Female sexual preferences

Neurotoxin recently posted on the dysgenic nature of female sexual preference, and its evolutionary origins:


Female sexuality is anti-social and dysgenic. It must be restrained for the good, and indeed, the survival, of the human race.

We begin with the truism that evolution selects for reproductive success and not any other trait. There is no restraint on evolution selecting for horribly anti-social sexual tendencies if such are reproductively optimal.

Observed fact: Women are fiercely attracted to men who play defect in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game that is society. (Defecting in the classic prisoner’s dilemma is always better than cooperate no matter what the other player does.)

Suppose it’s the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA) in a time of food scarcity. A man who sneaks into another family’s hut while they’re asleep and kills them all and takes their food will have better chance of survival, and so will his kids, than one who doesn’t.

No, it’s not really that simple, because the rest of the village, if they find out about this, might kill him and his family. But (1) they might not find out, and (2) a displayed willingness to do such things means that he’ll do them if it’s necessary; he doesn’t always have to do them. Also, (3) if he is observed to get away with it, then he has either guile or power to, well, get away with it.

Evolution doesn’t give a shit about nice. What we call “evolution” is simply cause and effect in the biological world. Also, there is a genetic component to personality. Suppose we start with some women who are not attracted to evil traits, or are even repelled by them, and some women who are attracted to them. There will be situations in which the repelled women’s children starve to death because she tied her fate to the wrong kind of man. Such a woman’s genes are not passed on to the next generation. The genes of the woman who mated with the amoral murderer are passed on.

So the next generation has a higher proportion of amoral males and females who are attracted to amoral males.

We stand at the end of a long evolutionary process. Current women are the result of the last million years (or however long) of the evolutionary process playing out. Modern women are the effects of evolutionary cause-and-effect processes.

(Modern men are too, along with palm trees, fruit flies, bullfrogs, etc. But that’s neither here nor there for the moment.)

Humans can no more avoid evolutionary cause and effect than they can avoid physical cause and effect, like F = ma, etc.

The surprising thing is that there have been environments that evolutionarily selected for pro-social traits on a scale beyond one’s biological clan. This is a precious thing. It’s not at all obvious that if these traits are eliminated, they will ever come back.

(By the way, why isn’t this selection effect just as strong for men as women? Two points: A woman can’t feed herself (at least, she can’t hunt) or defend herself when she’s 8 months pregnant. (They have enough trouble getting in and out of a car.) So her survival depends significantly on her mate. This effect isn’t present for men.

Also, since men are the sex that fights, including fighting other tribes, there is more selection pressure for cooperation operating on men. This is actually a well-known fact in evolutionary circles, apparently: At the level of competition between groups, cooperation is evolutionarily rewarded. But at the level of intra-group competition it’s not that simple. It’s not be that defect/betray is always rewarded, but it is sometimes.)

So: Women are fiercely sexually attracted to men who can dominate other men and are psychologically inclined to do so. They’re particularly drawn to men who kill and get away with it, because that is the ultimate example of power. The person the man killed was trying to resist being killed, yet the killer was able to kill him anyway. And a man who is powerful enough to kill someone who is doing everything he can to avoid being killed, has a large amount of power indeed. If you can kill and get away with it, you either have personal qualities that enable you to do that or are part of a social group with lots of power, that uses its power to support you.

In either case, it’s a good idea for a woman to hitch her reproductive wagon to your star, because you will try, and probably succeed, to protect and support the children you have with her.

So: Woman do not get wet for nice guys, never have, never will.

Empirically: Criminals, especially violent ones, reproduce at a higher rate than Jeff in Accounts Receivable.

Since there is a genetic component to personality, female sexual choice is not only dyscivilizational but dysgenic. It causes the next generation to be shifted in the direction of violent, amoral thugs. Such people are also observed to be low-intelligence. Cops apparently have a saying: “Criminals are dumb.” Female sexual choice breeds low IQ, high time preference/low patience, and anti-social (as in , murderously so) people.

Female sexual choice involves them typically mating with exactly the men that they should not be mating with, for the good of the human race.

Myself on solutions to this problem:

Love is war. All is fair in love and war.

Sex and reproduction is a game of prisoner’s dilemma.

We have defect/defect equilibrium between men and women. To successfully reproduce, need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

In order to successfully reproduce, State, State Church, society, kin, and family, have to impose peace, cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, between men and women. Time to end the state of war.

Defect/defect equilibrium between men and women is the game of players and bitches, cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is marriage 1.0, marriage as commanded in the New Testament. Peace between men and women is Biblical or Koranic marriage (Mohammed was right about women) War is what we have now, hence grandchildren are what we do not have now.

So the question is, what is preventing family formation, family formation being the proper telos of human sexuality. Why can so few men accomplish this telos?

Men want to bang every fertile age woman. Woman want to be banged by Mister one in thirty.

Women are allowed to successfully fulfill their goal, men are not allowed to fulfill their goal.

Men want to own a woman. Even successful players find it terribly disturbing and soul destroying that the woman that they bang has banged no end of men before them, and will soon bang someone else. This leads to player burnout. Even marginally successful players soon get burnout. The knowledge slowly soaks in that in the game of players and bitches, the bitches are winning, and even successful players are losing. One soon starts feeling homicidal, and is apt to kill the adulterous woman and or her latest lover. Players counsel other players “avoid oneitis” “She was never yours, it was just your turn”. Bullshit. This is the counsel of despair.

If one cultivates a detached attitude “It was just my turn, she did me a favor”, one avoids homicide, but this is not very satisfactory at all. If one abandons one’s telos, one is psychologically broken, hence player burnout. She was not doing you a favor. You were doing her a favor. If you adopt this attitude, you avoid homicide, but develop other disturbingly weird and unpleasant behaviors and attitudes. It is terribly stressful. Homicide is less stressful. There is a reason why the bible counsels to avoid sluts, but today, nothing but sluts, so what is a man to do?

Successful pursuit of telos requires ownership. One despairs or becomes homicidal because even if one get one dick wet from time to time, one is failing at accomplishing one’s telos. Player burnout is a manifestation of despair. One avoids homicide, but in a world with no female companionship other than sluts, loses one’s soul.

Women want to be owned by a man, but they resist ownership with great vigor, because they want to be owned by a sufficiently strong man. This resistance is a shit test, which is difficult to pass because the state puts its thumb on the scales, giving women social superweapons, allowing women to capriciously threaten men with arbitrary imprisonment or loss of job, property, and children.

To pass this shit test, it is necessary to have an outlaw attitude. One dare not be intimidated by these terrible and wicked threats and the state’s vast apparatus of coercion, for women smell this as weakness, and are apt to wander away from weak men.

Police are lazy, incompetent, and inefficient. One can get away with murder. And in practice, these threats are only ever carried out against those intimidated by them. Almost all who are convicted of rape are innocent, because women seldom if ever bring complaints against actual rapists. All rape charges are always bullshit like the Rolling Stone “A rape on campus incident”, a woman crying out for attention from mister one in thirty. All men convicted of wife beating are charged because of failure to beat their wives. No woman has ever complained about my workplace sexual harassment, and all the men I saw who suffered complaints against them of workplace sexual harassment were far too blue pilled and terrified of women for the charge to be credible.

That females successfully pursue the goal of getting banged by mister one in thirty, over and over and over again, prevents the formation of families and children, and results in few men successfully marrying, and reproductive failure. White fertility is no down to about one, halving population in each generation. Men are not getting laid, and not getting married, and women, instead of getting regularly banged by their husband, are hanging out by their phones hoping for their next eleven pm booty call from Jeremy Meeks, which never comes. They end up childless and alone.

When childless women hit the wall, when Jeremy Meeks no longer calls, they turn crazy and evil – observe public school teachers and old fat political commissars of Human Resources.

In order to reproduce successfully, we need cooperate cooperate equilibrium between men and women, but what we have is the game of players and bitches, defect defect equilibrium, as men pursue the fuck everyone goal, one in thirty of us successfully, and women pursue the fuck mister one in thirty goal, successfully enough, but aborting their children.

In order to successfully reproduce, we need a system where females, starting at a very early age, six or so, are restrained from private contact with males who are not close kin, except those that their fathers deem suitable for marriage. Biblical or Koranic marriage has to be imposed on women by state, state church, society, kin, and family. This requires either extremely early betrothal followed by extremely early marriage (the solution applied east of the Hajnal line) or extremely drastic coercion against women (the solution applied west of the Hajnal line), or some mixture of both.

In order to successfully reproduce, we need a system where if a female is behind closed doors for a minute with a male who is not close kin, it is assumed that sex took place, dad and society breaks out the shotgun, the happy couple get married or else, and the wife is compelled to honor, obey, and to never have sex with any other man. Female adultery, meaning females having sex with a second man while the first man is alive, needs to be a crime rather than a human right.

If the state puts its thumb on the other side of the scales, empowering husbands to pass shit tests and disempowering women from giving them, instead of giving women social superweapons, instead of allowing women to capriciously threaten men with arbitrary imprisonment or loss of job, property, and children, then it is easy to turn whores into wives, as the authorities in late eighteenth century early nineteenth century Australia demonstrated.

Disturbed by sex parties on the beach, the Australian authorities did not punish the men or the women involved. Instead they forced every woman to get married immediately, and punished them for speaking back to their husbands, putting a very firm thumb on the scales to enable men to pass shit tests, and forbid women from giving shit tests to their husbands.

The women reacted as if abducted by the stronger tribe, and completely internalized the values of the stronger tribe, in this case the values of middle class wifely respectability. Absolutely one hundred percent success in turning whores into wives ensued. Female misconduct dropped to zero.

Reproduction fails, obviously, when you get defect/defect equilibrium between women and men

Defect/defect equilibrium is the game of players and bitches. Reproduction is prisoner’s dilemma with few iterations, so you always get defect/defect without external enforcement.

Social enforcement only happens if society recognizes secure property rights in what is valuable, and the most valuable capital of all is eggs and wombs. Husbands have to have a secure, socially and legally enforced, property right in their women.

For this to work psychologically, women need to be virgins at marriage, which only happens if fathers have a secure, and legally enforced, property right in their daughters. Which right must end completely and irrevocably at marriage. Rape is dating a woman without the consent of her father. Female consent is opaque, and most opaque to the woman herself.

Women frequently resist prolonged and enforced virginity very forcefully. Late marriage leads to a whole lot of conflict, which requires extraordinary enforcement, utterly unthinkable and unimaginable by modern standards. I find the level of enforcement that was required disturbing and distasteful, and therefore favor early betrothal, eight to ten or so, and early marriage, twelve to sixteen or so, even though successful societies have tended to have very late marriage – eighteen to twenty four or so.

The middle eastern tradition on this is Sharia. Its western equivalent is coverture.

Even when we had stern patriarchy and very stern coverture in place there were no end of stories about the servant girl getting in trouble for helping her lover rob her master, or robbing her master to fund her lover, and the bride running off with the wedding singer.

The effective fix is that such are fallen women, very low status, and against such women extreme measures of control are natural, socially acceptable, and normal. No one cares what happens to a fallen woman. A woman’s status must depend on a man’s property right in her. Her status is that property right. Wrongful acts against women are punished as wrongful acts against the man who has a property right in her sexual, reproductive, and domestic services.


A wife and a husband are one person, and that person is the husband. Thus a wife cannot herself own property, make contracts, etc.

Male chastity consists of respect for other men’s property rights in women. Not applicable to unowned fallen women.

Female chastity consists of respect for her man’s property right in her sexual and reproductive services.

Old Testament solution

Female immorality: Death.

Fornication or abduction of a married or betrothed woman: Death

Abduction of an unmarried unbetrothed virgin: Shotgun indissoluble marriage, or death if you bug out on the marriage part. (If she is with you without supervision, it is polite to the virgin and her father to assume that you abducted her, and inquiring whether she made it strangely easy to abduct her is impolite.)

Fornication or abduction of unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgin.



sounds of crickets chirping.

If you abduct an unmarried, unbetrothed virgin, and pop her, and the the father absolutely prohibits the marriage, the penalty is …

Wait for it …

Wait for it …

You pay a substantial fine, but the father is socially shamed, and priesthood assigns him a humiliating monicker.


815 Responses to “Female sexual preferences”

  1. Jim rightly uses Jeremy Meeks as an example of female sexual preference.

    However, I believe it is necessary to bring up the example of Josef Fritzl, who fathered several children with his imprisoned daughter. He even killed one of his children with her by throwing it into the incinerator.

    Fritzl eventually received hundreds of love letters from women while in prison, and he was even defended by some of his admirers who said that he was trying to protect his daughter. Josef Fritzl is also a -1/10 in looks compared to Jeremy Meeks.

    There is no comparable amount of female attention for tech giants such as Jeff Bazos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg. These men even have problems with their romantic relationships as if they cannot find any devoted admirers like Fritzl the Casanova enjoys from prison.

    Therefore, women should have their marriage life decided by a loving father who can perceive good men better than their hormones and Darwinian id allows them to.


  2. Oog en Hand says:

    “Old Testament solution
    Female immorality: Death.

    Fornication or abduction of a married or betrothed woman: Death”

    Nathan didn’t seem to have any problem with the behavior of Batsheba when he chastised David.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      Pagans are not welcome to argue Christian theology as it is by necessity a bad faith argument. The only acceptable method for this is excessive caveats about how it’s not relevant to you, you think none if it matters, and all observations are irrelevant regardless of impact or outcome. You have to bracket your observations with explicit admissions that they mean nothing to you and you believe none of it. Otherwise, you’re just living the “I don’t believe this but you might” meme. Here’s an example:

      “While I think paganism is a stupid larp performed bymental midgets, I have some thoughts on how you should line up your barbie doll idols on your hearthstone which I fully intend on shattering after I murder you and your sons before raping your women.”

      In this way, you can easily dismiss out of hand my bad faith argument, and if I somehow have made a good point about the thing I don’t believe in or take seriously, you are free to contend with it or not publicly without being shamed.

      I consider pagans in occidental clay a tool of our adversaries. Pagans in their ancestral lands have every right to assume the same about Christian whites on their clay. You are a spiritual wigger, in a sense.

      • The Cominator says:

        Bathsheba wasn’t blamed because it wasn’t really possible for her to refuse a royal command even if she wanted to (and most women can’t resist the king anyway but even if they want to its very dangerous) and she had never sought to attract the king’s attention, even with her conniving in trying to commit paternity fraud was perhaps an attempt to avoid her husband being killed and failing to do so (Uriah wouldn’t go to her) he was killed via being sent on a suicide mission.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Your purple pill nature is showing bro. That hoe was bathing on a rooftop in sight of the palace. I bet she wasn’t the only one either, just the one recorded in the Bible.

          • The Cominator says:

            Perhaps though she wasn’t on the roof David was.

            • Redbible says:

              So a quick check on what is in the bible, in 2 Samuel 11:2 it says that David was on top of “the king’s” roof, a.k.a. his roof.

              Still, if David frequently was taking a walking in the evening on the roof, several women would likely notice, and then “Indecently” decide that is a good time to bath…

            • Adam says:

              A woman is forever going just a little bit out of her way to get alpha male attention. I believe it was Heartiste who said it best, “a woman’s heart is betrayal”. It is a constant, like gravity. If you have any reservations about owning a woman the way you own your home or your car, you will be played for a fool.

              • FrankNorman says:

                Well my car isn’t going to go and offer itself to someone else while I’m not looking…

                What was Uriah supposed to do, leave his wife locked in the house while he was away at the battlefront?

          • Oog en Hand says:

            Red pilled..,

  3. […] Blog: Female sexual preferences […]

  4. Poler says:

    Thoughts on this? It seems to be a contradiction to what you have said.


    > The study found the likelihood of marriage increased by 35 per cent for boys for each 16 point increase in IQ.

    But for girls, there is a 40 per cent drop for each 16-point rise, according to the survey by the universities of Aberdeen, Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

  5. fschmidt says:

    Nice to see my theory starting to spread. Of course I get no credit, but that’s okay. My original post is here http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html and my latest is here http://www.arkian.net/about.html#dysgenics .

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      That’s a bold assertion, but the times call for boldness.

      I want to get into this topic and I want to drag everyone into it. It can’t stay silo’d behind walls of text, jargon, and +145IQ big brain talk, so I will be the midwit translator. We need Joe Shmoe, Johnny Pickuptruck, and Stacy Stayathome to be able to easily and confidently carry “God made us with evolution” in their subconscious. How do you suggest we go about it?

      I will go through your links here, add any more you deem worthwhile. I will start writing when the muse takes hold, and you will correct my errors and mistakes. Does that work for you?

      • jim says:

        > I will be the midwit translator. We need Joe Shmoe, Johnny Pickuptruck, and Stacy Stayathome to be able to easily and confidently carry “God made us with evolution” in their subconscious. How do you suggest we go about it?

        Well, I thought I was pretty good at talking to normies, but doubtless a normie can do it better.

        The scriptural side of it is that Genesis is not concrete history and geography of creation, but a spiritual account, conveying the moral and spiritual truths about creation, not so much the concrete truths which were uninteresting and incomprehensible to the audience and irrelevant to the purpose of the bible. It is the spiritual meaning that matters, and inappropriate concrete literalism winds up dodging the spiritual meaning. Young earth creationists are always blue pilled, and the blue pill is a post Christian heresy.

        The bible speaks to men and of women. It is package designed for a people among whom husbands and fathers rule. It is religion of men. Hence only male priests. Translations using gender neutral language, or even a merely a gender neutral translation frame, are false. And young earth creationists are always inside this false frame.

        Well now we know a lot more of the concrete truths of creation, and I myself, walking in the footsteps of Lyell and Leonardo da Vinci, have verified with a small pickaxe and prybar that the earth is immensely old.

        And the concrete truths, as they relate to the nature of men and women, and thus the moral truths about how men and women must deal with each other, are, as you say silo’d behind walls of text, jargon, and +145IQ big brain talk,

        That is the hard part. I and others have done the best we can. Likely you can do better.

        But, evolutionary psychology is just hard for normies, and in order to understand, have to understand prisoner’s dilemma, and also to understand the sexy sons red queen race, exemplified by the problem that peacocks have.

        And the red queen race is also a non trivial issue to understand. What is if fitter depends on what genes the rest of the population have, and a red queen race ensues whenever the majority genome provides an environment where some other genome is fitter, but the fitter genome, when it becomes the majority … no stable point of maximum fitness.

        • alf says:

          It is religion of men.

          Interesting you’d say that. My impression is that what has sprung up on this blog is closely resembling a religion of men; women don’t read, don’t understand, what is going on here. But I find old generation Christian women to be full of honest faith. When such a woman says ‘Jesus died for our sins’ she automatically folds her hands into a prayer and looks up to the sky.

          Which is not to say old type Christian men weren’t full of honest faith. What I’m more saying is, just like men are on stage, do we not want to give the women an easy role to play along with as well? But I guess that’s exactly what the old type Christian men did as well.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            Women have a role. That role is to raise their children and help people in their community, under the direction of men.

            • alf says:

              That makes sense. So really, woman’s prime role is subservience to her husband, and everything else flows from that.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                From Genesis. Woman is to be a helper and companion to Man, and to Man was given the prime commandment to be fruitful and multiply, and to subdue the world and make it our own.

        • Red says:

          It is the spiritual meaning that matters, and inappropriate concrete literalism winds up dodging the spiritual meaning. Young earth creationists are always blue pilled, and the blue pill is a post Christian heresy.

          This true in my experience. The problem I’ve been dealing with is trying to break them out of this mind prison. Everything in Genesis is literal but they ignore the bits about woman’s behavior. They endlessly invent excuses why the text doesn’t say what it says.

          • jim says:

            I have been arguing with a Nazi with on Gab.

            I tell him “The Nazis promised the voters bread, delivered bread queues. The Taliban promised their warriors pussy and grandchildren. No one today cares about bread. The solution is red pilled Christian Nationalism.”

            That argument is readily accessible to anyone – except that understanding red pilled Christianity is tough in a world where Christianity has been converged.

            I see near total correlation between red pilled Christianity and old earth creationism – that material and effective causation is the Logos manifest. So, red pilled Christianity and Evolutionary Psychology go together like bacon and eggs.

            But Evolutionary Psychology is rough on midwits.

            If material and effective causation is the logos manifest, then the “ought” that follows from “is” should be consistent with divine revelation. And it is.

            The “old earth” part implies the red pill. The “creationism” part implies that Christianity should be red pilled.

            But you have to derive the red pill on women from “is” for it all to fit together.

            • Adam says:

              > But Evolutionary Psychology is rough on midwits.

              The promise of pussy will take care of this. If we can offer men young fertile pussy, they will ape our memes.

              Evangelism for its own sake seems like something to be avoided. Like women reading the Bible and children running with scissors. Our memes should come down from the sovereign the way a husband commands a wife. The only answer needed in the event of a challenge is “because I said so”.

              It’s important that the sovereign understands our memes. It does not seem important that citizens in general understand them. It is not a democracy.

            • Red says:

              I see near total correlation between red pilled Christianity and old earth creationism – that material and effective causation is the Logos manifest. So, red pilled Christianity and Evolutionary Psychology go together like bacon and eggs.

              But Evolutionary Psychology is rough on midwits.

              Exactly. It made everything I didn’t understand fit together the moment I heard it, but convincing mitwits of it is beyond me. They seem blind to the behavior of women despite the bible believing ones having it spelled out in the bible over and over again. It’s bad enough to ignore reality on the basis of faith, but it’s far worse to ignore what actual truths the bible is spitting about women.

              If material and effective causation is the logos manifest, then the “ought” that follows from “is” should be consistent with divine revelation. And it is.

              The “old earth” part implies the red pill. The “creationism” part implies that Christianity should be red pilled.

              But you have to derive the red pill on women from “is” for it all to fit together.

              Old Earth Creationism is a well packaged idea. I’ve been describing the universe as a game that God created and he uses the tools of that universe to shape it. Old Earth Creationism is likely to resonate better.

              I don’t follow on the ought that follows from is. Could you explain that a bit more?

              • jim says:

                A secular account of morality derived from cause and effect: https://reaction.la/constant_on_good_and_evil.htm

                Of course, the hot button is the application of this method of deriving morality to sex, reproduction, and family.

                The public distinction that Constant alludes needs to be in this case, the right of men to keep banging their wives, the right of wives to get banged by their husbands, and lack of any right for them to be banged by anyone else – the question is the legality of male mate guarding behaviors and the legality of the inherently unequal mating dance.

                Adultery needs to be a crime, and violent reaction to adultery not a crime. If you can violently defend your television, should be able to violently defend your wife even if she is rather reluctant to be violently defended.

                Which if one starts from the presupposition that men and women are equal and interchangeable, is horribly oppressive, but women rather like to be horribly oppressed, for in the ancestral environment, that was the most successful reproductive strategy for women, and the worst possible for men.

      • fschmidt says:

        The average person can’t understand evolution, so I wouldn’t worry about that. The traditional religious approach of “God made Man” without going into the details is good enough.

        Where will you write? I don’t get email notification of replies here so I am not following this thread much.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          The average person doesn’t need to understand evolution, they just need to understand that “everyone who matters believes (x).” In America today, all the “with it” proles believe in evolution (Trust the science), yet don’t believe in race (diversity is our strength); they believe in democracy (power to the people), yet they don’t believe in populism (the backwards can’t be trusted). They have not taken the time to think any of this through, nor do they have any kind of grasp on the actual relevant details, they just get very clear signals from above reinforced continually through education and media. Thus, from my point of view, all that is required is simplicity and repetition. It really is that simple, but the complexity arrives with the reality of the actual situation. Every population is immune to facts, logic, and truth, so long as their is a daily and a lifelong pipeline (2 different pipelines) of noise clouding their perception of reality. This is why USG will keep the media online long after the food or water runs out. Public education shapes the mind into a toilet bowl, and popular entertainment fills it with shit. To break this cycle, must disrupt one, then the other. Simple statement, terribly rough action.

          We should make a hard and fast rule to reduce all of our memes to as simple a form as possible. We don’t have the luxury of paragraphs. We don’t have the utility of the public education system. What we do have is the realm of fiction, as well as the world of memes (contrasted from memetics). Thus, we must craft a memetic virus that can spread easily, that can be run with in many directions at once, that is maximally insidious.

          “God made me with evolution.”

          “Islam is right about women.”

          “Gun ownership = freedom.”

          “Fuck bitches, make money.”

          “It’s ok to be white” or “White lives matter”

          “Bros before hos.”

    • Neurotoxin says:

      “Nice to see my theory starting to spread. Of course I get no credit…”

      I haven’t followed the links, but if you’re referring to the topic of the post and much of this comments thread: it’s not surprising that different people interested in the truth would arrive at the same conclusions. It’s for the same reason that people interested in the truth would all conclude that snow is cold.

      The lite, low-calorie version -“Chicks dig bad boys” – is so obvious that even many normies are aware of it.

  6. JJ says:

    In general, the Bible speaks to men, but of women.


    • Redbible says:

      Reading this helped me realize something. Gender-neutral language is a way that progressivism has pushed thru an evil payload, namely that is no difference between the sexes. If one accepts and uses the gender-neutral language, then one accepts that men and women are the same, which means that gay relationships are no different that straight ones, and that being trans isn’t weird in the slightest.

      Another way to say it it that Gender-neutral language pushes a payload by presupposing that the evil payload is true, and already accepted as true by everyone.

  7. kawaii_kike says:

    I know that game and owning women can be summarized as: passing her shit tests, not showing weakness and dominating other men. And I know that it helps to have the backing of family, State, and God but I haven’t seen an explanation of the phenomenon in which high status men are divorced after decades of marriage. Specifically celebrity men like Kanye West, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and even Tom Brady (the list could go on).

    Obviously these men must have been passing their wives shit tests for years so whats happening after decades of marriage that makes their wives leave. Are these men simply getting too comfortable and just failing a series of shit tests that eventually culminate in divorce, is it failure at mate guarding, failing one major shit test or is there another explanation for women leaving their husbands and families after years of stable and happy ownership.

    • Sher Singh says:

      Non-virgin women have a majority divorce rate.

    • jim says:

      Woman goes for him because high status.

      But high status in the male hierarchy fails to correspond to status as women perceive it. Up close and personal, have to manifest status as status was manifested four million years ago.

      Trump uses his status in the male hierarchy to act out status as women see it, as do I on a vastly lesser scale. Jeff Bezos fails to do what I do.

  8. Kunning Druegger says:


    Urbane and painful.

    I kept trying to figure what you were telling Me, what coded message was intended to set me right or knock me down… and it occurred to me that another persistent tendency of the solipsistic narcissist is to construe any and all things as highly personalized. God, nature, and the King of bloody England orbit me, you see, and a star does not shine without needing to tell me something, show me something. That bird’s flapping, this bugs buzzing, all of it is the universe sending me coded messages. How not? How could it be otherwise? When I close my eyes, you all go on break, catching your breath and waiting for the center of existence to come back online.

    This is the reverse side of that burning need to control. It is the reason for it, maybe. But every egg is confident that the chickens are the fruits of their labor, so it doesn’t really matter which motivates which. How dare ANYONE do something that doesn’t involve ME, need ME.

    Pare down the prose, the question I’m afraid to confront: born this way, or made to be so? QED.

    • Adam says:

      Equality, or the belief that everyone is the same, is at the end of solipsism. Only someone who has lived their life in complete ignorance of those around him, having never noticed anyone other than himself would make such a conclusion.

      Consciousness and awareness are paradoxical. In order to get what we want that is on our left, we have must move to the right.

      Driven by ego, fear and pride we grasp for control of what is around us, losing control of ourselves. This is easily illustrated by watching what happens when someone who cannot swim falls into a pool of water. As the fear grips them they flail about, losing all self control ensuring they will drown. The solution obviously is to let go of control, relax and focus on controlling yourself. If the water is calm, you can float with almost no effort at all. Much of life is like that.

  9. Neurotoxin says:

    Now that this is no longer the leading edge thread I don’t feel guilty about going massively off-topic, so:


    Now that I have your attention, do you have any advice for someone just starting hockey? I can skate better than most of the people in my league but have zero puck handling skeeeeelz. We’re playing no contact (chicks as well as dudes present).

    Having the time of my life so far, BTW.


    • Kunning Druegger says:

      Endurance. Hockey is the last real sport, as it requires a holistic approach to conditioning, and the barrier to entry is too high for it to be “diversified” as a community sport. Only OECD level nations have hockey at the local level. This mostly due to gear necessity, but also the infrastructure required to play (rink).

      A great player is about 10-30% of a team. A star player means almost nothing with no depth of bench. Each shift member is essential for a technically successful shift. In hockey, we can measure the skill of a team by the shift changes and the “extraordinary moments,” moments, as in when a D player pushes into offense and when an offensive player has to carry an adversarial push into the D zone. This is why shift changes and fights are not just points of interest but actual game mechanics. A good team does not do bad shift changes, regardless of the score. Most adult/recreational leagues don’t really practice, and this is why they are boring to watch (not play though, beer league is fucking awesome… to play).

      If you are having fun, than there is literally nothing you can change to make it better. Fun hockey is best hockey. But is your team having fun? If not, you have to get them to practice, and this is no small task. Look up NHL and Canadian Juniors practice schedule. It is harrowing. If you want pussy in Canada, you have to play hockey, or do something that hockey players are intimidated by. Hockey is similar to MMA in that it is ~90% practice and ~10% locker room. The games are really just an afterthought. I know that doesn’t sound correct, but there’s a reason beer & adult leagues have a near perfect repetition in the final season stats. The top team practices, and second, third, and fourth place are always a hair’s breadth from each other.

      If you come off a shift not-winded, there is a problem, and if you are still winded at your shift change (bench to ice), you have the inverse problem. So…

      PRACTICE. Wind sprints, circle the circles (forward skate-transition-backward skate the D zone circles, sprint the face off line, reverse the O zone). Your goal should be the whole team can do a full circuit (that’s forward/backward/race/forward/backward then sprint back to the goal line) as a line of ducklings, O line up front and D line in back. Pros and Juniors will do this for like 15-20 minutes, they just go. A beer league team is doing well if they can do a full circuit, no falls and all in a line with good spacing. Once endurance is up, you should then do 3-on-2s (O line v. D line, and shift segregated… this is how your D learns to support the O, and the O learns to protect the D) then 2-on1s. I know fuck all about how goalies do what they do, just bukkake their shit with pucks, I guess.

      I hope some of this makes sense.

      Take ownership of the team. Hockey is awesome because everyone sweats, bleeds, and stinks together. Everyone dons armor and faces the foe together. There are positions and plays and strategy, but nut shots come for us all. The good players I know never took a pass without a plan for where it was going next, and I know this is counterintuitive, but watch the pros play and use a stopwatch to calculate the average time a puck is held by a single player… obviously, I am joking, as you only need one hand for the counts. You should be dumping the puck, ditching your cover, and preparing to get it again. Constant motion. This is like combat, and holding the puck means you’re the target, so get off the X. “Oh look here comes the puck I sure hope no one- ZOOM there it goes to that guy, hope he makes it out alive.”

      Once your endurance is at 10/10ths potential, once your transitions (front to back skating) are second nature (this is super hard for us clumsy guys, but I promise you it is possible), the game will spread open like virgin pussy, and then you will FUCK IT HARD for every second of your ice time. Just focus on the basics, put your team first, and force those niggers to practice.

      Also, watch Slap Shot once a week.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        Kunning, that’s an awesome response, thank you so much.

        On conditioning, yeah, I got religion about that after my first game. I have literally never been that winded in my life. Wind sprints for 10-15 minutes… (Stunned silence). Wow, I have long way to go indeed.

        “Also, watch Slap Shot once a week.”
        I own it on disk, but of course!

  10. Mayflower Sperg says:


    What’s your take on this story? A Saudi princess begs to go to college in a foreign country, and her father agrees. There she falls in love with another high-ranking Saudi, though not royalty like herself. Her family is outraged, she confesses to adultery, and she and her lover are both executed, or murdered by her family, depending on who you believe.

    I read somewhere else that it wasn’t adultery because they were secretly married by an Imam in Jeddah and lived together there as a married couple before their unsuccessful attempt to escape to Egypt.

    It seems to me that a man who sends his daughter to college renounces all claim to her.

  11. Mister Grumpus says:

    Speaking of:

    There’s an Andrew Tate clip going around where he says “Women decide who the winner is.”

    This is exactly like when Jim writes “Men dance, and women call the tune.”

    It’s a simple fact but incredibly based, actually. There goes “consenting adults”. There goes “women’s rights”. There goes “victimized by the patriarchy”. There goes a lot of stuff, in such a short and simple sentence, that’s so obviously true.

    So Jim’s right. The Meme Refinery is picking out the winners and bubbling them up to the top. Now the truth curious can kick over shibboleths – or at least the first shibboleth, which is always women – without crime stats or the six million or anything naughty like that. It’s a big deal.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      The only people in explicite opposition to Tate seem to be the Cathedral vanguard and the grift-wingers and turbo autists who are mad that he formulated chewable redpills before they could.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Another lesson I’m taking from Tate is that if you don’t have the look, stay off camera. Tate may not be a galaxy brain, but he has the looks and the memes, together in one package.

    • Urbanist says:

      Absolutely false. Jim has repeatedly explained that men have been in control of reproduction, therefore women’s stone age instincts have never been bred out. He has repeatedly explained that women never make choices about the next generation, and that in any population where by chance they do, that population promptly dies out. Your entire premise is false and your purported quote of Jim directly contradicts Jim. Please familiarize yourself with the blog before posting.

      • jim says:

        When societies are collapsing, as now, women call the tune.

        That is the problem that needs to be corrected, and naming it is a good first step.

        We are not descended from such people, because they usually died out.

        Letting women run wild is a severe collapse of extended large scale cooperation – less immediately lethal than the collapse in civil war Yugoslavia and post Roman Britain, but lethal enough.

        Large scale cooperation is hard, and emancipation of women is a failure mode.

  12. ArkyShrugger says:

    Off topic. What is the Jimian understanding of Romans 13, (paraphrasing) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, do not resist them? Some interpretations say that Paul implies when the authorities are acting contrary to God’s law you can resist. One such carve out is the Magdeburg Confession. As a reader of this blog for the past year or so, I’m gathering that the path to recovering the nation is cultural and political vs. revolutionary, that is, developing a body of truly Christian men ready for a Caesar to lead them in asserting control of the government in a legal and moral fashion. Please excuse me if this is either way off the mark or no-shit-Sherlock correct.

    • jim says:

      Well, as I am fond of saying, Paul, who told us to comply with the authorities, was executed for not complying with the authorities.

      Paul with great regularity, deliberately contradicts himself, for example faith and works. Christianity is a pile of intentional contradictions, the center of Christianity being the humanity and divinity of Christ, that God is three and God is one. If you grab one end of any of the contradictions, and run with it at the expense of the other end, you wind up in heresy.

      As the power of progressivism comes from in your face flat out lies, point deer, make horse, 指鹿為馬, the power of Christianity comes from in your face flat out contradictions.

      As an engineer, I say political violence is ineffectual unless commanded by Caesar or tolerated by Caesar.

      Constantine was hailed emperor, a revolutionary act. The official priesthood of his army, the equivalent of the lawyers in today’s lawyer infested army, came out against him, as they would come out against DeSantis, and would have come out against Trump had he done what was necessary. Constantine responded by raising the banner of Christ and marched on Rome under that banner. Though substantially outnumbered, his troops cut through the enemy like a hot knife through butter, because no one believed in the official priesthood, but at least some people in his army believed in Christ.

      Do you think Constantine and his troops were acting contrary to Paul?

      No they were not. Under those circumstances, the words of Paul should be interpreted as obey Constantine, ignore the official emperor and the official lawyers. Paul’s command is applicable to circumstances where we have only one plausibly legitimate Caesar, and the authorities are doing their job of upholding secular order.

      Right now the authorities are not doing their job, and our current Sovereign, Biden, has no control of events.

      • ArkyShrugger says:

        An exception to Romans 13 being when the authorities place themselves above God, or demand that we disobey God. Many thanks. Now I’m off to learn more about Constantine.

        • jim says:

          You will have trouble reading up on Constantine, because the religious element of the conflict is severely censored.

          They do not like mentioning that the official priesthood of the official religion of the army came out against him.

          Constantine did not just happen to come to power and then just happen to institute Christianity. He marched on Rome under Christian banners. He repeatedly won against unreasonable odds because marching under Christian banners.

          Yes, he got a vision before crossing the Tiber, but the proverbial hit the fan the moment he was hailed emperor. It did not start with his vision in front of Rome.

          I am hoping for a Sulla who is also a Constantine. But the historical record under equivalent circumstances is full of Stalins. Let us pray that God shows mercy on a sinful people by giving us a Sulla and a Constantine, rather than what we probably deserve, which is yet another Stalin.

          • Alfred says:

            Jim, do you have any recommendations on where one can read a relatively fair and uncensored account of Constantine in this situation? Expectedly, wikipedia and most other sources make no mention at all of the opposition.

          • The Cominator says:

            Gibbon goes through what primary sources there are fairly enough…

    • chris says:

      Find yourself a wholesome girl and produce a clan.


      • Mayflower Sperg says:

        Any idea what sect they are? The Amish don’t use induction stoves and microwave ovens.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          Some Amish do. There has been some pretty major unofficial changes in the Amish church in the last 10 or so years.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          They are most likely Mennonites, but they could also be Amish or Mennonites or hard core protestants visiting family.

          Here’s an article from the distant past:


          And here’s a fun writing prompt for any lurkers looking for ideas:

          A lone member of a shadowy band of political theorists travels deep into the Amish country to begin developing Info Epoch Warfare with the perfect cover, only to discover that the Amish have been hiding more than just virtuous women in their communities…

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            I read Amish Hackers too! Had suspicions about the author though. Cathedral forces have been trying to crack open the Amish world so I wasn’t sure if it was a forced meme or not. That said I have seen solar panels in Amish communities while traveling through America.

            I don’t think a shadowing ban of political theorists will have to travel to the Amish. The Amish are coming to the rest of America sooner or later. Based on pure demographics data, and what’s happening with farm land prices, a large number of Amish are being pushed out of their traditional homelands of the Midwest and into wider America. It’s going to have interesting results that I don’t think any of us can predict with clarity. I do think in time that they will be far more potent of a force than the Mormons given time.

    • Jehu says:

      My take is this:

      Can you say this with a straight face?

      The magistrate beareth not the sword in vain, but to establish justice and punish evildoers?

      Paul could about Rome in the 1st century AD.

      If you can say that with a straight face, you owe that authority obedience insofar as it doesn’t contradict the obedience you owe to God.

      But straight faces are hard to come by these days, are they not?

    • The Cominator says:

      Trumped failed on January 6th by not crossing the Rubicon… DeSantisismore ruthless at least.

      • Red says:

        DeSantis has a much greater chance of being Caesar. He’s also controlled opposition being foisted on us by our foes. There’s no clear right answer with on the DeSantis question.

        • The Cominator says:

          That he has a better shot at being Caesar IS your clear answer, Trump doesn’t have the will and he’s too old now.

          • Dr. Faust says:

            I always assumed Caesar would emerge from the inner party.

            • jim says:

              DeSantis appears to be aware of the new normal, so might do what is necessary – but he would have to march on Rome from Florida. That is a big step, and difficult.

              A Caesar from the inner party is more in accord with history. That would mean we get a Stalin, rather than a Sulla.

              • The Cominator says:

                the inner party is now less tolerant of pointing out sanity and reality than the Bolsheviks are.

                • jim says:

                  Compare old Soviet propaganda movies with today’s movies. The propaganda was so much more light handed and entertaining.

                • The Cominator says:

                  yeah which makes the point there isn’t likely to be a Stalin from the inner party…

                • jim says:

                  If our guys suffer from normality bias, their guys suffer from normality bias plus shear delusion. They are drinking their own koolaide, which Lenin was very much on guard against. The relative sanity and entertainment value of Russian communist propaganda reflects an orientation derived from Lenin. The level of delusion and disconnect from reality we are seeing may give us a chance to have a Sulla rather than a Stalin.

                • alf says:

                  My only question is: Sulla and which army? What men will he command? Army, Marines, Air force, PMC? I presume the army is key?

                  Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but in the case of Sulla you could easily point your finger and say: ‘that’s his army, those are his men.’ I find that much harder to do with USG. It all feels so scattered.

                • jim says:

                  Pinochet did not want the coup to happen, suspecting that whichever side won, that side might well execute him, but the junior officers conscripted him. And having won, dragged him to the still smoldering and bloodstained presidential palace. Where he was not altogether satisfactory, but not too bad. He was no Sulla, but not a Stalin either.

                  We are short a Sulla, but probably have some potential Pinochets.

                • jim says:

                  The problem with Pinochet is that, looking for an alternative faith, went with the libertarians, who of course practiced unilateral disarmament against the Cathedral, and were not too keen on purging the commies either.

                  You need an inquisition that is a branch of the official Church full of warrior priests, and backed by Caesar’s warriors. Going with the libertarians, he did not have one. He had warriors purging commies. Not their skill set. A warrior is going to get confused when a communist says “hail fellow X, I am the complete opposite of a commie, I am more X than you are, fellow X, we Xs have to stick together, fellow X, and I am more X than you are, fellow X.”

                  Of course, back then, the libertarians were the only priestly opposition faction around. Now we have the Dark Enlightenment and Christian Nationalism.

                  Our enemies have noticed that Christian Nationalism, which is full of darkly enlightened Christianity, is a potential threat. But crimestop has caused memetic blindness. For the most part, they just do not see us. On the other hand, Christian Nationalism is massively penetrated by shills and entryists. No one is doing a shill test, though back in the days of the Christian holy wars, everyone had something like the 39 articles, terribly long winded and excessively detailed shill tests. For two millenia, every faith that had any success had something that was effectively a shill test.

                  The core reform that we need to give effect for our people to survive is coverture and virgin marriage. Female choice was not a big problem back in the days of the Christian holy wars, but today it is the central problem, so needs to be in the shill test and the catechism.

                • alf says:

                  That is also an interesting scenario…

                  I presume that in Pinochet’s scenario there was an officers’ class who knew that they would be in control if only they’d agree on a leader. I wonder if there’s a US equivalent. If USG has entrophied beyond a certain threshold, is it imaginable that no group can actually grab control? At least not without a prolonged and messy civil war that is.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Entrophy: the state of paralysis and decay that results from the repeated use of entropic factors for the purposes of organization.

                  Nice, Alf.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  Nearly the entire JCS, and more importantly those O6 and above, got many of their career opportunities during the Obama era. Needless to say, Obama did a soft purge. Trump, suffering from normality bias, never cleaned house.

                  From my limited experience, most junior level to mid grade Officers would be sympathetic to an American Pinochet given the right circumstances. What’s important to remember though, is that the military follows orders until they don’t, but it’s likely we are on the tail end of following orders unenthusiastically rather than being proactive.

                  I remember hearing more than one GySgt ‘joke’ about how all it would take to deal with the BLM riots would be a few bulldozers. Of course Officers in the modern American military keep such comments under wraps for being very, very naughty, but behind closed doors… well there isn’t exactly much disagreement. Hell, the few moments Trump did mobilize military force, the security apparatus was fairly enthusiastic, although somewhat feeling cucked by the limited authorization. Nearly all the resistance came from Pentagon.

                  Compare that to the shitshow of the capital lock down during and after Jan 6. They forgot food, or maybe it was a conspiracy to get the fat bodies to finally lose some.

                  The point of all of this is that a potential Pinochet already has a military. The problem is a structural command issue. Too much chaff between a prospective Pinochet and the lower level Officers who would follow orders enthusiastically. This leaves two possibilities I see as likely. Either a DeSantis type gets lucky to get into the presidency and promptly cleans house firing nearly every single man on the JCS and most O6 and above, or we continue to have systemic breakdown of the regime’s ability to purge ‘problematic’ Officers during promotions which I think is already happening but at a much slower rate. However, should Pentagon officials continue to do shit like suggest food stamps for service members and cut adjusted pay… well I think y’all know where that leads.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Alternatively, Desantis tries to purge the JCS, and the Joint Chiefs team up with the RNC and the SSCI to coup Desantis and place Obama on a throne.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  “Desantis tries to purge the JCS, and the Joint Chiefs team up with the RNC and the SSCI to coup Desantis”

                  It would be a question of speed. Commander in Chief would have to a widespread fire and promote within a time period of a day if not hours. Obviously such a mass firing wouldn’t be very discriminatory and some of the goody guys get caught up in the mass purge. Sucks to be them, but it’s the price that would have to be paid. RNC and SSCI can suck dick. Otherwise it gets bogged down in congress and bureaucracy he gets couped… maybe literally in the heraldry sense.

                  Every single Officer serves at the digression of the president. He can quite literally hand a ‘you’re fired’ letter to an Officer and they are out, but the balls it would require to do such a thing would be immense. I’ve been drunk posting a lot recently, I might very well be posting out of my ass. Had some heart damage to cope. Though I suppose I might be in good company. Cominator fucks whores, I’m an alcoholic, and you’re a legit academic.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  I hate to break it to you Pax, but I am no academic. I was rebuffed when I tried to make entry, I just write like a fag because my shit’s all retarded. But I do genuinely wish I could teach history and coach hockey at a small private school.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  fuck. academia shit is a cushy way of riding out the decline, or in more optimistic terms riding the tiger ala Evola. It’s also all about networking. Have you tried applying to Claremont Institute or other similar places? Just cause you got decline at first doesn’t mean it’s the end. Hell, I’ve heard stories that emailing writers at certain newspapers that are both small yet prestigious can get the author’s attention and maybe even an internship should your writing be up to snuff.

                  I don’t think you’ll like teaching history at private schools because they are even more woke/toxic than the universities. I went to an “elite” school and had a social circle with many other similar kids. The more prestigious the school, the more they overcompensate to make the perfect applicant for the universities.

                  But being a nonpolitical role, like a coach, at a private school is highly enjoyable. Had a mentor like that. Based as fuck, but stayed under the radar due to it being ‘purely’ extracurricular.

                • Adam says:

                  Christian Nationalism could address the woman problem, but what about the diversity problem? I know Jim has said before white is as white does. At the individual level, ok. But diversity + proximity still equals war.

                  I don’t know history like many here do, but it seems whites will need to get to work conquering everybody, or at least their own country, immediately after solving the woman problem.

                • jim says:

                  When whites were Christian, conquered everyone within reach.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Look up Rourke’s Drift, and basically every white vs non-white fight since. It goes horribly for the diversity. Once we solve the woman problem, the diversity problem is going to be relatively simple.

                • S says:

                  In the short term you can solve half the diversity issue by stopping the subsidy of illegals and letting the police apply the law to blacks.

                  In the medium term, just allow segregation.

                  No idea for the long term, but hey- future generations need problems to cut their teeth against.

        • jim says:

          When the time comes, we shall learn how effective that control of controlled opposition is.

        • Adam says:

          Best case he uses the dems and Rinos to get elected and defects when he secures the presidency.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Occam’s Razor: a Republican governor with the backing of the mainline party defects on his benefactors to secure a throne, or a Republican governor defects on his followers to secure the support of his benefactors.

          We don’t need to wait for The Day, we need only look to who he hires and appoints. Trump was crippled by his staff choices and defeated by traitors therein.

          I stand by the cold, hard truth of the first paragraph, but I think it’s also worth pointing out from a narrative perspective that any good author would of course make the hero seem like someone who is less than heroic with every opportunity to defect on the Good and dishonest their name, particularly if he’s a follow-up character to a hero who stayed true but was defeated by naivety and ignorance. It builds up massive tension with every page turn and scene change, wondering which way they will go. Life is not a novel, but stranger things have happened and, though it is a tired and much abused phrase, we are in the midst of an inflection point, so, as Jim says, expect the unexpected.

          By their fruits we will know them. By their staff we can predict them. By their appointments we can measure them.

          • Dr. Faust says:

            Trump is for the memes. The memes are our greatest power, a sword gifted us by the Holy Spirit.

            Desantis is a hail mary play, hoping he can turn things around last minute. Selling out his beliefs and people for security is the wide gate. Grasping for the ring is the other thing, the unlikely thing. I don’t expect it.

  13. Shooter McGavin says:

    I noticed a brief mention of cousin fucking being one of the more sordid aspects of pre-modern man in a previous thread. And yet there seems to be quite the correlation between healthy functioning patriarchal societies and cousin marriage. Was certainly part of eighteenth-century English coverture and ie system Japan. The Bible and the Koran endorse it, although admittedly there are instances of much closer varieties of incest in the Old Testament that I would not endorse.

    First thought that comes to mind is retarded kids. First cousin marriages over several generations tend to produce more of them which is why Arabs and Jews have more double mutations and a myriad of congenital disorders etc. Third-cousin marriages were favored in the West as the likelihood for genetic disorders drops off. The added benefit is that complex genes are more compatible and your offspring’s offspring are more related you. In a harsh stable environment where there is pressure to cooperate it helps when your neighbor is more related to you, looks more like you, acts more like you. There is some data from Iceland, where the population is small enough that accidental inbreeding is more of a risk, that shows third-cousin marriages have higher fertility and are longer lasting.

    Third-cousin marriage being a K strategy perhaps explains why the consensus “coincidentally” shifted in modern times to be gross.

    • Red says:

      Cousin marriage is how clans are formed and maintained. Making Cousin marriage illegal is how you destroy clans. During times of trouble clans are the way to survive. Once things have stabilized and civilization is building up then it’s time to ditch them which is why the church in came down on close cousin marriage when it was civilizing the Germans.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Germany gets taken over by clans, at this very moment.

        • Aidan says:

          That is his point. Clans make cooperation possible in an extremely hostile and dysfunctional world. Clans also prevent large-scale cooperation. The clan life is pretty based, but you get mogged by well-functioning civilizations. Britain dissolving the Scottish clan system was the best thing that could happen to my ancestors. They went right out and spread their genes around the world as fine engineers, inventors, and soldiers.

          Whether we need clans or not depends on how far towards Haiti we fall.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      I wrote “cousin fucking” and I should have written “sibling fucking,” I just thought cousin fucking “sounded” better if read aloud. I try to keep our fed-monitors entertained 😉

      Cousin marriage at the 2nd and 3rd degree is an excellent methodology to combine with the incorporation of new blood during and after campaigns. The danger of incest is the shamefulness of prodigious sibling intercourse, the son seeking to supplant the father by listening to a poisonous mother, and a father seeking to return to youthfulness by replacing the wife with the jealous, evil daughter. These acts are wanton and unjustifiable, acts that spit in GNONs face. Cementing ties by marrying cousins, particularly distant ones, is not at all in the same category.

  14. Meat Guy says:


    This is front page of Revolver right now. We really have come a long way.

    • george says:

      No you haven’t. That whole piece is a disproof of a fundamental jim tenet – that women are not (and never have been) subject to non-stone-age selection pressures – when in fact they are and have and there is extensive evidence on the topic (hbd chick had quite a few pieces on the topic). This is just the latest such.

      But jim never acknowledges anything that calls his premises into question.

      • jim says:


        They are making a Jimian argument that probably originated from me and my blog.

        Explain how it supposedly disproves the claim that female sexual choice has not been subject to selection pressure for four million years or so.

        How does it disprove my thesis? Make an argument, instead of a boastful and arrogant claim.

        Obviously liberated women do not reproduce successfully, and women respond to this, as they always have, probably for the past several million years, by seeking the man and tribe strong enough to own them. And cannot find what they are looking for anywhere.

        • yewotm8 says:

          It doesn’t disprove your thesis, but it steps around part of it by implying that women are making a conscious choice to defect on their part of the agreement, and that they previously had the opportunity to choose whether or not to defect on the agreement. It ignores that cooperation was previously forced upon them, and now that it is not, defection is ensuing.

          It does an accurate job of laying out the cause and effect of feminism and defection in male/female relationships. But it makes no claims as to why cooperate/cooperate was the standard before, meaning that a reader unfamiliar with your stuff may not draw the conclusion that female emancipation is to blame.

          Either way, I detected no crimestop in the piece, and it could easily be a stepping stone to the ideas on this blog.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        Woman are a certain way
        Haven’t always been this way
        Time and tide have made them grow
        Because some woman told me so

        Yes, she really loves me
        Yes, she really wants me
        Yes, she really needs me
        Some lady told me so

        Girls are always born quite pure
        It’s men that ruin, to be sure
        Angels by nature’s command
        Mistakes are all the fault of Man

        Yes, she really loves me
        Yes, she really wants me
        Yes, she really needs me
        My lady told me so

        Half the world and all the best
        Stay with you and throw no tests
        She will always know what’s best
        It’s my own fault she’s now my ex

        Yes, she really loves me
        Yes, she really wants me
        Yes, she really needs me
        That lady told me so

        Now she’s back and has more kids
        I’m thankful I can live with his
        I don’t need to have my own
        Chad’s seed in her womb now sewn

        Yes, she really loves me
        Yes, she really wants me
        Yes, she really needs me
        His lady told me so

        Princess perfect daughter child
        Only pure, forced to be wild
        She’ll find what she’s looking for
        There’s no way she’d play the whore

        Yes, she really loves me
        Yes, she really wants me
        Yes, she really needs me
        My baby told me so

      • Ted says:

        Can you link hbd chick’s articles?

        (Ignore my comment below)

    • Red says:

      Holy shit. No wonder the shills are attacking so hard.

    • A2 says:

      Hardly new though. Perhaps insisting on a virgin wife is somewhat unusual, but I’ve read a dozen essays like this before. This particular guy doesn’t even know the difference between ‘PUA* (who came up with most of the jargon he mentions) and ‘incel’ (coined at the site ‘PUA Hate’, if memory serves).

  15. i says:

    A good short video on the link between Drag Queen story hour and serial murderers:

    How those those who prey on small children are alike to serial killers. And are even the same people.

  16. Kunning Druegger says:

    Hey Jim, not long ago you asked me what the utility of a GPT-JIM might be. well…


    I wonder if it could be built and deployed to rewrite articles from a Jimian Christian perspective? This is probably way harder than I am portraying it, but imagine what a wonderful world GPT-JIM would deliver all of us if it could filter out woke & pozz, cut to the brass tacks, and point out the message between the words.

    • chris says:

      Use it to make a shill filter.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        Some defensive measures shouldn’t be automated, even if they can be. Automated defenses have a way of minimizing threats in an unintentionally negative way. “I don’t need to worry about that threat because the auto-defense will take care of it” can quickly become “I do not recognize this threat.” Indeed, look at what happened to America.

        Shill detection may or may not be one of those things.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        I don’t know how I missed this, but if we do it, we should call it The Shillter.

  17. Anonymous says:

    >and therefore favor early betrothal, eight to ten or so, and early marriage, twelve to sixteen or so
    Why not marry them at eight or ten?

    • Redbible says:

      Betrothal should be seen as a “Soft Marriage” where both parties can still leave with not issue. That said, generally, a Betrothal is only done if both side are intending for it to become a “Hard Marriage”.

      The big use is if the girl has not quite reached a “size” that the groom is willing to consummate the marriage with yet. In biblical times, you weren’t married until you had sex. Betrothal covers that gap, so that the Groom still owns her, and has all the legal rights, but hasn’t needed to do the deed just yet.

      Also it means that if the girl was “Raised Well”, she’ll not go cruising for other men’s dick (since if caught, she’ll die), she’ll just go “cruising” for the dick of her betrothed.

      I personally would have little issues “hard” marrying a 8 or 10 year old (based on those I’ve seen), but many men (especially in modern times) don’t have a stomach for it. Betrothal is for those men.

      • Guy says:

        what? if hard marriage is banging, you’re saying you’d bang an 8 to 10 year old? you’re sounding like the strawmen that were constructed to conflate early marriage with pedophilia.

        • Guy says:

          sorry, using an enemy term, faggotry is what I should have said

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          While I may share your tastes, I’ll remind you that the charge you threw out has very little weight here, and if it keeps up your liable to instantiate a bitch hunt. We, as in you and I, have modern sensibilities. We can’t change that, but we can understand that it is social programming and literally nothing more. The human animal has a sordid past full of cousin fucking, brother killing, sheep violating, oath breaking, and risk taking. 70 years of social programming aren’t going to change a bedrock reality, but they definitely skew things in a rather extreme fashion. I myself am a Hard Hajnal, which makes sense given my Puritan roots. But I also know, I absolutely know, that the sensibilities I have are far too often damaging and/or incorrect for me to trust them too much. 8-10 seems hella young, but remember how everyone fell all over the game of Thrones character, the little Mormont girl? We are all titillated by children acting in adult ways, for it conjures up a silliness we find endearing and can create a sense of shock and wonderment when a childish person (in shape) shames us into acting more adultlike. ASoIaF, the book series on which GoT is based off of, is actually replete with “underage” characters: Robb Stark was 14 when he ascended, Jon Snow the same age when he took the black, Sansa was quite young as was Daenarys when they were thrust (lol) into womanhood, and Arya was in single digits. The show aged them up mightily because child actors are as bad as animals when it comes to filming them, and the sensibilities of a massed viewing audience are a finnicky thing to predict. But the books were a runaway success, and everyone loved the vicious cruelty leveled against characters too young or naïve to be ready. Maybe that’s an indictment on the cruel disposition of the consumers of this era, but it could just as likely be a lower brain familiarity with an age old reality.

          • Guy says:

            I agree, I am a product of a twisted society that has socialized me against things that are probably healthy (although maybe cousin fucking, brother killing, sheep violating and oath breaking aren’t the best examples of that)

            The pics Jim showed on Gab were illustrative and showed him to be correct in his arguments. I am not advocating for the state to interfere in how a man deals with his property at all. However, if my neighbor is fucking his 8 year old wife, it’s okay to say that’s gross, and if he disappears maybe nobody should go looking for him. There is no set of age sexual maturity of course, and I think an important truth stated here, is that some 13 that olds are more mature than some 16 year olds. But how many 8-10 year olds are so advanced?

            A man who wants to fuck the 13 year old model Jim showed is normal. I don’t think anyone who wants to fuck an 8 year old is someone you want to hang out with though.

            • jim says:

              Old Testament seems to suggest, but nowhere actually states, that marriage to extremely young wives was normal, but if you wanted to be socially acceptable and did not want people to think you were a pederast, you kept your wife in a different residence under the tutelage of female kin, and did not visit her in person until she had developed boobs. So approximately the same thing as early betrothal, except that instead of her kin supervising her until she is ready, your kin are supervising her until she is ready.

              There is some evidence that could be interpreted as indicating that very early marriages that happened for dynastic reasons in England, to form a union between powerful families, were conducted similarly – the daughter was initially functioning more as a hostage than a wife.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                The English version of this seems to have been the ward system. Put an established man in charge of a girl ward, and once the girl becomes a women they often ended up married. Until then he is instructing her on how he likes things run and he is a non-kin authority figure that she can fantasize about to her heart’s content. More incentive to keep her locked up and chaste, as well, because she is intended to be yours.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              Gainsaining the accord between father and husband is not okay and if a good man of the community goes missing a whole lot of trouble will be kicked up until the perpetrator(s) are identified and made to deliver.

              • jim says:

                Yes, if there is an accord between father and prospective husband, Caesar and the State Church should back it to the hilt and stomp hard on anyone who gets in the way.

                The problem case is when the daughter is getting hot, and impatient for dick, but dear old dad has not yet arranged a prospective husband. In the ensuing conflict, State, State Church, and society should stand well back and let nature take its course, and then when the dust settles, step in to endorse, finalize, and back, the ensuing marriage. This policy may well sometimes result not in a stable and officially finalized marriage, but in some corpses littering the landscape, as in Romeo and Juliet, but dear old dad failing in his duty has to be made expensive.

                When this policy results in corpses littering the landscape, as it sometimes will, the state response “probably needed killing” is frequently appropriate.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  If things got to the level or even furtive warfare, then someone is fucking up big time. In that case, we let it sort itself out because bloodshed is the manner in which God makes his will known. Whoever is more compliant with God and nature is more likely to come out on top. If someone keeps starting fights, then it is time for the King and his armies to stop by and have a little chat.

              • Guy says:

                a good man of the community going missing of course should be looked into. and nobody should be legally sanctioned to interfere with the rights of a husband and father. but in the hypothetical above I was talking about a guy who is banging an 8-year-old, not a good man.

                Jim said above “if you wanted to be socially acceptable and did not want people to think you were a pederast, you kept your wife in a different residence under the tutelage of female kin, and did not visit her in person until she had developed boobs”. so in the case that someone is looked at as a pederast, as they would be even back then for banging a girl that didn’t have boobs. the label pederast implies the man is not good.

                maybe the way you deal with it is to publicly insult the man until you are involved in combat with them and then whoever wins, wins.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  I expected a response like this. The unspoken assuption here is, how is there such a situation in the first place? As long as we are bandying about hypotheticals, then if a man has an 8 year old *wife*, then obviously there were circumstances of some kind or another that saw it pertinent for the father and husband to get together to make it happen.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  As John pointed out, this had to be the result of something. Chesterton’s Fence says that you had better understand a thing before you interfere with it. Nearly every decent man is going to look askance at an 8 year old wife, and that goes doubly for fathers. If I had to marry my 8 year old daughter to someone, it is going to be someone I trust with my life and it would not be done lightly.

                  There is also the issue that by interfering with the husband, you are dragging in the father, as well. If I realized you were trying to provoke my son-in-law to a lethal conflict, I would beat you to the punch. I would challenge you to a duel myself and then gun you down in the most brutal manner available to make a point. If father and husband are in agreement, then who are you to gainsay them both? If something truly wrong is happening, then let the consequences solve the problem, and especially so if you are not familiar with the entire situation.

                • Guy says:

                  sure, exactly. I was responding though to a statement by Red bible saying ” I personally would have little issues “hard” marrying a 8 or 10 year old (based on those I’ve seen)” I was not trying to come up with hypothetical issues with marrying girls young, but just found that specifically to be an odd thing to say. I don’t think society should be built around fringe cases and agree it’s not something that would come up much.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Thinking about it a bit more, I might kill you without the benefit of a duel on general principles and take my chances with a jury. I would risk hanging to protect my daughter.

                • Guy says:

                  I very much doubt you’d have a good reason to have your 8 year old banged. Married off? Sure. But yeah, you’d probably be the kind of person to furtively kill someone as well if you’d do the former

                • Guy says:

                  simplified. men who bang children, prepubescents, are fags.

                  fags get killed

                • jim says:

                  The term pubescent is alarmingly elastic, overlapping with early fertile.

                  Nothing abnormal about banging early fertile.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Oh, I do not mean killing you furtively. I mean walking up to you in the middle of the day and emptying a magazine into you. The old Norse law was that if you killed a man in private, you had to announce it to the first person that you saw or be executed. I respect that approach. Interfere with my family and I will put you in the ground and let the community judge my conduct.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              Again, I share your position in terms of appearance and aesthetics. But I would also support the King taking an 8-10 as his queen if it got us sovereign control of the Northwest Passage. This is why I don’t trust my tastes on this one. I too would look askance at a May-December of a certain or greater magnitude. But it isn’t my sow and it’s not my farm.

              I think you are assuming a boatload of implications that accompany the statements and phrasing at play here. Forgive me if I am wrong, but you are picturing some slovenly, disgusting specimen with sweat pouring off his brow as he like his lips and shuffles toward a waifish innocent, quaking in sickened anticipation of horrors she cannot fathom, or avoid. This is what jumps into my head when an internet stranger says he’ll hard marry an 8-10. And if I saw that, I’d say something and do something. But it is neither accurate nor useful to inject those assumptions just because we are primed to do so.

              Consider the following: https://youtu.be/2cXDgFwE13g

              The shot composition leads a man like me to ask, “Why’s he following her?” when the far more interesting question is, “why is she leading him on?” Many would disagree that she was, but block out the motion, the direction, and describe what’s happening in what setting. I don’t think Skrillex’ production designer was a deep cover Jimian Asset introducing RPWQ memes into the social consciousness, so one must wonder why he/they thought this narrative was believable and/or enticing.

              Here’s another: https://youtu.be/e0aqb0VOMu4

              Pro-tip: the Polygon’s agents always used the Cuck of the North to teach white men what they should be, every single scene. If you ever read the books (1-3 only, nothing past the first few pages of FoC was worth what it took), you will see a far different cast of characters.


              You go, girl. Peg the patriarchy right in it’s garish blue eye. My fucking sides.

              • Guy says:

                You hit the nail on the head by reducing it to aesthetics, because that’s what I find the issue is when I look deep inside myself, but aesthetics are important. I know sex=marriage, but at the same time if a king needs to take an 8year old, by all means, maybe just pretend to have fucked her though until boobs.

                As a sidebar I am a huge fan of ASoIaF, and actually really liked the show until it overcame the books. Llyanna Mormont isn’t exactly getting anyone’s dick hard, and she was written by an old man (and for show exclusive stuff probably by a bunch of middle-aged Jewish women) but the fact that she can act so competently at a young age does show at least the actress is quite mature for her age. I actually liked books four and five as well and would love it if the guy could finish it up.

                you ever read this guy? been a few years for me but I really enjoyed his take


                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  >tfw the scroll wheel barely dents the scroll bar

                  Thanks for the link, I will dig in. Yeah, i am an asshole with specific standards. Feast of Crows made me a bit perturbed, the constant delays after its release made me loathsome, and Dances with Fagons made me give up. But that’s just me, and opinions are like elbows.

              • Adam says:

                Tywin Lannister was the best character, and in a lot of ways I think represents a Jimian patriarch. Roose Bolton and Stannis Baratheon too. Obviously the show painted them as evil and they were the bad guys, but their moral code was fairly gnon-compliant. Once all the good patriarchs were killed, nothing but faggots and cucks.

                • restitutor_orbis says:

                  Huh. So Tywin Lannister and Stannis Baratheon I wholeheartedly agree with you about, but Roose Bolton betrayed his liege lord and betrayed the north for personal advancement. I can admire Roose for his pure will-to-power, his cunning, and his ruthlessness, but I wouldn’t call him a good patriarch who is gnon-complaint. He was complicit in the Red Wedding. And his son is a monster.

                • Gman says:

                  Roose let a bastard murder his legitimate heir and didn’t do anything to avenge him. He also routinely fucks other men’s women and betrayed anyone who ever trusted him whenever he thought it to his personal advantage.

                  Tywin mouthed off to a guy with a loaded crossbow pointed at him. Fail to see how that is gnon-compliant, even ignoring the part where he raised his kids so badly that they were fucking each other.

                • alf says:

                  I don’t think anyone in the RR Martin universe is really a rolemodel seeing as Martin is a decidedly black pilled man and so are all his characters.

            • Aidan says:

              Unlikely that a man will be very interested in banging an eight year old wife- outside of political marriages, this sort of thing is unlikely to transpire, because in a true marriage market a man is not going to be all that interested in a wife who cannot keep a house or bear his kids yet

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                Yeah, I really cannot think of a reason why it would happen. Like Jim says, let your kin watch over her, teach her, and let her grow up until she is of a more appropriate age for childbearing.

                • Guy says:

                  .. but if it does happen, anyone interfering should be killed right?

                  I will drop it, because I don’t want to cause division, but I do think there is a contradiction between “people who bang prepubescents are pervert fags” and “fags should be killed” AND “how dare you interfere with that fag banging that child! I’ll shoot you in the street!”

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Fags don’t bang little girls, they bang little boys.

                • jim says:

                  A lot of faggotry manifests as an inversion about firm bouncy boobs. They will fuck anything with no boobs, and often anything with saggy wrinkled boobs.

                  In general, faggots like to bang both little boys and little girls. It is big girls they are allergic to. Many of them are triggered by the sight of boobs. Boobs disturb and upset them, they do not like the sight of boobs, nor the thought of a man having sex with a girl who has boobs.

                  Much like social justice warriors react to cute and moe with hostility, hatred, malice, and desire to harm, a lot of faggots react to nice firm boobs the way normal people react to human feces, while failing to react to human feces in that matter.

                  Cute tends to drive away social justice warriors the way classical music drives away blacks, and boobs tend to drive away faggots.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  It is a fair question and I half expected it to be asked, so I will answer it:

                  Yes, assuming that they are interfering directly. If you have evidence that something untoward is happening, bring it to the notice of your local lord and your priest. Otherwise, by the principles of Chesterton’s Fence and Freehold, you are out of compliance with Gnon.

                  I cannot think of a reason why I would marry an 8 year old and have intercourse with her at that age, or marry of my daughter at that age. However, I do not have daughters, but I have seen girls of that age act in a manner that was disturbingly flirtatious with me. It is slightly disturbing and it has happened more than once. Furthermore, that is just the girls who had no secondary sexual characteristics or markers of fertility. There could be other girls that were flirty at that age that had started to develop those sexual characteristics, and i would not know they were only 8 or 10.

                  I know there were situations where girls that young were married off, and not just for political reasons, either. Therefore, there must have been a reason or reasons that I do not understand. Pulling apart rules because the result offends you without understanding why it was there in the first place is foolish. Interfering with a father’s and husband’s authority and decisions because it is aesthetically unpleasant is the first step down that path that led us to where we are today. Absent ironclad, incontrovertible proof that something is wrong and the support of the community behind you, you have absolutely no right to interfere.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  It seems like the basic problem here is that you are approaching this matter from an atomized perspective of modern society, rather than a society with cohesive groups, traditions, and social superstructures.

                  ‘8 year old girls’ are not something that grows on trees, and men not elemental free agents going around picking them up. They come from families with house fathers. If two families are making an arrangement with each other that is found good, then unless J Random Bystander happens to be a clan patriarch of both families, who died and made him king to say anything about it?

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  I am not above answering questions, and despite how I might come off, I am not terribly emotionally invested in the argument. Dispassionate analysis of the situation, absent my instinctual unease and disgust with the idea, leads me to conclude that the men closest to the issue are the best to deal with it. They will also have to face the consequences if they have dealt with it poorly. Not everyone can choose wisely all of the time, and the state cannot save them from this fact. Attempts to try almost always make things worse, and then you have broken a part of the social order for no benefit. Best to let nature take its course.

                • Guy says:

                  @Wulfgar: that’s a reasonable reply and I understand your position better after reading it. obviously we’re talking about a coup complete situation here and so going to your local Lord or priest would be an actual option as opposed to in the current environment. I was conflating two different universes in my mind as well. I happen to think the community would probably be of a similar mindset to me but who knows in a different time and place.

                  @pseudo: that’s just not true and you know it. faggots will fuck anything that isn’t a fertile woman.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  I consider all of our discussions about how things should be arranged in a coup-complete, post-restoration society. Unless otherwise specified, for example finding a wife in the current defect/defect equilibrium, any positions I have should be understood in reference to the social framework of the late-1600s in England.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >faggots will fuck anything that isn’t a fertile woman.

                  Faggots are opportunistic, but the trend is clear; their lust for access to boy ass overweans any other concern. 90+% of all cases of actual pedophilia in reality are fags fucking little boys in the ass. The term ‘pedophilia’ is deliberately muddied with connotations of men having teh sexxors with little girls to obscure this embarrassing hate fact, and as a side bonus to demonize natural male sexuality in general and to interfere with cooperation between partriarchs in particular.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Keep also in mind that when I think of an 8 year old my default mental image is a prepubescent child. Let us consider that the Platonic form of such a child. Redbible said that an 8 to 10 year old wife would pose little issue given the girls of that age he has seen. It is therefore safe to give him the benefit of the doubt assume that he is speaking in reference to actual girls that he has seen, and not the Platonic form.

                  I can attest to the fact that there are very young girls I have seen that I would guess to be several years older than they actually are. Given that context, his position is not unreasonable. I keep coming across high-school-aged girls that I assume to be adults until they say something that dates them as years younger. Absent the insane society we live under, marrying any of those girls would not bother me a bit. Likewise, so long as anyone marrying an 8 year old still keeps her around when she is 38 years old, I cannot say I have any right to interfere.

                • Guy says:

                  @Jim:. 100%. My college roommate came out to myself and my girlfriend. There were so many gays in college. I got to know plenty, a couple of them very well. I was open with them about my disgust for their homosexuality and they were honest with me about their real hated for themselves and the world. Despite that we actually enjoyed hanging out together, watching Star Trek, talking about history and drinking. I think it was that they appreciated my honesty and I didn’t have to pretend to like their perversions back then.

                  Anyway, point is, they ARE fixated on breasts being gross. my girl has particularly amazing ones and they talked about how disgusting those big fat lobes hanging off her were. They seemed as confused as to how I could like them as I was about how they could fuck a guy’s ass

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Though there’s weirdness on that front too; fags drawing bara art have a tendency to make the pecs looks suspiciously breast-like, and the features with a distinctly doughy, effete look to them, even when they are supposed to be the manliest men to ever man.

                  Even in fantasy, their tastes trend towards endocrine disrupted mutants.

                • alf says:

                  It’s all in the context of telos — what is our natural lifecycle? The point is to bridge the gap between matching a girl with her suitor and the girl losing her virginity to an unsuitor.

                  So you might have cases in which a girl is wedded off Mohammed-style. Maybe the suitor wants to secure his betrothed, maybe the girl is uncharacteristically lustful, maybe the political situation demands it. As long as the telos underneath the arrangement is honored, no problem.

                  Fags banging children in the ass runs exactly contrary to this telos. There ‘s no marriage, there ‘s no lifelong arrangement — its just faggotry.

              • Adam says:

                Just from my experience in foster care, it’s not that infrequent that girls get banged that young. Mostly by teenage boys.

                If I had to guess, 8 year old brides were often married to very young men or teenage boys. Obviously it would be arranged by the two families. Mens life expectancy wasn’t what it is now, so probably not a lot of middle aged men marrying 8 year olds.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  I am not sure if we can draw conclusions from the foster case system or use it as an example. The whole system is an abomination that needs to be scrapped, filled with degenerates. Some, I assume, are good people. So much of it is the result of selling children that it is hard to tell what is considered unfettered female behavior and what is just a downstream result of the degeneracy in the system.

                • Adam says:

                  I have no idea. I wasn’t in the system myself, my parents started taking kids when I was very young. It is weird, and I would never take kids in to live with my own kids.

                  Most of the stuff I heard either from my parents or the girls themselves. A lot of times it was a family member, like a brother or cousin that did the girl. No idea what the participation was like from the girl. The girls never seemed bothered by it. The story was just another way to get attention. Red pilled me quick.

                • Red says:

                  Most of the stuff I heard either from my parents or the girls themselves. A lot of times it was a family member, like a brother or cousin that did the girl. No idea what the participation was like from the girl. The girls never seemed bothered by it. The story was just another way to get attention. Red pilled me quick.

                  Same story from girls who wonder off and get raped. They’re not bothered by it.

                • Red says:

                  Just from my experience in foster care, it’s not that infrequent that girls get banged that young. Mostly by teenage boys.

                  That reminds me, during the early years of Instagram I used to a follow chick who was posting sexy pictures of herself. Typical story that no father in her life, general slut. I think she was 25ish. One day she posted a picture of herself looked like she was around 9 or 10, dressed up with makeup and obviously trying to attract the attention of middle age men who were drinking at a house party. She was being ignored by them. She commented to something of the effect that she was upset that even as a child she was a slut.

                  It wouldn’t surprise me that being unable to attract the sort of man she wanted, she would settle for a teenage boy with low standards.

                • Aidan says:

                  Yes, a girl that young will often find her way into privacy with a man, and many men won’t pass up a hole, and the girls don’t end up very bothered about what happens. But I am talking about a marriage market between fathers and bachelors, and in that context, no man will choose the eight year old over fertile women.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Some men mature younger but are not in a position to marry yet, just like how some girls do. I know a man who started fucking at 12, when I did not even begin to notice girls until I was 15 or 16. A precocious 8 year old girl that invites a horny 13 year old boy into the barn for a roll in the hay and gets caught is the most likely scenario I can imagine. Neither of them were supposed to be on the market, so it becomes an unpleasant surprise to which two fathers have to react quickly.

                • i says:

                  @Wulfgar Thundercock III

                  “Some men mature younger but are not in a position to marry yet, just like how some girls do. I know a man who started fucking at 12, when I did not even begin to notice girls until I was 15 or 16. A precocious 8 year old girl that invites a horny 13 year old boy into the barn for a roll in the hay and gets caught is the most likely scenario I can imagine.”

                  Under manorialism that is discouraged. They didn’t do so well long term as their offspring died out. Especially if the boy didn’t avoid this scenario.

                  The Husband must be able to provide for his wife as well as provide good leadership. This will entail that the Husband will be in his late teens and 20s unless he is a genius then he could marry a bit younger.

                  Its also eugenic in the sense of selecting for delayed gratification and long-term time horizons alongside ability to work the farm to make profits for the Manor lord.

                  I think similar arrangements would also be good in terms of dealing with Brazilification aside from exterminating the usual violent criminals who are also low-impulse control low IQ barbarians.

  18. Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:

    Control-F: “population control”. Zero results.

    Every valid indictment names the defendant or defendants.


    • jim says:

      We routinely indict Harvard and Socinians in the Church of England.

      “Population Control” is the wrong search term. Search “defect/defect” “game”, and “the game of players and bitches”

      • Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:

        Do you agree that there are people (presumably great families but possibly monastic orders etc.) engaged in the art and science of total social engineering to suppress the high races’ fertility?

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          There is no shortage of people, groups of people, who in later days have insinuated themselves into places of social dominance, who intend all manner of bad things to happen to their neighbors, including and not limited too ‘suppressing high races fertility’.

          But phraseology like ‘engaged in the art and science of total social engineering’ overly aggrandizes what is also in latter days increasingly inept, ad-hoc, and self-destructive flailing by clowns ever more detached from reality, as they retreat ever deeper into cloud-worlds of socially mediated ideological superstimuli.

        • jim says:

          I know exactly how and why higher race fertility came to be suppressed. I know the specific events, the detailed motivations. I have traced the story in excruciating detail for Rome, somewhat lesser detail for Sparta, excruciating detail for England and America. France I do not know much. I know exactly what happened and when and why it happened for Japan.

          It is social entropy. Cooperation between males to ensure reproduction breaks down – elites pursuing unrelated objectives break things, break a complex system whose function people do not remember or understand any more. They remove Chesterton’s fence. They were not trying to suppress higher race fertility – they were smashing the things that made higher race fertility work for unrelated reasons in the course of the struggle for power, and came up with glib and clever rationalizations that it would cause no harm.

          The details were different in every case, for there are many ways to break something, but only one way to make it work

          • skippy says:

            Matrimonial Causes Act looks like in-group defection, unitarians trying to suppress cavalier family life, but UN and NGO actions after 1945 look like and are described in their publications as intentional birth rate suppression.

            • jim says:

              Exactly so.

              • Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:

                Doesn’t this contradict your previous comment? [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You attribute to my comment a meaning I do not recognize – that is so far from anything I said, or anything anyone like me is likely to say, that I suspect intentional misunderstanding – that you are finding some politically correct meaning for a comment that is very plainly politically incorrect.

                • Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:

                  “Feminism was invented by certain technocratic occupying forces to suppress fertility and subjugate generally” is about as politically incorrect as you can get. Are you retarded?

                • jim says:

                  Only in the sense that “Rothschilds rule the world”, “Moon landing was faked”. “Trade tower building seven fell straight down onto its foundations like a demolition”, “Zionist occupation government”, “Musk is a frontman for wonderful US Government technology rather than a rocket scientist”, and “Name the Joo” is politically incorrect.

                  These are shill memes that superficially resemble our memes, which memes are spread by the FBI and Soros ngos in order to suppress our memes – you guys spread memes you guys do not fear, to drown out our subtly different memes that you do fear.

                • Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:


                • Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:


                • Sex Factor says:

                  I’ve got your number, Zio Jim.

                  How much do they pay you?

                  Or do you do it for free?

          • The Count of Montecristo says:

            This is fascinating, I would like to know more. Is there a short list of books to read on the subject? Or am I waiting for your future book on the topic?

    • S says:


      Fertility has been dropping for at least 200 years; this predates all modern conspiracies.

      • jim says:

        All modern conspiracies date back centuries. Harvard began as a conspiracy by priests tossed out the Church of England by Charles the second for coveting that which is Caesar’s.

        When we indict Harvard and the Socinians, we indict very ancient conspiracies.

        Jewish conspiracies on the other hand tend to be short lived. One Jewish conspiracy founded by one Jew gets replaced by another Jewish conspiracy founded by another Jew.

        • Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:

          “Jewish conspiracies on the other hand tend to be short lived.”


          • jim says:

            Rothschilds lost most of their wealth and power in 1930, and have been pretty much insignificant ever since.

            • The Cominator says:

              Rothschilds whether they are still secret money men to the real bad guys… were always just the money men. They were never at the top…

              Weishaupt and his inner circle were all ex (the order was theoretically suppressed at the time) Jesuits though and that fact Fauci the fact that Georgetown is in DC… maybe Georgetown is as important or more important than Harvard.

        • S says:

          Sorry for the imprecision; sleep deprivation.

          French fertility starts declining significantly by 1790 while England and Sweden start the decline around 1870.

          Modern conspiracies are global (not in the Catholic covers the world, but in the nothing is outside their reach), but the data implies there were two or more separate ones in the case of Europe- an early one for France and a latter one for the rest.

          • Yul Bornhold says:

            Now what act of general emancipation and breaking down of the social order took place in 1789?

            1870 lines up nicely with the romantic literary movement and the rediscovery of chivalry, wherein men decided it was cool to worship, adore and slave for women. I know this was big in England but not how it went in Sweden. Anyone know whether romanticism spread that far?

            Regardless, it seems unlikely that any conspiracies leading up to either the French Revolution or to the Romantic movement were much concerned with overpopulation. Had the concept even occurred to anyone before Malthus? And it took a while to trickle out from him.

            Even if Malthus had inspired diabolical rich families to undermine white fertility (or if the Jews decided on the same measure) would it have occurred to them that female emancipation would undercut fertility? It’s obvious to us, in retrospect, but, at the time, the connection was little noted.

            • Adam says:

              Could be the global testosterone rate fell past a minimum threshold.

              1870s and 1880s we see the first laws criminalizing the disciplining of one’s wife in the US.

              It would be interesting to know if the testosterone rates found in cattle or horses has followed the same downward trend.

          • jim says:

            The French conspiracy was the Church of Reason, which was descended from the false Popes of Avignon, in the same way that Harvard descends from the Brownists.

            Indigenous French leftism died under Napoleon, and was replaced by Anglosphere leftism derived from the Brownists.

            • The Count of Montecristo says:

              What do you consider the best books on tracing the intellectual history of Anglosphere leftism, especially from the 16th-19th centuries?

              • jim says:

                English Society 1688-1832

                Not to be confused with English Society 1660-1832, which is the expurgated version.

                • The Count of Montecristo says:

                  Thank you. Although from reading the descriptions of the two books on Amazon, it appears that the 1688-1832 version is just the first edition of the 1660-1832 book by the same author? According to one reviewer:

                  In the first edition, Clark included detailed critiques of the existing literature. The new edition eliminates most of the polemical material and adds a lucid discussion of how the Anglican hegemony was rebuilt in 1660-1688. The new edition is clearer, but lacks some of the barracuda bite impact (at least by academic standards) of the first.

                  Would you agree with that assessment? I take it you feel that it lost a bit in removing the polemical material. In any event, I have ordered a copy of the first edition.

                • jim says:

                  “Polemical” means retroactively declared a thought crime.

                • Milosevic says:

                  Does anyone know where to find this online? zlibrary only has the expurgated version.

      • skippy says:

        Fertility in England did not drop for two centuries, but specifically since the Matrimonial Causes Act in the late 1800s.

        English fertility held throughout a century and a half of being the wealthiest, most industrialized, and most urbanized countrybin the world.

        Incidentally having by far the strongest form of marriage (~irrevocable dissolution of female personhood into her husband’s) in the Protestant world… until the Matrimonial Causes Act

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      Trex Sex, you have small, weak arms. I thought it was because you were a bog standard douche, but I now realize it is because you are a lawyer.

      Legalism is a game. The stakes can be high and the rewards massive, particularly in so-called Rule of Law societies. Real human men know, instinctively, that law == culture, and any codification is basically a form of rent seeking or standardizing for efficiency (original reasoning) or profit (current reasoning). Lawyers are a byproduct of a society caring more about exceptions than rules. Relatively high IQ men with a dash of feminine meticulousness make excellent lawyers. Dig into lawyers from a physiological level and apply a bit of phrenology while you’re at it, and the phenotypical consistency jumps out immediately. Lawyers have a look, and it varies between male and female. Male lawyers have more effeminate traits, and female ones more masculine traits. (Do not trouble me with exceptions; they mean nothing until they become rules).

      Lawyers make it there business to occupy artificial niches generated by the inherent blind spots and gaps in codified culture, which is all that Law, in the formal sense, is. The regular brain view of the Plea Bargain rate is that the Justice System is corrupt and unfair play by the right players gets rewarded. Another, more accurate perspective is that the legal system is lazy, lawyers want to move fast, defendants want it to be over, judges want to enjoy the fruits of their status, and plea deals expedite the process massively. The real reason is the fact that law is impossible to enforce or understand from the Occidental perspective. Every case is an exception, every instance is unique, and we are evolved to go with our gut, not consult a tablet or scroll or tome to figure what should happen. In most cases, all you need to know to make a decision is in your head-gut complex. For cases that you cannot puzzle through, an elder suffices. The justice system, being lazy, is excellent at finding efficient ways to get through cases, and the most efficient way to deal with the Justice System is to bypass the Justice System. So lawyers spend years “learning the law,” which is actually just an endless garden party of status holders and social climbers, and do everything they can to avoid the stupidly complex, impossible to understand, and impossible to follow or enforce rules from the rule book.

      Trex is our resident lawfag. He mentions it as often as possible. Don’t blame him, that’s what he was taught to do. I imagine he can’t go for very long without telling someone. The “way it’s supposed to work” is that Trex tells someone he’s a lawyer, and that person acts accordingly. His problem here is that no one cares. i happen to know we have multiple lawyers here, but they feel no need to trot that info out unless absolutely necessary or helpful. That is because we eschew legalism as a legitimate method of argumentation. Understand, we can spar over niggling details until the noggs go home, but we dont *lawyer* things to a position that gets us a “win,” for if you do, it gets called out and mocked. Trex can’t figure why we don’t all fall all over ourselves asking him for legal advice, asking about cases, asking about his lovely lawyerly life and lifestyle. I imagine this is frustrating in the extreme.

      Maybe you should file a lawsuit about it 🙂

      • Tyrant Lizard King Sex says:

        I’m honored by your efforts, Kunning One. If only Trump had been as effective at constructing walls as you.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Your left-handed compliment made me smile. I know you won’t be impressed, but if practice tests are of any value, I would have been +160 on the LSAT. I know, I know, not that impressive. But I did it with no study or pre-practice whatsoever. I made a decision to eschew the Law track because I wanted a family and a farm, but I know I would have done quite well in that arena. But just being good at something doesn’t mean that something is good, as I see it. Lawyers are a big part of the problem if only because they compose a big part of the system. It is fundamentally unhealthy to reward people for making black white or wrong right. No ruler ever made a deer a horse without a crowd of lawyers around him.

          All insults and cruft aside, do you see what I was trying to convey?

  19. Nicodemus Rex says:

    Is female sexuality *really* categorically anti-social and dysgenic? I find that hard to square with the fact that my efforts to become more attractive to women have also made me a better man. Clearly, the selective pressures of mating with women makes men more inclined to be charismatic, assertive, dominant and decisive, so unless you think those qualities are a red queen’s race between men (which I don’t think they are) you’ll have to grant that women’s sexuality has some pro-social effects.

    Obviously women will get wet for a serial killer putting heads on sticks as easily as they will for a heroic inventor-CEO — just like men will get hard for an infertile whore as easily as they might for a fertile virgin. But just like a man can make intelligent sexual choices and decide that the infertile whore is an evolutionary dead-end, women can also make intelligent choices and realize that Jeremy Meeks isn’t going to take ownership of them, lead the household and give them the 10 children they want.

    … obviously female sexual choice needs to be restrained so that they don’t ride the cock carousel until they hit the Wall (although the smart ones often get off early anyways. though not *that* early). I’m just not convinced it needs to be restrained because women fuck evil men.

    (Probably my view of this is rose-tinted by the fact that I’m still young and haven’t gotten tired of the game of players and bitches yet. but I do plan to leave soon.)

    • jim says:

      > Obviously women will get wet for a serial killer putting heads on sticks as easily as they will for a heroic inventor-CEO — just like men will get hard for an infertile whore as easily as they might for a fertile virgin

      Empirically, women do not get wet for a heroic inventor CEO as easily as they get wet for a serial killer putting heads on stakes, and I surely do not get hard for an infertile whore as easily as I would for a fertile virgin.

      Wealthy males have to be clever and subtle to use wealth and power in the male hierarchy to set up situations where they will ping female alpha radar. The immense efforts that we go to reveal that women are zero turned on by the heroic inventor CEO.

    • Neurotoxin says:

      “Is female sexuality *really* categorically anti-social and dysgenic?… the selective pressures of mating with women makes men more inclined to be charismatic, assertive, dominant and decisive, so… women’s sexuality has some pro-social effects.”

      A woman would rather mate with a man without physical signs of disease than ones with such. So no, not every aspect of female sexuality is dysgenic. No one is claiming that.

      To engage with your question closer to its home base: A woman would rather mate with a man who is adept at pro-social violence than a wimp, so in that sense, sure.

      But as Pseudo says elsewhere in this thread: “Ceteris paribus; but ceteris is never paribus.” Women in this bad old world also have a third choice: men who practice various kinds of defection.

      – – – – – – – – – – – –

      “women can also make intelligent choices”

      When it comes to mating? You’ve gotta start washing out the bathtub before you mix up a new batch of meth.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        Sorry, I’m a bit hung up on this:

        “women can also make intelligent choices”

        in a sexual/mating context. Dude, even out in Normie-land this statement is debatable, and is frequently debated. Did you really think you were going to slip it past the goalie here?

        Come on, Nicodemus; you’re better than this!

        • Nicodemus Rex says:

          “women can also make intelligent choices”

          My bad, I agree this is a controversial statement that needs to be justified. I’m basing this off personal experience that’s hard to convey accurately as an anon, especially when there are a lot of nuances (just because they *can* obviously doesn’t mean they do most of the time.)

          Jim is completely right when he says that female sexuality — what turns women on — hasn’t changed since we came down from the trees. The form remains the same, the age old dance of dominance and submission and carefully veiled capability to perform violence. Manhandling a girl early on gets you far further on in the seduction than 3 hours of tight verbal game will (or any amount of displayed wealth).

          & women can’t think rationally and will make terrible decisions while turned on (crawling 9 miles over broken glass to their demon lover etc.), BUT when they’re not turned on they often do make the conscious choice to not put themselves in situations where they’re liable to be aroused.

          For example, I know if I’m alone with a girl behind a locked door then doesn’t matter who she is, she’s going to be horny and we’ll soon be banging. But a “good girl” (say she has a boyfriend she thinks of as alpha) will be aware of this, and arrange matters so she never *has* to be alone in a room with me.

          Most women have an intuitive understanding of what situations and kinds of men turn them on. Hot girls who want to date rich (which is a lot of them) don’t hang out at the normie club at 2am, they finagle their way to VIP-only and exclusive events — and then of course they fuck the most arrogant violent aloof asshole they meet there. Good “trad” girls (yes they do exist, all two dozen of them) consciously don’t party, they hang out at church meetups and then fuck the most arrogant violent aloof asshole they meet there.

          When not turned on, women can actually make *rational* (in the economics definition of rational, not necessarily actual rational) decisions about who they would like to mate with. Although women would be inexplicably turned on by and somehow end up banging General Butt Naked should he appear before them, they’re not spending their days on the prowl for him. Just like men (ok ok not just like men, obviously women are more emotional in the way they make decisions) they can and do choose to structure their lives to meet the kind of men they would *consciously* like to mate with.

          … and because of the way women “consciously* evaluate status, those men often end up being pro-social cooperators and not defectors.

          • Neurotoxin says:

            Interesting response. Not much to disagree with, well I might take issue with the last sentence. But the chocolately nougat center of it is this:

            “Hot girls who want to date rich… don’t hang out at the normie club at 2am, they finagle their way to VIP-only and exclusive events — and then of course they fuck the most arrogant violent aloof asshole they meet there. Good “trad” girls (yes they do exist, all two dozen of them) consciously don’t party, they hang out at church meetups and then fuck the most arrogant violent aloof asshole they meet there.”

  20. Cloudswrest says:

    Jim, off topic technical question regarding (ETH) mining. What do you think of this mining algorithm change?


    • jim says:

      Picking a node at random leaves you wide open for the sybil attack. And then you furtively close off the sybil attack by picking a node at not so random. Whereupon you do not have a crypto currency, but an unregulated bank.

      Or, in the case of ETH, a regulated bank.

      Scaling requires privileging certain nodes, to reduce scaling costs, but privilege needs to be rotated so that each node gets privileged a proportion of the time proportional to its stake. “randomly” privileging a node is unlikely to be random, and if genuinely random, sybils will attack.

  21. Aidan says:

    Many things become possible when an empire can no longer afford to pay its soldiers
    Of course, I am under no illusions of imminent collapse here- the few fighting men remaining in the military are at a pay grade that implies no serious financial danger, and those being paid the least are about as dangerous as an army of janitors and Walmart greeters. Merely a sign of lack of historical consciousness on the part of the elite, and an indicator that caesarism may not be so far away, when economic decline inevitably squeezes the actual fighting men.

    • someDude says:

      Oh, so the Empire pays the men on the tip of the sword quite well? I’m surprised. I thought it feared and loathed them and wanted them out. Could this just be inertia?

      • Aidan says:

        In dollar terms, pays even the best fighting men quite poorly. But because most of their expenses are heavily subsidized, a 50k salary goes much further for a military man. Plus they get very favorable terms on loans. I make a good bit more money than my friend in the service, but he just bought a house and a nice new sports car, while I drive an old sports car and live in an apartment. I do have a woman to feed, but she doesn’t eat very much

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        In addition to pay and subsidy, there’s a significant amount of status and deference that goes with being “tip of the spear” within the military (though this is changing, just like everything else in the US). The SOF and Specialist Elements are the alpha dogs of the their respective services (each branch has their own SF detachments), and there’s a lot of institutional ideation built into the training and maintenance of the units. And the training is itself a motivation; SOF get the best toys and the biggest budgets for practice and upkeep. So there’s a whole panoply of incentives for these guys, and it isn’t cheap. In addition to the “warfighter” there’s a team of specialists, support personnel, technicians, analysts, controllers, etc. that facilitate them individually and as a group. I have heard it’s something like 12 to 20 people for every 1 operator, though it is obviously different for Army Rangers v. SEALs v. Delta v. AF PJs. Some guys get booted off airplanes and live in the shit, while others are wired up to full stack ISR with a livestream going back to JSOC command. It’s now dated, but you can read Relentless Strike by Nick Naylor, that will give you a feel for the tippy-tip of the tip of the spear (Joint Special Operations Command==JSOC), just know that the names, acronyms, rules, structure, pretty much everything changes over time.

    • alf says:

      They can’t help but hate their own army 👌🏻

    • Neurotoxin says:

      The increasing signs of ineptness of the Ruling Class are quite white pilling.

  22. Red says:

    I can’t decide if the they’re genuinely upset about illegals being bused to Martha’s Vineyard or if it’s a coordinated effort to get DeSantis into the public consciousness to make the GOP primary seem less fake in 2023. Trump is going to the win the primary running away so they need a RINO Republicans can accept when they screw him. That’s assuming Trump’s still alive in 2023.

    • Anon says:

      The level of panic and melting down make it real. The cucservative way was to announce that you are gonna do it and wait for left to criticise the plan. and point at the “hypocrisy” and do nothing . DeSantis went hardcore, clearly he is waging war and the left sense it DeSantis bused them from Texas to mass. and didn’t tell them until after they arrived. Ehich exactly how the left operate .The fact that he went that far to search for newly arrived illegal even from texas and sent them to the heartland of cathedral is stone cold. The only disappointment is that they are 50 not 5 thousand.

    • Jehu says:

      I understand they had the National guard round them up for deportation at a military base. No doubt that’s how they will discourage hitting MV and places like that in the future—go there and you get deported. De Santis will no doubt mix it up in terms of destinations, but I bet that the illegals will get the meta-point.

  23. Zarathustra's Veritas says:

    It is difficult to understate the importance of this topic. The women question is and will remain the first challenge of civilization, and first problem of mankind. As it is necessary for society to exist that women be owned. Jim, you have presented the problem aptly and I must thank you for your manny excellent insights into the issue from the many posts on this topic. But I wish to challenge you. We men have failed our duty to civilization by consistently failing to push our understanding of women far enough. Yes women must be owned, most women now are unowned and thus general use sluts. To rectify this, men must enforce rules on other men to respect their ownership of a women. Thus the principle concern about women is not women, but the rules men impose on each other and their rights concerning the women they own. In the present situation, even a married woman is not actually owned. Few men manage to take ownership of a women, and thus we reach defect defect. My proposition is that going back to the rules of 200 years ago is not enough, and certainly not enough to fix the mess we are currently in. The principle challenge is accepting the nature of women and structuring the rules around that nature. Women are hypergamus, as you point out one women to thirty men. This is natural and is how a proper society will treat women. We all live in polygamy, not because men wish it but because woman does. Mans great failure was his attempt to impose monogamy on women, this unnaturally distributed women to men lower than they wish, and forced many women into marriages with men that they loathed. This is the principle cause of the devolution that we have seen over the last 200 years and more. To restore order we men must appreciate that there are wives ( high status ) and sluts ( low status ). High status men will support as many women as they can take, a new young wife every few years, and low status men will use the sluts. This is how it always was, and how civilization was formed. To fix the present mess we must embrace polygamy.

    As an aside, the church has long accepted the institution of concubinage, for far longer than it rejected it. No verse in the bible and no teachings of Christ rejects it, all the arguments of those who claim that the bible rejects polygamy are read into versus and not explicitly said.

    • jim says:

      The original Aryans had monogamy plus concubinage. Christian monogamy is derived from the Romans.

      The problem with polygyny is that a man may neglect his legitimate children, and that the mass of men are severely oppressed. A healthy civilization needs to give its warriors and taxpayers a fair share of the assets. And the most important form of capital of them all is pussy.

      We need to exclude unproductive and worthless men, so there will be an excess of females, and inevitably the wealthy and powerful are going to mop up some of that excess, but we cannot allow the mopping up to be so extensive that it deprives worthy and valuable men.

      When Constantine marches to victory, his soldiers need to realistically expect wives and gardens.

    • Your Uncle Bob says:

      ZV, and I have a vague idea a few past commenters, need to wrap your heads around the fact you’re going to need the warriors and a working majority of proles on your side. I understand the historical argument that they won’t move or win without an elite faction, but an elite faction alone is doomed to failure also. Not least because they’d be no better for the warriors and proles than the nationless cosmopolitan cloud people elite we have now, so what exactly are you offering them? Going to man the barricades yourselves?

      I happen to like Jim’s numbers elsewhere of can’t help the bottom 10% of men, the top 10% will help themselves, so give the productive middle mass of 80% a reason for loyalty. I guess you could fiddle with the bottom percentage a little, but too much and you’re doing something else entirely, and that something else is doomed to failure.

      Also I just now realized I’m arguing with a shill or entryist. Agree up front, change the terms halfway through to something else entirely. But I’ll hit post anyway, a regular can tell me if I’m wrong somewhere.

      • jim says:

        > I’m arguing with a shill or entryist. Agree up front, change the terms halfway through to something else entirely.

        A very concise and accurate account of the shill method. They cannot argue up front for their position, since their position is “lie down and die while we kill you all”, so they agree up front, and then redefine our words. I call it argument from fake consensus, but the fake consensus is largely carried by changing the meaning of our words half way through.

        Going to steal this. I steal from the best.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          This might be a time-sink, but consider including a sentence from each part with all the filler stripped out, maybe something like:

          “The women question is and will remain the first challenge of civilization, and first problem of mankind. As it is necessary for society to exist that women be owned[…]yet[…]Women are hypergamus, as you point out one women to thirty men. This is natural and is how a proper society will treat women.”

          Or something like that. I am clumsy, but I bet it could work.

          • Zarathustra's Veritas says:

            [*shilling for the great reset deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Take the shill test.

              • The Cominator says:

                Unironically shilling the Jesuit reset here, what exactly did he say?

                • jim says:

                  I decoded it as redefining our shibboleths to have great reset meanings. Maybe my decoding was unfair. Beset by shills, I sometimes shoot from the hip.

                  We are in favor of concentration of power, and the great reset program is concentration of power, so, though the difference is glaringly obvious, the difference is non trivial to explain, particularly when someone is using our words with subtly different meanings.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I wouldn’t say we’re in favor of concentration of power… we’re in favor of kingly power unshared but the kings doing far less than modern central governments so power will be both more concentrated and less as it devolves… we’re more in favor of real responsibility.

                • jim says:

                  Of course, but a subtle distinction.

                  Successful peoples had Kingly power that was both absolute and unlimited, and simultaneously severely limited by the power of his vassals, and his vassals similarly had absolute and unlimited power within their fiefs, which was similarly severely limited by the power of their vassals, all the way down the peasant who had Kingly powers under his small and leaky roof that today we would consider only appropriate for the central government of a sovereign state. The peasant was both far less free, and far more free in his absolute, independent, and unlimited sovereignty, than any modern.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  I have been contemplating bureaucracy for a long time. I consider it to be the most dangerous tool available to the elites. No serious ruler of a serious nation can avoid using it, not without some kind of major innovation to organization and organized effort. But what are the limits? What is the “right” amount of bureaucracy?

                  I don’t know how popular this perspective here is, as it seems many of us are small l libertarians, but I am an authoritarian. I believe the State should be all powerful, under a King’s hand. I think the State should be small, deadly, effective, efficient, and constrained. There are things the State should do to the exclusion of all other elite institutions, and other things, most things maybe, that the State refuses to involve itself with.

                  I think there should be no more than 3 degrees of separation between the King’s Circle and the rest of the bureaucracy. So you have the King, and the King has his Circle, and the Circle members have their circles, and those members have adjutants, and that is all. This is a generic formulation, and it can be adjusted as needed for exceptional circumstances, such as geographic limitations or climatic realities. This formulation sets a hard limit on the Bureaucracy, and anyone else integrated into this management system must stand separate from it in a formal sense. The Circle, circles, and adjutants are all titled positions. These would be a separate entitlement from the titles of the nobility, which are the elite merchants, warriors, and priests. So they are appointed or elected to this title, and it does not pass to the sons, though their noble titles would. So a Baron could be appointed to the Circle, a circle, or an adjutancy, and it is unconnected to his Barony. If he is the King’s Lord of the Sea, He would be Baron Neurotoxin, Lord of Waters, and his son would be Prion the Younger, and he would be unconnected to the Lordship position.

                  Circumstances dictate that the bureaucracy must swell and reduce, but the Circle/circle/adjutant structure remains. This would dictate both rewards and punishments, again depending upon circumstances. The use of Electors is tricky but not impossible, and I think basing it on competency, birth, specialty is a good enough filter. Electors must also be a one-off type thing, not a held title or a bureaucratic artifact.

                  To my way of thinking, power must be constrained as much as possible, keeping it locked within the smallest group possible. Bureaucracy is a powerful and dangerous tool, and it needs a Firewall of Known, meaning each member is a known personage, no gray mass of operators hiding under the umbrella of incorporation.

                • jim says:

                  Holy Roman Empire did fine for near a millennium without a bureaucracy.

                  I don’t think bureaucracy is required. Clive of India was a corporate accountant, but was he a bureaucrat? Obviously not. Xenophon was an economist, and focused on logistics. Was he a bureaucrat?

                  Munshi Abdullah seems to have done the kind of stuff for Stamford Raffles that one would expect a bureaucracy to do, but he was surely not a bureaucrat.

                  Consider the fictional character, Judge Dredd. He has broad discretionary authority to apply violence and pronounce punishments. But he has an AI in his helmet, his gun, and his bike, that monitors all this, and any time he uses violence or pronounces punishment, he has to state reason and purpose as soon as the dust settles, and all this data piles up at headquarters, so that higher authority can check on him from time to time to see if he is doing what he is supposed to.

                  You reckon Judge Dredd is a bureaucrat, and the organization of which he is part is a bureaucracy?

                • The Cominator says:

                  the state must collect revenue somehow this entails a minimalist bureaucracy at the very least as I support a Georgia tax system so bureaucracy for assessing the unimproved value of land at least would be essential.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Bureaucracy is the extension of an absent power. Anyone who is sworn to carry out the will of another is a member of a bureaucracy. Yes, Judge Dredd is a type of bureaucrat, and probably a caricature of the best kind. The King is all powerful, but he is not omnipresent, and he is not omniscient, so he will need people to stand in for him, and he will need people who are more familiar with topics and activities he is not. Bureaucracy is delegation, and we have established that delegation is a necessity, so bureaucracy is a necessity at some point and to some level.

                  I’m not intimately familiar with the examples you listed, but I am nonetheless certain they did not do everything themselves. There is always a need for power to be extended, unless one is merely the King of all he sees and touches. The King rides home to his castle, but his will must be done, even as he turns to a new task. Thus, some type of bureaucracy is needed. This is what separates chieftains from governors and kings.

                • jim says:

                  > Bureaucracy is delegation

                  No it is not. It is a particular way of doing delegation that does not in fact work very well. Works great for the bureaucrats, not so great for the CEO and the business.

                  There is no oversight of decisions because you cannot find the person who made the decision, supposedly no one made the decision, it just happened as a result of everyone following procedure.

                  We don’t actually need humans merely to follow procedure. If there is no human discretion required, you can have a database server handle it automatically. And if you do need human discretion, then in fact some a human makes a decision, need to know who he is and what he decided.

                • The Cominator says:

                  HRE was perhaps TOO decentralized every lord was almost completely sovereign in his own domain with his own army unless the Emperor raised an army to attack him… not ideal. completely different problem from the overcentralized but obscure and diffuse problems of clownworld but still a problem.

                • The Cominator says:

                  the Prussian system was that retired but poor aeistocratic ex officers made their living supervising the common poor bureaucrats…

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  A pervasive thought-form in the socialistically inclined – which is to say, the solipsistic – is the notion that ‘regulations’, broadly construed, take effect as like abstract universals operating on a frictionless plane.

                  It can appear to be a difficult leap of intuition for some, many, that any time a new ordnance, codicil, mandate, or standard is declared… a new office downtown is also conjured into existence, in order to administrate it.

                  And not just in the ruling body, but in *every single entity the provisio supposedly applies too*, as well. The growth is not linear, but exponential.

                  Paperwork is a form of life, with demonstrable ability to reproduce, producing more of itself from itself, occupying slices of ontological real-estate. And as with all other forms of life, not necessarily aligned with your own species.

                  Arrogation of capital by fiat is perhaps the most viscerally obvious expression of socialismus in practice, and hence more ink by long has spilled on this aspect. Though, of course, all lords levy a tithe from their holdings through one means or another, the only real question is indeed, by what means, to what degree, and then sent on what concerns. Which is to say, a basically pragmatic question.

                  A perhaps far more subversive expression, though, of liberal-socialist modes of thought (and isn’t such an abutment itself a quintessential example of antique 20th century pomo irony), one which may ought merit much more material in examination, one which may rear it’s head in a wide range of contexts, beyond obvious ‘tells’ like big sovereign bureaucracies, is *managerialism*; the micromanaging of particular affairs by alien parties with neither, shared alignment of interests, or responsibilities for failure, or even *information*, with regards to that which they are ostensibly to manage.

                  America, relative to many european nations in previous decades, did not have such high degrees of explicit redistribution, yet nearly any field of business you might care to name is lined up and down with, nominally, binding legislations, regulations, and bureaucratic overseers – indeed, at times self-imposed even, the fungal growths of inflating bureaucratia ever seeking to grow up and choke down any enterprise of proceeding age and size. So you know, to the managerialist, it is not enough to have a chain of command, but have duplicate shadow chains of command running other chains of command too.

                  You may have a general officer responsible for what equipment his tenants in lieu may go to war with… and then you might have a department of the ministry of departments, with nominal authority over the same things. Well, if the chief paper pusher was so much more possessed of prescience as to what things would bring a nation victory on the battlefield, then they should be the general instead. Either way, it is the redundancy that gets you.

                  When one might look at the historical example of the teutonics, you get the sense of a people who, relatively speaking, trust their neighbors to conduct themselves virtuously. Which, if you are living in a society filled with nords, is a fairly well justified faith; probably more justified than just about any other clade on the rock.

                  There are highly inevitable existential (which is to say, racial) implications to the idea of redistribution – punishing thedes you don’t identify with and enriching thedes you do identify with – such that it can become more or less a refactored expression of politics as a whole down to a kernel (who/whom). Something like managerialism, however, is perhaps more arcane in its implications; less as much about distinguishing rent-seeking between obviously different clades, more so much about distinguishing the rent-seeking of particular phenotypes of men within clades, which also crosses over the particular objects of action, with the mechanics of the actions forthwith.

                  The growth of managerialism is, in short terms, about stuff simply *not working to the good*; it is the trains not running on time; it is the power flickering and browning out; it is code that is buggy, inelegant, or nonfunctional; it is poor quality control in your manufacturing; it is contamination in your food and water supply; it is people running out of asswipe while a hundred grand square feet of toilet paper sits abandoned in a warehouse somewhere. It is a million things and a million million more, the hardly quantifiable actions, events, and exchanges that take place throughout the whole national organism, be they smaller, or greater. It is the desire to divorce power from responsibility; to launder responsibility, through an ever expanding array of procedures, committees, and approval processes, such that, when anything and everything goes boink, ‘no one’ can be held to blame; and thus, anything and everything does go boink.

                  Much of this largely springs from many people having an abstruse, ‘colourblind’ idea of ‘value’, that is disconnected with any matter in practice, as if ‘value’ is some kind of atemporal floating point outside of eminent existence that can be added too or subtracted from without consequence; that is, while they might see ‘businesses’ creating ‘value’, they don’t see business as *something that is valuable*; as things that are out there doing things, making things happen, effecting processes of civilization, great or small – and thus, likewise, does not see how impacts on these processes are impacts on the creation of value in the first place. The thought that the only way ‘nice things’ happen or could ever be made to happen are if a sovereign apparatchik arbitrates it to be so (the appearance, assumption, and de facto selection-mechanisms producing such men in the first place of course being elided, simply presumed to spring from the aether in state de novo), and so, you need to confiscate other bodies’s capital in order for nice things to happen, and the more you confiscate the more the niceness.

                  To wit, the role of the ‘governing bureaucrat’ in this dynamic can only be understood properly as something which is more like a psychological totem, an empty cypher into which the whig subject projects his own self. Thus the regressive *identifies* with the apparatus, even it is not he himself personally acting in it’s place (a dynamic that Mr. Orwell intuitively sensed in his own times). And thus then showing a clarified expression of how they ultimately perceive Being, which is that ‘there is nothing that happens unless I make it happen’; which, when inevitably butting into a recalcitrant reality full of things that do so proceed without their personal intervention, produces an intense psychic dissonance, such ill feelings then becoming sublimated into a sentiment of, ‘nothing good happens unless I make it happen’, which is them expressing in other words, ‘there *better not* be anything happening unless I am making it happen’.

                  The solipsistic narcissist interprets signs of other beings existing and exercising agency as hostility. In their minds, the phenomena of percepted beings not suspending all voluntary behavior and or not submitting to the least of whims in any and all times, is interpreted as if you were trying to do just the same to them, or worse even. They take it as given and granted that the proceedings of the universe conduct themselves in a one-to-one relationship with their unexpressed thoughts about it; and any time events conspire to put this presumption to lie, a formless impulse of irrational anger consumes them – and seeks an outlet for expression.

                  The congenitally insecure desire power as a means of sublimating this insecurity, the visceral antipathy to the idea that anything – most especially any*one* – could have any bearing over them. But thus such is their ironic hell; for it is the very observation of certain stricture – the divine law of creation – that brings greater power in the first place.

                  It has long been observed by thoughtful men throughout history that for any given criteria, there will be gaming of that criteria. And hence likewise, the recognition of judgement as transcending any subsidiary proceduralism, which themselves are products of judgement, and the successive accretions of historical evolution in general. The recognition also that not all criteria are created equal; at the limit, ‘continued existence’ is, itself, a criteria.

                  Now, if the reader will allow a digression for a moment, consider this a truism that one can take for granted, which is that no matter what is going on, even if it’s the end of life as you know it, you can bet that someone, somewhere, somehow, will be trying to figure out a way to make some value through whatever is going on.

                  And so then, one may see how our marxians take this truism and then turn it into a ‘wet streets cause rain’ tier analysis, where any possible happenstance may always be asserted to be both ’caused by’ and also ‘for the benefit of’ a ‘capitalist class’, regardless of how tenuous the connexions may be, heedless of who is actually involved, and irrespective of it’s ultimate consequences. Until eventually we have rhetorically inflated the tautology for tactical deployment in an ever expanding envelope of contexts, to point where ‘capitalism’ becomes equivocated with the ground of Being itself, and then it turns out our communists were actually gnostics all along. (Barrista drop-outs of the world, unite against the tyranny of the demiurge!)

                  It’s kinda like, looking at a man driving through a mountain range, seeing that he’s hopelessly lost, can’t read a map right, and ends rolling off a cliff; then looking at this and going, ‘it must have been in his class interest to roll off a cliff; because why would he do it if it was not?’.

                  Like looking at an airline pilot, and a hijacker holds a gun to his head saying fly us to so-and-so; if your scale of analysis is measured in the space of minutes, you might even say it could be ‘in his interest’ to cooperate; but the end result is still them flying into a building and killing everyone including themselves.

                  Communism, it can seem, is a very slippery fish. We see its wakes everywhere; yet whenever we go out looking for it, we can find no man who will profess acquaintanceship with it.

                  When our fascists say fascism is not communism, i am more than willing to discuss the matter with them. I’ve done much the same myself at times. “Fascism, properly understood…”

                  And certainly, when our friends of the yellow flag say that capitalism is ancient, we can also entertain this notion; one can read the parable of the talents to see what the Holy Ghost has to say about capitalism; one can read Xenophon’s Anabasis to see what the Ionians thought about capitalism. Veritably, ‘true capitalism’ has been tried many times; the most times in fact.

                  We can understand the difficulty here though; terms like ‘capitalism’, or ‘communism’, or ‘fascism’, or so many ‘isms’ in general, are highly propagandized; by this we mean there have been, over the intervening decades and centuries, untold legions of ideological sorcerers, memetic wizards, and rhetorical warlocks, all attempting to conjure their own magic spells using the words to get people to do their particular bidding, such that at this point practically everyone in our most current of years becomes possessed of their own idiosyncratic sense of what they might mean, and even ostensible fellow travelers will find it difficult to communicate with each other using them.

                  The mattoid cannot pin the sense of fnords (‘sexism’, ‘racism’, ‘privilege’, ‘socialism’, ‘capitalism’, and so on) down to a form, because their utility as tactical weapons for social domination depend on that very formlessness, inertial retention of old connotations with rapidly shifting denotations, to be shoehorned as needed from one contingency to the next, irrespective of formal agreement or contradiction between different contingencies.

                  The analysis of terms that are synonymous, but lack the same exosemantic baggage (or have different exosemantic baggage), can be useful in such situations. Like ‘market economy’, or ‘propertarianism’, or ‘freehold’.

                  Freehold is a good word to explore in this context. For example, Elon Musk has freehold over SpaceX, while noone has freehold over NASA. We can speak of something like ‘Elon’ as having a ‘SpaceX’; on the other hand, there is no such figure for NASA that can come to mind. You’d need to use a search engine to even come close to finding someone with executive authority – and whoever they may be doesn’t have a final and sufficient say over anything anyways. Which is not a coincidence. As it happens, SpaceX puts rockets into space; meanwhile, NASA sucks up millions to not put any rockets into space.

                  If we can think of any simple way of expressing what communism in practice is, it is simply this; abnegation of freehold.

                  An absolutist who wishes to usurp for themselves all possible powers within their own central person, will find that he cannot in fact wield all possible powers. He will find that in the attempt to divest all freeholders in his land of their fiefdoms, and wield for himself all possible powers, the business of rulership over this and that thing has instead merely passed from the hands of formal owners, and into the hands of informal owners, in the form of a growing flock of ‘administrative’ servants around him, because the world is very big and has a lot of stuff to do in it. So in the end what has happened is the replacement of select elites… with another set of select elites. Only much more fake and gay.

                  The hack of feudalism in the sense of information theory is that, instead of a situation where everyone has to know everyone, you have a situation where any one particular member of society in any particular position in society, only needs to know a rough dunbar’s number of people; owners below him in hierarchy, owners above him in hierarchy, and peers in adjacent spaces.

                  Consider a classic expression of organizational sclerosis in effect, plea-bargaining. Plea-bargaining has over the years spread to becoming the de facto default for handing cases, since of course this is a hack around the fact that the ‘official’ pathways for the judicial process have undergone so much mutation via partisan subversions of merely written procedures for accomplishment of tactical goals over the years that the system ‘on the books’ is totally unusable by anyone for any purpose. In essence, a lawyer has failed if his case actually goes through the legal system.

                  Wherever it may be product of instinctual maladaption, or epistemological blindness, or intentional malfeasance, or combinations thereof, presently regnant underlords are in any case of course not displeased by this state of affairs, with their ‘processes’ being catastrophically ‘broken’, kafkaesque hells of fractal wrongness, since it means they can use the process itself as punishment. ‘Allegations’, ‘under investigation’, ‘claims’, ‘is accused of’, these arise like clouds of bloodsucking flies out of the swamp, which a scientific observer might curiously note how native swamp-creatures are passed by as if they were invisible, while they swarm like biblical plagues around any creatures of red-blooded vitality that dare step foot into the morass.

                  In practice of course there is nothing that ever gets done except by personal connection like this between overlapping dunbar’s numbers of cadre, in any case, only whether it is explicit, or occulted. This is no less true in 9th century feudalism as it is in 20th century managerialism; and in many ways perhaps, even more so.

                  Indeed, making sure things *don’t* happen could be said to be the effective purpose of bureaucratic inflation; a mandelbrot set of layers of checkreigns, overseeing bodies, steering committees, verification processes, and validating criteria, all to ensure that ‘nothing bad happens’; which of course, serves to ensure nothing at all happens, tout court. The only people thinking ‘the process’ is how you are supposed to get things done are the marks who don’t get the joke.

                • i says:

                  Bureaucracy is definitely as old as the Oldest Civilizations itself like in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Inca Civilization.

                  And more recently China. As a result of the decline of the Aristocratic Warrior Class who then became Scholar Bureaucrats.

                  And the State was massively centralized around the King and later Emperor Qin Shi Huang.

                • jim says:

                  So is entropy.

                  Bureaucracy is organizational disfunction prefiguring corporate bankruptcy and civilizational collapse.

                • i says:

                  So is entropy.

                  Bureaucracy is organizational disfunction prefiguring corporate bankruptcy and civilizational collapse.

                  So why then has Chinese Civilization been so enduring along with its long enduring Bureaucracy especially since the Song Dynasty?

                  No matter the Dynasty the Bureaucracy doesn’t die.

                • jim says:

                  China has been in steady decline from the Song Dynasty until Deng, and was repeatedly conquered by outsiders, each of whom caused a revival, but who in turn came down with the same ailment.

                  China recovered under Deng because private Chinese business generally does not suffer from bureaucracy.

                • i says:

                  China has been in steady decline from the Song Dynasty until Deng, and was repeatedly conquered by outsiders, each of whom caused a revival, but who in turn came down with the same ailment.

                  China recovered under Deng because private Chinese business generally does not suffer from bureaucracy.

                  If so then that is an awfully slow decline. Ancient Egypt for example lasted thousands of years whilst being administered by a bureaucracy.

                  Since Bureaucracy favors stability and routine. Then its decline by stagnation. How long would China have lasted without Deng?

                • jim says:

                  China lingered on, but things sucked. As for how long it lasted, a long time in the sense that China is still Chinese, but a mighty short time in that they kept getting conquered and ruled by outsiders less afflicted by bureaucracy.

                  Bureaucracy literally means “rule by bureaus”. Which means that decisions strangely get made, but neither the sovereign, nor those afflicted by those decisions, can find out who made them, and when the decisions have bad consequences, no one is to blame.

                • i says:

                  China lingered on, but things sucked. As for how long it lasted, a long time in the sense that China is still Chinese, but a mighty short time in that they kept getting conquered and ruled by outsiders less afflicted by bureaucracy.

                  Bureaucracy literally means “rule by bureaus”. Which means that decisions strangely get made, but neither the sovereign, nor those afflicted by those decisions, can find out who made them, and when the decisions have bad consequences, no one is to blame.

                  Indeed. In that case its perpetual stagnation. At least in regards to the State especially.

                  It seems that Ancient Egypt would be the same way were it not for foreign conquerors and other Ancient Civilizations. Egypt scarcely changed over its 3000 year history until foreign conquest and culture changed it.

                  The Collapse of Roman Administration may have been an inadvertent blessing by Divine Providence in this regard.

                  What’s your thoughts on Chesterton’s comments on Christianity in this regard and see if this is tangentally related:


                  In Asia he believes that he sees the same changelessness and believe that Europe in its Paganism would have become like Asia in this regard. Old and relatively Stagnant. But Christianity dies. And continually renews its youth. Like Christ from the dead.

                  Perhaps societies in the East is changes more than we give them credit for. I dunno.

              • Zarathustra's Veritas says:

                You have a fales postive on your shill test. Which is fasinating. I think to rectify this I must ask you to take a shill test too. Do you belive that God is supreme athority over man, that God sent Christ to save mankind and Christ placed a duity on man to rulle over man, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciplesd of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” That this means man is unequal, lower men are subject to higher men, and women are servents of man. If you agree then take what I have said to heart. If not… Then you are not what I think you are.

                • jim says:

                  My blog. You take the shill test first.

                • Zarathustra's Veritas says:

                  Agreed, what is the shill test?

                • jim says:

                  Commit or respond to a thought crime that shills are known to be unable to commit or respond to.

                  You can commit a thought crime on your own topic in your own words, or you can reply to someone else’s thought crime, perhaps to tell him that he is wrong and official doctrine is right, but using responsive words and phrasing that reveal what the thought crime is that you are rebutting.

                  The extensive quote that you produced, saying that women are inferior, seems very close to a thought crime, but “Joo Joo Joo, name the Jew” also seems very close to a thought crime, and is not, because the people saying “Name the Jew” will never tell us what Soros is up to. They want us to go after the wrong Jews.

                  Your quote looks awfully like “I hate women also”, which is not a thought crime, just as “Joo Joo Joo” is not a thought crime, provided that one refrains from mentioning certain Jews and certain activities of those Jews. Also, we do not hate women, we love women. Everything men do, we do for women. Faggots hate women.

                  The extensive quote that you produced fails to endorse Pauline marriage, marriage 1.0, which is the thought crime that horrifies the Cathedral. Women in their proper sphere, home, kitchen, and nursery, are immensely superior to men, better people than men, but outside their proper sphere, inferior, wicked, dangerous, and harmful, which is why Paul forbade them to speak in Church, and Peter commanded them to obey their husbands, even if their husband gave her wicked and immoral commands. Women are wonderful in their proper sphere.

                  Women need a master, as a dog needs a master. I love dogs also. Dogs are good at being dogs, and women good at being women. Your source tells us women are inferior and men are superior, but neglects to tell us that husbands must rule, wives must obey, and that women are happy and productive in this role and circumstance, just as the shill who says “Joo Joo Joo, name the Jew, Rothschilds, Rothschilds, Joo Joo Joo”, cannot tell us the the most persuasive evidence for “it is the Jews”, what Soros is doing being the most persuasive evidence.

                  The quote you produced looks like a faggot hating on women. We love women. Also love boobs.

                  Genesis 2:24 – Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

                  Hebrews 13:4 – Let marriage be held in honor among all

                  Proverbs 18:22 – He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.

                  1 Timothy 3:2 – bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

                  1 Timothy 3:4-5 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                  1 Timothy 3:12 – Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

                  1 Peter 3:1-2 -Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

                  1 Peter 3:6 – Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

                  And, of course, boobs.

                  Proverbs 5:19 – As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.

                  Song of Solomon 8:10- “I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers; Then I became in his eyes as one who finds peace.

                  Song of Solomon 4:5 – “Your two breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle Which feed among the lilies.

                  Song of Solomon 7:7-8 – “Your stature is like a palm tree, And your breasts are like its clusters. “I said, ‘I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.’ Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, And the fragrance of your breath like apples,

                  Women are great. Also, boobs are great.

                • alf says:

                  We love women. Also boobs.

                  Truth so timeless it brings a tear to my eye.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  So timeless even that it brings a tear to another body part, too

                • Zarathustra's Veritas says:


                • jim says:

                  Faggotry is leftist, and leftism is gay.

                  If you want to dispute my position, you cannot debate my position except by committing the unthinkable thought crime of noticing what my position is.

                  I will not debate you if you do not dare not tell us what the position is that you dispute and reject. Debate is impossible, pointless and worthless with shills whose supervisors will not permit them to say what they are arguing against.

                • Zarathustra's Veritas says:


                • jim says:

                  Your account of my position leaves out the central and critical thought crime: Marriage 1.0, the secret ingredient of every happy family anywhere ever. All happy families are alike, and always have been.

                  And without what you have strangely omitted, my position makes no sense and is entirely indefensible.

                • Zarathustra's Veritas says:

                  [*deleted*] this places a limit on man and thus empowers women [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Yes, if we were all faggots, women would be powerless. Because we are not, they have a great deal of power, even if chained spread eagled to the dungeon wall.

                  Marriage 1.0 gives them considerably more power than chained spread eagled to the dungeon wall.

                  This does not make faggotry the reactionary position.

                • Zarathustra's Veritas says:


                • jim says:

                  The trouble with your position is that it omits, and indeed abandons, the reason and purpose for the subordination of women, that you refuse to commit the thought crime of acknowledging the reason and purpose for which we want to subordinate women, that you will not notice or respond to our central thought crime on the woman question.

                  Women should be subordinated to give effect to the telos of sex and reproduction. A telos that does not seem to exist in your universe, or is irrelevant to relationships between men and women.

                • i says:


                  And don’t forget this passage in (Ezekiel 16:7-8) after the growth of breasts and other secondary characteristics made the country Israel to be old enough for love and is married by God:

                  7I made you thrive like a plant of the field. You grew up and matured and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, but you were naked and bare.

                  8Then I passed by and saw you, and you were indeed old enough for love. So I spread My cloak over you and covered your nakedness. I pledged Myself to you, entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine, declares the Lord GOD.

    • ten says:

      No way.

      Every man that serves the order gets a wife, or the order does not persist, and that involves far too many men for top dogs to hoard wives.

      If there are surplus women, polygyny is preferable to ferality, but surplus women is indicative of disorder, and if polygyny is pursued in the ordered state, disorder ensues.

  24. Kunning Druegger says:

    Jim, you’re absolutely killing it with these posts. Origin of Whites and Female Sexual Preferences were both excellent, and you can tell because the comments are just as interesting and engaging.

    Pax and Dharmic have made a strong rebuttal against shaming a patriarch over shotgun marriage reticence, and many others have joined in. In one of the sub-threads, a disagreement over Abduction and its definition and meaning made me think. After I awoke from blacking out and took 2 aspirin, I was puzzling over the whole concept of Property. My kids are my property. My livestock are my property. My woman is my property. My wife is my property. I love all of these things, and each of them has a use and usefulness that makes me more complete, more essentially Me. But they are all quite different in shape and purpose and potential. It is not easy to stack them up against each other, and I earnestly pray I never have to decide between my land and my kids, or any other dichotomy of my things.

    If I walked up to you on the street and, at gunpoint, forced you to play Texas Hold’em with me at a $100 buy in, you’d be pretty cross with me when I cleaned you out. You’d be mad still if you won, but it would be a different story. If I invited you over for some poker and scotch, you’d be cross if I beat you, and you’d be $100 poorer, but it would be a very different situation. Consider how a man could walk in and out of both situations and feel cross and cheated. he could also walk away with clouds under his soles and enough cash to buy 3 days worth of groceries.

    It’s no profound thing to say that context matters, but it bears repeating at certain points. If you sneak onto my land and abduct my daughter, I will feel pretty damn cross, and I am liable to put some lead in your direction if given a sliver of a chance. But if my community has some kind of holiday, some cultural event, wherein fathers lock away their daughters while unattached young men move about the county seeking tail, with it being understood that if she ain’t locked up, she’s available… well, I’d still be cross when, come dawn’s early light, my lockpick set and my daughter are missing, but I’d also probably have to realize that it was about time for her to start darkening some other man’s door with her moods, appetites, and attitude.

    This is part of why culture, custom, and tradition is so important. law books are just a formal record of what everyone who is culturally cognizant instinctively knows, or, that’s what they are supposed to be. You can’t make a rule book for life, you’re supposed to live life by rules we all know. I know that the Polygon has made good and honest living impossible, but there may come a day when we can actually get back to living the way GNON intended. We can culturally institutionalize coverture, abduction, ownership transfer, and cherishment without making some pedantic rule book that needs a D20 and 3 lawyers. I firmly believe most if not all of the issues we face in society can be culturally addressed, imperfect though it will be.

  25. The Cominator says:


    The Cathedral is talking about killing your dog (the pet of good chads) cat (I don’t like most of them but some are okay) or perhaps ferret.

  26. Dad says:

    How would you find a suitable husband for your daughter, assuming she is currently 5 years old (so a lot of time to look), homeschooled, and the family doesn’t attend a church?

    Even if family did attend a church, seems like a lot of weak, fake Chistians are around churches nowadays.

    How can a patriach find a son-in-law that will be non-Prog, masculine, high IQ, and unjabbed? And in the unlikely case that this is found, how does a patriach vet potential son-in-laws?

    Would appreciate as much advice as possible.

    • jim says:

      Well, in the current society, obviously impractical.

      Fathers just have to do their best to keep their daughters off the pole and marry them off early, which is hard, and illegal, just as men looking for a wife have to act illegally.

      But fathers have less ability, and less motivation, to act illegally. The player seeking to secure ownership, seeking to escape the game of players and bitches, risks only himself. The father seeking to support ownership risks his assets and his family.

      The father is also less motivated to secure ownership for a potential husband, than a potential husband is motivated to secure ownership for himself.

      There is also the problem of credibility. A jealous husband can quite credibly threaten honor killing. A father, less credible.

    • Your Uncle Bob says:

      Join a gym, and join a dojo, both. The father does this, NOT bringing the daughter along to make a man out of her or share all your interests with her. Now bide your time, and keep an eye on the boys and young men her age to a couple years older (should be 2-5 years older but we’re making allowances for law and society). Make allowances for age as you do this, young men don’t have everything put together yet. If none of them are good enough for your girl the problem is you not them; adjust.

      In the meantime, practice entertaining. Backyard barbeques are good. Be careful who you invite, but invite someone. Start including the parents of some of the young men, and their families.

      Also practice building up other men rather than trying to mog them. Subtly – not “isn’t he cute” to your daughter, but talking to him about the fight he won or something. If the men are any good they’ll build you up themselves, especially in your own home, and if they don’t you should pick up on that in time to leave them out.

      And hope nature takes its course.

      Admittedly this all worked better in the old days when it was more the only time women saw new men, and now they’ve got other distractions. But it’s still a real shot, and beats doing nothing.

      Too, I increasingly think we should build (non-fed-poasting activity) alternate social circles. Start and lead a men’s Bible study or prayer group. Start up a kettlebell group in a park. Something, to meet and network with people over something that’s broadly “our team” but non-political and hopefully non Waco-able.

    • Redbible says:

      I think vetting a potential son-in-law in the wrong frame of mind.

      Thinking more in terms of finding/Picking a man you want to make your son-in-law should get you more on the right track.

      Being involved in a community that have some (potentially) quality young men would be a good start. If you hit it off, you can try testing some red pills or jim pills, and see how he reacts (obviously, start with the light weight stuff, and do deeper from their.) If you can find a young man that is receptive to the red pills, you might have a good candidate.

      • Adam says:

        I agree. Build your son-in-law into a man the same way as your son. Boys and young men are not made out of much, but with good leadership they will grow into admirable men in no time.

      • Javier says:

        this is my strategy. I’m not subtle about it either. got my friends’ kids competing to me my sons in law.

  27. restitutor_orbis says:

    This article is normie-focused but the phenomenon it describes is a perfect illustration of the nature of women, the defect/defect equilibrium and the broken system we have created.


    • Red says:

      There’s millions of incels out there just waiting for a leader to forge them into an all conqoring army. Thirst Men will do anything for pussy.

      • Fuck says:

        [*deleted for grotesque detachment from reality*]

      • someDude says:

        What do the good reactionaries of this blog make out of this paragraph here?

        “he consistently spent quite a bit of money for Lainey to send feet pics (only the bottom of the feet!), and — crucially — to tell him he was a loser, his dick was small, and “send me money.”


        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          In highly socialized types of men, there is a certain strain of instinct that goes something like, ‘the more i am willing to sacrifice, the more i will get in return’.

          In minor examples of the species, this can often take the form of things like, ‘if i am nice, people will be nice to me in return’. In more extreme examples… well, you can find things like this.

          In performatively displaying a willingness to abase himself, the feeling is kinda of like he is ‘making up for’ a gap between perceived value of himself and his object of affection, something like ‘this will prove the value of my love’, or like ‘i might not normally have any chance of interacting with her in any way, but if it is something like this, it might happen’, and so on and so forth.

          • someDude says:

            Could this sort of self-abasement be evolutionary feasible? Or is it an evolutionary dead end that erupts randomly now and then only to die out, like say, homosexuality.

            Now, understand that signaling gayness could well be a maneuver to signal harmlessness to women, get close to them and then slide into the vag when a chance opens up.

            I’m wondering if signaling self-abasement is something like signaling gayness. Signal harmlessness, get close to a woman who you could get close to otherwise, wait for a chance/vulnerability and then slide in when the window of opportunity opens up.

            Could this be it?

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              Partially; but the main thing is, like noted, a maladaptive spandrel of an instinct for self-sacrifice.

            • jim says:

              > Could this sort of self-abasement be evolutionary feasible? Or is it an evolutionary dead end that erupts randomly now and then only to die out, like say, homosexuality.

              Does not look like a viable sexual strategy to me, rather a reproductive failure mode, like faggotry.

            • Aidan says:

              I would say that this ingratiating instinct is, rather than an initially noble but perverted self-sacrifice instinct, the self abasement of a cringing courtier or flatterer, a caste that was bred in urbanity to serve others without dignity, often useful and of high IQ, but in modernity completely unhinged by the testosterone crisis, sliding from merely contemptible to utterly reprehensible. The higher Asian races are completely infested by such

        • A2 says:

          Sounds like she hooked a Salon subscriber. These degenerates come and go in the media, and since I still recall the last time from just a few years ago, there is nothing new.

          What is worse IMO is the normalization of selling the ass in college.

        • Anon says:

          seeing a lot of posts about “marriage strike” with indian names in social media talking about ruling in indian court, any info?

          • someDude says:

            Need context. Links?

            Indian marriage law is almost as bad as western marriage law and barely any college graduated women from the big cities are virgins. Things are not as bad in smaller towns but they are not good either. So a bunch of Indian (read Hindu) men have formed their own men’s rights movement of sorts, but it’s not anywhere as big as in the west.

    • Andy says:

      Speaking of civilizational collapse and relations between the sexes, this just popped up in my normie feed. Not news to anyone here: women defect, attempt to shame men into continuing to cooperate, shocked when it doesn’t work & civilization slides…

      • Jehu says:

        That’s a fairly concise way of explaining it. Shaming people into cooperation (or going more aggressive than just shaming) is a key civilizational mechanism. But shaming one party into cooperation while defecting, continuing to defect, and planning future defection irrespective of the other parties ‘play’ is just loathsome,

        I’m keen for straightforward slugfests of sublime self-interest. I loathe it when a fundamentally self-interested party clothes their appeals in moral language.

  28. Femmy says:


    Did you read, Woman, a Vindication, by Anthony Ludovici?
    I believe it was printed around 1922

    Free on Archive dot org.

    Great stuff. very similar to your post, but expanded to 400 pages.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Ludovici did much great work, ‘The Quest For Human Quality’ perhaps amongst his most poignant, less prolific a quill on other timely spheres of endeavor as well.


    • Zarathustra's Veritas says:


      • jim says:

        These appear to be hostile links, an endorsement of the transexualism of the Weimar Republic.

        Take the shill test.

        If the links contain useful information, rather than hostile misinformation, give some illuminating quotes and summaries.

        • Zarathustra's Veritas says:

          I have very thoroughly read both books. [*deleted*] Both authors have the single most explicitly anti left, anti progressive views on women [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            The anti left positions is that emancipation was a bad idea, that it made women frustrated, bitter, and angry, that women, like dogs, need a master.

            If a dog perceives himself as the alpha of pack, he gets neurotic, disturbed, and unhappy, because it is obvious to him that he cannot handle that position. When women push for the upper hand, they are testing you weakness. If they get what they think they are seeking, they are unhappy, and will leave.

            Whatever these guys are saying, it is not that, and seems to be pretty much the opposite of that.

            • Zarathustra's Veritas says:


              • jim says:

                Wikipedia, is, to put it mildly, not an accurate source on the political alignment of writers.

                If these guys are rightist, quote them rejecting female emancipation as bad idea.

                • Zarathustra's Veritas says:

                  “As the absolute female has no trace of individuality and will, no sense of worth or of love, she can have no part in the higher, transcendental life. The intelligible, hyper- empirical existence of the male transcends matter, space, and time. He is certainly mortal, but he is immortal as well. And so he has the power to choose between the two, between the life which is lost with death and the life to which death is only a stepping-stone. The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is com- pact of the desire for immortality. That the woman has no craving for perpetual life is too apparent; there is nothing in her of that eternal which man tries to interpose and
                  must interpose between his real self and his projected, empirical self. Some sort of relation to the idea of supreme value, to the idea of the absolute, that perfect freedom which he has not yet attained, because he is bound by necessity, but which he can attain because mind is superior to matter; such a relation to the purpose of things generally, or to the divine, every man has. And although his life on earth is accompanied by separation and detachment from the abso- lute, his mind is always longing to be free from the taint of original sin.” Otto Winnenger

                  ” Now there is not a particle of doubt in anybody’s mind that the leading, active, and gifted minority now constituting the van of the Women’s Movement are by far the most vital and energetic body of women in the civilized world, admirable in their zeal, and noble in their readiness to shoulder the responsibility of setting things right. This does not prevent us, however, from believing them mistaken in their reading of the situation, and pathetic in their illusions about their own and their sex’s capacities. So indefatigable are they, indeed, that large numbers of apparently monorchid and shallow-minded men have already gone over to their side; while the conversion of girls and young women to a sexless life is one of the least obvious but most pernicious results of their activities. And, since there appears to be no general recognition that our present state of muddle and lack of mastery over all things is the outcome of masculine degeneracy; since, moreover, there seems to be no attempt made to discover how man himself can recover his quota of manly qualities, it is not only possible, but highly probable, that the mass of mankind, through not having its attention called to the only remedy, which is the regeneration of man, will, out of sheer lack of principles and policies, see in the quack-cure of Feminism their only hope.” Ludovici

                • jim says:

                  This sounds like a faggot talking about women, not a reactionary talking about women.

                  Women are wonderful, much superior to men, in their proper sphere, home, kitchen, and nursery. We love women. Everything men do, we do for women. An incel fails to make any effort to have a nice place to live in merely for himself.

                  If you agree or disagree with the proposition that it is great for women and men that a woman lives with a man indissolubly under his authority, and serves him sexually, reproductively, and domestically, that this is the most vital and important thing for both men and woman, discuss that proposition.

                  Also, boobs.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Otto Winnenger was a sexually constipated jew, however close he came to veering on the dangerously based; meaning you can read him if you will, but he should not be read uncritically.

  29. Anonymous Fake says:


    Left and right have completely reversed. Clown world has clown schools too. I sometimes wonder if it’s the same people promoting wokeness who were in charge decades ago, not just the same type of person, but that very old principals just seamlessly switched sides overnight.

    Unfortunately for us, most kids aren’t like MAGA kid. And MAGA kid is probably a real dirtbag in other ways, too. And most parents want their kids to do well in school, no matter what’s being taught.

    I wonder what girls in K-12 school are like now, though not in a creepy way, though this would probably disappoint them. Maybe they’re aspiring to drop out too, and marry MAGA kid. So there’s a good chance we’re going to see more fathers demanding ownership of their daughters, though ironically for all the wrong reasons.

    • jim says:

      Your perceptions of the right are woefully out of contact, but that is a good link.

      You argue that the MAGA kid in the cartoon must be a real dirtbag.

      You paid a King’s ransom for a very expensive education in bullshit, which you have discovered is worthless. The kid in the cartoon has figured out what you failed to perceive.

      Your wrath and your hatred is directed at those who were not burned by the people who burned you. Such as the Maga kid in the cartoon. It is not directed at those who burned you. From this I conclude that you are a real dirtbag.

      And, empirical observation, people like the kid in the cartoon, who do not submit to having evil done to them by evil people in authority, are usually very good people. It is good people who avoid evil people, which the kid in the cartoon is doing. Evil people, like yourself and those who burned you, tend to hang out with evil people.

      • someDude says:

        Begs the question as to why the Kid is in Univ in the first place giving those dirtbags his (or his parents) hard earned money when he’s figured out that the College education is worthless.

        Maybe it’s just a cartoon and I’m overthinking this

        • jim says:

          I understood the reference to GED to mean he was in final year of high school.

          • someDude says:

            Ah, yes, the GED. I don’t think there is an equivalent to this in India.

            Yes, this must be high school and he is going there for free. I like the attention to detail. This is a cartoonist worth following.

      • Fidelis says:

        Not to tug on remotely the same end of the rope as the local idiot, but there is an annoying trend in the internet right circles of overexhaulting shit work.

        The world does need tradesmen, but there is a newish seething hatred of anyone that isn’t working a trade. e.g. who was it, Starman?, screeching about email jobs.

        This webcomic reminds me of the circlejerk. Need to meme high status jobs they haven’t been able to completely lock out crimethinkers from.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          Even the military is in the process of being purged of everyone who can notice reality. There are no high status jobs that allow crimethink. Either their status has been lowered or the purge has been applied. If your engineers and warriors are not allowed to recognize reality when that is about the most connected to reality you can get, there is not going to be any place better.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Starman is on one side and you, the other, of a viable spectrum of purposefully directed respect and praise. To be fair to him, and I don’t know if you knew this, he is a big advocate of Musk, his ambitions, and his operations. So he has respect for high skill labor. My read on his position, and I’ll say I have come around to it, is that the faction of the managerial class most accurately described as the Email Jobs people are utterly insufferable and near universally on the Wrong Side of any given thing. He’s not wrong. Still, I too have noticed a drooling worship of the Trades, yet every time I need to hire a contractor, I am deluged by idiot mouth breathers who cut corners, lie through their teeth, know little or nothing about their professed trade, and are just the fucking worst specimens of human.

          We are beset on all sides and all levels by the worst humanity has to offer, in general. A rime of quality remains. Woe is we.

          • Leon says:

            I briefly worked as a plumber apprentice. The company in question had obsolete equipment and routinely screwed over its customers. It also burned through apprentices like crazy, with the average only lasting a month. The owner of the company turned out to own a bunch of 24 hour plumbing companies and basically ran then into the ground while saving the majority of the money for himself. Just because an individual is a dirt person doesn’t mean they are good or trustworthy. The cloud people have their sins and decadence, and so do the dirt people.

        • Your Uncle Bob says:

          [quote]a newish seething hatred of anyone that isn’t working a trade[/quote]

          Best understood in light of the naked, face-twisting, genocidal hatred directed from cloud people towards dirt people. If you’re on our side but haven’t noticed this I don’t know what to say, except you’re probably blinded by your own success and caste.

          • Fidelis says:

            you’re a moron, being needlessly divisive, and dont understandthat the people who act like that are like that due to the same selectionpipeline that ensures the lawyer caste acts like this too.

            nuts and bokts of the matter: Just who the fuck is maintaining this platform, any platform where you can actually discuss free thought. If you want to bitch, start sending letters.

        • Adam says:

          Email jobs people are priests. Guys that work with their hands are warriors. We have a gross oversupply of priests, and I think what you are seeing from the right is a movement to rectify that, lower the status of priests, and increase the status of warriors.

          Not to mention, most priests are incompetent and insufferable. Every project manager is insecure, and they all try to tell the guys in the shop how to do their job. It is annoying, and wastes a lot of time. There is something inherent in priests that insists on getting the warriors killed.

          Priests need to learn their place. Stick to logistics. Get me and my men and our gear to the hill. Leave the strategy of how to take the hill to me and my men.

          • Red says:

            Guys who work with their hands are workers.

            Priests need to learn their place. Stick to logistics. Get me and my men and our gear to the hill. Leave the strategy of how to take the hill to me and my men.

            You’re really fucked if you’re relying on priests to handle logistics. Merchants handle logistics.

            • Adam says:

              You have to engage the same killer instinct using a table saw as you do firing a rifle. Pretty similar results if you do not.

              Most email jobs people are trained as priests. Even contractors. Money is involved obviously, but the master they really serve is the priesthood.

              Seems like the closest thing to a merchant these days is a drug dealer. Everyone else serves the priesthood. Every contractor follows a thousand codes, and asks for permission a thousand times before they can get to work.

              I might be blurring the lines too much between merchants, warriors and priests, but it does not seem so clear cut than we are one and none of the others. Seems like we are all some combination.

              • Red says:

                Everyone else serves the priesthood.

                Including the warriors. It’s ugly watching American warriors die in the Ukraine service of Global Homo.

                The endless rules for contractors is the ruling priests trying to destroy merchants. Priests are utter shit at logistics, so I have no idea why you’d tell them to do that.

                All I see from the military types if the belief that don’t have the moral authority to be in charge so they must eat the shit the Polygon priests are shoving in their mouths. If warriors want to be in charge again, then make yourselves in charge.

                • Leon says:

                  Agreed again. Also, there is no killer instinct involving a table saw. Or a gun either. America has a shit load of guns but the normies have not once marched on the Capitol, and revenge killings, feuds and duels are non existant amongst western whites. Meanwhile, the Slavs saw migrants coming and immediately put up fences and instinctively fought back against getting immigrants shoved down their throats, while the gun less French boys put on their blue vests and party with the police. Those are warriors.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  The normies tried to protect the border and got shut down. There were organizations and they got infiltrated or the people got arrested. Slavs also suffered through 80 years of communism, so it is not all sunshine and happiness in Eastern Europe. When the Soviet governments came to crack down on your people, they also stayed inside and let it happen.

            • Leon says:

              This. The right circle jerks over how every farmer, plumber, electrician, whatever is secretly a warrior deep down inside. Then they avoid fighting, talk lots of shit, and show no true survival instincts whatsoever. They are descendants of blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. The workers of old. Nothing wrong with that, but they have got to cut the crap and quit pretending to be the descendants of knights and hoplites.

              • Adam says:

                Most warriors are cannon fodder.

                Call it killer instinct, or call it agency in the face of immediate physical danger, or something else. Firing a weapon, using dangerous machines, lifting weights etc. these are all similar in that it’s you and your self control, and your focus vs. the material world. This is not very well developed among boys and men today, but if one wanted to raise an effective army that is what you would want to cultivate.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        My idea for marching back through the educational institution is [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Your idea for marching back through the educational institutions is remarkably similar to my idea of Harvard marching over us and crushing its defeated enemies under its feet.

          I have argued with you about this before and you are unresponsive.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            How is being really good at math (and keeping one’s mouth shut about anything else) a bad idea for retaking Harvard? [*Similar stupid questions deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Your question presupposes that we believe Harvard’s account of itself, which obviously we do not believe, and these days even normies have come to doubt.

              You have to argue against our position, not presuppose we accept the Harvard line.

              Harvard is and always was a religious organization, a religious organization whose faith is promoted by violence and coercion. Maths is not going to have an impact. Only another faith with guns.

              • Anonymous Fake says:


                • jim says:

                  It is obvious that ability and training are not the reasons why key positions are filled from Harvard, and by people who came from that area.

                  The power of Harvard expanded by war and conquest. Harvard is the Vatican of the state religion. Was the Vatican of New England. After the war of Northern Aggression, the Vatican of the USA. After World War II, the Vatican of the Global American Empire. You may not agree, but you have to argue as if your interlocutor thinks what he thinks, and loudly and repeatedly states. You have to respond to the position your interlocutor holds, rather blithely ignoring it and sailing right along as if your position was held by all right thinking people.

                  If you want to dispute our account of Harvard, this is the place for that. If you want to ignore our account of Harvard, post somewhere else. You are ignoring us, so cannot post here.

    • Aidan says:

      Who is this artist and how did he know what I looked like as a teenager

  30. i says:

    TrevorGoodchild lays out his argument against Jimian style marriage:


    Would that entail modifications to your proposal?

    • Aidan says:

      Wasn’t he a glowie or something? I don’t use gab. Yeah, plenty of girls that age are still like kids. Many are obviously grown women. Doesn’t matter. God makes them fertile before full physical maturation and makes them horny long before they are fertile. Marrying them off early is to keep them from getting around, regardless of whether they are fully attractive or not.

      • Red says:

        TrevorGoodchild claims that Patriot Front isn’t a glowie group. They appear very much to be a glowie group, down to the police providing them protection while they load up into you haul trucks to protect their identities.

        When the feds gets around to doing a false flag terrorist attack I have no doubt it will be PF doing it.

        TrevorGoodchild is either a moron or a fed in my book.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          It would be instructive to ask him what we do about all the teen girls flooding TikTok to flash their tits and asses. See if he can pass the woman question. It does not really matter to me, though, because his position on Patriot Front is so fucking retarded that I just discount everything else he says. The genetic fallacy is useful as the genetic objection when the subject is prone to saying something so stupid, ridiculous, or dishonest that it makes it unlikely that he will say anything insightful or transcendental.

          • Starman says:

            @Wulfgar Thundercock III

            “See if he can pass the woman question.”

            TrevorGoodchild routinely passes the woman question on his timeline.

            He will easily pass the “woman misbehave WQ” every single time.

            The “Lolita ‘consent’ WQ” is a much harder WQ to pass however. And that should be reserved for the first filter in any would be fight club.

            • jim says:

              I don’t think lolita should be a special case.

              If you swallow the “women cannot consent” red pill, which is far more important, it follows that they cannot consent regardless of age.

              Women do not actually consent to sex in the way that men consent to a contract (except for women that explicitly exchange sex for money) Rather they wander into an environment where sex is likely to ensue.

              • Kunning Druegger says:

                Strange though it may be, I find that people have a hard time tolerating the effects of the swallowed pill. To phrase it differently, certain premises can be accepted due to their overwhelming soundness, but downstream consequences of a particular premise can be considered distasteful, and folks are likely to make localized exceptions. This can be for various reasons, some of which may be evil but many of which can be less than evil, maybe more just a case of social climate, challenge implied, or mental barriers to the arcane or unfamiliar.

                Everything is obvious when we get to lay it out and hash it out together on the screen, but things become messy where theory transforms into practice. Not having living examples as guides, or patriarchs and matriarchs to provide locally curated/tailored advice, reproof, and instruction multiplies the challenge by a lot.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              Starman, this is a question on tactics and methods: how do you initiate/administer/engage RPWQ or any anti-shill tests on GAB? Can you give a QRD on your method or common practices?

        • I have been following Trevor on Gab and the Fediverse for a couple of years now and have not gotten the impression that he is either unintelligent or compromised. He and Judge Dread are friends, Dread is extremely prickly and intolerant of both morons and feds / fed supporters.

          From observing his interactions with others I believe he is an Orthodox Christian. His primary political agenda appears to be bringing the Wrath of God down on the conspirators behind the COVID situation.

          I would be interested in seeing Jim and Trevor discuss the nuances of the WQ.

          • Kunning Druegger says:

            Link him to the post. He’s more than welcome to attempt to explain his reasoning. Something tells me he will not rise from his ensconced position surrounded by supporters and sycophants. Grift-wing personalities are all alike in that, and other ways. PF is so obviously a fed entity, I can’t imagine he’s anything but a useful idiot at best. I predict he will not respond or act like he is above such a discussion.

          • jim says:

            He was unresponsive.

            His position is indefensible, and I have seen Orthodox videos by orthodox priest advocating early teenage marriage.

            I don’t believe him to be a shill, but I feel he has been duped by shills. Perhaps a conversation will be possible in future.

          • Starman says:


            “He and Judge Dread are friends, Dread is extremely prickly and intolerant of both morons and feds / fed supporters.”

            Judgedread is very paranoid of fed shills (rightly so). If you think Jim and I are too paranoid of fed shills, JudgeDread is orders of magnitude more stringent against fed shills. Tagging him on a separate thread increases the attack surface against him from potential feds, and he will block you in response.

            Generally, on matters of religion, I read Jim, Alf, and Judgedread.

            TrevorGoodchild is useful on medical matters.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      He does not have an argument. He throws out some opinions that are clearly at odds with the facts in many cases, and then finishes with social shaming and death threats. The post he is responding to is trying to invite disgust responses, and then attach that emotional revulsion to young marriage. The whole thing is dishonest manipulation, identical to the conflating of faggots preying on little boys and sexually mature

      So no, it would not entail changes to the proposal. A nubile, sexually mature 14 year old hunting for a dicking will find someone. It is better for both society and her if she ends up married at 14 than her whoring around for 4 years and marrying at 18.

      • Red says:

        I was wondering what @I was talking about. I didn’t see an argument. I was wondering if the interface gab was so bad that I couldn’t find it.

        Also, @I is probably a shill.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          He’s either a shill or a McChristian. Multiple suspect posts and squeamish about Jimian Christianity 101 topics. He’s pretty much a confirmed NAWALT.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            @i, how about you do us a favor and take this shill test. That way we can all be on the same page and there will not be any doubts about your loyalties.

    • jim says:

      He is being a moron.

      He thinks very young girls are pure and chaste, because he is not performing as alpha in a way that pings the female alpha radar.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Trevor Goodchild confirmed as having no bitches.

      • i says:

        He did repost a post in his recent post where a bouncer claims that those 16.17 yo come off as goofy when trying to pass as womanly women. A real turnoff.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          That is young women being feminine, and its adorable. There is an openness and joy about them that life has not beaten out of them. If he says that is a turn-off, then he is a sexual deviant and a degenerate.

          • i says:

            In that case it does comport with the fact the virginial women are more awkward and goofy than suave, smooth, radiating sexuality women who have lost their purity but her inner qualities have been ruined:

            Socially dexterous women in that sense. Are either whores or wives. I also read or heard that bratty behavior from teenage daughters are the result of losing their virginity outside marriage. They don’t turn bratty on a dime without said experience.

            • A2 says:

              Oh you made me laugh — any suave, smooth seductresses are few and far between these days. Perhaps I move in the wrong circles, but most are frumpy, somewhat overweight office ladies who change boyfriends a bit too often for their own taste, yet not seldom and to their detriment seem addicted to “the life”. Hardly sparkling conversationalists either.

            • The Cominator says:

              > Thinks the typical college roastie is some kind of femme fatale light like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct

              LOL no not even close.

    • alf says:

      Clearly he’s not been around many 14-year olds. I know what he means with childish in an unattractive way — most girls at 14 aren’t. More at age 12, but still high variety. At age 14, most girls dress, act, wear make-up and flirt as if they were adults. In fact, judging by the thickness of their make up and the skin they tend to display, more lustful than their adult counterparts.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        I’ve been reading through the Gab thread and am always annoyed by what I call “the wood chipper brigade” who seem to work up lather directed at men relating the plain facts of normal biology. If they are not outright shills they must be gamma males, like that psycho dude who shot up the Asian massage parlors due to sexual hangups and frustrations.

        • alf says:

          Yes I triggered a few hate comments. Dumb shit. But if Goodchild encourages a pile-on, what’s a man to do.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            Mock him as a sexual deviant who gets no bitches.

            • alf says:

              I am too friendly for those kind of zingers 🙁

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                It is not just a zinger. I did make the comment with a sense of levity, but I am also deadly serious. The way they talk about how young girls move and sound is weird and unnatural. It gets my attention, and then makes me think there is something wrong with them.

                • alf says:

                  True true… I like to be friendly before I insult. But the nature of social media like gab and twitter is that you’d best first insult lest you lose the chance to later insult. Classic prisoner’s dilemma.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  It is not the possible missed opportunity to insult, it is that this guy is giving people shit advice. If he is knowledgeable about medical issues, great. Let him comment on those as much as he likes. Once he gets off the subjects he knows well and starts spreading bad info, he needs to be herded back to his area of expertise. Or chased, if he insists on being an ass, which he is.

          • Starman says:


            ”Yes I triggered a few hate comments.”

            I gotta see the link.

            Currently, my timeline is getting infested with homos bitching and moaning about men being attracted to beautiful young women.

            Will need to postpone on Rocket posting, and initiate posting young hot women to clear the closeted faggots out.

            Cute aggression activate.

            • jim says:

              Ah yes, our enemies are triggered by cute.

              Trigger them.

            • jim says:

              Social justice warriors are triggered by cute, but pederasts are triggered by firm boobs. Firm boobs disgust them and disturb them. Time for boobs. (decorously covered and in non sexual poses, of course) Of course cute and boobs combined seldom exist except in anime. Real life photos of cute plus boobs are hard to come by. So, real life cute, real life firm boobs, and anime featuring cute with firm boobs.

              Let us set our enemies on fire. Obviously the thread is full of incels, social justice warriors, and pederasts. The photos will sort out which is which.

              Trouble with anime pictures is that they will trigger both the pederasts and the social justice warriors in the same way, but for different reasons. Revealing which is which is useful.

        • jim says:

          Yes, not shills – most of them not shills, probably all of them not shills. But they have a deluded blue pill belief in the natural chastity of females, because they do not get laid.

          Some of them are faggots. Most of them just incels.

    • Yul Bornhold says:

      Neofugue in the replies posting a 13-14 year old girl. Some Russian model. He acknowledges that not all 13-15 girls are hot.

      This one “is” but she doesn’t look done. Physically incomplete, I’m not sure exactly how (head still too big? disproportional wrists?). I would not support her marriage unless she’s already sleeping around or dangerously close to it.

      Like Theseus kidnapping Helen but not actually raping her because, pretty as she was, she just seemed too young.

      • Neofugue says:

        The reason for posting the Russian model was to confuse my readers.

        > This one “is” but she doesn’t look done. Physically incomplete, I’m not sure exactly how (head still too big? disproportional wrists?).

        Just admit it. She’s hot, and you know it.

        • Yul Bornhold says:

          Summoned like a genie.

          Yes, she’s hot but she’s also not, which makes sense. If girls go from pre-pubescent (not hot) to fully developed (hot), there will be an intermediate stage with qualities of both. Having not lived in a cave all my life, have seen this a lot. Gangliness, general physical awkwardness of proportions not quite set right.

          I don’t like being explicit about this because feds but her breasts are either tiny or not fully matured.

          Now, Juliet in the video you posted is unqualified hot. How old was that actress?

          • Neofugue says:

            Olivia Hussey, English actress, aged 15.

          • Neofugue says:

            > I don’t like being explicit about this because feds but her breasts are either tiny or not fully matured.

            Supermodels are all A or B cup because they must maintain a low weight while also accounting for their above average height.

            Saying you do not like a girl because her bust is too small is beside the point, because no woman is perfect, and the beauty of a woman is not limited to solely her bust size.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              Supermodels are all A or B cup because they must maintain a low weight while also accounting for their above average height.

              Then there’s Kate Upton. There’s really no need for a bra in zero-g.

            • i says:

              The individual breasts of the woman should be smaller than their head at minimum.

              Breasts that are out of proportion with the rest of the body are just as ugly as no breasts at all.

              • Yul Bornhold says:

                Someone posted Evil Vizier/Undead Odalisque here not too long ago. Vizier conducted important bro science research on men’s preference in women’s breast size and confirmed the obvious. Results are worth reading:


                A substantial minority of men (5-14%) seem to prefer comically large breasts.

                Also lol at the forum post at the start of the section where the guy, with much cowardice, tells his (small breasted) girlfriend he loves small breasts and she goes on to discover his hoard of absurdly large boobs porn.

                • Redbible says:

                  That article is pretty good, but it has a few flaws on at least the breasts section. I would normally consider myself to be a guy that prefers small breasts. HOWEVER, if I was buying a sex doll, probably would get a size that “Evil Vizier” would label as “Medium”. If one looked as some of my past relationships, fair amount of medium and big breasted chicks.

                  So I’m included to think that if a man likes it “Big”, that too small will count a woman out, but if a man likes it “Small” he probably doesn’t count out a women for being “bigger than preferred.”

                  But comically large breasts trigger a response in me like I’m seeing a fat woman, or an alien species.

                • Neofugue says:

                  Individual male beauty preferences are, for the most part, dependent on at the point where they fall on the life history strategy spectrum. Men with a fast life history strategy will prefer females with prominent physical features, while men with a slow life history strategy will prefer more restrained features. This is because the fast life history strategist is adapted for times of plenty but with high predation, utilizing a spray and pray strategy for reproduction, while the slow life history strategist is adapted for an environment of low predation but scarcity, and thus utilizes a high-investment strategy for reproduction.

                  As someone who falls on the tail end of the slow life history spectrum, and as someone in the upper aesthetic consciousness caste, my preferences are more based on balance and proportion. The Russian model on my Gab page may not have excessive physical features, but her features are in proportion aesthetically with the rest of her body. Exaggerated physical features are, to the slow life history strategist, markers of promiscuity and licentiousness, and thus he will prefer women with more rounded features.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  KD like big tit. KD use head to bash way through life. KD have thick skull and thick woman. KD like funny talk brain man.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  “Life cold and hard; tiddy soft and warm.”

                • i says:


                  But comically large breasts trigger a response in me like I’m seeing a fat woman, or an alien species.

                  Because it does. Fat women do have such big breasts. Or the genetically diseased would also have said breasts.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  Porn search data filtered by countries reveals white/yellow preference for tits and black/brown preference for ass. Pretty clear racial distinction. These aren’t exclusive preferences but are more along the lines of what men pick when forced to choose only one.

                  Don’t know why this distinction exists. Childbirth (hips) vs child-nourishing (milk)? Also don’t get how white preference for women with large breasts bred the desired trait in appreciable numbers but yellow preference for large breasts bred a sea of a-cups.

                  My tastes are the same as KD’s but I think there are two filters for male attraction towards women.

                  (1) pump-and-dump
                  (2) “This one is mine” or “I’m going to keep her”

                  So a man can be attracted to a slut he would (rightly) never marry but a woman won’t be attracted to any man if she wouldn’t want his baby. It may be that a lot of men are attracted to ostentatiously sexual features like large breasts but prefer smaller breasted women for life-time investment because the male hind-brain suggests they’re more likely to be faithful/less likely to be stolen by men with higher status.

                • i says:

                  @Yui Bornhold

                  “but prefer smaller breasted women for life-time investment because the male hind-brain suggests they’re more likely to be faithful/less likely to be stolen by men with higher status.”

                  I watched some episodes by Dr Edward Dutton the Jolly Heretic. But he did say according to research is that women with smaller breasts have more energy and resources invested in her Personality.

                  Better personality at the expense of exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics is quite a good trade-off. Since Personality is far more important in marriages in mothering and in being a pleasant companion to their Husbands.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  “Holy shit, look at the size of that foxhole!”

                  “Ok, but this small rise affords adequate protection, and when they fusillade ends, it shall be quite easy to resume the assault!”

                  “I can’t hear you from my comfortable position within this deep and welcoming cleft.”

      • jim says:

        She was obviously capable of bearing children at the time the photographs were taken, but it would be better for the health of her and her children to delay for about eighteen months.

        Which, in eighteenth century England would have been accomplished by keeping her in the house until she was good and ready, but in eighteenth century England, if she got out, which obviously she has, needed to be married off.

  31. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    When people think of The End Of The World As We Know It, visions that are conjured by this prompting tend to come in one or blend of three flavors: Balkanization, Brazilification, and Byzantium.

    Balkanization, of one form or another, is perhaps the most common vision that comes to mind when people think of the subject; ‘The Happening’, ‘Zombie Apocalypse’, ‘Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo’, so on and so forth. This is more especially prevalent amongst normiecon types, whose mindset tends to be one of going through life eternally waiting for ‘The Signal’ to go up into the air telling them to take action, before they take any action.

    The range of situations where such a crack-up of society would take place would of course necessarily be dire, yet at the same time there would be paths to the future as well; since, it would be situations where there are no longer sufficient men of civilizational capability in the imperial center, leading to a collapse of it’s capacity for sovereignty, while at that same time, men of such capability would still be existing elsewhere in the occupied provinces, and whom then would be starting to instaurate their own social organisms in place.

    Brazilification is a situation where your feminisms, bioleninisms, socialisms, and other perennially convenient pretexts for doing leftism are doctrinal planks of the official faith, but the then regnant class of underlords, riding the tiger by use of such ideological weaponry, employ an indefinite string of unprincipled exceptions to tamp down on any upjumping true believers from pushing them out of the driver’s seat in particular, and from knocking the wheels on the bus they are taking their free ride on from falling off completely in general.

    Another phrase for this state of affairs is ‘beige totalitarianism’, and in certain respects, it is a worst case scenario for a society; for, while there is no calamitous collapse forthcoming – usually by being softer on the socialism plank – it also means there is no calamitous collapse forthcoming. While ‘normality’ is nominally preserved, the fundamentally dysgenic underlying dynamics, by being prevented from spiraling into feed-back loops, are also never the less kept in place, creating the situation where the stock of folk continually degrades over generations, until such a time they regress to dust-bound mongrels without the capability of rising to the stars in the first place even if there was opportunity, and at one point or another get chewed up by some other rising competitor.

    Byzantium, lastly, would be a case where a preexisting Prominent Man, presciently perceiving that the poz is terminal, moves to create a new center of power away from the swamps proliferating it. This is not necessarily mutually exclusive with balkanization, the distinction of Byzantium is its scale, its timeliness, and its grounding. The various peoples of the Balkans were caught up in the forces of history, and doing what they could; men like Constantine or Muhammad didn’t just offer a grocery list of attractive policy proposals, they offered their men a framework for valuing such goods in the first place – a unifying faith. And so they conquered.

    This would of course be the ideal scenario. The chief difficulty perhaps being that wokism, being a totalising ideology, likewise does not suffer any rival faiths anywhere, even in embryo. In Constantine’s day, the official state Religio was long dead, and the faith of the menagerie of various gnostic syncretisms of that age were visibly weak and degenerate. Here in our modern Carthage, the theocracy grows weaker, yet the faith is very much alive; it grows weaker because the faith is alive. It is killing its hosts, but also trying to kill everything else around it too, through its hosts. The age old circular firing squad problem; everyone wants off the ride, yet cannot, individually, coordinate a means of doing so.

    The upshot is that while the 20th century instigators of the polygon certainly intended to achieve a global brazilification, their generational replacements have viscerally lost such capability. The cool kids club is the club of rank stupidity now, and inevitably ceases to be cool. While the prospects of decent men are getting worse, their prospects are getting even worse, even faster. With every day that passes, the opportunities only grow larger.

    • restitutor_orbis says:

      Excellent stuff, as always.

      My sense is that Brazilification is such a bad outcome that Balkanization should be strongly preferred. Balkanization creates opportunities for at least regional Byzantium and might create a Darwinian environment where capable elites could rise to power.

      And even if not… it’s a better outcome for Western man than living on his knees swallowing Lexapro-flavored cockroach burgers.

      • restitutor_orbis says:

        To clarify I don’t think Balkanization should be strongly preferred over Byzantium, just over Brazilification. I’m all for Byzantium if Constantine arrives. I just want to tell Constantine “the hour is later than you think” and have him hurry up.

      • Aidan says:

        The future is bright in all cases my friend. If brazilification, we get the boys together and go knock over some shitty little Afrikan respublik. How is brazil’s capacity to project military might? Rhodesia 2.0 will be safe from cathedral retaliation.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          There was a great comic to that point by Stonetoss, I believe. Some man shows up at an airport and security finds a pocket knife in one of his bags. everyone starts running and screaming and he is looking shocked. Then he realizes that just a pocket knife made everyone flee in terror. The final panel has him slouched on a throne with women clinging to him like a Frazetta painting.

          When things get real bad, especially is NATO and Russia move to open war, there will be plenty of opportunities for ruthless men to exploit. If Aidan put out a call for shooters for a conquest, I would be there. Then it would just be a matter of importing women.

          • Aidan says:

            The pirate armada can make a quick stop by the beaches of the Caribbean to provision white wives for its womanless soldiers on its way to Africa

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              Why go on only one raid? If they cannot stop us, we might as well raid coastal cities for women on an ongoing basis.

        • restitutor_orbis says:

          That is a REALLY good point. Global Brazilification really means international Balkanization which means the same opportunity exists to create Byzantium.
          I honestly feel a bit whitepilled by this.

        • nornyan says:

          Every time Aidan posts he makes it clearer he does not know anything about anything.

          Brazil’s capacity to project military might was experienced by Paraguay in the mid-1800s, in which somewhere between 30% to 60% of the adult male Paraguayans were killed off. Brazil has not had any trouble there since. Nobody has messed with Brazil since then, either.

          • Aidan says:

            When was the last time Brazil, or a nation like it, conducted successful military adventure on another continent? Is Brazil capable of projecting the force that the 2012 US empire could?

            • S says:

              Força Expedicionária Brasileira in WW2- 51,600 men sent to the Italian front.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              SAfrica was quite successful during the Border Wars, and when they betrayed Rhodesia they never recovered, constructing the very snare that destroyed themselves.

              Brazil could become a world power if they instituted apartheid. Anything less is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

          • Kunning Druegger says:

            No one messes with Brazil because they don’t want STDs. There is hardly a bigger joke of a country holistically. There are many based brazilbros out there, and Bolsonaro is an exceptional leader (by modern standards), but as a whole, it’s a terrible country and a living memorial to the utter stupidity of incorporating democracy and race mixing as cultural identity touchpoints.

          • restitutor_orbis says:

            well with an attitude like that you’re definitely not getting invited to the pirate armada and you’re certainly not getting a share of the wenches 😀

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              I watched an interesting video once about attention spans shortening due to media compositional changes. It was pretty intuitive and interesting, but it is interesting to see it happen in somewhat real time; Aidan’s blog has only been “gone” for a little over a year, and it’s like it never existed to some of these “guys.”

    • A2 says:

      Brazilification (or South Africanization if you will) also implies regression to a population-appropriate tech level. Back to the bush.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        A large part of the dynamic is third-worldism; the idea was that the caste of ‘Effendi’ would remove any possibility of competition by transforming every other humanoid species on the rock into a subhuman labouring caste of undifferentiated mysterymeat.

        Which just goes to show the perversity of their double-thinking neuroticism; any good God fearing man just exterminates the ontological competition.

    • i says:

      Brazilification demands a return to Clarkian Selection as outlined here:

      It looks like internal causes were responsible for the divergence between Christian Europe and the rest of the world. Those causes seem to have their point of origin in northwest Europe during the long period from 500 to 1500 AD. In that region, the Western Church consolidated a pre-existing pattern of small, nuclear households, weak family ties, and residential mobility, thus strengthening a mindset of individualism and impersonal sociality (Frost 2020; Schulz et al. 2019). Then, from 1000 AD onward, the Western Church strove to pacify social relations (Frost and Harpending 2015). Those two factors—an individualistic mindset operating in a pacified social environment—allowed the market economy to expand into all areas of life and eventually replace kinship as the main organizing principle of society (Frost 2020; Macfarlane 1978; Weber 1930).

      The expansion of the market economy went hand in hand with the expansion of the middle class. In England, this class began to expand in the twelfth century and would gradually replace the lower classes through downward mobility. By the 1800s, its lineages accounted for most of the English population. English society thus became more middle class in its values: “Thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent, and leisure loving” (Clark 2007, p. 166). The same process took place elsewhere in Western Europe and more generally throughout Europe to varying degrees and over different timescales (Frost 2019, p. 176).

      In sum, between 500 and 1500 AD the Western Church created a system of social reproduction that would have far-reaching demographic, behavioral, and economic consequences.


  32. […] have a somewhat different take on this, as from my comment on […]

  33. If you abduct an unmarried, unbetrothed virgin, and pop her, and the the father absolutely prohibits the marriage, the penalty is …

    Wait for it …

    Wait for it …

    You pay a substantial fine, but the father is socially shamed, and priesthood assigns him a humiliating monicker.

    I have to respectfully agree with Pax Imperialis below.

    Shotgun marriages should be seen as the last resort and an unfortunate compromise in any healthy patriarchy. Because girls should almost always be betrothed very early, preferably by the time the girl is 13 and before they really get the opportunity to see the world outside and start to “cruise” for alpha.

    “Abduction” is not really abduction in 99.99% cases. It’s mostly the girl running away with the boy, in fact, in some cases even explicitly demanding she be abducted. When girl’s father lodges a police complaint against the boy for kidnapping, the girl usually says she came voluntarily with the boy! This happens too often. Modern “shotgun marriages” have become a way for girls to get their own way by undermining father’s authority.

    In Indian movies of 80s 90s and even in 2000s there was a common thread. Rich girl – poor boy “love” story. Of course, the “rich” was usually a euphemism for upper caste and “poor” almost always meant lower caste. The boy was usually a wastrel / thug low-life (of course depicted in a positive light as a man with a heart of gold and his criminal activities usually justified as being for some noble cause, since he’s the hero of the movie) and the rich girl lusts after him after seeing him perform “criminal” acts and getting away with it. Of course, boy spurns girl initially and later accepts her at one point when she literally begs that he kidnap her and marry her, since her father will not accept the match and is arranging her to be married into her own station. The conflict between upper caste and lower caste was woven into this – such movies were made usually with the payload of undermining patriarchy and caste at the same time.

    Now, of course, that is why even up to my grandfather’s generation, marriages were arranged very early, and a girl not being betrothed after 14 years was seen as undesirable.

    If a girl’s father chooses not to arrange his daughter’s marriage early, of course, he should be responsible for the consequences that follow and a father who encourages his girl to study higher for career and become a whore should absolutely not be supported by society. But in a functional patriarchy such situations should be very rare.

    • jim says:

      A chronic failure mode of patriarchy is that fathers are apt to hang on to their daughters for far too long.

      Leading to resistance by daughters, which is apt to result in at worst loss of virginity, the game of players and bitches, and at best “abduction”, followed by marriage.

      What is your solution to this problem? How can society disincentivize it?

      If we discourage the “abduction” and marriage solution, we are apt to wind up with the players and bitches solution.

      By protecting betrothed virgins from “abduction”, and not protecting unbetrothed virgins, the old testament encouraged early betrothal, and thus facilitated the smooth and rapid transfer of virgins to husbands before they became no longer virgins.

      Pretty stupid to prevent “abduction”, unless we are willing to protect virginity from the machinations of virgins by startlingly drastic and disturbing means.

      Controlling female sexuality is like holding back a glacier while keeping a volcano from erupting. If not “abduction”, what do you propose? Keep then chained up in the basement until dad finally gets around to selecting a suitor? That would work, but dads will not do that either.

      • Pretty stupid to prevent “abduction”, unless we are willing to protect virginity from the machinations of virgins by startlingly drastic and disturbing means.

        It is very difficult of course, for a father to prevent abduction unless he puts his daughter in chains or locks her up in her room.

        The solution is obviously of course, early arranged marriage.

        My point is the father should not be socially shamed, even if he is forced to accept shotgun marriage. Because when a patriarch is socially shamed (even if he is imperfect) that is the beginning of the undermining of his authority over his own family. Priesthood should allow for private dispute resolution, rather than interfere.

        The very act of shotgun marriage should be humiliating enough for the father without it being rubbed into his face. Also in the rare cases of genuine abductions, the onus should be on the abductor to prove that the girl he married was not betrothed.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          I think you’re eliding the key point in the section you quoted, which is not shotgun marriage in general, but a specific case where the father is *against* the shotgun marriage.

          If your solution is early arranged marriage, then you are implicitly calling any father who doesn’t engage in early arranged marriage a fool at best or a demon worshiper undermining the fabric of civilization at worst, in which case a man abducting the wild mare would be just deserts, and the community labeling him a cuck after his daughter runs off with Lothario simply a formality.

    • Red says:

      If the Girl’s been fucked, then she’s married to the man who fucked her. Anything less is will just result in letting girls fuck around before official marriage. It’s the father’s responsibility to marry her off before she wanders off looking to be picked up and to guard her with male relatives until then.

      >“Abduction” is not really abduction in 99.99% cases.

      No shit Sherlock. Women want to be abduction and raped. It’s how woman reproduced in our ancestral environment.

      >When girl’s father lodges a police complaint against the boy for kidnapping, the girl usually says she came voluntarily with the boy! This happens too often. Modern “shotgun marriages” have become a way for girls to get their own way by undermining father’s authority.

      I known several girls that were forcibly taken and raped. In all but one case they put themselves in a situation where rape was likely and they never reported the abductions or rapes. That’s the default female reproductive strategy.

      • I don’t disagree with this in general.

        The problem is that being “abducted” in modern times has become a way for girls to undermine father’s authority and get their own way. My disagreement is on whether the girl’s father should be socially shamed or not for this. I also believe that a patriarchal priesthood should allow for private dispute resolution in case there is dispute whether the girl is actually betrothed or not.

        The only solution is early arranged marriages.

        • Red says:

          My disagreement is on whether the girl’s father should be socially shamed or not for this.

          Social shaming is how we encourage others not to fuck up. It’s normal and healthy.

          I also believe that a patriarchal priesthood should allow for private dispute resolution in case there is dispute whether the girl is actually betrothed or not.

          That’s already built into the Old Testament. If she was betrothed, death penalty for both the girl and the man unless there’s proof it was a forcible abduction (IE she screamed and fought back to the point that she or the man was injured). In which case the man is executed and the girl is blameless.

          • jim says:

            If the virgin daughter is “abducted” and does not wind up married, perhaps because her abductor or “abductor” was grossly unsuitable, dad has obviously fucked up. We are now in the game of players and bitches. Who is to blame for that?

            Well, if the abductor is a runner, his fault, and the Old Testament says kill him. But if the father is refusing, then the father should have found someone more suitable before this happened. Something very bad has happened – the game of players and bitches is now afoot. Someone is at fault.

            If dad wants his daughter protected from abduction, needs to get her betrothed at an early age. Because if you are trying to keep girls virgin, it is mighty hard to protect them from “abduction”. The obvious solution is that “abducted” girls should get married. Also if a betrothed couple jumps the gun, which of course they usually do. The idea of early betrothal is to steer the inevitable escape of the daughter into a socially acceptable direction.

            Everyone seems to grossly under estimate the power and force of early female sexuality. It is often damned near unstoppable. It does not always set in at an inconveniently early age, but it very commonly does. When female sexuality sets in, it is a volcano erupting. Socially enforcing marriage as the cure for abduction on the father and legally enforcing it on the abductor and the daughter is forcefully channeling unstoppable early female sexuality into prosocial channels.

            So full on protection for betrothed virgins, limited protection for non betrothed virgins, because just too hard to protect virginity from the virgin, no protection for non virgins.

          • Social shaming is how we encourage others not to fuck up. It’s normal and healthy.

            Theoritically this sounds good. But the only recourse for a father in such situations is to loudly protest the shotgun marriage strongly. He has to keep up his end. Society should not mind this protest and should be seen as a way of letting off steam. Though shotgun marriages should be properly solemnized, it should not be given undue status.

            If he is forced to meekly submits to the shotgun marriage, it is even more humiliating and a severe loss of dignity and further undermining of his authority.

            • Red says:

              The marriage already happened when the girl was fucked. What is there to solemnize? Kick her out and hand her over to her new husband. If the husband refuses to accept her as wife then kill him and then marry her off the same day before she fucks around again.

            • jim says:

              > severe loss of dignity and further undermining of his authority.

              When daughter gets married, his authority ends. Daughters should get married. So, we don’t want to protect his dignity and authority under all circumstances.

              To encourage fathers to gracefully end their authority, we have to allow the ungraceful end of their authority to be unpleasant.

              • I meant his authority over the rest of his family. For example he may also have other unmarried daughters, who may get ideas, from his public loss of face. His own wife will stop respecting him if he submits meekly.

                Also if a shotgun marriage is too easily obtainable, it creates a ripple negative effect on patriarchy as a whole.

                There should be a fine balance. A compromise would have to necessarily save the patriarch’s face and dignity.

                • jim says:

                  I meant his authority over the rest of his family. For example he may also have other unmarried daughters, who may get ideas, from his public loss of face.

                  Then he should get them betrothed right away, starting the process of giving them other ideas. The idea that virgins are going to just quietly sit around being virgin is unrealistic. Merely social pressures are not going to make a whole lot of difference. Nothing short of actually imprisoning them in the hoe and allowing them out only with supervision is going to work. Late marriage requires the frequent application of a big stick, which fathers tend to be reluctant to apply. Protecting the father’s dignity is unlikely to make a whole lot of difference. Only frequent whippings with a hickory stick are going to make a significant difference.

                • Red says:

                  For example he may also have other unmarried daughters, who may get ideas, from his public loss of face.

                  He would be wise to betroth them right away then.

                  His own wife will stop respecting him if he submits meekly.

                  What do you think the point of a shot gun wedding is? He’s threatening the man who fucked his daughter with death if he doesn’t keep her. Nothing is more alpha to a woman than threatening another man with death and the man complying.

                • jim says:

                  You worry too much about keeping daughters under control by merely psychological and cultural means. Does not work. Female sexuality is frequently unstoppable short of physical force to keep them in the house and under supervision when outside the house. And then you get the problem that used to be called “hysteria”. Hysteria in that sense no longer happens, because daughters get out.

                  People are no longer willing to do what it takes to stop them, for it takes one hell of a lot to stop them.

                • Dharmicreality says:

                  What do you think the point of a shot gun wedding is? He’s threatening the man who fucked his daughter with death if he doesn’t keep her.

                  In actual practice, usually the abductor is from a socially inferior caste and grossly unsuitable in station to marry the girl in question through normal arranged marriage.

                  In such cases the “abduction” is arranged between the boy and girl to facilitate the shotgun marriage and forcing the girl’s father to accept it.

                • Dharmicreality says:

                  @jim, no, I understand your point. I have already endorsed early arranged marriage as the best solution to the problem.

                  My issue is with socially shaming the girl’s father for refusing to accept shotgun marriages.

                • Red says:

                  In actual practice, usually the abductor is from a socially inferior caste and grossly unsuitable in station to marry the girl in question through normal arranged marriage.

                  Why wasn’t she already married off to someone of a suitable family?

                  In such cases the “abduction” is arranged between the boy and girl to facilitate the shotgun marriage and forcing the girl’s father to accept it.

                  How were they able to meet and communicate in order to enact this conspiracy? Clearly the father failed in either not marrying her off early enough or failed in making sure she didn’t come into contact with non familiar males.

                  I think the conflict you’re wrestling with is late marriage. It’s incompatible with arranged marriages. Nothing can be done to change that.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  “Why wasn’t she already married off to someone of a suitable family?”

                  Betrothed period can last a while. Maybe the bride price takes a while, circumstances happen.

                  “How were they able to meet and communicate in order to enact this conspiracy? Clearly the father failed in either not marrying her off early enough or failed in making sure she didn’t come into contact with non familiar males.

                  I think the conflict you’re wrestling with is late marriage. It’s incompatible with arranged marriages. Nothing can be done to change that.”

                  The world isn’t perfect. Patriarchs aren’t perfect. Even in Confucius times that required separation of men and women, men got access to women they weren’t allowed to have. Such is life. Men are always pushing boundaries and men are always having to remind other men that those boundaries exists. Patriarchs are not omniscient but they must be able to lay down the law.

                  Arranged marriages usually happen young, but in most societies the actual marriage happened many years after. Yes, somethings the father fails, but only in spite to the best of his abilities. He must be free to seek recompense.

                • Red says:

                  Betrothed period can last a while. Maybe the bride price takes a while, circumstances happen.

                  The girl is put to death if she cheats on her betrothed.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  “The girl is put to death if she cheats on her betrothed.”

                  Historically not ideal. Even a used women is of some worth. Damaged property is still property, however that requires acknowledging said property was damaged and hence a loss of face. Better to kill the man who damaged the property and cover it up and move one. Not saying that this is a great situation. Just that it’s a possibility and shit happens.

                  I think this is a conflict in genetic origin and thus point of view. Europeans and Asians have different evolutionary paths. I may have lashed out too hard against neurotoxin’s position, but at the same time I don’t think it works out well for Asia.

                • jim says:

                  With betrothal, you should allow some contact between the betrothed, so that the misconduct of the daughter is more likely to take the form of jumping the gun, rather than running off with the roadie.

                • Red says:

                  Historically not ideal. Even a used women is of some worth. Damaged property is still property, however that requires acknowledging said property was damaged and hence a loss of face. Better to kill the man who damaged the property and cover it up and move one. Not saying that this is a great situation. Just that it’s a possibility and shit happens.

                  You kill people because A) you don’t want the genetic component of their bad behavior reproducing and B) as an example to others of what happens when you violate natural law.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  If dear old dad fails to prevent his daughter from running off, he fucked up, and the loss of status is a natural consequence of that. If he quickly responds in a way that minimizes the damage and deals with the new reality, then he did not mess up too bad. All is well that ends well. As to any consequences for his control over the rest of his daughters? The burned hand teaches best.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  “You kill people because A) you don’t want the genetic component of their bad behavior reproducing and B) as an example to others of what happens when you violate natural law.”

                  And C) people are motivated by concepts of honor and shame which aren’t entirely rational or easily stated but sort of exists as a general sense. I’m not sure how to put it. Traditional East Asians have a very different moral code. Not saying it’s rational or makes sense or is right. Just that the intrinsic gut reaction is to remove the cause for potential loss of face and cover up the incident. Which usually means killing those who caused loss of face or those in the know.

                  Anyways I’m being clumsy in explaining this and currently crashing out. See ya in a week or so. Appreciate the responses from y’all. I don’t necessary disagree.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:


                  Status Consciousness Rules Everything Around Me

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  I’m not really following why these supposed patriarchs and clan leaders need delicate handling from the State or Throne. Families that lack discipline have rebellious children. You can always come up with some exception; so fucking what? exceptions don’t mean traditions and laws need to change. That’s the evil of the Warren Court.

                  East Asians may do as they please in Eastasia. When they come to the Occident, it is incumbent upon them to act accordingly. Dads with rebellious, slutty daughters are always those that treat their daughters as a little princess in my experience. Doting and protecting is fine; seeing every situation as if their daughter is obviously innocent and it’s the world that is the problem is unacceptable. Dad/Chief/Patriarch knows the rules, knows the traditions, knows the consequences, and must act accordingly.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Abduction should in general be allowed if a girl is not married by a certain age and not allowed otherwise. Most marriages should be by arrangement and not abduction, abduction will in practice mostly be female choice by other means and we want to minimize female choice.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Late to this debate, but maybe some of dhamicreality’s concerns could be addressed by the following adaptation:

                  When a man’s daughter gets caught having a fling with a man other than the one her dad would have chosen, he and his shotgun get more than one option.
                  Option 1: Dad judges the young man worthy of taking his daughter – and so offers him the choice of doing so – or death.
                  Option 2: Dad judges the lowlife youth who defiled his daughter to be un-worthy – and just kills him then and there.

                  Might clean up a bit of the trash.

                • jim says:

                  The Old Testament says that if you mess with someone else’s betrothed, death penalty.

                  The problem is that what happens if no betrothed – Dad is not doing anything about getting his daughter married. That is a problem. Which problem is resolved by “abduction”.

            • jim says:

              > humiliating and a severe loss of dignity and further undermining of his authority.

              The authority and dignity of the father is merely a means to an end, that end being cooperate/cooperate equilibrium in reproduction, marriage 1.0, rather than defect/defect, the game of players and bitches.

              If his daughter gets “abducted”, his authority and dignity has ceased to serve that end. If he already betrothed his daughter, the authority and dignity of the fiancé and his father continues to serve that end, but the authority and dignity of the father of the fiancée has still ceased to serve that end.

          • Oog en Hand says:

            The beginning of muh consent.

    • Your Uncle Bob says:

      Shotgun marriage + a system for courtship and betrothal based on calling on the father at home instead of taking the girl out of the home + no divorce + shaming sluts forms an internally coherent system with a proven track record of success. You’re stripping one cog out of a clock because you object to that one cog on aesthetic grounds, and expecting somehow to still make the clock work.

      Too, and maybe I’m missing the obvious because I’m not a regular commenter, if you’re talking about Indian castes because you are Indian, then Indian caste solutions have fuck-all to do with tested and proven anglo-saxon solutions. We had something working for several centuries before throwing it out, but your stable state solution may well be different.

      And a side note, betrothal as a means of channeling the misbehavior has already been mentioned, but in a sane world a father has other ways of putting his thumb on the scale. Be careful what young men you invite over, but be careful in that they’re minimally acceptable, not that they’re all totally harmless.

      • jim says:

        For patriarchy to support cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women, fathers have to lose power over daughters, and husbands have to gain power. Sometimes fathers will resist this, delaying unduly. If a patriarch stands in the way of this process, he should not receive support in his position from society, state Church, and state. Throne and altar should back the husband, not the father. Sometimes resistance by fathers and opportunism by men looking for wives is going to result in a disturbingly disorderly and potentially violent transfer of authority – but the state should go right on backing the authority of the husband and discourage behavior by fathers likely to lead to this problem.

        • Oog en Hand says:

          If the position of men having daughters is too unappealing, female infanticide becomes tempting.

          • i says:

            @Oog en Hand

            The Bride price or Brideswealth in the Old Testament. And the prohibition on abortion/infanticide not only biblically but also among the Early Church onwards in addition to the status of daughters being Images of God alongside the sons.

            Old type Christianity really struggled mightily in the Roman Empire and afterwards to put an end to this evil.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        “Shotgun marriage + a system for courtship and betrothal based on calling on the father at home instead of taking the girl out of the home + no divorce + shaming sluts forms an internally coherent system with a proven track record of success. You’re stripping one cog out of a clock because you object to that one cog on aesthetic grounds, and expecting somehow to still make the clock work.”

        This is an important point in general, beyond the scope of this one topic. As Hayek noted, we can’t choose features of our society a la carte.

    • i says:

      European Manorialism is quite eugenics due to the fact that the Man must have built up a proper estate before he can marry.

      This will tend to push up the age of marriage for the men. And it locks out more low-IQ males from the marriage market.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        Good thing low-IQ and young males can join up with a free company to put paid to the mohamedans or something. I hear there’s at least 2 pirate free companies forming. Better volunteer with one of them.

        • i says:

          Indeed. 🙂

          As for the addition to my previous comment. I do also believe that boys ought to be trained in leadership. To rule with Wisdom and Justice ought to be as routine as breathing.

          That way once they gained the necessary character as Men they can truly be good Heads of their own Households. With more of them qualifying for the Eldership by Virtue of the quality of their leadership.

      • i says:

        I looked up the HBDchick posts on Manorialism. But its not quite what I have said here instead this is what is said. On the side of the Husband he is required to wait until the farm and the land on the manor became available and the Lord of the Manor would definitely select for bright Men able to work it well to turn a profit on his behalf:

        for the first couple (few?) hundred years of this manor system, sons did not necessarily inherit the farms that their fathers worked. when they came of age, and if and when a farm on the manor became available, a young man — and his new wife (one would not marry before getting a farm — not if you wanted to be a part of the manor system) — would be granted the rights to another farm. (peasants could also, and did, own their own private property — some more than others — but this varied in place and time.)

        secondly, which peasants succeeded in the world of the manor? presumably hard-working, maybe kinda intelligent — but how about also able to hold off on the urge to mate until one was well-established? (sound like any group of people we know?)

        under the manor system, you didn’t get to rent a farm from the lord — i.e. make a living — until he was good and ready to let you a farm. and you couldn’t marry until you had some land to work. those individuals who couldn’t hold off, reproductively speaking, until they were in a position to marry would’ve lost out — they wouldn’t have been considered responsible enough to be a part of the lord’s manor — or, at least, they would’ve wound up somewhere at the bottom of the heap — selected out.

        i think it’s reasonable to assume that the lords of the manors would’ve selected responsible, hard-working, bright men and women to work their lands (they were looking for a profit, after all) — and their selection practices would’ve, in turn, selected — in the evolutionary sense — for certain types of individuals within western european society. and these types of individuals — hard-working, bright, able to delay their own gratification

        bipartite manorialism, in which tenant farmers would work for (later pay rent to) the head of a manor but also farm for themselves, operated as a sort-of franchise system in which the tenants on their individual farms had to make it or break it independently (i.e. without support from an extended family/clan, the dumber members of which would no longer be a drag on our independent farmers)



    • Sher Singh says:

      Honor killing is the solution no on mentions.

      End of discussion,


      • jim says:

        I routinely and regularly post in favor of honor killing in the cases that the Old Testament recommends for the death penalty, and regularly imply I might do it myself.

        But abduction of an unbetrothed, unmarried female for the purpose of marriage is not one of those cases. The Old Testament does not give the reasoning, but I give the reasons with great regularity and excessive repetition. It is good for society that chicks get married off and stuck with their husbands, in order that we have cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women.

        And getting us out of the mess we are now in (defect/defect, the game of players and bitches) will likely require a whole lot of abductions – once again I recommend the late seventeenth century, early eighteenth century Australian solution to sexual immorality, which solution appears to have been completely effective, swiftly reducing the problem to precisely zero.

        The Old Testament gives the husband or fiancé a greater and more secure property right in female sexual, reproductive, and domestic services than the father, and if we want cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women, that is how it has to be. The social purpose and social value of the father’s property right is to ensure that the virgin gets under the authority of a suitable husband while still a virgin, and if he falls down in that duty, perhaps due to excessive delay in finding husbands for his lustful daughters, or insufficiently tight control, he has fouled up.

        • Sher Singh says:

          If a white girl runs away with an African, then a shotgun is the solution.
          Plunder & Murder are allowed in Sikhi so neither the OT or Noahide laws.

          We don’t need to overthink this. Marriage is a union of tribes,
          Honor killing is part of marriage; it outlines which matches are unacceptable.

          Thoughts on the following? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/777363024196796426/852791619115417620/unknown.png


          • jim says:

            Race is irrelevant to the vast majority of cases. The usual problem is white girls fucking some white man, and then fucking another white man.

            Which problem, as I keep repeating, the authorities in early Australia faced and, after being discombobulated for a little while, solved the problem decisively and effectively.

            • Sher Singh says:

              That sort of solution is only possible among a people who’ve lost caste and tribe. As the excerpts on the discord image show, European tribal and clan structures were destroyed by the church. You could argue that new world migration did the same for class.

              Patriarchal authority is based on violence, and the Christian state claims a monopoly on both adjudication & execution. It may seem that I’m being pedantic, but protecting pedigree is also protecting the ability of other clan members to be married & their social honor.

              Thank you for the post and responses. I had two questions:

              1. https://twitter.com/BosqueAli/status/1554099337134804992?s=19

              This post claims natural fertility is in the range of 8-12. Obviously, replacement fertility is higher among hunter gatherers

              2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147470491501300114

              You’ve probably come across this, but it’s a paper by Frost & Harpending. It goes into the European state’s war on violence, and how that shaped behaviour.

              It’s related to the previous link I guess because Hajnal Europeans are characterized by a moral centralization rarely found elsewhere.

              The Khalsa’s ordered to destroy Turks (abrahamics).
              Personally, Christian & Islamic prohibitions on rebellion come off as gay.


              All warriors attain heaven both righteous and demonic.
              Anything else is priest rule & destined to failure, rightfully so.


              • jim says:

                > Patriarchal authority is based on violence, and the Christian state claims a monopoly on both adjudication & execution

                And thus, the Christian state can rather easily destroy marriage, and frequently does so.

                The original faith of the people that founded Bronze Age civilization, and of the people that overran Bronze Age civilization when it became decadent and failed to reproduce, was that the family of the husband got total and permanent ownership over the wife, and the family of the father totally gave up the daughter. Even if the husband croaked a day after marriage, it was the job of his family to assign the widow to a new husband, and neither the still blushing bride, nor her father, had any say in it.

                But the reason the Roman Republic declined was patriarchal authority, the authority of the father undermining the authority of the husband – fathers were reluctant to hand all power over their daughters over to husbands.

                What happened was women theoretically under the tutelage of their fathers, and not under the tutelage of their husbands, but no longer living in their fathers home, behaved extremely badly. The Romans got something very similar to emancipation, even though theoretically patriarchy, which eventually became actual emancipation.

                The theocratic Old Testament state, and the Anglicanism of Throne and Altar England, gave total ownership to husband, and socially enforced patriarchs to give up their abducted daughters. That works. The property rights of fathers of daughters have to be supported for the purpose of ensuring virgin brides, and not supported when they subvert, rather than support, marriage.

                • Sher Singh says:

                  The correct response to an abducted daughter is to kill both her and the abductor. Burn the village too if necessary and especially if lower caste.

                  The state has no place in marriage, let the clan or village chief handle it. There’s no difference between an eloping whore being protected by the state & onlyfans.

                  Early betrothal and polygamy is the norm I don’t see fathers holding on to their daughters. I see them getting married off soon as possible. Policing virginity is a an arduous task.

                  I see mothers and daughters conspiring to delay marriage, and sons defecting on their filial duty to support the father due to brainwashing. The real defect scenario is between brothers, fathers and son. Women and the state divide them to bring chaos. Where they are united even the Gods bow before entering a home.


                • jim says:

                  > The correct response to an abducted daughter is to kill both her and the abductor. Burn the village too if necessary and especially if lower caste

                  That solution is morally unacceptable according to the Old and New Testament.

                  As a Christian, I go by what they say, and as an engineer, I go by what works. Excessive authority of the father at the expense of the husband is a failure mode of patriarchy, which needs to be avoided. That is what destroyed the Roman Republic.

                  Early Roman Republic had a one year rule. If the abductor kept her for a year, he gained all authority and the father lost all authority.

                  Turned out the one year rule favored the father at the expense of the husband too much.

                  Eighteenth century England had a couple of minutes behind closed doors rule.

                • Sher Singh says:

                  > That solution is morally unacceptable according to the Old and New Testament.

                  Neither a Semite nor an Engineer have any place commenting on Aryan Warrior Morality.

                  Nice knowing the white race Ig, you guys will just marry off your daughters to groids if they’re ‘abducted’ properly.



                • jim says:

                  > > That solution is morally unacceptable according to the Old and New Testament.

                  > Neither a Semite nor an Engineer have any place commenting on Aryan Warrior Morality

                  The original Aryan morality, according to the glimpses collected in “the Ancient City”, favored husbands over fathers.

                  Our Christian Aryan warriors, who had a sexual morality consistent with the spirit of Old Testament law, causally brushed aside your Hindu Aryan warriors. Also your streets are still full of shit.

                • jim says:

                  “Causally” was originally a typo for “casually” but on reflection, fits more accurately. Clive of India, the armed and dangerous corporate accountant who conquered India, was awarded both his wife and his job by his boss, and he got, and his boss lost, complete ownership of wife.

                  It is husbands who command the troops, and you have to favor them over fathers. Which is harmonious with favoring the husband even if he breaks a few rules in order to become a husband.

                • Sher Singh says:


                • jim says:

                  I already responded to this, and you just sail right on presupposing the reactionary position is the opposite of what it is

                • Sher Singh says:

                  > Our Christian Aryan warriors, who had a sexual morality consistent with the spirit of Old Testament law, causally brushed aside your Hindu Aryan warriors. Also your streets are still full of shit.

                  Did they? The most VCs belong to the Sikh Regiment.
                  [*stupid insults and stupid theology deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Sikh’s are good at dying bravely in battle. Old type Christian officers are good at making the enemy die in battle.

                  As the wars between our peoples repeatedly demonstrated, until we lost Old type Christianity.

                • Sher Singh says:

                  Abraham pimped out his sister/wife that’s not unresponsive
                  You’re making a religious struggle racial.

                  [*stupid insults deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  No, Abraham did not pimp out his sister. You are unfamiliar with Christianity.

                  Far worse than that, he pimped out his wife, for which he was reprimanded by God and Man. But his wife was praised for obeying her husband even when her husband was wrong and wicked, confirming the absolute authority of husbands, while at the same time denying them the right to unload their wives onto other men.

                  You were the one who made a religious struggle racial, and in any case, your religion is racial.

                • Sher Singh says:



                  So, carrying weapons is stupid theology now.
                  Christianity is UnAryan – it makes Aryas untouchable.

                  “Karl Marx wrote the Sikhs did not consolidate victory at Mudki due to their refusal to fire on a retreating foe”

                  Your failure lies in your belief that our wars are over.
                  The British themselves wrote their’s was a negotiated diplomatic victory with the treacherous officer class.

                  Never against the Singhs themselves who they respected, and had better artillery.

                  When I visit Australia, the UK or Canada – a 3ft sword is on my hip. Can you say the same?

                  Let’s end this here.


                • Sher Singh says:

                  No, Abraham did not pimp out his sister. You are unfamiliar with Christianity.

                  Far worse than that, he pimped out his wife, for which he was reprimanded by God and Man. But his wife was praised for obeying her husband even when her husband was wrong and wicked, confirming the absolute authority of husbands, while at the same time denying them the right to unload their wives onto other men.

                  She was both.

                  In Sikhi/Vedic Dharma a wife gains salvation by serving her husband.

                  A Wife’s only God is her husband.


                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Sher, it’s disingenuous to pretend you get to carry “brown people totems” like ceremonial swords (i know they are actual weapons) because you somehow defeated the forces of the Occident. You get to carry a sword for the same reason that sodomites get access to children and negros get to repeat offend with no consequences until dead: the Cathedral makes a point of elevating all others over their white populations, and bestows privileged treatment on pet minorities to insult and degrade the whites. When they look at you, they just see a diversity tally mark, they have no idea of your history, stance, or perspective, you’re just another minority that deserves special treatment because racism.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  @Sher Singh
                  As I’ve said before, I remain impressed by both the Sikhs and the Gurkha. But it must be pointed out the teaming mass of barefooted paupers and the only 20th century weapon we saw was the horse. My point stands.

  34. Piedpiper says:

    Girls are made for impregnation and childbirth at puberty. This is NOT pedophilia NOR child abuse. Just biology. Stifleing this is perverse. The brain is 90% developed in 6 year old girls, and 100% developed at puberty. After 16 cognition declines. (The myth of the teen brain by Dr Robert Epstein)

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      My fellow Americans. Ask not what you can do for young, dumb, nubile sluts. Instead, ask what young, dumb, nubile sluts can do for you.

    • Redbible says:

      Going to slightly disagree with the “Girls are made for impregnation and childbirth at puberty” statement. No disagreement about where the conclusions would lead, just that it’s not quite technically right.

      In female chimps, they tend to start puberty around 8, have their menarche around 10, and have their first ovation around 12 leading to grist pregnancy around 13. There aren’t as good of studies on this in human females, since the implications are not something that the cathedral want being shown. So if we infer that Humans have some commonality with chimps (being evolutionary the closest to us) and we observe that human females tend to follow a pattern that about 2 years after starting puberty is when females get their menarche, It follows that it is quite likely that females start ovating about 2 years after that. (Also, some anecdotal evidence, I know several women that have stated that the “first year or 2” of periods are not too bad, but then “one day” it starts hitting like a truck, Which lines up with with ovation starting then.)

      Still, girls who engage in “cruising for dick behavior” are certainly able to handle a dicking.

  35. Not Tom Hanks says:

    This is fascinating and hilarious and great fun all at once.


  36. Pax Imperialis says:

    “If you abduct an unmarried, unbetrothed virgin, and pop her, and the the father absolutely prohibits the marriage, the penalty is […] You pay a substantial fine, but the father is socially shamed, and priesthood assigns him a humiliating monicker.”

    Fuck no. Maybe my clannish, none-Christian, East Asian genetic roots are overreacting to this, but still fuck no. Abduction implies the man didn’t seek approval of the patriarch to proceed and encroached upon the patriarch’s domain. A serious violation of that patriarch’s dignity and territory was committed.

    Thus the clan’s honor, which the patriarch upholds, may require killing the man who has caused the loss of face rather than enforcing a shotgun marriage dependent on the circumstances of the abduction and the man in question. Especially so if the man is from a hostile or low status caste/tribe/clan.

    The priesthood should facilitate hushing things up surrounding the man’s disappearance (severely beaten and exiled, or put 6 feet under) should the patriarch choose that course of action. Or facilitate a shotgun marriage, “that definitely and totally was not a shotgun marriage,” to prevent loss of face.

    The priesthood should only assign a humiliating monicker if the patriarch, being weak, chooses to seek zero recourse. A patriarch seeking only financial restitution is far worse than seeking zero recourse because the implication is that he whores out his women. The priesthood should actively socially destroy that patriarch and/or his clan.

    If the patriarch dies in the process of attempting to disappear the man who caused injury to the clan’s honor, the patriarch’s honor should still be considered intact; however, it now falls upon the new patriarch to escalate the conflict. The role of the priesthood is to now let things play out until the time is right to facilitate peace talks.

    “Men want to own a woman.”


    Continuing a relevant discussion I had with jim on cities being a problem. This is not a direct reply. I said “Men need to own space to be men. Cities increase the cost of space such that many men never own space. Men who own nothing protect nothing and destroy out of spite.” This very much extends to women. A man who can’t even own property has a far more difficult time convincing a women that he owns her. As noted by Neurotoxin, unowned women are destructive. My argument is that cities have to be dealt with before major progress can be achieved on women. 83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. This presents a staggering problem.

    jim’s argument being that big cities are economically irrelevant and switching to a distributed elite means megalopoli, in his word, go “poof.” Unless jim’s usage of the word “poof” is a euphemism for something else that Cominator would approve of, I seriously doubt that happens without a dedicated policy enforced by a monarch to dismantle the big cities. Dead things have a tendency of lingering around unless viciously put in the ground. We know this to be true with dead state religions that can march on for generations or even centuries on pure inertia. Cities, big cities even more so, are no different.

    The very nature of power is to consolidate and create even more power. Big cities, by their very nature as the pinnacles of consolidated (not the same as centralized) power, will resist distributed (also not the same as decentralized) power no matter what their economic relevance is. They already do as we see in the rural-urban political divide. It’s not possible to simply dismiss cities as a small issue that will go “poof” because there is an element of truth that quantity has a quality all its own. Cities have never before in human history been inhabited by such a large percentage of the population. Levels of sexual dysfunction have never been higher. Coincidence?

    The most economically important industry is arguably agriculture which has always been decentralized and distributed outside of cities. In that regard, cities have always been economically irrelevant. The kulaks still ended up in the ground as fertilizer. All important industry and distribution could be decentralized and moved outside of cities due to the internet. It will not change the fate of the Amerikaners if a virtuous King doesn’t manage to politically neuter the cities and actively deal with the holiness spiral occurring in them with long term solutions in mind.

    There is an intrinsic reason why big cities will continue to exist against the trend of industrial decentralization. As jim notes “big cities exist to provide services to ruling elite.” Elites desire consolidated material luxury. An elite will not fly to California for his wine, fly to Tennessee for his whiskey, and fly back to his compound in some rural area. Nor will an elite wait long for luxury to arrive on his rural doorstep. The elite will demand that all those goods be readily available where he resides, and for all those luxuries to be personally served to him because what is status if one cannot lord it over others? Sure, drones can fly all those things to his door step, and that might change things in the long run, but so far it hasn’t. I also doubt the desire for human servants changes due to evolutionary psychology reasons.

    Right now the servants bring the luxuries to the elite, but servants having too much access to the elite’s home is uncouth which means they live outside his home in ever more cramped space proportionate to the elite’s consumption. Servants have needs too and before you know it what you have is entire ecosystem that looks like a city composed purely of the FIRE economy to sustain elite consumption and their servants. Wealth and material production happened outside of Rome and was brought to the elites residing in the city via taxes, tribute, or war loot. One cannot just wave a magic wand saying distributed elites means big cities go away. That just means distributed elites in many cities. In practice what we already have today with 300 some cities in America over 100,000. Thus jim’s assertion that “Everything that gets delivered to cities is tribute paid by the real economy” is really just the historical norm from Rome to the present.

    What I think we have in the West is a scaling problem and not a distribution (of elites) problem. It doesn’t matter how distributed or feudal a system is if there is simply too many elites or elite consumption is simply too high. Rome had both problems. America has both problems at a scale of several orders of magnitude higher spread across 300 cities instead of one. Thus Roman solutions might not scale well.

    One final note, it’s interesting that the Roman Republic’s sexual dysfunction mirrors modern Western sexual dysfunction. Too many orgies and such.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Cities will go poof a little metaphorically and a little literally. Once IE warfare gets off the ground, the elite will want as much distance as possible between each other. If cities are where elites live, then it is much easier to hunt for particular elites given you know their city. Better to spread out to avoid decapitation strikes. We already see this trend with manufacturing due to nukes. Drones and AI/IE(Artificial Intelligence/Information Epoch) weapons will accelerate this.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        I’m a bit (very) drunk and massively sleep deprived with a bit of nicotine keeping me up, so I might be misremembering shit or writing bad. I also likely won’t be able to post for roughly a week so here we go.

        I would be far more aligned with jim if his position were something like “cities go boom Syrian style in long dragged out conflict” or cities collapse like “late Roman Empire style.” Poof feels far too optimistic due to the short term and ephemeral nature implied by the word and glossing over the shear amount of death and destruction that could happen. Syrian or Roman Empire style city destruction doesn’t feel short term or ephemeral… but I suppose that’s dependent on time scale used. That said, PTSD lasts a life time… so such events might very well be short in time but feel like an eternity. Human perception is weird like that. Not that I had PTSD or anything, at least nothing I would ever allow myself to be diagnosed with.

        The historical record shows elites are slow to adopt to changes to boots on the ground reality. Extremely so towards end of regime periods unless something wracks them in the head badly that puts the fear of God in them. Our current crop of elites are, on average, rather dumb. I think it would require a domestic mass death event due to AI/IE reality to shift elite distribution to outside cities. Hell Afghanistan didn’t seem to change anything but the elites were largely not the ones dying in that conflict. But even with a massive kick in the ass it would only be the smart ones who move. Too many dumb elites would remain in the cities and in control to shit up the situation.

        Outside such an event, the elites carry on as usual. Meaning slow degeneration in the manner of Brazil style decline as Yarvin seems to think. I really hope it’s not a 100+ years of stagnant slow decline but it looks uncomfortably possible. I don’t know what the future will hold. I fear no deliverance from suffering. Just a slow, gradual decline before a complete collapses with me dying far before an end to things. I think that such an outcome might be likely. jim seems to think collapse will be quick and decisive around 2026ish? I don’t know but I’ve always sided on pessimism likely due to genetic reasons. That bias is there.

        I guess the takeaway from all of this is that I agree that technology accelerates, but human cognition does not. There are limits to how much change a person can take and thus political realities, and so changes in social fabric and geopolitical realities look more like hard breaks rather than smooth transitions.

        • Red says:

          I really hope it’s not a 100+ years of stagnant slow decline but it looks uncomfortably possible.

          Have you seen American cities lately? We’re not in slow decline mode. We’re in oh shit crime has been legalized and self defense de facto illegal mode. Cities are unlikely to last long under such conditions.

          War is coming likely before 2030. Internal, external, and/or straight up genocide is coming. Someone has to be blamed for the failure of the elites and they’re going to channel that blame on someone.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            “Have you seen American cities lately?”

            Yes, and I highly urge you to look at Latin and South American cities to see just how much worse the situation can get. Tijuana has a population of 1,763,197 and a homicide rate of 134.24 per 100,000. That’s more than double the top American city.

            America invited Latin America. Don’t be surprised if American resembles Latin America in time. We still have a long ways down.

            • Red says:

              America invited Latin America. Don’t be surprised if American resembles Latin America in time. We still have a long ways down.

              I’m expecting America to be worse than Tijuana within a few years. Criminals are still adapting to the reality that they can inflict violence and death with very little chance of being punished for it. I went down to an ATM today in my moderately size city and a nigger was standing next to his piece of shit car ready to rob anyone who tried to withdraw money from the ATM. Didn’t bother covering his face or even hiding. That’s the new normal.

        • jim says:

          > I think it would require a domestic mass death event due to AI/IE reality to shift elite distribution to outside cities.

          As leftism goes ever lefter, there is apt to be wholesale mass elite replacement.

          Russia has had national capitalism imposed on it by outside forces.

          I saw a youtube video, where the youtuber went to a remote rural village to interview another youtuber. He wanted to see how sanctions are impacting Russia. This little village is located in the midst of a seemingly limitless forest, with a few little farms cut into the forest near the village. Its primary business is lumber, which it sells as unmilled logs. (Why does it not have a lumber mill?)

          Due to sanctions, metal has become cheap, because hard to export, and nails and screws expensive or unobtainable, because formerly imported.

          The one and only builder in the village found himself without nails and screws. So he ordered from China a machine that makes metal into nails and screws And it is now chugging away 24/7 in this remote village in the back of beyond, steadily producing nails and screws, and making him quite a lot of money selling nails and screws to other little villages. Instant decentralization, instant national capitalism.

          We are seeing a new Russian elite stepping into the gap left by multinational capitalism retreating. And it turns out that pretty much everything that multinational capitalism used to do, organized as big corporations with a New York skyscraper full of lawyers and accountants, there are plenty of Russians able to do, and those Russians are not finding any need to do it in big cities.

          The youtuber interviews a farmer is worried because his imported farm machinery requires imported replacement parts, which are now unobtainable.

          I also live in the back of beyond, though not in Russia, and within walking distance of me is a man with a workshop in a shipping container – he had the whole workshop shipped as a unit. Much like the Russian builder’s nail making machine, only bigger. That man and his workshop could, I think, make any of the parts that the farmer is worried about.

          • zero says:

            I’m extremely excited for local manufacturing to take off, I hate working on new vehicles and there are so many parts that should be easy to produce but there are so few people with the tools and know how so it’s very expensive. There is going to be a big business in low teching equipment to get around complex supply chain parts. If someone figured out a semi automated sheet metal former that can pop out body panels I might die from joy

    • jim says:

      > Fuck no. Maybe my clannish, none-Christian, East Asian genetic roots are overreacting to this, but still fuck no. Abduction implies the man didn’t seek approval of the patriarch to proceed and encroached upon the patriarch’s domain. A serious violation of that patriarch’s dignity and territory was committed.

      Fathers have a tendency to retain authority over daughters for far too long which is a failure mode. A failure mode that daughters are apt to very strongly resist by making it strangely easy to “abduct” them and being strangely lethargic and ineffectual about escaping their “abductor”. We need to discourage unduly prolonged ownership by tolerating “abduction”, provided it results in indissoluble marriage, rather than players and bitches.

      Paul told fathers to not hang on to their daughters for too long, and the Old Testament policy made it difficult and dangerous for a father to hang on to his daughter unduly, incentivizing very early betrothal and early marriage.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        Shotgun marriages didn’t exist prior to 1800s England after which it spread like wildfire first in the anglosphere and then to Europe in general. I must wonder what was happening for such a change. Seems like a collapse in patriarchal authority to me. Social technology clearly existed that largely prevent the problem of failure mode. Thus “abduction” was either rare or nonexistent. Needing to tolerate “abduction” feels like a cope for a half measured restoration.

        In East Asian societies before Westernization, Confucian based laws were largely enforced to ensure women were either betrothed or married off between 16-20. That might seem a bit old or young by some standards, but I think different ethnic/racial groups are on different evolutionary paths.

        I guess, taking a step back, I realize accepting some level of tolerance for “abduction” based marriages may turn out well for Western peoples. I don’t think it would work out well for Eastern peoples. The East is far more concerned about clan/caste/status based shame and honor than the West. And I think maybe my initial rejection was somewhat of a knee jerk reaction.

        I have a problem with the term “abduction” being used. It’s being used in the same way “rape” is just in a different direction. Whereas “rape” is mostly women failing to be owned and lashing out in spite via false rape accusations, “abduction” is the reactionary way of saying some women want to be taken without admitting to it. Such euphemism are corrosive to any language. I accept that using such doublespeak is necessary while in enemy territory, but this is not enemy territory. We must speak truth.

        I’m guilty of using euphemisms here. I’m not perfect and habits are strong. But all the more reason why we must hold ourselves to a higher standard here least we participate in calling a deer a horse.

        • Red says:

          I have a problem with the term “abduction” being used. It’s being used in the same way “rape” is just in a different direction. Whereas “rape” is mostly women failing to be owned and lashing out in spite via false rape accusations, “abduction” is the reactionary way of saying some women want to be taken without admitting to it. Such euphemism are corrosive to any language. I accept that using such doublespeak is necessary while in enemy territory, but this is not enemy territory. We must speak truth.

          It’s the correct word for the behavior. Not sure why it upsets you.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            “It’s the correct word for the behavior. Not sure why it upsets you.”

            It’s not the correct term. It’s like saying cattle that has been stolen is the same as cattle that has ran off. Obviously two different problems with two different solutions.

            Both require a fence and a guard but only one of them requires an armed guard.

            • Red says:

              Definition of abduction

              1 : the action of abducting : the condition of being abducted
              2 archaic : the unlawful carrying away of a woman for marriage or sexual intercourse

              Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              Rape and abduction both historically meant to be carried off and fucked, with the opinion of the woman irrelevant. A woman is likely to make all sorts of protests at a rape or abduction. Once the abduction and rape occur, women are then liable to be quite satisfied with how things turned out. If her father shows up challenging her abductor, then she is going to pit them against one another. Let’s you and him fight. Then she will see if the rape was acceptable or not based on how her lover handles her father.

              The sense that it was nonconsensual is a later addition that is part of the doctrine of female consent. The original meanings of rape and abduction were indifferent to whether the woman made a protest, because everyone knew that even if she made a fuss, it was just to see how serious her abductor really was about the whole thing. She is abducted not from her own custody, but from her father’s. If she assists her abductor through the gates, walls, door and windows, then she still did it in defiance of her father’s will.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                @Red and Wulfgar

                If I go onto your property and try to illegally carry off your (sentient) stuff (this is abduction) I should be shot.

                If your stuff wanders off your property into my arms (this is not abduction) that’s a different problem.

                Either case you need a fence and a guard. However you will only be shooting in one of those cases. Obliviously you do not shoot your own property. Rather you restrain it and put it back into it’s place.

                A women being foolish is not abduction on it’s own. A women being foolish AND being facilitated by a man is abduction. This has nothing to do with a women consenting and everything to do with the culpability of the outside man facilitating illicit activity.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  The problem is that the rest of my stuff is not liable to be trying its damnest to get into a position to be carried off. I can trust the rest of my property when it tells me that it tried to warn me and to escape. I can trust that my property did not wander onto the grounds to find out what the shadowy figure was doing there. I can trust that the rest of my property is not trying to set up a lethal confrontation to test the abductor and me, and put us against each other.

                • Red says:

                  > Obliviously you do not shoot your own property. Rather you restrain it and put it back into it’s place.

                  How do to magically restore virginity? Once she’s bonded with a man, she’s bonded with a man. The best outcome at that point is leaving her with her new husband. Taking her back and remarrying her is just going to result on her cheating on her new husband. You can’t un-spill milk.

            • jim says:

              With women, hard to tell the difference.

          • jim says:

            The term abduction now has been changed underneath us.

            It used to carry no implications as to how helpful the woman was to her abductor.

            I am happy to see an old word being once again used to speak thoughts that our masters have sought to make unspeakable.

    • jim says:

      > jim’s argument being that big cities are economically irrelevant and switching to a distributed elite means megalopoli, in his word, go “poof.” Unless jim’s usage of the word “poof” is a euphemism for something else that Cominator would approve of, I seriously doubt that happens without a dedicated policy enforced by a monarch to dismantle the big cities.

      Big cities primarily reflect concentrated power, and secondly used to reflect the efficiency of entrepot marketing, and the need of skilled people to physically interact with other skilled people. Entrepot facilities are now moving out of cities to the maximum extent physically possible, and the internet has radically reduced the need for skilled people to be physically close to other skilled people.

      The Holy Roman Empire, having decentralized power, did not have big cities. Decentralizing power is a political objective and political outcomes are difficult to control or predict, and are seldom what those attempting to give effect to them intended, expected, or desired, but Information Epoch warfare is likely to radically decentralize and distribute power, resulting aristocratic governance similar to that of the Holy Roman Empire.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Cities are highly desirable because [*deleted for grotesque disconnection to reality*]

        • jim says:

          I just spent a week in a big city, because my wife needed treatment in a big city hospital, which treatment was not available in a smaller city.

          Nobody lives in cities except that they have to. It is oppressive, unpleasant, and dangerous for a multitude of reasons. The danger could be eliminated by effective punishment (death) and effective law enforcement, but the other reasons would remain.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            I’m talking about simple physics here. You come across more people walking through a city than driving through a subdivision, thus density is an indirect form of speed. There’s a reason why a “New York minute” is an expression, not a “Los Angeles minute”. People with the most valuable time, elites in every field, want to commute in a true city and not a sprawling dump like Atlanta or Phoenix or Houston or LA, etc.

            And public transportation is really nice if you want to socialize and drink, so you can’t drive, or you have a sober and miserable friend who gets to be designated driver. The bus is hated because it creates traffic, but subways are found in all of the best cities in the world.

            I support law enforcement like Singapore, yes. That’s the kind of reactionary city we need as a capital. Dubai or Moscow are other solid examples of cities we should build in America for the red tribe.

            • jim says:

              Yes, no one disagrees that cities make it efficient to meet people. They also have extremely high crowding related costs that stop people from reproducing and make life in the big city unpleasant.

              The internet has radically reduced the need to meet people in person, thus radically reducing the economic benefit of having large numbers of people jammed together in big cities – thus if it was simply a matter of economic efficiency, we would see a big reduction in urbanization.

              And when Trump was deregulating, we did see a big reduction in urbanization – revealing that the largest part of the reason for big cities is that the regulators are there. The FIRE economy is unproductive, and as regulation goes down, it goes down.

              It is costly to deliver goods and services into a big city, having your people in big cities creates high costs. The crowding is unpleasant, makes it difficult to maintain safety and order, and prevents one from getting where one wants and needs to go. Not everything can be in walking distance, using a car is impractical, because of parking and traffic, and using public transport is unpleasant and inconvenient.

              That using public transport allows one to get drunk with one’s buddies is only a benefit for atomized individuals. People who have the social life that is normal for our species can always have their wife, son, or father give them a lift, or someone at the party is not drinking for a reason.

              And you cannot hold a barbecue in your backyard, because you cannot afford a backyard. I see lots of really rich and powerful people who live in a McMansion with no garden. If a powerful elite has no land, he cannot socially interact with other elites in a way that looks to them like he is powerful. Land is a more potent status symbol than a corner office in a ridiculously tall skyscraper. It is not only women whose status radar is maladapted to modernity.

              And women just cannot see a man with no turf of his own as a husband, which impedes reproduction.

              • Something says:

                “ If a powerful elite has no land, he cannot socially interact with other elites in a way that looks to them like he is powerful.”

                @Jim can you go more into this? I’d like to understand the dynamic.

                • jim says:

                  Words are not adequate or appropriate. We do not have the language. It is hard enough to describe game, even though female perceptions of status are simple and primitive. Male perceptions are subtle and sophisticated, hence correspondingly harder to discuss.

                • Something says:

                  Interesting. Would it be possible to indirectly describe it be contrasting 2-3 scenarios, eg a garden party thrown by a wealthy man with land vs a boardroom in a skyscraper?

                • jim says:

                  Hard enough, and more important, to describe gaming women. What you request is way harder, and less urgent.

    • Red says:

      jim’s argument being that big cities are economically irrelevant and switching to a distributed elite means megalopoli, in his word, go “poof.” Unless jim’s usage of the word “poof” is a euphemism for something else that Cominator would approve of, I seriously doubt that happens without a dedicated policy enforced by a monarch to dismantle the big cities. Dead things have a tendency of lingering around unless viciously put in the ground. We know this to be true with dead state religions that can march on for generations or even centuries on pure inertia. Cities, big cities even more so, are no different.

      Cities went poof during the bronze age collapse. People moved away or were captured for slaves and herders grazed their flocks in the fields to the walls of the empty cities.

      • jim says:

        It is not so much that they were captured as slaves, but, lacking both a King and extended families, they were isolated individuals whom anyone could kill. Signing up as a slave for a member of a large extended family meant that only one man, instead of any man, could kill you. There seems to have been no very vigorous effort to stop slaves from simply wandering off.

        The tribal organization of the peoples that destroyed Bronze Age civilization was familial, organized by descent from a single man, with theoretically the eldest son of the eldest son of eldest son … being king, and holding theoretically absolute power over the descendants of the younger brothers – absolute power rather severely limited by the fact that descendants of the younger sons of that one man were also kings, also with absolute sovereignty. So he was King over a rather small number of Kings, each of them equally absolute within their own domain, who were themselves Kings over a rather small number Kings. Which description assumes primogeniture was in fact followed, which was frequently not the case, and assumes the extended family held together when very large, which was frequently not the case.

        So the victors were organized as very large extended families. Greece is called the Peloponnese, because the sons of Pelops took it.

  37. Frank says:

    [*deleted for failure to pass shill test*]

    • Frank says:

      Why am I still on moderation after passing the shill test? What kind of faggotty Facebook-type bullshit is this?

      • jim says:

        Total failure to pass shit test.

        The test is “commit a thought crime, or reply to someone else’s thought crime, even to criticize and rebut it, in a way that makes it clear what the thought crime is”

        We have lots of handy dandy lists of thought crimes. Copy and paste is fine, though it is preferable if you commit your own thought crimes in your own words, as JJ did.

        Copy and pasting someone else’s thought crime, putting it in a quote, and then making a relevant and responsive reply, even to criticize and rebut, is also a pass.

        • Frank says:

          Are you senile or what? I passed the shill test in the last thread. That’s why you restored my comment there.

          • jim says:

            Oops, I stand corrected.

            But you are still unresponsive, like a shill, and I will delete your comments, case by case, for being unresponsive.

            OK, you are not on moderation for being a shill any more, and I should have remembered that. I deleted some things that I should have rebutted, which I now regret.

            But you are on moderation for stubbornly reiterating your position in a hundred different ways and failing to respond to rebuttals.

            You should respond to rebuttals with counter arguments, not by sailing straight ahead and posting much the same thing again. Endlessly repetition results in endless repetition of unanswered rebuttals. Waste of space.

            You do not appear to be an FBI agent, unless they have recently given their shills a much longer leash, but you are repetitiously advocating the standard FBI shill program of ineffective and self destructive action.

            Cannot win without Caesar. Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion is more powerful than ideas. So, my next post is likely to be fashion. We have to have fashion in place before ideas, and ideas in place before guns. Reflect on the victory of Constantine.

            The organization that is nominally headed by Biden lacks the will, cohesion, and organization to carry out the Biden war program effectively. But we lack any organization at all.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        Can you succinctly state why you are here, what you hope to accomplish, and what ideas you have to offer, Frank? You’re a new guy, and you have already demonstrated unfamiliarity with our tribal dynamics (being unaware of Aidan’s blog is pretty demonstrative), and you are rubbing everyone the wrong way. This is no crime, as this is an online tribe united by wrongthink and thoughtcrime, but every single poster brings something to the table except me, and what I lack in intelligence, insight, humor, observation, experience, wisdom, and good looks I make up for with walls of useless text that no one like to get through but for some reason continue to do so. So the court jester spot is taken, and I won’t tolerate you edging onto my turf.

        Weak jokes aside, you aren’t portraying yourself as someone who wants to be collaborative or productive. Which is also not a crime, but why not just lurk then? Why comment if you’re just inviting attacks and instigating derailments like a shill? The only thing more embarrassing than being an unpaid shill is a legit person who is indistinguishable from an unpaid shill.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          I enjoy reading through your academia style writings… though useless walls text is a nice tongue in cheek way of putting it. Ones doesn’t know what useless walls of text looks like until having to read several hundred pages of feminist contemplation of penises for a required diversity class. Didn’t matter that I was a student in the college of engineering. The liberal arts college gets their graduates into admin and hr and thus dictates terms to the other colleges in the university.

          I don’t have as much time these days to read or reply as I would like to. Sometimes I read something you (jim and others as well) wrote and think about it for a week, but by then it’s too late to reply.

          • Globalist Power Terminated II says:

            Ones doesn’t know what useless walls of text looks like until having to read several hundred pages of feminist contemplation of penises for a required diversity class.


          • Kunning Drueger says:

            That’s not strange at all, I do that myself. JB comments plague my musings to an embarrassing degree. St. John in particular, but actually many others too. We squat in the shadows of titans of our own making, and looking upward becomes a perilous choice (downward now, and for a while actually, but once, we were compelled to scroll).

            I’d encourage you to respond when ready, no matter the time passed. There’s a reason we have an archive, and it’s actually a blessing to be reminded of what has been written before, no matter how embarrassing CERTAIN COMMENTS might be for CERTAIN PEOPLE. Looking at you, mousebrain.

        • Frank says:

          > Can you succinctly state why you are here, what you hope to accomplish, and what ideas you have to offer, Frank?
          [*deleted because unresponsive*]

  38. onyomi says:

    Not affiliated with, or shilling for, this website or its creator/content, as I have just skimmed the manifesto and not read the blogposts, etc., but superficially, it resonates with a lot of what I have been thinking lately as the age of BLM and coivd continues to push me from Ron Paulian libertarian-ancap toward some sort of amorphously Confucian and/or Christian right wing anti-globalist something-or-other I haven’t quite figured out yet:


    Also seems pretty Jim-ian in its outlook. Any thoughts?

    • Red says:

      The family, man, woman, and children, is the bedrock of all human societies. Restoring a realistic understanding of the role of men and women in society is necessary for any society to flourish. The crucial fact about men and women in society is that they are, and must be, partners. That women cannot do everything that men can do, and men cannot do everything women can do, and that even when each can do what the other can do, usually cannot do it as well, does not make one sex subordinate. But without recognizing and honoring this basic fact of different competencies, no society can operate for long.

      It’s mostly warmed over 1990s Conservatism.

      • Cataclysm Reawake says:

        One might as well say “That [children] cannot do everything that men can do…does not make [children] subordinate”…

        The libertarian-to-reactionary pipeline is very real, in part because arguably libertarians are just very logically consistent liberals, whereas feudalism is just everyone’s attitude toward minors taken to its logical conclusion. Thus when confronted with the liberty vs common sense dilemma, intellectually honest men will actually PICK one and won’t settle for the doublethink liberal answer that has its cake and eats it too.

        • Jehu says:

          Speaking not entirely just for myself, but a lot of libertarians are just small l libertarians. They just want to be left the hell alone and to manage their families, businesses, and personal affairs without interference.

          Some of them, and I put myself in this category, have come to the hard realization to get that—as in, a high trust society where they’re mostly left alone—they basically have to strip most of the population of any say as to what gets done collectively. Thus they become de facto reactionaries, although most would be perfectly happy reactionary-ing back to the 1980s, which was a much more fun time. Some realize you at least gotta get rid of women’s suffrage, so there you’re talking at least 1900. Jim’s perspective is that the last sustainable position, call it a Schelling point, is back in like the 1600s. It’s quite possible he’s right.

          • Neurotoxin says:

            Agree with pretty much 100% of this. No hardcore opinion on when would be the ideal Restore Point for our civilizational operating system, but it’s a testament to the speed of the decline that a mere 40 years ago seems like Eden compared to what we have now.

            The problem with say 1982, heavenly though it seems in retrospect, is well summed up by Bertolt Brecht (in one of the few non-retarded things a Marxist ever said):

            “Because things are the way they are, they cannot stay the way they are.”

            One wonders what would be the most recent point such that the state of the system was satisfactory, and the inherent dynamics of the system were stable. 1900 at the absolute latest. Plausibly much earlier.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              The republic of the United States took less than a century to turn into clownworld (1780 to 1870), and another century after that for the cancer to become terminal.

              From the 10th century to the 20th century, aristocratic European nations never stopped growing in potency until they eventually conquered the world; the heights of their ‘democratization’ in latter days not coincidentally coinciding with the increasing flattening and ultimate reversal of this trajectory, downturning to loss of prominance and mounting dysfunction.

              The zenith of their nominal achievement coming at points after the zenith of their generative ability as social organism; as often is the case in the cycles of civilizations.

      • Fred says:

        Worse, actually.

        • Red says:

          It’s still just 90s Conservatism. I grew up with this stuff. Everything was dandy until the progressives went too far!

          My guess is it was setup to suck in people who joined the reactionary right back into conservatism and thus neutralize their threat to the Cathedral.

          • onyomi says:

            I don’t remember 90s conservatism being explicitly anti-democracy and anti-feminist.

            • S says:

              He isn’t antidemocratic:

              “the People will not directly command any decision, although some limited franchise and some analog to the Roman tribunes of the people is likely to make sense. All elements of society will be represented, but not necessarily participate, and not all elements of society will rule.”

              Limited franchise is democracy- 90s conservatives fit since they don’t believe criminals or foreigners should be allowed to vote while the left is in favor of expanding the franchise.

              He isn’t anti-feminist:

              “Women will not be permitted to choose career over family without significant penalties and disadvantages that hamper progress along such a path.”

              Ending discrimination was 2nd wave feminism. Having the opportunity was 1st wave feminism; he is a first wave feminist.

              • onyomi says:

                Hmm, fair enough, I suppose, though I don’t recall Ronald Reagan, much less Bush Sr. talking about anything like this. Might be fair to call it 50s conservatism. As Jehu says above, it seems about where the last sustainable Schelling point was. Maybe this guy’s is 1950 or 1900, maybe Jim’s is 1600. Not sure where, if anywhere, mine is; I just really like the Confucian idea of bottom-up organizational authority, clearly defined social roles, and concentric circles of concern.

                BTW, regarding the idea of 1600 as a “stable build” or “good save state” for Western civilization, is Jim okay with Queen Elizabeth (I) having as much real authority as she did?

                • S says:

                  “We are a constitutional republic not a democracy” was a conservative cliche from a not that much older time.

                  The Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass, expiring in 1982. Women didn’t have the right to have credit cards in their own name until 1974.

                  There is no shelling point with representative democracy. The franchise always expands.

                  Socially you need above replacement fertility or you go extinct. So anything pre-first wave feminism works to various degrees.

                  Those things are good, but saying they are good is not political theory. You need to set up a system where the people are incentivized to support them. He doesn’t explain how he is going to organize the government or even what belief system it will be built on (all he gives is ‘Christian’); it is a wish list of buzzwords without an explanation of how they will come into being.

                  As for Queen Elizabeth, William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley was the man behind the women.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Many people at the same time as Elizabeth were not okay with a Queen Elizabeth (cfr. ‘The Monstruous Regiment of Women’). Of course much of the actual ruling was done by the courtiers around her.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      From reading the introduction and the Space pillar, I already see a massive problem. I might write up a takedown of it, but I do not think it needs one. It is the warmed up leftovers of spoiled ideas served to people who know better.

      • S says:

        It isn’t worth writing a rebuttal. The second pillar is on government and it declares the goal is a mixed government (in the classical Greek sense) without elaborating. Since mixed governments cover all governments in human history, it is less helpful then every other political screed ever written.

        The best part is the ninth- religion. The government’s going to be Christian- “It will frown on adultery and homosexual acts, and disincentivize both, but not criminalize either.”

        For our non-American readers, sodomy wasn’t decriminalized nationally in the US until Lawrence v Texas in 2003. So it is a form of Christian that 99% of Christian history would be denounced as a heresy that damns ones soul to eternal hellfire.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          There were four things I saw as a problem. Using, “neither Greek nor Jew,” in a secular sense, female liberation being continued, the position on sexual vice, and then the talk that the status of Jews was to any extent the concern of a Christian society. For a platform based on the rejection of equality and modernity, there are an awful lot of modern and egalitarian attitudes showing in that platform.

    • Zach says:

      Sundance at The Last Refuge is better:



      But the worthy house could use a few more correctly colored pills.

  39. JJ says:

    I think this article is reasonable. There are a few things that stick out. I’ll start with the most important one.

    Female immorality: Death.

    Here, the old and new testaments don’t fit together. In the story of the divine conception we find the following (Matthew 1:19):

    Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

    I assume for this argument that a public example is death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 23-24) and that putting a woman away privately is divorce (Matthew 5:31). This suggests that Joseph had the option of not putting Mary to death. Furthermore, it implies that Joseph was just in his intention to divorce Mary, and that he would be unjust if he were to impose the old testament punishment on her.

    How then can Joseph be a just man if he does not carry out the prescribed punishment?

    • jim says:

      You are commenting on one of the few sections in that article that is not a thought crime.

      Well of course he has the option. Solomon also says that the husband has the option of not killing the man cuckolding him, but does not expect, nor recommend, that the husband choose that option. (Solomon does not address what happens to the wife, but presumably sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander)

      So, no inconsistency between Old and New Testaments.

      how about commenting on why I think Old Testament law on the topic is consistent in spirit with Old Type Christian law and custom, and why I think that is a good idea? You may disagree that it is a good idea, but your response needs to notice that I think and argue that there are good and important reasons why Old Testament law was the way that it was, and that Christian law needs to have similar effect, though not necessarily the same severity or form of enforcement.

      • JJ says:

        Well of course he has the option. Solomon also says that the husband has the option of not killing the man cuckolding him, but does not expect, nor recommend, that the husband choose that option.

        Not what I asked. What I asked was a question to the effect of, how can Joseph be more just if he does not do what Solomon recommends?

        How about commenting on why I think Old Testament law on the topic is consistent in spirit with Old Type Christian law and custom, and why I think that is a good idea?

        your response needs to notice that I think and argue that there are good and important reasons why Old Testament law was the way that it was

        Because it controls female sexuality. A woman whose sexuality is not controlled will hook up with a series of thugs. She will either have thuglet children or no children at all. Neither of these outcomes leads to a long-lasting civilisation.

        Furthermore, uncontrolled women are disruptive. When a woman finds herself with than one man around her she immediately starts trying to play them off against each other. In the extreme case, a woman will literally shout from the sidelines, egging them on to fight. No useful work can take place with this happening, and worse, the men may end up hurting or even killing each other.

        and that Christian law needs to have similar effect, though not necessarily the same severity or form of enforcement

        For the same reason. If we can’t control women, western civilisation will die.

        Now I have a test for you. You don’t have to answer it, but your answer or lack thereof will help me understand you. Repeat after me:

        I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets.

        (The important part is in bold. You don’t have to bold your response.)

        • alf says:

          What I asked was a question to the effect of, how can Joseph be more just if he does not do what Solomon recommends?

          Because of the spirit of the law. If a local thug cucks you, listen to Solomon. If God cucks you, probably part of a bigger plan.

          • JJ says:

            But Joseph did not know that until the angel of the Lord visited him and told him to take her as his wife (Matthew 1:20). When he was considering divorcing Mary rather than having her put to death, he was under the impression that a local thug had cucked him.

            • alf says:

              Then he would’ve taken the less just, but also very human option.

              … Wait I understand now that your point was that Matthew referred to him as just. Yes that’s fair.

              Personally I think I’d kill. But it’s a hard decision. I imagine a good deal of men not having the stomach for it. You’re right that the OT and NT place slightly different emphasis.

              • JJ says:

                Each of the four gospel writers may have put their own particular slant on things. Perhaps there were other circumstances that led Matthew to think it was just. Who knows.

                Personally, I don’t know how a man would be able to continue to live in marriage with a woman who has committed adultery. The woman is worthless to him. Whatever happens to the woman would need to discourage other women from doing the same thing.

        • jim says:

          “Who proceedeth from the Father”

          No one today knows what the Filoque means, and attempts to explain it address matters beyond mortal reason and mortal comprehension. It was originally put into the creed as a shill test against a group of entryists, and presumably had some clear meaning in their belief system, but no one today remembers their belief system nor what it meant in that belief system, thus no one today remembers what those who stuffed it into the creed meant or intended by it.

          I get the impression that I talk to the holy spirit, and he talks to me, from time to time. Christians have long debated as to what extent he is a person, and to what extent he is a telephone line from God – a pointless debate far beyond mortal reason and mortal comprehension. My impression, from talking with him, or believing that I do, is that he has one foot inside time and space, and one foot outside, and to the extent that he has one foot inside time and space, more like a person, to the extent that he has one foot outside, more like a telephone line from God.

          But as a person, that person seems to me to be very much Christ, so if someone forced me to take position on matters infinitely beyond my proper competence and authority, I would say “proceedeth from the father and son”, but hey, I am wearing my engineering hat, and am under the impression that I have been told if I start wearing my prophet hat in public, it might well have very bad results for me and my family. And if I was wearing my prophet hat in public, the Filoque is not high on the list of things that I should be prophesying about.

          The filoque, and the inordinate length of the 39 articles, are reasons for keeping your shill tests and your creeds separate. Shill tests are for setting enemies on fire, creeds are for catechizing new members, even though there is and should be substantial overlap between creeds and shill tests. The filoque should have been forgotten when that batch of entryists evaporated, to be replaced by yet another shill test for another bunch of entryists.

          Whether the Filoque is good theology I do not know, but I do know it is poor engineering. Does not belong in catechism of new members.

          • JJ says:

            It is a pointless debate and I care little for theology. What is not pointless is this:

            Though there had been a reunion liturgy held in December of 1452 at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople at which the Pope’s name was commemorated and the filioque used in the Creed, that had been largely boycotted by most of the clergy and laity in the city. On the evening of May 28, 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the filioque, but which was not boycotted by the majority of the city. The next day, Constantinople fell to the Muslim invaders.

            If this claim is true then the fruits of Filioque are evil.

          • JJ says:

            I agree with your engineering assessment of filioque. It was useful for a time but they should not have included it in the creed. The creed should remain fundamentally unchanged over the eons, and for all unpozzed parts of Orthodoxy, as far as I know, it has not changed since 381.

        • jim says:

          > Not what I asked. What I asked was a question to the effect of, how can Joseph be more just if he does not do what Solomon recommends?

          They call us Christians, not Josephians. He was a mortal like me, facing hard choices, like me, like us all. His decision is not binding authority on us.

          • JJ says:

            you are engaging in the shill tactic of dodging the question and changing the topic

            That could just be because I’m not that smart.

            And your response wiggles around the fact that I committed a thought crime

            And you continue to wiggle around Filioque.

            But I digress. I care little for what is or is not a thought crime. I only care about the truth. But then I suppose all shills say that too. Anyway, here is a humerous shill test that I recently used elsewhere. It kept out almost all shills.

            Satan controls NATO; the Jews killed the incarnate Logos; Allah is a demon; women are property; and trannies will never be women.

            Or I can copy-paste what you just wrote.

            Old Testament law on sex and family was good and wise. Old Anglican law on coverture was good and wise. Coverture was applied in a way that gave effect to the spirit of Old Testment law. Coverture is good Christian law and faith on sex and family.

            I don’t know if this is good enough. If it is not, then give me something to say that is true and that you consider a thought crime, and I will say it.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              Why are women property?

              • JJ says:

                Because God says so.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Is the will of God reflected in the order of creation?

                • JJ says:

                  Yes. The Lord says that the man and woman in marriage are no longer two flesh but one (Genesis 2:24) and never to be separated (Mark 10:9) with the man in charge and with sole sexual rights in the woman (Genesis 3:16). Paul says that the woman is to obey the man and the man is to love the woman (Ephesians 5:22-33). That’s not exactly property, but it’s close enough, and the phrase “women are property” is significantly more memeable than a long exposition.

                • jim says:

                  > the man is to love the woman

                  Hostile mistranslation. Paul’s doctrine is the one flesh doctrine, that a man should cherish his women like his own flesh – which is subtly different from the modern meaning of “love” – Coverture being a thorough, consistent, and fully thought out implementation of the one flesh doctrine in the spirit of Old Testament law on marriage and family.

                  The husband is not required to love, but to cherish, and the wife is not required to love, but to obey.

                  Sexual love is the doctrine of the troubadours, who glamorized and valorized adultery.

                • JJ says:

                  I agree. Yet a wife is not entirely property in the way that a cow is property. If I may give an example.

                  A married farmer has complete authority over both his cow and his wife. The difference is that he may sell his cow but he may not sell his wife. In this respect, the farmer owns his wife in the same way that he owns his heart. He can’t sell his heart, and he shouldn’t be able to sell his wife.

                  This is consistent with Paul’s doctrine that a man should cherish his wife as his own flesh.

            • jim says:

              Plenty good enough.

              Not a shill

            • jim says:

              > Satan controls NATO; the Jews killed the incarnate Logos; Allah is a demon; women are property; and trannies will never be women.

              Pass with flying colors. I apologize for my paranoic suspicion.

            • Neurotoxin says:

              “And you continue to wiggle around Filioque.”

              This is Jim’s blog. He gets to shill test you. You don’t get to shill test him.

              If he graciously chooses to engage with you, great. But you can’t demand that, FFS.

          • JJ says:

            You have edited your comment. I will answer the updated version.

            I understand that Joseph’s decision is not binding. The essence of my question is this. Why was it just? How can a man who does not follow old testament law more just than a man who does follow old testament law?

            Maybe this question has no answer. It stuck out to me when I first read the topic post but I didn’t worry too much about it. I only asked it because you were “starting to find it curiously odd that none of the responses [I] have made seem to notice that the ‘female sexual preference’ [post] is full of thought crimes.” I couldn’t see any problem with the rest of the post, although it is obvious from the reactions of many people that the thought police and HR have some major problems with it. The question I asked was just what stuck out the most.

            • jim says:

              > Why was it just?

              An exceptional case.

            • jim says:

              > How can a man who does not follow old testament law more just than a man who does follow old testament law?

              Spirit of the law. The letter of the law is always inapplicable to particular cases and circumstances.

              Consider the very specific and concrete laws on blood contamination by literal blood.

              But it is evident in the Old Testament, that in the days of Judges and First Temple, they were rightly a lot more worried about metaphorical blood, the kind that Lady Macbeth had on her.

              Similarly, graven images. From the beginning to Roman times, they were not bothered by literal graven images. They were worried about cult of personality by Kings, and graven images that directed worship at alien gods and supernatural beings.

            • Nikolai says:

              For these types of questions, it’s better to go to the Church Fathers than to blog commenters. Though Jim has some great insights, he and most of his commenters are atheists or men who have some vague belief in a higher power while not actually attending a place of worship.

              St. John Chrysostom

              “For this intent he tells what took place before Joseph’s being fully informed, that you might not mistrust what was done after he knew. However, such a one was not liable to be made a public example only, but that she should also be punished was the command of the law. Whereas Joseph remitted not only that greater punishment, but the less likewise, namely, the disgrace. For so far from punishing, he was not minded even to make an example of her.

              Do you see a man under self-restraint, and freed from the most tyrannical of passions. For you know how great a thing jealousy is: and therefore He said, to whom these things are clearly known, For full of jealousy is the rage of a husband; Proverbs 6:34 he will not spare in the day of vengeance: and jealousy is cruel as the grave. Song of Songs 8:6 And we too know of many that have chosen to give up their lives rather than fall under the suspicion of jealousy. But in this case it was not so little as suspicion, the burden of the womb entirely convicting her.

              But nevertheless he was so free from passion as to be unwilling to grieve the Virgin even in the least matters. Thus, whereas to keep her in his house seemed like a transgression of the law, but to expose and bring her to trial would constrain him to deliver her to die; he does none of these things, but conducts himself now by a higher rule than the law. For grace having come, there must needs henceforth be many tokens of that exalted citizenship. For as the sun, though as yet he show not his beams, does from afar by his light illumine more than half the world; so likewise Christ, when about to rise from that womb, even before He came forth, shone over all the world.

              Wherefore, even before her travail, prophets danced for joy, and women foretold what was to come, and John, when he had not yet come forth from the belly, leaped from the very womb. Hence also this man exhibited great self-command, in that he neither accused nor upbraided, but only set about putting her away.”

              Also worth noting that the Romans made it illegal for Jews to carry out the death penalty by themselves. So even if you justly killed your wife, you would shortly be killed by a Roman soldier. Which is one of the reasons Jesus didn’t let the mob stone the adulterous woman.

              • JJ says:

                Thank you for your response and for the link to the website. It appears I have quite a bit of reading to do.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      And there it is.

      Not that it’s not a valuable topic to have a consideration for anyways, of course, if only because it tells you what holes they try to poke through, and have an answer for it.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        I think his second comment is a pass. He is noticing our position, even if he disagrees with it. That is not something shills do. Though this post is attracting shills like a lure. It must have gotten on someone’s nerves.

    • Aidan says:

      “Put her away” sure sounds like a euphemism for killing to me.

      • Red says:

        The Greek text says sent her privately away, but as the Greeks typically officially claimed that adulteress women were to be sold as a slaves but it’s more likely it was just an excuse for why the woman had suddenly vanished after having cucked her husband. No one wanted to ask questions about where she went dead or alive.

    • Sulla says:

      >How then can Joseph be a just man if he does not carry out the prescribed punishment?

      I’d suggest the answer is that St. Joe found out *because* the Virgin told him that the Child was of the Holy Spirit and Joseph believed her. Everyone knew this very strange and holy girl and nobody knew at all what to do with her, such that the priests had to make someone take her into his home.

      So, when this discomfiting girl tells Joseph that God had impregnated her, he believes her to be telling the truth. And, knowing that the Lord is not the kind of fellow who overlooks anyone touching the Ark of the Covenant and preferring to remain alive he decided to divorce her quietly. The angel tells him not to be afraid of taking the Virgin under his roof because Joseph was very much afraid of touching the Lord’s property, not because Joseph thought the Virgin had betrayed him.

    • Jehu says:

      Mary and Joseph hadn’t consummated their marriage yet, as she’s a virgin. So this is a bit different than the usual adultery, its more like somebody broke the engagement rather than somebody just stole your property. There is some debate as to whether Mary’s status at the time she conceives Jesus is a married woman or a woman who is betrothed to Joseph. The betrothal position I believe is what the Eastern Orthodox types hold.

      But I think here, and in most realistic circles, we recognize that you marry a woman when you take her virginity (if she’s a virgin, I’ve no interest in debating whether it’s really possible to marry a non-virgin that you didn’t deflower yourself). That’s what’s real, not the fancy ceremony, although the ceremony serves the admirable purpose of announcing your claim.

  40. Kunning Druegger says:

    Off topic.

    I am not at all interested in or attempting to dogpile the embarrassing trend of negros and the mentally colonized shitting on the dead queen’s corpse. But with the deluge of exposes, editorials, and stink pieces coming out, I noticed that the Royal Family seems to be a nexus for a lot of the soft power of the GAE. They seemed to call the tune that was taken up by the elite of the polygon. I had previously assumed they were dupes of Harvard/Hollywood Complex. Maybe they were actually much closer to the apex? Not that it matters, but in terms of Epstein, I thought that the wetwork was more likely done by some element from the MI5/MI6 side of things, as opposed to some Clinton Foundation goon.

    This is probably just something to think about and yet another curious artifact of our time, but it would be amusing if the exit by the queen from the mortal stage leads to a further degradation of the capacities and activities of the Global Managerial Elite. It isn’t like the Queen was out there forcibly race mixing couples, right? But she almost certainly had hand picked staff, protégés, NGOs of preference, etc., and with the change in cast there will be an inevitable change in crew.


  41. Vlad says:

    [*Wall of text deleted for lack of a clear point. Figure out what you are trying to say, and then actually say it.*]

    • jim says:

      Maybe you were trying to say that monitoring defection is hard. I have no idea what you were trying to say, but you produced a screenful of text.

  42. Phil says:

    An unpopular sentiment, but I think it needs saying:

    Ever since it got its nose bloodied at Charlottesville and it became clear that we had been had by The Orange Man, this greater movement hasn’t known whether to shit or go blind and doesn’t seem to be able to come up with anything to say except to bitch about whores.

    Well they don’t have a single right that men didn’t grant them.

    Mull that over.

    Then can we get back to talking about how to make a bright future?

    We couldn’t stay online forever. We had to come out and hit the streets. And we were guaranteed to get our noses bloodied. We. Are. At. War. And “these whores are out of control” is a distraction. I’ve been around this thing a long time, mostly as an observer, sometimes as a white-noise poster. Our Thing is out of ideas and is gazing into its navel and sucking its thumb. It’s depressing.

    How do we go forward? We aren’t going to effect change online. I’ve watched Jared Taylor say if only we don’t say nigger, we’ll bring the normies to our sphere just with our superior arguments. It didn’t work.

    What do?

    • Aidan says:

      Man is pulling double duty fedposting and shilling against putin.

      I’ll say this for the people watching: Movements are fucking gay. We are not a movement. Do we look like faggoty art students wearing beret sitting cross legged at little cafe in historic district sipping tea and chirping about revolutions in popular consciousness? Who think vast paradigm shifts in history are effected by a little rowdy street brawling and picket signs?

      We have no hope that our intellectual and less-than-so commentary will effect change. That is the realm of blood and fire and steel. On the whorefront, the messages from readers of mine thanking me for my advice in securing a wife meant more to me than any ounce of praise for my intellectual commentaries on history, aesthetics, and so forth.

      The strength of the Enemy lies not in its might or competence, or the power of its memes, but in its ability to prevent its enemies innumerable from coalescing into meaningful opposition, which would involve tanks and missiles, both on the physical or