Following the wise advice of Prince Charming, I edited a custom personal 256 bit secret into the php code of Avatar Privacy avatar generator, so that now it actually works as it is supposed to.
So now we have avatars, and actually do have privacy.
My own personal experience in security is that your boss orders one to do something inexplicably stupid that introduces a subtle flaw, an order that one would not expect your boss to give, or even to understand, but the flaw does not flat out report everything directly to the NSA, and the flaw is arguable – one is not flat out breaking security, it is just subtly weak, in a way complicated to explain and not entirely trivial to exploit.
And when you try to explain the problem to him he does not want to listen, and is unable to understand.
I conjecture that this is what happened to the Avatar Privacy plugin.
The flaw, explained by Prince Charming and checked by me is that the salt does not salt – it is same salt for every user, and the salt is quite short, thirty two bits, and thus can be easily reversed by exhaustive search. Given one known email, one can reverse the salt. Given the salt, one can reverse the hash of the any email. You have to throw the entire population of potential email addresses, which may well be enormous, at the hash of the email, but this does not take that long.
The central authority has a list of everyone they could do harm to, and try the list against the hash of the emails of the blog commenters who have offended by displaying inadequate holiness.
I could have fixed the salt part, and perhaps I will, but instead used a 256 bit site wide secret prepended to every hash directly in the source code.
return \hash( 'sha256', "my custom secret"."{$this->get_salt()}{$identifer}" );
This results in everyone randomly getting a new avatar, which will likely be different from the old one.
@Pooch
Don’t feel bad for pumping and dumping “nice” girls. The pastor’s son in the small Evangelical church I grew up in was banging half the nice girls in the church and the girls knew they were part of his haram. Their only complaint was they couldn’t get on the rotation often enough and they sure the fuck didn’t care about the morality being preached in the church. All women are like that.
You’re better off trying to own a woman who than to pump and dump but the reality is soon or later that nice girl you banging was going to dump you for someone more alpha. You were never going to be anything other than a notch in her belt unless you took ownership, which is extremely hard to do today.
Now if you’re banging a virgin without intent to own… that’s the sort of shit GNON ordained the death penalty for. An unspoiled maiden is very rare and valuable thing. Frankly I thought the pastor’s son at my church should be beaten to death by their fathers but everyone seemed to willfully ignore their daughters behavior and thus his behavior.
They sure weren’t virgins but lower N count girls probably (no way to know for sure) who were upset and frustrated with their past beta boyfriends who worshipped them as goddesses. I was the first dude who didn’t give a fuck if they came or left and obviously they were drawn toward it. “You’re different than all the other guys I’ve metâ€. Guess I was sort of filling the Jeremy Meeks role for them.
What did u mean by this “ You’re better off trying to own a woman who than to pump and dump� Guessing a typo.
Is there any reason why the pastors son AND the daughters shouldn’t all be beaten to death?
“who worshipped them as goddesses” if the woman does not worship the man as, well, not a god, but as a hero, as her own personal King or God’s representative: the priest of the family, the man will end up worshipping her as a goddess. Funny how this works. I guess because sex makes human beings, it is sort of a natural sacrament and will always have such an aspect to it. If one goes back to the very early origins of religions, there are aspects like this…
Sex magic is the oldest and most powerful magic. Goddess worship, being an inversion, is always demonic magic.
Sacramental marriage, with the groom administering the sacrament to the bride, was intended to control this magic, and place it under God.
The social technology used by the old upper class of Rome, sacramental marriage, was superior to the Hebrew social technology of marriage by purchase, but by the time Christianity arrived on the scene, the Roman upper class had become decadent and lost virtue and social cohesion. Christianity absorbed and preserved this social technology, along with so many others. Hence worries about “is it scriptural” are stupid. Christianity won because it is a storehouse of good social technology, some of it preserved by Moses from the early bronze age against late bronze age decadence, and some of it from other sources.
There seems to have been some sort of goddess worship holiness spiral going on during the final years/decades of the Roman Republic. Both Sulla and Pompey claimed special relationships with Venus. Caesar holy spiraled that further by claiming Venus as his ancestress. Unclear if Augustus shut that down completely. He did manage to raise the status of the male gods like Jupiter and Mars back up, but Hadrian’s temple to Venus in 135 AD seems to have been the biggest temple ever built to any deity.
Sulla claimed a special relationship with FORTUNE (at least after what was probably a very frustrating youth as a man clearly of extremely superior ability but being born to a Patrician family where any low level work was beneath his dignity but he lacked the property to even join the legions merely as a ranker).
Caesar claimed he was descended from Venus via Aeneas of Troy members of the gens Julia had ALWAYS claimed that.
Most cultures thought of fortune/luck/fate as women or a group of women (because its both fickle and prone to play favorites).
Sulla claimed a special relationship with FORTUNE (at least after what was probably a very frustrating youth as a man clearly of extremely superior ability but being born to a Patrician family where any low level work was beneath his dignity but he lacked the property to even join the legions merely as a ranker). Caesar claimed he was descended from Venus via Aeneas of Troy members of the gens Julia had ALWAYS claimed that. Most cultures thought of fortune/luck/fate as women or a group of women (because its both fickle and prone to play favorites)
Jim delete the other comment I think I accidently used my old email I’m sorry…
“Is there any reason why the pastors son AND the daughters shouldn’t all be beaten to death?”
a lot if not most guys would do the same were they in the position of the pastor’s son…
“The pastor’s son in the small Evangelical church I grew up in was banging half the nice girls in the church and the girls knew they were part of his haram.”
In these cases I always wonder whether they also have/had a beta-bucks boyfriends while getting banged by him. Because if not, the other boys would wonder how comes all those girls are single, without boyfriends, it is not normal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7L5MQ7EgdA
Society.
A small band of strangers establish a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium based on shared race and tribe and easily route their numerically superior but disorganized and demoralized opposition. It would be an inspiring video if we weren’t on the wrong side of it.
As Jim says, whites are wolves to other whites. Our unity comes through tribe or religion not race
This is the wignat fallacy. Wignats wish to bring about cohesion solely based on race like the nigs (thus the term wigger nationalist). Does not work.
In prison, you have to join a white gang. But there is apt to be more than one white gang, and not every white gets to be in the gang.
Look down on them and their strategy all you want, but the nigs decisively won the encounter in that video. Obviously there’s more to tribe than only race, but race is a major and immediately obvious component of tribe.
The fag and the hijabi girl would consider each other hated enemies were they both white, but as blacks they recognized the need for a united front against the real outsiders, and it worked very well for them.
Yes it works very for Africans. Murder the whites, then murder the half blacks, then return to living in grass huts, just like in Haiti.
If it worked well for whites, whites would have wiped every other race 3 times over now since the white race has now been the dominate military and technologically group 3 different epochs. It doesn’t work for us because it’s our intergroup competition that keeps driving us forward.
Does being outnumbered by opposing races have any affect on cohesion? American blacks seem to rally around their minority status in their total numbers. Then again, Haitian and South African blacks did outnumber whites respectively save for Orania but even that may be based on Christian cohesion and not white cohesion.
The problem is that whites have largely internalized a belief system, where acknowledging that you are in danger from people of other races is forbidden – which is how Detroit died.
If we generally saw the world as it is, we would move groups causing problems to reservations and let them eat each other.
This is likely what will happen with China in Africa. China may not be setting out to being a world colonizing power but Africans are fucking worthless in modern mining and infrastructure building. China’s going to have to colonize Africa just so they can get the materials they need.
Yes this was demonstrated in the video with the whites fear of being called racists preventing any type of white cohesion. The blacks sensed that weakness and decisively used it to their advantage.
Nonsense. Herd behaviour is a characteristic of lower animals, where they mitigate their individual low-chances of survival statistically. The way herd animals of the two-legged kind appear to be utilising their numerical strength strategically is only because of “democracy.” Once you extend “the vote” to pigs, don’t be surprised when they form perpetual government through high fertility,[1] and everyone has to wallow in filth. The situation isn’t learning to be more like pigs, it is in removing this ridiculous form of decision-making by universal “vote.”
Aryans, having higher functionality, tend to be more individualistic, to the extent that even Aryan goyim are more individualistic than Arab warriors,[2] for example. Indian politics is totally dominated by “vote-banks,” which effectively means goyim herds led by a “banker” who vote at his command. It would be much better for everyone if the “leaders” could simply choose the best among themselves, but then it wouldn’t be very “democratic,” (although it would be exactly how the United States was initailly supposed to work).
You can never “convince” a group of Aryans to have co-operate-co-operate equilibrium. You have to literally force them through military and spiritual power, and maintain that force right from the King-Emperor to the local lord. Dharma shastras tell us that the only way to win the respect of a Brahmin is to demonstrate superior knowledge, to a Kshatriya (warrior) is through domination in battle, to a Vaisya through display of far greater wealth, and to a Shudra by physical beauty (as per the Shudra definition lol).
[1]: High fertility of pigs is not the problem though, as long as we have sufficient numbers of minders, that is, elite fertility is not low.
[2]: A microcosm of this can be seen in the only ethno-state in the world — Israel. The low-caste, low-IQ Jews form the bulk of the population and behave collectively, whereas the higher-IQ “intellectual” class is split between nationalism and prog-ism, with the balance hugely in favour of prog-ism in America and turning toward prog-ism in Israel.
The only exception to this is Haiti. How did the blacks manage to win there? Was it lack of French cohesion?
Sort of. Haiti was lost in France, as Saigon fell in Washington.
Stabbed in the back from Paris.
Without white support from Paris, blacks in Haiti would still be slaves. Once the slave revolt started, there was plenty of white cohesion within Haiti.
Haiti was white on white operation with black muppets.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Europoids defecting on europoids is contingently adaptive in the case that they are so dominant that noone else comes close to competing.
The eternal teenage hippy, baby boomers, felt perfectly fine with parroting feel good flattering lies, because they had no concept of how any of it would relate to the way of life they took for granted; they could not imagine how the civilization they lived in could ever go wrong; could not imagine that whites as a folk could ever actually not be ‘a thing’; and hence, had no compunctions about trading off on any and all of it for pseudosanctimonia.
The moment a set of organisms becomes capable of inventing civilization in their space, is the moment the selection pressures change radically. The more ‘surplus capital’ they are capable of, the more particular exponents may be insulated from more direct interface with divine law. Hence the frequent glibly fatalistic observation: “If someone can afford to make bad decisions, they will”. And hence, the stepwise increasing necessity for men themselves to become avatars for channeling divine law (some having more success with this than others).
It does not mean that such carrying on is a good thing, but the *negation* of good things; a great filter even, if you will.
>Murder the whites, then murder the half blacks, then return to living in grass huts, just like in Haiti.
Well, someone lives in a grass hut and while someone’s corpse feeds the worms. Which one is the winner here?
The worms are the winners, because after one winter without white people, they get to eat all the Africans too.
>The worms are the winners
OK, that’s a clever line, I admit. It doesn’t change the fact that the negroes won, the whites lost. You’ll do and say anything to avoid admitting that their strategy works. Is it clear-eyed realism, or are you still enthralled by proggie racial doctrines?
Asians would win.
Asians are not very susceptible to Cathedral racial guilt memes and not at all in their home countries.
Stop being a wignat. Accept that their worldview is flawed and that American whites will never really act as a unitary tribe.
The present conflict, as it stands today, still boils down to good whites (us) vs evil whites, with the non-whites being agents of the evil whites. We haven’t reached Haiti status yet.
Indeed; which is the necessary prefigurement for cominating the whites who don’t act as a unitary tribe.
That can’t be done until post victory (or during the war for leftist whites who find themselves behind our lines).
Whites really cannot organize on the basis of racial cohesion. It is not on our nature. Observe how that turned out in Nazi Germany, as Hitler proceeded to make a good start on genociding Greek Nazis. Not very cohesive of him. And the alliance with Mussolini did not go so well for Mussolini.
It was, as always, a white on white conflict, and whites who sought to organize on the basis of racial cohesion rapidly came into conflict with other whites who sought to organize on the basis of racial cohesion.
On the other hand, prison gangs are always racial. It is easier, much easier, to organize and cooperate with people that are like oneself.
But the white prison gangs, which, white cohesion being illegal, are our primary example of white cohesion, do not organize to protect all whites from all blacks. They organize to protect some whites from everyone, regardless of race. They are all white, but do not have unity and cohesion on the basis of race. They have unity and cohesion on the basis of gang membership. They make not the slightest attempt to be inclusive of whites in the prison generally, or to protect whites in the prison generally.
If the Republican party has a future, it is going to have to take a white prison gang as its model. And the white prison gang does not think all Jews are one Jew. Does not think about Jews all that much at all.
I trust you take the point however; for one to grant the power of those races capable of racial cohesion, while at the same time signaling against men who advocate for whites to again wield that same power for themselves; exactly what one might expect from those species of men most instinctively disposed towards defecting on their neighbors.
Its debatable how much blacks in the absence of the Cathedral preaching a religion of get whitey could organize based on racial cohesion either, American blacks have an advantage most of them were from the same small group of tribes in Africa.
In Africa they don’t have much more racial solidarity with each other than whites do (or indeed Asians).
That’s a really good point. If black cohesion really was natural to them, we would see Africa being able to cooperate on a large scale, which is the opposite of what we see. It’s completely tribal. Same goes for the Native Americans/Indians. If the various tribes were able to unite and cooperate based on shared race, they would have made it much harder to be subjugated by the various European/American powers.
But in fact it was the opposite, 95% (if not 99%) of slaves taken by whites in Africa were sold to whites by africans generally prisoners taken in tribal warfare but on occasion if the African chiefs would start mass enslaving lots of members of their own tribes to sell to white slave traders. Whites raiding coastal villages for slaves (though it did sometimes happen) was rare.
So I do not think that blacks in fact do not have that much innate racial solidarity. I think with humans racial solidarity is always a partial factor but its only one factor, that can be weakened or strengthened based on religious and tribal memetics.
It looks to me that most slaves sold were not prisoners taken in tribal warfare, though low level tribal conflict intermediate between high crime levels and actual warfare was frequently involved.
They were rather people that the local authorities just did not want around any more – vagrants, bums, and petty criminals, not warriors.
Enslaving people because the chief just wanted to sell them was uncommon, though hardly unknown. Actual warfare was a substantial source, but it does not seem to have been the main source, and to the extent that it was a source, those slaves were apt to be trouble.
Memetic and religion can undermine even the most racially and tribally cohesive groups.
Christianity was banned in Japan because Totoyomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyashu thought that while all Shinto and Buddhist Japanese would put all differences aside and rally to the “Emperor’s” banner if there was a foreign christian invasion (the Japanese fought each other at time but even then were probably cohesive enough if there was a foreign invasion)… they did not trust the loyalty of the Christian Daimyo and Samurai the same way and thought of them as a potential 5th column in case the Spanish were planning an invasion.
If the tribal chiefs enslaved their own there was some thin legal justification, but something about the law or enforcement of the law (what passed for law in West African tribal societies) would be changed in such a way to see lots and lots of people enslaved.
But I did think for the most part most people enslaved came from raids on other tribes.
The data on this is thin. Slave raiding attracted a lot of attention, rightly so, but what is the evidence that it was a major factor?
My evidence is weak, I read people who were around at the time, and obviously there is a selection effect – if someone is writing stuff down, things are probably pretty quiet, so it is kind of weak evidence. What evidence do you have.
We’re dealing with records of pre colonization West Africa so as you say thin evidence.
But it was not typical for rulers to get away with selling their own men en masse too often without danger to themselves the way the 18th century Dukes of Hesse would in history (especially in small scale tribal societies)… So I suspect that African chiefs got the bulk of their slave stock from raids on other tribes or else risked being killed.
Rulers did not sell their subjects en masse. (With a few infamous exceptions.)
Indeed, it was not so much rulers at all. The local important man would have a problem with some people, and then the helpful slaver would show up with an offer to take them off his hands free of charge. By and large these were people who would otherwise have been killed, and likely killed and eaten. It was more the cattle rancher getting rid of some people who were holding a barbecue.
@Cominator
>In Africa they don’t have much more racial solidarity with each other than whites do (or indeed Asians).
Yes, of course this is true. Common experience, common hardship, and above all, common enemies forge a tribe. Race is still a big part of it though, because it’s an easy basis for common enemies and common experience, and it’s an easy way to separate Us from Them. Watch that video again. All the whites are self-abasing proggies who probably hate us more than the blacks do, but having a common enemy alone isn’t enough for the blacks to accept them into the in-group.
I’m not trying to say all whites share a mystical bond or something retarded like that. But American whites do have a common enemy, common hardships, and common experience, and we’re in dire need of a tribe. Race will have to be a key part of that tribal identity, like it or not, because we’re surrounded by racially-based tribes that despise us. If we don’t include race as one of the bases of our in-group (necessary, but obviously not sufficient), we’re going to be infiltrated, subverted, and used by any outsider who can parrot our words.
If we go all the way to Haiti, my money is on the cartels. Their leadership has considerable white admixture and I don’t think they would have any qualms about massacring Africans en mass if need be. Hell, I’d even think about joining them although with no one to sell drugs to I’m not sure what their business model would become.
@ContaminatedNEET
That’s a non sequitur.
We must eat shit, because we’re surrounded by pigs? The pigs surrounding a lion are not a threat — the main threat is the other lion right there who nominally supports the pigs.
The single bigggest cause of the South African negrocalypse was Judeo-Bolshevik agitation. Same with US “civil rights,” the chief villain of that being Lyndon Johnson, but Eisenhower was the same.
Searching for Aryan “racial consciousness” is folly. It was folly in 1937, and is folly today. Aryans need aristocracy to function.
As a kid I did not appreciate the Lion King but as an adult the Lion King shows the race issue in the right light.
The Hyenas (minorities that serve Scar the leftist usurper Lion) were not the real problem for the Lions the problem was the defecting traitor Lion (Scar). He let the Hyenas in as enforcers after he took over but get rid of him and they cease to be a (major) problem.
So it is with blacks and hispanics (and here in Florida the spics are overwhelmingly on our side anyway).
>whites are wolves to other whites
And is that good for them?
There’s a normative two-step going on here and I’d like to stop folk from slipping around it.
So one may say ‘it is a good thing for whites to not defect on whites’; and a reply comes, ‘whites defect on whites’.
Yes? That is indeed what brings the former point up to begin with. Such a statement would be nonsensical if there was no such thing as the problem in the first place. It’s basically stopping halfway before arriving at a real argument.
Bringing a teuton on to your team of teutons is not a guarantee that he will cohere; but bringing a non-teuton on to your team of teutons *is* a guarantee that he *won’t* cohere. Being racially conscious is not by itself a sufficient condition for (europoid) cohesion; but a national church that *isn’t* also racially conscious will quickly find itself becoming neither.
Either formerly apex predators learn to purge the auto-phagism that knocked them out of the top spot, or they continue knocking themselves out, and get knocked of the race altogether.
Many such cases. Sad!
well, no need to be so blackpilled. the like/dislike ratio on that video is pretty inspiring.
Wisdom of the crowd. Is nice, but nothing new under the sun. People, many people, have been complaining for years, it’s just never the people who stand to lose by their complaint. So nothing changes.
an interesting chat with a retired Pentagon fella, a Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.
the last 10 minutes suggests to me that China is softening us up for invasion or, at minimum, rendering our Healthcare and Military incapable whilst they pursue something else.
so, what’s y’all odds on invasion? maybe invasion ain’t the right word. if everyone who took the biological weapon disguised as a vaccine dies then it like…. what’s that sci fi bomb that kills all the people but leaves all the infrastructure intact? a neutron bomb/pulse?
anyway, they appear to be attempting to Sun Tzu us.
China’s ambitions are clearly expressed, no secret, and are considerably more modest.
They don’t want to conquer us, but they intend to once more become the middle empire, the dominant world power, the way the US used to be the dominant world power, and everyone thinks that it still is. They intend to be a land and coastal power, the way the US is an airsea power.
This may well result in them dominating Europe and ruling it indirectly, the way the US rules it indirectly, but they are in no hurry to get to that point.
They seem to be content with looting us on the way out.
Stealing from the weak is the way of the world. No one steals form the strong.
observing our psychopathic rulers has conditioned me toward suspicion of anything explicitly stated, if that’s what you mean by “clearly expressed”
i trust your take on this issue and will continue observing
There was a ton of misinformation during the election dispute citing Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney as a source. I’m not inclined to take any article credible citing him as a source.
A lot of the misinformation was likely enemy action to make anyone pointing out the theft of the election to look insane (I have no idea why anyone need the dominion stuff after watching boxes of hidden ballots being counted with the observers sent home in Atlanta, that was the smoking gun). It was a quite effective as people believed that Trump was far more competent than he actually was leading to believing insane things as reality clashed with perception.
Anyone who previously distrusted enemy misinformation should never be trusted again.
Distributed*
like a complete tosser, i forgot to link the video
https://noqreport.com/2021/03/25/lt-gen-tom-mcinerney-we-are-in-world-war-iii-we-did-not-have-a-pandemic-we-had-a-biological-attack/
The most important personal lesson I keep seeing unfolding all through my life, with many kinds of political and personal lessons with it as well, is the inter-related unfolding of authority and responsibility. Always together.
Like, for example, if there is one (pseudo-)Christian idea I loathe is that “everybody has their own personal cross”. No, God is not sending us tribulations, unnecessary sufferings just to test our faith. Admittedly, God is still far more a metaphor of speaking than reality for me, but the metaphor has the same logic as the real one, as logic *inside our mental reasoning* is something that happens between symbols. And it cannot possibly work like that. Makes no sense.
For Christianity to make any sense, His Cross was the last cross *as a cross*, that is like half the point of it. We have our responsibilities as God’s lieautenants, charged with keeping good order in some small part in his Creation. This can be difficult. But they are not sufferings for the sake of suffering or somehow proving faith through that. They are jobs.
Now, the people I tend to hear this idea from are mostly the oh so typical rural Catholic great-grandma in my neck of Europe. It hurts here in my leg and it hurts there in my lower back and this is my personal cross. No, dammit, it is God’s indirect blessing through the work of smart men that you are even alive to see your great-grandkids at 82. Your husband died without seeing them, was that his personal cross?
And this is where what I mentioned above about authority and responsibility comes into play. These old gals are actually… behaving 101% well. Really. Because their husbands and brothers are dead, their sons are working somewhere else where there is better money, they are following the only local male authority left to them, the local priest. It is 100% his fault. Why is he teaching this to them?
Just like when many officers die in battle and the grunts end up following the legitimate authority of some logistics geek officer who happened to stay alive and then end up doing stupid shit on his orders. It is not their fault, it is the fault of officerdom for not having had the foresight to provide for this situation a better officer. Authority = responsibility. Authority propagates downwards, hence responsibility upwards.
Don’t ever blame people who are just following an authority they should be following. This is sort of this personal lesson to me. Because I used to be kinda angry on the old gals for spreading this stupid idea. But I was wrong. They are not responsible.
“Don’t ever blame people who are just following an authority they should be following.”
At a certain point you absolutely should blame them for continuing to follow a bad authority. Much of the trouble we are in is because almost everyone (except me and a couple of other people) wanted to trust the good intentions of the Cathedral public health authorities rather than my approach (when in doubt be paranoid and lets err on the side of some extra old people dying if I’m wrong). An authority you suspect of malice or incompetence should be fragged by all good men at any opportunity. A good soldier absolutely should shoot a bad officer in the back when he has the chance.
The followers of the priesthood who obey out of imminent fear to the minimum degree they have to in order to survive should of course not be blamed, anyone who goes beyond that (especially men and especially white men) should be considered part of the priesthood themselves.
does my cat have fucking cornrows? …whatever
important bit: whaddya big brains here think of Doctor Coleman?
https://brandnewtube.com/v/DOIoyV
tl;dw
20 min video describing possible human extinction event as a possibility of these bio-weapon not-vaccines
he’s always seemed credible to me so now i ask y’all. his final suggestion, if this path be probable, is that those who’ve avoided the jab may need to quarantine themselves from contact with those that have been vaccinated in order to survive what he expects will be a terrible *possibly* unintended consequence of this psychotic experiment
He is nut.
The vaccines are likely to be more dangerous than China Flu. Which is not all that dangerous. They are not infectious. It is not a plot, it is primarily incompetence.
One widely used vaccine is loose RNA, which is incapable of reproducing. Another is a virus that has been rendered incapable of reproducing. It takes over the cell, the cell sends panic signals to the immune system “Help I am being taken over, kill me before I kill”, and then the virus fails to do anything with that control.
These vaccines are unlikely to do much harm to healthy people – they might kill a few of those that are frail or who have dodgy immune systems. They will protect you against China flu, but probably have a bad effect on your immune system. For most people, it is a wash – less danger from China flu, more danger from the vaccine. Neither danger is significant.
i appreciate your taking the time to chat with me about this
The fact that it is being pushed so hard (propaganda, vaccine passports, pushing it on the young, all coordinated, everywhere the same plans) that alone tells me not to get it. No one needs to be sold something good that hard.
I wouldn’t need it at all anyway, and it will still be pushed on me: hard no.
i think this is mostly just the result of a purity spiral. the priesthood has sanctified vaccines. nobody wants to be the heretic that will violate this most holy sacrament.
Exactly so.
Inflicting vaccines of dubious effectiveness and safety on everyone is not an evil plot to do everyone harm. It is a sacrament, and all must observe the sacraments of the state religion.
The vaccines are, in most cases, somewhat effective, and the danger for a young healthy person is slight. But the danger of China flu for a young healthy person is also slight.
They changed the WHO definition for herd immunity so herd immunity would only be declared when most people are vaccinated. The WHO is in on it, so it seems like there’s planning behind it. Whether the intention is evil or comes from spiraling holiness, forcing it on people seems pretty evil to me. I cannot speak to whether they do harm, but these people are not to be trusted.
Experimental gene therapy
Holy water cannot harm anyone (or maybe it can, if literal demons exist and someone is possessed by a literal demon) But modern sacraments are fake materialist, and therefore based on scientism, and scientism retains uncomprehended fragments of what makes science potent.
They want everyone vaccinated as a sacrament unto the Covid demon, and are indifferent as to whether it is likely to do harm.
I’ve done a bit of research on the Spanish flu of 1918.
Much like current covid thing.
In year 1 (2020) no excess deaths around the world, no pandemic, just lots of fear-mongering, faked figures, propaganda, and then the big push for vaccines.
Yesr 2, espeically winter 2, the effects of the vaccines cause millions of deaths, old people mostly, as their own bodies kill them by over-reacting to any old infection. Vox shared soem research on this recently.
SO watch out as we head into winter, things will get really bad.
The push by Biden and all other nations for ‘vaccine passports’ is the real reaspn for the fake pandemic and the misllions who will die in the years ahead. The whole world will be moved towards digiatl IDs, very Chinese, very bad, obviously.
Much more is planned, the Davos crowd have been telling us what’s coming for years, now they are open about the Great Reset.
> nobody wants to be the heretic that will violate this most holy sacrament.
I will never take their fucking poison.
Yeah, with this “vaccine passport” idea now mooted, I’ve firmly decided I won’t be getting the vaccine nor holding any jobs, attending any events, etc. that require such a “passport.” Though difficulties with international travel will be a big inconvenience for me, I think this is too important not to take a stand.
That said, for purposes of international travel I wouldn’t be above… paying someone for some photoshop creativity, but since presumably whatever it is will be linked to centralized databases checked at airports, it seems like forgery may be difficult?
Perhaps what is needed is to get a doctor friend to “administer” a real dose of the vaccine with a real lot number, etc. but of course you’d be asking someone to take a serious risk of losing medical license, etc.
If I need one I’m going to bribe someone to say I got a shot.
Seems the way to go.
Actual practicing male doctors (not the gay public health priesthood) are more right wing than you think. I’m sure it would be possible.
Actually thinking about this a little more, doctors rarely actually administer vaccines. Better to bribe a low level black nurse or assistant at a clinic or something. I’d be fine handing them 200 bucks. Blacks are extremely easy to bribe. I used to bribe black bouncers regularly to cut the long lines to get into the clubs back when I was deep in night game.
Yeah, I was thinking some Walgreens employee would have a lot less to lose than one’s doctor friend.
“…of course you’d be asking someone to take a serious risk of losing medical license, etc.”
Bullsh!t, doctors in my state have not lost jack for malpractice in a century, i doubt any doctor anywhere in the US is at risk for diddly, if you think the law matters more then the bureaucrats, you’re playing a game which does not exist, america is a bribable country, the normies just havent realized it yet. everything in the medical industry, Everything, is a monopolized who/whom. sharlisa or karen will squirt that shit down the drain faster then you can say damn, if you pass them a few 20s. And if you’re worried about people noticing later on just pass them a few twenties to discover a majickal new mystery syndrome of uber rare uneffectium vaccinarum, scientists arent dangerous. Cops and Swat are, plus the IRS maybe, stop worrying about your doctors party fidelity. play the game you see a decade or three from now, thats the one you are living in, everything else is BS you can bribe docs, you can bribe cops, you can do whatever you have to, the devil is bound to take the good deal and the wicked, so make the good one and survive. I have broken laws and got away with squat, no one wants trouble everyone wants an excuse, give em a ‘oly one. they will shut up and ignore anything.
When the dust settled from the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, African levels of corruption became visible, and there were no consequences for anyone.
I have never actually bribed anyone, so I’ll take your word for it that Americans are bribable! Honestly, it’s the thought of the untouchable true believers that scares me more at this point.
Doctors can get in trouble for lots of shit, nurses don’t unless they are caught poisoning someone. Also strangely for an overwhelmingly female organization the nurses union is fairly cohesive and pro nurse.
“nurses don’t unless they are caught poisoning someone. Also strangely for an overwhelmingly female organization the nurses union is fairly cohesive and pro nurse.” nurses poison peeps on the regular, they are memory holed as virtues’ priests of the whory order. nurses are harlots of baal who do whatever they are told, the nurses unions are not female in the slightest, nurses are sub 90-80 IQ and incapable of organizing(remember the tale of the doctors who wouldn’t wash their bonesaws? yep, shit hasn’t changed, what works and what’s done are a sight different), they are defection tools by hospital administers who don’t have lords to hang them for their treachery. I know a few nurses. They are the essence of useful idiots espoused by stalinesque figures. dumber then a sack of rocks, the men are obese fags and the women, cobble stones. They do as told and do not possess “unions”. nurses are the worst emulsion of eastern(german and pre ww2 russian woman(is the civil war an explanation for the unexplained predominance of blond women in the 1940s?)) you can imagine, they are horrific. If you are living in a world where you should go to an hospital for an ailment which is not blatantly obvious, a-la compound fracture in the super bowl. You are an idiot. simple stitching? safer at home with the “comraderie” of your veterinarian friend. I am deadly serious. Hospitals are death traps for idiots, my cousin lost a 20 somethin friend to Great British TM medicine courtesy of the NHS, He and his wife are of course convinced that despite the fact that the US and even fricking argentina can pull off the same fix on the regular without fuss(I know a good family from that southern hellhole) the nhs, which fucks simple anesthesia up on the regular, is not to blame. For real, they think their shitstain of a ,health “care” system is superior and are choosing to raise an infant in that monstrous beast, despite their knowing multiple persons who have died from the evil in it. I said if you think it should be modus operandi in 20-30 years(circa 2040-50) you should operate on that assumption today, too many of you men don’t get it, our medicine is bosnian, circa 1990 level maybe, if your lucky like me, you know the really good men who can genuinely patch you back together(illegally), probs not tho. Your vet knows more about your damn health then your doctor. Ranchers are morbidly diseased, their horses are not Ever. ask the vet who spends cash they didn’t Earn, they actually know their shit. As much as those here are good men, get your balls in a pair and stop worrying about shit, if they are gonna go after you they dont need fuck all for “proof” they just cook up a jury and no real man will ever look under the hood. You are outlaws or soon to be, so stop your’ bellyaching and live by God’s laws already.
“nurses are sub 90-80 IQ and incapable of organizing”
Nurses are capable of being organized. The few unions I know are as Cominator described.
Nurses aren’t generally all that smart but most of them don’t deliberately poison people not unless ordered to anyway. There have been quite a few serial killer nurses though.
I could not tell you who actually runs the nurses union only that it seems strangely cohesive and pro nurse for an organization with overwhelmingly female members while the doctors union is a tool of Harvard and the academic priesthood in general that is not at all for the interests of doctors.
Doctors get raped on malpractice, in most states they are required to carry malpractice insurance (lawyers would not generally be interested in suing them otherwise) and the premiums are crippling.
Yes the medical system sucks because of the government/cathedral (and the insurance companies who have more money for bribes than anyone) we know all this.
A couple female pharmacists and nurses have already been busted for InstaTok-bragging about forging their own vax cards. If your male doctor friend can avoid the temptation to attention-whore on the internet, he’ll be fine.
Horrifying car jacking caught on video in DC in broad daylight…
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1376003441374457861?s=20
The 2nd Amendment may be the most important issue now, if only to protect us from feral nigs.
I’d vote to acquit, swamp dwellers ain’t people may DC become Detroit anywhere outside secure area grounds.
It’ll be happening in every American city soon enough.
And that’d be bad outside the beltway but we want the entire beltway to become Detroit.
Would be funny I guess if you start seeing dumb Dem Congress critters being carjacked.
Its not that likely the congresscritters themselves have that happen… but their staffs and hangers on it’d be a good thing.
I would be interested to see the numbers overlayed with the authentic negro population and the percent of americans affected by exodus americanus, probs such things are impossible today, but as a yanky who suffers from the great northern migration of post cotton invasion, i can say that most of em are as bottled up here as in france, even as a lad we would go into darkie town without any fear as long as we stayed in the businesses and not in the residentials. this new wave of war is more then detroit, it is seeking out conflict rather then poisoning some areas. I can say growing up the city was far away, but with the holiness spiral? even the rural folk like us are gunning up and getting ready to sling a pick into the ground, last summer was a genuinely scary time, maybe im just foolish but i got very bosnian vibes and being near a mil base there was stuff happening the last few years that was new to me, lot of petrol being burned in the night without obvious cause tho its quieter now
Whites, Asians, Arabs, Indians, and Jews in every American city voted for black supremacy, and they got black supremacy. What’s the problem?
Horrifying car jacking caught on video in DC in broad daylight…
The headline is worrying, until you see that N.H.I.
I don’t think they did. Anyway, voting doesn’t matter anymore.
>I’d vote to acquit, swamp dwellers ain’t people may DC become Detroit anywhere outside secure area grounds.
You don’t need to worry about it. Blacks don’t convict blacks.
I think self defense is largely defacto illegal in blue areas. In rural areas people might soon be burring the bodies rather than reporting it to the police.
Its not de facto illegal. Predators go after the weak in the herd, instinctively attacking those unlikely to defend themselves.
Well looks like they are double-downing on ole China flu. Biden calling for reimposition of mask mandates and vaccine passports now.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/03/29/biden-demands-states-reimpose-covid-mask-mandates/
I wear masks outside because diesel fume and laterite dust is very real threat to my health.
For sure I don’t wear mask for China flu which turned out to be big nothing burger.
I’ve developed personal sense of disgust to people who wear mask indoor.
seems ancient greece and grr martin both understood masks better then you, they are just an occult garb to signal, I went on a trip and walked into a gas station in another US state, the workers refused to look at me, one guy gave me the nod, biden isnt “doubling down” hes not made any bet at all or given any will to this, he is just participating in the same purity spiral as the rest of the week and wicked, if they start enforcing effectively “vacs” checkpoints then that is something, otherwise its just wmds in iraq, soon to be memory holed.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AoFAgfZY7Ek/
Jim to what extent do you think this threatens crypto.
Could it threaten my crypto miner stock?
Enormous and central threat to cryptocurrency. https://helplbrysavecrypto.com
This is what my entire design has been about from the beginning. Well, first and foremost it is about scalability, scaling to big enough for the whole world. But secondly it is about scaling to world size while not getting crap regulated out of it.
The government does not intend to suppress crypto currency. It intends to put the bureaucratic strangle on it as with stock exchanges and banking. This is why we need to destroy the crypto exchanges, as a first step to destroying the banks and the stock exchanges.
Yes, it could threaten your crypto stock, because it is a stock. Because, if traded on an official stock exchange, highly regulated, highly vulnerable to regulators.
At some point – probably not next week, probably not next month, probably not next year, but eventually – everyone involved in crypto and vulnerable to regulation is going to be screwed.
Do you still advise holding crypto on hardware wallets in light of this news?
It is the only game in town. But some hardware wallets are integrated into central servers and regulated companies, which creates a point of vulnerability.
People who are in a position to do you harm don’t make your vulnerability to harm easy to see.
Your hardware wallet should support PSBT: Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction and BIP174, as these are capable of interacting by a totally decentralized protocol that does not rely on DNS.
Any that you recommend? I am using Trezor currently. Czech owned company.
I don’t want to publicly reveal which wallets I am using. Search for BIP174
Got it. Thanks Jim.
Keep us updated as to any causes to take quick action if you would?
I don’t really watch for causes for quick action.
The big picture is that crypto currency cannot really coexist with the existing regulated system.
In the end, there can only be one. Efforts to put the genie back in the bottle started quite some time ago, are escalating, and will continue to escalate. Libry’s big mistake is that they opened the door to the regulators and expected the regulators to act in accordance with the spirit and letter of existing law and regulation.
I could have told them what was coming down the track.
This lines up with why the big banks seem to be embracing Bitcoin and crypto. They are not looking at it like a competitor but just another regulated security to be offered to their investors.
Jim they are represented by the leftist glowniggery lawfirm of Perkins Coie, who were among other things connected with trying to frame Trump for muh Russia.
That is probably not good… so lets assume they lose what happens next…
Their strategy is that you hire someone who is in good with the regulators, in the hope that they can pull strings in your favor.
Trouble is that the likely way they keep in good with the regulators is by double crossing their clients. They are likely setting this up to create the legal precedent that the regulators want.
Hiring lawyers who were in good with the people who were persecuting him did not work in General Flynn’s favor. His legal team set him up.
That’s the problem with attorneys. On the one hand, I want my attorneys to know the judge well and be able talk to him privately off the record. On the other hand, I want them to act in my interest and that sometimes implies acting against the interest of the judge which they are more likely do if they do not know the judge.
Old problem. Noone has found a perfect solution.
Elon is the Star Prophet but Jim is a prophet-prophet. Everything is proceeding as he has foreseen. Somehow a federal observer wasn’t available for SpaceX’s latest launch.
“As part of the agreement reached by SpaceX and the Federal Aviation Administration—which provides permitting for commercial launches—a federal observer must be on-site for test flights of the Starship vehicle.
For some reason, perhaps a weather-related travel delay or perhaps something else, an inspector was not available for Monday’s launch attempt. “FAA inspector unable to reach Starbase in time for launch today. Postponed to no earlier than tomorrow,†SpaceX founder Elon Musk tweeted on Monday.”
@restitutor_orbis
And the FAA immediately went into CYA mode when Kaliph Elon pronounced them “Sons of the Devil†on Twitter.
The test was conducted the next day.
https://youtu.be/cN7855POvJ8
https://youtu.be/gjCSJIAKEPM
Will Elon’s enemies eventually catch up to him before he launches and lands Starship from orbit successfully multiple times, maybe. But Elon is fast and his enemies are slow (their paradigm on aerospace is that tests take several months and years in aerospace, doing tests every two weeks is outside their box). And China and Russia are watching.
Biden has already put the plan to put a human occupied base on the moon on indefinite hold, probably because it is rapidly becoming apparent that Musk is the only contractor who could actually deliver.
But I expect space to be funded by the internet in space, and by asteroid mining for platinum and gold – mostly platinum.
@Jim
Biden’s handlers still think of aerospace testing in terms of old aerospace (the Saturn V S1-C first stage took roughly seven to nine months to build the tanks and 14 months to complete a stage. StarProphet Elon builds and tests Saturn V class stages every few weeks). Those who want “Mankind to be confined to Earth” are still in the SLS/SaturnV frame of mind when they are planning their diabolical plans, this while Elon issues papal bulls against those who oppose “making Mankind Multiplanetary.”
Meanwhile China has plans for its own Moon base, which might change if Elon Musk successfully proves the fully reusable 100 passenger Starship. After that, the fate of USG matters not anymore.
Tangentially to the link posted regarding the reprisal at Thessalonica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Thessalonica):
The Roman magister arrested a popular chariot racer (arch-sportsman) for flagrant sodomy, and got lynched by the population for it. The Emperor, coming to know about it, ordered a reprisal on the Philosodom population. The gay Church took severe exception to this, esp “St.” Ambrose, and denied communion to the Emperor until Christmas. This is only 390 AD. The Church of Sodom has been at it from the beginning. Maybe the Emperor should have responded by reprisals against St Ambrose and his lunatic philosodom followers. But that was impossible for he himself had accepted the gay communion.
Oh, and Wikipedia seems to have removed all reference to sodomy from the article concerned lol. The spirit St Ambrose still guides them!
History of this incident has suffered numerous radical rewrites in recent times, and looks to me that a rewrite is on the way that unhappens it altogether.
you know, I’ve long since stopped getting angry at The System. I admire its perverse brilliance and sure I hope that when we take power our side will just as cunning.
Hans Anderson’s Imps mirror is one of those poetic things that’s more real than tangible reality. The demon on your shoulder prevents you from thinking.
The church stood opposed to public amusements including chariot races from the inception. By the 4th century the games are declining because Christians tend not to go. Ambrose’s only comments on them are derogatory.
Games fans go out of control and kill an official. This happening over a sodomite looks like a modern revision to me, but it doesn’t even matter, because everything indicates that Ambrose opposes the games either way. The emperor retaliates to the riot by use of violence against the whole city. Rioters or not. That part we have good historical attestation too.
So why is Ambrose indignant? You say it’s because he cared about a sodomite and sportsfans. I say it was because his people were not at the games nor part of the riot, and in fact opposed the games in general, and they got punished indiscriminately anyway.
Ambrose didn’t even object to the use of violence per se, but to the lack of trials and the uncontrolled scope of the violence. I agree with him.
Before investigative science, it was right practice to punish the entire community for excessive crime, as letting it get that bad is a stain on the male citizens meant to keep order.
Aidan not sure if you saw my previous comment. https://blog.reaction.la/uncategorized/fixed-privacy-leak-in-avatars/#comment-2711361
I will make a new email and be in touch with you shortly.
Sure, but Rome had repeatedly demonstrated the ability to selectively target offending communities within a city, and that was not exercised this time.
Lets say Theodosius sent in troops at the next game, exterminating all spectators. He would have a reputation for being clever and efficient then. The church and Ambrose would probably handwaive off any of the Christian community killed in that incident as being in a place they ought not have been anyway.
But even if he wasn’t clever enough for that. Knocking on doors, finding out roughly who could plausibly have been involved, and killing them and theirs would have been the normal way of dealing with it. It’s no surgical strike or investigative science, but it’s functional.
But when he struck the pro games rioters and the anti games community as one he punished his law-abiders. And if you punish cooperators you feed defection.
Theodosius was a total priestcuck fag of an Emperor anyway.
Imagine letting barbarians in en masse. He was a puppet for fanatical priests (Theodosius reign was purity spiraled christianity) who let in barbarians. He was basically the Joe Biden of the Roman Empire. He should be known as Theodosius the traitor not Theodosius the Great.
The Eastern Empire only survived because Marcian made a very big point of reversing almost all of Theodosius policies if not for him (Constantinople having good walls or not) the East would have fallen too around the same time as the West.
Valens let in the Goths, not Theodosius. Theodosius had the Goths become Foederati only after he was unable to defeat them.
Theodosius is called “the Great†because he crushed the Pagans at the Frigidus and established Christianity as the sole religion of the empire.
Valens made a big military fuckup but Theodosius didn’t just let in the Goths he let in everyone (and when Valens let in the Goths they theoretically were going to be under control the problem is the people controlling them were both sadistically and evilly corrupt, they were supposed to get rations for the 1st year or something but the officials there seized there food and told them if you want food sell your children as slaves and we’ll give you dog meat and this is literally from primary sources, and massively incompetent).
And it was the East that the Goths were in but it was the East that survived, and my theory is the East survived because there was an Emperor (Marcian) who was able to reverse almost every policy of Theodosius whereas no such thing happened in the West.
Theodosius purity spiraled christianity so that there was massive civil unrest all over the empire (including among most Christians).
Theodesius was correct to suppress heresy. Trouble is that it is a fine line between suppressing dangerous entryist conspiracies, and purity spiraling the state religion. But he was on the correct side of that line.
Theodosius did not “let in” the Goths. He fought a long and bloody war to keep them out, and the war was not going too well, so he cut a deal that allowed a successful invasion to stand, subject to them agreeing to serve Rome. Which they did. Story goes that he accomplished through cultural domination what was not achievable by force of arms.
I am not aware that Marcian reversed any policies of Theodosius. Perhaps he had lighter touch on heresy, but the heresy in question was less dangerous.
Disagree with you on this Jim more than I’ve ever disagreed with you on any historical question.
During the reign of Theodosius children different religious groups were massacreing each other it was like a communist power struggle (including the disastorous order to murder the families of the Federati in Italy because they were untrustworthy Arians) and the Empire outside of Italy fell almost entirely into barbarian hands.
Theodosius deferred to Ambrose likely meaning he was basically a Donatist heretic himself, none of Constantine’s family would have ever tolerated any kind of crap from a bishop.
And no you can’t supress heresy when you are recruiting Arian heretics into your army wholesale that is fucking retarded.
You are right, and I stand corrected.
Too much priestly power led to too much internal Christian conflict, as applecarts were available to be knocked over, and too much internal Christian conflict made Theodosius unable to deal with Attila the Hun.
Marcian was able to deal with Attila, because had better internal peace. He had better internal peace, because fewer applecarts available for Christian factions to knock over. He had a less serious heresy problem, because fewer goodies on the able.
Theodosius did not “let” the barbarians in. He was unable to stop them. But he let Christian factions knock over pagan applecarts, which led to bitter infighting between Christian factions over the apples rolling around, and the infighting made him weak.
Marcian probably had better internal peace because he called the christian factions together and said I don’t care what settlement you work out but work out a settlement, also we’re bringing back some of the Pagan party days as Christian party days (to which the Puritans in the future complained bitterly, Theodosius was into banning celebrations in a way that the elders of the Mass Bay colony would have approved of). The European provinces were mostly happy, the Syrian and Egyptian churches were not all that happy but they were content enough as they ever were…
People were also happier because he almost immediately lowered taxes and probably ordered the biggest rollback of the Roman command economy in the Empire’s history.
Theodosius deferred to Ambrose and capriciously played favorites in general and then purity spiraled what his favorites wanted… this caused the kind of turmoil that Gibbon got labeled anti christian for describing.
Paganism and Arianism had to be destroyed in order to bring order to the empire. Just as a man cannot have two masters, an empire cannot have two faiths.
Late Pagan degeneracy destroyed the Roman state, which used to be understood until Gibbon rewrote history. The early church fathers record Roman society as utterly decadent, and a decadent society cannot produce the manpower needed to field armies, leading to the collapse of the West.
Marcian was able to refuse paying tribute to the Huns because the Balkans were completely destroyed during his predecessor’s reign, leaving nothing more for the Huns to destroy. Marcian’s religious policy is more Aelia Eudoxia’s religious policy, as she guided Ephesus (against Nestorianism) and Chalcedon (against Monophysitism), so I don’t know where you get the idea that he was more lenient than Theodosius.
An Empire can’t have many faiths IN THE ELITE. Trying to make everyone in a polygot empire one faith with a heavy hand is asking for trouble. Theodosius was probably an ignorant and fanatical Donatist christian, else Ambrose would have been executed (and I mean publically in a sadistic fashion to make a point) when he dared to excommunicate the emperor in order to show the priests their place.
But the religious policy which seemed to cause so much unrest and division in the Empire (that broke out into insanity during the reign of his children) That wasn’t even Theodosius main fuckup, Theodosius let many many barbarian tribes into the empire conceding land wholesale in return for basically an oath of allegiance (in Roman terms the tribes would become his clients) and they were allowed to settle beyond the natural boundaries of the empire wholesale. Theodosius was the world’s 1st open borders politician.
He was essentially the Joe Biden of Roman Emperors… except even worse because he almost certainly wasn’t a senile vegetable the way Biden is.
Marcian among other things ended the practice where barbarians could settle in their own homogenous communities barbarians who got settled under federati contracts couldn’t live with each other anymore. Marcian put the bishops in a room and made them agree or else, he didn’t back the viewpoint of one or a few favorite ignorant and fanatical bishops like Ambrose.
You can blame Pagan backstabbing of each other for the crisis of the 3rd century you cannot blame it for the Fall of the Empire in the West later.
Gibbon didn’t rewrite anything but tradcathcucks don’t like him because he noted pretty accurately how badly incohesive and troublesome the christian factions got around the crucial time after Flavius “Joe Biden” Theodosius died.
I’m not anti christian throughout all of history but during the period in question the christians (EXCEPT the Arians who were the reasonable and sane faction) were like Bolsheviks and woke cultists. They were particularly concerned with destroying statues, buildings and books they didn’t like and as much as they hated pagans for political reasons they were far more interested in purging each other.
Their insanity at the time led to one of the most single evil and insane and disastrous orders in history, the order to murder (not enslave, not hold hostage somewhere) all the wives and children of Roman federati living in Italy.
The Arians were sane because out of power, and could not knock over some applecarts and grab some apples. Arianism is a flawed form of Christianity.
The Ostrogothic Arian kingdom seemed fairly sane. It only fell because of Belisarius…
Arianism is much the same thing as Socinianism (the son not co-eternal with the father) and Socinianism was and is a catastrophe.
As soon as you allow a shake up in heaven, next thing you toss all the good Bronze Age social technology that Moses preserved against the decline and decadence of Bronze Age civilization. Supposedly Christ started the job of tossing that stuff, and his Socinian followers, being more enlightened and holier than he, then finish the job.
If Christ not eternal, then the moral order not eternal, if the moral order not eternal, Progress.
Jews do the same thing in a different way by tossing the final commandment, and holiness spiralling the rule on not boiling a kid goat in its mother’s milk (which was a reference to a specific pagan ritual now long forgotten) till a rule about a very specific action particular to that place and time swallows the entire moral universe.
Maybe long term but we’ll never know, the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy (where at least the ruling Ostrogothic elite were Arian) did not seem insane at all. Even the Catholic Encylopedia doesn’t say all that many bad things…
Unfortunately they had to contend with Belisarius (as did the also Arian Vandal kingdom)… who won the war against them (in the worst way possible where most of Italy was destroyed by the end)… that doesn’t necessarily mean their social technology was a total failure (now I would argue the social technology of the Visigothic kingdom in Spain was a total failure).
I think you draw too close an association between a communist entryist heresy and what was among early Christians probably the MORE popular form of christianity among people who probably considered themselves at least somewhat sincere christians, and that version of christianity lost out because one of history’s great military geniuses was sent against them more than any huge social flaw.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia correctly says: “And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions.”
In the modern era, we know that they most vigorously did take advantage. Maybe Arian was OK, maybe his immediate successors were OK, but his modern offspring are definitely not OK
The Catholic Encyclopedia does not accuse Arian of being a modernist, that would be silly, but it says that modernism is implicit in his doctrines and modernism logically follows from them. On this, they are correct. Maybe it is unfair to focus on that truth, but it is still true.
Making a polyglot empire have one faith is absolutely necessary, because a state must be unified on the basis of race or religion, and an empire must have a state religion. The Pagans did this by building a statue of Jupiter in every corner of the empire.
The Goths were a nation of elites. Before the days of gunpowder it took elite blood to become a master of the sword, the bow, and the horse. Adrianople was disastrous because the Roman Empire lost an irreplaceable number of soldier families that could not be replaced by conscripting peasants. Look at the family of the current king of Spain; most of the Spanish elite are descended from the Visigoths.
The decline of early Roman Paganism brought on the death of Roman civilization because it disrupted the fertility of the Roman elite to the point where they could no longer field competent armies. The Romans lost 70,000 at Cannae but could replace those soldiers through paterfamilias; when they lost 20,000 at Adrianople they couldn’t because paterfamilias was gone.
To my knowledge, Honorius ordered the killings of the families of the Roman foederati after killing Stilicho, which lends me to believe that the divide was more racial rather than religious. A Roman state without a Roman army is no longer a Roman state; if Rome cannot muster an army to fight a foreign force in Italy the Roman Empire is merely a skeleton.
Destroying Pagan books and statues is not a problem. Keeping the Easter Bunny and Christmas lights are good things, statues of Zeus should only be in museums. Woke cultists are evil because their faith is evil, not their methods.
“To my knowledge, Honorius ordered the killings of the families of the Roman foederati after killing Stilicho”
The Roman elite had not been racially unitary probably since before the 3rd century…
Its not clear Honorius gave the order he was a powerless figurehead for Stilcho and was probably an equally powerless figurehead after Stilcho was murdered for whoever led the Coup D’etat against Stilcho.
The especially evil insane order (like among the top 5 in history for that, most communist states never did any single act that was THAT insane) was given at a time when lots of other mostly religious massacres were going on, which leads me to believe it was more driven by religion (the Federati overwhelmingly tended to be Arians) than by the fact that the Federati also tended to be Germanic.
Christianity gave the world investigative science. It is a moral imperative to avoid punishing the innocent just as it is to discover truth from facts.
The primary source letter from Saint Ambrose to Theodosius:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/ambrose-let51.asp
The idea that the riot caused a rift between St. Ambrose and Theodosius is modern revisionist history. Ambrose begins his letter by explaining why he did not meet the emperor when he was in Milan, and then commends the emperor for his piety.
St. Ambrose was upset with Theodosius because the bishops were upset with him. Many faithful Christians died in the massacre, and as such St. Ambrose felt it was necessary for him to undergo penance.
“I, indeed, though a debtor to your kindness, for which I cannot be ungrateful, that kindness which has surpassed that of many emperors, and has been equalled by one only; I, I say, have no cause for a charge of contumacy against you, but have cause for fear; I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person, allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so.â€
Excommunication in the church before the advent of Papism was not necessarily an act of hostility, merely a suspension on serving communion. My priest (Orthodox) will excommunicate someone at confession if he brings up a grudge against another parishioner. According to him, most of the time said grudge gets resolved without incident and the person is given communion again.
Roman Catholics rewrote Ambrose as a symbol of the church over Caesar, and Progressives are in the process of rewriting Ambrose as a symbol of Moloch over an Christian ruler. In reality, St. Ambrose was providing spiritual stewardship over a monarch he loved and appreciated.
Always look at the primary source documents as Leftists lie about everything.
Well written.
On top of all that it has to be considered that at the time shedding of innocent blood included legitimate warfare, and solders were given a temporary excommunication after battles per St Basil.
But Christian soldiers were entirely allowed.
The rift between Theodosius and the church over this is small indeed. Theodosius was only subject to the same censure that many other Christians in good standing faced.
Ambro <== amru
Zeno <== zaynu
Comparative Linguistics…
Again, Debbie Downer here:
Emiratesmarsmission.ae
We urgently need a post on the little girl pill. Alt right is 95% blue pilled on this issue. The leader of the alt right, nick fuentes is red pilled on this issue, but he can’t be totally straightforward about it. Like you said, the woman pill is the key to all of the other red pills. On a fractal level the age of consent pill is the key to the woman pill.
“Pedophilia” is a holiness spiral that is leading to complete sexual anarcho tyranny where it is illegal for a white man to bang or marry any woman under the age of 30. It is currently illegal for men to bang about half of women that they would like to bang, and then to compete for the older half they have to have a holiness competition about how monstrous it would be to pursue the younger half.
https://odysee.com/@Three_Spoons:c/The-System-comes-down-on-Gaetz:9
The incident you are linking to is just the usual – the use of state power to remove uncooperative Republicans.
But you are not linking to blue pilled right wingers.
It is not apparent to me that the alt right is blue pilled. (The shills are, of course, blue pilled.) In the video you link to Nick Fuentes fails to ridicule the charges, but, given that he depicting events as a plot against a rising Republican star, rather than “Oh the horror, a young man hung out with a girl who may have been seventeen”, ridiculing the charges was kind off topic.
If I see blue pilling on the alt right, I am going to push back, and post an article. But the video you link to does not make me feel like pushing back.
Maybe there is blue pilling (the Qanons and pizzagaters were all “pedophilia”) and I have perhaps not been paying attention. If the alt right is 95% blue pilled on little girls, then indeed it is time for pushback.
I was actually trying to praise Nick for not cucking on this. He makes me very optimistic as he has an astonishing combination of charisma and intelligence and doesn’t really cuck about any major issue. He also has thousands of loyal followers and is moving the needle politically. I could make a case that the RINO senate candidates in Georgia lost by such a small margin that it was because of Nick.
Maybe 95% was an exaggeration. I think it’s between 50 and 95.
Point me to some influential people who need pushback.
Vox Day, Owen Benjamin, and Cernovich are always kvetching about pedos, Epstein, Weinstein, etc. Probably Roosh. He has been going around saying that Game is Sinful, sex and lust are Sinful, etc.
Some recent examples:
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/03/birds-of-feather.html
Epstein, Weinstein, etc. bad.
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/03/dont-defend-devils-own.html
This one is spooky. Vox is basically doing a struggle session on his own readers saying that #MeToo *hasn’t gone far enough* and if his own readers don’t Always Believe Women then it’s because they are Gamma Male Creeps and they are ashamed of something “creepy” they have done in the past that hurt an innocent woman.
Vox is a very advanced verbal abuser. He’s basically taking the low status men that follow him and repackaging their fear of being labelled a sexual harasser by society as paralyzing guilt to castrate them and make them view Vox as the Supreme Sigma Male, the only man who is allowed to have sex, because girls just throw themselves at him and he has no need to “sexually harass” or “rape” them, unlike you creepy filthy gamma worm.
Not exactly pedo stuff, but in the same vein.
Yes that is one of the worst teddy spaghetti pieces I’ve ever seen. He’s saying good men won’t be taken down by a feminist purity spiral… well he won’t because he lives in Italy and even commie Italians tend to be redpilled on women.
He needs pushback on that.
The worst Vox Day piece that I have seen was when he failed some basic math thing like multiplying two numbers to try to say it is impossible for a human to be near 2 mass shootings therefor they are a crisis actor, one of his Dark Legion politely corrected the basic math, showing it was indeed possible, and likely that some human in the world was near 2 mass shootings, then Vox made multiple FURIOUS blog posts tripling down about how that guy was a traitorous gamma retard who couldn’t do basic math instead of just admitting he was wrong. He claims 160 IQ btw.
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/08/math-is-hard-barbie.html
I still read him from time to time, but due to stuff like this he has cultivated an army of extremely stupid people. Nick has cultivated an army of moderately smart people that is also 10x-100x as big.
Yeah the election Q-tard shit was sorta the last straw for me with Vox. He’s still useful and has good insight about current events from time to time but anyone that needs to brag about their IQ really isn’t as smart as they think.
I stopped taking Vox seriously after I realized that Vox was the secret king Gamma he was always upset about. The Q stuff was just bizzaro land.
I was reading Conservative Treehouse when Sundance invented the original “Trust the Plan” stuff when Mueller was appointed. He kept saying that Mueller was somehow Trump’s guy. He got massive push back from his followers and he quickly gave up the idea. Vox just kept doubling down straight into Q hell.
But lets be honest here, we all got it very wrong about Trump as well. Bar was their guy, not ours. Same with Trump’s supreme court picks, etc. There was plenty insanely wishful thinking going on. Irrational optimism is useful, but it’s not a great way to predict the future.
I was not especially wild about any of the SCOTUS picks (McConnell choose them anyway) but Barr had me fooled until VERY late I guess because he made a good 1st impression.
Yes Vox uses gamma to describe the worst aspects of his own personality.
Trump unfortunately was not nearly paranoid enough…
Yes I was definitely guilty of irrational optimism. We’ll have to be diligent in the future (especially in meat space). This time 100s ended up in the jail. The next time may end up with 1000s of corpses.
The thousands and more likely millions of corpses is coming no matter what. The holiness spiral isn’t slowing down.
The mistake at the Capitol was purely Trump’s fault. He walked right into a trap and didn’t even have his guys on the group to stop the obvious Dem tactic of turning a protest into a riot.
The fact that there was so little damage despite FBI guys and leftists instigators trying to encourage mass damage and lethal violence actually helped reduce the blow back. The capital riots was a really poor version of the Reichstag fire the Dems had hoped it would be. Good solid Trump supporters are responsible for limiting the damage.
My point was don’t judge Vox to harshly but learn from his mistakes. He fucked up by always doubling down even when reality was very much the other direction. I think the lesson from Vox is doubling down on what’s clearly sunk costs can drive you insane.
Yes agreed.
The interesting part about QAnon was that it provided a quite popular rallying point outside the establishment. Presumably this was the reason why it was so comprehensively banned. Never mind the hodgepodge of beliefs, etc.
I’m not sure what to make of the project as such — perhaps enemy propaganda that escaped its original purpose.
Q was and is enemy propaganda and it NEVER escaped its original purpose.
One of Trump’s mistakes is it should have been denounced early as enemy propaganda especially when it said trust Sessions.
Vox has a fairly long history of talking out of his ass and pretending to be smarter than he is. Doesn’t make him a bad person.
I do think that the usual pattern is that in time, guys like Vox lose their initial credibility, because most followers draw the same conclusions. Guys like Vox tend to react badly to this development. His doubling down is just an attempt to stay relevant.
Not quite; at least we got to see the enemy made ridiculous.
By the way, for those who disdain rashly storming the Winter Palace or similar silliness in favour of more measured activities, I would sincerely recommend becoming worthy a la Yarvin. What this in essence means is quietly building your bank account and social power, while making yourself resilient to shocks.
That VoxDay thread on conditional probability is incredible. Have zero respect for him after reading that. The initial mistake was bad enough (considering the extraordinary claim he was trying to support), but to then double down talking about intellectual superiority and 160 IQ while still failing to grasp what he’d missed, and then to eventually try to wriggle out of it with no admission of error, is disturbing. Or he still has unshakeable belief in his correctness, which is more disturbing. Nothing he writes can be taken in good faith now. A cautionary tale on why you should just admit when you make a mistake.
Vox Day has always been purple pilled on women.
This is not purple pilled its not even normie bluepilled it might as well have come from an Ivy League women’s study department.
“Hellmouth” people only go down for their sexual misconduct if a strong enough faction gives the ok. And most (and I mean like 95+%) of the real bad stuff is done by gays.
Vox is a gamma, a priest. Such men always have misgivings towards male sexuality and nature.
Vox is a gamma
Vox’s “gamma”, “sigma”, “omega” are not useful archetypes. They don’t carve nature at the joints.
There is a reason no one came up with them before Vox.
Vox is occasionally good but too often a useful idiot for the enemy. I’d be happy to see his dumb-shit taxonomy of “gamma”, etc. disappear entirely.
Omega males are a real category of smv and hierarchical position. Gammas are not.
Sigmas may exist but they are probably basically loner psychopaths.
Jim, what is your opinion of Vox’s intense hatred of Boomers?
Vox believes that all of the problems of the United States are the Boomers fault…that they took a good country and ruined. That everyone born after the Boomers are just victims.
Hey, I blame it all on the Victorians.
Things have been going downhill for quite a while, and they have been going downhill faster and faster. We are losing social technology, and starting to lose advanced physical technologies.
“Omega males are a real category of smv and hierarchical position. Gammas are not.
Sigmas may exist but they are probably basically loner psychopaths.”
I think gammas are very real and Vox’s description of them is accurate, although not all fit cleanly into that category. I am a gamma, Vox has many gamma traits. I don’t think it’s super clear cut. Lots of intellectual-type men have many gamma traits but are not as bad as his stereotype. Many men are exactly like his stereotype though. It’s true that women are repulsed by gammas. Do I agree with Vox that men who repulse women deserve to be thrown in prison? No.
Sigams are just a cope for Gammas/Omegas to think they are cool. Vox claims that women have insatiable lust for Sigmas. This is the opposite of the truth. Women typically have zero attraction to men with zero social status. As Aidan says, intelligent women are very attracted to intelligent masculine men (because they are extremely rare and because unintelligent women are too stupid to recognize them), so maybe that is where Vox got that idea. Being a loner does not help with women though.
When I think of even a fictitious sigma I think of a Clint Eastwood character in a spaghetti western.
Have such characters existed in reality… probably but they ain’t Teddy Spaghetti.
It is not as if I will ever use these terms, but to make them useful, define them like this:
A gamma is a man whose smv is extremely variable. Almost always a nerd with one specific skill, who is perceived as alpha when performing it and acts like an omega when he is not. There is a type of man like this, who will get female interest and then blow it when he is offstage, who will rack up accusations of being “creepy” if not outright FRAs.
A sigma is a man who is relatively more successful at convincing others that he is alpha even when he is not capturing the attention of other men and women. Almost all “dating” or pickup is playing sigma, and most men are not very good at it.
These are not character archetypes, they are quirks of the human mating dynamic. Vox makes these edge cases into character archetypes because of his own insecurities.
Good and useful definitions.
But the trouble is these terms are owned by Vox, who gives them meanings that are disconnected from empirical reality. If we discuss such matters, need to coin our own words for them
Convincing women you are alpha when you are not getting the attention of men and women is tough. Most men do not succeed at it because it is tough, not because they are not good at it.
But to the extent that one carries it off, it is primarily by convincing women that you are a bad guy – preferably a bad guy backed by another unseen higher alpha, that you can, and regularly do, break the rules, that you can and will engage in acts of violence.
I read Vox’s SSH. May be I missing something, but to me “gamma” seems just an overly complicated way to say “loser”. (And “omega”, “bigger loser”).
Omega is a social sexual hierarchy loser.
Gamma is a bunch of traits that fit all the negative aspects of Vox’s own personality, they do not correspond to any hierarchy position. Most gamma traits are omega traits but some are beta traits (Vox is actually a Beta who was driven + his family had money).
Sigma is a movie level badass loner and such types I think exist… but Teddy Spaghetti ain’t one of them. Think James Bond and Clint Eastwood as the Man with no Name.
Blackpilled for instance, has a comfy livestream where he talked about this yesterday, said if you don’t care about Gaetz banging a 17yo you have no morals.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vbad0PhyHYYJ/
Starts at the 1h 45min mark.
The Georgia runoffs were lost because of massive industrialized fraud. The midget had nothing to do with it.
Perdue/Loeffler were god awful candidates but they still would have won without the fraud. Nobody in Georgia is voting for a jew and a crazy black.
Well Atlanta might as well be on a different planet then the rest of the South. Sherman did a good thing for the whole nation including the South by burning it but he should have salted the earth.
But the reason you know it was fraud, you don’t win Florida by 3% and lose Georgia. Atlanta did not double in size in four years.
Speaking of Georgia, the Cathedral is really shrieking about the voting laws they passed. I don’t even think they got signature matching in but I suppose it means their power is not secure there.
As much as people like Fuentes, I cant stand listening to his voice. Real men dont talk or move like that- goes double for Vox. I suspect bugger, and thus he is solid on the WQ- fags dont really like women very much. Of course, many gen Z men who are supposedly straight come off as very gay to me, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. If so, he needs to put down the soy milk and hit the weight room.
He’s a 22 year old gamer nerd but he’s no bugger. He says more anti-gay stuff using his real identity in meat space than you’ll ever say with your real identity, or anyone on the right for that matter. Kid’s got balls of stone in my book.
Fuentes is not the leader of the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right died in Charlottesville. Fuentes is the leader of his political advocacy group/movement, America First, and he’s about the most right-wing person showing his face currently. Almost everything he says with a few exceptions (like no sex before marriage), line up fairly close to Jim. His success is encouraging.
I agree. I meant alt right in the literal definition, not as in Richard Spencer’s clique.
I think it’s worth mentioning that because Nick superficially resembles a mainstream republican, people think he is cucked or alt-lite, but he is actually less cucked than Richard Spencer. He is more red pilled about women, he isn’t a socialist, he knows covid is a hoax. Richard Spencer and his acolytes unironically think X00000 people or whatever the CDC says died from Covid and we need harsher restrictions. He is parroting every single democrat take, either because he is a contrarian and a retard or because he thinks it will protect him from lawsuits. Also he claims to be a Nietzschean, but locking everyone in bug boxes and covering their faces over X00000 people dying, even if that many died, is the position of The Last Man. Nietzsche would want to infect as many people as possible with corona to get rid of the fatties and genetic waste.
Spencer is fed.
Spencer is probably a fed, and a bad actor beyond a shadow of a doubt. If he is not on USG’s payroll, he is on the payroll of Soros, with the purpose of doxxing people on the right.
I need people in this forum to check if I’m sufficiently red pilled or I show signs of weakness.
A little background, me and my wife both working with me being in top management and making 5x of my wife’s salary. My wife doesn’t even pay for anything, she gave 90% of her salary to her parents.
After having our first son born I admit that I’m not involved in nursing our son. I feed our baby, change his diaper, or prepping the necessities now and then when my wife is away, but most of the time I’m resting while my wife is doing most of the nursing.
I got satire comments because I’m often half-asleep attending my son or having full night sleep. My only reply was “I’m doing the best I can”.
I honestly don’t know if my wife is actually showing dissatisfaction with our marriage or just shit testing.
I think that I’m doing good deed with at least trying to be involved with caring my infant son because my father was very absent when my younger siblings were born.
With my late wife, my arrangement was that I did the fun stuff with the babies, like him going to sleep on my chest, and she did all the stuff like changing their nappies. I have promised to do the same with my current wife, and also told her that taking care of a baby is really tough, and she will cry. I can tell that she likes this, likes that her husband was not a househusband and has no intention of becoming a househusband.
So yes, your wife is shit testing you, and you are failing. My children did not interfere with my sleep, except when I felt like it. (Which I often did, but this was my option, not my wife’s option.)
When my wife had to be away, my sisters came over on the well founded assumption that I could not or would not care for a baby. (Also, they liked babies)
I also think that your wife is shit testing. If I were you, I’d tell her to stop working so that she has time to care for the baby and the siblings to be born.
Yes.
If she has babies, and her income is not the major part of the household income, should not be working. Tell her to stop it.
She has forty years for a career. Very little time for babies. Should focus on what is urgent and important, and ignore what is not urgent and not important.
Women have the most important job in the world. Everything else is what they do in their spare time.
If she has babies, and her income is not the major part of the household income, should not be working.
Hell, when I got married my wife was making very nearly as much as me, but when she got pregnant, the very first words of my father (who internalized the traditional ways many decades ago) were “You’re going to have her stop working, right?” I did and I think that eliminated one whole class of shit tests, not that there weren’t others.
Of course, the old ways work in both directions: my father kicked in a good chunk of change so we could move out of the apartment into a house.
I also would like my wife to stop working, but she refused because her parents are retiree without income.
Perhaps later on when financially I’m more secure.
Assuming it’s not an excuse, her parents might prefer more grandchildren over a bit of extra income. Many grandparents do, after all.
“Security, security, mortals chiefst enemy” (Shakespear, if I rember correctly)
When you are financially secure, it will be too late for a large family (at least with your present wife).
Her refusal is probably also a shit test.
Anyway, if your income is not sufficient to sustain both your family and her parents so that she really has to be working, there is no reason at all for you work in your home. Then the grandparents can do all the work and baby care for which your wife is lacking the time.
Who is in charge in your household/
And why are not the maternal grandparents helping with the kids?
For 1 year after marriage we live completely alone, no relative, no parent. We live in isolated plantation after all. Parents are on different islands.
On 12th month of marriage (november 2020) my wife was on 8th month pregnancy I told my wife’s parents to come over. They helped out to look out on our son when we are working, and do the housekeeping. Nothing else because they also have chronic illnesses.
As for the one being in charge, before marriage we agreed to not fiddle anything we posses before marriage. I have 2 years mortgage and she has the job which she has kept for 7 years before I even met her.
I don’t like destroying sentimental value because she has kept the current job 7+ years straight out school (she didn’t attend college) and lots of her friends are in workplace.
Her social life is an important consideration – trouble is that women tend to treat the workplace as their family.
You and her children need to be her family.
My mother in law has serious illnesses. Pretty early in our relationship, my wife expressed concerns about her mother. To which I replied: “Who are you going to look after, me or your mother?”. To which she replied “You of course.”
You don’t want your wife to be socially isolated. On the other hand, neither do you want her hanging out with bad women. You need to keep an eye on whom she hangs out with, and where they are hanging out. Women are terribly susceptible to peer pressure and environmental influences. If she is hanging out with a group of women, at least one of the women in the group is apt to be keen on hanging out where the group of women might well be approached by a group of men with the alpha male of the group being someone more alpha than the men they are currently with.
I have also received a fair deal of criticism, especially during the first few weeks. I think that when a woman becomes a mother she realizes that her previous life is gone — her life now revolves around this kid, maybe more. Thats quite an adjustment, especially considering the false life paths women are sold these days.
So naturally she shit-tests. But she’ll also give valid criticisms – not like I knew what I was doing, lol. Figuring out what is a shit test and what is valid criticism is the trick, imo.
Distinction is not enough because there is also ‘valid criticism delivered as a shit test’.
When I get valid criticism delivered as a shit test, I say “you are right. Now shut up and don’t speak to me till I tell you that you can”.
Hmmmm i like this…
What Jim says, in a slightly less badass manner. When she’s made her point but drones on, I tell her exactly that. When she still continues, I tell her to shut up.
But I mean, I don’t want to come off tougher than I am. My experience has been that modern life poses a lot of challenges for raising kids, not just for the father, also for the mother, and it takes trial and error figuring it all out.
I like how Sean Connery stood his ground against wokeness in this respect till the end.
He stood by his old redpilled opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA
I don’t know anything about marriage, never been married and though women seem to love me, I love them a lot less, I haven’t accepted a relationship for longer than 6 months. I’m a bit antisocial like that, life circumstances.
So my observation isn’t about your marriage but yourself, you sound scared and indecisive and leaders can’t lead when they are scared and indecisive. You’re supposed to lead and you can’t, she probably smells your fear and makes her restless and even more scared than you are, so nothing is going as you’d like.
If some thief came barging in into my house and I had to obliterate his skull against the floor I wouldn’t criticize a woman for getting hysterical and not helping with it. I don’t think it’s a male’s job to care for babies, not observable in practically any species, not observable in hunter-gatherer societies, not observable in ancient societies, not observable in any successful society, not an observable instinct in myself, thus I assume not really in any other man, not your job. It’s her job, women love babies, she has nothing to complain about and she should be happy if she gets any help, you’re providing for her after all, you’re doing your job. If she has an issue with the fact that she is working while taking care of the baby then maybe she should shut the fuck up and go do her real biological job and stop wasting her precious time being some wage cuck for another man no less.
You claim to be top management, but the problem seems to be your lack of leadership skills. When your subordinates get out of line you put them back in, they appreciate it when you do, they don’t appreciate it when you don’t and they expect you to coordinate and run the show so they can do their own work. Same thing applies to your wife. Imagine one subordinate failed at doing their job and you were covering for them and gave you shit for it, that’s literally what you let your wife do to you, she sure has a good reason to be dissatisfied with your leadership.
I always find it amusing to hear from other men the problems they allegedly have with women, it seems to be that the biggest problem men today have with women is expecting them to be men and then be surprised when they are not, coupled with the unwillingness to be men themselves. You either lead or you don’t, you either are a man or you’re not, you either want to be with a woman or you don’t. You don’t get to claim leadership and shy away from taking decisions, you don’t get to enjoy only the good things about being a man and you don’t get to be with a woman and expect her to play half your role, her own role and everything else that makes you comfortable at her expense.
Hopefully you didn’t take offense to anything I said, if you did it was not my intention, nor am I trying to be callous. Everyone has things they are better and worse at, this happens to be something I’m good with, which is why instead of being trapped in relationships with fucked up mechanics I simply don’t have them for long, because I’m unwilling to and I simply choose no. But you’ve chosen yes, so you should fully commit to your own decision.
Exactly so.
Women are different.
Very different.
If you look at the landscapes we create everywhere, it is apparent that we long for our ancestral savanna, the lightly treed environment we entered when we came down from the trees and stood off the lions. And women long for their ancestral environment of successful reproduction. Women reproduce most successfully as property, men least successfully as property, and their behavior makes no sense unless you understand this.
As I have so often said: If a man is defeated, conquered and subdued, perhaps because his tribe and country is conquered and subdued, he is unlikely to reproduce. If a woman is defeated, conquered and subdued, she has escaped from defect/defect equilibrium, escaped from prisoner’s dilemma, and also been transferred from weak men and a weak tribe to strong men and a strong tribe, and is therefore likely to be highly successful at reproducing.
Women are always shit testing you. That is why they are so disruptive and destructive in the work place. But they are not really playing to win. They are playing to be subdued by a strong man.
The shit test that the Ducking Man is failing is the most ancient of them all: “Are you man enough to take me from my Dad”
Futhermore, when a man is defeated, conquered, and subdued, his testosterone levels go way down, and this may entirely explain why men today are so low-T. A slave’s best survival stategy is to stay alive and out of trouble, and hope that his oppressors eventually give him a wife, or kill themselves off, as high-T men tend to fight a lot.
“Hopefully you didn’t take offense to anything I said”
No offense taken.
At work people consider me top management because I’m a director’s right hand man and the owner hired me personally.
When I post the comment, I didn’t know how male supposed to behave when there is a baby around, partly because the media likes to portray caring husband who knows how to take care a baby.
Now I know my error and decided to take step back in the nursing business. Now I feel less guilt seeing my wife do the heavy lifting and only see my baby when he seems ok or for some reason only calm when I hold him.
What do you think about the SEC suing LBRY jim?
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2021/lr25060.htm
Unsurprised.
The pressure on crypto currency has been rising for some time, and will go on rising.
The survivors will be what is most resistant to regulation.
At some point in the not very distant future, the government will seize or attempt to seize, or failing that block, every website enabling people to do business in unregulated crypto currency. I hope to have something ready before that happens.
second link not working.
Jim, what’s the red-pilled way to propose marriage to my girlfriend? I don’t think I’m getting good advice on this from my family.
Make her pregnant
I took her outside (she knew something was up), set the phone video running, and said “Before God and Man, I swear I will keep you forever and never let you go”, and then put the engagement ring on her finger.
All the chicks thought that was incredibly romantic.
Very good. How expensive should the engagement ring be?
I don’t know. Have not done a lot of getting engaged.
On the one hand, needs to be at least a little bit expensive to show you are serious, on the other hand, not like you are trying to prove you are serious.
@Pooch
How much does the Taliban spend on engagement rings?
Haha good point.
Taliban probably did give their brides gifts before marrying them. Presenting something of value is a very old human custom mostly to prove a man’s status, the women’s status not withstanding. Though I don’t think you need to spend a lot on it.
Jim described it with the story of women lined up for men to select brides in Australia. When the men selected a women they presented her with gift. If she accepted, she was his. If she refused all suiters she ended up a low status concubine with nothing.
As an example of this, I once read a story about a women captured by an Indian war band during a initial colony setup in North America. Her husband was scalped and killed. She claimed they didn’t rape her, but it’s more likely she was gang raped by the whole group. After which she put in with the squaws until it was clear she wasn’t pregnant. After that period of time passed the unmarried men started offering her gifts like a big fish they caught or a pelt from a deer they’d killed, all placed at her feet. She was told if she accepted the gift they would be wed. She was also told if she didn’t accept a gift soon she would be forcibly given to one of the men.
Around which time the village was raided by the English and she was brought back to the colony.
I love first hand accounts of the colonists’ way of life. Or of the semi-noble savages who we conquered. Or the pre-King-George-getting-cucked English society. Any recommendations?
English Society 1688-1832, by JCD Clark.
Donald McBane’s autobiography. More than half the book is about how to kill people with a sword, but his memoirs as professional soldier, gladiator, and pimp are fascinating.
I found “The Narrative of Marie le Roy and Barbara Leininger, for Three Years Captives among the Indians” fascinating.
https://archive.org/details/jstor-20085307/page/n1/mode/2up
Check out the wikipedia article for the abridged version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn%27s_Creek_massacre
I told my gf we were going to have kids and I wasn’t raising bastards.
Some signs of life at the military…
“Diversity chief at US Special Operations Command reassigned during probe into social media posts”
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/545515-diversity-chief-at-us-special-operations-command-reassigned-during-probe-into
Just signs of CYA. They’ll get someone else in there with the same agenda but less baggage to carry out the same tasks. They cannot afford to let the military exist without these kinds of political commissars.
Friendly reminder the Chauvan witch trials are underway and could end anytime.
After he is found innocent we will all be flooded with vibrancy and multiculturalism in every major city.
So, keep your head on the swivel.
>found innocent
Not gonna happen. The judge, the jury, and the attorneys on both sides know the score. Not guilty is not an option.
There is no conceivable legal way that Chauvin is convicted. He will be found guilty, because legality does not matter very much, but the defense has an endless appeals process, especially against the jury selection, because who has not been prejudiced by the media about the case?
>because legality does not matter very much
If legality doesn’t matter very much in convicting him, then why will it matter on appeal?
Chauvin is never getting out of prison. There’s a better chance he’ll be murdered by a fellow inmate who mysteriously got access to him than that they’ll ever let him walk free. Even if he doesn’t wind up dead like Dahmer, no judge is going to overturn his conviction.
They may want him acquitted as an excuse to holiness spiral about racism more. Also the prog state needs its enforcer class.
We should not care too much about the cathedral’s mindless enforcers. We should care about Rittenhouse NOT Chauvin.
>We should not care too much about the cathedral’s mindless enforcers. We should care about Rittenhouse NOT Chauvin.
Amen to that.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1377746722667986953
ah, and now it begins.
I wonder how many states will comply? Or if this is even remotely enforceable?
Desantis in my state already signed an order against it.
Desantis is doing everything right and saying all
the right things. I almost want Trump to just step aside and let Desantis become the new leader of the movement. The bitch in South Dakota cucked on trannies so she’s out.
I don’t trust female politicians generally but Desantis cucked on lockdowns for a little and she never did… so nobody is perfect. Women’s sports being ruined by trannies is a hard redpill too..
Neither can get elected without right wing militia violence anyway and Desantis is not the man to do that… and even under a normal election he does not have Trump’s charisma (he is better at organizational details though MUCH better).
Republicans are not going anywhere, till they adopt a leader from the Proud Boys. Old style politics is not going to work when Democrats have stopped playing by those rules.
And if anyone is going to play by the new rules, it is not Desantis.
After the Gracchi were nailed, populists got
1. crushed.
2. betrayed by their leadership
3. sucked into the left wing holiness spiral.
And went nowhere fast until Caesar accommodated to the rules.
similarly, 1920s-1930s Germany.
Yes Desantis is a good man but far too genteel.
He is on course for potential illegal federal government order nullification. Would would be interesting to me is if he threatens the use of lawful violence to enforce nullification.
Aside from Trump, He is the best we have at the moment. In the unlikely event that the Presidential election does matter in 2024 it is DeSantis or Trump. No one else is in the conversation.
Then, unless Trump finds his testicles, and is sufficiently flexible to adjust to the new realities, we are $#!% out of luck.
You get less flexible with age, though intellectual exercise can slow this down quite a bit. For a rapidly changing reality, changing ever faster, we might have better prospects with a younger man – which is to say, Don Junior.
Or, better still, someone from the Proud Boys. Nothing less is likely to work. We have been through this many times before, for Republics often take a surprisingly long time dying, and nothing less works during the dying breaths of a Republic.
The only real hope is what happened to the Muslim Brotherhood CIA installed government in Egypt happens to the dems…
Tens of millions in the DC streets and the military despite being pozzed oust them…
This is my thought as well. DeSantis is the same age as Don Jr and seems more alpha to me having demonstrated leadership in Florida already. Not close the orator of Trump, but he seems smart enough to understand that if he chooses to run in 2024 (with the blessing of the Trumps), he would only do so by abiding to the new rules for winning elections.
We need someone with a fundamentally violent nature… thats not Desantis.
We need Caesar and DeSantis is not Caesar. We are likely many years and possibly decades from Caesar, but what we need now is someone to continue to build the momentum Trump started and there are not many options.
Who was Octavian before he became Augustus?
Were were all the well known men before Octavian became Augustus, after Octavian became Augustus?
When the lake dries out, all the fish with with optimally adapted gills stuck on the sandbars die out.
The Republican party is going to disappear, though its letterhead and official headquarters and mailing lists may live on under Democratic Party management.
If the Republic is merely dying and not entirely dead, something will replace it. Possibly Julius Caesar if we are lucky.
There is a theory that the Proud Boys are either a fed creation or heavily infiltrated by the feds. I think, but do not remember for certain, it was Andrew Anglin who posted that theory.
They are heavily infiltrated by feds.
Not a fed operation, might well become a fed operation if they don’t do something about it. Maybe they have already become a fed operation and I have not noticed, but I am inspired by what happened to the Free Software Foundation.
People are realizing the scope and aggressiveness of enemy entryism operations, and are starting to do something about it.
Vaccine passports are definitely coming.
Anyone else wondering if they are not a poisoned apple, possibly an element in a deep state autocoup attempt? All the time the holiest have been saying you should still wear a mask and “social distance” when vaccinated because you can still spread the virus supposedly. And now you are supposed to be safe with a passport? That is an obvious incongruity that someone will exploit. It looks like there are sections of the deep state that want to go back to “normal” (the virus hysteria served its purpose, Trump’s gone), where the vaccine passport would be the perfect excuse. The Orwellian aspects are a feature, not a bug there, and really the whole security theater at airports is already as bad as these passports.
All the more radical members of the deep state would have to do is wait for the old-type “authoritarian” leftists and their puppets to implement the scheme and then after a few months observe or just manufacture ‘rising case numbers’ or ‘overwhelmed ICUs’ or ‘dangerous new mutations’ (if the claims about the vaccines are true, they won’t reduce total PCR positive results much at all) and create a media smear campaign about establishment politicians and old, white, male deep-staters who created ‘a false sense of security’ and ‘caved to the tourism/wahtever industry’ with the vax passports.
I don’t think anyone is planning anything. Rather, what is happening is the spontaneous and unforeseen consequences of holiness spiraling.
Jim, what explains the high fertility rate of African Americans as slaves? Moldbug even mentioned this in a kind of spoof of fascism, in that the most successful genetic strategy generally isn’t conquering (what the pozzed West does best, like the Puritans), but getting conquered. For another example, the Palestinians for a long time were breeding faster than the Jews, until the ultra-Orthodox were set up as a breeding caste, and their existence is like a kind of paradoxical voluntary slavery only the Talmud could explain.
Finally, what explains the ideal of being a rich employee? An entrepreneur who does whatever makes the most money so he can buy a gold chain for his neck is a “newly rich” and probably ethnic stereotype of very low status, but a lifelong employee who bows down to a boss to receive a medal is in a prestige position.
Also, note that the Democrats tend to be establishment employees, while the grifters go Republican. We can see where that leads.
Warning. Gender neutral language.
Don’t use gender neutral language. It makes you stupid and ignorant.
Obviously the female slaves were fertile, because they were slaves. Nothing mysterious or surprising about that. Because the production of too many mulattos was frowned upon, this benefited the male slaves.
Same as whites were fertile before female emancipation.
Being conquered is seldom a successful reproductive strategy for males and it is an exceptionally bad strategy for whites, because white males tend to make poor slaves, and their conquerors are necessarily white or whitish, so are going to hog all the women.
Being conquered is usually a highly successful strategy for females, because, as I said, they escape from defect/defect equilibrium, the reproductive game of players and bitches. In intergroup conflict the reproductive interests of males, especially white males, are diametrically opposed to the reproductive interests of women. The reason that females are apt to egg their tribe on to war is not because they want to see their tribe win, but because they want to see someone win.
As for the “ideal of being a rich employee”. Nuts. No one wants to be a rich employee – it is always a path towards not being an employee. Trouble is that Sarbannes Oxley has shut down the entrepreneurial path that Charles the Second opened.
The highest priority for a crypto currency should be to re-open free discussion. (Since we are, at the moment, out of power, we are temporarily free speech enthusiasts) But the second highest priority, and the one that will get us money, is re-opening the path to entrepreneurship, and we should primarily be interested in freedom of speech about money and transactions, since the primary tactic of the enemy is shutting down forums where people can discuss unregulated transactions.
Cutting reality at the joints. Thanks, Jim. You punched a hole in Moldfag’s argument large enough to fly the Hindenburg through. Though I can’t decipher if Moldfag is really this stupid or simply uses crimestop whenever it comes to the WQ.
Moldbug has linked to Heartiste (and to Jim’s blog for that matter) before, which suggests he knows the score, he’s just smart enough not to say it in public.
Neither the Samurai nor the East India Company, nor the people that gave us the industrial revolution, were a bunch of pussies. From Charles the Second to around 2000AD, capitalism just does not fit your story.
I wonder if modern marketing killed capitalism. Manipulating others (which translates to implementing public policy) is what drives the market now, not the hypothetical natural demand curve. Corporate elites can push ideology just as well as products, and THIS WORKS. They threaten politicians all the time in the way entrepreneurs, a dying breed, do not.
I don’t care if they’re pussies if they’re winners. I want to be a winner too, to have mind control powers bigger than Harvard’s. What I describe is what the left calls fascism, but in my case it’s a beginning rather than an end of ideology.
Marketing has no power. Ninety percent of marketing is purely informational, informing the potential customer of price, availability, and functionality. Take a random sample of ads:
Do an internet search for anything, you will get some ads: What do the ads say?
In almost every case, they say “we have this stuff, and here is what this stuff can do for you.”. No mysterious magical hidden persuaders. It is mildly irritating if you are not looking to buy the stuff. I DuckDuckGo “amorphous photovoltaic”, up comes an ad for solar panel window, but there is no magic mind control in the ad. It just tells me, quite accurately, what transparent solar panels can do for you, and has a picture of the interior of a nice building with masses of solar panel windows.
These ads are quite useful if you are actually in need of that good or service. If you are not in need of that good or service (transparent solar panels are only relevant to people who intend to build a building of glass and steel) they are irritating, but do not have or attempt to have any magic mind control tricks to make me want them.
It is absolutely obvious what is killing capitalism:
1. The Human Resources Department (Intel can no longer make chip foundries, because you have to accept duds on your team if they are women or gay. You also have to accept duds on your team if they claim to be black, but male blacks tend to be less of a problem for some reason I do not understand.) One dud on a high tech team, the whole team fails. One team fails on a big high tech project, the whole project fails.
2. Sarbanes Oxley. Startups have died due to Sarbanes Oxley, which is why Silicon Valley is dying. Silicon valley was born of Shockley and the Fairchildren, who walked the path that King Charles the second opened, giving us the East India Company Empire and the Industrial Revolution. Sarbanes Oxley has shut down that path, shut down the path that gave us empire, shut down the path that gave us the industrial revolution, and shut down the path that gave us Silicon Valley.
For ninety ninety nine out of a hundred people who see an ad, it is just noise, no magic persuasion capability. For the one in a hundred that is the intended audience, for the audience that it is written for, it is purely informational. They seldom waste precious ad space with clever, but not very effective, magic mind control tricks.
Look what the marketers spend their ad space on: Information, information, and information. They do not think, or the people that pay them do not think, that they have magic mind control powers.
For the vast majority of people who reluctantly get the ad inflicted on them, it is irrelevant information. For the small minority that the ad is actually targeting, it is relevant information. For neither group is it magic mind control with mysterious mind control powers.
If people who work in advertising claim to have mysterious magic mind control powers, it is clear that those who pay them do not believe.
Type “Pizza” into the search field. The first link will be an ad. Click on the link: It will announce “Pizza and sides”, have a picture of pizza and side, a price, and field for you to type in the address for delivery. Purely informational. Where is the magic mind control? Is it somehow creating pizza cravings in innocent people who would otherwise be slim?
It is purely an announcement of price and availability, directed purely at people who wanted to know about price and availability.
The suggested size of the offer suggests that it is primarily directed at families and gatherings, but there will be nothing making the (entirely plausible) claim that you are going to be popular with your family or gathering. No persuaders, let alone mysterious, nefarious, and magically powerful persuaders. It just announces product, price, and how get the product.
Speaking as someone with a bit of experience in this field, the margins on “manipulative” advertising are tiny. When you watch a beer commercial that portrays a mass market shit beer as high status, implying that people who drink this beer are popular at parties or something, the expected return is that a tiny percentage of people are very slightly more likely to pick one crap beer over another crap beer the next time they are in the grocery store. These tiny margins turn into huge profits if you are a huge company whose beer can be found in any grocery store in the country, competing against ten other mass market lagers that all taste the same, but I cant call it manipulation in good faith.
For products that are not competing in saturated markets, advertising is a lot more honest and a lot less “manipulative”. Marketing is about competition, about demand that already exists, and not about creating demand.
I don’t see such commercials. I suppose they must exist, and some people see them, but ninety percent of ads are purely informational.
Which indicates that such commercials are, as you say, not particularly effective and of limited value except in special cases. If you have a six identical beers competing, try to give each one a different image.
Hes referring to the old beer ads on tv that used to be sort of like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64-WBJ5Ykw4
That link is a parody of “old beer ads”.
The thing being parodied, is however, impossible to find. Does it exist? Did it ever exist?
Well, in theory, it might exist, or might have existed. Or, on the available evidence, maybe it never existed.
In the parallel universe envisaged by Harvard, it is omnipresent, totally dominant, and they need to fight the man.
“The thing being parodied, is however, impossible to find. Does it exist? Did it ever exist?”
Old old beer ads used to imply drink beer and hot women will have sex with you.
Then the ads transitioned into the more lame I want the beer.
Maybe.
I don’t recall this. I have seen it claimed a lot.
But near as I can tell, the sole source for this factoid is people ranting about how bad it was.
Surely with all the tracts on the evils of sexism, someone would have preserved an example of this terrible evil?
Near as I can tell, the source for all this stuff is political material like Galbraith’s “The affluent society”. Which is a pack of lies from beginning to end.
There were, and probably are, plenty of ads saying that your party will popular and party goers will have fun if you serve beer at the party. Which is true enough, and not a mysterious sneaky deceptive hidden persuader. The only reason I ever buy beer is for other people to drink at social events (I prefer moonshine). It is easy to see that hostile, evil, and malicious people could spin this as saying “Hot chicks will have sex with you if you drink beer”, which is obviously stupid. Rather, the party scenario depicted hints that if you serve them beer …
But the party scenario depicted seemed to focus on men at a party drinking beer and enjoying the social event. Which is in fact the primary use of beer, not some clever deceptive jedi mind trick.
It is hardly out of line for the advertiser to depict people using their product in the way that it is fact usually used – to lubricate social events.
There is nothing manipulative or deceptive about an advertiser depicting his product being used effectively and successfully for its purpose.
I thought pretty obvious ads try to appeal to emotion. Not that they all succeed.
This famous Ikea commercial is telling you not to get attached to old furniture so you will buy new furniture. Nothing is said about price and availability of products.
Nuts
Your poster girl, the Ikea ad, directly contradicts your claim.
If your claim was “obvious”, or even remotely plausible, you would have a better poster girl.
The Ikea ad is not being manipulative. It is straight up front telling us not to get emotionally attached to their old furniture.
People do get emotionally attached to their old furniture. I get emotionally attached to my old furniture
The ad evokes the emotions of attachment to old furniture, and then straight up tells us not to feel like that. This is the precise opposite of appealing to emotion. It straight up tells us that the feeling that ad evokes, which is the feeling that they don’t want people to feel, is irrational.
This is the precise opposite of emotional manipulation. They evoke the feeling, then tell us that we are crazy to feel like that.
I don’t think I am crazy to feel like. Old stuff provides a comfortable ambience, which new stuff cannot. So I never spend much money on furniture except when moving. But they are not being manipulative. They are straight up in your face speaking to us. I don’t think they are right, but they are making the argument right up front, not manipulating us by appealing to emotion.
They want people to chuck out their old furniture. Emotional manipulation would be depicting old furniture as low status, out of style, and shabby. They are not doing that.
My furniture is low status, out of style, and frequently shabby. I like it like that. Ikea could tell me about my furniture being the way that it is, but they don’t.
I am talking about TV ads, not internet ones.
Well, I seldom watch TV, and I have ad blockers on Youtube. But if there are TV ads that are like this, there should be Youtube ad like this.
Where is the poster girl?
What I see on TV is the commodity being used for its intended purpose. The nearest thing I saw on television to emotional manipulation was a pizza ad that suggested that if you ordered a pizza, your family members would enthusiastically show up to eat it.
The scenario was a working wife was failing to cook dinner, thus failing to provide a social occasion for the family to gather, so the patriarch ordered pizza and everyone happily and eagerly shows up. It “appeals to emotions”, but it appeals by depicting pizza delivery being successfully used for its intended purpose. The success is exaggerated, and I suppose that arguably constitutes emotional manipulation, but it just does not resemble the jedi mind tricks that are claimed.
Pizzas are designed to be shared. Successful use is intended to have emotional effect. Similarly, beer. Nothing manipulative about depicting a product being successfully used for its intended purpose.
It seems to me that if TV ads actually did the clever jedi mind control, there would be Youtube ads that actually did this clever mind control, and someone would be able to link to a plausible example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4BOQ804McE
Here’s a classic. Don’t be a loser who lacks the balls to order a beer in front of the boss. Yes, the spokesman/mascot guy makes a case for having a beer on the company expense account, but the real message is don’t be like these ridiculous capons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCqZp43vRpA
How about this one? I can’t even tell what it has to do with perfume.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20n-cD8ERgs
Suzanne researched this!
The beer ad tells us verbally that you should not knock back a beer on some one else’s tab.
It non verbally tells us that when your host offers you a drink, it is anti social rather than demonstrating superior virtue to not accept.
The scenario is that the boss is taking three employees to lunch. He wordless invites them to order drinks. Employee number one sweats. Should he have a drink at work? “I will have a glass of water please”. Employee number two sees that this is being anti social, so orders water with a twist of lemon. Employee number three orders a beer, whereupon the boss orders a beer, and is glad to have someone to drink it with.
Now if the boss is taking his employees to lunch, it is likely because he wants the truth out of them so wants them lubricated, or maybe he just wants to be social, so wants them lubricated. Or maybe he just wants to have a drink, and wants someone to drink with to give him justification for the drink. But when your boss offers you drinks, the conversation is likely to eventually go to things where he might otherwise not hear the whole truth from employees.
They are ridiculous because they feel under pressure because of the invitation. They are worried that drinking during worktime, even if invited by the boss, demonstrates poor character. The non verbal message of the ad is that you should not feel pressured to demonstrate your non alcoholic virtue. Should accept hospitality, and this is likely to please the person offering the hospitality, while demonstrating virtue is likely to raise the tension.
They were capons because they did raise the tension.
Which non verbal emotional level claim is true, relevant to actual usage of the product, and not a jedi mind trick. If your boss hospitably offers you drinks, he probably suspects he is not necessarily getting the full truth, and if you knock him back, he is going to suspect a lot more strongly. Capon one and capon two not only looked low status. They looked low status because they looked like people who were scared because they had something to hide from their boss, while the third employee, who ordered the beer, looked high status because he looked like someone who did not feel that having a drink with the boss was a dangerous minefield. (Which it frequently is.)
> I can’t even tell what it has to do with perfume
The Obsession ad has everything to do with perfume. It says that hot chicks will like you if you wear the perfume. Which seems to me unlikely to be true, though my wife frequently sprays me with something, so maybe it is not entirely stupid. It less ridiculous than the original claim, that beer ads implied that hot chicks will like you if you drink beer. (Though in truth, they will probably like you if they drink beer) Beer ads don’t imply either one, and they would fail miserably if they attempted to do so. On the other hand, hot chicks are undoubtedly why men are buying perfume. Though I much doubt it will work, for which reason men seldom buy perfume.
The third ad seems entirely relevant and informational. The wife is actually speaking for the company. She is in fact the ad spokesman: If you have kids, you will pretty soon need a bigger house with a garden. You could say it is emotional manipulation because they have the wife with small kids say it rather than the company spokesman say it voice over, but it is true and directly relevant to the actual usage of the product.
The third ad is straight up telling the male viewer in plain words that if he has a wife and small kids he will need their product, which he probably will, and should talk to their real estate agent to see what the real estate agent is offering. How is this some manipulative jedi mind trick?
I will grant you the perfume ad, because though directly relevant to intended product usage, they are probably lying. And because they are probably lying, perfume for men is an insignificant niche market.
But the first ad is telling a truth about social interaction using their product, which product is indeed generally used for social interaction, and the third ad is just straight up telling us in plain words that you will need this product for the usual reasons that the product is good for. No manipulative jedi mind tricks in any of them. All of them directly address actual and intended product use. (Albeit I doubt the usefulness of the perfume.)
I think he would say that the perfume ad is informing you that you will smell good and get pussy. I don’t think it’s manipulative. If you don’t know anything about perfume it would be informing you at least that that one exists and that it is claimed that females like it. Then if you go to the perfume store and they have 500 different perfumes and you don’t know where to begin you can try out that one in particular.
It is definitely artistic and it evokes emotions, but it’s not deceiving you or giving you false information or limiting your free will. I wouldn’t call it manipulative. I have seen many movies, much more than the average person, movies evoke many emotions from the false characters and stories, but I am still a free thinker. I think if consuming movies had a strong deceptive effect then I would have become a communist zionist from watching so many hollyjew movies.
Manipulative ads do exist; and where they exist, the payload is usually HIV positive.
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html
‘Advertisement’, broadly construed, is one of the most important means of information dissemination in a society. Indeed, one could say it is the grease that helps things go ’round.
So in order words, when AF, when people like AF, kvetch about ‘manipulative ads’, they are projecting their own sins.
Finally got my first “nuts”.
I also get attached to old furniture, specially inherited from family.
Yes, the ad tells you you are crazy for being attached to your furniture. But it first sets it up in an emotional way.
The ad is shot from the POV of the lamp, they are trying to make you feel the sadness that the lamp would feel from being discarded. Then, after making you empathize with the sad feelings
of the lamp, they tell you that you are crazy for feeling bad, just get rid of it and buy a new one.
They do say the words of the message they want to convey, but they first have to get you to feel bad for the lamp. Their attempt at emotional manipulation may or may not work, but it seems pretty clear they are trying to elicit an emotion in you to then ridicule it and get you to buy product.
I think the point of the IKEA ad is
“next time you cling on to your old furniture, remember how ridiculous we made you feel last time when you were feeling bad about the lamp; so just go buy that new sofa”. It’s an emotional argument, stated in part explicitly, in part through clever cinematography.
Cannot agree more that the message of the ad is “wrong”. Old furniture is wonderful, and old furniture inherited from family connects us to our past.
I always thought the axe deodorant commercials were the best at this – https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0GCQqD4T00. “Use our product and hot model chicks will throw themselves at you.â€
Always thought ‘manipulative marketing’ is completely overrated. Incidentally it’s always leftists who obsess over this supposed evil, probably because projection. But in the free market, the consumer has the power, and manipulative marketing is lots of effort for little gain.
>The third ad is straight up telling the male viewer in plain words that if he has a wife and small kids he will need their product, which he probably will, and should talk to their real estate agent to see what the real estate agent is offering. How is this some manipulative jedi mind trick?
The ad is not selling the product; it is modelling proper interactions between husband and wife for the viewer to emulate. Women: men are weak and indecisive creatures; you must dominate your husband to guide him. It’s for his own good and he will thank you for it. Men: you must submit to your wife’s proper and lawful authority over you. She’s stronger and smarter than you are, so go where she leads without too much fuss.
Yes, it is promoting poz, rather than selling houses.
But, insofar as it is selling houses, it is being completely straight and above board.
Today’s haram manipulative TV ad is the family with blonde mom and black dad, in a long lineup of similar ads. It’s getting absolutely ridiculous.
Yes
The problem is not that they are manipulatively and untruthfully selling goods. Nearly all advertising is entirely truthful about the goods (though of course selective about which truths to present) and in no way manipulative about the goods.
The problem is that they are manipulatively and untruthfully selling poz
But the bigger problem not the ads, but the stories in which they are embedded. Perseus has not been able to rescue, then abduct, Andromeda for 196 years.
13% of the US population. 85% of the people in commercials.
My vague understanding was that people cannot distinguish TV from reality. Rationally they know it’s fiction, but they still get aroused with porn (even though there’s no woman there), and they get scared with horror movies (even though they rationally know it’s fake).
I recall some test showed watching sitcoms has a similar hormonal effect to meeting with your friends.
If your brains thinks that what you watch on TV is being witnessed, then TV ads, if well done, should be able to manipulate you to some extent.
“I recall some test showed watching sitcoms has a similar hormonal effect to meeting with your friends.”
Maybe when they used to make good ones but they don’t anymore (its Always Sunny is an exception but they haven’t made a new season in a while).
Jim, I’m mostly agreeing with you.
I don’t watch much TV at all, but I distinctly remember a fairly recent commercial for beer that is just a few short scenes of attractive twentysomethings partying while holding that beer. Looks like people don’t upload recent ads to Youtube, so I can’t find it. Going to a party and hanging out with good looking people is a fun, high-status activity. The ad is not informational, but neither is it manipulative, let alone mind control magic or jedi mind tricks. The effect of associating a product with positive emotions and high status is measurably tiny, but because beer is a saturated market, that tiny edge you get makes a difference in profit. Not trying to reprogram your brain, trying to make a small emotional impact that makes a small difference when it’s time to choose a beer.
Advertising is only evil when it is marketing an evil product, like selling antidepressants to white women. When an advertisement has poz in it, it is pozzed because the marketing department is full of holy women who want to include holiness in their ads, and anyone who might object to the cucked husband or the interracial couple does not object because he is scared of getting called down to HR.
>Yes, it is promoting poz, rather than selling houses.
>But, insofar as it is selling houses, it is being completely straight and above board.
There are thousands of ads like this, and it is mind control. White men are the doofuses of the world, fathers and husbands should never be respected, blacks are the kindest, wisest, smartest, and most responsible people on Earth, the wife is the natural head of the household… They show us these things again and again to implant them as norms, and it does work, if not quite as well as they would like.
Aidan wrote:
Of course ads can’t reprogram you, but showing the product being used by popular people is telling your brain that popular people use this product in the same way that pictures of naked ladies is telling your brain to get ready for sex.
It can’t reprogram you, but it can make you witness of the fact that popular people use the product, even if on a rational level you think this doesn’t register with you. It’s not magic voodoo, but it has some effect, and it’s emotional or irrational.
The Cominator wrote:
The study was somewhat old so the TV shows would be a couple of decades old.
Jim wrote
Heartiste thinks (anecdotally) that there’s an uptick in white woman black man pairings. I find it hard to believe ads didn’t play a role.
Here’s another example from TV. At least since the Simpsons, perhaps earlier, they placed black doctors in shows. Is that not programming the progs to accept a black doctor as normal? They’ve seen it 1000 times on TV so it becomes normal to them, whereas before it would’ve set alarms off.
The power of TV seem to me simply that you “witness” what you see, even if you rationally know it’s fiction.
Depicting a product that is used as a social lubricant being used as social lubricant is not manipulative or unfair, any more than depicting pizza delivery being used for a family meal is manipulative or unfair.
If you are selling a hammer, it is completely fair, relevant, and informative, to depict a nail going in true. If you are selling beer, it is completely fair, relevant, and informative, to depict males negotiating social connections more smoothly with the application of a bit of truth serum.
And worrying about ads being pozzed is a distraction from the big problem: That the shows carrying the ads are pozzed.
Contaminated NEET wrote:
I agree with Contaminated.
Not to belabor the point, but my father has seen “Mississippi burning” and “roots”, so he has actually witnessed the suffering of blacks. I can go on all day long about IQ differences or whatever, but it will only make him more enraged because I am attacking those people whose suffering he has witnessed.
Yes, but “Mississipi burning” and “roots” are not ads.
It’s definitely not unfair. It’s not that successful at manipulation, but it does have some effect.
For instance, is the family in the pizza ad healthy and attractive-looking? Would the ad work as well if the family was ugly and fat? I posit it wouldn’t.
The pizza ad I had in mind had a fat patriarch, an attractive wife who was failing to perform her duties to her family (hence the need for pizza delivery) and teenage children who were absent (but happily brought together by the family meal that the patriarch ordered)
So the primary focus was on solving realistic family problems that pizza delivery actually could solve, rather than claiming that if you have pizza, you will be high status, get hot women into bed, and have no problems.
They presented an entirely realistic family with entirely realistic troubles. Could have had a handsome billionaire ordering pizza for two supermodels to be eaten on the bed of a luxury hotel room with a view of the harbor. They had a regular guy, with regular family issues, issues for which pizza delivery could actually help.
If you sell a hammer, going to show a nail going in. That is the selective presentation of relevant and true information. Fair enough.
Because his wife was busy working, rather than cooking, he was unable to fulfil his mealtime role as patriarch. Orders pizza, he now has the props to fulfil that role.
Will pizza make you a patriarch? No, definitely not. Making your wife cook will make you a patriarch. But I still order pizza once in a while, and, in the scenario chosen for the ad, not a bad solution. If you are selling a hammer, it is fair, relevant, and informative, to selectively depict a situation for which a hammer is needed, rather than a screwdriver.
haha.. yes, of course they are not.
I am only reiterating my point that what you see on TV you actually “witness” in some sense. That even if rationally you know it’s all fake, your response is “as if” you witnessed it (see physical reaction to porn or horror films, or even sitcoms).
Hence TV ads can make you witness a happy healthy family eating some particular brand pizza. If you witnessed an ugly fat unpleasant family eating the same brand pizza you may make a negative association. I posit that it’s the fact that you witness what you see that is the power of TV.
The opulence, I has it ad is an example of that. But it’s so over the top that it breaks suspension of disbelief and becomes humorous instead.
The people making the pizza ad have the opportunity to make you witness a use-case for the pizza. You will perceive this use-case as if you were really there. So they’ll try to make it nice, fun and pleasant, plus they’ll insert some actionable information so you buy this specific product (this is simply necessary).
They may choose to make it realistic so it won’t be silly, but they will likely try to make it a good experience that makes you more likely to buy product. Being too over the top may break suspension of disbelief or turn it humorous. They won’t bore you with information, other than the one you need to buy product (you need some reference to the actual product to buy). You’ll be happy to witness the nice family eating the nice pizza. That’s more than good enough.
If the power to make you actually witness something that is “as if” real, why would they not use it to their advantage? As far as the ads I see, it seems to me that they do, and most of what is conveyed is not the small piece of actionable information which is of course always needed to refer the viewer to the specific product.
You are not seeing what I am seeing, and your examples fail to support your claim.
For example, the Sam Adams ad is primarily telling people that if the boss offers you an alcoholic drink at a business lunch, it will help to get in good with the boss if you accept it.
Which is true, relevant, and informative.
Underlying every business lunch where alcohol is available is a implicit deal: “Tell me the real whole truth, and you will get in good with me”. And when some of the participants at the lunch don’t want alcohol, the boss is going to suspect that lunch is going to be a waste of time, and the guys that do not want alcohol are nervous because the real whole truth will hurt them.
You accuse the Sam Adams ad of arbitrarily and artificially associating knocking back your boss’s drink with being socially inept, but it really is socially inept. They are not lying about social reality the way every single depiction of men interacting with women and whites interacting with nams lies about social reality. The Sam Adams ad is giving people true and useful information about social reality.
If your boss offers you a drink, he wants you to accept it, and likely wants your tongue a little bit looser than it usually is. The dweebs in the ad were not arbitrarily and artificially represented as socially inept, turning down alcohol under those circumstances really is socially inept.
Yes, television can lie to people about social reality, and routinely does, to the immense harm of the viewers, primarily in lying to them about the nature of women, the nature of the mating dance, and females in the workplace.
But when you see an ad depicting the social reality of beer or pizza delivery, tells the truth, or as much of the truth as is in their interests. Which is apt to be quite a lot of significant, relevant, and informative truth. People buy beer and have pizza home delivered primarily for social reasons, and the ads accurately depict their product serving those social goals.
Advertising is not lying about products. No one is lying much about products. Your product is usually useful for something, so you depict it being useful for what it is in fact useful for. Rather, the entire medium in which the ads are embedded is lying about the social reality of women, nams, and sex.
If a hammer ad associated using a rock to hammer in nails with being an inept handyman, that would be useful information, not subtle jedi mind control.
It intended to break suspension of disbelief and become humorous – see the surrealistic two foot tall giraffe at the end. This is a shout out to the viewer “Hey, we are just kidding”
No it was not anything remotely like good enough: They depicted a realistic patriarch with a realistic family with realistic social problems for which pizza delivery was in fact a relevant and helpful solution.
The Samuel Adams ad was relevant and useful information for the bewildered, socially inept, and frightened employee, and the pizza ad was relevant and useful information for the beleaguered patriarch.
If a hammer ad showed someone trying to hammer in nails with a rock, and then a guy with a hammer shows him how it is done, it would not artificial, arbitrary, and deceptive to show the hammer does its job.
If you have a product, it is bound to be good for something. You want people to buy it. So you depict it being used for what is good for. If you instead depict as good for getting one laid, you are competing with pua crowd and the fashion crowd, and you are picking a fight with a six hundred pound gorilla. If you depict it as good for making one high status, you are competing with a crowd of ferocious high status people.
Unless your product is a total scam, you always get better return on investment by presenting that truth which is in your favor. And if you look at ads, that is what they are primarily doing. The major payload is always relevant and true information that is useful for the target – though a useless irritation for everyone else.
(Again, excepting the Calvin Klein perfume ad, where the problem was that underlying product is unlikely to be very useful)
Yes, the “Opulence, I has it” ad is funny on purpose.
You said that they could’ve used a billionaire ordering pizza for two models, but chose a regular family. I say of course they could, the billionaire and two models is the “Opulence” ad, which is intended to simply be funny.
You claim that ads don’t manipulate you, that they simply present a realistic use-case.
I claim that they present a realistic use-case, and that they manipulate you but only subtly and as long as it’s believable.
You may think that a believable ad cannot manipulate you. I claim that it can.
The critical difference between a text ad and a TV ad is that you “witness” the TV ad. The ad maker can effectively insert a piece of fiction into your model of reality, as long as it’s sufficiently believable.
You may think that the fact that it’s believable means there’s no manipulation, but they can nudge you in some desired direction using believable fiction.
For example, if the pizza brand were crap, you would rarely if ever see a real-life family eating that pizza.
But the ad makers can insert that piece of fiction into your model of reality. You’ve now seen several times a family eating that brand of pizza. This is now a part of your model of reality. It wasn’t there before.
The same way that they can insert a black doctor in every show and make people, over time, a bit more comfortable with having a black doctor in their next hospital visit: TV modified their model of reality by inserting some fiction. Everyone knows that they did that with gays in TV shows and movies in the 90s and 2000s, presenting them as high status. TV ads are shorter, but the medium is similar (you still witness what you see).
If hidden subtle manipulation, hidden persuaders, mattered and were effective, we would see them trying to show that their brand of microwave ovens is used by high status people and will result in romantic success. We don’t.
The subtle manipulations are rare, insignificant, and they have to fit into the primary objective, which is to present a realistic use case. When present, they take a back seat.
The vast bulk of advertising, what comes up when you google anything and click on the first link, is just straight information: Price and availability. Nothing there that could embed any hidden persuaders, any subtle manipulations.
When the ad tells a story, as with the beer ad and the pizza delivery ad, it is because the product is used socially, because the use case is social. Pizzas are designed to be shared.
Products that are not used socially, no social story in the ad. Try searching ads for a microwave oven.
When they tell a story, as with Sam Adams beer ad, the primary point of the story is always the primary use case of the product. As I said, any hidden persuaders take the back seat.
For you to have a hidden persuader case, for your evidence for hidden persuaders to actually be evidence, for evidence that advertising is effective through hidden persuaders your ad needs to be about not beer, but something that is not used for social purposes.
Well, as we know, products that are used socially and those that are not, are fundamentally different because in the socially used products there’s status signaling.
I am no expert on this, but my claim simply comes from the fact that people, if they don’t think too much about it, can’t distinguish between reality and TV. Hence similar hormone effects from meeting with your friends or watching “Friends”. Or people being scared by movies or aroused by porn.
The fact that TV appears real to us doesn’t mean they can directly make you do things for them. Only that they can make a fictional event appear real to you. So you’ll see perfectly average clothes like Tommy Hilfiger worm by handsome people having fun and you’ll make an association as if you had seen it in the street. They can’t make you buy it, just present something advantageous to them that you perceive as if you had witnessed it.
Perhaps such trick works for signaling items like clothes but not for microwave ovens, what do I know. I imagine people don’t picture themselves signaling about their microwave oven, whereas status signaling with their clothes or car is a large factor in those purchases.
By “trick” I mean basically “social proof”.
Polo shirts worn by handsome models is normal. Nice things are nice, and good fashion is a public service.
Polo shirts worn by #BodyPositive gender-fluid blobs, on the other hand, that is what manipulation looks like.
To speak of ‘manipulative ads’ is to speak of manipulative information sources. Or perhaps more precisely said, manipulat*ed* ads, manipulat*ed* information sources.
Again and again you see this pattern: when priestly daemonhosts mouth complaint sounding noises about perversions of merchants, they are mouthing about perversions they themselves imposed upon them. When they harangue about depredations of corporate entities, they are haranguing about skin-suits they themselves are wearing.