also descended from that religion.

                  But Christ as the logos is also descended from that religion – John invoking Greek philosophy, and three centuries of Christian fathers invoking Greek philosophy and quarreling over it.

                  Christ as the logos is the fusion of both strands.

                • Mr.P says:

                  Yes, that is our ancestral religion – not Judaism. And Judaism also descended from that religion.

                  Jim, getting to the heart of the matter now.

                  Perhaps the subject of a long post?

                  I’m an Aryan and want nothing to do whatsoever with anything Semitic. Sick of all things Judaism. Enough. Sick sick sick of Jerry Seinfeld, Woody Allen, NYT, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Holocaustianity, and Judaism. No longer care about (((their))) excellent human technology. They hate us and intend to murder every last one of us.

                  NT sounds and feels more like a gutted skinsuit everyday in the Current Year.

                • jim says:

                  New Testament can rather too easily be given a gutted skinsuit interpretation.

                  On the other hand Christians conquered, and we got empire, science, and technology under a Christian state Church.

                  The Puritans were “pure”, because they wanted to strip Christianity of its Greek additions.

                  But Christ is King and High Priest in the line of Melchizedek, and Melchizedek is not seed of Abraham.

                  In this sense, Christianity is grafting the Aryan tradition onto the Semitic tradition – but the trouble was and is we don’t have a written Aryan tradition. We got the Aryan tradition via the sons of Pelops, who appear to have been illiterate. So except for the concept of the Logos, of the will of God manifest in the natural order and his commands manifest in the moral implications of that order, we just don’t have much good stuff from the Aryan branch.

                  Christ as the Logos, and “by their fruits you will know them” is what we have got of that branch, and it matters a lot. But the Semites just got started on writing stuff down a whole lot earlier.

                • nils says:

                  Sky God looks to be universal everywhere aryans or phoenicians conquered, although phoenicians/atlantians are a pre pre historic break off, so a bit unusual, Ra, steppe god of the heavens/blue sky god, zeus/odin/thor, feathered serpent. Putting semetic at the head of the parade is stupid, judea looks just like any other schythic/aryan tribal branch. Judaism, eqyptian and grecian are obviously worshiping God, first there were the heaven’s(osiris) and the waters/firmament(gaia) and then the 1st day(chronos) blah blah, same story if you read them side by side with the whole pantheon(primordial/titan/god/demigod) nordic as well although they get weird with the animals and elementals. Story of the clay men and the beast of the field and the tree of knowledge or fire of truth, all the same ancestral story of aryans, Moses and the Stables of the Solar Bulls, same stories again, all garbled and academized for your ignorance, but jews arent the start of anything except a dead end, christ was working with plenty of people who thought the pharisees werent the israelites of the bible. Who conquered europe for the cross is dubious as well, but if the french can build a kingdom in the levant, the sons of israel could conquer from bulgaria to ireland. The date issue of the roman dark age and Double Kings throws the possibility of roman/trojan adoption of Christ as the continuation of aryan/druidic tradition open(with the willing adoption of Christ by several druidic traditions which were not worshiping the dark gods implying he was not incompatible with pre christian aryan theology), and the heraldry of europe predating the introduction of christianity despite nonnative and nonexistent creatures being emphasized all related to tribes of israel is an open issue with multiple possible explanations. Interestingly the curse of eve for the apple(meaning fruit pre 1800s) of knowledge is in part pain during childbirth, which matches the biological complications of intelligence and the pelvis pretty well.

                • jim says:

                  Druidic tradition is totally dominated by the Dark Gods (demons) and Druidic conversions were the result of necessary and well deserved fire and slaughter.

                  So racial purists should not look at the Druids. That path dead ended in evil a very long time ago.

                • nils says:

                  Most druids were evil, especially the irsh and a few cults in scandinavia,. Some were not terrible, the not terrible ones on the roman frontier became christians in massive numbers without a fuss, the church doesn’t like to discuss how the first clergy was almost entirely comprised from druids,. Northern germany and the teuton knights were a blood feud between races and an infestation of slavik old gods/nephilem/demons whatever, and that 300 year slaughter was deserved, but the druidic acceptance of the church in some places was real, which is why everyone knows merlin, but there are perhaps three people here who can name a dark god of ireland, and are aware of how evil they were. Aincient germanic technology circa 4000 bc should be sufficient to show they were not completely evil throughout history, the saints made of their gods and deities which are still around today should be another testament to the same God shared by Christ and some faiths in pre christian europe. not as good as the original conquerors or the birth of Christ, sure. Every last one as evil as the devils own gang? not really, some were decent enough to know when to be baptized. if in future men look at us from the stars our descendants conquered they will no doubt think us pagans, doesn’t mean we dont know at least a little bit about god.

            • The Cominator says:

              To the extent we are cursed for abandoning the old gods its because much of our populace have abandoned the gods of the copybook headings, the gods of reality, and when the gods of the copybook headings are abandoned they must inevitably with terror and slaughter return.


              The most eloquent and beautiful condemnation of leftism ever written. Other than the words “copybook headings” it sounds like it could have been written yesterday… not published nowadays but written.

              • Dave says:

                It’s even worse now than Kipling imagined, for we have abandoned the Gods of the Market Place for the Gods of the Ballot Box.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think the gods of the marketplace didn’t mean capitalism as it condemned socialism in the poem… it meant something more like fashionable thinking.

                • Acd says:

                  I’ve always read it to mean as Com described it.

                • polifugue says:

                  “Gods of the Market Place” are metaphor for idols men create out of pride. “Gods of the Copybook Headings” are metaphor of Chesterton’s Fence and the horrors beyond view. The God of the Ballot Box is one of the former.

                  The smooth-tongued wizards promised us pigs with wings,
                  that the tyrants would cease if we gave up our Kings;
                  But when we revolted They debased our tongues in doublespeak,
                  And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Strong shall rule the Weak.”

              • suones says:

                Always nice to find a fellow Kipling admirer.

                To a man who has not abandoned the Gods of the Copybook Headings, so to speak, the poem reads transparently as a lament upon the subjugation of (Anglo) society to Mammon, which was all the rage till the 1920s. Fetishising “Capitalism” is the indicator of this, and the degeneration was so complete that Thatcher was deemed a Conservative for espousing and championing this degeneracy. I suspect time spent in India permanently affected Kipling’s thought.

                Mammon-worship is a power play[1] that promises Vaishyas greater influence and status for doing what they do best. Adam Smith had pointed it out in Wealth of Nations itself (“nation governed by shopkeepers”). Once this gets firmly established, the Vaishya norms of greater virtue (== greater wealth) get applied to the entire society (Gods of the Market Place). While the old existing social framework holds, this leads to creation of unparalleled wealth and everything seems fine. It only lasts for around three generations for children born and raised in the “Marketism” faith to take power — and since they lack memetic sovereignty (being Vaishyas), they are extremely vulnerable to priestly attack — which happened in the form of Molochite priests.

                [1]: We know that such power plays cannot be originated by Vaishyas, who lack memetic sovereignty. Marxism is a Jewish heresy and Moldbug figured out that Prog was a Christian heresy. But I’m not well-versed enough in Anglo history to figure out which elite was backing Mammonism in Britain since the time of Adam Smith. May have been Jewry, but the change was too broad to have been entirely the work of Jewry. Also interesting is that this heresy was exported from Britain to USA long after the USA became a thing, and was initially supported by Harvard at least until the War of Northern Aggression, which marks the inflection point where the balance of power shifted from Mammon to Moloch.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There is never and was never a point where the Vaisyas or capitalism was a major problem. Priestly distortion of “capitalism” can be a problem.

                  The priests took over in the West completely after the 1st world war because the old elite (which was much more warrior and aristocratic than lawyer and priestly) screwed up very very badly. Its almost impossible to overestimate what a catastrophe for our civilization the 1st world war was for our civilization…

                  Before the 1st world war most of the common people (with the exception of France) basically trusted the old aristocracy to govern well.

                • The Cominator says:

                  And Kipling himself realized how badly they screwed up lamenting his own part in supporting British entry into the war when they screwed up writing about the death of his son “If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied”.

                  The Gods of the Copybook Headings was written after the war about the Western world turning in its grief and disgust after the war towards radical and leftist ideologies and that he knew what the result would be. The Gods of the Marketplace were things that were fashionable.

                • Ace says:

                  The priests took over in the West completely after the 1st world war because the old elite (which was much more warrior and aristocratic than lawyer and priestly) screwed up very very badly. Its almost impossible to overestimate what a catastrophe for our civilization the 1st world war was for our civilization…

                  Before the 1st world war most of the common people (with the exception of France) basically trusted the old aristocracy to govern well.

                  On the allied side the priests were firmly in charge. A few years ago I read a book about Verdun by John Mosier. Mosier isn’t the best historian but he more often gets overriding motivations right than other historians.

                  In France the Socialist French government was far more afraid of its Roman Catholic army than it was of the Germans. They appointed only Socialist Generals who fed and endless stream of Catholics to their deaths. French officers frequently disobeyed suicidal frontal attack orders that was killing there men and where frequently arrested disobeying orders. The aristocratic officers who did obey orders quickly died in the frontal attacks.

                  At least for the French government the war was about destroying Domestic opposition more so that beating Germany. Considering the similar behavior of the UK government, I think they were using the same program.

                  The Germans by contrast suffered relatively low casualties despite being the losers and have to do the bulk of the fighting on almost every front. Of course the priestly propaganda blamed the war and the way it was fought on the warriors, despite the whole mess seemly engineered to mass murder the warrior class.

                  After the war there wasn’t a lot of warriors on the Allied side of any ability that had survived the meat grinder and Germany was effectively a client state to the American Progressives until the rise of Hitler.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Don’t know too much about the French but what about Haig and the British high command, thoroughly warrior-aristocrat and not priest but yet totally incompetent. I always thought Foch had a generally better reputation but have not looked at him closely.

                  And no I don’t take Haig’s defenders seriously he wrote AFTER the war that he thought cavalry would be more important than ever in the future.

                • Ace says:

                  Don’t know too much about the French but what about Haig and the British high command, thoroughly warrior-aristocrat and not priest but yet totally incompetent.

                  The question to ask, is who put Haig in charge? Warriors generally get rid of bad commanders quickly and if a bad commander cannot be removed by the warriors then it’s likely that a priest is keeping them in power.

                  Remember starship troopers? One clusterfuck of an invasion and the supreme commander was replaced. Odd how that didn’t happen in WW1. That’s a tell that warriors are not in charge.

                  I always thought Foch had a generally better reputation but have not looked at him closely.

                  Foch is one of those blamed by the Socialists for the Socialist Generals policies of endless frontal attacks. When he and Pétain(both Catholic) were both firmly in charge France started losing a lot less men.

                • The Cominator says:

                  It was the socialist Lloyd George who wanted to get rid of Haig and more right wing and otherwise based people in the British establishment who protected him.

                  Part of the reason WWI was a disaster was it was our side that fucked up so badly. The other warriors around Haig should have arranged for him to have a tragic riding accident after say the 1st week of the Somme. There are situations where a good warrior has a duty to frag/assassinate his superior. Haig was a major such case.

                • suones says:

                  There is never and was never a point where the Vaisyas or capitalism was a major problem.

                  Vaishyas are never themselves problems, being incapable of much, but a Vaishya in a position of influence represents a power leak in Moldbug’s terms — a leak that must be quickly patched by a sane priest or it presents a vulnerability to be exploited by an insane priest. This is what is happening to AmaZOG and FaceBerg in real time. A Vaishya simply cannot operate without warriors to prevent others from taking his stuff and priests from sabotaging his efforts, and feeds his friendly warrior and priest overlords in return. The East India Company was powerful because of the Royal Navy and Anglican Church backing them, not the other way round.

                  Priestly distortion of “capitalism” can be a problem.

                  This is the leading edge of the wedge that USA drives into third world economies — developing crony capitalism or outright kleptocracies that serve as staging grounds for Prog priest attack. Market Fetishism is a dangerous thing, and this realisation led me away from Lolbertarianism. But I’ve not discovered who these priests of Mammon were that started the whole thing — Jews are the usual suspects, but surely they cannot have been solely responsible.

  13. The Ducking Man says:

    Hi Jim,

    Reading your blog has been eye opening and miracle

    But there is gap in my knowledge of women’s nature.

    1. Jim said that woman like violence, hence the term “pimp punch”. But women I know divorced their husband as soon as the husband went violent (e.g. punching and hard slapping) on wife.

    So rough sex and harmless violence is preferable, but full blown violence against women is big no no?, do I get it right?.

    2. I don’t understand why women had emotional trauma when the husband had affair and second wife.

    If it is women’s nature to live as property and to be owned, there should no objection when the husband (the owner) to own multiple women as his property because property has no control over the owner.

    Sarah had bitter relationship with Hagar, and I had few first hand accounts whose marriage fell apart due to affairs.

    • The Ducking Man says:

      Just want to say it’s miracle that I can keep my marriage considering I’m autistic and had nearly zero experience with women prior to marriage.

    • jim says:

      Check the man’s story. Don’t rely on the woman’s story. Woman tell a story that fits the mythos they are marinated in, and believe it.

      In my personal life, I have reason to believe that women rather like infidelity, provided they have confidence you are not going to ditch them for an upgrade. But two woman under one roof is unbearable.

    • Ace says:

      1. Jim said that woman like violence, hence the term “pimp punch”. But women I know divorced their husband as soon as the husband went violent (e.g. punching and hard slapping) on wife.

      Men who regularly beat their women generally don’t end up divorced. Men who lose their temper beat their women once and then apologize for it, get divorced and often end up in jail.

      Women will push a man to strike her but in a world were the state will arrest a man for it, she’ll play the state’s alpha against her husband and her husband always loses that game.

      So rough sex and harmless violence is preferable, but full blown violence against women is big no no?, do I get it right?

      With the current state, displaying the willingness to strike without actually ever doing so is the best course of action. This however isn’t enough for a small subset of women who wanted to beaten to prove how alpha you are. Again, actual violence that can’t be describe as rough sex is very bad idea in the current setup.

      I dated a woman who told me all her previous boy friends had beaten her. She then pushed me as hard as possible to strike her with awful behavior. When dumped her because she wouldn’t stop acting like a bitch, she told everyone in my social circle I beat her and everyone believed her. She went as far to manufactured an injury. I failed to delivery what she wanted and I paid the social price for it but luckily it never ended up going to the police. If I’d been arrested for a crime I didn’t commit, I would have murdered the bitch.

      If you date a women who talks about her past boyfriends hitting her bail immediately, it’s not worth it no matter how good the sex it.

      2. I don’t understand why women had emotional trauma when the husband had affair and second wife.

      It’s a shit test. Just 60 years ago it far more common that the wife would go after the women her man was sleeping with, not him. Remember Shaggy’s advice: It wasn’t me.

      • Pooch says:

        Yes polygamy is bad not because it’s bad for woman but its bad for men. It prevents every tax paying man from having a wife.

        • Ace says:

          Sexual Socialism is the way.

          • suones says:

            Fuck no. The alternative to polygamy is concubinage, not “seizing the means of reproduction.”

          • Dave says:

            “Sexual Socialism” implies women owned collectively and managed by the government. We want individual women owned by individual men with just enough regulation to prevent hoarding.

            Jimianity = private ownership of women with price controls and rationing, free markets in everything else.

            • linker says:

              Link to Jim saying this?

              Is it really private ownership if there are price controls and rationing? Not sure why that is necessary. Most people own one car because the utility of going from 0 to 1 is far greater than from 1 to 2. Some people have no car or lots of cars. Hoarding is not really a problem.

              • jim says:

                Woman have a natural inclination to polygamy, so polygamy tends to result in topping from the bottom. Mohammed was manipulated by Zaynab bint Jahsh, the wife of one of his important companions.

                Keeping women under control requires a tribe. Polygamy means that the man with many wives lacks the ability, the man with no wife lacks the incentive.

                On the other hand, not every man is going to be qualified for a wife. And you do need to mop up the surplus and stop them from wandering around loose.

                A lot of Mohammed’s marriages amounted to mopping up the surplus. But trouble ensued.

                We need to price control women down, so that everyone who supports the social order can easily obtain one. (Taxpayers, soldiers, camp followers, and subcontractors of camp followers.) And price control requires rationing. If there is a surplus, you have gone overboard on rationing, holiness spiraled on rationing. Need to tolerate a bit of polygamy and concubinage. If there is a shortage, you are failing to do adequate price control, and chances are you have allowed women to capture their value and raise their price – which would be OK, provided that they are forced to make a choice promptly and are forced to stick with it, but is apt to result in them continuing the auction indefinitely till they hit the wall, lose their looks, and their eggs dry up, resulting in the lek mating pattern, the players and bitches sexual market.

                If everyone that state and society needs can and usually does get an obedient virgin wife as soon as they have the economic capacity to take care of one, the balance is about right.

                And, if he can get a virgin, this presupposes that we restrain them all from queuing up at Jeremy Meek’s door. In a society where he can get a virgin, the only way for most men to get pussy is to marry a wife – so we want economic capability to be swiftly rewarded with a virgin obedient wife.

        • Virtus says:

          It does much worse than that. Think for example which societies and civilizations display which traits. East Asia typified in China had soft polygamy. Most men had no wife or one, some had one wife and concubines, rarer had several wives and concubines. They are very domesticated as a subspecies, so much internal competition was relegated to economics and a simmering that occasionally erupted into catastrophic civil war. They do not trust each other, and status is economic, to buy more wives. Then take more strongly polygamous societies, the Semites. Maintaining their tradition of strong polygamy, more wives more status, creates an underclass that is incentivised to kill intratribally. If there is not an ongoing Jihad, better to create one against your neighbor over something stupid. Cooperation becomes shot and you get a sort of clumpy adaptation of clans and cousin marriage.

          The exception to this pattern is Aryan strict monogamy. This creates strong intratribal trust. The high status in your tribe are not trying to take your wife away, they will lose status from that. The tribe becomes an extended clan instead of a small inbred one. Traits most applicable to warfare and dominance get selected over generations of warfare and enslavement, and distributed smoothly over the population. The most Aryan of Aryans refused to acknowledge the children they had with conquered tribes, if they even had them. The germans were noted to not even fuck their slave girls. This was a crucible and made their blood particularly potent.

          Polygamy bad because it induces either small clan formation and bickering, or economic competition over dominance competition and low trust society. We’ll see how the mormons turn out, they’re a notable exception so far. Maybe I just know too little of them, or maybe as an enclave in a larger civilization the pattern of killing or scamming your neighbor to secure a wife has not been able to realize itself.

      • The Cominator says:

        Met one a couple weeks ago pool bar who said her ex husband beat her to the point she had missing teeth in the back… but had tomboy interest and an engineering degree but was good looking and feminine in the way i liked she also really hated liberals… because of genuine missing teeth in the back and because she didn’t seem inclined to like bad guys too much was inclined to believe her. Really liked this one more than any girl ive met in a long time…

        If her current boyfriend wasn’t there i would have tried to get her number… maybe i dodged a bullet.

        • Ace says:

          I’d wager she did something to trigger that sort of response, assuming she wasn’t lying. You probably haven’t experienced it, but the sorts of women who want to be beaten are can often be extremely violent themselves when trying to provoke the sort of response they want.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            Yeah, something about that story does not add up. If we grant that she actually got beat that hard, then why? Either she picked someone she thought was rough and he turned out to be an 11/10 psycho instead of the 7/10 tough guy she was looking for, or she started that shit. Engineering girls are usually not that much trouble in my experience. I usually got way more brutal shit tests from the girls at the supermarket than in my engineering classes.

            • nils says:

              my mum is an engineer and can confirm, they make good wifus.TBF the number of males which are borderline goblin is very high 4>%(yankeelands) as a son of landlords can say that there are at least 1/1000 women that are borderline on the point of a neanderthal plateau(by interaction), which in one’s travails will be apparent, and females have a big turn on for (upper class)/(ubbermenmensch) mates(the difference in mating ritual is a problem for the man). the segregation which exists brain/economically over several generations is evident, ,most of my peers know fuck all about low class women, some trope’s are universal, some are specific, but low class girls respect wealth in a way rich daughters don’t. I have met some woman that would absolutely take a few teeth to find a mate, they are in my world rare but in low slut world common. Women express courage in a different way then man, loyalty in a brother is paltry in compare to a woman, they can suffer all the same as a man but in a different way. so teeth being nocked out is meh, although their bitching over birth is exaggerated.

  14. Ace says:

    Off topic:

    WuFlu proven to be a virus that attacks the blood not the lungs:

    This came out last July and this is the first I’ve heard of it. Looks like most the media stories came out right as the the deep state stole the election in November.

    • Ace says:

      This also might be why the mRNA vaccines are causing strokes. Some already had COVID and their immune system was primed to attack the blood to fight the infection. When the system got hammered by RNA messages the immune system attacked the blood trying to fight the messaging.

  15. suones says:

    Apropos of the article,

    A tool for tracking easily lost pieces of mobile property may be used to track a very mobile, very expensive property. What a surprise? 😆

    • orochimaru says:

      wonderful. there’s nothing wrong with keeping tags on one’s own property.

      • jim says:

        Much simpler and more reliable: My wife wanted an iphone and apple watch. (Probably because her friends have one) No problem: ICloud Find.

        Total wife monitoring technology. She never goes anywhere without wearing her watch and having her iphone nearby, precisely to re-assure me that she is not up to mischief.

        Naturally she shit tested me by resisting monitoring hard, but, when you pass a shit test, women love it and she loves it. Women want you to take ownership, but don’t want it to be easy to take ownership. Terrible drama ensued, but, on passing, she positively reveled in me passing.

        Similar capability is available for android, but the Icloud technology is a wife status symbol.

  16. Is it ever permissible to marry a girl with one or more tattoos?

    • The Cominator says:

      Not a positive but not a deal breaker.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      There was that woman a while back that was telling other women that if they wanted to get a good man, good men were looking for virgins without tattoos or debt. Women freaked out, men agreed, women freaked out even more. Men? Having standards? And holding women accountable? Unacceptable! The men were discussing it, though, and the concensus was that the importance was virgin first, no debt second, no tattoos last. If you have to pick between a virgin with a tattoo and a slut without tattoos, then go with the virgin.

      Tattoos are a bad sign, but when women being from America is a bad sign, we really don’t have much choice. It also depends on your tastes. For myself, tattoos are a big turnoff. Women with something small and unobtrusive are less objectionable, but the more I have to see it the less I’m interested. Especially if it’s near her pussy, her ass, or her tits. You might not mind them as much, so it comes down to personal preference. Can you date a woman with a sleeve? For me, it’s a hard no. But maybe not for you.

      • suones says:

        “Debt-free virgins without tattoos[1]” was hilarious and triggered leftists precisely because it is so true.


      • onyomi says:

        Is women having a lot of debt a known, common problem? I do know at least one woman with a ton of credit card debt due to an obvious case of shopaholism, but it wouldn’t be a turnoff for him for a girl to have e.g. an outstanding student loan. Maybe “problematic debt” (of the sort apt to indicate a chronic problem like irresponsible spending habits) is a bigger, more ubiquitous problem than I realize? Didn’t really seem so when I was dating, but the number of women I got serious enough about to know and care much about their financial situation wasn’t that great either.

        • Ace says:

          I’ve never met a single women who wasn’t in crippling levels of debt. A friend of mine got married to a women with a staggering amount student loan and personal debt. He’s still whining that he can’t afford anything better than small apartment 10 years later because of it.

          • Javier says:

            Shit, I know a guy who is not only paying off his wife’s student loans while she doesn’t work, but also his mother-in-law’s student loans.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          Debt isn’t really a deal breaker for women because of how they approach property when owned vs unowned. Unowned women cannot hold any property, because nearly any man can take it from her. Her house will probably be messy, she will have lots of impressive (to women, keep in mind) and expensive things, and she will be obviously helpless and foolish with her money. Its a form of bad behavior to invite a man to come take her and own her. For the same reason she acts like a brat to attract someone willing to discipline her, she spends money she does not have to attract a man to take her stuff away and own her.

          Long story short, once the need to be owned goes away and she is managing her owner’s other property, a woman is likely to be radically more financially responsible. Now its not a matter of attracting a man, but keeping her man pleased and getting the most out of his resources. This obviously is no guarantee, but it is why debt is not as big a black mark as a tattoo. A woman can get more responsible with money, she cannot get less slutty, which is what tattoos usually signal.

          • jim says:

            Exactly so. I have observed this regularly.

          • Pooch says:

            Can’t the same be said of sluttiness? Women are acting slutty to attract a man to take ownership of her.

            • jim says:

              Exactly so. But chicks who act slutty tend to have alarmingly high standards of who is alpha enough.

              • Pooch says:

                Ah right. They are grading you against their past fucks who may well be General buck naked and Jeremy Meeks who refused ownership of her not because they weren’t able, but because they weren’t willing to.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  It’s also a matter of how solvable the issue is. You can live frugally for a time and pay off debt. You can even make her laser off her tattoos. You cannot unsuck a dick or unfuck her. Worse, you are not competing against Jeremy Meeks and General Butt Naked, you are competing against an idealized gestalt of Jeremy Meeks’ and General Butt Naked’s best qualities.

                • Ace says:

                  It’s also exceedingly easy for a man who’s already fucked your wife before you got married, to fuck her again and thus cuck you. There’s a reason virgin women are so highly prized.

        • Jehu says:

          Depends on what the debt is for—student loans are REALLY common for women in their 20s. In the case of student loan, it matters a lot what the education actually was. Credit card debt is really common too—funding a lifestyle that they can’t really afford.
          The problem is that for an awful lot of people, their spending is like an ideal gas—it expands to all space allowed to it and puts pressure constantly on the barriers containing it. A lot of people can make tons of money but have constant money problems and the stress that comes with it at the same time. Hell, most lottery winners are WORSE off 10 years after winning than they were before said win.
          If you’re not like that—as in you’re able to easily live within your means, whatever they are, you really don’t want a wife that can’t. Sex and money are the two biggest causes of marriage problems.
          Ideal case for a bride if you’re getting someone in their mid to upper 20s is a woman who has no debt and actually tithes to your shared religion. Actually tithing and not being in debt is rare enough that it’s a difficult to spoof signal of fiscal responsibility and reactionary religious views.

        • Leon says:

          Depends. A massive chunk of college educated women are in debt out their asses. Ghetto women tend to blow it on bullshit, but Big Government bales them out. The high maintenance girlfriends and wives also blow lots of money, but it is usually their man’s. The over educated SJW ladies also tend to be bad with their money, trying to live the Friends/ Sex in the City lifestyle. Middle class gals married at a young age with several kids tend to be pretty good with their finances though, or their husband’s are and they get their wives to go easy on the finances.

        • jim says:

          Women just cannot handle money except under the authority of an alpha male.

          This, however, does not mean you will have to ride herd on your wife’s spending. The presence of male authority is likely to magically improve her spending habits.

          • The Cominator says:

            This is generally true but there are true nawalts on this issue. Paris Hilton is the most notable example, shes always been an incurable unowned bad girl slut but shes been brilliant at growing her money (and she didn’t start out with much money only the name).

            Some women for whatever reason are good with their money.

          • Sulla says:

            Agree. Early in our marriage, I allowed my wife to manage things because, as an accountant, I imagined her to be competent at budgeting and so on. This was an error, later corrected.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          Imagine life as a female in the current year.

          Do what ever, and no matter whatever, people will validate your direction. Do what ever, no matter what ever, because irrespective of whatever happens, you can be sure that someone (or something) will take care of you anyways.

          So yeah, chicks tend to be profligate and rack up lots of liability.

    • suones says:

      Only one exception to the “no tattoos” rule: Traditionally, woman may have the name of her husband and village tattooed, ususally on her forearm. This was in case she got “lost” and was unable to find her way home, it would be the duty of a good citizen to restore her to her home and husband.


    • Ace says:

      If you own a women, marry her. If you don’t, don’t. Women with tats are just advertising they’re larger whores than the average women so if you decided to pursue them keep that in mind.

      • Pooch says:

        I have always had a weird attraction to women with tattoos, but probably because I’ve always been attracted to whores.

        • The Cominator says:

          I like very good girls and very bad girls (but who are not feminists or woke or any shit they are just bad girl hedonists) but not so much in between and the extremes tend to like me more than normal women. I don’t like tattoos but its not a big deal for me.

    • Javier says:

      Depends on where it is.

      -hand/foot tattoo is a ‘my friends talked me into this’ kind of thing, you have to wonder what else they talked her into but it’s not a huge red flag.

      -leg/arm tattoo is a ‘I’m EXPRESSING myself’ thing, it probably means she follows dumb celebrities. So typical female vapidity plus poor impulse control. Not terrible but not great.

      -breast/back tattoo is a small red flag, generally means she’s damaged goods and wants to intentionally hurt herself, acting out for male attention/authority. Salvageable but may have major baggage.

      -anything between the thighs and midriff is huge red flag, this is the ‘degenerate slut zone’, it’s just a green light to every dick in the vicinity. Its a clear signal she’s a cumdumpster. Avoid avoid avoid.

      • The Cominator says:

        Any tattoos they can’t conceal are red flags but I don’t think any are all that bigger red flags than the others.

        Worrying too much about red flags for sluttiness is not all that red pilled… there is not too much difference in female pair bonding capability if you are dick number four or dick number four hundred and in nearly all cases unless you get a girl right out of high school you’re going to be dick number > 4.

        We have a problem of unowned obese hypergamous princesses many which larp as lesbians most of the time and will ignore any man who is not Jeremy Meeks. A problem of man crazy sluts would be a MASSIVE improvement.

        Do not speak of sluts without pointing this out…

        • Ace says:

          The more men’s she had, the more likely one of those men will cuck you. A lock that’s been picked before is easily picked again, hence why virgin women are so highly valued.

          • The Cominator says:

            I think whether she cucks you depends on a few factors I’ve had few girlfriends as a sperg but there have been a few girls willing to cheat with me over the years…

            How alpha you are in your universe and how pair bonded she is to you. If it is your virginal high school sweetheart less likely, though its possible she may be curious about what another man’s dick would feel like.

            Opportunity and temptation, at the extremes if your wife works as a masseuse personal trainer or god forbid a stripper you are almost 100% to get cucked (and I think you have no right to blame her if you let her do that either). If locked in a basement doesn’t matter too much what she wants.

            There is some factor for fear of consequences and getting caught if she is generally happy, but women when they are aroused tend to forget about consequences (more so then men).

            Sex drive, high sex drive women are fun to be with but more likely to cuck you. But no you don’t want a frigid girl… the frigid girl hates her man more than the serial cheating slut and is a true gold digger. She won’t cuck you because very little or no interest in sex but won’t fuck you either and is more likely to divorce rape you than the serial cheating slut too.

            Re temptation and sex drive, some women just actively subconsciously or sometimes find the idea of cucking whoever they are with exciting they have a sort of cheating kink (this is a very real thing), you are 100% to get cucked unless she is locked in a basement with a girl who has this. You will probably never know either.

      • Aidan says:

        You’re overanalyzing- the zoology of human mating dynamics is very simple. Girls get tats to shit test the men in their lives, be they fathers or boyfriends. Chicks who get lots of tats tend to be ugly and old, and spend lots of time around a lot of weak men.

        • Pooch says:

          Not what I see at all in my gym (hardcore body building gym). Many of the girls are bikini competitors with tattoos and near perfect bodies with bodybuilder boyfriends on steroids who also have tattoos. Some of them are military as well (in which tattoos are extremely common male and female).

          • alf says:

            ‘near perfect body’ and ‘tattoos’ sounds like an oxymoron.

            If your girl gets a tattoo under your supervision, no matter how buff or tough you look, you have failed a shit-test, imo.

            • alf says:

              Not that exceptions can’t be thought of such as when she tattoos your name in her neck. He he.

            • Pooch says:

              Perfect in the sense of body fat percentage, hip to waist ratio, tits, ass etc.

              Like attracts like. I’m guessing these couples get tattoos together often times.

              • alf says:

                Well I have a tattoo and plans for a second one. But I enjoy looking like a festival drug dealer. I also enjoy my wife looking like an angel. But maybe that’s just me.

                • Pooch says:

                  My sense is tattoos are status markers of the plebeian and slave class (female and male). If you are elite with tattoos you are larping.

                • alf says:

                  As Heartiste would say, contrast is king. Life is fun being a shitlord dressed as a hippy.

            • The Cominator says:

              I could see a girl getting a tattoo of your name with a heart or something as her wanting to mark herself as your property.

              I don’t like tattoos personally but I don’t see how a girl marking herself as yours permanently and you letting her do it would ever be failing a shit test.

              • Pooch says:

                Going back to Roman times, tattoos were used identification to mark slaves/criminals as property and barbarian mercenaries so to recognize the deserters. My hunch is this lower class fixation on tattoos has carried on to present times.

          • Aidan says:

            Sample bias. Fitness chicks are a tiny niche where looking good and having tats go together. The vast majority of girls where I live have one or two tats, because of female conformity, and the vast majority of chicks where I went to school hundreds of miles away had no tats, for the same reason, but the girls in the two places were the same level of slutty, same level ot hypergamous.

            • Pooch says:

              What class? I believe class plays a role too. The girls (and guys) I’m seeing in the gym are overwhelmingly of the pleb class as it is a ways from a major city.

    • Aidan says:

      There is only one thing that really matters: are you the most alpha man she has been with? Everything else is a matter of taste.

      • linker says:

        Maybe this is delusional thinking, but I think you if a girl has been with 1-3 guys you have a good chance of being way more alpha than them and benefit from this favorable comparison. She is going to have a better appreciation for your non-superficial traits. If you’re 5’9 with a 9 inch cervix-poker your virgin girlfriend is going to think 6’3 Chad also has a 9 inch dick. If she has been with 3 guys with 5, 6, 7 inch dicks she is going to realize you are a rare specimen. Same thing with being red pilled/having game. Maybe it’s just where I live but a lot of hot girls have lame “beta” boyfriends who are neither trigger happy crack smoking Tyrones nor masculine intellectuals who read Heartiste and Jim’s blog. Maybe it’s different in a big city with lots of Tyrones and wigger equivalent of that?

        You can’t grow a 9 inch dick or suddenly start acting like a Tyrone alpha thug murderer (what girls perceive to be maximally “alpha”), but I think if you are in great physical shape, have your finances in order, and put some effort into game you will compare extremely favorably to most girls’ boyfriends.

        This is all just theory though, I don’t have enough experience.

        • jim says:

          Chicks always have a “boyfriend”, and are always in the market for trading up.

          So, you can acquire a girlfriend. The trouble is that surveys indicate that far more chicks have “boyfriends” than boyfriends have girlfriends. Since males have an incentive to lie that they have a girlfriend, and girls have an incentive to lie that they don’t, we may conclude that the actual situation is considerably more dire than surveys reveal. Which is to say, a lot of chicks think they are a girlfriend, when they are merely a booty call.

          One of my sons nearly went to prison over this delusion. (Booty call became physically violent upon being sent away to make room for the next arrival)

          If it is apparent that you are looking for a girlfriend, you already have a huge beta strike against you, which is difficult to surmount.

          Since the guy who gives her booty calls is unlikely to accompany her anywhere, girls are always in the market for a beta orbiter to pay bills and escort them, while they wait for the next booty calls. Thus some of the far from alpha boyfriends you see escorting chicks may merely be beta orbiters. Polyamory. For lack of anything better, the “boyfriend” is thrilled that his “girlfriend” weeps on his shoulder about the fact that she has failed to receive a second booty call.

  17. Anonymous Fake says:

    [*deleted for ignoring the glaringly obvious, presumably because it is politically incorrect*]

    • jim says:

      Your comment was too deranged to merit a response. Look up “white flight” and “Detroit”.

      People abandon valuable property for a reason.

      We don’t need investment in infrastructure. We need a lot of public hangings.

      • nils says:

        Broke… ending covenants was a bad idea.
        Woke… ever needing covenanted neighborhoods was a civilizational failure of colossal proportion.

      • Anonymous Fake says:


        • jim says:

          Unresponsive. Deleted for failure to acknowledge why people fled for the traffic packed suburbs.

          No point in building stuff when niggers are going to ruin it.

      • Joe says:

        We need a lot of public hangings.

        And beatings. Niggers, both black and white, need to be beaten through the streets, or as you say hanged if the rod fails to teach them.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          A man can endure hits to his body; he can endure hits to his wallet; but if there is one thing he cannot tolerate, it is hits to his status.

          The best forms of prosocial punishments are shameful; not coincidentally, the restriction of such is one of the first things states coopted by gnostics did.

          • G.T. Chesterton says:

            Niggers achieve higher status by going to prison. Lashing them in the streets would just give them scars to show off.

            tldr: Rope, tree.

            • The Cominator says:

              Beatings only enhance status if you avoid crying out the whole way, its very rare from what i heard that anyone can do that under flogging.

            • The Cominator says:

              I have no problem with executing people since I think that basically all of the far left at least those in the priesthood have to go…

              But even with a government such as we would found, the 19th century fundamentally proved that all crowns ultimately derive “from the gutter” (ie that lose of popular confidence will EVENTUALLY lead to the government falling as such lose of confidence also ultimately splits the elite) and it just looks bad to hang people on the 1st offense for petty crimes. Yes even nigs.

              At least the 1st offense (and people get caught todays far more often) for petty shit should be a flogging, give them a chance to wise up…

              • G.T. Chesterton says:

                They get away with such heinous acts, I’ll admit I wasn’t thinking about the great shoplifting problem. First petty offense for a black should be banishment of his entire family tree to the Black Sector, with the Mark of Coon branded onto their foreheads to prohibit reentry.

                If we ever have mayoral candidates debating lashings vs lynchings, rather than the current question of kneeling vs bending over, then we’re on our way to a much better world. Parallel universes are probably there already and shaking their heads at us.

                But I do believe they would wear those scars with pride, regardless how they wailed like babies during the act. It would supplement their present uniform of sagging pants and exposed buttocks, and be so popular they would have “whuppin parties” where they lash each other at backyard BBQs. God help the man whose rebellious teenage wigger follows suit.

                • nils says:

                  firstly, we beat each other in public, to the near point of hospital. got away scot free if you knew a-bow’t two spells(they no longer work kids, you are in indian land, act like it roanoak). our’ nigs knew to stay the fuck out, or get broken permanently, interesting how you relate sagging to the apei’st/dolphin challenge of dominance, Dirty harry is indeed the acception of the 1820’s nonsense of woman expressed in your’ highschool”s reading of the crucible. Mandingo’s “lashed themselves” at parties, ostensibly to prove their submission, truthfully to prove their conviction. There is no difference to contemporary singarporean GumChewer policy and 1908 TrainCar vandal justice through the pinkerton’s but in 1912 the press were allowed to inflict the indignity of besieging Ford’s properties and endless uniion worses. since 1940/1950 vandal graffiti has besieged us, dont underestimate the man who follows, we are angry, and burning whiggers at the flag pole is on the table again, the rest can burn in hell early.

        • orochimaru says:

          “And beatings”

          i suggest whippings first. public whippings (in the street, in the town square) then hangings sounds like a very good plan.

          (and of course, we also need to bulldoze harvard and yale.)

  18. Cloudswrest says:

    Another interesting story today re. Josh Duggar

    “U.S. Marshals arrested Duggar on April 29, 2021.[78] On April 30, 2021 Duggar pled not guilty to one count each of charges of receiving and possessing child pornography.”

    I’m always somewhat dubious when someone is charged with “ONE” count of receiving or possessing child pornography. From what I’ve read, real child diddlers have disk drives full of the stuff.

    Had to look up his background. Seems like somewhat of a sleeze according to Wikipedia. Seems he played “doctor” as a young teen with some of his younger female siblings. Also was doxxed as an Ashley Madison subscriber. Also some prostitute claims he was rough with her. Sounds like Hunter Biden material.

    • Ace says:

      Porn of all sort request an endless steam of content necessitating either a huge stash or an on going supply. Either he was entrapped or he deleted his stash and missed something, with the former more likely.

      The guy has 7 kids with his wife and is still fucking around, I very much doubt he’s into little girls. The ages were he was playing “doctor” is about when a boy trapped in a home schooled tradcuck family without no girlfriend starts looking for outlets.

      It’s likely he’s being targeted because of coming from a large family, having a large family, and his job is encouraging others to have a large family.

  19. orochimaru says:

    a blackpill a day keeps the feds at bay.

    sharpen your knives.

  20. Ace says:

    Looks like my idea of providing the jurors protection from the mob won’t matter in Kyle’s upcoming trial. The Feds will just arrest him if the jury doesn’t convict.

    • The Cominator says:

      I think they will be reluctant to straight out Rick Vaughn/General Flynn Rittenhouse…

      So the only charge federally they might be able to get is about him carrying a weapon across state lines.

      • Ace says:

        Trial’s not until November. Rudy got raided yesterday. I think 7 months from now the FEDs will be more than ready to pull the trigger on Kyle.

        • The Cominator says:

          Rudy is a high level enemy, Flynn is a high level enemy, and Rick Vaughn at least personally caused trauma (BAP went over this) to high level people…

          Rittenhouse is a peasant who shot some orc goons, he means a lot to us he doesn’t mean too much to them. With the deep state trying to maintain some appearance of the skinsuit the feds won’t want to show their hand openly by conducting the kind of blanket justice fixing they did with Flynn and are trying to with Giuliani and Vaughn.

          A couple years from now yes but not even late this year.

          • INDY says:

            “he means a lot to us he doesn’t mean too much to them”

            I’d think ‘he means a lot to us’ is followed by he means a lot to them.

          • orochimaru says:

            “With the deep state trying to maintain some appearance of the skinsuit the feds won’t want to show their hand openly by conducting the kind of blanket justice fixing they did with Flynn and are trying to with Giuliani and Vaughn.”

            this is assuming the deep state is organized and capable of preventing some rando(s) from offing kylie.

            • nils says:

              We have left the bureaucratic dictatorship (singular) and entered the bureaucratic dictatorship (plural) Biden cannot stop the banning of menthol cigarettes, the agencies are now unleashed and the games begin. I bet the Ag agencies do well.

              • The Cominator says:

                Biden’s whitehouse cabal could easily stop it but they are retarded and won’t. I’m personally way more pissed about the flavored cigar ban… I don’t care if some consider it low class here but I like them sometimes and they are going to be a way more of a pain in the ass to get black market.

                • Ace says:


                  I think you’ll it cheaper and just as easy to get on the black market. As people stop respecting the system cheating becomes both necessary and parotitic. Everyone will be working the black market to one degree or another soon.

            • Ace says:

              Rando leftists tried to murder Zimmerman for years and failed hilariously. They’re pretty bad at killing. They’d fair much worse against Kyle the Commie Killer.

              Though as Nils noted, the agencies themselves are now free to do whatever a they want, and one their security squads could probably kill Kyle.

              • suones says:

                “Rando Leftist killers” are a myth and dregs of the Leftist brigade. Real Leftist killers are heavily armed and well-trained. If they need a pregnant woman and her dog killed, they send in Lon Horiuchi. If more need killing, they send in the 101st Airborne (Eisenhower in Little Rock). I’d like to see St Kyle face off against the real Leftist force, the US Army.

      • Javier says:

        Without political pressure from the top to protect these guys they will get anything and everything thrown at them. The only way out for them would be for a republican to get the white house again and pardon them but that’s like getting two hole-in-ones in a row at this point.

        If I were him I’d seriously attempt to flee the country.

    • Pooch says:

      Laws don’t matter. We are quickly entering a phase where the only way to defeat political prosecution is organized violence likely escalating until Caesar.

  21. The Cominator says:

    Now we all know the election was stolen but here is another point to bring it home…

    If Biden really won because he got 100% of the totally authentic and organic vote of the people of Detroit, Philidelphia Atlanta etc would the Democrats really risk massively fucking that up by banning menthol cigarettes.

    I myself like flavored cigars sometimes…

    • INDY says:

      Menthols and flavored cigarettes were banned in the UK the other day

      • The Cominator says:

        The point is if the democrats really depended on black voters they would never do this.

        • nils says:

          Why are they dependent on negroes?

          • nils says:

            nvm my comment Cominator, looks like stealing from tobacco companies is back on the menu. Could Biden or anyone even stop the FDA or ATF from banning menthol? propably to many cooks in the kitchen at this point for pre coup washington to stop much without mob violence involved.

          • The Cominator says:

            The democrats supposedly won the election with absurd %s of the vote in black shitholes in the middle of the night.

          • Ace says:

            @nils, blacks areas were ground zero for voter fraud machines in America since the 60s. Having black openly hostile to Democrats while seeing insanely high turn out rates voting for Democrats would have resulted in a people talking about ballot stuffing with a lot of plausibility. Now that ballot stuffing has been publicly exposed and the general reaction has been half hearted denials and “meh” they don’t need to keep the fiction up and can openly hurt black areas.

        • Javier says:

          I think it’s a funny example of how hilariously out of touch academics and cathedral priests are from the people they claim to support and represent.

          Everyone knows black people love menthols, except for pious midwit leftoids because they have successfully convinced themselves to disregard all racial stereotypes. Even starting a sentence with ‘all black people…’ triggers a violent cognitive dissonance effect in their brain that is actually physically painful for them. So they can’t even think about harmless stuff black people themselves joke about like fried chicken, watermelon, grape soda, etc. Let alone acknowledge that all the bros love dey menthols.

          Basically every single blue-check twitter tard would have ten heart attacks a second if they sat and talked to an actual ghetto nigga for five minutes.

          • Mike says:

            Damn, turns out some people’s assumptions were wrong.

            I honestly thought there was a chance that they wouldn’t ban them, because unlike with the EU’s ban on menthols, the United States has a minority associated with the product. Individually, I don’t care too much (never have enjoyed menthols) but I’m incensed on a societal scale of course. I have no doubt in my mind they’ll be banning cigarettes or even just tobacco products in general within 5 years (New Zealand already is I think). Nothing says leftist anarcho-tyranny like Oregon decriminalizing all hard drug use while working men are criminalized for daring to light up a dart.

            • The Cominator says:

              We should hope they try to ban tobacco entirely, nothing will cause the regime to collapse faster than them being that stupid.

              No attempted tobacco ban in history has lasted very long…

              • Mike says:

                I’m past making predictions of, “This is when the people will break!” but ya, when the Ottomans and King James tried it, did not go over well for them. People either just ignored it completely or rioted.

                Tbh the level of regulatory anarcho-tyranny already is ridiculous though. Somewhere around 1.5-2.5 years ago I can specifically remember joking around with the gas station clerk about how ridiculous our country had become when she had to card me for A LIGHTER. Not the cigarettes themselves, A LIGHTER. Are people really going to revolt over cigarettes getting banned outright when they already accept having to get carded for lighters?

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “As long as we’re not carded to vote, we are still free.”

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  Lighters can be used for other naughty things…

                • Mike says:

                  “Lighters can be used for other things”

                  So fucking what? Do you think your father had to show his ID when he bought matches for grandpa? It’s beyond retarded.

                • G.T. Chesterton says:

                  Grandpa probably didn’t get carded when he bought dynamite.

  22. Basil says:

    Why not migrate from the European garbage dump of worshiping women to Asia / Middle East? Why is accepting Islam not a solution?

    Agreeing with other men about cooperation is only possible when they are willing to cooperate, and not discuss the problem of HORRIBLE domestic violence in the workplace. I think it will be easier to come to an agreement on these issues with some Ahmed than with compatriots.

    • jim says:

      Ahmed will kill you. Every attempt to ally with Muslims ends in slavery or death.

      If you convert, science and technology goes down the drain. Only Muslims that tolerate Christians (Dubai for example) can have technology, and Dubai is perpetually threatened by superior Muslim holiness.

      • Basil says:

        I heard about the problems only in those cases when a kafir becomes the first with a daughter or sister, and then leaves into the sunset. But if you go to some Uzbekistan, preliminary converting to Islam, building a relationship with the girl’s father, paying the kalym – it should still go well, no? In multinational countries such as Indonesia, religious differences come to the fore.

        The legislation is still more adequate there. And when the West begins to fever, it will return to full normalcy in a short time. Culturally accepted polygamy (not typical meaningless modern promiscuity) is a bonus.

        Yes, this is all pretty risky. But it is not as risky as the expectation that Western cuckolds (including “conservatives”) will begin to change their minds in time. Yes, I understand why you don’t like this option. But let’s remember what the monarchs and aristocrats did, who lost their country, but did not surrender? They were looking for allies abroad. Sometimes it ended badly, but the alternatives always ended badly.

        If we talk about technology, then with such a fertility in whites and East Asians end is almost a foregone conclusion.

        • jim says:


          Technology does not make a significant difference.

          Peoples who emancipated women had the same problem back during the Bronze age collapse and the Roman collapse. Spartans had the same problem. Sparta fell because it ran out of Spartans.

          Japan held off on the pill for a long time, emancipated women all at once. Several places got the pill without getting emancipation. Pill made little difference, not enough difference to stand out from background noise in the statistics. Emancipations before and after the pill made a huge difference, an overwhelming difference. Sticks out like dog’s balls.

          Nothing makes much difference except female emancipation.

          Conservative Muslims have higher fertility because they can get away with enforcement. Converting to Islam will not give you enforcement, and enforcement does not need conversion.

          If marriage is not enforceable against women, and women are not forced to marry, fertility is below replacement. It has always been that way. It was that way four millenia ago.

          Women always want a man who can make them stick around. If marriage not enforceable against women, it is all fornication. All women are like that.

          Women are converting to Islam because conservative Muslims have enforcement. And they have enforcement because they kill meddling do-gooder white knights from the government.

          Similarly, Mormons before the Mormon war had enforcement, and they got four female converts for every male convert. The Mormon war was fought to stop them from enforcing marriage against women. Women like alpha coercion, and like their alpha’s coercion to be backed by that of a higher alpha, because you need coercion to escape from defect/defect equilibrium.

          Women are searching for the ancestral environment of successful reproduction, and not finding it.

        • The Cominator says:

          As for allies abroad the based part of the Republican party should do what the media accused Trump of doing and look to Russia. It has the virtue that the left already cried wolf about it.

          The next Republican candidate really should have a relationship with Russian intelligence.

          • jim says:

            Yes, that will work.

            Their state religion has the great Cathedral. That is likely to render it compatible with our prospective future state religion, making cooperation likely to work.

            Rome and Constantinople worked together tolerably well, until Rome schismed from Orthodoxy.

            • Basil says:

              If we talk about Orthodoxy, then according to statistics, only 9% of Russians attend church regularly. Moreover, the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church is constantly falling and now there is another leap in popularity for this

              • The Cominator says:

                The difference between regular Orthodoxy and Old Believers is as far as I know all about obscure points of ritual they agree almost completely on doctrine, I as an outsider never really got what they were fighting about.

                Its not important that everyone attend church, I imagine most here never attend church (Jesus never went to temple except to beat up the money changers) its important that Orthodox memes keep out demonic memes.

              • polifugue says:

                The Old Believers are schismatics from the time of Peter the Great, the Russian equivalent of the English Puritans. They broke off from the Church because of liturgical reform, although the more clever of them will rationalize the schism as a result of Peter creating the Holy Synod to administer the Russian Empire.

                The traditional lifestyle of the Old Believers masks their dutiful preservation of seventeenth-century Leftism. During the time from Alexander II to the Revolution, they helped the Liberals bring down the Russian state under Pobedonostsev and were instrumental in the 1905 Revolution.

                > the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church is constantly falling

                This is not what I hear from my priest, who was given an offer at the New Military Cathedral but declined out of familial obligations.

                > only 9% of Russians attend church regularly

                It doesn’t matter what percentage of Russians attend church. At the time of Constantine’s ascension, only 5% of the empire identified as Christian. Russia today is not a Christian nation, it is a secular liberal nation with a ruler sympathetic to a strong church. Most people in the regime are debauched, but that is true of people any modern liberal nation. If Russia undergoes regime change and replaces demon worship with Christianity, more Russians will attend.

          • Basil says:

            I talked with the Russian rightists and they are not very happy with the situation in their country. In 1917 Russia made a big leap forward and in some things is still more progressive than the United States, although this is hard to believe.

            Yes, it would be great if the image of Putin created in the Western media corresponded to reality, but this is just overblown hysteria. And if that were true, then Putin lacks competence and he makes too many mistakes.

            • The Cominator says:

              Its the Russian wignats and warhawks who don’t like Putin.

              Russia is a large multi ethnic land empire, adopting an Alexander III Russification policy just radicalized almost the entire non Russian population. If pursued these days would lead to secession movements. Russian ethnonationalism won’t work.

              Putin is right to allow the non Russian regions a lot of autonomy provided they don’t cause trouble. I like to think hes right to try to avoid a major war despite constant provacation since 2010.

              • Basil says:

                What is the use of an Empire if the Russians invest millions in the Caucasus and Central Asia, but in return receive nothing but self-loathing and an influx of low-income migrants to Moscow? It is certainly great to have the largest mosque in Europe in your capital. Especially in an environment where the economy is gradually deflating. It’s just an extra burden. What for? In important regions, such as Yakutia, there is no separatism.

                Well, “autonomy” is reaching the level when in the former republics, as well as in Chechnya and Dagestan, there have been outright cases of enslavement and genocide of ethnic Russians. Literally, modern “heroes of Russia” from there openly talk about how they cut the heads of Russians.

                • jim says:

                  Cost of empire. Putin quelled the Chechens by compromising with a Chechen warlord, also by bombing and shelling the place flat. He is protecting the Ukrainian separatists.

                  The Cathedral, or substantial elements of the Cathedral, are looking for an excuse for war with Russia, and Putin does not want to give it to them. After China solves the Taiwan problem, he will have more room for maneuver.

                  Russian rightists are holiness spiraling on empire and on religious orthodoxy. Bad idea. Old believers should shut up. As Saint Paul said, the details of ritual do not matter, what matters is that it is done unto God.

            • jim says:

              Putin is doing fine. His nukes probably work (since he is successfully building fast reactors, which are roughly similar technology) and his Cathedral is the first true Cathedral to the true God that whites have raised in a very long time.

              Everything else is just a detail.

              Well, there is one thing missing. He needs to make sure that new recruits to the priesthood are married, fertile, and have well behaved children, but there is good work being done on that.

              Yes, lot of progressivism still in Russia, but when Pussy Riot got whipped, that broke its back.

            • polifugue says:

              Be patient dorogoi…

              Russia apostatized from Orthodoxy 160 years ago with Alexander II and let go of the Communist faith only 30 years ago, so one should not expect a dramatic return in such a short time.


              • jim says:


                Oldbelievers schismed from Orthodoxy, and the Roman Catholic Church schismed from Orthodoxy. That is not an arbitrary choice of which Church one prefers. It is what happened historically.

                They pissed all over the normal and traditional processes of consensus and conciliation.

                Truth by consensus is terrible for science, but it is the right way to go in religion, provided the consensus shows proper respect for the communion of the Saints, provided that it reflects the consensus of the ages rather than the latest power moves in political struggle against the Sovereign.

                And, in any case, cuius regio, eius religio

                • The Cominator says:

                  The old believers probably had a leg to stand on originally because Patriarch Nikon was probably a Jesuit agent.

                  But schisming later on over entirely ritualistic bullshit was stupid.

                • polifugue says:

                  > Oldbelievers schismed from Orthodoxy, and the Roman Catholic Church schismed from Orthodoxy. That is not an arbitrary choice of which Church one prefers. It is what happened historically.

                  Russia began its apostasy 160 years ago, 1861, with the emancipation of the serfs under Alexander II, when social policy was not dictated by the church or tradition but by Enlightenment ideals of equality.


                  Quote: “The Old Believers are schismatics”

                  While I may have worded it weirdly, I wasn’t talking about Old Believers, I was talking about Leftism.

                • polifugue says:

                  The Old Believer schismatics left the church because Patriarch Nikon did not properly prepare the Russian peasantry for the changes in liturgical worship. The schismatics were mostly vaishyas and shudras, who need adequate preparation for a large change in religious practice.

                  The Progressive regime is effective in repressing conspiracy to a small fringe of the masses, but when a brahminate is not careful and reforms church religious ritual too fast, schizophrenic “cross with these fingers instead of these fingers ergo end times” gets out of control and conspiracy becomes mainstream.

              • polifugue says:

                Worded this post in a misleading manner.

                Russia began its apostasy 160 years ago, 1861, with the emancipation of the serfs under Alexander II, when social policy was not dictated by the church or tradition but by Enlightenment ideals of equality.

                1905 and 1918 were the inevitable consequences of the change in political policy of Alexander II.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Miscegenation is just a slower form of suicide.

    • Aidan says:

      Sorry, but when I have to interact with muslims my genes give me a powerful urge to go for an axe. Everything about them screams enemy to me on a very primal level.

    • Virtus says:

      Those regions are backwaters for a reason. Conversion to Islam to have children is pointless, they will just live on in the new Dark Age and eventually get conquered by the tribes that succeed post-West, which will not be Islamic, maybe a memetic mutation of the doctrine but I do not think so. Islam destroyed and destroys ‘human capital’ wherever it expands. The high quality of the European man was a result of the many, many generations of specific living conditions that shaped the nature of the population. Just as the low quality of the pakistani, the declining Persians, the Egyptians — though much of egyptian decline likely due to mixing with the subsaharans — may be attributed to many centuries of being shaped by Islamic doctrine.

      If you are dedicated to adapting a religion as a method of ensuring propagation, you are much much better off joining a Christian sect. Some are fairly based, they just are not loud about it. For obvious reasons.

      • The Cominator says:

        And if you want a based religion outside of Christianity you want Buddhism (which also has a moral philosophy very similar to Christianity anyway) not Islam.

        • Virtus says:

          In my own life I practice much of Buddhist doctrine but I do not believe it is quite so effective as social technology as that of Christianity. Whites as a whole are much crazier than South and East Asians, something something human self domestication, and need stronger moral systems in turn. Buddhism is for warrior bands and philosopher kings, it is not for the kind of populations and living conditions we have now.

          That said, I am quite uhhh not blaqpilled but not quite optimistic about the future of Western civilization. Of huwyte people civilization. I think it’s much more dead than most conjecture. Too many generations of interclass miscegenation and universal dysgenics have passed. The only fixing is through biological, genetic and otherwise, means. Not memetic means. You cannot teach Christ to the bantu and expect them to pop out an Aquinus. Well, the rot has set too deep now. You could possibly recover some men of value through extremely drastic selective breeding, but the odds of a Caesar interested in such things and capable of carrying it out?

          The future as I see it is conscious selection of positive traits in our children through whichever means we may have access to, or The Darkest Age. A malthusian struggle longer and darker than that after the Romans, because we have burned up the ‘genetic capital’ that we had been blessed with after many thousands of years of genocidal competition. A dark brown morass of biological filth that gives justice to the insane we have today calling humans a cancer, for in this scenario nothing of value will exist in android form for a long time to come.

          • The Cominator says:

            Basically BAPs position, he may well be right.

          • That is true. It’s probably inferior to Christianity as a social technology because it is too focused on the priesthood, the ‘spiritual elite’. But Jim is also mostly focused on the developing a spiritual elite, be they paladin bands or philosopher kings. He is developing a non-degenerate priesthood and teaching them to become worthy, to ride the tiger and emerge from the ruins. So even though Jimianity is a Christian denomination, it may be worthwhile for all Jimians to investigate the Buddhist canon, which contains a very sophisticated prescription for the attainment of self-mastery.

            Some observations:

            It’s extremely clever how Buddhism negates the holiness spiral by pointing it at a paradox, directing the aspiring holy man to achieve greater holiness by abandoning his attachment to his holiness. (Maha Saropama Sutta: If the monk is ever satisfied by his attainment in his spiritual quest–if he identifies with it–then he has failed to demonstrate the will for the unconditioned; and he has therefore failed in the ‘test of the vocations’ and is not capable of becoming a true Aryan.

            I attempted to capture the grandeur of this paradoxical will in this video:

            The Buddha was a prince of the warrior caste, the greatest son of the Solar Dynasty, destined to be either Universal King or the Great Liberator. He was the Sage of the Scythians, possessed of each of the 32 marks of the great man–including dark blue eyes–and he taught that by following the Aryan path, a man could achieve liberation. He did not come as egalitarian reformer to overthrow the caste system; he came to rejuvenate the spirituality of the Aryans, which was stuck in the dead ritualism of a holiness spiral.

            This is why when leftists look to the East in an attempt to add an authentic “spirituality” to their death cult, they reject traditional Buddhism and seek out heretical monks such as Thích Nhất Hạnh–the kind of monk you’ll see on Oprah. He’s perfect since he looks the part and he preaches that Buddhism must stray from the narrow path in favor of worldly pursuits. Buddhism must become “engaged Buddhism”, which is leftism + meditation practice.

            On the other hand, traditional Buddhism does have some metaphysical baggage, like reincarnation, which is inconsistent with the European mind, though Evola rejects this as Dravidian and Beckwith rejects it as Zoroastrian. But this is irrelevant to the power of the doctrine, which is clearly a gift from Gnon to the worthy.


            “It is possible to conceive of and to work out what we may call a pure ascesis, that is to say, one made up of techniques for developing an interior force, the use of which, to begin with, remains undetermined, like the use of the arms and machines produced by modern industrial techniques. Thus, while “ascetic” reinforcement of the personality is the foundation of every transcendental realisation, whether in the form of one historical tradition or another, it can likewise be of great value on the level of the temporal aspirations and struggles which absorb practically all the energies of modem Western man. Furthermore, we could even conceive of an “Ascesis of Evil”, for the technical conditions, as we may call them, needed to achieve any positive success in the direction of the “evil” are not different in kind from those needed, for example, to attain sainthood. Nietzsche himself, as we have already pointed out, partly shared the modern widespread prejudice against asceticism: when dealing with his “Superman” and when formulating the “Wille zur Macht ”, did he not take into account various disciplines and forms of self-control which are clearly of an ascetic nature? Thus, at least within certain limits, we can quote the words of an old medieval tradition: “One the Art, One the Material, One the Crucible”.

            “Now, few other great historical traditions allow us to isolate so easily the elements of a pure ascesis as does the “Doctrine of Awakening”, that is to say, Buddhism. It has been justly said of Buddhism that in it the ascetic problems “have been stated and resolved so clearly and, one could almost say, so logically that, in comparison, other forms of mysticism seem incomplete, fragmentary and inconclusive “; and that, far from being weighed down by every kind of emotional and sentimental element, an austere and objective style of intellectual clarity so much predominates that one is almost forced to compare it with the modem scientific mentality.”

            • The Cominator says:

              Its priesthood technology is superior in some ways. Buddhism more explicitly discourages the priesthood (which is monastic) from seeking supreme secular power. It has happened (Tibet but Tibetian buddhism is the Roman Catholicism of Buddhism, it is a perversion of Buddhism as Catholicism is a perversion of Christianity) and in Japan some monks sort of tried (and this was in a time of anarchy civil war and an angry peasantry looking for a locus of opposition to the feuding Daimyo) and there was a major war against them but they eventually were all killed but they mostly don’t try.

              The bad thing about the priesthood tech is being entirely monastic they can’t be worthy patriarchs at the same time, but buddhist societies are universally extremely redpilled on women anyway even if Western pressure caused dissolution of traditional patriarchy after WWII.

              • nils says:

                Tibet seems to be relatively sane, circa <1600
                after1700 manifestly insane, very powerful land, very retarded State. should have embraced war by means not spirit, too many priests'

            • suones says:

              Interesting to see someone with knowledge of Buddhism beyond the gay leftist variety.

              A bit of warning though — Buddhism has been tried as State Religion by one of the greatest of Indian Emperors, Sri Maharaj Ashoka the Great, and has been found lacking. To wit, the most enthusiastic adopters of Buddhism lay in Western India, including the Indo-Hellenes who gave up their Divine Patrimony for Imperial Religion that granted them temporal status. Consequently, they suffered moral and societal decline and were unable to resist Baphometans, with the result that the most fanatically “Buddhist” territories are now almost 100% Baphometan lands.

              This script is being played out even today in places like Burma — where the individual Buddhists are, man for man, better than the lower-class Baphometans, yet are losing the war on a civilisational scale.

              BR Ambedkar, the Indian Dalit saint, decided to try this as well, and converted to Buddhism along with a massive number of his followers. Today, three quarters of a century later, the average “Buddhist” Dalit is a raging Leftist full of bile, while the average Hindu Dalit is a cheerful man with a fat wife and five kids (or ten). The Indian “Buddhist” utters nary a peep when Buddha statues are destroyed in Bamiyan, or nuns gangraped in Burma, but is always up in arms if a Muslim gets beaten up. The transformation is so extreme that “Buddhism” in modern India (as in the West) is a reliable marker for Leftist caste-agitation more than anything else. Reading BR Ambedkar’s own views to them is a good way of triggering these fools, and he sounds positively reactionary now.

              • Virtus says:

                Is there a good place to begin understanding the state of Hinduism as it exists today? My only knowledge of the practice is through Evola’s “The Yoga of Power,” which is specifically about Shaktism and Tantra. I have yet to read the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita — aside, do you have a recommended translation? — and I plan to. But reading the texts says very little about how the people who support them actually practice doctrine.

                Is India healthy? It seems healthy in some ways, TFR for example. Now that I mention that, I have little clue how it breaks down among the subpopulations. If you can maintain a people physically and biologically you at least have a chance of navigating into a better way of life that will refine them.

                • suones says:

                  Is there a good place to begin understanding the state of Hinduism as it exists today?

                  Yes there are places, but mostly in Indian languages. English translations are cucked, volume of cuckoldry decreasing as you read older and older translations, but then accuracy decreases instead.


                  Is fake and gay. Never take religious advice from a man without a fat wife and five (or ten) kids. OK maybe not necessarily with a fat wife. Evola has a lot of good meme-worthy stuff about absolute rule, domestic relations etc. But his obsession with Eastern religion is not fruitful, similarly as how Nazi obsession with occultism was stupid. More on this later.

                  …reading the texts says very little about how the people who support them actually practice doctrine.

                  This is the crux of Dharma — it is not prescriptive, but descriptive. The texts lay out a proven, battle-tested framework for a just, “Ten-Thousand-Year Reich,” so to speak, but stop short as to the specific actions to be taken. For anyone without memetic sovereignty, it is as simple as following the prescriptions of your family priest, who is usually a friendly neighbourhood Brahmin. The exact rituals to be performed are relatively unimportant, and wise priests will usually accomodate any family/social demands/limitations into a ritual. Doctrinal knowledge and interpretation is useless for a word-thinker, and may actually be harmful.

                  If you are a concept-thinker, i.e, a master-craftsman of language, and have memetic sovereignty (both are related to IQ but not the same thing), read on. The Old Gods are not “daemons” at all, but spirits arising from Nature itself. You might say that GNON is the ur-Old God. When a twice-born meditates, he should focus his devotion first upon his Father, who is the First God of his personal pantheon. Gradually, he should offer sacraments to Him, and incorporate Him into ritual worship once he joins the other ancestors. This is the fundamental stage, taught to children. A disloyal son can never attain spiritual health.

                  Soon, being a part of daily life, and visiting many religious sacraments and rituals in various places as a guest or participant, you begin to get a feel for what moves you to have a spiritual experience. That is your first realisation of your Personal God, your Ishta-deva. Achieving this step may take years or even a lifetime — it may not happen at all. It may happen in the stupidest or most banal way possible, so it pays to be alert. You may be moved to tears, or euphoria, despite fully comprehending the situation and realising the “automatic” nature of it. It is as if an external stimulus suddenly “resonates” within you, and you learn about your own nature.

                  Then, you are free to start worshipping your Ishta Deva in whatever manner you see fit — you are your own Brahmin. Your personal Old God guides you in the ritual, in that you feel satisfaction when doing things one way, and nagging doubt when doing things another way — and you must surrender to the satisfying path. This is the most critical juncture. Once your spiritual faculties are opened but yet untrained, you will be under continuous attack by all kinds of malevolent forces who will tempt you and try their damnedest to bring you to ruin[1]. This is the reason Moloch-worship seems to be dominated by Aryan Brahmins — who have the mental capacity to absorb Godhead but lack the training to resist Cacodaemons. In this only your Father can save you, for it is his primary duty to grant his son the mental tools and strength to fight Moloch and Mammon and Baphomet and Yahweh and whatever nameless horrors exist in this world. I was blessed — I had an excellent Father, and I have felt the grasp of Moloch around my mind and I have cast him out like the insect that he is, so I know this is indeed possible, and I also know of the great power of Old Gods.

                  This is my summary of Dharmic worship. This can probably be expanded into book length, but then it would lose its purpose — becoming yet another prescriptive treatise.

                  Is India healthy? It seems healthy in some ways, TFR for example.

                  No, Bharat is not healthy. High TFR in the dregs of society masks the drastically decreased elite-fertility, which has fallen off a cliff over 100 years. TBH I’m not very hopeful for a victory against the Prog — most elites that do get born are whisked away to IQ shredders like USA, EU, or even Singapore, where they receive Moloch’s communion and join the fight against Bharat. But, having seen the power of an Old God myself, I feel that even if one soldier stands as a channel for that power, Dharma will prevail in the end[2].

                  [1]: Very nicely dovetails with story of the Nazarene’s temptation in the desert, leading me to suspect his story is not 100% Semitic in origin.
                  [2]: With help from glamim, of course. Prog Brahmins deserve Comination, warriors enslavement on a massive scale.

                • >> Evola Is fake and gay. Never take religious advice from a man without a fat wife and five (or ten) kids. OK maybe not necessarily with a fat wife.

                  That seems an unreasonable standard to apply to a man paralyzed from the waist down.

                  >>Evola has a lot of good meme-worthy stuff about absolute rule, domestic relations etc. But his obsession with Eastern religion is not fruitful, similarly as how Nazi obsession with occultism was stupid. More on this later.

                  He wasn’t obsessed with Eastern religion. He even criticized Guenon, who was sort of his mentor, for his belief that Tradition was only preserved in the East. Evola only wrote two books on Eastern religions–Hinduism and Buddhism–and this was not because they were Eastern, but because they were Aryan. He mainly wrote about Western esoteric traditions and philosophy.

                  Evola’s thought is closer to NRx than any other philosopher. Aside from economics, the Jimian take on NRx has essentially converged with Evola’s traditionalism, with consistent beliefs in hierarchy, sacred kingship, authority of men over women, and even the fact that warriors should rule priests. The main difference is that Jim wants to return to the old Christian church, whereas Evola wanted to return to the gods of the Aryan fathers. That reminds me of someone…

                • suones says:

                  @Traditionalist Tolkienist

                  I do not criticise Evola for his paralysis. I merely state the fact that his lashing out at contemporary society is driven in part by his own impotence. A man with nothing to lose gets more and more extreme over time, trapped in his personal holiness spiral, and might lose contact with reality at some point. This is especially critical for a sensitive, high-IQ man. For another (more tragic) example, see Otto Weininger. Even though Evola escaped the “young suicide” trap, yet he felt the futility of life towards the end, advocating passivity (Ride The Tiger until it is tired of running). Passivity is not, and never has been, the correct solution to any problem. You can only afford wo bide your time if you have guaranteed survival — which is not a realistic assumption against Moloch.

                  When I read Evola I metaphorically feel his yearning for a Father, a God, flow through his words. I guess many European Aryans feel/felt the same way, which is the reason he’s so popular in reactionary circles. But he remains trapped in the post-Christian thought process and never quite manages to break the Semitic shackles. You see, it is not enough to criticise Christian demons and stay away from them — one must also conquer the other demons of ignorance and magic(k).

                  The closest Evola actually got to implementing an ideal was the “Ur Group,” but that was an artifact of the Fascist Revolution rather than something of deep spiritual satisfaction, thus it collapsed pretty soon.

                  Admirers of Evola’s Traditionalist Ways (I count myself among them) would do well to steer clear of his views on ‘rebirthing’ ‘pagan’ religion.

              • someDude says:

                If yuu’re going to talk Buddhists from Afghanistan falling to Abrahamism 3.0, you also better talk about Hindus falling to it as in Kashmir, Malaysia, Sindh, West Punjab

                Buddhist Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand for all their failings against Abrahamism 3.0 is doing miles better than Hindu India.

                And the biggest and most dangerous lefties in India are not Ambedkarite Buddhists, they are caste Brahmins who dumped Hinduism for the left when they saw the writing on the tea leaves. Your entire politburo in the fish-belt of Bengal and Kerala is stuffed to the gills with Caste Brahmins. So take it easy on the Ambedkarites.

                I find it really rich that a Hindu can cast aspersions on the performance of other religions against Abrahamism when his own religion has probably the worst record against it of all surviving religions. Yes, you can argue that Hindus did better than Zoroastrians et. al, but lets talk surviving religions.

                You simply cannot say with a straight face the Hinduism is somehow performing better against Abrahamism 3.0 than Buddhism. Are you just trolling?

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  Rohingya are closer to Desi than Bama.


                • suones says:

                  Chill, dude! 🙂

                  Hinduism has lost a lot of ground over millenia past, I agree.

                  Burma, Sri Lanka doing miles better than India? No lol. Thailand economically, yes, considering it is on the fringes of both Anglo and Chinese Empires.

                  And the biggest and most dangerous lefties in India are not Ambedkarite Buddhists, they are caste Brahmins who dumped Hinduism for the left when they saw the writing on the tea leaves.

                  Agreed 100%. This is why I nod when Cominator says 90% of Brahmins need to be Cominated, even though Jim argues otherwise. A prole can be brought back to the right path, but an evil Brahmin has to have made a knowing bargain with the devil, and must pay the price.


                  Is in play again. Thankfully, organised Leftism is well and truly over there, and social parasitism is fighting a combined action — to wit, the recent election has been turned by Hindu women voting en bloc together with Baphometan (men and women, presumably — Baphometan women somehow never defect) in favour of the degenerate candidate. Seems to me that it has finally come down to the querelle de femmes, at least in Bengal.

                  So take it easy on the Ambedkarites.

                  Nice trick you pulled there — conflating “Buddhist” with “Ambedkarite.” Whatever sins Ambedkar might have committed, one thing is certain that he was no traitor and a true son of Bharat. His statement about Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, that it was he, not Gandhi, who was primarily responsible for gaining Bharat its freedom from the British, is a landmark. Modern Indian “Buddhist,” on the other hand, knows little about Ambedkar and zero about Buddha, and is a pawn of Baphometans to be used against Hindu enemies and Bharat itself. Ambedkar was well aware of the perfidy of Baphometans and refused to join their death-cult even when he was offered great status in return. Ambedkar’s naivete, or perhaps idealism, led him to choose Buddhism as an escape, which, in the long run, has failed, as it always tends to do.

                  I find it really rich that a Hindu can cast aspersions on the performance of other religions against Abrahamism when his own religion has probably the worst record against it of all surviving religions.

                  What other surviving religions? We’re the last Fort of Aryas, still standing after the chariots of our mighty fathers have turned to dust, and millenia have turned all his other children so they have forgotten their history. Our fires still burn, and our wheels still turn, and we even have our own nuclear umbrella (which nukes certainly work — no affirmative action there). An offshoot of ours, Buddhism, has made serious inroads into even the most insular Far East, where it has prospered by co-evolution with the native faith, instead of being in opposition to it (like Indian “Buddhists”).

                  You simply cannot say with a straight face the Hinduism is somehow performing better against Abrahamism 3.0 than Buddhism.

                  That is exactly what I’m saying. “Buddhism” in India has been almost entirely co-opted by enemies of Bharat, of the Baphometan variety and others, who utter nary a peep when Buddha statues are destroyed in Bamiyan, nuns are gangraped in Burma, or the most Holy Dalai Lama is faced with extinction; but will immediately spring into action defending the “human rights” of Baphometans to kill Hindus. Their “Buddha” is but a skin suit hiding Moloch.

                  Are you just trolling?


                • jim says:

                  > Burma, Sri Lanka doing miles better than India? No lol.

                  Burma is expelling and subjugating Muslims. That is miles better.

                  Thailand is forcefully asserting the supremacy of its state religion over Muslims that is considerably better.

                  > We’re the last Fort of Aryas, still standing after the chariots of our mighty fathers have turned to dust,

                  From here you look like you are overrun by Dravidians biologically and demon worshippers culturally.

                • someDude says:

                  Jim, It’s not clear to me what Suones is up to or how this thought process works or what he sees.

                  If he really thinks that Hindus in India are doing better than Buddhists in Burma, Thailand and SriLanka via-a-vis the Mohammedans, then he is just plain delusional or lacks the faculties to make an observation.

                  Not sure any sort of rational debate can be carried on under the conditions.

                • @jim,

                  Demon worship in Hinduism is negligible because of the efforts of the Hindu saints of the past who helped to “merge” the benevolent Dravidian gods into the Hindu fold while purging the demons. What helped was that the Brahminical Hindu priesthood took over the benevolent old gods of the Dravidians and incorporated the good parts into the overall Hindu pantheon thus bringing them into the Dharmic fold. The demon worshippers who are mostly minor insignificant cults are mostly shunned by traditional Hindus all over India.

                  The genius of the old Hindu saints was to bring the benevolent Dravidian old gods into the Aryan fold, while at the same time also purging the demon worshipping cults.

                  Unlike Africa, witch doctors in India are negligible and restricted to remote parts and traditional Hindus shun them completely.

                  Despite the best efforts of the Dravidian movement to remove Brahminical priesthood of temples in South India, most of the Hindu temples in South India are still under literal Brahmin priesthood technically. However, presently there is a strong Dravidian movement to remove Hindu temple control from Hindu Brahmin priesthood and return to the “Dravidian” past. This is being supported by the Progressives to divide and weaken Hinduism and remove the old Dravidian gods from the Hindu fold.

                  This is an important thing. The demon worshippers are very negligible in India, even among the Dravidians today, because most of the gods of the Dravidians have been folded into the traditional Brahminical Hindu fold with traditional Brahmin rituals.

                  The real issue for Hinduism toiday is external enemies, not internal.


                  While Hinduism has been considerably weakened by the attack of external forces over past centuries, there still remains a living Hinduism which is, as yet, not pozzed by Western standards especially in rural India, though all efforts are being made by the Progressives to take it down.

                • someDude says:


                  I am only objecting to Suones Potrayal of Buddhism as being less successful against Abrahamism 3.0 than Hinduism. That was unfair. If anything Buddhists are 2nd only to the Chinese in showing how to deal with Abrahamism 3.0, even more successful than Putin’s Russia.

                • suones says:

                  Replying separately.


                  Burma is expelling and subjugating Muslims. That is miles better.
                  Thailand is forcefully asserting the supremacy of its state religion over Muslims that is considerably better.

                  Burmese monks are removing kebab because of State Power backing, ultimately backed up by the Chinese Empire. Burma is not “sovereign” in any real terms. Same with most of SEA — exploiting the friction between Anglo and Chinese Empires by being on the border of both. Not a sustainable position, not in the long run.

                  Thailand has been ceding ground to progs, but is held by the fact that it still has a functional monarchy. I wish the Thai King Rama X (yes that really is his regnal name — named after Sri Maharaja Ramachandra) all the best!

                  From here you look like you are overrun by Dravidians biologically and demon worshippers culturally.

                  That’s why I don’t recommend anyone to follow me. Old gods are individual gods, the opposite of universalist Semitic cults.

                  (Jim: Kindly delete my previous incomplete post. Sorry)

                • jim says:

                  > Burmese monks are removing kebab because of State Power backing, ultimately backed up by the Chinese Empire. Burma is not “sovereign” in any real terms.

                  India has nukes, so, unlike Burma, is militarily sovereign. But it is not intellectually sovereign. Its status system is run from Oxbridge and the LSE, which are run from Harvard.

                  Burma and Thailand’s status system is run from Burma and Thailand.

                  yes, they are cashing in on being on the borderland between anglo empire and chinese hegemony. But India is conspicuously failing to cash in on its nukes.

                • suones says:

                  @someDude (by proxy)

                  If he really thinks that Hindus in India are doing better than Buddhists in Burma, Thailand and SriLanka via-a-vis the Mohammedans, then he is just plain delusional or lacks the faculties to make an observation.


                  I noticed how you segued from “Buddhists in India being raging Leftists” to Buddhism in Dharmic Thailand. Diversionary chaff commonly engaged by Indian “Buddhists,” and also Indian “Christians.” When their own obvious inferiority is pointed out, each will resort to comparisons with a high-functioning co-religionist empire, Buddhists will point to Japan (increasingly, Korea and even China), Christians (esp Catholics) will point to France.

                  The performance of Burmese monks in removing kebab in no way relates to the performance of Indian “Buddhists” who don’t give a damn when holy icons are smashed or monks get killed but are immediately up in arms on the violation of the human right of Baphometans to kill Hindus. Oh, and Moloch is at work in Burma too[1].

                  Man for man, the Burmese Buddhist monk is a superior creation of GNON, but collectively they will lose the war to high-fertility Baphometans sooner or later. Buddhism has a vulnerability to being very priest-dominated with the resultant holiness spiralling. As long as a warrior King is in charge (like in Thailand or China), it is good social technology — but with a huge single point of failure. Decapitate a Buddhist State, and the entire edifice flounders like Russia after Jews had their way with the Tsar. Evola (whom I mention elsewhere) specifically acknowledges and counters this problem by highlighting the warrior Prince nature of Sri Sriddhartha Gautama himself, and “martial monks” (think Shaolin Temple, not Dalai Lama) are indeed the way to go, but sadly that is not the case with the average Indian “Buddhist” caste-agitator whose main goal seems to attack Hinduism.

                  I expect more resistance as anti-Bharat cults lose social status.

                  [1]:, where a specific conservative school of Buddhism, Theravada, is under attack.

                  (Jim: Kindly delete my blockquoting fail.)

                • jim says:

                  > noticed how you segued from “Buddhists in India being raging Leftists” to Buddhism in Dharmic Thailand. Diversionary chaff commonly engaged by Indian “Buddhists,”

                  The question is: What is better as state religion.

                  Buddhism is doing OK as a state religion in Burma and Thailand, Hinduism sucks as a state religion in India. It sucked when the British were conquering, and it sucks now.

                  Buddhists in India fail because not a state religion. They are more powned than Hindus because less state power than Hindus.

                  Hindus in India have the numbers, they have the nukes, and they are still powned.

                  Buddhists in Burma don’t have nukes, all they have is leverage because on the border between the Anglo empire and the Chinese Hegemony, but they do OK even without nukes. Therefore more successful as a state religion.

                • someDude says:


                  You started it by comparing Buddhism unfavorably with Hinduism vis-a-vis Abrahamics. My simple contention is that Buddhism is doing far-far better than Hinduism in countering both Abrahamisms, 2.0 and 3.0 and even historically, it’s record is actually better than Hinduism.

                  Even the great Buddhist detractor, manasataramgini, @blog_supplement of twitter concedes this point of Buddhism appearing to be more resistant than Hinduism, though he chalks it down to Buddhism being an Anti-religion like the Abrahamisms.

                  You’re the one who brought in the Ambedkarites. And then you accuse me of tactics that any neutral observer can see I am not indulging in. No amount of verbosity from you will change this fact.

                  There is no need for us to fight. Our differences are fewer than our similarities. It simply wont do for Hindus to alienate all their allies such as religious Buddhists, Sikhs etc with condescending statements of the kind you constantly deliver.

                  I enjoy reading of your defenses of Herr SchuklGruber and your devotion to the Old Gods. I don’t want to have a comments fight with you.

                • someDude says:


                  India has religious Buddhists in places like Ladakh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and they are very much pro-Hindu any conflict between Hindus and Baphometans. Very much Pro-India in any conflict between India and Pakistan.

                  However, Suones conflates the Ambedkarites with these very same Buddhists which is unacceptable. They are just the garden variety Leftists wearing the skin-suit of Buddhism from which to launch attacks on Hindus. Anyone who has spent anytime interacting with them can see that they have no knowledge of the events of the Buddha’s life, of his great sermons, where those great sermons were delivered and under what circumstances they were delivered. They know absolutely nothing about anything in the Pali Cannon but they are insistent that Buddha was a leftie just like them.

                  For Suones to conflate them with religious practicing Buddhists is just unacceptable and really quite offensive. If the Indian state decides to trample these Ambedkarite and Leftist caste agitators underfoot an elephant’s foot, it would not make a mosquito bite’s worth of difference to a practicing religious Buddhist.

                • suones says:

                  They are just the garden variety Leftists wearing the skin-suit of Buddhism from which to launch attacks on Hindus. Anyone who has spent anytime interacting with them can see that they have no knowledge of the events of the Buddha’s life, of his great sermons, where those great sermons were delivered and under what circumstances they were delivered. They know absolutely nothing about anything in the Pali Cannon but they are insistent that Buddha was a leftie just like them.

                  If the Indian state decides to trample these Ambedkarite and Leftist caste agitators underfoot an elephant’s foot, it would not make a mosquito bite’s worth of difference to a practicing religious Buddhist.

                  There is nothing to dispute — we’re in perfect agreement. Any discussion of the merits or de-merits of Buddhism between us is only academic, and can be left for after Bharat is ours. For the record, I welcome all patriotic Indian Buddhists, Sikhs, and especially Christians, to stop proselytising to Hindus and supporting anti-national forces and recognise themselves as the sons of Bharat that they are. I’ll probably make an article about this.

                • someDude says:


                  Buddhists proselytizing to Hindus is news to me. The Buddha strictly forbids the preaching of Dhamma to any layperson unless the layperson explicitly asks for the monk to preach a sermon.

                  If you know any such accounts, please forward me the links. I am all ears and eyes.

                • Joe says:

                  especially Christians, to stop proselytising to Hindus

                  That is rich coming from you my friend!

                • jim:

                  Hinduism sucks as a state religion in India. It sucked when the British were conquering, and it sucks now.

                  Hinduism hasn’t been official state religion in India at least since the fall of Prithviraj Chauhan.

                  The East India company picked up the pieces of a rapidly declining Mughal Empire. They didn’t have an organized state religion to contend with, because the Islamic empire sought to be established by Aurangazeb had crumbled by then.

                • jim says:

                  It was the state religion of most the Kingdoms conquered by the British.

                • It was the state religion of most the Kingdoms conquered by the British.

                  You’re technically right that Hindu kingdoms were conquered by the British, but that’s very technical interpretation of “state religion” and also “conquest”. Most of the Hindu Kingdoms by the time of the British had either submitted as vassal states of the Mughal Empire or completely tired themselves out by waging constant war against them and other enemies.

                  True Hindu state religion in India goes back too long in history and that *is* the real problem

  23. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    If there is any one sentiment that finds the greatest extent of representation in defining modernity, it fear of power.

    Demotism, because fear of power (‘noone can have power over me, because they might do something bad to me’).

    Gun grabbing, arms control, because fear of power (‘other people having strong tools would increase their ability to do bad things to me’).

    Superhero stories where people with fantastical abilities are depicted as isolated loners, because fear of power (‘if people have power, they could do bad things to me’).

    A cuckservative is also something that fears power, in it’s own way; it fears playing the game of power, doing the sort of things that would lead to power. The cuckservative can sense, on a more or less conscious level, that if he starts playing to win, the same way those who hate him and want him to die are playing to win, that it will mean war, in very short order.

    Which is to say, it would mean a transformation of circumstances, out of the state of affairs they feel comfortably understand of, into a brave new world, where they have no mental script to follow; and this terrifies them.

    They prefer to be ‘principled losers’, to be disenfranchised, and then carp at the foibles of their disenfranchisers, because that at least feels familiar to them. They prefer one way war (also known as ‘mopping up actions’), to two way war, because the former at least allows them a short time to continue pretending civil cooperation exists.

    The script given by enemies of civilization to society is of course purposefully designed to allow them to win, and to channel any instinctual defenders of civilization into the ranks of loserdom; but it’s the only script the cuckservative knows, so he follows it to the only conclusion he can.

  24. onyomi says:

    If not for cuckservatives would we already be in a civil war?

    Phrased like this, it may sound like I’m praising cuckservatives, but since I think we need a civil war sooner than later, of course I’m not.

    It strikes me as we get ready to hear Biden tell us how “we’ve just survived the greatest attack on our democracy since the Civil War,” that milquetoast GOPers are really and truly a bigger problem than any democrats. They are the bigger problem because, by refusing to call out the lies the other side will tell, they tacitly go along with it and thereby cede all opportunity to be an actual opposition party.

    But it also strikes me that, if Republicans right now were as rhetorically and tactically aggressive as Democrats but in the opposite direction, we would already be at war. You can’t have a nation where the president gets up and says “we just survived a great attack on our democracy” and then the other party stands up and says “the other side just stole the election and the man just speaking is not a legitimately elected president.” That is “prepare for war” talk.

    To steelman McConnel et al., perhaps they know this, don’t want civil war, and imagine themselves the adults in the room steering the ship of state away from an iceberg.

    But for those not of such a mindset (myself included), including those who believe future elections will also be fake if the GOP does not, at a minimum, play hardball within the rules the Dems have implicitly established (I know some here would say even that will not be enough), it really seems that the cuckservatives are worse than the Democrats.

    On some level, of course, what I’m saying is not the least bit original, nor is it the first time I’ve thought this, but it also strikes me people, perhaps myself included, still don’t act like they really believe it. What would conservatism in America look like if crummy Republicans were the target of more rhetorical firepower than Dems, and is it possible? It already feels as if e.g. DeSantis and Cruz and Marjorie Greene are not even in the same party as McConnell. It also seems that we should be able to learn from the fact that the Patriot Act surveillance apparatus now being abused to target “right wing extremists” was passed under a GOP admin. Lesser of two evils may not even be that.

    • Pooch says:

      The conflict is not Democrats vs Republicans. They are both of the same class. They are the elite. Recall, they fist bumped each other as they certified the vote on the night of 1/6 to make Trump’s removal official.

      • onyomi says:

        Though I think a few Republicans may be good, this is sort of my point: people you think are your friends but who are actually your enemies are more dangerous than clearly announced enemies.

        • onyomi says:

          Personally I think the 2020 election should be used as a litmus test and, if anything good comes of it, maybe it will: to separate the good republicans from the wolves in sheep’s clothing simply ask them publicly whether the 2020 election was legitimate.

        • Pooch says:

          Correct. We need a Republican party that is rebuilt to be populist and represents the interests of the plebs, not the elite. Trump made a good start on it. To do this RINOs need to feel pain and lose, even if Democrats replace them. Eventually, hopefully, as more of them are ejected by the inner party or by the voters out of the political elite, they will be more willing to defect to our side.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            The colder approach is to become worthy and begin funding politicians of any stripe (why not Democrats?) to implement our policies. It’s after all the way politics is done in America.

            • jim says:


              Politics died on November fourth.

              In the end days of the Roman Republic, those who foolishly thought it still lived were apt to die also.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Electoral democracy certainly died, but there is still influence and power. I of course do recommend you not to play the game as if you didn’t know it’s dead.

                For example, even if you were planning to leave the country, if you have the means at hand, why not pay some lobbyists and/or congressmen to (work for) loosening crypto regulations and capital controls? Assuming that is in your interests.

                • jim says:

                  You cannot buy influence and power with money. People with money and no power have to serve power. People with power have all the money they want by just stretching out their hand.

                • suones says:


                  I admire your tenacity, but you simply can’t explain this to a Vaishya, who lacks the mental apparatus.

                  I wonder, what happened to your Aryan Brahmins? Are all of them pozzed (as Moldbug thinks)? In that case, you have much bigger problems than “Leftism.”

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes you are correct on all points.

      Its precisely the cuckservatives who want to continue the rotting stinking skinsuit of the republic at all costs.

      The left even the establishment left for all their evil and madness otherwise understand its gone. Its ONLY the cuckservatives who care about it at all anymore. I read some article that this is a worldwide thing too but cannot find it, that the farce of social democracy is mainly maintained by how strong the center right cucks are.

  25. Cloudswrest says:

    Things seem to be speeding up.

    Former high level Trump official and quasi national hero raided by Biden’s FBI.

    Citizen dissidents with no criminal convictions or charges put on no-fly list.

    National Guard to provide security for Biden’s address to Congress (what does the Bible say about those who flee when no one pursues?). Is the excessive security theater to convince the masses of the “danger”, or are they really scared? I think it’s the former.

  26. C4ssidy says:

    There is a lot of backlash from Catholics regarding medieval Europe’s attitude towards sexual consent, including towards the concept of permanent consent and the historical right of a man to enforce the contract. My literal grandmother remembers it being normal, but that is not going to convince anyone by itself, and I am going to have to dive deep into the subject if I want to convince Catholics of their own history. If anyone has researched this question in more detail, feel free to suggest sources and examples

    • The Cominator says:

      Even slightly more sane systems that believed in female consent in the past didn’t take their word for it, the woman had to provide some kind of evidence she was beaten up and coerced hardcore this was true in the US probably till the mid 80s. Go to a guys room at night and claim rape sorry legally you consented unless you had a black eye and missing teeth.

      • jim says:

        Actually, they did not believe that female consent was a thing. Well, they did, and also they did not.

        I was around when actual observed practice, even though legally female consent has theoretically been a thing ever since the Troubadours, it really was not a thing to Joe Sixpack. Blue pilled, law, blue pilled official reality, but people not actually acting as if it was real.

    • jim says:

      I remember.

      I was alive when the idea of “marital rape” was so strange that feminists could not use the phrase because it just did not make sense. The phrase sounded like “dry water”. It just did not make any sense to Joe Sixpack.

      It simply was not very long ago. History is being rewritten to push “marital rape” (moment to moment consent) backwards in time, just as supposedly medieval England was full of blacks (and if you doubt medieval England was full of blacks, you oppose media depictions and “science”) but I was around when the push to invent moment to moment consent just was failing to get any traction, I was around when it did get traction, I was around when they started rewriting the past.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        I remember too. I remember when the phrase first started circulating and people were laughing at it. They were even referencing it on the talk shows.

        • jim says:

          Female consent just is not a thing.

          Explicit consent feels strange, weird, and disturbing. It always shocks me. Even non verbal but very clear consent in advance of me actually getting to work on a woman is a bit weird, though it is not as bad as verbal consent.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            Female consent just is not a thing.

            Yes. When I was young and single, I was naive about some things, but explicit consent by women had not yet been declared to be a thing, so I did not imagine it to be a thing, and did not notice its absence. Maybe neither did my girl friends.

            Nowadays, explicit consent by women is proclaimed to be a thing by the powers that be, so today’s young, naive men have to disabuse themselves of the notion that it is a thing before they can rise even to the level of naivete that the younger me suffered from.

          • linker says:

            How hard should one “push” for sex if she isn’t giving non verbal consent? I’m in my early 20s so I’ve been inundated with this stuff my whole life. I have an irrational or rational fear of going to jail and I would just freeze up if I’m alone with a female and she is not giving non verbal consent. I know the PUA literature says to either pester her for hours or to give her an ultimatum like she has to leave, but both of these seem unnatural. I feel like the pestering thing would land you in jail more than anything.

            • jim says:

              You are just not performing the mating dance.

              Let nature take over. There is a part of you that knows what to do. Let it out.

              A man, a woman, a private space that you own, that no one would dare intrude on. A horizontal surface. Things “just happen”. Shit tests, often fairly harsh shit tests, are a frequent and disturbing part of that mating dance. Pass them. Pass them with grace, style, and confidence. No one can get sex, let alone children, without breaking the law. If pushing for sex results in her leaving, you failed the shit test. (And she will likely call the police. Women leave and the police get called for failing shit tests, not for passing them.)

            • Pooch says:

              Takes experience. Start with kissing and slowly escalate to foreplay and then slowly escalate to sex. After enough practice in the field it becomes second nature what to do.

              • Pooch says:

                A frenchmen gave me good advice a while ago: 2 steps forward 1 step back.

                If she doesn’t physically stop you, that is consent to keep proceeding.

                • Pooch says:

                  Oh and get good at licking pussy.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t agree with that one. Make her lick your dick.

                • jim says:

                  If she does physically stop you, it is a shit test.

                  But don’t just keep right on going. After it seems you are going to keep right on going, introduce a distraction to cover your retreat. But you don’t want to let it look as if her physical resistance mattered to you. You don’t want to be seen to be taking a step backwards.

                • Pooch says:

                  I do that but slowly working up to it to get them hot for it never did me harm, at least for the first bang where they are most likely to give resistance.

                • jim says:

                  Taking your time gives you lots of cover to conceal retreat.

                • Pooch says:

                  But you don’t want to let it look as if her physical resistance mattered to you. You don’t want to be seen to be taking a step backwards.

                  100% correct. If you take a step backwards, it needs to be seen of your own volition not hers.

                • Ace says:

                  If she does physically stop you, it is a shit test.

                  But don’t just keep right on going. After it seems you are going to keep right on going, introduce a distraction to cover your retreat. But you don’t want to let it look as if her physical resistance mattered to you. You don’t want to be seen to be taking a step backwards.

                  That’s a bit different from my approach. I typically would pull back a bit when I hit resistance and then resume almost immediately while acting like I didn’t care about what she wanted. Was a failing a shit test in doing that?

                • jim says:

                  Depends on context. Reducing this to words is hard.

                  Resistance is a shit test, and your compliance is failing that shit test. But …

                  See my comment which is also an answer to this hard question.

                • jiminian says:

                  As soon as you get good at this stuff, one can no longer write out detailed advice or share his own stories, as he is going to be admitting on paper to multiple on-paper criminal acts

                  But if someone is verbally telling you to stop , saying “no”, and trying to push you off, what do you do? Well I heard of a man proceeding anyway, and the same two people were walking around the next day, and now live together

                  His success was by rubbing it on her to get wet enough then pushing it in, ignoring her cries . Had he licked pussy, probably would be in prison, it’s beta behaviour and is something for dogs and redditors

                  There are no limits with the advice. It’s “who dares wins”, and by the time any woman is asking you to stop, you are already in a hard place, but according to the theory, statistically safer to proceed than to stop. But I suspect men with a vested interest in this world (assets etc) will still sometimes retreat if the evidence is in their favor, just to fully cover themselves. But often the rewards are high for no retreat at all. Just hard to make a guarantee, even if the theory suggests that we can guarantee it, because it feels so ridiculous and counter-intuitive to the rational man. But at least you can pick up a wife with this stuff and largely retire and focus on fulfilling your duty to the gnon, without having to continually confront this fairly broken state of humanity

            • Pooch says:

              I know the PUA literature says to either pester her for hours or to give her an ultimatum like she has to leave, but both of these seem unnatural. I feel like the pestering thing would land you in jail more than anything.

              You are looking at blue-pilled literature.

          • onyomi says:

            “female consent is not a thing”

            Yeah, if I could go back in time and give 18 year old me only one sentence of advice about dating/romance/sex, this would be it. In fact, one could go further and say that “seeking explicit consent is a turnoff.”

            The culture just feeds you so many narratives about how sexually aggressive men are villains and the good romantic heroes just magically fall into one another’s arms after overcoming the dragon/parental objections, etc. that it’s hard for an inexperienced man to understand that that’s just not how it works. As Jim says, today’s media cannot accurately depict seduction.

            Re. Linker and anyone else young and still wondering how to do it, yes, just act, don’t ask, and don’t overthink. There is no danger of accidentally crossing the line so long as the escalation is gradual and shows an awareness of sensible progression. E.g. don’t pull out your dick when you haven’t even kissed her yet. Put your arm around her–>kiss her–>put your hands under her shirt–>put your hands down her pants–>etc.

            Mild objections should be treated as only token resistance/excuse making for herself and ignored. Firmer objections that fall short of “I’ve got to go home right now”+acting on it may be treated with the “two steps forward, one back” treatment elsewhere described. Even if it’s the first date, say, you should try to have sex with her that night. Even if she really and truly doesn’t want to have sex on the first date, she wants to be the one who decides that. She doesn’t want it decided for her because you gave up in the face of her token objections.

            Which is to say, it should not be viewed as a failure if you don’t have sex on the first date, but it needs to be her who firmly prevented it happening as a sort of act of willpower on her part, otherwise she will consciously or unconsciously feel unsexy and less inclined to see you again. If she made you go home while secretly wanting the d, you will not have to wait long before she is texting you again to give you another opportunity, but if you give up too easily that makes her want it less.

            • onyomi says:

              Or, put a bit differently, to the extent female consent is a thing, it is consent by omission (of serious roadblocks, like her friend who came along on the date, actively going home, etc.) rather than active, explicit consent of the sort one might expect in other areas.

              • jim says:

                The classic female fantasy is that she is abducted by the very alpha minions of the top alpha, the top alpha then demonstrates he is

                1. Way more alpha than his very alpha minions in a way that registers with females sensitive but primitive alpha detection.

                2. Demonstrates abundance mentality by allowing her ample opportunity to leave, but shows absolutely no awareness of the possibility that she might leave.

                3. Demonstrates that he could stick his dick into her at any moment, and might well do so with very little warning, but does not actually do so.

                4. Once again demonstrates abundance mentality by allowing her ample opportunity to leave, seemingly because the possibility that she might leave never occurs to him.

                5. Does not actually stick his dick into her for quite some considerable time.

                The demonstration of dick threat follows and precedes a demonstration of abundance mentality, but the classic female fantasy is apt to involve a demonstration of dick threat very early in the story, while the actual application of dick occurs very late in the story, with as much of the story as possible happening in a context where she might be suddenly dicked at any moment, according to the very alpha alpha’s whim.

                So probably you should take your time, but need to take the time because you are at ease, not because you are begging for permission.

                There have been plenty of cases where I have not taken the time, but always she had always been following me on social media for quite some time.

                • onyomi says:

                  It’s possible the approach I’m describing could come off desperate and I definitely don’t mean to suggest you should push so hard for sex that it seems desperate. As you suggest, dragging things out in time heightens the turn on for women especially, but I suspect most nerdy men of today of the sort looking for seduction advice, including eighteen year old me, err far more on the side of not being physically aggressive enough (or mistaking being otherwise aggressive by e.g. texting her all the time for the same thing).

                  It could be that a woman would enjoy things the most in a Fifty Shades of Grey-type situation you describe (haven’t actually read it, but assume it’s one of many such cases where the dick is threatened early but withheld a long time), but in the “tragedy of the commons” pussy situation we currently inhabit, it seems better to err on the side of giving it to her too soon rather than letting the above-described tension cool. Knowing how to drag things out longer without letting things cool off is probably somewhat higher level, especially when you can’t exercise the level of control that would be possible in a “women as property” world or the fantasy worlds of romance novels.

                  Also, maybe it’s a lack of my imagination given practices of e.g. selling off a fancy courtesan’s first time at a high price to a buyer in premodern East Asia, but even if the woman enjoys having the threatened dick delayed, my male perspective doesn’t see a lot of benefit in putting off till tomorrow pussy that is available today, especially since it is typically much easier to sleep with a woman again once you’ve done it one time. In my mind, pussy’s not a fine wine to save opening for a special occasion, even if the courtesan connoisseurs of old might have treated it that way… a certain amount of delay might be enjoyable for a man, but I’d guess less so than a woman.

                • jim says:

                  Pushing for sex is the same phrase for two things that are, to females, complete opposites.

                  1. Begging for sex.

                  2. You could take her any time.

                  You want to adjust for her state of readiness, but you don’t want to be seen to adjust.

          • linker says:

            Thanks for the insight, everyone.

  27. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    The greatest weapons The Jew has crafted to turn against the white race are all capitalist in design, for example, child pornography, cock fights, and pizzerias. We need a powerful socialist surveillance state funded by high taxes on corporations and wealthy people to put a stop to The Jew once and for all.

    Jim, you’ve made it very clear that if it’s a choice between acting to save the white race and stepping aside to respect the rights of global capital, you’ll defer to Aunty Ayn’s advice.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply child pornography.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply crack cocaine.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply cock fights.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply profanity on television.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply a good swiss, melted swiss cheese and mush- roasted mushrooms and caramelized onions on a burger.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply very expensive rip-off joints.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply Dough Balls.

    I don’t support the right of the market to supply Cheese Tea.

    I’m also offering the observation that poverty is good for GDP, that welfare is good for GDP and that mass immigration of third world savages is good for GDP, in which case GDP is not a good barometer of the nation’s health! (I assume most of you will already agree that debt, in particular government debt, is good for GDP if you know your Moldbug.)

    I went searching because Jim was trying to dismiss what I was saying about consumer spending, and Google shot me toward this crazy magazine…….. but seriously if you’ve got 4 spare minutes, click that YouTube video of that Greek women with the black long-term boyfriend and business partner……. she’s a libertarian. That could be Adam Kokesh lol

    What? I thought libertarians were the OPPOSITE of lefties!!!!


    Yeah………….. o….k….

    And if you want more, Strike&Mike’s discussion of the polyamory of Ayn Rand and Emma Goldman is on there too but it’s longer and I’ve made enough links on Jim’s blog.

    I’m off for a run. Watch the damn video! People like that bitch? They’re total shitlibs.

    And so are you lol

    • jim says:

      > The greatest weapons The Jew has crafted to turn against the white race are all capitalist in design, for example, child pornography, cock fights, and pizzeria

      If you oppose cockfighting, you oppose masculinity.

      In one of my identities. I wear feather in my hat. The feathers come from cocks that I bet on who died fighting, and at the drop of hat, well, even without dropping a hat, I tell people what they symbolize. Death in battle.

      You are commie and progressive, and your schtick is to tell us that everything men do, and everything characteristic of whites in general and Aryans in particular, from self employment to preferring virgins, is “Jewish”.

      No it is not. You hate whites, you hate us viscerally, the way Trotsky viscerally hated peasants. You hate the pizza shop owner and the family farm, because they are independent. You hate males and manliness.

      Ayn Rand, for all her faults, such as cucking her husband, did not hate whites, liked men, and very much liked manliness. You hate us all and intend to do to us what Trotsky did to the peasants.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*Anecdote deleted for several details about what happened that could not in fact have happened*]

        • jim says:

          It is obvious that you have never attended an actual cockfight, and I doubt that you have ever socialized with an actual member of the white working class.

        • orochimaru says:

          aw, this guy is back again?
          i guess some people just never learn…

          • jim says:

            He has been back under several names, but I have started editing his name back into his comments.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      It’s funny how you start with the most obvious and egregious examples you can utilize to play your demagogy and moralizing but it gets increasingly obvious you’re a communist trying to rob people.

      Fighting cockfighting is your excuse to be a tyrant and squash others, you simply want to regulate their behavior like slaves.

      Profanity on television is your excuse to control any entertainment done, as you want to make sure your slaves are brainwashed and only exposed to whatever you want.

      Your opposition to McDonalds is the perfect excuse to murder its owner, kill its employees and loot and rob every corpse and ruin left in the aftermath.

      Going against “very expensive rip-off joints”, just like our current overlords with Coronavirus, is how you will control the economy and decide which are or aren’t “essential services”.

      Excuse after excuse, you’re just craftily hiding your real intentions behind every pretext, like our current commie progressive overlords, because you’re one of them, because you’re a fed.

    • The Cominator says:

      The state has already been screwing restaurant owners under the pretext of covid, mysteriously degeneracy as you define it has not gone away.

      We do not need to shut down the restaurants and kill all the restaurant owners, we need to shut down the universities and mainstream media and kill most of the people who work in such places.

      You name the jew for undefined reasons but not the brahmin/priest.

    • Starman says:

      @Communist Revolutionary

      I don’t support the right of Universities and academics to exist.

      I don’t support the right of publik skool “teachers” to get paid.

      I don’t support the concept of official credentials.

      I don’t support supplying journalists and teachers with food.

      What’s your opinion on that?

    • Starman says:

      @Communist Revolutionary

      Oh, and by the way, do you still oppose the concept of the colonization of Luna and Mars and the planets?

      Because the Holy StarProphet Elon Musk is moving very rapidly on the huge fully reusable SpaceX Starship. 100 passengers to the Moon and Mars on a vast 9 meter diameter rocketship with full state rooms!

    • gordianus says:

      The greatest weapons The Jew has crafted to turn against the white race are all capitalist in design, for example, … pizzerias.

      What? How are pizzerias weapons?

  28. Pooch says:

    Rudy got raided by the DOJ…

    Some are saying this is a sign that Trump’s indictment is imminent.

    • Starman says:


      That’s what Rudy gets for being a goddamned day drunk who decided to accept a position that should’ve been taken by a colonel with combat experience.

      • Pooch says:

        If the French are any hint into our future, our Caesar must necessarily come from the military elite who recruits a political leader for political support. Trump recruiting a military leader for military support was the wrong order.

        • The Cominator says:

          There ain’t been no coup in France yet.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          Different situations and it doesn’t matter what those old retired generals have to say today. If they had to say something, the time was 20 years ago or earlier, France is going to become muslim in 20 years unless massive genocide is done and these people are incapable of such action, they have neither the strength or the will.

          Americans are not facing an impeding doom by an enemy, unified and successful religious faction demographically replacing them. In fact Americans wouldn’t have a single problem if it wasn’t because progressivism, not a single one. Blacks and women, including fertility, are a problem because progressivism, if people were allowed to acknowledge the problem it wouldn’t exist. Faggots would go back to their caves and the minimal most egregious cases hanging from posts. Latinos are actually somewhat functional and their crime would be addressed, you can cooperate with them and Asians is a given.

          But France is not only facing the corrupting and destructive influence of progressivism, even if they fix their own problems the muslims are not going away and they are not going to cooperate. And since they have been a bunch of worthless faggot losers since the 19th century, they are going to simply roll over and disappear. Gnon wills it.

          • The Cominator says:

            A reactionary state could solve the Muslim problem too, it wouldn’t be pretty or nice how it could get solved the way America could solve most of its problems nicely… but it could be done.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              A reactionary state of the 17th century in Europe, like Spain. As I said…

              Today there’s no realistic chance of this happening, not even if Jim found himself magically being the Prime Minister of France. It’s not only a national affair, imagine the international community and what not? Oh boy, the US State Department would really have a field day with the excuse.

              • jim says:

                If I was prime minister of France, would find and promote some red pilled officers with personal loyalty from their soldiers, and put them in charge of security for all key state and quasi state organizations.

                And, magically and mysteriously, suddenly France would spontaneously start being red pilled and reactionary. Monck is the model. Suddenly Puritanism became a joke, suddenly monarchism became popular. It has been done before, it can be done again.

                This is the inverse of how gay suddenly became OK. Gangs of gays were empowered to beat up individuals and businesses that excluded them, and the state strangely failed to do anything effectual about it, and suddenly everyone loved gays and hated “homophobes”.

                If based is protected, and debased is not, suddenly everyone is based.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  And that would work perfectly for America, but even if you did that in 20 years most of France would be muslim and their own elite would be replacing you pretty fast.

                • jim says:

                  Red pill, white fertility goes up.

                  And we know how to keep Muslims in line. Spain did it.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  You’re pretending you can overnight make 21th century Frenchmen turn into 8th century Frenchmen and suddenly solve everything with magic. This is progressive level of thinking.

                • jim says:

                  In my lifetime, I have seen radical and abrupt changes in culture. And, reading history, I have read of some radical and abrupt changes in the other direction.

                  You can make twenty first century Frenchmen into eighth century Frenchmen. The equivalent has been done with great regularity. Going from twenty first century to eighteenth century is easy, because it is only slightly further than what has happened in the other direction within my lifetime, and going towards nature is always easier than going away from nature. And going from eighteenth century culture to eight century culture is a much shorter distance.

                  People keep writing recent changes backwards in time, but I was there. They can be reversed overnight.

                  If the media accurately represented black on white violence, and the state turned a blind eye to acts of collective self defense, suddenly overnight not being “racist” would be as low status any place blacks were around as it was in the post reconstruction South. The same will happen with Muslims. Suddenly Muslim will be low status.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  You obliged magical thinking with your magical hypothetical in the first place.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  You can make twenty first century Frenchmen into eighth century Frenchmen. The equivalent has been done with great regularity.

                  Show the evidence then.

                  According to you Rome can be built in one day and Charles Martel and his armies in one night.

                  You cannot make 21th century Frenchmen into 9th century Frenchmen over night and as far as history tells us never, because it has never been done. That’s precisely why every civilization has gone down this path after all.

                  As an example, we can see Putin rebuilding up Russian society from the communist barbarism after rock bottom collapse, and it’s not happening overnight.

                • jim says:

                  > > You can make twenty first century Frenchmen into eighth century Frenchmen. The equivalent has been done with great regularity.

                  > Show the evidence then.

                  Overnight cultural change works both ways. Feminism was reversed overnight in America (but not in Germany) when Hitler took power in Germany.

                  Marriage was not immediately restored, but it was restored overnight in America when the troops came home.

                  Things worked great for the French in Algeria, until the overnight cultural debasing of the 1960s. Marriage is harder than Muslims, but even marriage is not that hard. It has been done before, it can be done again. Rebasing from above is easier than debasing from above. It goes down so smoothly that people hardly notice. Or if they do notice, they refrain from mentioning it.

                  We can overnight go from 1965 to 1962, and overnight, Muslims will be no more a problem than they were in 1962.

                  In 1965, anywhere there were Muslims, they were as big a problem as they are today. 1960, not a problem anywhere. In any one area, the change happened more quickly than that. We can reverse that change as abruptly as we reversed first wave feminism. Marriage will take a little longer, but it will not take long.

                  These things were done by command. Take away the command, they will reverse organically over several years. Reverse the command, they will reverse overnight.

                  Turn off the tap abruptly, the hose jerks, and water almost instantly stops flowing out the other end, even though the other end is a long distance from the tap. I saw the tap turned on suddenly, and over a short period of a few years, turned on suddenly in every country. It can be turned off equally suddenly. Everywhere there are Muslims, it will suddenly be like 1950s Algeria. Which was nice place.

          • jim says:

            > the muslims are not going away and they are not going to cooperate.

            If the state swallows the red pill, they are going to go away or cooperate. And, given the history of Islam, going away is a lot more likely than cooperation.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              No, the state is going to be demolished and destroyed by Islam after chocking with the red pill thinking muslims are French faggots.

              Muslims are more than happy to throw acid in some whores face for attempting a shit test, drive trucks through sidewalks and blow themselves up to high hell if they’re taking enough faggots with them. They already live in their won parallel societies, in their own areas, with their own laws, under their own elites.

              The French have nothing on the Muslims.

              • jim says:

                Muslims are French faggots. Red pilled Christians always defeat Muslims. Happens every time.

                The culture can be fixed overnight. And, once the culture is fixed, Muslims et cetera cease to be a problem.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  Muslims are French faggots. Red pilled Christians always defeat Muslims. Happens every time.

                  Based on what is this affirmation? They’re obviously not as we can see observing their behavior, their fertility rates, their honor killings, etc.

                  Red pilled Christians have lost against Muslims many times, including losing entire countries, which took centuries and much blood and effort to take back.

                  You’re simply making wild assumptions and wild affirmations without any evidence. The culture wasn’t destroyed overnight, the culture originally wasn’t built overnight and in the first place historically this cases always end with the barbarians winning and destroying the old empire/nation every time.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  The format came wrong on the other post:

                  Muslims are French faggots. Red pilled Christians always defeat Muslims. Happens every time.

                  Based on what is this affirmation? They’re obviously not as we can see observing their behavior, their fertility rates, their honor killings, etc.

                  Red pilled Christians have lost against Muslims many times, including losing entire countries, which took centuries and much blood and effort to take back.

                  You’re simply making wild assumptions and wild affirmations without any evidence. The culture wasn’t destroyed overnight, the culture originally wasn’t built overnight and in the first place historically this cases always end with the barbarians winning and destroying the old empire/nation every time.

                • jim says:

                  > Based on what is this affirmation?

                  Based on what happened long ago, when red pilled Christians were around.

                  The first crusade is the classic example, but the French did fine in Algeria, until attacked from Paris in the 1960s. It was easy, it was comfortable, it was fun.

                  If the French did fine in Algeria, they can do fine in Paris.

                  > The culture wasn’t destroyed overnight

                  It was destroyed overnight. I was there. I saw it happen. It can be restored overnight. The destruction was pushing stuff uphill, working against nature. Restoration will be considerably easier.

                  In the 1950s Muslims were no problem, and women were a much less difficult problem. From the 1950s to the 1960s was a change that in any one area took place in two or three years at most. We can reverse that in one year. From the 1960s to the late 1800s is a considerably shorter distance. From the 1800s to the eleventh century, no distance at all.

                • jim says:

                  Fixing the Muslim problem is just a minor detail after resolving the woman problem.

                  You have to ask “who is a subject”, which is to say who is in a relationship with the sovereign, such that he gives loyalty, and receives protection:

                  Well, who is a subject?

                  A state is ultimately an army and state religion. For the reasons argued by Machiavelli you need fear and intimidation, and also need persuasion and consensus. Steel alone does not suffice, but neither does hot air alone suffice.

                  No man rules alone, so you always have faction and compromise.

                  Scaling means one man cannot command everything, you always need a market economy and all that. The army needs the peasants to bring it food, it cannot go out and get food from the peasants without ceasing to be an army. If you have one man in the army who does not fight, pretty soon you will have no men in the army that fight. In recent times the British army has been repeatedly defeated by handful of goat herders because, though it has a hundred generals, it can only actually put a hundred boots on the ground. The British army is completely composed of logistics workers and priests. In Afghanistan, their primary objective was always something utterly silly and irrelevant like unsuccessfully attempting to build a girl’s school, because hurting people and breaking their toys just was never part of their job description. The British army would build playground slides, which complied with British health and safety regulations that forbid playground slides from being any fun, and the Taliban would use the slides for improvised rocket launchers.

                  You need to suppress speech that attempts to build faction and coalition to take away what other people have. People need to be able to keep what they have, even if their initial acquisition was deplorably unjust and disorderly, because otherwise more disorder. So you have to destroy value obtained by present or recent disorder, while protecting value acquired by long past disorder.

                  The peasants are not going to bring food with to the army if they get shaken down too hard growing the food, shaken down too hard taking it to the army, or if they cannot keep their gold after having brought food to the army. So the army has to provide justice and security to its camp followers, both personal safety and security of private property rights, and to the people that the camp followers need to transact with.

                  And, of course to tax payers, or else they are going to be paying taxes to other people, which will not leave much for the state.

                  So the sovereign gives protection to his subjects, and his subjects, backed by the sovereign, give protection to people that they need to work with, and are able to work with. Anyone else, someone who has protection can feed someone who has no protection feet first into the woodchipper for shits and giggles.

                  So you need to protect speech that attempts to build coalition to protect what people have, suppress speech that attempts to build coalition to take away what people have. The Sovereign does not want anyone except himself taking away what other people have, and he cannot take too much away, or else his economy is going to die, as the west’s economy was dying before the Reagan tax cuts (which were imitated world wide by all the people complaining that Reaganomics was voodoo)

                  This includes coalitions to take away other people’s status. There is plenty of food, but there can never be plenty of status. The Sovereign needs to be the fount of all honors, and people are always building coalitions and factions to make their faction the fount of honors.

                  As for people who are not soldiers, tax payers, or priests of the state religion, the state might as well let taxpayers and soldiers feed them into a woodchipper feet first should the mood take them. Except of course, there is the problem of peace with the outgroup. You want peace and trade with other states. So sovereigns have to have bilateral arrangements with other sovereigns for the safety and property rights of merchants and travelers.

                  But, providing safety and property rights for foreign merchants and travelers, you immediately get the problem of subversion by missionaries of the other sovereign’s state religion. So foreign merchants and travelers should be required to shut up.

                  But the sovereign has no general obligation to provide peace, safety, and security of property for everyone. Let alone for people who make trouble. So, freedom of speech on some topics for taxpayers and soldiers, but priests of the state religion had better stick to script. If you look at the old book of common prayer, it is a really tight script that leaves very little room for a priest of the state religion to ad-lib. And people who are not taxpayers, camp followers, or contractors of camp followers should find it advisable to stick to saying “please don’t hurt me”.

                  The category of subjects is narrower than the category of “not in rebellion”.

                  For example, as I have said many times, a woman has no country, no tribe, and no ingroup. When they are daughters, they have their father’s tribe, when wives, their husband’s tribe.

                  The category of subject implies a relationship of loyalty from below, authority and protection from above. So the sovereign should not protect women except that he is protecting the possessions of his taxpayers, soldiers, and so forth.

                  Women are never in rebellion. Neither are they in loyalty or obedience. They just don’t have the large group socialization instincts, just by nature are not in a relationship with the sovereign such that they should receive protection directly from the sovereign. They should receive protection directly from men to which they are connected by small group socialization, who may or may not receive protection directly from the sovereign.

                  And similarly, we have lots of paper Americans who loudly and flamboyantly fail to identify with America.

                  Muslim problem goes away when Muslims are defeated, when their army breaks and runs away on the battlefield, whereupon each individual Muslim has to individually seek a relationship of protection from an individual among the winners. Which is what happened in French Algeria. Lot of Muslims around, but still a very nice place. In the long run, had it continued to be a nice place, would not have been many Muslims around.

                • suones says:

                  Red pilled Christians always defeat Muslims. Happens every time.

                  😂 No. Happened only once, in Spain. Nowhere else has Christian->Muslim transition been reversed.

                • Karl says:

                  Suones, it also happened in Siciliy and Greece.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Happened in all of eastern europe south of poland.

                • polifugue says:

                  Although forgotten by everyone, the Christians conquered the Muslims of the Steppe and converted most of the land North-West of the Caspian back to Christianity, in particular the Ukraine. My friend from Ukraine descends from Turks who converted to Christianity after the Tsars conquered what was once the Golden Horde.

                  Although Christian military action has been with mixed results, it is important to remember that once the Caucasus region and the Balkans were under Islamic control.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also the fact that Berkei converted to Islam is one of histories tragedies because if based Hulagu (who was almost a Christian) and his descendents continued as he had…

                  Its likely that Islam would have been wiped out entirely outside of Africa.

                • suones says:

                  > Hulagu

                  Christian Kings helped Muslim armies fight Hulagu, despite the latter asking several times for an alliance with Christians (his mother was Christian) against their common enemy the Muslims.

                  Gradually, he began to hate them.

                  More here (trigger warning XD):

                  Did you know that Hulagu Khan (Halaku Khan), the Mongol leader who sacked Muslim Baghdad, a grandson of Genghis Khan himself, was the son of a Christian mother? When he fought against the Sultanate of Cairo/Egypt, he repeatedly sought alliance with the Franks, Austrians, and various European “Christians” against the Muslim enemy. Not only did the motherfucking Christian Kings not help him, far from it, but the “Crusaders” who adopted an allegedly “neutral” stand, actually permitted Muslim armies to march unmolested to fight Halaku. So much for protecting “pilgrims” in the alleged “Holy Land.” Every one of those “Crusader” swine absolutely deserved what Salahuddin and later King Philip of France did to them. Oh, and Hulagu Khan converted to Buddhism on his deathbed.


                • jim says:

                  According to Wikipedia, Christian Kings conquered Damascus for Hulagu Khan.

                  He was trying to conquer and rule both Muslims and Christians, so they were doubtless happy to stand back and let Mongols and Muslims fight.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Initially the Crusader states (not then in any direct contact with the Mongols) thought Hulagu’s force were the armies of the great mythical Christian king Prester John attacking from the East (in the time of the Crusaders the Europeans had only gone as far Persia I believe).

                  When they found out they were the Steppe horsemen related to the Huns and Avars (all of them had heard of the latter and some of them who had heard of Roman history knew of the former) and not Christian and who had overrun every Muslim kingdom almost effortlessly they were terrified and decided the best hope was to let them weaken each other. They didn’t know that the Middle East was too far from the kind of forage pastures the Mongols needed to go and attack them. I like Hulagu but encountering a very alien force that just effortlessly destroyed your longstanding enemies… sometimes people are going to prefer the devil they know.

                • suones says:


                  He was trying to conquer and rule both Muslims and Christians, so they were doubtless happy to stand back and let Mongols and Muslims fight.

                  Excuses, excuses. Did or did not Hulagu Khan, son of a Christian mother, try repeatedly for an alliance with Christians[1]?


                  …encountering a very alien force that just effortlessly destroyed your longstanding enemies… sometimes people are going to prefer the devil they know.

                  More lame excuses. Crusaders were welcome to the devil they knew — and his name is Baphomet, who reigns supreme in Arabia, and will soon reign in France and Jerusalem.

                  This is why I remain sceptical of any alliance with “fellow Aryan” philosemites who, while professing enmity with Baphometans, nevertheless reliably come down on their side, even today. Witness the side Western philosemites take in the Burmese ethnic conflict, Chinese vs Uighurs, Serbs vs Bosniaks, or even India vs Pakistan.

                  Eastern christians are somewhat redpilled on the Baphomet Question due to longer exposure, but still not decisive enough — eg Russia.


                • jim says:

                  > Excuses, excuses. Did or did not Hulagu Khan, son of a Christian mother, try repeatedly for an alliance with Christians[1]?

                  Did he not conquer Damascus with an alliance with Christianity?

        • Starman says:


          Trump sucked at recruiting people in general. He put a day drunk as his point man after all. Let alone relying on lawyers to deal with a security problem.

      • linker says:

        I don’t get the animosity toward Rudy Giuliani. It seems to me like he did his best and there was not much he could do due to limited time and being stonewalled by every court. Seems to be some sort of cope like “If only Rudy didn’t make a fool of himself with hair dye running down his face we would have exposed the Leviathan and installed Trump”

        The media will spin everything to make you look bad no matter what. It generates infighting if, when the media says someone looks bad, you then truly believe that they look bad, then attack them for looking bad. There was a lot of people attacking each other over Charlottesville as if it doomed the alt right. Charlottesville was definitely a mistake in hindsight, and now we know it’s tactically bad to do anything in the meat space, but they would have destroyed the alt right even if Charlottesville did not happen. They would just invent a different pretext.

        I think we are being too harsh on Giuliani for the day drinking and the hair dye thing. It’s commendable that he fought for Trump at all. Just my two cents, I don’t know that much about the details of the situation.

        • The Cominator says:

          I’ve defended Giuliani on the same grounds, Trump was a fool to trust the federalist society.

          • suones says:

            Trump was a fool to trust the federalist society.

            In that case, most here were fools, including Jim. I was a fool too, to take Jim’s word for it. Never trust judges. The correct way to deal with judicial nuisance was shown by Andrew Jackson, and Yogi passed that test with flying colours:


            • The Cominator says:

              In the modern west people don’t want to believe me nothing less than killing almost the entire modern Brahminate (90-95%) will suffice.

              You hate taking anything from Christianity but I liked still being a prog in the age of trannyism and white genocide to having taken the mark of the beast, there is no saving them, there is no redemption, they just need to go.

              • jim says:

                Again, my model is the restoration, which purged the entire priesthood, by asking them all to re-apply for their old jobs or similar jobs, and fired everyone who was not Havel’s Greengrocer.

                Some starved, some got real jobs, which because they were often smart people created a great deal of value, and some fled to America, founded Harvard, and plotted to reconquer the world.

                The restoration gave us empire, science, technology, and industrialization. Seems like a plan.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Cromwell had already supressed the radicals and they were already discredited.

                  Belief in puritanism (at least of the utopian demon worshipping kind) died when Cromwell crushed the diggers and the regime became unpopular in the Major Generals era. To the extent people did care for the regime after a couple of years its because they liked Cromwell himself (who was a very militarily successful ruler) but not his religious sect.

                  You don’t need mass murder after belief has been supressed by the believers own side and by bitter experience of believers not being able to deliver utopia in power (and in fact making life worse in many ways).

                  But with an active and growing demon worshipping religion you need to treat them like the Cathars or like Suharto treated them… Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

                  BAP’s big mistake is he thinks this is like the Brezhnev era and that Biden is Andropov or Cherneko (which you don’t believe). If that were true than the Charles II formula would work. But its not… and it won’t.

                • jim says:

                  You may well be right. There could be too many who are not Havel’s Greengrocer.

                  That, however, will be revealed after we start purging them restoration style. If you are correct, one thing will lead to another, there will be holy war, and holy war against a live faith may well require killings on an enormous scale.

                  But we need to try lesser means first.

                  I expect that when the tap is turned off, the water will instantly stop coming out of the other end of the hose.

                  If it fails to stop, then firmer measures will be required. But I have great confidence that cultural changes can be reversed with the same arbitrary abruptness and swiftness as they are introduced.

                  The enemy faith came from above. It only pretends to spring out of the ground spontaneously. It is a holiness spiral that dresses itself as a spontaneous mass movement.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You only get one chance to do it… you put them in camps and sort out the greengrocers first… and leave the rest to starve to death.

                  You can’t generally go from less extreme measures to suddenly more extreme measures, well you can if you have a leftist regime but not with a more free and looser generally right wing regime. Right wing regime’s can only take that kind of action when they are on the war footing…

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also we have a lot of lost boys on our side, plenty of houses and concubines to give away if we do it my way…

                  There is no moral value in sparing these demon worshippers. This does not mean that morons should engage in freelance violence against low value targets but any proper right wing warrior regime or successful rebellion should show absolutely no mercy.

                • suones says:

                  Right wing regime’s can only take that kind of action when they are on the war footing…

                  You now understand why Uncle Adolf became “Socialist” post 1934 — i.e. needed a command economy. Needing a huge military buildup right now is a desperate situation. The next leader will surely learn from Uncle Adolf’s mistake, but I never countersignal him, as a rule. He was doing the best he could, short of establishing Empire (which he was psychologically handicapped from doing because of identifying as a “Common Man”).

                • suones says:


                  In my part of the world there are pretty few “Havel’s greengrocers,” so much so that I was surprised when I first saw this term used. Extremists are maybe 10% of the population max, but there exist millions of people who, while having no personal investment in leftism, still come down reliably on the Molochite side. This includes the highest levels of Govt, judiciary, and even the general population, right down to the village level (I’m not talking proles at all, only elites).

                  This is seen starkly with Muslims — one “lone wolf” fanatic kills a bunch of kafirs, then ten thousand “peace loving” brothers and sisters march in his favour, to prevent him from getting hanged. Nationwide media coverage and propaganda ensues, casting doubt on decision of the highest courts of the land[1]. Most of the second-order agitators are Hindus, indeed many Brahmins among them.

                  I think you’re making a mistake in that your plan seems to require a Stalin or Cromwell to have come and gone, while the reality of the situation is that Lenin isn’t even in power yet, and Trotsky is alive and well. Stalin established the Soviet Deep Freeze that halted the holiness spiral in Russia, while Cromwell ploughed and sowed the field that Charles II reaped. There is no Deep Freeze in India, and doesn’t appear to be one in the USA. The equivalent of the Russian White Revolution hasn’t even started, and every day that it is delayed is a day it becomes less likely to succeed.

                  Once the high-capability Leftist Brahmins lose the reins (due to death/dotage), the low-IQ thugs gain absolute power. This script will more likely lead to Pol Pot than restoration. At least Cominator will get the slaughter of Brahmins he wants, but it will be part of a massive bloodbath.

                  [1]: There is great rejoicing when the same courts legalise sodomy, for contrast.

                • jim says:

                  While I hope for Sulla, or failing a Sulla, a Cromwell, I expect a Stalin.

                  I think you are conflating two problems.

                  1. How easy is it to overthrow the state religion? Answer, until it destroys itself very hard.

                  2. How easy is it to convert everyone away from the state religion once it is overthrown? Answer: Dead easy.

                  The state religion does not have tens of millions of loyalists. It has tens of thousands of loyalists, and tens of millions of people who know which side their bread is buttered.

                • The Cominator says:

                  When people turn their backs on the gods of the copybook headings the gods of the copybook headings must with terror and slaughter return.

                  If we get a Stalin he’ll do it for us (but will probably kill us) but if we get one of our own in power he’ll need to do what Stalin would have done.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Adolf was planning a war he just could not possibly win.

                • jim says:

                  Could have won.

                  The problem he faced was that a land power has no way to force an airsea power to make an inconvenient peace.

                  When the first ridiculously crude aircraft carrier disabled the greatest battleship afloat, then there was no way he could win.

                  If he could have forced Britain to make peace, would have gone through Russia like a dose of salts.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Even if he won in Russia which logistically was almost impossible would have gotten nuked.

                • suones says:

                  In practical terms, Uncle Adolf lost because his enemies were co-ordinating massively while he was not even talking regularly to his most powerful “ally,” Imperial Japan, due to racial hubris and other factors. The “Axis” weren’t really a block like the so-called “Allies” were. Euro/Anglos will make this same mistake again, being race-obsessive. This is why I laugh at the foolishness of “movements” like “Identity Evropa” (complete with a ‘v’ instead of ‘u’) or other gayness. Race-obsessives are going to end up like Afghanistan — merely having good genes is not enough.

                  Germany was the best land-power in Europe and Asia, whereas Imperial Japan was an extremely powerful airsea power rivalling the USA (some would say equally matched, but for Japan’s lack of raw materials compared to the Anglo Empire). Together, they should have rolled up USSR and consolidated China and South Asia, then made a co-ordinated bid for the oil fields of the British Empire. A Eurasian Empire would have more than matched USA ten years later, especially after Germany had had time to develop jet bombers and the Heisenberg device.

                • Ace says:

                  >Even if he won in Russia which logistically was almost impossible would have gotten nuked.

                  The German advance was crippled by their lack of oil starting in late 41. If Britain was out of the war, Germany could have imported all the fuel it needed. Also US bombers couldn’t have nuked Berlin without bases from the UK. Any German bases getting nuked would have resulted in the Germans quickly finishing the bomb and attaching it to an ICBM.

                  There were 2 big infection points where the war could have been won: Capture the BEF at Dunkirk and trade the entire UK army for peace. Sending 3 Panzer divisions to North Africa while pretending to prepare to invade the UK in 1940. Over run North Africa and taken the middle eastern oil fields. This forces the UK out of the war in order to save India or because their primary source of oil is cut off.

                • suones says:

                  Oh, and one more thing: while the “USA” was fighting the Wehrmacht, the American “people” were sympathetic to their German brothers to a shocking degree. The evil US Armed Forces were led by rootless cosmopolitans and their leftist fellow-traveller politicians, and had to resort to massive aggravation and propaganda on the home front (including treason at Pearl Harbour) to somehow drum up support for their unpopular war, helped massively by their co-tribals in the media, then as now. Once the Axis had managed to defeat the Evil Army, USA leadership would dramatically change in a patriotic direction and I would be surprised if USA did not become Germany’s greatest ally in short order, led by patriots like Charles Lindbergh and George Lincoln Rockwell instead of the traitor cripple FDR. Same with British — the British Royal Family and population were sympathetic to Germany, especially as they rolled over their mutual hated enemy France.

                • The Cominator says:

                  MAYBE if BOTH Gibraltar and Suez were taken in 1940 Churchill’s government would have fallen and the British would have made peace… but the Red Army would probably have surprised attacked Ploesti then and there and its doubtful the Germans could have held it without so many divisions in the East at that time.

                • Ace says:

                  >MAYBE if BOTH Gibraltar and Suez were taken in 1940 Churchill’s government would have fallen and the British would have made peace… but the Red Army would probably have surprised attacked Ploesti then and there and its doubtful the Germans could have held it without so many divisions in the East at that time.

                  It would have only taken 3 Panzer divisions and some airborne troops to win in North Africa in 1940, and the most the planes that were being wasted attacking the UK while the Panzer divisions were doing jack shit.

                  It generally took the British 3 months to send planes to the middle east. It took the Germans 6 days. Overwhelming air superiority on land and sea + fully equipped panzer division with enough supplies because Malta was taken by airborne troops almost right away would mean an easy victory.

                  Russia attacking Poland in 1940 would have resulted in the largest encirclement in history and would have given the Germans the sort of victory in the first month of the war they were attempting to achieve with Barbarossa.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Soviets would not have gone straight for Poland if they attacked their main objective would almost certainly have been Ploesti.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  The easiest way for Germany at the time would be on the geostrategic level. All Adolf needed to do was wait on Stalin to move on Poland first, if he ever did.

                  Two big narratives that are retrochonically written into the history books are, 1. collective guilt of wypipo for not ‘recognizing hitler’ ahead of time, and at the same time, 2. that everyone always knew ‘hitler bad’, and that everyone knew that war was inevitable, and that everyone wanted in on the war. Such which are shuffled between by one hand or another as convenient for advantage.

                  In reality of course, there was huge resistance to getting embroiled in another war of kin-slaying – around the occident in general, and America in particular – and many folk correctly saw Hitler as a natural outgrowth of a people attempting to resist being crushed by molochians.

                  Churchil, FDR, and the broader axis of blue tribe in general, of course, were engaging in every manner of skullduggery they could get away with to provoke more civil war, but they still needed more of a pretext first to reach part way, and Adolf gave Churchil a gift by invading Poland simultaneously with the Russians (something else naturally written out of the books), and later Tojo gave FDR a gift when he took the bait at Pearl Harbor (‘permitted catastrophe’ is classic 20th century), and yet another gift when Adolf declared war on America first right after.

                  The best way to get lebensraum is lands theretofore being squatted on by the most alien, not lands held by your cousins. So obviously the thing to do would be have your buddies from the club lose a shipment of plagued rats in Somalia and Madagascar, and move in with Peaceful Homesteaders to Gentrify the area afterwards.

                • Ace says:

                  Taking Romania wouldn’t have been easy. In 1940 Russian had disbanded their armored units in favor of Calvary, they would have been trying to storm multiple highly defensible rivers using Calvary.

                  Finally, Germany captured more than enough fuel from France to turn any Russian attack on Romania into the largest encirclement in history.

                  Russia was in no shape to invade anything than an already beaten nation like Poland in 1940.

                • ace says:

                  >The easiest way for Germany at the time would be on the geostrategic level. All Adolf needed to do was wait on Stalin to move on Poland first, if he ever did.

                  Germany either had to capture a large oil source or lose the war. There were 2 potential sources of the oil they needed: The middle east or Russia. They had enough oil for about 6 months attacking Russia with all their forces. After that offensives were strictly limited and most of there were crippled for the lack of fuel.

                  For example Stalingrad was almost taken in the opening days of the battle but the mobile units heading towards the front lines repeatedly ran out fuel resulting the Soviets having enough time to dig in and move enough troops into the city to secure it.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Jim, I think that you overlook this problem with your own approach.

                  Some starved, some got real jobs, which because they were often smart people created a great deal of value, and some fled to America, founded Harvard, and plotted to reconquer the world.

                  Do we really want a Prog Harvard popping up somewhere? Are Havel’s Greengrocers really worth that much, when the current regime is staffed with the most dysgenic and degenerate? These people are elite in name only, and it would probably result in an improvement even if every one of them was purged, including the women. Giving the Greengrocers some time in the camps will go a long way towards making recidivism less appealing. It also provides time to smoke out the true believers, so that none of them slip through the net.

                  In the long run, was the Restoration’s problem that it killed too many Puritans, or too few? Would we have been better off if the Restoration had resulted in the deaths of a few more or a few less Puritans?

                • jim says:

                  > Do we really want a Prog Harvard popping up somewhere?

                  “A true history of the American Revolution”

                  The American Revolution was won in London, as the Vietnamese Revolution was won in Washington.

                  Their plotting would never have amounted to much were it not for Socinian entryists into the Established Church of England.

                  The problem with enemy religions is never the enemies outside, it is the enemies inside. Outside armies are a problem. Outside faiths are not unless their army is stronger than your army and they start demanding “toleration” for their missionaries, which “toleration” swiftly turns into submission.

                • Pooch says:

                  Their plotting would never have amounted to much were it not for Socinian entryists into the Established Church of England.

                  Socinians, Puritans, Calvinists. It strikes me that none of these heresies would have come about if it wasn’t for the Reformation in the first place therefore holiness spiraling seems like the natural consequence of schisming from the Catholic Church.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:


                  War? Who said anything about war :^)

                  Indeed there are many elements one could say this or that country could have done different with regards to this or that commotion with the benefit of hindsight; what the matter here is, is discrimination with regards to what is more or less impactful; which is to say, understanding the forces of history – and thus thereby gain power for the future.

                  As is often observed, the most immediately material level of Germany’s defeat was power shortage – we mean here in the more literal sense. The immediate implication in turn being that one should have devoted the bulk of offensive efforts towards securing the middle east corridor, after which one would have the privilege of being able to simply not lose indefinitely; where otherwise the only option would be either gamble an attack or lose eventually.


                  On a more esoterically material level, was that they ran out of pre-war surplus; not just fuel, but many forms of capital in general. But how? Where did that surplus capital come from, and why was more not created?

                  From ancient times, the western way of war is to let men profit from the business of war; and thus thereby, when you figure out how to conduct war profitably, you can conduct war indefinitely.

                  Say you send your spearheads into the ukraine, and companies of merchant adventurers follow. When your warriors need supplies, they can purchase them from the merchant adventurers; and in this manner, your chain of command can make their decisions on what will best outfit the forces for war – the pertinent folk for making such a decision – rather than conjuring up multiple redundantly overlapping chains of command all trying to make decisions on the same thing (eg, ‘ministry of the department of ordnance organization’), fracturing power, and undermining each other as a result. (

                  But they can also purchase from the natives too. And how? Why would our hypothetical ukrainian’s take deutschmarks? Because they could then trade those deutchmarks with the deutsche merchant adventurers, following the warriors, for other things they want in turn.

                  You may see, how is it that Alexander could march through a continent, conquering all that stood in his path, even though his ‘supply lines’ would’ve been so impossibly far from Macedon? Because he was good for business, while his oriental foes were not.

                  It is in such manner that Aryan men throughout history have prevailed even over much larger foes – even those rare times of those who might’ve had more fearsome bands of warriors, or a more tactically cunning commander – because wherever the Aryan man went, he (re)created economic order; and so he could persist, where all others eventually faltered. Echos of this ancient wisdom can be seen in degenerated form in that adage about great generals and logistics. And generally speaking, the most immediate foes surrounding Germany were all various flavors of socialist bureaucristans.

                  Broke: merchant companies diverting some of their production and transportation capacity to other parties detracts from our Optimized War Footing, as outlined by the Central Calculation Committee for Optimizing The War Effort.
                  Woke: ‘scalping’ is infrastructure spending – social infrastructure – allowing the creation of secure and productive lines of supply where none theretofore existed.


                  To look at a level even beyond that however, touches on the ordinals of conflict. The matter of any total war between Germany and other European powers whatsoever is already a catastrophic result, for their civilization in general, from the outset. Subversive it is, to quarrel with nearer, when farther is available.

                  Consider one instance: there were more than a few interests in Brittan opposed to conflict with Germany on account of the benefits they were making on trade through them, but which line was largely undermined by Germany’s increasing stance of autarky through the 30s. Certainly, you can say that mercantilism is basic economic fact; and certainly you can say that no small part of the British interest’s pleasure with the arrangement was also that it favored their own industries export; and certainly you can say there is strategic security benefit to more autarchic economic capability. But there is even more strategic benefit to not having your sons bleeding each other out on some far flung field. Would trading german sweat instead of german blood have been a fair exchange?

                  We can see this through another angle; what would Stalin do if Hitler didn’t move first? He could do nothing; which would be a great result all by itself. Maybe he would invade Poland or Romania anyways; in which case, Churchil would find himself in the awkward position of trying to advocate for war with a country defending itself – and Europe in general – from communist invasion; the latter of whom also just overran the country whose independence you were supposedly guaranteeing. And if he commits the mass of his forces to an offensive, with all the necessary baggage, through a buffer state, that would then open him up to a devastating counterattack. Whichever way, it’s all to the good.


                  Something else frequently observed about the second war of internationalist aggression, is a significant espionage advantage enjoyed by the internationalists over the axis countries. The simple prosaic reason for this is that ‘espionage’ is largely a merchant or priest activity, because they have reasons for going to alien places. Id est, Legitimate Business. (The flip of this observation is that priests and merchants can be duplicitous in ways warriors frequently are not.)

                  And since gommieism was a thoroughly priestly affair, they enjoyed a comparatively similar espionage advantage over USG in turn. After all, the difference between a communist (little c) and a spy was largely academic. A serendipitously literal statement. No shortage of useful idiots, fellow travelers, and true believers here in the ivied leagues!

                  USG could offer a man money, but the Communists (big C) could offer him a faith; and that is something liberal society was incapable of doing; something the atomized modern man, divorced from all Tradition, cried out for, like a perishing man in the desert; willing to drink even poison, if it feels like it quenches his thirst.

                  When your espionage is good, there in fact is really no such category as ‘spy’, as like a distinct object essentially separate from other categories of the populace. The best information network is community itself; and we’ve all got legitimate business, you know?

                  So out go your businessmen, to do profitable enterprise, out go your academics, to do collaborations, courses, speaking tours, and other like figures. Of course like any good Prominent Man of Germany who wanted to get ahead, they all served in the militia, maybe held commissions as reserve officers, which is nothing out of the ordinary. Of course they really are doing these things. And of course men are social creatures, so of course they will want to make Contacts with other folk in their visitations, want to share and impress their Honest Views on others, since of course they are only lovers of the True, Good, and Beautiful, and of course want to promote Friends who also love these things, and not promote those Enemies who don’t; and of course in turn they will also want to share their Experiences with their Friends Back Home. Just like what any Regular Person would do, you know?

                  On a certain level, you can say that demotism is archetypically inclined towards war; for, like Procrustes, it is a totalizing ideology, in that it seeks to apply it’s rule to all things in all places. Such is the distinctifying character behind the kinds of wars seen in the 19th and 20th centuries, as compared with, one might say more civilized, wars between princes of the preceding centuries.

                  Even in spite of that though, the actual occasion of war was a near thing for all the parties involved; a little more consciously understanding push, here and there, one might instead arrange neutrality, or even an ally, or even neutrality and then an ally, on account of scurrilous raconteurs violating the peace.

                  Just a little something to think about.

        • Pooch says:

          Patrick Byrne’s chronicle of how Trump lost the presidency did not paint a picture of glowing competence for Giuliani, particularly how he handled the Flynn meeting. Having said that, Trump didn’t lose because of lawyer incompetence. Trump lost for failure of having an organized group of men with rifles willing to do violence to keep him in office.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        And I promise no more trolling until 2022 since people didn’t find it funny. 🙂

  29. onyomi says:

    This reddit thread links an interesting article and asks an interesting question.

    The thesis of the article is that “Democrats are stirring up racial resentment for votes” fails as an explanation for their behavior because they continue to stir up resentment in places they have an electoral lock on, like California and Baltimore. Shockingly, some of the activists in question admit that many ordinary blacks suffer as a result of undercarceration and non-prosecution of the black criminal element but see the end of tearing down an oppressive society as justifying the means.

    The Reddit poster’s question is what Soros and others cognizant of such tradeoffs but still funding them hope to gain, in the end? Do they just really believe that e.g. US society is irredeemable and hope for a day when policing will be abolished? Holiness spiraling makes sense as an explanation for some rank-and-file activists, but not as much for puppet masters. If Soros just wanted to translate his money into prestige and power he could just donate to charities and causes that sound good and/or increase his influence but without creating the result of destroying the civilization he lives in.

    • jim says:

      Shill on Gab complains of people “stirring up racial resentment” (Meaning white people complaining about physical attacks by blacks and being demonized in the media.)

      These people believe. They believe that blacks have reason to be fearful of whites, and whites have no reason to be fearful of blacks.

      You may think that strange that they believe, but people have far more contact with women that with blacks, and fail to believe what is in front of their eyes, and do terribly foolish and self destructive things because they refuse to believe their eyes.

      Similarly, Mao attempting to command steel into existence while destroying everyone who knew how to make steel and all facilities for making steel. Marxist theory of value. Work equals value. So just make the peasants work at producing steel, and value will appear.

      If you have a religion whose central claims are about this world, and they are 指鹿为马, believers will do stupid things – for example the Jews besieged in Jerusalem destroying their own food supplies.

      • onyomi says:

        I mean, why do Soros et al. create these situations? You mean Soros believes that blacks are truly and justifiably afraid for their lives and genuinely wants to help them? But in that case why would he be okay with policies that benefit the criminal blacks at the expense of the better ones? He genuinely believes that only tearing down the whole existing system of policing can bring about a world in which blacks may walk without fear in white countries?

        I do have reason to doubt the article writer’s claim that blacks are afraid for their lives, however. As seen with the recent attempted stabbing, cops showing up at the scene doesn’t seem to put fear of god in blacks at all, at least not the ones apt to be involved in such incidents. That said, in addition to being emboldened to just loot and destroy for fun by the standing down of police and prosecutors I do think a fair amount of anti-white resentment has been cultivated among many non-whites.

        • jim says:

          Yes. You can see what is front of your eyes. But Soros cannot.

          So he does not see he is destroying the civilization in which he lives.

          Similarly, French Jews did not see that by supporting Islam and Islamic immigration, they would be purged from France.

          • suones says:

            So he does not see he is destroying the civilization in which he lives and hates.


            Similarly, French Jews did not see that by supporting Islam and Islamic immigration, they would be purged from France.

            This is only your opinion.

            I see Israel son of Avraham helping his half brother Ishmael son of Ibrahim eliminate the hated common enemy the son of Aryas. They will presumably resume their millenia-old war afterwards, but only after all others are eliminated or enslaved. Any they particularly hate Aryans.

            • Starman says:

              Apply Rotten Chestnuts’s “if they were serious” principle to Soros’s and the rest of the USG elite’s behavior to see if they believe or if it’s just malice and point deer make horse. Some or most of the rank and file progressives might believe (which might explain the difficulty of Soros trying to assault Prophet Elon’s memetic sovereignty).

              Did Brezhnev and his aging buddies truly believe in Communism? Apply the “if they were serious” principle to find out.

              • onyomi says:

                What is “Rotten Chestnut’s ‘if they were serious’ principle”? Imagine how they would act if they really believed what they claim to believe and compare that with how they actually behave?

                • Starman says:


                  If they were serious principle:


                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Enjoyable little read though nothing new to readers here, I suspect. I would however also want to add the intelligence agencies as part of the problem, among other parts of the deep state.

                  At one point I thought “rather than civil war, shouldn’t they just solve the problem by severely curtailing the federal government and its attached apparatus”? Well yes, right after belling the cat, I suppose.

          • Pooch says:

            Soros cannot because he is simply doing the bidding of the global elite, who know exactly what they’re doing just as the Optimates knew exactly what they were doing when they mass imported slaves into the late Roman Republic.

            • dee says:

              Soros is from a time and place where Blacks were Negroes, considered between human and ape. He went through Jew roundups as a child without batting an eye and crashed countries’ currency for profit. Such a person does not turn into a bleeding heart liberal.

              Though it is a bit out there, I do not reject the hypothesis that Soros and the usual suspects actually do this for the white man to start organizing. They might even provide a Cesar. There are hints that much of our news are managed, like police kneeling on suspects all over the world within a few days of Floyd’s death (I know that there was at least Spain, France and Japan).

              I do not trust Jim’s character assessments of people in power, especially after his complete yet confident misreading of Trump & friends. Simple 4chan memes about Trump being a Jew puppet got it more right in the end.

              • suones says:

                I do not trust Jim’s character assessments of people in power, especially after his complete yet confident misreading of Trump…

                To pick a nit, Jim’s confident misreading was regarding the Federalists, not Trump. We realised Trump was a merchant who could or could not become Caesar. Jim also predicted that massive fraud would elect Biden. What we failed to anticipate was the enemy action by the Federalist Society, which Jim considered a friendly force.

              • suones says:

                Simple 4chan memes about Trump being a JewSoros puppet got it more right in the end.


              • linker says:

                (How do you do block quotes?)

                > crashed countries’ currency for profit

                Contrary to fake economics, you cannot crash the value of something by betting against it. More like he saw that it was overpriced and bet against it and then the price better represented the value.

                > Simple 4chan memes about Trump being a Jew puppet got it more right in the end.

                Helping out Jews and Israel in exchange for their support is not “being a puppet”. It’s not like giving Israel 50 billion is that much money in the grand scheme of things. He’s not hurting Americans for the benefit of Jews. Jews are not the evil super villain you think they are. It’s like saying you are a dog puppet if you feed your dog and give it head scratches.

                I think you should take a shill test: What things does Soros do that makes us dislike him? (Hint: it’s not because he was in the Hitler Youth or because he is a dastardly currency manipulator)

                • jim says:

                  > (How do you do block quotes?)

                  > > crashed countries’ currency for profit

                  <blockquote>&gt; (How do you do block quotes?)

                  &gt; > crashed countries’ currency for profit</blockquote>

                • Starman says:

                  Blockquote test


                • jim says:

                  Soros is a laundry for USG money that USG does not want its fingers on.

                  He “crashes countries currencies” by receiving inside information on policy decisions that abandon support operations, but, more importantly, his primary source of wealth has always been buying up worthless third world debt and then sticking it to the US taxpayer.

                • dee says:

                  > think you should take a shill test
                  I did that one in a previous post. He finances Antifa, feminism and leftism in general. I would fail the crazy test though.

                  >Helping out Jews and Israel in exchange for their support
                  What was their support? I assume it must be impressive, as Israel is considered by far the weaker in the US-Israel alliance in this blog.

                  Of course, I don’t believe it one bit. The USS Liberty is proof to me that whoever owns Israel is a very big player in US politics. Chabad openly considers the goyim lesser creatures, without repercussion. Holocaust denial is made into a crime by law in some of the most powerful countries on Earth. There is White, but not Jewish privilege. Israel can steal/get tech and pass it on to the Chinese: still US ally number one. For reference, Pakistan is also an “ally”, who cooperates in good faith, and then gets shafted. All of this says real power to me, though not necessarily all Jewish power.

                  Even with Israeli support, Trump did not succeed in doing much. Here his actions were acknowledged as meek, but characterized as preparation for a bigger play (he’s setting a trap!). In the end nothing happened, so it was all speculation. The people calling Trump an establishment actor since the beginning have just as much evidence on their side.

                • jim says:

                  > The USS Liberty is proof to me that whoever owns Israel is a very big player in US politics.

                  Merely proof of the fog of war. We bomb our own troops often enough.

                  It sure was not a big player at that time. The US acting distinctly hostile to Israel in that conflict.

                  Diplomats have tendency to go native, and a lot of the state department diplomats to the Arab world had and have gone native. So a faction in the USG was sort of at war with Israel in that conflict, hence the lack of coordination between the USG spying operation and the Israeli military.

                  If they deliberately blew up the USS Liberty, which I doubt, it was because the information it was gathering was being instantly leaked back to the Arabs over the usual back channels.

                • linker says:

                  I did that one in a previous post. He finances Antifa, feminism and leftism in general. I would fail the crazy test though

                  This sounds like a very HR friendly answer. He finances the wonderful people fighting fascism, the wonderful feminists, and the wonderful leftists whom we all hate for no reason. Sieg heil fellow Nazi incels! Soros is certainly doing those things but I can think of at least one thing that is much more specific and much more sinister, that your HR department would not allow you to say.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If they deliberately blew up the USS Liberty, which I doubt, it was because the information it was gathering was being instantly leaked back to the Arabs over the usual back channels.”

                  The attack was 100% deliberate the fednats get this one right, BUT you are right as to the likely cause. I don’t think they were using much in the way of backchannels at all.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Wasn’t Israel closer to Russia at that point, and the US and Arabs more aligned? It’s not as if they were that close an ally. Bombing an ally of an enemy is not that hideous, all things considered. It’s not some great moral sin. It’s just two nations looking out for their own interests. It’s hardly the case that Israel is the great ally that our politics pretends, but neither is the USS Liberty an unforgivable act. Especially when you consider that the same people believe that after all the Germans and Russians did to each other, they are supposed to sit hand in hand singing Aryan Kumbaya.

                • dee says:

                  The version of the USS Liberty incident I read mentions:
                  – An Israeli pilot waving back to USS Liberty personnel as he circled around the ship, which was flying an American flag.
                  – Lyndon Johnson stopping the Navy from intervening after it received a radio request for help from the ship, after the later had been badly hit and an engineer managed to repair the radio (i.e. there was no mistaking the intent of the Israeli to sink the ship).

                  If these are true, I do not see how any of your arguments apply. Even if this was all an American plan, it is still an immense privilege for supposedly tiny, feeble Israel to attack and sink a US ship *and get the whole affair memory holed by the US military* when they fail to do this in their allotted time, to save Israeli reputation. Again, normally the US treats even cooperative allies like dog shit.

                  linker: Soros makes it hard for me and any sons I have to reproduce. In the end that’s what it comes down to, for you people too.

                  Back to my orignal point: mischaracterization of the powerful.

                  High finance are not merchants, they are priests. There was open interest within the Rothschilds for Judaism, and if Eustache Mullins is right, they were big drivers for wars, including WW1 and 2. Financing the Bolsheviks, of all parties, was not a profitable enterprise.

                  Elon Musk is not a merchant, and a poor priest (no one with priest talent would be caught dead on the cybertruck unveiling stage, much less presiding over it). Matter of fact, money came suspiciously easy to Musk in his early career. His coworkers cannot testify to any skill he has. “He brought money” is the only positive thing they say. He might be a face for a player that wants to restart R&D and space conquest anonymously.

                  Jeff Bezos… I don’t know. I suppose he fits Jim’s classification. But any one that has an NGO pushing social change is/was playing a priest game: Ford, Canergie, Rockefeller… why do people here focus on Soros?

                • jim says:

                  Rothschilds were out of power before the first World War, therefore cannot have been big drivers for wars.

                  As for openly supporting Judaism. So they should have. Everyone should love his own people – not that the Rothschilds are Jewish any more, but the Rothschilds you are talking about were Jewish.

                  You sound like a Soros shill, even though you passed the shill test.

                  Take the shill test again: Tell us what Soros has been doing in Eastern Europe, tell us why women need to lose sexual choice, tell us about rape.

                • dee says:

                  Do we agree that J.P. Morgan was one of the main actors to push the US into WW1? If so, I only have to prove that he was Rothschild’s man, as Mullins, Wheeler and Carr believe they have done. Even Quigley mentions a relation between Morgan and London bankers, naming Lazar Brothers only though.

                  When I wrote “interest in Judaism”, I meant study of Judaism, probably some esoteric form a normie Jew would not recognise (and perhaps not endorse). I cannot find any reference to it anymore, so I’ll just retract this.

                  I do not know what Soros is doing in Eastern Europe. I assume he is spreading globohomo and trying to install state department-compliant regimes there. If you have something you think a Soros shill would not be allowed to write, show it, and I will post it without quote or caveat.

                  BTW there is nothing based about noticing Soros. Mainstream media rubs his ugly face on your nose all day long: “Big bag facist Orban spreads conspiracy theories on Soros again!1!!”. This is reverse psychology. Others I’ve mentioned do not seem to pop up for some reason.

                  Women need to lose sexual choice because they will pick some tough-looking ganster with no social contribution, producing more demon spawn, while men who contribute quit in disgust. Then the neighbour, who didn’t let women choose, comes in, kills the men and enslaves the women.

                  Rape happens retroactively when she figures out you weren’t the chad she thought you were.

                • jim says:

                  > Do we agree that J.P. Morgan was one of the main actors to push the US into WW1? If so, I only have to prove that he was Rothschild’s man, as Mullins, Wheeler and Carr believe they have done. Even Quigley mentions a relation between Morgan and London bankers, naming Lazar Brothers only though.

                  That is transparent and absurd insanity on par with “Building seven fell straight down onto its own foundations.” and the flat earther voice over on a video of a woman with long hair floating around in the space station.

                  It is flat earth tier. At least Building seven looks like it is falling straight down rather than falling towards the hole blasted in the side facing the two towers explosion in one video taken from one angle, while the voice over in the flat earth video demands that we deny what we are seeing, and the powerlessness of the Rothschilds was evident in the runup to World War II. Loss of formal power was accompanied by the collapse of Rothschild influenced policies and programs.

                  The key fact demonstrating Rothschilds out of power, and out of hidden power, is that the allies blocked Hitler’s efforts to get the Jews to move to Israel and blocked Jewish emigration from Germany.

                  The “Rothschilds rule the world cranks” are on par with the flat earth cranks.

                  You are not a government shill, and if you are working in a shilling organization, that organization is based enough and not working for Soros, but “Rothschilds” are on par with “UFOs will take us to heaven” and not far above flat earth.

                  Not going to hold a flat earther debate on this blog.

                • Starman says:


                  “Elon Musk is not a merchant, and a poor priest (no one with priest talent would be caught dead on the cybertruck unveiling stage, much less presiding over it). Matter of fact, money came suspiciously easy to Musk in his early career. His coworkers cannot testify to any skill he has. “He brought money” is the only positive thing they say. He might be a face for a player that wants to restart R&D and space conquest anonymously.”

                  You may not be a Soros shill or FBI shill, but you’re definitely the typical wordsmith who has trouble comprehending the StarProphet Elon Musk. People who live entirely in the world of words have trouble comprehending the Space Apostle’s miracles that everyone can see.

                  Here you claim that a committee (a committee!) of greysuits have imagination and are behind Elon Musk’s miracles.

                  This is what numerous committees of unimaginative greysuits proposed as a fly back reusable booster.

                  This is one of Elon Musk’s miracles, a fly back reusable booster.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Is there a difference between how a man who is a shill sounds, and a man who is low class sounds?

                  A man who is a shill will often sound like he is practically holding his nose when touching on rotgepilt topics – indeed, will often express nominally group ideas in the most hacknied forms he can get away with.

                  Some men are simply not very erudite; but even unerudite men will still have an instinctive sensitivity towards how good they look to others. A shill does not care about how good he looks. Can be wanting to look bad on purpose, even.

                • dee says:

                  [*deleted for a multitude of madnesses*]

                • jim says:

                  To defend the proposition that the Rothschilds are not what they appear to be and Musk is not what he appears to be, you then tell us with great confidence that no end of other people and things are not what they are appear to be, as if it was perfectly obvious and uncontroversial that they were not what they seemed.

                  Not going down all those rabbit holes.

                  You trust authority too much, and you trust raging schizophrenics too much. Your reality testing is nonexistent.

                  Try to fit events together to see if they make sense in your worldview.

                  Check primary sources. Your sources lack sources. At least even Wikipedia has highly derived sources – usually what some twenty first century academic said about what some twenty first century academic said about what some twentieth century academic said about what some twentieth century academic said about … what some nineteenth century academic said about what some one who was actually there said.

                  If you want to make a claim that is likely to be disputed, try to provide some evidence for it.

                • dee says:

                  You trust authority too much, and you trust raging schizophrenics too much. Your reality testing is nonexistent.

                  I would be told something similar if I promoted your views somewhere in normie land.

                  Check primary sources. Your sources lack sources.

                  You’re essentially telling me to become a professional historian on the subject. My request was more about a biography or an article. Flat earthers can be pointed to lists of arguments against flat earth that have been assembled just for the exercise.

                  If you want to make a claim that is likely to be disputed, try to provide some evidence for it.

                  My answer to Starman contained some evidence that Musk is inferior to the pioneers of the past, which helps me in my argument that he is fake.

                • jim says:

                  > > Check primary sources. Your sources lack sources.

                  > You’re essentially telling me to become a professional historian

                  Because primary sources tend to be unthinkably politically incorrect, most professional historians will not touch them with a ten foot pole.

                  With the result that they are often as deluded as you are. But I have more important delusions to debate, among them those of professional historians. We are not going to debate your delusions.

                  My answer to Starman contained some evidence that Musk is inferior to the pioneers of the past

                  It contained more madness. Not going to debate stupid crazy stupid shit that hardly anyone believes. We are going to debate stupid crazy shit that it is mandatory for just about everyone to believe.

                • Starman says:


                  “My answer to Starman contained some evidence that Musk is inferior to the pioneers of the past, which helps me in my argument that he is fake.”

                  Somebody else landed an orbital rocket first stage back to launch site before Elon Musk, who’s that?
                  All I see is 60 years of Boeing and Lockheed middle management bureaucrats proposing the same unworkable spaceplane booster first stage over and over again.

                  You have arguments, Prophet Elon Musk has livestreams and video.

                  If I traveled back in time to tell my younger self that I would live to see a real prophet show up in the 21st Century AD, I would not believe it. But there he is. Praise the Holy Space Apostle, Peace Be Upon Him.

              • alf says:

                Trump was never anyone’s puppet. He was always his own man, which is exactly why the left completely freaked out over him.

                Jim did not misread the situation, it was in fact everyone else who misread the situation – a coup was the only way this was going to have a happy ending. Which is why Jim warned beforehand for massive election fraud, and Trump only complained afterwards.

                But Jim did misread that everyone else misread the situation. For a coup to actually happen, the stars had to align. Which is not how war tends to go – some things go in your favor, some do not. The federalist society did not go in our favor, Flynn’s pitch did not go in our favor, and that’s pretty much where it ended.

                Which is not to say it was impossible. I, at least, felt something was in the air. And I’m sure those who witnesses Lafayette park and the storm of Capitol Hill did as well.

              • jim says:

                Yes. Take the shill test. What things does Soros do that makes us dislike him?

                This test is targeted at direct Soros employees and contractors. Direct FBI employees and contractors can pass it.

                The woman question test has broader applicability, though recently there has been an abrupt change in FBI policy so am not altogether sure it still works. It may require some retuning to continue working reliably, as the Demon worshipper needed to be tuned a little bit to work reliably.

                The tell in the woman question test is not what answer the shill gives, but what answer he does not give: That no matter what he replies, his answer will always segue away from the premise of the question: Female sexual and reproductive misconduct, poor female sexual choices.

                Shills can tell us that women should be de-emancipated, but cannot tell us why. They can tell us that Soros is an evil Jew, but cannot tell us what evil he does.

                Observe that I directly tell everyone how they can pass the shill tests, and they still cannot pass them.

    • Pooch says:

      I believe they wish to bring about a federal ideological-compliant police force. That local police forces are irredeemably racist is justification for that. They have the same problem with the police as with the military, that the rank and file tend to be white male conservative.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      A more rational approach to the question of genociding europoids in America in particular and world wide in general would lean harder on the side of boiling the frog until your targets are powerless to stop you (through feminist fertility collapse, importing alien fighting aged men, and to a lesser extent boated managerialism for socio-economic dysfunction).

      But that would involve explicitly conscious acknowledgement of what is wanted to be denied (to be destroyed) in the first place.

      More reality coherent forms of instrumental reason in this regard, is precluded by the sort of men attracted to such sorts of goals in the first place.

      They are driven by their insecurities, feelings of worthlessness, powerlessness, most especially when *they themselves might be holding power*; thus, they make themselves into enemies of all that is worthy, all that may serve to produce what is worthy – commutatively, into enemies, of reality, reason, divine law itself.

      The existence of worthy men inflames the insecurities, acknowledging the fact of more worthy men also inflames the insecurities. A stable mind cannot persist in such a state, so they are not; stable, that is.

      They want ‘the people’ to ‘demand change’, but places they can conjure up ‘demanding people’ are places they already have power over. They want to destroy SWMs, but they destroy their patsies too. They invade the world (‘for democracy’), and invite the world (‘for democracy’). Stupendous effort, a cacophony of sound, furious movement, all leading to nothing.

  30. […] “I guess I could say that my present marriage is more happy than not. I had sex with her within 15 minutes of meeting her for the first time, so my own experience seems to match Scott’s experience and it also confirms the truth of what Jim is saying. […]

  31. The Cominator says:

    Looks like the fbi is going to convince schizos to shootup government schools at unprecedented rates. Cuomos brother says more white kids need to die.

    • jim says:

      Pinochet was conscripted into the coup by the junior officers. Junior officers tend to be critical in a coup, because a coup is temporary collapse of the chain of command.

      A self coup would have worked for Trump, but he failed to do it. Right now in the US, a coup by officers would not work. We have to wait for democracy to get even more thoroughly discredited, as in France leading to Napoleon, and the Roman Republic leading to Caesar and Augustus.

      • Pooch says:

        I have doubts that Trump was ever able to pull off a coup because coups rarely (if ever) originate from outside the military. Regardless, it would be interesting if a coup happens first in one of the provinces like France before it happens in America. Likely would trigger immediate intervention by US military to “prevent another Hitler”.

        • Starman says:

          “Regardless, it would be interesting if a coup happens first in one of the provinces like France before it happens in America.”
          “Likely would trigger immediate intervention by US military to ‘prevent another Hitler’.”

          That’s where France’s independent nuclear arsenal comes into play (Force de Frappe).

        • suones says:

          France is cuck central. First the bastard de Gaulle, then the coward Massu. I am pretty blackpilled on France ever since their terrible handling of Algeria. The last French patriotic general was Bigeard, and even he was humiliated in old age.

          Algerie française !

      • orochimaru says:

        i hope Le Pen learns from the mistakes Trump made. at the very least she must crown herself queen, make Christianity the state religion, and appoint a Grand Inquisitor.

        anything less and I worry she will die.

    • orochimaru says:

      beautiful beautiful beautiful.
      military personnel are already beginning to take sides.
      the genie is out of the bottle.

  32. Pooch says:

    Fuentes placed on a no-fly list…

    It’s rather bizarre that he’s apparently banned/deplatformed/demonitized on everything but not on Twitter.

    • jim says:

      Shills are undercover. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

      Twitter is shill central. If he is a shill (and I get too bored watching his stuff to figure out whether he is or not. Video is low information density, and Fuentes is very low information density) then likely the no-fly people failed to get the memo.

      • Pooch says:

        You may be right but he doesn’t seem like a typical shill. He doesn’t shill for anything that isn’t reactionary. He makes regular thought crimes, particularly about race. He regularly mentions the unmentionable. He has mentioned bioleninism before and I would not be surprised if he has come across your blog, but perhaps he has cut some sort of deal with the left to allow him to keep his Twitter but being on the no-fly list is not indicative of that.

        • jim says:

          I cannot evaluate him, because his videos have intolerably low information density. On attempting to evaluate his output on Twitter, same problem. Just talking about no-fly.

          The left says that he went on misogynic rant, not finding that misogynic rant.

          My suspicion is that it amounts to CR’s “I hate women too (because they are wonderful)” – which is an upside down version of the right position, that women are wonderful – at being women. Just very bad at being men. That to flourish, women need to be property, just as for men to flourish, they need to be free.

          • linker says:


            Last night, far-right extremist Nick Fuentes went on a lengthy, violent and misogynist rant.

            A viewer asked how to respond to his wife “getting out of line.”

            Fuentes, who has received support from Congressman Paul Gosar, responded: “Why don’t you smack her across the face?”

            After claiming he was “just joking” about assaulting women, Fuentes said he actually would “grab them by the arm and squeeze it – just squeeze it really tight.”

            He added, “The equivalent of a Taser, or a rubber bullet. That’s how we apply this sort of domestic enforcement.”

            • jim says:


              But you don’t smack women in the face. Too easily broken. Smack them on the bum. The latter is also more effective in establishing dominance, because it bending a woman over involves a demonstration of superior strength, which a smack on the face fails to do. Women get excited by being bent over. They love it.

          • linker says:

            Who is CR?

            • Pooch says:

              Long time shill commenter on Jim’s blog.

            • The Cominator says:

              A poster here who (I’m not sure if he was always like this) who started arguing that reaction properly understood required a Bolshevik style command economy.

              • jim says:

                He also argued that affirmative action was not the reason for female and black dominance at Oxford and Cambridge. The real tell was “I hate women and blacks (because women are wonderful and blacks are magical)”

                • The Cominator says:

                  Didn’t follow that one much.

                  His most hilarious argument was that lower classes were poor because evil petty merchant restaurant owners (this was pre Covid bullshit) were getting them to spend too much money on restaurants. And that we were jews for not believing in this evil restaurant owner mind control rays.

                  We pointed out that this was absurd, that some lower class people spend too much in bars on booze and sometimes on weed (rarely other drugs) but that nobody spends the rent on restaurants.

                • jim says:

                  Hail fellow peasant, fellow peasant. You have only one cow. Your real enemy is the peasant with two cows.

                • The Cominator says:

                  His shilling was weird in that I don’t think he claimed to be a peasant and I think he said he was some kind of retired British bureaucrat (maybe he was lying about retired).

                  But he just would not even acknowledge our arguments in the fact of his absurdities and the restaurant thing was the most absurd and hilarious part of it by far. It was one way broadcasting other than the part where he called us jews.

                • jim says:

                  I was analogizing CR’s stuff about evil restaurants oppressing the masses to Trotsky (an urban Jewish failed money lender) announcing himself to be a peasant preparatory to murdering the peasants.

                  Hating the man who owns a restaurant is analogous to Trotsky telling the peasant with one cow to hate the peasant with two cows. (Supposedly he did not raise those cows. He supposedly got assigned those cows by the evil wall street demon, of whom he is a minion)

              • orochimaru says:


            • alf says:

              At a certain point he burnt through his social capital and announced he’d leave. As he said, instead of all this fighting, beter to ‘take walks through the wood and maybe learn an instrument, like the violin’, as all good reactionaries do.

              Then he kept commenting for a couple of weeks. It was pretty funny.

              • Starman says:

                Obviously Communist Revolutionary… excuse me, C a r l y l e a n R e s t o r a t i o n i s t couldn’t acknowledge my and Shaman’s RedPill on Women questions. But his continued insistence on banning pizza and jailing pizzeria restaurant owners was bizarre and hilarious.

                • INDY says:

                  I think he said that he would not allow french fries served with a hamburger

                • alf says:

                  The proletariat is living paycheck to paycheck, exploited by the pizjousie !

                  Oh man I remember the spoof accounts. Some of those were really really good. Good times.

  33. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    The perennial tell of entryism is to say the words, but not specify about what one is one thinking thereby saying the words, not specify the why behind one’s words.

    For example, some time ago a man using the handle of ‘david lamy’ posted a meandering screed more or less accurately describing structural manifestations of the present establishment’s anti-europoid-male-ism in anecdotal form, and his outrage attendant thereto. Some commentators floated an opinion that he was a shill (likely a sublimated antipathy to his use of lower class forms of speech), something which i felt was wrong-footed, because he didn’t simply express soundbytes, but elucidated at length on why he thought them.

    Compare instead with something like CR, who could post ‘boy i sure do hate niggers, right, my fellow nigger-haters?’ all day long, but would be vanishingly short on any details as to *why* he would think that – more importantly, any details as to why *anyone else* could be thinking that. Could not acknowledge any actual particular realities that might be troubling others, and might reflect negatively on the objects in question, and to the extent any devalidations are specified, it is for bluepilled reasons, leading to bluepilled conclusions. The object being ‘hated’ for insufficient leftism. (Eg, ‘my fellow europeans, we need to stop muslim immigration to europe because they don’t believe in female emancipation, which is Our Heritage’.)

    If one may expect extryism along other lines (and one might expect it), such as the question regarding fair sexes, then one may expect just the same dynamics; either a shill gives themselves away as a shill, or a man shows himself to be functionally indistinguishable from a reactionary shitlord already. And what’s one more positive contributor?

    • The Cominator says:

      CR was a very obvious shill because it was hello fellow nigger haters, I also hate Democracy jews and niggers I can’t wait till the monarchy is restored so that we can implement a fully socialized command economy. We’re sure going to stick it to those pizza shop owners and guys with swimming pools, amirite.

      What you disagree, you’re obviously all jews.

      • jim says:

        Nah, he was a very obvious shill because he could not acknowledge, indeed firmly denied, any reasons for hating all the things he supposedly hated.

        Someone can be a genuine reactionary, and still be socialist because he fails to appreciate the scaling problem of socialism. Though reactionary socialists seem to be vastly outnumbered and shouted down by socialist shills claiming to be reactionaries.

        The tell is not socialism, nor even hatred for people of your and my class. The tell is inability to articulate the reasons for supposedly wanting reactionary objectives, or even to acknowledge other people’s reasons.

  34. linker says:

    Leftists are declaring war on crypto. Black pill in the short term. White pill in the medium to long term as it will force tech dorks and the nouveau riche to join the right wing?

    • Pooch says:

      The climate faction of leftists are retardly attacking Bitcoin because PoW is energy intensive, but if you’ve been following Jim PoS is the future of crypto anyway.

  35. Chad, Africa says:

    Women’s liberation was a de facto transfer of title from ordinary men to their employers. This is how women’s empowerment fits into the overall picture of absolute wagie subjection. Not with “holiness spirals”, but with “maximizing shareholder value”.

    From the perspective of the wagie, admittedly, someone else owning something looks much the same as it not being owned at all.


    • jim says:


      Employers have been forced to hire women for men’s jobs by means increasingly drastic and coercive, starting with social pressure in nineteenth century and legal coercion starting in 1908.

      In America the coercion was dropped or radically dialed back from 1945 to 1963, and women were booted out of the workplace en masse.

      Women in the workplace are a problem, because they always shit test the boss, and Human Resources backs their shit tests.

      If a woman’s job gives her a little bit of power, she will proceed to shit test customers, fellow employees, and customers with it, resulting in her driving away customers.

      • The Cominator says:

        I don’t see women shit testing customers too often, fellow employees and bosses yes.

        Even stripper gals I fuck (who don’t charge me much for it) don’t do too much shit testing.

        • jim says:

          Chicks at the bottom of the hierarchy, the checkout girl at the supermarket, the waitress, do not shit test their customers. These are good jobs for women, women’s jobs. Women should be hired for such jobs. They always have been hired for such jobs, for thousands of years.

          Put a woman in charge of those girls, trouble ensues.

          With low level jobs where the employee is expected to advise the customer, as for example tailoring and the sale of menswear, trouble ensues.

          I would expect trouble to ensue with female doctors and female veterinarians, but inexplicably, it does not. veterinarian is, surprisingly, a good job for women.

          • The Cominator says:

            I generally agree…

            What about female bartenders (and most bartenders hired are women nowadays) they tend to have a lot of power over their space should they wish to exercise it but they rarely shit test either. How do you explain that.

            • jim says:

              She has a man backing her up. I do not have observational data for the interaction between him and the female bartender, but I conjecture that she perceives him as alpha because of what happens with a truculent customer (nothing impresses women like violence) and he tells her “Don’t make trouble” when she gets out of hand. A woman can do any job provided she has adequate supervision by a man she perceives as alpha. Hence the traditional arrangement where women did high level jobs for their husband under their husband’s supervision. I conjecture that is how the wife of Saint Peter got martyred. Women have frequently given me valuable assistance in high level tasks.

          • Cloudswrest says:

            “I would expect trouble to ensue with female doctors and female veterinarians, but inexplicably, it does not.”

            Perhaps these jobs involve a transfer of motherly instincts of caring for their charges.

            • Aidan says:

              Most MDs are 115 IQ human google search engines. Yes, a woman can memorize a bunch of fun facts, but we need fewer doctors anyway.

              • Pooch says:

                Covid hoax has exposed most doctors as just priests.

              • The Original OC says:

                Doctors are also subject to real discipline, one of the few professions were fuckups can result in disbarment and jail, even despite AA.

                Women do just fine in general under supervision – actual not nominal supervision – unless a task requires physical strength or extreme creativity.

          • suones says:

            Women should be hired for such jobs.


            They always have been hired for such jobs, for thousands of years.

            Men have been arsefucking each other for thousands of years too. Doesn’t make it high status.

            Repeat after me: A working wife is a marker of low class and something to be ashamed of.

            [1]: Doesn’t apply to family work, of course, whether on a family farm or a family business. But menial tasks only, under supervision of men of the family, and not for wages.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              Thar right there is some Brahmin-level stupidity. There are a lot of low class people, and they need to be made of some use. Giving them a way to be productive and useful is a valuable end in and of itself. Not every woman should need to work, but a considerable amount will. Pretending that because the upper classes do something so all the other classes can and should, too, is how we got here.

              • suones says:

                Thar right there is some Brahmin-level stupidity.

                > Brahmin-level
                > stupidity


                There are a lot of low class people, and they need to be made of some use.

                Gender neutral language alert! There are a lot of low class men who must be made use of. Dharmic proles are good farmers, labourers, craftsmen and soldiers. Their women don’t need to do any of that. Prole men are built like oxen, have huge stamina and endurance, and can easily work enough to support a family of five (or ten). They, being proles, are emotionally vulnerable though, to progs as well as women — commonly taking to drink or drug abuse as a result of domestic unhappiness. The utmost duty of a prole woman is to serve her god (this is as the Dharma shastras say it, not my words) and make him happy and fit — she should know no other religion nor god. I, suones the Most Wise, scion of Manu (Mannus to German-speakers), proclaim that a shudra woman who serves her husband, and no other, honestly, will attain heaven easier than any ascetic or “sanyasin” delusional woman. If a woman derelicts that duty, verily I say, I will flay her alive and cast her flesh to the wolves. (Oops, Dravidian mode activated. Sorry lol.)

                Not every woman should need to work, but a considerable amount will.

                I already enumerated the conditions where women could work — in family farms/business, under the supervision of family men, and never for wages. This is the situation suitable for most Vaishya and Shudra women.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Gender neutral language because a significant number of women have always worked, as well as men. Therefore, people. I used gender neutral language because men who tend to start talking shit about the lower classes tend to start doing bad things to them.

                  Yes, it’s low class to have a working wife, but that just means that in order to accommodate the lower classes, we have to employ women where they are suited. Which is for a wage for the lower classes, supporting her husband’s trade for the middle classes, and working to improve the society for the upper classes. To each a place, according to their ability. That is hierarchy; that is right.

            • Karl says:

              Suones, you answer the question whether a man should allow his women to work. I agree with your response. Working wife is low status and only justified by dire poverty.

              A different question is for which jobs a man should consider hiring a woman. Jim gives a good list of jobs where hiring a woman won’t create severe problems.

              • suones says:

                Working wife is low status and only justified by dire poverty.

                A prole/shudra with a wife, living in dire poverty, is more an indictment of the evil system and King than the Shudra. As I mentioned earlier, proles are good farmers, craftsmen, labourers, and soldiers, which jobs should theoretically always be in demand. Yet they are beset by woman-problems, not money problems, which drive them into drink and drug abuse.

                Jim gives a good list of jobs where hiring a woman won’t create severe problems.

                And this is one of the points where Jim is unambiguously wrong. If you hire a woman for any job apart from charwoman/nanny/whore, you’re complicit in the destruction of Aryan society. Hire a man, and you support a family, hire a woman, and you destroy a family, the sin of which will destroy your own family as well, as so many “capitalists” find out. Specifically, Jim is wrong about female doctors, and generally about other jobs as well (unless under the supervision of family men, in family business, and not for wages).

                • The Cominator says:

                  Under current circumstances not everyone can live with the wife not working. Its an indictment of the system that most people can’t do so more than anything but its not a disgrace for the average man.

                  If your wife works as a personal trainer, masseuse, or god forbid a stripper (and maybe one should include actress among these) on the other hand you deserve to and probably will get regularly cucked. I don’t even think you can particularly blame the woman for it if she does so as you are allowing her to frequently put herself in sexually stimulating situations with guys who aren’t you.

                • Karl says:

                  Very good point. Any wrong we do has costs that must be paid later on.

                  I’ll now have lunch more often at the restaurant where the waitress is the wife of the cook, and less often at his competitors.

                • Aidan says:

                  It was traditional in the West for wives to work in their husbands own trade, under his supervision. It was common in the cities for a poorer man to sell his unmarried daughters’ labor, under the assumption that the man he was lending her to would keep her from wandering off to get banged. Hence the word ‘wench’, a very old word that meant ‘female wagie’.

                  For a married woman to work for another man is abominable. For an unmarried woman to work for another man is not too bad. Not ideal, but not awful. Will most likely end in her getting knocked up and shotgun married, but that is how the non-elite tended to reproduce back then.

          • polifugue says:

            > I would expect trouble to ensue with female doctors and female veterinarians, but inexplicably, it does not.

            Women are worse than their male counterparts in any profession, not to mention causing problems not only with their male but also their female customers and staff.

            Despite being a college-educated self-described feminist, my mother avoids seeing female doctors as often as possible. There were many instances in which she would set up an appointment with a equivalently-credentialed female doctor only to regret it afterwards. Worst are the female pediatrics, who would act in an unprofessional manner on account of her being a housewife.

            Women should be doctors, but only in fields that pertain to women, such as gynecology. Women in medicine is primarily affirmative action. At my medical center, setting up an appointment with the male dermatologist requires booking five months in advance, while the female dermatologist requires three weeks in advance.

            • suones says:

              Women should be doctors, but only in fields that pertain to women, such as gynecology.

              Oh my sweet summer child!

              Female gynecologists/obstetricians are glorified midwives. When the shit hits the fan, you call in the surgeon, who is reassuringly male.

          • Gedeon says:

            Female MDs = no
            Female nurse = go

            Female JD = no
            Female paralegal = go

            Female school administrator = no
            Female teacher = go

            Barmaid = go, but waitresses and hostesses are better
            Barista = go
            Physical therapist = 2x go

            Somehow I have not encountered veterinarians.

            Proverbs 31

            • The Cominator says:

              A grudging yes to female MDs, there have always been “wise women” thus female MDs (who are NOT surgeons) must be considered to be among their traditional professions and I see no reason to ban them from it entirely especially since female doctors do tend to get married. No female surgeons though.

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              >Female teacher = go

              Oh hell no. Maybe they’re OK for kindergarten and early elementary, but not beyond that. Don’t you recall how much better the male teachers were on average?

            • suones says:

              Female nurse, female legal clerk, female teacher work only on a very small scale.

              The MD’s wife can do nursing if it is a one-man rural practice, for example. Same with a one-man legal “firm” in a small town. Female teacher is workable if the students are all from her family (her own as well as extended). Another example is a waitress who’s the cook’s wife in a one-man diner. The point is — none of these women are hired for wages, and all of them serve under supervision of their husband.

              Not good under any other circumstances. Especially not in a hospital/law firm/school setting.

              Barmaid/barista/physio are fake jobs, one step away from whoredom (unless under husband’s supervision, of course).

              • The Cominator says:

                Female bartenders are very very hard to nail, this is not just from my autistic ass I’ve heard it from real alpha womanizing types. Too many hit on them and their status in their own work is too high. Female bartenders may possibly fuck their bar owner or maybe some like leader of a biker gang who comes to their bar but otherwise its pretty hard from what I understand. Waitresses and such are lower status you have a better shot but they also get hit on a lot and aren’t as easy as you might think. Yes my favorite group of women strippers get hit on a lot but tend to be frustrated nymphomaniacs who will escalate things to a certain point as part of their jobs anyway.

                The problem with female teachers is women exercising too much authority over children not theirs generally without enough alpha male oversight. Middle school teachers in particular tend to be extreme mental cases (I mean even for women) and stupid as well.

  36. Oog en Hand says:

    What is the red-pilled position on the Abduction of Dinah? Did her brothers, the Sons of Jacob, act in a blue-pilled manier?!

    • jim says:

      Dinah does not seem to have tried terribly hard to avoid being abducted and raped, and Jacob, in context presumably speaking for Gnon, rebukes Simeon and Levi for rescuing her in a startlingly bloodthirst and vilely treacherous fashion, which would seem to imply they should have married her off. Or at least done something considerably less drastic than what they did do.

      The fourth son of Jacob, Judah, receives Jacob’s blessing. His elder brothers miss out, presumably because they sinfully rescued Dinah in a spectacular display of totally over the top white knighting.

      The tribe of Judah traces real or mythical descent from Jacob’s fourth son Judah.

      So the biblical position implied by that story is, like my own: Don’t do that. Don’t rescue abducted women, unless, of course, she is providing you with sexual and reproductive services.

      • suones says:

        The fourth son of Jacob, Judah, receives Jacob’s blessing. His elder brothers miss out, presumably because they sinfully rescued Dinah in a spectacular display of totally over the top white knighting.

        😂 💯 I find it funny that so many of my criticisms of the Bible vanish under your interpretation. Also to be noted that you are the only one I’ve read who follows this interpretation, and it is heretical per almost any established church, high or low. A time may come when GNON may test you. Don’t shrink.

        So the biblical position implied by that story is, like my own: Don’t do that. Don’t rescue abducted women, unless, of course, she is providing you with sexual and reproductive services.

        In case of what to do if they actually do abduct a woman providing you with sexual and reproductive services, read up on Temujin’s daring rescue of his (lawfully-arranged-marriage) wife Borte — a very traumatic event that catalysed his embrace of his destiny to become Genghis the Great Khan.

        Also relevant: Sri Rama’s rescue of his (lawfully-arranged-marriage) wife Sita from Ravana, travelling across India from his Kingdom of Ayodhya in the North to Lanka beyond the southern tip (which is its own “country” now), cutting a path of destruction throughout, culminating in the burning and sack of the whole capital city of Lanka.

        • someDude says:

          Thought exercise for you, my dear Suones. Please re-interpret Lord Rama asking Lady Sita to undergo the Agni-Pariksha (trial-by-fire) to prove her chastity for the duration of her imprisonment. Please re-interpret it in a fashion that is GNon-compliant!

          Then I am also curious about your re-interpetation of Lord Rama banishing Lady Sita on the hearsay from some commoner (Barber was it?) in his kingdom.

          I’m sick of hearing Feminists/progressive/missionary zealots criticising Lord Rama on this count and Bhakts defending him with the most idiotic arguments. Defense that is so poor that it’s worse than the condemnation. This might be the title of a new blog post for you

          • suones says:

            Not going to do it. Unlike the West, where the Established religion is itself cucked, Hindu present isn’t (but is fighting a losing battle, admittedly).

            Any Leftist “criticising” Sri Rama is not doing so from the point of view of achieving a better understanding, but is merely using a rhetorical tool to bait us. “Bhakts” defending Him, OTOH, are swine right (which I mentioned in earlier posts), which are not my cup of tea, but are very effective at fighting SJWs through sheer perseverance.

            Just like I admonish any criticism of Hitler or National “Socialism” as useless wankery until the critic can protect the small TV shop from being looted by Marxist (or Prog) thugs, similarly I don’t countersignal Bhakts because they are the ones who actually fight in the streets when it matters.

            Sri Hari Himself knows how I long for a critical appraisal of the Ramayana in its various forms, to study the original Valmiki under a wise Sanskritist, but that is not to be until after we’ve established Hindustan.

            Till then, my only reply is: Jai Shree Ram! (Victory to Lord Ram!)

            I would just advise you to watch the fireworks. 🙂

            • I agree with your principle. The Hindutva right in India is not exactly red pilled but they’re the best we’ve got in our fight against the Progs and the traditional Marxists alike at the moment (unlike the West the traditional Commie non-prog Left is still alive here, though in a depleted form) they’ve mostly won the battle against the old leftists but fighting the progs require a different approach and strategy which can only work if the underlying values are red pilled and based.

        • someDude says:

          Oh and there is another one. Please also re-interpret in a Gnon compliant fashion the slaying of Shambhuka the Shudra ascetic by Lord Rama.

          Somehow the Ramayana seems to have way more red-pill truths in it in comparison to the Mahabharata

          Maybe a series of posts on the red-pill truths in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata? You don’t write about contemporary Indian politics anyway. Maybe this is something you can sink your teeth into? Maybe you could do for the Hindu epics what Jim is doing for Christianity?

          Think Big, my friend. Be our Hernando Cortez. Shoot for Freedom, Immortality and the Stars.

          • suones says:

            Leaving aside the whole question of Shambuka’s caste, 1) he was engaged in austerity and penance to gain spiritual power to conquer heaven and subdue the gods (which he readily confessed to Sri Ram), and 2) his powers were of the destructive variety as even in the initial stages of his ascendance he had caused the death of a child by absorbing his life force (which life force returned to the child after Sri Rama decapitated Shambuka).

            Considering that Sri Ram had just returned from fighting a hugely destructive war against rakshasas who had gained spiritual powers through tapasya and promptly put those powers to evil use, he simply nipped this new evil in the bud.

            Caste agitators deliberately misinterpret this incident as evidence for “persecution” of Shudras, despite there being several rishis who were born as Shudras but attained Brahmin-hood within their lifetimes. Even the composer of Ramayana, Maharishi Valmiki himself, certainly a Brahmin by any definition, was of low-birth according to many sources.

            In summary: Lord Rama killed evildoers, Brahmin (Ravana) and Shudra (Shambuka) alike.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Note the priestly nature of Levi. Simeon got obliterated…

      • jewgasser1488 says:

        The Hitlerist perspective, which is to say the correct perspective, is that her genes and her reproductive services are the property of the Nation and not to be co-opted by subhuman aliens. If a woman is abducted, that is theft from the Nation and from the Nation’s men who might have taken her for a wife, and if you fail to punish such behavior you will get more of it. It is an absolute requirement that the woman escape of her own volition and determination that she may have one of her countrymen – by definition superior to the abductor by any standard – for a mate. If it is physically impossible for her to do so, she must be retrieved by her countrymen, using whatever force is appropriate to discourage a repetition of such acts by foreigners. If she can be demonstrated to have cooperated with the abuctor in any circumstance where it was not absolutely required to do so for her continued health and existence, she must be killed as a traitor. Any children from such a pairing must especially be hunted down and exterminated.

        Willing outbreeding is an exception; if a foreign candidate can be found whose genes are of the high standard demanded by the Nation, and if the woman and her family are willing, then the match may be permitted. The 90/10 rule should be the general guideline: only the top 10% of the population of the foreign nation in question should be considered for such matches, and no more than 10% of the Nation’s women may be permitted to outbreed.

        Rape is about sex and reproduction, not power. If you permit a child of rape to be born and grow to adulthood you have rewarded rape. If you reward a behavior you get more of it. Any child conceived in rape must be killed – preferably aborted; but under no circumstances can it be permitted to become adult. This is absolute.

        In many ways, modern leftist society has adopted certain Hitlerist principles, without explicitly acknowledging so. Nominal Christians are the primary opposition, but hardly any of them actually follow their own teachings fully, and their children are deserting the religion in droves. People simply don’t believe Christianity anymore, no more so than the Romans of Julian’s time took the old gods seriously. Dead gods are not resurrectable, and cargo cult larping the old social forms of a dead religion will not make people believe.

        But everybody believes in Adolf Hitler.

        • The Cominator says:

          Fuckoff wignat fed.

          • jim says:

            Not seeing “wignatism”.

            Also, wignat is an enemy word. No enemies to the right.

            What leads you to conclude he is a fed?

            Feds always put a blue pill spin on stuff, partly because they actually are blue pilled, partly because Human Resources is looking over their shoulder. This guy is red pilled.

            Feds are unresponsive, because someone else wrote their script. This guy is responsive.

            The only thing wrong with him is touch of National Socialism. By all means push back on his socialism, that is attacking him from the right. You are attacking him from the left.

            We want to privatize women, not socialize them. Socializing woman is likely to lead to the same problems as socialized housing. The problem with socialized housing is that if a man does not own his house, he does not own his wife and children. If the state owns his woman, rather than his house, the man is cucked by a higher alpha. High alphas should not do that. Lose loyalty.

            No enemies to the right. What is wrong with National Socialists is their socialism, not their nationalism. Socialism failed. Failed for Hitler, failed for everyone. In the middle of the war, Hitler ran out of other people’s money. The crisis of socialism hit right as he was starting the advance into Russia. Socialism works great, until loot and burn suddenly stops being a useful approach to logistics. The allies were victorious, because the crisis of socialism did not hit them until after the war, or, in the case of America, just as the war was ending.

            • The Cominator says:

              I generally see wignats being used to describe these people on our side. Just my experience…

              Nazis/fascist/evil nazi fascist racist etc is how the enemy describes them.

              • jim says:

                To call someone a wignat is to attack him from the left.

                And we are seeing no end of shills arguing that socialism is actually right wing, because nationalism and Hitler. “Wignat” plays into their frame.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “To call someone a wignat is to attack him from the left.”

                  But if its never used that way (I’ve no knowledge of a leftist using the term ever) is it? Maybe it is on Gab but I’m not on Gab.

                  Fednat is a good term but it needs to be popularlized, what derogatory name should we use for these people?

                • jim says:

                  I search for people calling themselves wignat on Gab (because it is easier to do that than searching for people calling other people wignats). All appear to be shills, at least at a casual glance.

                  Of course that is not what you asked for, and fails to be evidence for my claim, but it is suggestive.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well it does sort of fall into the technical category of what I said but when people call OTHER people wignats in the deragatory sense its always people on the far right who are not national socialists attacking national socialists. I’ve never seen a leftist use the term to attack these people from the left.

                  That shills are using the term to describe themselves as a point of pride in shilling I think in fact bolsters my view…

                • Pooch says:

                  This is a good video of displaying what self-described “wignats” believe:


                  Ultimately, it comes down to an argument on the right of what the cohesive religion is: White racial identity vs Christianity

                  Hitler’s problem was that he was a socialist yes, but he was a socialist because his cohesive religion was Aryan identity, not Christianity.

                • jim says:

                  Over the past two millennia, we have had great success in creating cohesive identities on the basis of Christianity.


                • Pooch says:

                  Summed up in a nutshell…

                  Baked Alaska: We can not do this without god at the center. If god is not the purpose, than what the fuck are we even doing this for?

                  Wignat: Our people.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hitler’s religion was not white but Nordic and closely related to Nordic Europeans. The nation of Germany was just a proxy to domination of Europe and eventual world domination (the world thing was not to be in Hitler’s lifetime though the Nazis did not plan to attack the Americas anytime soon)… Hitler was not really a nationalist in that sense. That is why the modern wignats are not even real Nazis either generally…

                  Saying our people is not in itself wignat and not all far rightists are christians, but believing there is a cohesive white identity that could live in utopian socialist harmony if we got rid of the jews is wignat.

                • Pooch says:

                  Jim is probably right, the label of “wignat” is not all the useful. What is useful is discussing a viable reactionary religion.

                  Looks to me those arguing for the national socialist/hitler/aryan identity/Nietzsche/whatever you want to call it religion fail the woman question and are thus blue or purple-pilled.

                  For that, old type Christians are correct to attack them from the right.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Until fednat is popularized we need a put down of these people so I will keep calling them wignats…

                  I would not lump belief in Nietzche (who loathed socialism) with wignattism either. Hitler’s favorite not strictly political philosopher wasn’t Nietzche anyway it was Schopenhauer.

                  But I like Schopenhauer too, Schopenhauer was incredibly based on women and lots of other things. The problem with Hitler is he was far more influenced by Marx than he let on.

                • jim says:

                  When I see someone who sounds like someone you are calling a wignat, I attempt to engage them on socialism and the woman question.

                  Usually they refuse to engage on the woman question, dodging the premise of the question, which evasion reveals them to be a shill, though they will eagerly talk socialism all day long.

                  If male and HR is not looking over your shoulder, you will talk about women, rather than socialism.

                  So, shill works better than wignat. “Wignat” shoots right. “Shill” shoots left.

                  Jewgasser1488 may well have been a shill. If you suspected shilling, should have called him a shill and engaged him on the “rape” question, which likely would have revealed a blue pill thinly disguised as a red pill, and inability to talk about the things you cannot talk about when HR is looking over one’s shoulder.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Wignats generally think white women are good pure but naive and weak Victorian creatures led astray by jewish mind control rays.

                  Now media and “education” mind control rays (which have jews involved but are not as jewish as they say) fucking up women are a real thing but not the way they say they are.

                • jim says:

                  Blue pill. And a reliable shill tell.

                  Women have always been women. The mind control rays are huge problem, but they are not the problem. Many an emperor with a thousand conservatively raised concubines and unquestioned authority to execute any one of them or all of them for any reason or no reason has had woman troubles, and many an empire has died of women troubles.

                  The Victorians attempted to control woman by going all in on culture, giving up on outright coercion, failed catastrophically.

                • alf says:

                  I like ‘white identity’ as what defines a wignat. Makes it understandable why the bulk is shills – shilling around race issues is easy. ‘Gas the kikes, amirite fellow wignat?’

                  But there’s a significant portion of non-shill wignats too. Heartiste and John Rivers on gab are examples imo. And their content isn’t bad per se. I think the problem is just that organizing around whiteness doesn’t work, of most charitably, there is no successful history of organizing around whiteness.

                  So since they are rowing up hill, they take all the help they can get. Their biggest shtick seems to be racial resentment, which I guess is the most effective. It’s just that it’s… ugly. Just a never ending stream of hatefacts. I mean, I *know* the Jews do a lot of evil priesting, I *know* blacks are much like plains apes. You don’t need to shove it in my face everyday. There’s much more stylish ways to do it. But if whiteness is your rallying flag, I guess you have to be crude like that.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Heartiste has become nearly worthless since adopting wignattism. Hes not a shill but his mind is occupied by useless left wing shill bullshit. At least Anglin (who seems somewhat aware that there is a flaw in the wignat world view that he can’t quite identify) is funny…

                  Yes we all know about race on the far right but its not the only thing in the universe.

                  And yes I know the mind control rays are only part of the problem. Women with no coercion and no mind control rays act more like Asian and Russian women… they would have the NATURAL vices and faults of unowned women. They would not be pure at all… and eugenic fertility would still be bad. But it would be much much more pleasant for men.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And their content isn’t bad per se. I think the problem is just that organizing around whiteness doesn’t work, of most charitably, there is no successful history of organizing around whiteness.”

                  And yes precisely because its not a real identity anyone organically identifies with so it cannot work. That is why the federal government continually promotes wignattism (on the far right) and also extreme hatred of anything that smells like wignattism.

                  Wignattism is a cancer on the far right because it prevents a real effective opposition from growing. Cuckservatives are the other end of the scale.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  There is no such thing as wignattism, there is fednattism, and calling fednattism wignattism confuses the issue.

                  >Until fednat is popularized

                  Fednat is popularized by properly using fednat and not another term for fednats because fednats are fednats and not calling fednats fednats confuses the issue.

                  The world changes starting with you.

                • Pooch says:

                  Anglin (who seems somewhat aware that there is a flaw in the wignat world view that he can’t quite identify) is funny…

                  Anglin smartly pivoted to Christianity. When Spencer went fed (he may have always been fed) that was pretty much the end of white identity being a serious organizing movement on the right.

                • jim says:

                  Actual Nazis are coming around to our position. Nobody left but the shills.

                  National Socialism was a German movement. Trump’s national capitalism was an authentic American movement, but Trump chickened out when the time came to become Caesar. Now: The faith of Gnon, with Old type Christianity, as explained for modern red pilled people in terms of game theory

                • Pooch says:

                  Trump chickened out when the time came to become Caesar.

                  In hindsight, it was ridiculous and absurd to think a merchant/politician with no military experience could ever become Caesar. Our Caesar necessarily will be an active-duty officer who commands 1000+ loyal warriors

            • Pooch says:

              I am surprised you did not criticize him for being blue-pilled on rape.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          >determination that she may have one of her countrymen – by definition superior to the abductor by any standard – for a mate.


          >It is an absolute requirement that the woman escape of her own volition


          Rape is an antique word for taking another man’s property. Contemporary society is currently engaging in a collective orgy of universal mass rape 24/7, through ‘female emancipation’ – which is a contemporary phrase for the stealing of property (the women) from all husbands and fathers everywhere.

        • suones says:

          Dead gods are not resurrectable,…

          That is not dead which can eternal lie,
          And with strange æons even death may die.

          But everybody believes in Adolf Hitler.

          Sieg Heil!

        • suones says:

          If a woman is abducted, that is theft from the Nation and from the Nation’s men who might have taken her for a wife, and if you fail to punish such behavior you will get more of it. It is an absolute requirement that the woman escape of her own volition and determination that she may have one of her countrymen – by definition superior to the abductor by any standard – for a mate. If it is physically impossible for her to do so, she must be retrieved by her countrymen, using whatever force is appropriate to discourage a repetition of such acts by foreigners. If she can be demonstrated to have cooperated with the abuctor in any circumstance where it was not absolutely required to do so for her continued health and existence, she must be killed as a traitor.

          This is as near a summary of the Ramayana as possible. This man is a based and redpilled Aryan.

  37. emperor julian says:

    Looking at the arguments in this thread, it seems pretty obvious that no new state religion is going to get anywhere if it is shackled to the Bible.

    The Old Testament is too vague, and though its myths and stories are beautiful, it’s annoying and troublesome to have to reinterpret them allegorically. The main reason it survived for so long as anything more than an impressive, curious work of literature is because until the maturation of natural science most Europeans more or less believed that the Old Testament contained the early history of the world. None of us, of course, believe that anymore. And if the Old Testament is nothing more than a mythical poem which, like Homer and Dante, nevertheless contains many profound truths, then we can’t use it as a holy book.

    As for the New Testament, though Jim’s interpretation of Jesus as a political reformer and voice of sanity is interesting, it’s obvious that a majority of the New Testament is not about establishing law or custom at all, but is more like a spiritual palliative for all the tired, oppressed peoples of the Greco-Roman world. We never hear Jim talking about sin, pity, the inherent wickedness of the world, or the “salvation of the soul”, even though those were the primary religious concerns of the early Christians. And the only way to actually reestablish real Christianity and impress it on the minds of the people would be to have priests teach these (I would argue) harmful doctrines. Also, the same difficulty applies to the New Testament as the Old Testament in that many of its assertions have been rendered unbelievable by developments in natural science and philology, and if we take them allegorically we make it much easier to twist the text.

    You might argue that you can just have a Church explain away the difficulties, impose interpretations, and defend unprincipled exceptions (as churches have historically done), but a Church can’t have any authority if nobody believes in Christianity in the first place.

    So I think that the new state religion, whenever it comes, is much more likely to be a philosophical system with, at most, a subdued and subordinate supernatural element. Like Confucianism or Platonism.

    • jim says:


      The primary value of the bible is that it is a record, our best record, of the working social technology of bronze age civilization and greco roman civilization before their decadence.

      Old Testament does contain the early history of the world, sort of.

      Thus, for example, the first city, according to the bible, was ruled by King High Priest who was a mighty hunter, and built a tower. We know know that the first cities were built around a religious gathering point, and relied on hunters and gatherers for their food supplies, that agriculture came after cities, not before cities. So, just as the books of Conan give you a more realistic feel for early history than they dare give you in university, the Bible gives you a decent feel for early history. The retreat of the Israelites before the chariots of the Pharaoh does reflect the actual battles of the tribe of Dan with the Pharaoh. They would retreat to places where there was ground that was bad for chariots, and take advantage of that ground for maneuver.

      But, no one should be reading the Bible as history and geography anyway, for reasons that Saint Augustine pointed out long before the rise of modern science. That is not what it is about. And, by and large, people did not read it as geography and history. Have not done so for two millennia.

      Some of the gospels put the last supper on Passover, one of them puts the crucifixion on Passover. This is not necessarily a discrepancy, since the last supper reflected the Essene rites, and the Essenes observed the old Calendar, while the Pharisees who had Jesus crucified observed the new Calendar, but discrepancy or not, no one worried about it or tried very hard to explain it for two millennia. You don’t need modern science to realize that the Bible does not even try to make sense as history and geography.

      Almost all the gospels were written before the fall of the temple, so the crucifixion was within living memory. If it is not a discrepancy, no one could be bothered to say which calendar they were using, nor should they have been bothered. It is not a history book, and no one with half a brain and no axe to grind ever thought that it was.

      The protestant sola scriptura sects tended to holiness spiral by treating it as a history book, but that is not Christian tradition, that is a heresy.

      • suones says:

        The primary value of the bible is that it is a record, our best record, of the working social technology of bronze age civilization and greco roman civilization before their decadence.

        This statement is false and misleading. Here’s the corrected version:

        The primary value of the bible is that it is a record, our best record, of the working social technology of bronze age Jewish civilization and greco roman civilization before their decadence.

        You give too much credence to what some ancient Jews said, and too little to what Aryan Fathers (presumably) said. As an example, the tale of the Tower of Babel is told in the Bible from exactly the reverse of what actually might’ve happened, with the destruction of the tower representing Jewish fear of the Other more than anything.

        The peak of accomplishment of the longest-surviving Old Testament civilisation (Jewry) is but a molehill compared to the civilisation of Jupiter and Apollo. Even the contemporary Egyptian, Hittite, Chinese and Indus civilisations were demostrably superior to the Testamenters with their mobile gods and goat herding tribes.

        • jim says:

          No one knows what the Aryan fathers said. Our best records are those of India, which are contaminated by Dravidian demon worship. But it does sound somewhat suggestive of what is claimed that the patriarchs Abraham and Israel said.

          Further, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Christian civilization built empire, and then created science and industrialization.

          Now you may well say “because they were white’. OK. True enough. So let us reflect on what happened with white pagans versus white Christians. Christianity won by conquest, because Christian white elites cooperated more successfully than pagan white elites. There is no ancient white religion to raise from the dead in place of Christianity. Today’s white pagans are a bunch of witches and sodomites.

      • suones says:

        So, just as the books of Conan give you a more realistic feel for early history than they dare give you in university, the Bible gives you a decent feel for early history.

        Bible gives early Israelite history, Conan gives proto-Aryan history. Big difference. Robert E Howard must’ve had Divine inspiration, and was called early to the gods as reward for his accomplishment (Apotheosis). It is a very apt comparison. Reading Conan books as religious texts is surprisingly potent, and many a “Christian” has been swayed by them. The most recent example being John C Wright, who started a critical re-appraisal of Conan devoid of SJW prejudice, but, in his writing, started going into raptures before he abruptly stopped the series. Even the movies drop megatons of redpills every other scene, a fact that was noticed by Hollywood Jews (both makers and critics) who have subsequently spent decades maligning and belittling them. Crom is a powerful god.

        The retreat of the Israelites before the chariots of the Pharaoh does reflect the actual battles of the tribe of Dan with the Pharaoh. They would retreat to places where there was ground that was bad for chariots, and take advantage of that ground for maneuver.

        Not unlike the Taliban goatherders fighting Russian T-72s, products of a demonstrably superior civilisation. In both cases, Jews are present to glorify the sheer inferiority of the goatherders, once in the Bible, the other time in Hollywood. The only reason Pharaoahs didn’t kill all Israelites is because they were butting into Assyrian territory and pursuing goatherders was not worth risking a war with the Assyrians. Same applies to Russia and the Jihadis — not worth risking war with the Anglo Empire.

        PS: Taliban are the mirror image of France — ethnic Aryans (Indo-Hellenes) LARPing as Semites and pretending to worship Semitic gods, receiving their cursed “bounty.”

    • suones says:

      @emperor julian

      Nice nickname. Please tell us what you propose. What gods do you worship? I’m asking because it is easy to shit on Christianity while it is now weak, and most who shit on Jimian Christianity actually have no concrete alternative, but are closeted Leftists. Live up to your namesake, Julian the Faithful. Tell us, what is your alternative?

    • alf says:

      So I think that the new state religion, whenever it comes, is much more likely to be a philosophical system with, at most, a subdued and subordinate supernatural element. Like Confucianism or Platonism.

      nuts (hehe)

      The power of a religion is that it is law made by traceable men. It links us to our ancestors, to our history. Philosophy was once considered a subset of reasoning under Christ, but since it did away with Christ, it did away with our ancestors and became a poisoned well. Philosophy is an unnatural replacement, as evident in the names, which they call by the movement, not the man behind the movement. It is nihilism, not Nietzschiism, or blank slatism, not Lockism.

      Well you mention Confucianism and Platonism, which are called by the name. Confucianism has a decent success rate in China I understand, but what has it done for white men? Has Platonism been successfully adopted anywhere? Platonism, from my limited understanding, has only been successful in the West insofar it has been adopted by the Christian church. Finally, what has Christianity done for us? Well, a great deal. Whatever you make of the Jews, they gave us some damn fine social technology, and it worked wonders for our ancestors.

      It is true that the Old and New Testament, while full of wisdom, requires some authoritative interpretation that clear up misinterpretation by bad people. For instance, Jesus said it is easier for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle than for rich people to enter the kingdom of heaven, which bad people interpret as saying that capitalism is evil. However, Jesus also said that a good man invests his money wisely and increases, while a bad man does not, thus concluding that capitalism is good.

      Clearing up such loopholes is important, but tricky. We must not overdo it. To do away with our ancestors’ wisdom is a very high risk. Much better to respect it, and work within those lines. And so far, those lines seem to point towards Jimian Christianity.

    • Gedeon says:

      The Old Testament is transactional with Leviticus, scapegoat sacrifices and less walk by faith. The New Testament is about self-sacrifice (to god), faith and looking forward to a better future: salvation

      Romans 8

      The self-sacrifice has been perverted by utopianists to mean you should suffer (not for Christ) for anyone. I relate to it like investing is forgoing present consumption for a greater return in the long run. Planting a crop, tending it and harvesting it is hard work.

      I agree with Jim on the spirit being significant, but I also don’t try to wade into the weeds with respect to natural science. Maybe it is my background in software, but the system we know as Windows did not spontaneously evolve from an electron. Nor did Windows evolve from bytecode or even basic. There was a system architect who integrated various bodies of code that became a functional operating system. If physics is the source code of the Universe, I am open to the idea that the system could have been booted in any configuration the architect wanted.

      I don’t play command and conquer, for example, and quibble with how the Tiberium came to be because I contextual the experience as software and the game would have no market if I had to build it from an electron each time for the publisher. I just harvest the tiberium, build the base and train some units to try and destroy the opponent’s base because that is the only way to play the game. There is no moralizing of any of it.

      I don’t believe priests should answer every dumb question, but many try and that is the booger.

      Matthew 7:6

  38. polifugue says:

    Thoughts on the fifth book of the Code of Justinian?

    In particular, the issues addressed by Justinian himself (Ctrl+F “Justinian”) and in chapter four.

    • jim says:

      Not really

      Mostly he is regulating people’s status, which is complicated, messy, and no one ever speaks entirely plainly when addressing such matters, making his regulations hard to interpret. Difficult to say what is actually happening, and what is the intended effect.

      Mostly it seems to be about people wanting their children to inherit their status, and he does not want an oversupply of people with higher status.

      He seems to be legally creating a requirement for female consent, against a society that frequently does not give it much weight at all.

      He also seems to be legally creating a class of independent empowered women, on the assumption that they will swiftly marry and get out of that class, which does not work in practice, because women always want to be taken out of that class by a man strong enough to take them out against their resistance.

      But, since people never speak plainly about sex and status, hard to understand what is actually happening. There is always a large disconnect between formal laws about sex and status, and what is in fact done.

    • Aidan says:

      Should be noted that Byzantine fertility was very poor- the population never recovered after the black plague. I do not see Eastern Rome as a model for us. Looks to me like it was rotten, and continued on inertia for a very long time simply on account of having poor enemies, who nevertheless picked it apart slowly. Christianity failed to establish a cooperative elite in Constantinople, where palace intrigue and civil war were so common that they became synonymous with Byzantium itself.

      • JonnyBeGood says:

        I remember reading about the description of the men of Constantinople by a visiting Frankish lord about a century or two before it’s conquest. He described them as behaving like women.

      • The Cominator says:

        The Eastern Empire had very poor strategic position and was in a constant state of total war and they lasted almost 1000 years after the fall of the Western Empire. I think its a criminally underrated civilization. I’m pretty sure their peasant fertility is hard to establish… they may well have had poor fertility in places like Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria because urban.

        They must have gotten some things right.

        • jim says:

          As I said “He (Justinian) seems to be legally creating a requirement for female consent, against a society that frequently does not give it much weight at all.”

          Reading between the lines of Justinian’s code, I conjecture that what happened is that if a female was assigned to a man, and disobeyed because she wanted to run off with the wedding singer (who looks more alpha to the female lizard brain, because everyone is looking at the wedding singer, and no one is looking at the bridegroom) she got whipped by her husband and/or her patriarch, and if she appealed to the local authorities on the grounds of lack of consent to marriage, got more of the same, but as the appeals got closer and closer to Constantinople and to the emperor, she was more and more likely to prevail.

          Digressing on how to conduct a big wedding: An entertainer is fine, but the groom at some point has to casually and disruptively wander into the entertainer’s space and demonstrate to the female lizard brain that he is in charge. Similarly, you are the master of ceremonies, and if anyone else is MCing, you have to demonstrate to the female lizard brain that he is merely your assistant. It is your party, your space, all the males there must treat you as situational alpha, alpha because you are the host, your roof, your food, your booze, your rules. The female lizard brain does not understand or care about the difference between situational alpha and ultimate alpha, which is why entertainers get so much pussy.

          • The Cominator says:

            So I would tend to guess that this requirement for female consent was enforced in the big cities with low fertility (Constantinople Alexandria Antioch especially) and probably barely known about in the countryside where presumably fertility was higher.

        • suones says:

          …they lasted almost 1000 years after the fall of the Western Empire.

          A whale’s carcass takes a looooong time to rot away. Doesn’t make it any less dead or rotten. A good depiction of late-stage Byzantium is found in the Turkish series Ertugrul. Of course, there the proto-Ottomans are very saintly (and curiously worship Baphomet right from the start, and have no Aryan roots), but the depiction of Byzantium as a den of scum and villainy is spot on.

          • The Cominator says:

            A whales carcass doesn’t hold up under conditions of unending total war in horrible strategic position.

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              The Byzantines folded like a lawnchair as soon as the crusaders got a tiny beachhead inside their walls. This was despite their vastly superior numbers, well-fortified defensive position, and arguably superior weaponry. It sure smells like they were a buffet for the hagfishes by 1200 AD.

              • The Cominator says:

                1200 was over 700 years from the fall of the empire in the west.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Fair enough, but it is around the time of Ertugrul (a fairly watchable show, and better than Hollywood’s mind-poison, but surprisingly I have better things to do than watch 150 episodes of it).

        • polifugue says:

          At first the Code of Justinian appears to be a continuation of Pagan Roman proto-feminism. For example, almost the entire section of law against ward marriage comes from Pagan emperors.

          However, upon discovering Anna Komnene, a Byzantine princess who documented her father Alexios I Komnenos and his battles agains the Turks and Normans, there does not seem to be any problems. She married at thirteen and had six children, while her mother married at eleven and had nine children.

          Seems Pagan Roman policy on women was in law but ignored in practice.

          Her documentation of the fight against the Normans and Turks illustrates the Byzantines being exhausted of soldiers after the loss of Anatolia. The Byzantines defeated the Normans by hiring Turkish mercenaries.

          Fighting the Arabs, Bulgars, Slavs, Normans, and Turks eventually exhausted the Byzantine warrior caste. When Anatolia collapsed the empire could no longer muster home-grown soldiers and relied on mercenaries. The empire disintegrated from within and was eventually subdued by the Ottomans.

          • jim says:

            > seems Pagan Roman policy on women was in law but ignored in practice.

            That was what I suspected from reading the code – sounded like progressive debased law feebly pushing back on a reactionary based society.

          • suones says:

            …eventually exhausted the Byzantine warrior caste.

            This is why maintaining high Kshatriya fertility is extremely important, even permitting drastic measures.

            Legend has it that once Sri Maharaj Prabhakarvardhan’s Armies finished off the invading Huns, his heir Sri Maharaj Harshavardhan was faced with a dire shortage of Kshatriyas to induc into his Army. He took the drastic steps of temporarily legalising polygamy for warriors and took more than a hundred wives himself, including young childless widows of dead soldiers. The demographic shortage was thus replenished within a generation.

  39. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    Each year, Moltke selected the best twelve graduates from the Kriegsakademie for his personal training as General Staff officers. They attended theoretical studies, annual manoeuvres, “war rides” (a system of tactical exercises without troops in the field) under Moltke himself, and war games and map exercises known as Kriegsspiele.[20][21] Although these officers subsequently alternated between regimental and staff duties, they could be relied upon to think and act exactly as Moltke had taught them when they became the Chiefs of Staff of major formations. Moltke himself referred to them as the “nervous system” of the Prussian Army. In the victories which the Prussian Army was to gain against Austrian Empire and France, Moltke needed only to issue brief directives to the main formations, leaving the staffs at the subordinate headquarters to implement the details according to the doctrines and methods he had laid down, while the Supreme Commands of his opponents became bogged down in a mountain of paperwork and trivia as they tried to control the entire army from a single overworked headquarters.[22]

    From the playing fields of Eton, to the battle fields of Waterloo; effective organizations come from effective broderbonds; and effective broderbonds come from men who have a a history of working together as a team at something.

    >The General Staff reformed by Moltke was the most effective in Europe, an autonomous institution dedicated solely to the efficient execution of war, unlike in other countries, whose staffs were often fettered by meddling courtiers, parliaments and government officials.

    Unlike in other countries, whose frequently aristocratic warriors were often subject to intrusions of totalizing managerialism by frequently demotist priests.

    • suones says:

      The General Staff reformed by Moltke was the most effective in Europe, an autonomous institution dedicated solely to the efficient execution of war,…

      Preparing Kshatriyas exclusively for war leading to good results.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        There are a number of dynamics at play, such as explicitly validating (warrior) virtues as high status for advancement in a (warrior) organization (

        The part i wanted to highlight though, is that Moltke could have been recruiting from the von’s polo club, and gotten similar results in the long run; because good organizations come from having a group of men with history working together as a team for the accomplishment of something; from having men capable of such a thing.

        • suones says:

          … explicitly validating (warrior) virtues as high status for advancement in a (warrior) organization…

          This is as it should be. There are four ways to display status — through knowledge, through martial prowess, through wealth, and through ostentation. A man does not choose the way, his nature chooses for him. If a man values knowledge above all else, he’s a Brahmin and shows status through eloquence. If he’s martially inclined he becomes a soldier/Kshatriya and shows status through victory in battle. If money-minded, he’s a Vaishya and shows status through accumulation of wealth. If he likes gaudy trinkets and has time-preference unsuited for any of the above, he’s a Shudra and works just enough to afford the shiny stuff he likes — becoming a salaryman under any of the other three.

          None of this is esoteric lore, it is as the Dharma Shastras tell us, and it is how it is in reality.

          …good organizations come from having a group of men with history working together as a team for the accomplishment of something; from having men capable of such a thing.

          A good Brahminical organisation cannot generate a good Army[1], nor can a good Army generate good wealth[2]. I would phrase it in the reverse — to perform a task, first you identify the men capable of the thing, then you build an organisation around their definition of status.

          [1]: Priest dominated societies perish for this reason.
          [2]: This is the lesson I draw from Xenophon — an Army must convince Vaishyas to supply them — for they are masters at production and logistics and soldiers can never do as good a job at logistics. Priests convince everybody to support the Army.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            The conditioning mechanism is also the selection mechanism. When the young Duke of Wellington and his peers were in boarding school, they spent their time playing football and other sports. And when the time came for the Hundred Days, it was simply a matter of transplanting the mannerbund from one context to the next.

            Absolutely one should have men with character adaptive towards the task(s) they should accomplish; should have men whose character is of an alike kind to each other, that they may achieve higher levels of harmonic work with less ‘interpolation’ necessary to fashion accord; but when you have a problem, and your first step is ‘lets put together a team’, you are several steps behind to begin with.

            The modern condition is typified by atomization. No one man can grow roots with any other men. His life, from cradle to grave, is a consistent slide show of being shuffled from space to space. He is shuffled from parents and neighbors to child prisons. He is shuffled within child prisons from figure to figure, isolated from any cross generational contact. He is shuffled from one child prison to other child prisons. He is shuffled from child prisons to temples of demon worship, to receive a mark of the beast, necessary for recognition in the society it dominates. In turn, that mark is used to shuffle him yet elsewhere in the world, for some abstract ‘career’, with some abstract organization.

            More meaningful levels of communication, relevant to the edification of a man in particular, the conduction of civilization in general, are rendered impossible, because those who might need so communicate are preempted from learning each other. Each and all collectively stuck on step one, using english, but speaking different languages. A society full of strangers.

            The Human Resources paradigm says, ‘let us digest the whole population through the Central Clearing Institution, so we can find The Best Qualified Persons for building a team’.

            The Civilized paradigm says, ‘the team already exists, seed crystals from which whole sapphires may be grown’.

            • The Cominator says:

              “The modern condition is typified by atomization. No one man can grow roots with any other men. His life, from cradle to grave, is a consistent slide show of being shuffled from space to space. He is shuffled from parents and neighbors to child prisons. He is shuffled within child prisons from figure to figure, isolated from any cross generational contact. He is shuffled from one child prison to other child prisons. He is shuffled from child prisons to temples of demon worship, to receive a mark of the beast, necessary for recognition in the society it dominates. In turn, that mark is used to shuffle him yet elsewhere in the world, for some abstract ‘career’, with some abstract organization.”

              Great fucking post… since Jim quotes his best stuff sometimes this should definitely go into one of his articles.

            • jim says:

              > ‘let us digest the whole population through the Central Clearing Institution, so we can find The Best Qualified Persons for building a team’.

              Observe what happened to furniture when enforceable apprenticeship ended.

              Schooling is simply a piss poor way of teaching people to produce stuff that is not easy to produce. Knowledge gets lost.

              If you rely on school to teach engineering, all the graduates know is professoring.

              This deserves a post, but it will be a while.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                I remember in college an engineering professor once “joked” in a lecture that more engineering goes into the design of a commercial capacitor than all the stuff you’re going to learn here in school. The class laughed, but of course he was serious.

            • alf says:

              Hence the eternal complaint of millenials that ‘staying in touch’ takes more effort than it’s worth. Of course, from one atom to another atom, you just don’t care that much. It’s only in a larger, ehh, ‘molecular’ context that you start to care, and even though larger groups naturally arise, modernity does its utmost best to destroy them. At which modernity is decently good at — modern men are generally forced to work for strangers to earn a living. Also, groups must be mixed, and just like on a ship the presence of women on equal footing curses the group.

              A group of men who can help each other for the rest of their lives must know one another for a long time, gone through hardship together. They have their own internal hierarchy, their own rituals of debate and crisis solving. And naturally they keep their women in place, at least in the context of the group. That way, multiple families may come over for barbecues, at which the men gather around the barbecue and boast of their meat cooking skills, the women gossip and talk kids, and the kids chase each other.