Manafort trial

The CIA and most of official Washington was ecstatic to drop commies from their list of official boogeymen because they were extensively compromised by communists and their progressive sympathizers.

They’ve also never forgiven Russia for giving up on “the dream” (aka the nightmare).

Mil industrial complex just wants any enemy where they can sell bombs so Muslims are fine for them but the blue empire wants evil straight christian white guys as the enemy, hence Muh Russia.

Muslims and especially Sunni Muslims are genuinely bad news, the powers that be may have helped to guide them along in this but they still are. They should not be allowed in any civilized country and should gradually be driven back into the Arabian desert which should be walled off.

Fag-pedophiles are bad news 99% of heterosexual male so called pedophiles like post pubescent girls (and such laws exist and are enforced because women hate younger competition, they were never really enforced before Polanski). Women who like teenage boys are widely considered a joke but often busted due to a purity spiral (Asia Argento busted for a 17 year old male so called child are you kidding me).

Part of me thinks the last part is especially ridiculous while part of me likes seeing thots hoisted on their own petard.

“Hopefully, Jim’s book will help future Aryans avoid having their society destroyed by sexual heresy.”

The whole ‘leftism is a religion’ meme came about largely as a snarky ‘gotcha’ and it’s getting really stale now.
Regardless of what any particular individual thinks about the proper age of consent, what’s normal and what’s not normal, etc. etc. etc. the fact remains that thanks to modernity, lots of people who are situationally de facto kids are getting interfered with in ways that are harmful to their future wellbeing. As a free bonus, this also has lots of harmful side effects for society as a whole, from the necessary measures to combat it, through to the effects on the wider culture of there being something unhealthy that dwells in close proximity to normal affection.

Once we find a way to reverse most of the harm done over the past couple of centuries, these esoteric questions will just be irrelevant. If a girl’s too immature to get married, her father will likely have no reason to want her to be, or if he does, it’ll be to someone responsible enough not to interfere with her prior to full maturity. Husbands will correspondingly not tend to be pleasure-seeking predators and the men who are will tend not to become husbands.

It’s called the high trust society, and it depends to a surprisingly large extent on the establishment of actual Patriarchy.

Wasting too much effort determining what the proper laissez-faire mating regulations ought to be is about as worthwhile as determining what the proper laissez-faire labour market regulations ought to be. Minimum wage or dog eat dog? All totally beside the point because labour isn’t a damn commodity in the first place.

You’re both right. Slavery should not have been used in the colonies (or anywhere else) for the same reason as open borders (even in a libertarian Utopia) are doom for the host society, but at the same time the abolitionists were evil and destructive.

The correct response was something along the spectrum of “kill/sterilise everyone involved” to “send everyone involved to Africa”. Obviously in modern times, that’s not remotely feasible but back then…….

This is really the same problem over and over: bad things are done and then also-bad things are done to address the symptoms.
The same thing’s true of cradle-to-grave and laissez-faire capitalism. Bad idea treating labour as a commodity; bad idea fixing the symptoms through social welfare.
The same thing’s true of the so-called sexual marketplace: bad idea giving women sexual anarchy; bad idea fixing the symptoms with hand-holding and interference, let alone divorce etc.

How can we get from C back to A? That’s the question. Easy to get from C back to B: end civil rights, end welfare, end free association between the sexes.
But that only takes us to B (laissez-faire and mixed population).

You would be able to tell the difference if you actually had social contact with high school girls, also high school tv shows and movies have particularly soulless 30+ women playing high school girls leading men to believe that high school girls are more attractive than they actually are.

“It is hard to tell the difference between a naked fifteen year old girl and a naked twenty two year old girl.”

This is the jim’s blog corollary to Godwin’s Law. Discussion on any subject, e.g., Manafort trial, will eventually devolve into discussion of teen tits.

A large part of 20th century ‘statecraft’ (if it could be called that) is based around learning and trying to turn various catastrophes, panics, or imbroglios, into vehicles for pushing your policy in particular, or pushing things in way/direction that is indefinite but who’s implied cardinality is teleologically agreeable with you in general. Because you know, it’s demotism, you can’t just *say* you are going to decree such and such (which would be far too elegant with not nearly enough unintended consequences), you need a *pretext*.

Naturally of course, the implied incentives quite easily proceed towards *permitted* catastrophes, to help get the dance going; sometimes, even *planned* catastrophes.

All of which is to say specifically here, just since you have some clades of tranzis looking to spin a hysteria (like kiddyfucking) into something they desire (like arbitrary powers of censorship), doesn’t mean that there isn’t *also* a bunch who incidentally are het all up in kiddyfucking themselves (as a personal coordination mechanism).

None of which no doubt being especially *virtuous* manners of achieving such aims, as might be expected of wanting exponents of particularly wanting times, especially when they cross wires. Unintended consequences? Fireworks.

“On the contrary, if discovered the withered old THOT would be liable to being charged with corrupting the morals of a minor”

Maybe the other women would go after her and if married (which Asia Argento was) her husband would probably and rightfully beat the shit out of her.

The men of the community (who weren’t the husband) would generally think it was funny.

I don’t care about Asia Argento getting hoisted on her own thotard she joined the pound me too crusade to get her name back in the headlines and turnabout is fair play, but the idea that she raped someone she couldn’t even physically overpower is insane. We may applaud her going down but we should keep in mind that it represents the pound me too purity spiral reaching a new level of insanity.

It takes two to, er, tango, and this too is non-negotiable.

It is simply not possible to CHOOSE to reproduce like a rabbit or a frog.

The fact AC brings out statements like I just made is really the main reason he’s so harmful for our movement. It’s dumb and liberals who encounter otherwise very smart people saying stuff like “Democrats adopt the reproductive strategy of newts” are right to laugh.

It’s about as helpful to our cause as “Hillary and Bill have fled to Mexico” or “perhaps we should revisit the question of the shape and age of the Earth”…..or for that matter Lew Rockwell pushing Doctor Mercola.

It’s a shame you can’t resist the impulse to straw man me at every turn, but I’ll go through the motions because these things are worth getting to the truth around.

I’m not claiming sympatric speciation doesn’t exist. I’m claiming that under conditions of overlapping niches, speciation does not occur without significant die-offs. Invasive unrelated species can displace other species, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

We’re talking about Species A in an established niche transforming, without die-offs, into Species B and Species C with lots of interbreeding along the way.

This never happens. Any genetic steps that might lead to speciation are eliminated by interbreeding.

When sympatric speciation occurs, there are always mass die-offs such that creatures with some crucial adaptation survive and creatures lacking it do not. That’s what ‘selection’ means. There simply is no ‘selection’ between humans without there being significant piles of bodies.

I agree with you entirely that what we’re experiencing is deliberate planned genocide, not sympatric speciation without die-offs.

To put it more snappily, it makes us look like morons when we start talking about human beings being ‘selected’ for adopting the reproductive strategy of rabbits, because that idea’s retarded, but if we hammer home the fact that people in positions of power and imposing wide-ranging measures that tend to lead to the extinction of our people, it becomes impossible for them to deny it.

Of course this is all moot because the time’s fast approaching when they won’t deny it anyway.

I have no constructive answer as to what we should do, and this is why I read this blog: your analysis of the coming civil war, or even global race war, or worse even global leftist purity spiral ending in planetary slaughter, is pretty much the best out there.

And don’t say it’s not about the blacks it’s about the left, because that’s nonsense. r/K’s unnecessary for explaining blacks but completely wrong for explaining cat ladies soyboys trannies purple haired SJWs and degenerates.

Yara:

“Just to be clear, which do you say is tin foil hat garbage: A) natural selection driving evolution by way of differential reproduction, or B) the existence of significant interspecies difference in susceptibility to redistributionary-originating selective pressures?

Please note: selective pressure cannot be exerted through differential reproduction.”

OK firstly (to part A), speciation can occur within a single niche but it’s very rare. Quite often what looks like sympatric speciation is in fact multiple niches at the same latitude and longitude, for example within Lake Victoria but at different depths or for different prey, etc. etc.

It can even operate in the same niche but at different times. These are all rather esoteric.

Similarly, speciation can be driven by selection pressures operating on differential reproductive success rates only, without any piles of bodies, but again this is not the norm and the examples we know about are quite ‘far out’.

The normal case for evolution most of the time is that something harmful happens in the environment and failing to adapt to it results in mass deaths. The usual outcome is extinction but in other cases some outliers survive and become a new species.

OK to part B…

You’re not talking about interspecies, you’re talking about intraspecies or at most between subspecies that are perfectly capable of interbreeding.
It’s perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain that populations with low IQs and high impulsivity are especially susceptible to the unwanted side effects of things like welfare states, where the citizen’s invited, in effect, to offload responsibility for large parts (or all) of their life to the government.

What I’m saying is that THAT explanation is sane and reasonable, whereas what AC proposes is insane and unreasonable.

Basically AC’s claim is that some people (he says leftists, but we know that’s not the case and he means blacks, basically) are well on their way to adopting the reproductive strategy of “spray and pray”, like a rabbit or a frog.
The idea is not so much that negroes aren’t human beings (although that’s how many have taken it) – it’s more that negroes are transitioning to a new type of hominid that has large litters that are viable pretty much straight away after birth, and that this transition isn’t due to the environmental conditions in Africa, but rather the environmental conditions in the West! (Either that or it’s a kind of ‘ballistic’ evolution already set in motion in the genes.)

It’s really full-on tin foil hat territory and provides liberals with a very easy target: the Right now believes that black people aren’t even human and their reason for this is some whack-job pseudo-science that calls itself Darwinism yet no sane Darwinist has the slightest bit of respect for it, not even ‘evil racists’ like Ed Wilson who created the labels for the categories as they apply in nature.

I never wanted to be the boogieman here but it’s crucially important that we clean up our thinking if we’re to play the science card, as indeed we should because for the most part we’re the ones interested in the truth and not just mad ideology.

CR is either an entriest (likely) or doesn’t know what he’s talking about (probably also true). Let’s take his mistakes here one by one:

Bog standard evo-psych goes something like this: blacks have continued to live in Africa, which means their cognitive style hasn’t changed much from hunter-gatherer times.

Absolutely not. Blacks live in Africa as horticulturalists – meaning they get most calories from female agricultural labor. This drives different mating patterns which drives reproduction patterns which is what causes specization (which has already happened – blacks are plainly a different species – yes, they can produce fertile offspring by inter-species mating but so can wolves and coyotes – who are exactly as genetically distant as blacks and whites and everyone recognizes they’re different species).

The white man on the other hand was lucky enough to have suffered huge continued die-offs thanks to less friendly climate and fluctuations in the food supply relative to Africa. These difficulties removed the most impulsive individuals from the gene pool, and whilst there may have been some interbreeding between the two populations, this has not been a significant counter-driver of cognitive style, leaving the white European and his descendants somewhat well-adapted to urban life, business&investment and long-term thinking, which has the beneficial knock-on effect of making all sorts of social cooperation far more feasible…

Also wrong.

Different seasons left Europeans with higher IQs. Invasion and replacement (of the men) by cohesive outsiders left Europeans with greater ability to cooperate.

Most importantly however was that these changes were enough to get cities to develop. From there the most important changes happened – as is well documented – evolution in the last 10k years has been accelerating in pace. The lack of criminality is down to the fact that for ~500 yeas in the Middle Ages the execution rate for European men was around 10% – weeding out the criminally inclined. This is why even when you match for IQ blacks are more criminal than whites – they’ve never been subject to that type of selection (having had no cities).

None of this is incompatible with r/K selection – it describes the environmental forces that cause r/K selection.

If blacks were isolated in Africa and whites were isolated in Europe, and furthermore if former conditions continued unchanged, ie. harsh winters that kill large numbers of Europeans and no welfare state or similar mitigation; plentiful wild food supplies growing and living in Africa; etc. etc. then we could reasonably expect to see speciation occur in the not too distant future.

You incorrectly describe the conditions and the selective pressures and make specization some magical event that might happen in the future but will be announced with writing in the sky. It already happened.

That’s not what AC’s r/K selection theory is. AC’s version is that whites and blacks both live under a welfare state, no piles of bodies are apparent in the streets,yet somehow magically some selection pressure is exerted, mostly through differential reproduction, which leads blacks but not whites to literally change how they reproduce until they’re closer to cats than people!

No, AC’s r/K is stupid – it’s that white liberals are r and white conservatives are K and that all races are the same.

You are equally stupid, however. blacks don’t have to be “closer to cats” to be a different species and you certainly don’t need to go all the way to sea turtle levels of r to be importantly more r and only someone invested in muddying the waters makes this kind of intentional mistake.

Differential reproduction can certainly cause specization – there’s no evolutionary difference between death and failing to reproduce.

I could go on but you just don’t know what you’re talking about – your academic crimestop prevents you from learning.

This is largely true, and what’s so insidious about AC’s theory is that since it doesn’t adequately explain several very important factors in modernity (LGBTQ++, sexual degeneracy/promiscuity-without-reproduction/etc., opting out/MGTOW/asexuality/hikikomori, envy-based socialism, insane levels of debt, etc. etc. etc.) it leaves them unexplained while providing a false answer to the people who most need to answer them for real.

Where I’ll draw the line in agreeing with you however is that no human population whatsoever can be reasonably described as pursuing the evolutionary ‘r strategy’ for reproduction. That’s simply false.
Our gestation times are always rather long and our litter sizes rather tiny. Worse, our young are entirely helpless and require parental investment to survive – especially in the black countries by the way!

r/K is best simply forgotten entirely. We already have evo-psych, and whilst most of its practitioners are straitjacketed by political correctness, the basic framework has proven itself to be of considerable utility.