I told Scott Alexander

I told him, your friends are your enemies, and your enemies are your friends.

A few hours ago, he shut down his blog, Slate Star Codex, because the New York Times came after him.

Every year I have lived, it has been getting crazier, faster and faster. If Trump fails to become Caesar Augustus, Scott Alexander will not very long afterwards be killed by those he regards as his friends, unless rescued by those he regards as his enemies. Reflect on Venezuela. It started in Venezuela with pulling down statues, renaming streets, and revising the curriculum. And pretty soon they were revising the people.

He neglects to name the reporter: “(out of respect for his concerns, I am avoiding giving his name here.)”

Come on Scott. Everyone who works for the New York Times is evil, and you cannot appease them, because they hate everyone, including themselves. Being nice to reporters just gives them more opportunity and incentive to hurt people, starting with whoever is being nice to them. You should have encouraged and enabled your readers to take vengeance, not to maximize utility by protecting the next hundred people this reporter will destroy, but because vengeance is the right thing to do, when authority will not provide justice.

Scott, when a crazy fat woman in your circle of friends started accusing people in your circle of sexual harassment and sexual assault, what did you and your friends do about it? How did being politically correct on that turn out for you and for her? And do friends who respond in that way qualify as friends?

Scott is a smart guy, and a good writer. If he starts blogging with stronger anonymity, using a domain name purchased with bitcoin laundered through Monaro on a cloud computer similarly paid for, he might he able to be more wary about his “friends”, and less hateful to his “enemies”.

423 Responses to “I told Scott Alexander”

  1. cclutr says:

    He’s back! The NYT actually blinked against his counterattack. I will remember this. (Yes “deleting” his blog was a counterattack, that has been proven now. Kudos to the commentators who called it correctly — you were right.).

  2. mrejas says:

    The shitshow continues. New Yorker Comes to its sister NYT’s defence. Hilarious discussion on Hacker News here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23781743

    Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

    Crying out in pain as they attack [Slate Star Codex] indeed.

    • Tom Hart says:

      Alexander’s behaviour is self-harm. His blog provided him with a substantial platform to tell his side of the story, a support base to lobby for him, and a possible financial base if he was fired for his views (people would pay for him to carry on). He has destroyed his best asset. By behaving in this way, guiltily, as if he has something to hide, he will only increase journalistic interest, since the presumption will be that he has written or done something worse than he has done. Further, by showing he is very afraid of being doxxed and going to some trouble to avoid it, he has made his scalp valuable for the first journalist with the savvy to get his real identity—aside from politics, journalistic competition will increase to find his real identity. There will be kudos for the first reporter who beats the NYT to the punch and gets the guy who “tried to be clever with us”.

  3. Icon says:

    [*deleted because still strangely unable to name one particular Jew*]

  4. Pooch says:

    What do you guys make of this? Black athlete criticizes secular Jews (not Israel) and immediately has to apologize. Are Jews are more holy than blacks On the left?


    • jim says:

      Secular, which is to say progressive converso, Jews are holier. Israel and Orthodox not.

      • Pooch says:

        If progressive Jews are holier than blacks, how is it that Jews don’t hold all the power in modern leftism?

        • Not Tom says:

          You’re focusing too much on the Jewish aspect. Nobody is allowed to attack any progressive for being progressive, but anyone is allowed to attack anyone else for being insufficiently progressive.

          This is why we keep telling you, and Jim keeps telling you, to stop thinking of everything in terms of race and ethnicity. It’s not the worst model, but it’s not a totally reliable one either. Leftism has no essence. The race hierarchy is a hierarchy until it is not a hierarchy, until someone who is theoretically supposed to be at the top of the hierarchy exhibits signs of non-compliance or otherwise outs themselves as a non-ally.

      • The Cominator says:

        Blacks are holier but by attacking secular leftist jews he was punching left.

        • Karl says:

          Your statment is contradictory. If blacks are holier than secular leftist jews, he was not punching left when he attacked them.

          Holier and more leftist are the same thing in this context.

          • The Cominator says:

            He becomes unholy for doing a right wing thing like attacking leftist jews for anything other than insufficient leftism.

  5. Mountain Dude says:

    Whatever’s going on, it looks like it’s not what women respond to, which seems to be a movie where a known murderer kidnaps a woman and owns her –> https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbean/2020/07/03/365-days-most-popular-movie-netflix-2020/#769dd63027acThoughts?

  6. notglowing says:

    Seems like even that mayor is starting to get tired of this nonsense

  7. Pooch says:

    Interesting case in Seattle where the insufficiently left Mayor is fighting back against the sufficiently left council member who led the mob to create CHAZ. Doesn’t necessarily mean the mayor will win.


    • Encelad says:

      One question about chaz. The African warlord who seized power with guns, from a reactionary standpoint, is the inevitable stationary bandit who eventually will fill the power vacuum, am I right? While the media decry him, he is actually bringing LESS violence rather than more, right?

      • jim says:

        He was a demonstration of how badly progressives suck at running anything.

      • Bob says:

        From what I could tell, he didn’t really have much power. He had a title and he dealt violence, but not in a way that he was obeyed when he wasn’t around. If he was a real warlord, I think it might have lowered violence. Maybe if he had more time, he could’ve consolidated power, but I doubt it.

  8. Starman says:

    Hey Cominator, I suggest you post what you posted in “Color Revolution” over here. There’s a bug that keeps constantly changing the character size in the “Color Revolution” post, making it impossible to read anything on that post.

  9. Confused says:

    I see all these posts assuming that Scott Alexander is a genius or even of mediocre intelligence. All I see is a young man with Asperger’s who thinks that given infinite time he can super focus on a field long enough to get all the data needed to ask questions most people already knew the answers to.

    Can someone explain why a supposed genius would 1) not have the college grades to get into an American medical school (he apparently had to settle for an Irish medical school), 2) not have done well enough in the Irish med school to be able to score a decent psych residency (psych is not exactly a competitive specialty).

    The most generous explanation is that he is indeed very smart, but just so awkward that he tanked all his med school interviews and then all his medical school professors recognized that he’d be a horrible doctor and torpedoed his residency applications.

    But, I’ve seen too many autistic doctors who have been smart enough to fake their interviews and then focus on non-human-facing specialities and/or research to have very good careers. Surely Scott could have taken that route.

    Even after we explain the medical school and residency thing, we’d have to find an explanation for his dumb choice of moving to the one of the world’s most expensive and degenerate cities to live in a house with 10 other people and work in some no-name psych office, instead of moving to Nebraska or even Dallas to live like a king, both financially and academically.

    Then we’d have to explain why he’d choose such a weak pseudonym and double down by announcing to everyone how weak the pseudonym actually was.

    Then we’d have to explain why he thought a NYT journalist (or any journalist for that matter) would do anything but a dishonest take on him and his circle of fans. Hasn’t he been following the news?

    Or, is he just an Aspie who got famous by saying things just outside enough the Overton window to seem edgy to other Aspies who were spending their time getting rich in IT and didn’t have the time to do their own research on which concentration of bleach was best for getting out which stains (or whatever dumb question Scott was answering on any given day).

    See also Tyler Cowen. At least Tyler’s smart enough to attach himself to a respected institution. But not smart enough to know his cancellation day is coming, and neither tenure nor his constant pandering to the left with his anti-Trump/Open borders disclaimers is going to save him.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Scotty is a true believer. He honestly thinks he and his friends are immune to jealousy and greed because they’re so much smarter and more moral than the rest of us. He doesn’t live in a commune and let other dudes fuck his gf because he’s dumb. No, the fact that you think it’s dumb just proves you’re not on the same level as him.

      Seriously though, very smart guys throughout history have pursued goals other than wealth and reproductive success, and they’ve made huge sacrifices for their beliefs. In another age, Scott would have been a pretty good monk. It’s just a shame the progressive religion is retarded.

  10. lexey says:

    Jim, what happened?

    • jim says:

      Host crashed hard. I negligently failed to take a recent backup and did not have failover ready and working.

      I had a failover ready, but had failed to properly configure it. I had been sitting in my to-do list for a long time.

  11. […] you so’ dance for a few years now. Of course my dance is not as grand as Jim’s told you so dance. Isn’t it nice to be […]

  12. jim says:

    Interestingly, the Motte and Bailey fallacy has been purged from Wikipedia and down ranked on Google

    Scott was purged – and his ideas were purged at the highest level – indicating that this was a top level policy decision, not some random New York Times reporter.

  13. Frederick Algernon says:

    Speaking of female misbehavior…


    Apparently, Ms. Woke Princess thinks daddy is an evil racist. I wonder how this girl was disciplined as a child? I wonder how many boyfriends she has?

    • Pooch says:

      Jeez You’d have to be out of your mind to send your daughter to whore school these days.

    • Javier says:

      Classic 1000 cock stare.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’d say hard drug use possibly including meth, fucking around doesn’t age girls that fast.

        • Pooch says:

          Heavy drinking.

          • The Cominator says:

            That also definitely doesn’t age girls that fast. I knew a girl who was an absolute bombshell (she was married and I guess I was beta orbiting but she didn’t let me touch my wallet and was genuinely good company and uniquely among women in my life her word was always kept for years and years… then she changed for the worse and turned into a typical c**t) who was drunk off her ass almost every night.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          Wherever they go and whatever they do, whores are whores and thieves are thieves, just like Satan can never help himself.

          One of the things that has massively impoverished art and literature in modern times is the corrupting effect of progressivism. Mothers can be warriors, warriors can be faggots, faggots can be upstanding men, upstanding men can be pedophiles, it never ends, for them it’s all the same A=A=A=A=A.

          So you open up some book written after 2000 and men can be great warriors that enjoy painting their nails, women are sweet and kind and special ops material and the social context has no head or tails.

          That is not how it works, that is not reality, that’s why in Christianity there are 10 commandments and 7 deadly sins and they are all brothers, because one thing leads to another.

          There aren’t women who fuck around and conserve their beauty, just like craven men never look like chads. You can argue about what exactly in the entire cocktail does it, or if it is the cocktail itself, but that’s just technicalities.

          Classic 1000 cock stare.

          • The Cominator says:

            “There aren’t women who fuck around and conserve their beauty”

            Yes there are getting pumped and dumped by chad tends to leave scars on their psyche but it doesn’t always go quickly to beauty decay (though resting bitch face is common).

            This girl looks like a meth/crackhead.

          • Not Tom says:

            Her Twitter feed is total cancer and her fashion sense is clearly trash, but I couldn’t actually find a photo showing her eyes/face clearly. Where was it?

            • The Cominator says:


              Crackwhore look of being young and old at the same time.

              • Not Tom says:

                Yikes. And look at that jawline.

                • Javier says:

                  Excess of testosterone; societal effects + birth control pill androgen. Crazy BPD who rages against daddy while chasing men who choke and slap her during sex.

                  Needs a very strong pimp hand but probably not worth it. Danger to any family she becomes a part of. Belongs in asylum or convent.

                • The Cominator says:

                  BPDs only look bad when they get into hard drugs, BPDs also otherwise never have the so called 1000 cock stare. They have a crazy but not menancing or bitchy look.

                  Shes not BPD just a serious cokehead at best.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      This little case here is giving me pause.

      You’ve got guys out there trying to be upstanding, bill-paying, rule-following and face-fagging pillars of the community, like our fellow running for minor office here.

      Yet they lack the tools or understanding required to keep their own daughters from just self-destructing on weaponized horrible.

      We can josh the poor guy for not being edgy enough, or awesome enough, or whatever enough really, but all I can feel is pity. That just has to be the most insecure and vulnerable feeling in the world. Day after day. Dread.

      She’s rocketing downhill, he knows it, and there’s nothing he can do about it. He has to sit there and watch Moloch chew her slowly. I’d be made out of ulcers if I were him.

      Let’s play told-you-so with this guy. Where did he go wrong? What could he have done differently? Anything?

  14. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    How come the comments section is reversed in this post (ie, new ones adding to the top than to the bottom) ?

    • jim says:

      I arbitrarily changed it for top level comments.

      If people don’t like it, I will change it back.

      If, however, you reply to someone, the comments will appear in the correct order, your message following the message you reply to.

      • Ex says:

        Interesting experiment. I like it initially so I can more easily see what’s new, having read the old comments. It may get confusing if there are references to “earlier” comments that point down. I encourage you to leave it on a while and see.

      • Karl says:

        If you are looking for an improvement, please make the “recent comments” section longer.

        Often commenting activity is so high that comments vanish rather quickly from the “recent comments” section. The only way to find new comments is then to scroll through everything – and even that won’t work if there is active commenting on several of your blogposts.

        • Ex says:

          My advice is to use Ctrl-F and then part of the timestamp, e.g. “20-06-25 at 0” or ‘at 1’ or ‘at 2’ to highlight or click [Next] through recent comments.

      • yewotm8 says:

        Once per day I come to this blog and ctrl+f and search by today’s date (my timezone being different from GMT, I see some comments from “tomorrow”), in order to try and view any new comments I haven’t seen yet. Hope this helps with that kind of thing.

  15. Mahmet says:

    I feel bad for Scott Alexander, even though he banned me from his blog for explaining that black people are bad at swimming. He was still one of the most intellectually honest liberals. It’s amazing the Times is doxxing someone with such absolutely anodyne-liberal views, but the Times itself has recently been seized from the Gen-X liberals by the hard left millennials.

    What always confused me about Scott was why a successful doctor with a wildly popular blog with a large fanbase would accept living in a polyamorous coven where his significant other gets plowed by other men while he sits in the next room types his blog posts. That seems a terribly depressing and spiritually destructive way to live. I hope he is able to gain the self-confidence to leave this situation.

    • jim says:

      Not feeling bad for him at all. Schadenfreude with gravy on top! I hope and expect the New York Times will take damage, and he will take damage, though I would prefer that the New York Times took more damage, since I really hate the New York Times, while I do not hate Scott, who is adequately punished for his intellectual sins by suffering polyamory. (Polyamory being a girl hanging out with a bunch of beta male orbiters in order to have shoulders to weep on when the men she actually screws show no interest in hanging out with her.)

      If he, probably under a stronger pseudonym, with a domain name paid for in bitcoin, shows some self awareness, then I will welcome him, under that name, and I will celebrate the return of the prodigal son. But the crimestop is strong in him. He banned you for causing him to almost think crimethought. If he cannot think crimethought to get laid, probably cannot think crimethought to save his life when the tumbrel approaches to take him to the guillotine.

      • Fred says:

        (Polyamory being a girl hanging out with a bunch of beta male orbiters in order to have shoulders to weep on when the men she actually screws show no interest in hanging out with her.)

        “Polyamory” is monogamy (or, at most, plating) with live-in orbiters. It’s pathetic. The people are usually hideous too.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      > …would accept living in a polyamorous coven…

      Hold up. Do we really know about the “polyamorous” thing, though? Some cities do have these giant old mansions that get rented out to housemates. Everybody gets their day to do the dishes, etc.

      • Pooch says:

        Nothing good is happening in a 10-person coed roommate situation.

      • jim says:

        Yes, we do know about the polyamorous thing.

        Good progressive sexuality is hilariously disgusting, and for men endlessly degrading, humiliating, and destructive. And Scott has suffered no end of humiliation, degradation, destruction, and generally disgusting and icky things. For women, it is great, until they hit the wall, and end up growing old alone and eventually dying alone and being eaten by their cats. It is the number one evil of progressivism, progressivism is making war on our most basic and primary biological drive.

        Progressive sexuality is defect/defect equilibrium in reproduction and family. To remedy defect/defect equilibrium requires external enforcement – patriarchy is a plot by men to use their superior ability in large scale cooperation against women, but because the conspiracy establishes property rights and thus enforces cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, women benefit also. The conspiracy gives them husbands, family, and children.

        Men propertize women for their own sake, not for women’s sake. The alpha male rewards his beta males. Female emancipation is males defecting on males. But female emancipation is bad for women also. It is individually bad for that individual women, because if she is free to suspend cooperation at any time, men are disinclined to invest in her and her children. You pump and dump, so that if you are lucky, you dump her before she dumps you. You spin the plates to avoid being spun. There is always someone more alpha than you are. You pump and dump because it hurts less that way. Evolution shaped you that way, evolution makes it hurt, so that you would not waste time looking after a chick that becomes pregnant with Jeremy Meeks’s demon spawn. Evolution has planted the knowledge in you that investing in a woman you do not own is a bad investment, so you don’t invest. The male equivalent of a woman’s old age among cats is male old age with whiskey and whores.

        You don’t invest in wife and children, because insecure property rights in wives and children. The party collectivizes the land, and somehow the crops fail.

        Let us imagine two mafia guys. Cops put each one in separate cells, and tell them.

        “If neither of you rat the other out, we will keep you in jail for a few days and fine you a few hundred dollars for carrying a gun without a carry permit and stuff. If you rat your pal out, and your pal fails to rat you out, you get off free, your pal takes all the blame, and gets the electric chair. If both of you rat each other out, we will let you off with life in prison. If you don’t rat your pal out, and your pal rats you out, you get the electric chair.”

        The prisoner would be much better off if he was sure that the mafia would kill the rat.

        In a prisoner’s dilemma, you want and need external enforcement. It is in a woman’s individual biological self interest to be in a situation where if she runs off with the wedding singer, she gets dragged back on a leash and beaten, and the wedding singer gets beaten to death, just as it is in the prisoner’s individual self interest to be a member of an organization that will kill him should he rat on the other prisoner.

        Women are unable to reproduce, because they have an abundance of choice, and no way of irrevocably escaping choice.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          I was struggling with the concept of wrongthink but I think I got it: wrongthink are the thoughts and conclusions that lead to an ultimate, unavoidable, irrevocable truth, or redpill. It is wrongthink because if you accept it you end up at the redpill. Crimestop is the active suppression of wrongthink to halt a mental progression towards a redpill. Do I have that correctly?

          • jim says:

            Exactly so.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Crimestop isn’t just enforced from without, but is also from within and unconsciously. It’s a survival instinct, selected for over generations. The individual unconsciously crimestops himself to keep him from eventually getting kicked out of the ingroup and eaten by a lion.

            To even consciously notice his own crimestopping in progress is, itself and already, to find himself outside the ingroup and drifting toward such danger.

            (Wow did I just explain to myself why super-high-IQ people tend to be loners?)

            It’s like how most people are automatically afraid of heights and snakes and angry animals and back away from them without having to think about it. But mentally and socially speaking.

            It just keeps getting more interesting from here!

          • Snorlax says:

            Reading Robert Trivers’ “Deceit and Self-Deception” really helped me understand why and how wrongthink is deflected from the conscious mind.

            Jim, I think you’ve mentioned elsewhere that to defect from leftism risks individual destruction, but to co-operate with leftism guarantees group destruction (in the long term). This is why not just progs but also normies block out badthink — there is an evolved mechanism, self-deception, which means that those thoughts never reach conscious reflection.

            Hence the failure of many suspected glowies to so much as ask for clarification on the WQ when it comes up in their online interview. They just don’t — they can’t allow themselves — to see it is what it is.

            Why? Once the deception becomes conscious, the cognitive load of maintaining the lie increases hugely and the deceiver is more likely to be found out. This was my experience becoming red-pilled and initially trying to go back to my blue-pilled peer group. Cognitive overload. Feeling like a phoney 100% of the time means you can’t think, can’t act effectively, always afraid of being found out.

            Anyway, good book, worth a read.

          • alldaredpills says:

            [*deleted for attempting to pass as Christian*]

            • jim says:

              If you want to pass as Christian, repeat after me:

              Jesus is Lord. Christ was born in Bethlehem, died on the cross for our sins, and Christ is and always was from before the beginning of the world. Jesus Christ is wholly man and wholly God. God is three and God is one.

        • Andre says:

          “Men propertize women for their own sake, not for women’s sake. The alpha male rewards his beta males. Female emancipation is males defecting on males.”

          Allowing women to pick their husband by fucking around is female emancipation, and males defecting on males. I hear in India it is common for women to use the threat of a rape accusation to force shotgun weddings.

          • Fred says:

            I hear in India it is common for women to use the threat of a rape accusation to force shotgun weddings.

            Campus rape hysteria in the US is basically similar – the point is to use the threat of prosecution to extract more commitment/exclusivity from the target guy than her attractiveness would warrant.

        • Yul Bornhold says:

          “Women are unable to reproduce, because they have an abundance of choice, and no way of irrevocably escaping choice.”

          This is a function of birth control, right? Primitive societies survived before adopting patriarchy. The decadent Romans lacked our advanced technology but they had plenty of crude birth control. Why did they fail to reproduce when drummer tribal societies persisted? Only other possibility I can think of is women refusing to detect any alpha status but that seems unlikely.

          A little off topic, I know, but savagery is a possible future.

          • BC says:

            This is a function of birth control, right? Primitive societies survived before adopting patriarchy. The decadent Romans lacked our advanced technology but they had plenty of crude birth control. Why did they fail to reproduce when drummer tribal societies persisted? Only other possibility I can think of is women refusing to detect any alpha status but that seems unlikely.

            Primitive societies all practiced patriarchy. The ones that did not, did not survive.

            Women can control conception to some degree. Rape results in conception at a rate massively higher than normal sex. The same is true with women fucking men high above them in terms of status. Make women equal to men and they very seldom conceive because they’re fucking men who are not higher status.

            There’s debate about how women control this, but the fact that they control who’s seed they become pregnant with is well established.

            This isn’t limited to human females either. Chimp females are almost always pregnant with the Alpha males seed, even though they have sex with every male in the group on a regular basis.

          • jim says:

            > This is a function of birth control, right?

            No, we have always had birth control, and outside of Africa, primitive societies without patriarchy disappeared roughly as fast as civilizations without patriarchy

        • Stanon says:

          >women benefit also

          being forced to breed with genetic trash is, surprise surprise perceived as extractive by women.

          • jim says:

            Explain Jeremy Meeks.

            • Stanon says:

              I don’t understand what there is to explain. Women ignore who they are supposed to breed with and instead go for whoever has obvious high genetic quality (low DNA transcription errors). What do you think the proxies for this are? Height, symmetry, athleticism, demonstrating survival value in high risk situations, social dominance etc.

              • jim says:

                Trouble is that they have ape level recognition of these traits, hence no male who is high status in the male hierarchy is likely to register with them as high status. Lawyerettes from elite universities fuck criminals, wind up as cat ladies. This is not a sensible evolutionary strategy.

                No matter what your assets, you cannot register as high status with a chick unless you have bad boy cred. And the higher the socioeconomic status of the female, the more this is a problem.

                Further, the strategy of fucking only males in the top three percent (top as women register top, which as I said, is not an accurate assessment) results in women failing to have children, or failing to have children by a male willing and able to look after her and her children. Because females have only had the opportunity to exercise mate choice in environments of social collapse, their reproductive strategy is only optimal in an environment of social collapse.

                Optimal reproductive strategy, particularly in those parts of the world with a harsh climate, no food over winter, or no food until the end wet season or until after the flood season, was to form a durable bond with a man capable of providing shelter, storing food, and defending food, and give him confidence in the paternity of his children, which requires them to marry men of approximately their own attractiveness. But because women have not been subject to selection for this, they are disinclined to follow this strategy.

                When you have a cohesive society, a functional social order, it is composed of men, because men are more capable of large scale social cooperation, and more capable of violence. So when the social order is functional, those men propertize the women. This is an effective reproductive strategy, but means that women are not subject to selection for competent sexual choice in such environments.

                Which environments are the overwhelming majority of our evolutionary history, because groups whose social order was dysfunctional left few or no descendants.

                • Pooch says:

                  They do not have ape level recognition of height and facial attractiveness, in fact they have heightened recognition of those traits. Status doesn’t seem to be the whole story with female mate selection. You love to use the Jeremy Meeks example. Women don’t want to fuck Jeremy Meeks purely because of his bad boy street cred, they want to fuck him for his shockingly good looks combined with his bad boy street cred.

                • jim says:

                  Correct. Their recognition of physical characteristics is fine.

                  Their recognition of social characteristics is badly off. The man serving life in prison for homicide and cannibalism gets hot letters from chicks he has never met. The man in the corner office at the top of the skyscraper does not.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Case in point, Nikolas Cruz, the Florida school shooter, getting a bunch of love letters in prison.

                  This is Nikolas Cruz. Are you going to say women are interested because of his shockingly good looks?

                  Surely ole’ Nick doesn’t get as much attention as Jeremy Meeks, but he gets more than the CEO of Amazon.

                  Women’s base attraction is based on 3 things, in descending order of importance:
                  1. Adult female preselection
                  2. Ability and willingness to commit violence (the more extreme, the better)
                  3. Height, jawline, facial symmetry, muscles and other facets of male physical attractiveness.

                  Looks do matter, but they are a very distant 3rd. Unfortunately, if you allow women to exercise sexual choice based primarily on 1 and 2, then you end up with most women chasing after the top 1% of alphas with the less attractive ones chasing after criminals and warlords. That’s anti civilization – unless civilization encourages accomplished men to commit certain types of approved violence, and the alphas they know are all either married or clearly unattainable (like the King or a Prince).

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “Their recognition of social characteristics is badly off. The man serving life in prison for homicide and cannibalism gets hot letters from chicks he has never met.”

                  I read somewhere recently that some woman bent on suicide solicited a “serial killer” online to do her in. And she found one!!!! The same source said the guy got convicted for murder.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  I seem to recall that among the Yanomami, our primitive friends in the Amazonas, a man who has killed has on average roughly one child more in a lifetime than a man who hasn’t. That’s an appreciable effect.

                • Oak says:

                  Looks are definitely important. Henry Cavill still gets laid if he cries over a paper-cut. Conversely, blacks under-attract women, and white women in particular, relative to their display of the cartoonish alpha traits women perceive as high status (low impulse control, wanton violence, lack of emotional control etc). I think this can only be explained by their physical appearance.

                  I think women are actually willing to delegate their assessment of status to men to some extent. It probably isn’t as arousing as physical violence, but a group of men showing obvious deference to one man in particular still does something for them. However since there are practically no male spaces anymore this is now very rare, which probably explains the increased importance of looks to women. And any status that could also be given to a female seems to lose any relevance to women.

                  I think this is one reason why men in professions like medicine or law have lost their allure to young women as these are no longer male spaces. 50-100 years ago the credential ‘doctor’ or ‘lawyer’ implictly signified the respect of a large group of other men. Now girls have a slutty cousin who is a doctor/lawyer. and the professions are majority female.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I think this is one reason why men in professions like medicine or law have lost their allure to young women as these are no longer male spaces.

                  Don’t think so.

                  I’m not sure if doctors ever really had high status in the 1950s era; it’s clear that men wanted them to have high status and often tried to portray them that way in popular media, but I can’t actually recall any doctors who had groupies chasing after them.

                  Lawyers, yes, to some degree, but that’s nothing to do with male hierarchy. A 1950s lawyer was, at least stereotypically, a trial lawyer, and as far as white-collar professions go, that’s a pretty alpha display. You get up in front of a crowded room full of strangers, thump your chest, stand in front of seated witnesses and treat them with hostility, and win. The only person in that room technically more alpha than you is the judge, and judges back then had very limited and mostly passive roles in a jury trial.

                  The legal profession didn’t lose status because it became less male-dominated (although that certainly helped!), it lost status because lawyers today are glorified bureaucrats. Almost every criminal case gets plea-bargained and almost every civil case gets settled out of court. There’s no epic battle of the alphas anymore, just a bunch of guilty pleas and faggy proceduralism. Most people with law degrees have never even seen the inside of a courtroom. Some of this could be an indirect result of female entryism but it’s hard to determine cause and effect.

                  Women only delegate their sense of status to men when they themselves are property, under a strong patriarchy, when they don’t have much of an opportunity to follow their more primal instincts.

                • Stanon says:

                  >top as women register top, which as I said, is not an accurate assessment

                  Okay, first of all LOL. Reread this until you grasp the ’tism. Second, objectively speaking I’d be happy to bet on women outperforming you in judging dna trasncription error rate based on their physiological response over your social model.

                • jim says:

                  I hear an involuntary celibate speaking.

                  You have great confidence that women behave very differently from what I in fact see, indicating you have had little contact with women.

                • Pooch says:

                  The man in the corner office at the top of the skyscraper does not.

                  Perhaps it is the will of Gnon that men shouldn’t be doing that. Even with a wife and kids, sitting at a desk inside a skyscraper all day 5 out of every 7 days is a miserable existence.

              • The Cominator says:

                “I don’t understand what there is to explain. Women ignore who they are supposed to breed with”

                If who they are supposed to breed with is backed by the state and given real status they don’t, if its fake and gay and women can laught at the supposed da they don’t.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Grrr mean women will not ignore who they are supposed to breed with if the state backs them with real status but they laugh at the supposed to betas in our current society.

                • James says:

                  Indeed. In many ways, women are completely correct in their mate choices. Who cares if Bezos is a billionaire if he can’t defend himself openly and violently? There’s a warlord just a few blocks over in the chaz. He can show up to the capitol building with an AK and the media loves him for it. He’s clearly the high status one. Why have kids with the rich nerd, when your kids could be warlords and take his lunch money?

          • Allah says:

            What do you mean by genetic trash? I’m guessing you’re referring to beta engineers, rather than underclass thugs.

            • Stanon says:

              any male not in the top 10-20% of attractiveness.

              • Not Tom says:

                Attractiveness has next to nothing to do with it. If that was the salient criteria, we’d have run out of ugly people a long time ago.

                We’ve seen this in experiments like the mouse utopia – males become more physically attractive while fertility craters. That does not mean the former causes the latter, but strongly implies that they are at best weakly linked and more likely mediated by some other process. Females are not really attracted to “attractiveness”, that is blue pill thinking, projecting male psychological characteristics onto females.

                Even if your assertion were true, it has to be obvious to you that an 80% incel rate represents catastrophically low levels of social cooperation. Whatever it is that women are genuinely attracted to, no society can survive them chasing after 10% (but actually 1%) of the men and ignoring or hating the rest.

                • Stanon says:

                  I agree that Azathoth optimal selection is not compatible with an advanced civilization. the question is what we do about that. And we won’t do anything effective if we can’t get a non-triggered view of the problem in full.

                • jim says:

                  > the question is what we do about that

                  We do what every population group that left descendants did. We do what our ancestors did. We do what the British state officially did in the late eighteenth century, and what fathers did unofficially up to about the first half of the twentieth century.

                  There is a glaringly obvious reason why every society, or at least every society that survived, did it this way. Pretty sure we solved this problem shortly after coming down from the trees. That women find male apes sexually attractive while men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that our male ancestors have been exercising sexual choice for a long time, and women, or at least those women who found themselves in bands that had descendants, have not.

                  Our solution is to do what every successful society has always done.

                • Stanon says:

                  e.g. claiming that looks have next to nothing to do with it when looks control 80% of the variance in relationship outcomes = you are looking harder at your armchair models than at reality.

                • jim says:

                  Do looks cause 80% of the variance? I find this hard to believe. What is the evidence?

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  There are lots of attractive incels, and not many aggressive, violent incels.

                  I don’t find attractiveness predictive of whether a man has problems with women. I do find that among the subset of men who can get women, attractiveness has some bearing in the quality of woman.

                • Pooch says:

                  There are lots of attractive incels, and not many aggressive, violent incels.


                  I don’t find attractiveness predictive of whether a man has problems with women. I do find that among the subset of men who can get women, attractiveness has some bearing in the quality of woman.

                  Attractiveness to women is essentially 2 categories. Genetic quality (facial attractiveness) and capability to inflict violence (height and muscularity). I would argue that women weight more heavily on the latter. It is not some little piss ant antifa faggot acting violent that sexually excites them, it’s the 6’4 jacked 220 pound weight lifter who if he chooses could smash 4 antifa skulls without really breaking a sweat.

                • Pooch says:

                  Screwed up the blockquote. My part:

                  Attractiveness to women is essentially 2 categories. Genetic quality (facial attractiveness) and capability to inflict violence (height and muscularity). I would argue that women weight more heavily on the latter. It is not some little piss ant antifa faggot acting violent that sexually excites them, it’s the 6’4 jacked 220 pound weight lifter who if he chooses could smash 4 antifa skulls without really breaking a sweat.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It is not some little piss ant antifa faggot acting violent that sexually excites them, it’s the 6’4 jacked 220 pound weight lifter who if he chooses could smash 4 antifa skulls without really breaking a sweat.

                  Yes, but only if his temperament suggests he might actually do it.

                  Most guys who get that big have high T, so it’s easy to get the two confused – but it’s primarily the aggression, not the mass. As we keep repeating, looks matter, but they’re collectively part of the 20%. Being super ripped or having great facial bone structure might help a dude with good game or preselection pull mostly 9s and 10s rather than 7s and 8s, but sadly, will not really help an incel pull a 5.

                  Of course psychology is a funny thing, and when guys start to put on a lot of lean mass and maybe raise their natural T levels, their belief about how much this matters to women causes them to change their game in positive ways. So lifting is still a good idea for guys who have trouble – but it has to be understood as a mostly indirect mechanism.

                  I’m not actually sure if Antifa are universally incels – I’m told it’s a much more masculine movement in Europe. In the US, it’s well known that the apparent displays of aggression are really just herd mentality, these people are all soyboys on their own and women know it. Throwing a brick along with 500 other people doesn’t count, unless you’re leading those 500. The most independently aggressive actors in Antifa (US) tend to be the women, and being part of a group like that is never going to get you laid even if you ARE 6’4, 220 lbs and jacked.

          • The Cominator says:

            Our reproductive patterns are idiocracy like now.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Fucking stellar and inspired elaboration, Jim. Thank you.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          So game theory proves that libertarianism is unsustainable, basically, at least for N>30 or so.

    • The Cominator says:

      Jimmy Dore is the only really honest one and he should be one of the few spared the helicopter.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I don’t understand your soft spot for Dore. He spit on Alex Jones like a complete bitch when AJ was absolutely owning Chunk Yoghurt. Spitting on someone is only bad ass when you are being interrogated. Any other time it is a pussy move.

        • The Cominator says:

          Said very often and loudly that muh Russia was complete bullshit and that the media spamming it was proof operation Mockingbird never ended.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Speaking of Mockingbird, I don’t understand why cable news is hiring all these FBI/CIA/IC people AND putting them on camera. Why be so obvious? Why not just have them write the lines for the talking heads? Is there just not enough time for all this transcription and editing and reciting? Gotta go off the cuff in real time instead?

            • Not Tom says:

              Why be so obvious?

              Why not? Devout progressives worship the ground these malevolent faggots walk on. It’s win-win for the networks.

              Subtlety may have been an asset 50 years ago. No longer; it’s now a race to the bottom.

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

    This week in schadenfreude:

    Steve Hsu learns that It’s Science, photos with Obama, and But I’m Asian don’t count for much with the comrades.

    Left “rationalist” Scott Alexander discovers the meaning of comeuppance. Goodbye to a dogshit virtue signaling IQ 150 blog for even harder-signaling IQ 130s. Taleb’s intellectual-yet-idiots as a roving comment section.

    Scott Aaronson watches Hsu and Alexander get mowed down, wrings his hands, and at the same time manages the most incredible display of proud, conscious, self-aware doublethink I have seen: making a point of noting that while Trump rallies are COVID-bad, Black Lives Matter protests are virtuous. I think Jim may have underestimated Aaronson’s goodleftism — Scott will intellectually rationalize why the Revolution needs to kill his family and confiscate his children even as they are doing it, his lectures on the Holocaust notwithstanding.

    But the best of all is a 60 year old Gay Progressive Democrat State Senator pummeled by a protest mob in… Madison, Wisconsin.


    • jim says:


      Schadenfreude with gravy on top. They will come for Scott Aaronson soon enough. A midwit leftist cannot tell the difference between intelligence and heresy, and all heretics are extreme right wing Hitler Hitler Hitler. The only reason he has not been taken out already is that he is not in fact particularly smart – I understand quantum computing better than he does when he writes articles on quantum computing to show how smart he is, even though that is his field, while for me it is a peripheral interest, but he is smart enough that the left is going to come him sooner or later.

      • Ex says:

        > and for influence on his professional life, there’s a reasonable argument that the author of the jawdropping incel screed “Untitled” being legally able to administer roofies to female patients warrants genuine public concern

        Rationalwiki has long hated Scott, is this perhaps where rationalwiki teams up with NYT to do some dirt-digging?

        • jim says:

          I am not sure what I enjoyed more. Antifa beating a gay Democrat elected politician unconscious for insufficient leftism, or all these people popping up to destroy Scott. Of course, Scott would never set to destroying his fellow leftists, but he was always certain that his real enemies were half of America that voted for Trump, and I suppose that when the gay Democrat woke up in hospital he was still certain that his real enemies were the half of America that voted for Trump.

          And I expect that when Lavoisier was being carted off to the guillotine in a tumbrel, he still believed that the French revolution was the rule of reason, and that it was all some strange misunderstanding.

          When the New York Times set to destroying Scott, he continued to not notice that the New York Times is starting the fires that are destroying people’s homes and livelihoods. Those fires are totally Trump’s fault🙃

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Another bit of amusement from Aaronson in the recent comment sections is the earnest statement that all (“all”, A-L-L) social problems of black Americans would be solved if Republicans were removed from every elected office in the USA. Completely defeating the R is necessary and sufficient to fix black.

            What I love with Aaronson is that the combination of earnestness and (his undoing come the revolution…) and the need to always make himself clear makes him a walking laboratory of Moderate Leftist belief maintenance. An endless sequence of controlled experiments on how crimestop works self-documented before our eyes.

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              Aaronson has always struck me as a fool, but appears to still retain some beliefs that will get him cancelled, should there be need thereof. The Overton window’s edge approacheth.

              Well, that’s foolish too. Status confirmed.

        • Javier says:

          Ha, I’d forgotten about his extremely mild critique on feminism.

          Kind of like how James Damore, in an honest attempt to implement feminist rules found they were totally unworkable, and an honest attempt to make them workable made feminists livid.

          “””Rational””” Wiki in this case going for the most insane possible take–he’s sexually frustrated and has access to drugs! Yeah, right. You don’t need roofies when you have access to alcohol, but you still need a woman to actually go out with you first. Incels don’t rape because sex isn’t what they want, they want love and devotion which women will never give them. Typically they go on killing sprees or off themselves.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      There’s no way any of these faggots have over 120 IQ.

      I bet they are all around 115, it’s the sweet spot of upper mediocrity where the Dunning–Kruger effect is the strongest. Smart enough to start to grasp, incapable of actually making it, delusion max. College zombies think they are Boyle because they can work at a lab, you see.

      Everyone I’ve met over 120 IQ were giga shitlords by prog standards, even the women. They weren’t necessarily reactionaries, but I’ve even heard things such as “well, if I was living in the Middle Ages I’d definitely consider my horse more valuable than my wife: the horse would facilitate very hard labor, transport/warfare opportunities and in the worst of cases food”. You get into a private conversation with intelligent people and it’s like a lie, the difference between the 97% and the 3% is like hell and heaven.

      Do you really think someone with 150 IQ lives in some hovel with 10 random people more as if they were subhuman gypsies? Give me a break, people with 150 IQ are either autistic and live by their own doing their own thing or they are like Trump.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Scott Alexander, Gwern, Steve Sailer, and others at that level are all clearly above 140 (easily) or 150 (probably), Moldbug and Ted Kaczynski more in the prodigy 160+ range. They are much too devoted to their individualistic pursuits to have advanced their careers (and in most such cases their families) nearly as far as if they had applied their talents to the boring long march. Super-bloggers and hyper-effortposters are, to a man, academic shoulda-beens with too much autism or ADHD to focus on bigger and better things. Scott Aaronson and Steve Hsu, both of whom are much shallower as bloggers, did make it in academia and you can see the difference.

        • Atavistic Morality says:


          Someone is strong when they can move great weights, someone is intelligent when they are high performance and successful. You arbitrarily claim that people who create nothing, achieve nothing and provide no value are extremely intelligent, and to further your argument, you mention progressive academia.

          If you are going to use the word prodigy, be respectful enough to attach it next to people like Newton. I’ve scored as high as 154 (Oxford btw) and I don’t have the narcissism, ridiculousness, shamelessness and utter lack of honor or sense to say something like that. In fact, I hardly consider myself intelligent, simply functional unlike most of the apes that populate Earth.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Stick to one story, or at least one meaning of the terms.

            IQ is as measurable as physical strength, and as inferrable from correlated observations such as vocabulary, academic degrees etc as lifting capacity is from related physical abilities. Now you want to change the subject to personal (re)definitions of “intelligence” and “prodigy”. According to the standard meanings, the two Scotts have plenty of intelligence and one of them might count as a prodigy, along with Moldbug and Kaczinski. None of this means they did anything useful in life any more than the high IQ, highly intelligent, prodigy Bobby Fischer, or that they deserve our admiration, or that academics and universities are good things.

            • The Cominator says:

              IQ is measurable but clearly what it measures is only sometimes a measurement of the true quality of a mind.

              Feynman was clearly a genius in at least some ways, but his IQ was theoretically lower than my worst IQ test and I do not think I’m smarter than Feynman…

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                Here we aren’t asking whether a person with a given IQ score is smart. We are taking people who are obviously very smart by the formal and informal measures that correlate with IQ, and using some guess of their expected IQ score as a way of quantifying that. The actual number that comes out of an IQ test administered to Feynman or Scott Alexander would depend on things like how that particular test weighs visual, logical and verbal. We know Feynman did many things that are normally only done by ultrahigh IQ people, and Alexander things that signal high IQ, and that’s true even if their actual IQ scores were much lower when tested.

              • jim says:

                I find this hard to believe. Obviously Feynman’s score would not be a reliable indicator, because he is a lot smarter than the people giving the test, but if he was ever tested, the result would still have been sky high.

                • The Cominator says:

                  He said his tested score was 125 only.

                • BC says:

                  I find 125 really hard to believe. I tested higher than that and after reading Feynman books, it’s clear he’s a genius and I’m not.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Which is why something is clearly off…

                • ten says:

                  I have known two guys who incidentally both tested as 128 who to me seem borderline prodigal in intellectual capacity and production. I have also known a guy who tested as 145 who seemed to just be really good at math and coding but lacked proper habits of thought and never had anything interesting to say, although when speaking to him about complicated subjects, he would remember what was actually said and how it all stuck together remarkably well – he never got anything wrong or snuck in weird priors or misremembered, and could engage with new ideas immediately after having them presented to him, just as he could immediately use new mathematical concepts without hammering them in to make the abstract idea stick, as i needed to do.

                  I can tentatively believe Feynman would actually score 125, but consider it improbable. Perhaps he messed up a test once and used the anecdote as social lubricant, like my brother does, or perhaps his genius is of the 128-guys kind.

                  When mad arab Taleb rails against iq, attributing to it a machinic quality that is not the essence of genius, he has a point, though he uses that point to not see the forest for all the trees. The most significant quality of mind is not that which is measured by correlated proxy by iq tests.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, I noticed, the capacity to instantly grasp abstract and complex ideas is the real differentiator

                  The truly dumb cannot grasp analogies, because they cannot generalize. Which is why analogies were removed from the SAT.

                • pdimov says:

                  >He said his tested score was 125 only.

                  He lied.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Or the test did somehow but that is the point…

                  IQ test seem to measure well whether people are stupid, average of fairly well above average.

                  They get less accurate at the higher IQ ranges for some reason. James Woods is I’m sure well above average he at least hates Democrats, but is he really 187 IQ or whatever he is supposed to be. I tend to doubt he is THAT smart.

                • pdimov says:

                  >They get less accurate at the higher IQ ranges for some reason.

                  Yes, obviously. The difference between 0 wrong answers and 1 wrong answer is more due to luck that to IQ difference, and even if we discount that, 0 wrong answers is only an upper bound.

                  Any test gets more inaccurate the farther you’re from the mean.

                • pyrrhus says:

                  There is no evidence supporting the claim that Feynman’s IQ as a boy was 125, and it defies common sense…I’d say a minimum of 160, since not only was he one of the best mathematicians in the country, he had a lot of common sense…My IQ was and is higher than that, and I’m no Feynman by any means…

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Any test gets more inaccurate the farther you’re from the mean.

                  Exactly the opposite is true. Score variance goes down at high ability levels, so reliability of the raw score goes up. Difference between 0 wrong and 1 wrong and 2 wrong is more meaningful than the same differences between mediocre scores.

                  If there were diminishing returns something like this could be true, but as far as I (and a few studies, e.g., SMPY, IMO) can tell there are accelerating returns to higher mental ability. This could be due to more efficient matching, at higher ability levels, with professions that specifically select for high IQs and pit them against each other in ways that sharply discriminate underlying capability.

                • jim says:

                  Score variance goes down because IQ tests always have a ceiling, and tests of people near the ceiling are meaningless. The ceiling on the SAT is low and getting lower, because every year it gets adjusted to reduce the gap between white males and everyone else, thus the ceiling is headed to borderline retarded.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Difference between 0 wrong and 1 wrong and 2 wrong is more meaningful than the same differences between mediocre scores.

                  You’re ignoring chance. Unless one has inhuman concentration, there’s always nonzero (and not insignificant) probability of making a mistake; and conversely, even a 0 IQ bash script can get an answer right by luck.

                  0/1/2 wrong is basically noise. For accurately assessing higher IQs, you need a separate test, the one centered on 100 isn’t very useful.

                • pyrrhus says:

                  College Board handed out 60-100 free points in the infamous “renorming” of scores in 1995, and continues to dumb down the test, so Feynman could probably have gotten 800s on the present test when he was 12 years old…

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > You’re ignoring chance.

                  Your intuition is faulty.

                  Chance does not change the truth of what I said. Score reliability improves the further one diverges (in either direction) from average scoring ability. You seem to be assuming chance and random guessing is more influential at the extremes, but it actually contributes more score variance in the middle. This is literally true for variance and for entropy, and is probably also true for questions like “what is the chance A has higher ability than B, given that he scored 5 points higher on the test”. Try some simulations or calculations and you will see.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Score variance goes down because IQ tests always have a ceiling, and tests of people near the ceiling are meaningless.

                  What I’m trying to explain is that for any given test, the test result is more meaningful (in the sense of approximating the true ability within X points, or that A outscoring B on the test reflects reality) near the floor and ceiling.

                • jim says:

                  But it is perfectly obvious that IQ rankings are not meaningful near the ceiling of a test. If theory says otherwise, examine your priors.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > obvious that IQ rankings are not meaningful near the ceiling

                  What exactly (e.g., specific enough to test by simulation or calculation) is obvious? IQ rankings based on small point differences are not meaningful *anywhere* on the spectrum but they become more meaningful near the edges. I grant this is counterintuitive but it is demonstrably true. Empirically it is also consistent with real-world achievement measures beyond the tests.

                • jim says:


                  Contrary to observation.

                  Near the ceiling, IQ tests rank incorrectly.

                  If you designed an IQ test for cats, and a human took it, it would probably rank him as a middling sort of cat.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  That’s what they all say when algebra trumps personal intuition. Sometimes “they” are right and the math is modeling the wrong thing. Not here: variance is simple enough to analyze under minimal assumptions that cover the (non-adaptive) tests of interest.

                  > Contrary to observation.

                  *Exactly what* observations contradict the statements about higher precision at high scores?

                  > Near the ceiling, IQ tests rank incorrectly.

                  They also rank incorrectly in the middle. The amount of incorrectness, point for point, is higher the middle and lower near the ceiling. So say da maths.

                • jim says:

                  Numerous anecdotes about the IQ test scores of obvious geniuses. At the high end, the ranking is wrong.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  The stories I’ve looked into are weak or fall apart. Einstein, Feynman, Alvarez, Shockley.

                  I don’t think there is any question that Feynman had fewer neurons than, say Schwinger or Gell-Mann or Landau or other physics prodigies. But he outperformed his raw intelligence as did Einstein, Newton and other greats. Even if the raw thing was off the charts for some of them.

                  There is also a certain practical bent and unconventional way of looking at things that contributes to the outperformance. With Feynman there was a lot of private rehearsal that he brought out in public as displays of genius.

                • jim says:

                  > With Feynman there was a lot of private rehearsal that he brought out in public as displays of genius.

                  No. Feynman was genius who worked hard at communicating genius to a wider audience. He was not rehearsing to make it look like genius. He was rehearsing to make genius intelligible to people who lacked genius.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  There’s no contradiction. All of these can be true at once: Feynman was a genius (IQ 125 story probably bogus); Feynman outperformed his native level of genius through various habits and quirks, hence Landau ranking him above Landau on the log scale of physicists; there are many abilities that Feynman spent hundreds of hours practicing (not necessarily for show) that later appeared to others as spontaneous triumphs of genius.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              I’m not redefining terms, you’re just very delusional. What dictionary do you want to choose? I’ll let you pick, it makes no difference.

              Both intelligence and prodigy are words that imply the ability to demonstrate with actions this capabilities. Moldbug has proven to be intelligent, far from a prodigy. And half-progressive faggots that live in hovels with 10 people like gypsies and have no achievements have proven neither.

              According to your argument the fact that niggers have 90 IQ makes no difference, they all can be Maxwell. You’re telling me that 90 IQ doesn’t imply incompetence and 160 IQ doesn’t imply competence, which means IQ has no value and tells us nothing. Are you a progressive?

              Bobby Fischer at the very least was a chess grandmaster, which is a million times more remarkable than anything these idiots will ever achieve. Moldbug started a political movement with insightful analysis of politics and societal issues. These idiots are so fucking retarded that their greatest achievement is to repeat progressive platitudes and then end up being cannibalized for insufficient leftism. The hobo down the street is observably more intelligent by actions, instead of weird and arbitrary sophistry you require me to accept as legitimate.

              • Dave says:

                My cats have single-digit IQs but are more competent than most leftists because they know how to catch, kill, and eat smaller animals, and avoid getting eaten by bigger ones.

                Intelligence is the ability to manipulate abstract ideas and find novel solutions to unfamiliar problems. Competence is the ability to survive, by smarts, training, or pure instinct, in an environment that’s wholly indifferent to your needs, opinions, and feelings. Two totally different things.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Two totally different things.

                  Exactly this. A former co-worker of mine is a relative of a renowned 20th Century scientist whose name some of you would recognize. His mathematical reasoning ability was remarkable and several times he had penetrating insights that produced solutions to clients’ needs. But management never put him in front of clients by himself: he couldn’t explain things on a simple enough level for the clients to understand him. On the other end of the spectrum was the sales engineer, who was barely able to understand even the watered-down math I produced to illustrate our scientist’s insights, yet schmoozed the clients brilliantly and closed sales confidently.

                  The scientist was sort of socially awkward, never got married or moved out of his childhood home. The sales engineer was married with several kids and a couple of very successful side hustles.

                  Intelligence vs. competence.

                • Dave says:

                  We must find a way to breed those socially-awkward scientists or at least clone them; our descendants will need their services when the Brawndo stops working.

                  Human cloning means someday working in a rocket factory where all the guys in charge look like Wernher von Braun. Clones might eventually come to dominate science and engineering; they already dominate the fruit section of the supermarket.

              • Not Tom says:

                This kind of thinking seems to emerge when people attach a moral signifier to intelligence, i.e. that being very high IQ is good and being low IQ is bad. I’ve noticed that conservatives especially, but all flavors of rightism, have an emotional need to believe that leftists are stupid people.

                But leftists aren’t stupid. They are getting stupider as a group, to be sure, as their group becomes less white and less academic in composition, but as of right now, to really succeed at the leftist defect-defect game (and not just be a pawn like TNC or a pantifa goon) takes a decent amount of intelligence. Progressives and progressive apostates are generally pretty intelligent people and progressivism retains so many intelligent people in part because it gives them a reliable way to keep their mental faculties occupied, which is unfortunately also a very socially destructive way.

                High IQ is just high IQ, it’s the ability to perform certain kinds of cognitive tasks quickly and accurately, especially tasks related to abstraction, pattern recognition, symbol manipulation and spatio-temporal work. That does not necessarily translate into any definition of success, and it doesn’t have to. IQ has a huge effect on success among many different dimensions but the correlation is not 1.0, it is something like 0.8 in the best case, which means you’ll find quite a lot of underachieving geniuses and overachieving dumb-dumbs if you know where to look. For the former, try Mensa, and for the latter, try any third-world country.

                The fetishism over intelligence was actually created by progressives. Equating smartness with any form of goodness or virtue in individuals actually helps progressives maintain social control. IQ is simply a predictor of social and economic outcomes, it can tell us very little about a person’s personality or social status.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Leftists tend to heavily be midwits, people slightly above average intelligence but not above even 125.

                • jim says:

                  Leftists are purging their smarties. We are led by our smarties. Big difference.

                • Not Tom says:

                  On average, yes, but that’s what I’d expect of any intellectual movement because higher IQ groups are in drastically shorter supply. You’d see the same distribution at a Go tournament; the winners will have very high IQ but not most players. Chris Cuomo is a midwit, Noam Chomsky is brilliant, both are pure evil.

                  Moldbug was probably targeting 140ish as the average, which means on average NRx is smarter than progressives, but the group is much smaller, and the alt-right/alt-lite flavors tend toward the same midwit range or a little lower.

                • jim says:

                  There are smart people on the left you say?

                  Name them.

                  Scott Alexander was just purged, Pinker was just purged.

                  Aaron Swartz, official genius, was no more than IQ 120, probably considerably less.

                  Who on the left is smart these days?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its more that midwits derive their sense of superiority from being well informed by the proper authorities aka muh experts, they are smart enough to know what the experts say but not smart enough to know when they are full of shit. This is especially true for those who did well in the government schools. Once they submit to leftism they cannot make the leap that the cathedral so called experts basically always lie whereas simple southern rednecks can easily make this leap.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Progressives and progressive apostates are generally pretty intelligent people and progressivism retains so many intelligent people in part because it gives them a reliable way to keep their mental faculties occupied,”

                  An astute observation and underrated factor.

                  The biggest weakness of restoration is that it doesn’t give much opportunity to exercise social faculties, or mental faculties in socially loaded outlets. So, we tend to attract smart basement dwelling theorists.

                • jim says:

                  The left purged Pinker because they can no longer understand what he wrote. The left is visibly stupid and rapidly getting more stupid.

                  I will be cheering when the progressive tumbril takes Aaronson to the the totally non violent guillotine. All Aaronson’s good progressive friends and allies will be cheering louder than anyone, because they will be expect to be in the next tumbril, but I will cheer for real. The Revolution devours its children.

                  Pinker posted an influential argument for blank slate universalism and progressive triumphalism, and then the overton window rolled over him. All smart people are now being purged, for giving insufficiently moronic arguments in support of their allies. Scott Aaronson thinks himself safe, but he is only safe because he is dumber than Pinker, and he is only safe for the next few years, perhaps the next few months.

                  Aaronson correctly observes that the social warriors obviously did not read Pinker’s books, but that they are incapable of reading Pinker’s books is exactly why Pinker is being cancelled, deplatformed, and demonetized.

                  Pinker will probably resist in a slow grinding retreat, as Chagnon did, and at any point in that retreat, you will be able to say “Oh well it was not as bad as it could have been”, but the retreat will go on and on, until it eventually ends him being murdered by his beloved non violent progressive friends in a few years if Trump fails to become Caesar Augustus. (“Non violent” as now acquired a similar meaning to “youth”)

                  You doubt it will end in his murder? Take a look at how things have changed in the last year, then in the last three years, then in the last forty years, then in the last two hundred years. Heard anything from Chagnon lately?

                  Where does it stop?

                  History answers us, over and over and over. It stops when deadly lawless violence, warlike violence, makes it stop, and the further it goes the more violence is needed to stop it, and the more that violence looks like war rather than vigorous and one sided application of the laws.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Aaronson is reaching new heights of doublethink every week as more of his fellow travelers get purged. Now it’s Pinker, and Scott is doing stakhanovite loyalty demonstrations to Enlightenment Liberalism. The man is a walking, talking, liveblogging demonstration of high IQ leftist rationalization.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  This conversation seems so dumb to me that I’ll leave it quietly. But it baffles me that anyone would assign intelligence blindly and arbitrarily like this. Show me the IQ test and the results from the genius leftists though, then I’ll admit you guys are right. Show me the IQ test by Scott Alexander with 140.

                  Also, there’s no fetishism from my part, if there was I’d go around stroking my ego with my genius IQ as measured by 3 different “reputable” sources. But since I live in a world which I can observe and I can understand and thus appreciate the talent of real geniuses like Newton, I actually feel myself pretty inadequate.

                  Since you are going to claim fetishism from my part I’ll tell you what I see from my perspective. I see people here that look at repetition monkeys in laboratories pretending that they are Boyle, but they are very obviously not Boyle and these people can’t tell at all the difference between authentic intelligence and a repetition monkey going through the motions and learned behavior of an authentic genius. And it’s comical that you are going to say that IQ is a predictor of social and economic outcomes but then agree with the guy that claims that Scott Alexander has 140 IQ, what a garbage predictor, 140 IQ to be a delusional cucked faggot gypsy in a hovel, okay.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The only far leftists I’m sure is truly very very high iq is Chomsky, i think Soros (despite being a middleman mostly) is also very high up there…

                  Scott Alexander and these others probably around where i am in the 130s at best (but without my spergishness). Leftism is overwhelmingly a cult of midwits linked with insane single women and nams.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, but they are all elderly – very elderly, the small remnant from the time back when the left reluctantly tolerated smart people. Chomsky is starting to keep his head down, and Soros has always worked in the shadows. If Soros allowed himself to be more visible, would have been purged by now.

                • Not Tom says:

                  And it’s comical that you are going to say that IQ is a predictor of social and economic outcomes but then agree with the guy that claims that Scott Alexander has 140 IQ, what a garbage predictor, 140 IQ to be a delusional cucked faggot gypsy in a hovel, okay.

                  I literally just wrote a whole post explaining the difference between a 0.8 correlation and a 1.0 correlation. Picking out isolated exceptions and using that to dismiss the correlation entirely is… less than what I’d expect from someone who just subtly implied he had a genius-level IQ.

                  I’m not trying to get under your skin. I understand what you’re trying to say and I think that some of your points are “directionally true”, but we need to strip away the enemy language. Intelligent people can hold evil ideologies, in fact they are more likely to retain evil ideologies because they have much greater capacity to rationalize away the contradictions.

                  “The left is stupid” is wishful thinking. It’s getting stupider because of demographic changes and salami-slicing, that’s true, but claiming that the left is already stupid is like claiming that America is already poor (i.e. because of debt). That may be destined to happen but it has not yet happened, and consistently underestimating your enemies is a straight path to defeat.

                • jim says:

                  “The left is stupid” is wishful thinking.

                  You are out of date. When the Khmer Rouge came to power they were very smart people. After they had finished purging, torturing, and murdering all the smart people, they were very stupid people.

                  Today’s left is obviously dumb as a post. Pinker has been purged, Scott Alexander has been purged, Summers has been effectively retired. No one much above above 120 is likely to be admitted to Harvard these days, and even software engineers recently graduated from MIT are getting disturbingly dim. If there are any smart leftists remaining, name them.

                  All the remaining smart leftists are elderly and have to keep their heads down and stay out of sight. And even keeping their heads down and staying out of sight, the thought police are coming for them soon enough. You have not heard much from Chomsky lately.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Show me the IQ test by Scott Alexander with 140.



                  Not a lot of IQ 120’s doing that. I think Alexander mentioned having had high test scores and poor grades in high school, which is the standard high IQ slacker profile demonstrated by the Irish medical school and wasting his time writing online. But Gwern also wrote something like that, and I may be conflating the two.

                  I have read maybe 5-6 long Scott Alexander posts and skimmed maybe 10 others. He is prolix and progged, but it is hard to deny his intelligence when you get stuff like the above from a small sample. The other posts weren’t memorable in content but also showed obvious verbal ability and intelligence in the same way that a good comedian (or chess player) doesn’t accomplish anything all that useful but does demonstrate mental ability in an entertaining way.

                  I think part of the problem is that you underestimate how common 130 is. It’s not super-smart. 140 are the people who, if conscientious, get relatively (but not super) competitive scholarships to university, e.g., National Merit Scholarship or Studienstiftung. Also similar to Harvard admission for unconnected white people. I rate Alexander above that and Moldbug and Scott Aaronson higher.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            “Someone is strong when they can move great weights, someone is intelligent when they are high performance and successful.”

            Agreed, but then, doctor and efamous blogger is quite a lot more successful than most people, certainly in the 1% range. I’m not going to speculate numbers, but he isn’t an average person.

            He is socially incompetent, and he has said so himself.

            Perhaps because of that, he attached himself to the Eliezer Yudkowsky cult, which is kind of common behavior for Jews. I don’t get it myself, but Jews on the whole have done OK for themselves. EY cult disallows outright rightism.

            Difficult for an autistic guy plugged into a social network and owing at least some of his success to that network to totally disown it and go dark. Especially when until a few months ago speech was officially allowed. Perfectly intelligent person may have done so, but it requires other traits like courage and decisiveness as well.

  17. Mister Grumpus says:

    Guys I’ve lost the plot a little.

    What is the purpose of fed/feddish entryism here? It takes effort, so what’s in it for them?

    To save us from our wrong thoughts?

    To shit up and pollute a safe space of unauthorized cohesion?

    To stock it with hateful fedmemes and get the domain blocked?

    Or is it just the missionary zeal that Universalist Harvardism simply must conquer and colonize every last square inch of this universe, before the tikkun can be olam’ed once and for all?

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Divide and conquer. Sew discord. Draw in whiteknights to shit up the board. These I Can’t Even whiners always seem to crop up when Jim reaches out and touches someone else in the bloggodrome. Fed Shill doesn’t necessarily mean FBI™; it means hamfisted entryists incapable of proper shibboleths and the inability to ingest the RPWQs. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are dealing with what passes for a shitlord in the SlateStarCodex memosphere. Probably a superfan that is butthurt about JB laughing at Scott’s misfortune.

    • jim says:

      > What is the purpose of fed/feddish entryism here? It takes effort, so what’s in it for them?

      What was in it for them to send fifteen federal agents to investigate a hate crime, that even if it had not turned out to be as fraudulent as every other hate crime, did not deserve a call from one cop on the beat? Compare with precisely zero FBI agents being sent to investigate antfa beating an insufficiently progressive elected Democratic Party politician unconscious.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        It’s funny. Being “out here” makes me a crocodile chow pariah, but also a relatively relaxed and clear-headed one. I’m not a suddenly awesome winner(tm) by any stretch, but at least I’m no longer at war with the observable facts of existence. Things make sense now. Red Pill, White Pill and Chill Pill.

        I’ve lost touch with the “Fierce Urgency of Harvard Uber Alles-ness” that I can probably recollect in my own history, not that long ago, if I tried.

        “Someone… is a thought criminal… on the Internet!”

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      I do not buy this idea that the FBI is paying regular employees to argue with us.

      On the other hand, there are volunteer auxiliary thought police everywhere. Some are spontaneous. Some may be a result, directly or indirectly, of official actions.

      If someone with resources wanted this blog gone, they would DDoS it. If they saw its ideas as particularly dangerous and wanted to rebut them openly, they would send someone smarter. But when has that ever been their style?

      • Starman says:

        @Oliver Cromwell
        These entryists destroyed social matter. They infiltrate dissident groups. They infiltrate every church and scout group.

        For this blog, the concepts discussed are often invisible to them. Example, this RedPill on women question:

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

      • jim says:

        If the people that appear to me to enemy shills were just random madmen each with his own bee in his own bonnet, they would not be able to take down organizations like Social Matter and the Libertarian party. And we know the people who took down the libertarian party were paid a hell of a lot money by Harvard.

        Robotic behavior is not evidence that someone else is writing their script. Some people might well have their own script, and stick to it, rather than a script written by someone else. But you look at their script, and ask cui bono?

        Thus “icon”s script looked like a Soros script, ao I needled him about Soros, and surprise, surprise there is one evil Jew he will not mention. Similarly, Troofers will not make unkind reference to Mueller and the FBI. They keep redirecting to telling us DIA is our enemy, which tells me it is not.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          Warning: This blog employs only nightmare difficulty captchas.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          I never followed Social Matter, because it never seemed very interesting. A lot of people are capable of reading UR and not getting the point. Most of these people are probably normie conservatives with (like the vast majority of people in this world) not great abstract reasoning capability and high social acceptability bias, who are always and everywhere yesterday’s left today, and today’s left tomorrow. Was Social Matter infiltrated, or was it just founded by people who were not all that good?

          Everyone with a worldview looks like he is reading a script to people without that worldview. This is because all worldviews are, at some point in the production chain, read to most people from scripts. But that does not mean that most people who come to memorize and repeat the script are being paid to do so, under instructions from the hierarchical organisation of the script writer.

          Maybe it sometimes happens. But if I were a counter-restorationist with real resources and saw this blog as a threat my goal would be to take it down, not argue in the comments.

          • jim says:

            > Everyone with a worldview looks like he is reading a script to people without that worldview.

            No they don’t. Does a videogame NPC have a worldview? Does the unhelpful third world help line worker on an unhelpful help line have a worldview?

            It is absolutely obvious that they don’t, and that is what gives away the script.

            You can tell the difference between a script and an alien worldview. These people have scripts, not worldviews. You can tell when you try to take them off script. They don’t particularly understand or care about the worldview of the guy who wrote their script. You cannot even engage them intelligently within the worldview of the guy who wrote their script.

            Thus, for example, you can tell Andre is not scripted, because he reacts intelligently within his worldview. He is moderated for attack on the English language, not for being scripted, nor for having an alien worldview. Icon is scripted with a script that superficially emulates the antisemitic jewcentric worldview – a script written by Jews attempting to emulate, poorly, the actual world view of actual antisemites who have a jewcentric view of the world, but I knew he was a Soros man when I saw the familiar Jewish jewcentric worldview leaking into the scripted antisemitic jewcentric world view. His scriptwriter is obviously a jewcentric Jew writing a script to emulate a jewcentric antisemite.

            If I was talking directly to Icon’s scriptwriter, which obviously I am not, I would still not be able to engage him intelligently within the antisemitic jewcentric worldview, because it is not really his worldview.

            • The Cominator says:

              IRL progressives have gotten more and more like npcs, they cannot acknowledge even basic crimefacts exist anymore even in private conversation.

              This above all hardened my heart that they should be mercilessly wiped out if the opportunity presents itself, people like that don’t deserve to live.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              I think most people with political or religious (organised ideological) worldviews have scripts. If you argue dogma with a catholic, you get a script. The appearance a script is simply a reflection of the fact that most people are not smart enough to learn *why* ideas are what they are so that they can flexibly create new arguments from the basic premises, and for most purposes of the ideological organization it isn’t necessary that most people should be able to do this.

              • The Cominator says:

                Kind of a bad example OC. Papism is so thoroughly based on lies that the lies contradict each other, so of course any sincere papist is an NPC at least as far as his religion goes.

                The more something is based on lies the more of a script you get.

              • jim says:

                I argue with Catholics. I don’t mistake them for shills. They are not following a script in the sense that I define the word, not faking interactivity because they have a HR department looking over their shoulder. Albeit Catholics are apt to have limited interactivity because thoughtcrime.

                Someone might genuinely be a robotic Jew hater. But why is a robotic Jew hater going to blame the Jews, rather than the Clintons, for the murder of Epstein? Cui Bono.

  18. n says:

    >When a young boy is molested, he tells his parents and the situation escalates almost immediately. If all of these young girls are being similarly abused, should be able to dig up at least one or two

    Dude, enough.

    “She cried out for help when she heard an unnamed person looking for her at the home. Deputies said Cherima held the door closed.” (age 8)

    “After the victim’s mother came home and saw that she was not there, she set out to search for her daughter. When she went near the under-construction shop, she heard her daughter’s screams. Sensing the mother’s presence, Bahar fled the spot.” (age 7)

    Copy and paste these sentences into google. It took me less than 20 seconds to find both, at your request. Literally on the first page each. Literally out of millions, upon millions, upon millions, upon millions, of such cases.

    I’m done talking with you pieces of garbage. I’ve made my point, and proved it unequivocally. It’s clear that some rapists prey on little girls, usually the rapists being niggers or other shitkins, seldom white men. That you claim that it somehow isn’t so, or that it isn’t the common case, because “girls are horny xDDD” is beyond retarded, and deep inside, you damn well know it.

    Hopefully a real FBI agent will put an end to this madness some day.

    • Starman says:

      Answer the RedPill on Women question.

    • Not Tom says:

      Copy and paste these sentences into google

      Now why would any of us do that? I’d rather not plunge my bare hands into shit, no matter whether or not I can wash them later.

      Is it so hard for you to post a link? Are you worried we might not trust the source, or take a closer look and realize that certain details do not add up? No matter how many times you are asked, you refuse to identify any sources, you just say “Google it” and now escalate to posting tiny snippets but still tell us to Google it and assure us that the sheer volume proves that it must be true.

      This isn’t how honest people debate; it’s more like how prestige press journalists try to frame a debate. And R7 is totally correct this time around; you are directly trying to participate on WRP topics, so there is no reason anyone should even give you the benefit of the doubt, let alone follow your obnoxious commands, until you can answer an easy WRP question.

      • FBI Anon says:


        You won’t be bothered to google “man raped 7 year old girl” or “man raped 8 year old girl,” and yet, despite your utter intellectual laziness and dishonesty, you vehemently defend the asinine proposition that it’s the girls who ‘throw themselves at’ adult men.

        You won’t even be bothered to search for precise, exact quotes taken directly from articles, presumably because paranoid, but really because you’ve been shown to be completely wrong about this subject.

        Okay faggot, here, a link for *one* example out of sixty six gorillion:


        Are you now going to be afraid to open it? Do you dispute the existence of millions of such cases? Why don’t you actually *investigate* whether or not your bizarre worldview is correct?

        • anon 1 says:

          never thought I’d see Based Tom BTFO’d so badly

          • Starman says:

            @anon 1
            Answer the RedPill on Women question now.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              He can’t/won’t.

              That Boogpill question method, posting a picture then asking folks to identify what they are seeing is super valuable, but not necessarily as an ingroup/outgroup indicator, at least not only that. We all have different points of departure/bases for interpretation. Using See Then Say could be extremely useful in identifying what is in the frame.

        • Andre says:

          Civilized societies do not allow men to rape women, regardless of age. If you fuck a woman without being married to her, you get the death penalty. Any other approach leads to a society of disloyal men. That being said, it is entirely obvious that young girls throw themselves at older men. Also, we do not live in a civilized society. In a civilized society single moms don’t take their 8 year old daughters to watch Ariana Grande concerts where she sings about being fucked (by a bad boy) so hard she can barely walk.

          • Not Tom says:

            If you fuck a woman without being married to her, you get the death penalty.

            This has never been the law in any civilized society that I know of and sounds like the death of civilization to me.

            Adultery is illegal, yes – fucking a married woman who is not your wife will often result in death, either by law or by retribution, but that’s just common sense, and in most societies the penalty for the adulteress is far more severe or at least equally severe.

            Putting men to death for fucking whores and alpha-chasers is the definition of Puritan holiness-spiraled insanity. It’s what progressives are essentially trying to implement right now, with the only difference being that they also want to extend it beyond marriage to include such anticoncepts as “marital rape”. But even without the latest enhancements, punishing men for female misbehavior is still and always will be recognizable as Puritan insanity.

            • Andre says:

              “This has never been the law in any civilized society that I know of”

              Maybe that is why we don’t have any living, sustainable civilizations today.

              “and sounds like the death of civilization to me.”

              Why? I mean sure, you can have a special class of women known as whores that unmarried men can fuck, maybe, but honestly what does that add to society? What does any society lose by not allowing “alpha-chasers”? I think polygamy is fine, probably, so why would any alpha worth the title be fucking other (allied) men’s women? Alphas that fuck around need to get the death penalty, period. They are part of the problem.

              Now, we don’t live in a civilized society. That means these rules do not apply. All western women are whores. Well, not all. You don’t fuck your friend’s wife. You don’t fuck your friend’s daughter without getting married.

              See Genesis 34.

            • Andre says:

              “It’s what progressives are essentially trying to implement right now, with the only difference being that they also want to extend it beyond marriage to include such anticoncepts as “marital rape”. But even without the latest enhancements, punishing men for female misbehavior is still and always will be recognizable as Puritan insanity.”

              No. Progressives want to give women complete freedom and control over their sexuality, and completely remove men’s freedom and control over their sexuality. Punishing a man for sleeping with a woman he is not married to is not punishing a man for female misbehavior. It is punishing a man for HIS OWN misbehavior. Unowned women (whores) can be fucked freely, that is fine, but there are very few (if any) of those in civilized societies. If you fuck your friend’s daughter without getting married, you have betrayed the male bond between you two, and you have betrayed the polis. Treason is punished by death.

              • jim says:

                Just so.

                Unowned women are fair game, and the solution is to compel them to become owned. The late eighteen century authorities implemented this solution.

              • Not Tom says:

                If you fuck your friend’s daughter without getting married

                Then it’s an offense against your (male) friend, and he’s entitled to seek a shotgun marriage.

                But in the vast majority of instances it is the female who does not want to go through with the marriage. You are talking a whole lot about perceived male sexual immorality while pretending that female sexuality does not exist and that women are all naturally chaste and that if fornication occurs it must be the man’s fault because the woman has no agency.

                This is pure, weapons-grade blue pill. No civilized society has ever executed men simply for fucking an unmarried woman. The more successful ones try to force them to get married afterward. And any argument to the effect of “well if past societies didn’t practice it then they weren’t civilized” is heretical progressive historicism.

                Shotgun marriage is prosocial. Female chaperoning is prosocial. Killing men who fuck around is horribly antisocial.

                • Andre says:

                  “and he’s entitled to seek a shotgun marriage.”

                  That would reward him, not punish him. What if he is already married? Look, I get it, sometimes things are too blurry, the fucker is too valuable to the group, and it’s just too much of a nuisance to enforce such rules. But deep down, this is a sign of disloyalty. It is dangerous to tolerate disloyalty. It’s not going to instantly destroy your society, but you need to be careful and stop thinking it’s just fine.

                  “But in the vast majority of instances it is the female who does not want to go through with the marriage. You are talking a whole lot about perceived male sexual immorality while pretending that female sexuality does not exist and that women are all naturally chaste and that if fornication occurs it must be the man’s fault because the woman has no agency.”

                  I’m doing no such thing.

                  “No civilized society has ever executed men simply for fucking an unmarried woman.”

                  That is not true. Try fucking the princess as a peasant and see how long you’ll live.

                  “The more successful ones try to force them to get married afterward.”

                  It’s a better idea than simply letting people fuck around, sure. Civilization is not an on/off switch.

                  “Shotgun marriage is prosocial. Female chaperoning is prosocial. Killing men who fuck around is horribly antisocial.”

                  If a man fucks around, he is showing disregard for the male hierarchy, and for society. Sometimes the male hierarchy is corrupt, and that is the proper course of action. However, if a civilization accepts that kind of behavior, it is destined to fail.

                • jim says:

                  > If a man fucks around, he is showing disregard for the male hierarchy

                  This presupposes that all women are owned. This is seldom the case in actual practice. Fornication is fucking someone’s daughter, adultery is fucking someone’s wife or betrothed. But not all fathers and husbands are able or willing to exercise the authority that they should.

                • Not Tom says:


                  The Ten Commandments, pretty much the basis for all premodern non-Asian civilization, explicitly forbid adultery but don’t say a damn thing about fornication.

                  Ancient Chinese legal codes sometimes impose mild penalties for fornication (as in, a few lashes), usually more for the women than the men. A woman seducing a married military man was the gravest offense, punishable by her death.

                  And the relatively more relaxed pre-Victorian England relied heavily on shotgun marriage.

                  But I guess all of the most successful and powerful ancient civilizations just didn’t have the clarity and foresight of Andre here. They should have been punishing the men who fucked around!

                • Andre says:

                  “But I guess all of the most successful and powerful ancient civilizations just didn’t have the clarity and foresight of Andre here.”

                  Where are those ancient civilizations now? The english, the only one of those civilizations that still exists, can’t keep their girls from being drugged and raped by pakistanis.

                • Andre says:

                  And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

                  And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.

                  The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

                  They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

                  And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

                  And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.

                  And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

                • Andre says:

                  Also, my understanding is that most lynchings came due to accusations of rape. I don’t think people cared if the black guy had consent from the woman, they were punished for daring to “fuck around”. Were there a lot of interracial shotgun marriages in the south? Would they even be legal?

                • Pooch says:

                  No they were illegal.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Where are those ancient civilizations now?

                  Ah, the classic progressive shibboleth. “If our ancestors were so smart, why aren’t they still around?”

                  The arc of history bends toward justice! Surely our civilization, which is falling apart after a full hundred years of persecuting male sexual behavior, is far superior to those ancient civilizations that lasted a mere thousand years!

                  (except for the Asian ones, which never really went away and haven’t really changed that much. but never mind them)

                  If I recall, Jim has explicitly dealt with the exact biblical passage you quoted, explaining how it concerns tribal loyalty (another biblical virtue, separate from patriarchy) and not male misbehavior in general. Every single instance you can find in the OT concerning punishment for fornication always deals with men of another tribe, and usually results in the men either reclaiming or severely punishing the women involved (sometimes both).

                  And implicit in most of not all of those biblical passages is that the women “somehow” wandered off to meet those men of another tribe. Kin always comes first, but once you have dealt with the kin issue, you are not excused from dealing with the woman issue, and you never punish male kin for fucking female kin, only for leaving them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Andre is at best a Portugesee and they’ve never been civilized (nor are they really white) so don’t expect him to understand this.

                  All civilizations eventually fall, but letting men fuck unowned women is not feminism or anytlikehing it.

                  We will of course do many many things to reduce the supply of unowned women (this will NOT include polygamy which is very antisocial) but men will be allowed to fuck unowned women.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I don’t know what is going on with my keyboard…

                  This “but letting men fuck unowned women is not feminism or anytlikehing it”

                  Should read

                  “but letting men fuck unowned women is not feminism or anything like it”

                • Pooch says:

                  but men will be allowed to fuck unowned women.

                  They will be allowed to, after which they get a shotgun marriage.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “They will be allowed to, after which they get a shotgun marriage.”

                  If there is a father around to demand a shotgun marriage than the woman is owned.

                • jim says:

                  And yet, with no fathers around, the colonial authorities in Australia imposed marriage.

                  The father is able to impose marriage because the family, society, church and state back his authority.

                  To obtain cooperation, property rights have to be respected and enforced. We don’t want people snatching other people’s stuff, but we do want people snatching unowned stuff, making it their own, and telling other people to git off.

                  We don’t ban people from walking through the woods because we assume everything is owned, and we don’t ban men from screwing women because we assume all women are owned. But if you have a lot of woods, you have arrangements whereby someone prepared to invest in those woods can be secure in his investment. Society, church, and state, have to have unowned potential property, recognize it as unowned, and recognize it becoming owned.

                  The old testament had marriage by abduction. If someone successfully stole someone else’s land, and successfully kept it for long enough, it became his. And if someone stole someone else’s daughter …

                • Not Tom says:

                  It bears repeating again that shotgun marriage is more often forced on the woman than the man.

                  Unless the man was truly desperate and the woman is either heinously ugly or hotdog-in-a-hallway loose, he is not likely to have a problem with marrying her under the classical definition of marriage in which she becomes his property. “You break it, you bought it” is not a concept that men have ever had trouble understanding or following, and she is not even broken, she still has value to him.

                  It is usually the woman who needs the shotgun pointed at her, because by the time anyone finds out about her indiscretion, she is already chasing a bigger alpha. The rendezvous with Beta Bob was an “accident” or “mistake” and she’s not ready for a lifetime commitment.

                  Of course, under the modern definition of marriage, the roles could easily be reversed. But inflicting the modern definition of marriage on any man involuntarily would be pure barbarism, worse than the most egregious forms of slavery.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And yet, with no fathers around, the colonial authorities in Australia imposed marriage.”

                  Jim I think you are too fixated in Australia and not enough on the old West.

                  Australia they wanted to reserve the limited supply of women for the respectable colonial authorities and soldiers and cut the convicts out as much as possible.

                  In the old West they actively discouraged marriage and encouraged women to go right to the brothels because the men weren’t (despite the Hollywood image) mostly criminals and they wanted all men to have women available.

                  Australia had a huge pool of bad men and limited respectable men, and a small pool of bad women… and they wanted to reserve the bad girls for the respectable men. So of course this took Talibanesque measures, but this was not a typical situation in the Anglo-Saxon world.

                  You want to keep the supply of unowned women low, you do this by eliminating the necessity of female consent to marriage and by making single women low status. True Taliban measures should generally be avoided.

                • jim says:

                  We have a large supply of bad women, women being the weaker vessel, and a large supply of good men. No one has a wife in the old sense, unless he has personal charisma, a plausible willingness to commit violence, and a certain amount of bad boy cred. I want all taxpayers and all soldiers to have wives. wives in the old sense. I want the boring beta office drone to have a loyal, obedient, and virgin wife. I want to cut the underclass males out. I want to make bad boy cred less valuable and useful. What do you think that is going to take?

                  Because I plan to cut the underclass males out, we will have a modest surplus. If war, a substantial surplus. How do you think we should manage that?

                • Andre says:

                  “this will NOT include polygamy which is very antisocial”

                  So what happens if the guy fucking your daughter is already married?

                • Andre says:

                  “The old testament had marriage by abduction. If someone successfully stole someone else’s land, and successfully kept it for long enough, it became his. And if someone stole someone else’s daughter …”

                  We have a word for that: War.

                • jim says:

                  We have a word for that: Homesteading.

                  Stuff that is not adequately defended needs to wind up in the hands of someone willing to defend it, with will and confidence in that ability to defend demonstrated by investment in that stuff.

                  If valuable things are lying around inadequately defended, they should wind up in the hands of someone prepared to defend them and invest in them, and society should recognize and regularize this necessarily irregular and potentially violent process, in ways that encourage investment and reduce violence. But society state and church should not make reducing violence a priority over encouraging investment. If you go too far in suppressing violence, you suppress the violence necessary to protect investment. So in a conflict where inadequately defended stuff was irregularly appropriated state, church and society should favor the violence of the investor who irregularly appropriated it, and regularize his appropriation.

                  The conflicts over the irregular transfer of women in the Old Testament arose when outsiders appropriated the women of men belonging to a cohesive group who were willing to defend their property rights in those women. The state should suppress such conflicts by backing the existing owner. But if people are getting away with obtaining the sexual services of a woman theoretically belonging to someone else, you don’t protect the property rights of the weak or negligent owner. You protect the property rights of the vigorous appropriator, conditional on willingness and ability to invest in and defend what he has irregularly appropriated.

                  It is a woman’s nature to fuck around, not in the polygamous male way, but rather in a serially monogamous way, where she sits in her apartment for long periods waiting for Jeremy Meek’s next booty call. Men are polygamous, women hypergamous. Jeremy Meeks has far too many women on his booty call list to defend or invest in them. He cannot be expected to marry them all So we should allow such women to be appropriated, even if they theoretically have a father who theoretically has a property right in their sexual and domestic services. The problem is not Jeremy Meeks, the problem is unowned women. Similarly, the problem in the Old West was not buffalo hunters shooting all the buffalo, it was the absence of cattle owned and defended by ranchers. We did not shoot the buffalo hunters. We recognized the property rights of settlers and allowed them to shoot rustlers. And we will not shoot Jeremy Meeks. We will fence off his hunting grounds. If he then switches to rustling, then we allow him to be shot by the indignant husband. And allow the misbehaving wife to be beaten or killed. This benefits not only the husband, but also the woman, in that she then has a man who has incentive to invest in her and her children.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “So what happens if the guy fucking your daughter is already married?”

                  If she was a young pretty virgin has to pay big damages. If not a virgin than nothing. If she was a virgin but kinda fugly somewhat smaller damages.

                • Andre says:

                  “Andre is at best a Portugesee and they’ve never been civilized (nor are they really white) so don’t expect him to understand this.”


                • The Cominator says:

                  “Because I plan to cut the underclass males out, we will have a modest surplus. If war, a substantial surplus. How do you think we should manage that?”

                  Most bad women are leftists and the fugly ones will join the leftist men on the helicopters, the attractive ones will be enslaved with no possibility of ever rising to the dignity of wives.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Stuff that is not adequately defended needs to wind up in the hands of someone willing to defend it

                  And formalization is really the only way to prevent never-ending blood feuds.

                  Yes, they took your stuff 7 years ago and that’s a damn shame, but you don’t get to spend the rest of your life seeking vengeance. Let it go.

                  That’s why it’s best for the state to just look away while the conflict is ongoing, and only step in when the matter appears settled.

                  Maybe it sounds uncivilized, but really, how different is it from how things work today? Many years ago my car was stolen; I dutifully reported it to the police, and was informed (with appropriate sugar-coating) that it was unlikely they would ever find it, and they never found it. In the modern world, it is extremely unlikely you will ever recover stolen property.

                  The utopia in which the scaled-up state works tirelessly to return property to its “rightful” owner either never existed or was a blip on the radar. Natural law is “finders keepers”, you can have what you can defend, with the exception of very high-trust groups with highly formalized property rights that are generally enforced by the top alpha.

                • Andre says:

                  “And formalization is really the only way to prevent never-ending blood feuds.”

                  Victory is the only way to prevent never-ending blood feuds.

                • jim says:

                  The larger ingroup fucks over the outgroup. But then the ingroup is apt to fall apart over division of the loot. We want the broadest possible ingroup. All taxpayers and soldiers.

                  Formalization is the ingroup’s way of dealing with the potential for internal defection and the ensuing internal conflict.

                  Inevitably, the broad ingroup is in practice adherents to the official state religion. Which is apt to be holiness spiraled so that some members of the ingroup can exclude other members of the ingroup and take their stuff. Holiness spiraling is ingroup defection, disguised by clever rationalizations.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Most bad women are leftists

                  Ah c’mon, you know better than that. All women are shitlibs until the precise instant they find themselves in a healthy sexual relationship, at which point they are inexplicably and immediately cured of their leftism, as well as their depression, PTSD and all other psychological problems.

                  Unless you’re talking about the bitter old spinsters who are sexually irrelevant anyway.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Victory is the only way to prevent never-ending blood feuds.

                  Such total victory has never been achieved. There is always some bastard child or distant cousin who survives the slaughter, some simmering slave rebellion, some lingering border dispute, some hermit who carefully preserves the old books and the old ways, some underground samizdat operation, some secret society that guards its secret effectively, some old aristocrat who is persuasive and competent enough to gain the trust of the new king. It only takes one to restart the feud.

                  There are degrees of victory, sure. An enemy can be crippled for decades, maybe centuries, but it is never truly over. India and Pakistan are going to keep feuding, North and South Korea are going to keep feuding, Russia and Ukraine are going to keep feuding, Israel and Iran are going to keep feuding. No matter how decisive the victory, if you fail to formalize it, it will become disputed, eventually with violence. Sometimes that happens even if you do formalize, if the formal authority starts to appear weak, but it virtually always happens if you don’t formalize, and much sooner than anticipated.

                  Marriage by abduction, or ownership by squatter’s rights, is winning, and Old Testament law formalized the winners and losers.

                • Pooch says:

                  Leftist women are just unowned women causing problems. Once owned, no longer a problem. Fertile women are valuable and will never be massacred. The older ones, maybe not so much.

                  I actually think true inner party leftists pulling the strings are just unowned women cause problems on a large scale like Hillary and Pelosi. Would explain why leftism has no rhyme or reason and it just general insanity in its long term strategy because women are not logical beings.

                • Andre says:

                  “Marriage by abduction, or ownership by squatter’s rights, is winning, and Old Testament law formalized the winners and losers.”

                  Fine, but two can play that game. If marriage by abduction is winning, it’s just the natural alpha move, then so is drinking wine out of the skull of men who try.

                • jim says:

                  Quite so.

                  So, we forcefully discourage drinking wine out of the skulls of the ingroup, and cheerfully encourage drinking wine out of the skulls of the outgroup. We also encourage abducting their women and killing their children. However, since the largest ingroup is apt to win at that game, we want to make a synthetic tribe that includes all taxpaying and soldiering males – includes pretty much everyone within the area where the ingroup has a monopoly of force. And since there is likely another well armed and cohesive ingroup over the hill, we attempt to establish the peace of Westphalia with them, and draw a line between them and us.

                  And where do unowned women belong in this? Well, since women do not do large group socialization very well, a woman has no country and no tribe. They are members of the ingroup through their husband or father’s membership of the ingroup. And if their father is not effectively controlling, we will lend him a hand, but he has to help himself before we help him. And if he does not, the woman is not in fact part of the ingroup, so is up for grabs.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If marriage by abduction is winning, it’s just the natural alpha move, then so is drinking wine out of the skull of men who try.

                  Yes, more or less. That’s one reason why adultery is punishable by death, because the husband is going to kill him anyway.

                  However, marital rights supersede parental rights. Fathers don’t get to hunt down any man who bones his precious little princess, unless he refuses to marry her afterward. If he marries her, then she’s his problem now.

                  By natural law, sure, fathers can try to interfere, but will they succeed? Unlikely. The blue pill crowd loves to bring up counterexamples involving thuggish joggers, but those outliers are irrelevant; a formal code of laws can only properly be used to govern an ingroup, outgroup by definition is not going to cooperate so there is no need to cooperate with them. In the absence of a code of laws, tribal elders might look the other way while Trad Dad quietly disposes of Jamal Keshawn Snipes from 3 towns away, but they are not going to tolerate him screaming and waving a pickaxe at the blacksmith’s apprentice down the street.

                  I get the feeling all of these Trad Dad advocates are e-larping anyway. I think in reality they’re all weeping vaginas who’d loudly exclaim “he defiled my daughter!” to their neighbors while they cry tears into a mug of lukewarm lite beer. The kind of men who’d actually hunt down Jamal is generally also the kind of man who’d much rather have sons than daughters, and if he does have daughters, is anxious to get them married off as quickly as possible because he knows exactly how girls that age tend to behave when Daddy’s not looking.

                • Aldon says:

                  >True Taliban measures should generally be avoided.

                  The only societies on Earth that aren’t insignificant flea tribes with fertility levels beyond the bare minimum for replacement (and even that’s generous) are places like Pakistan and Timor Leste.

        • The Cominator says:

          There aren’t six gorillion cases there are a handful. 95% of the molesters of prebuscents are gays.

          • FBI Anon says:

            95% of the molesters of prebuscents are gays.

            I have no problem believing that. Everybody knows that gays and trannies prey on children en masse, and should be eliminated from society for this and for other reasons.

            There aren’t six gorillion cases there are a handful.

            Did you *investigate* whether or not it is so? I’m telling you that the internet is full of such clear cut cases. If I’m an evil dirty liar, then searching for the phrase “man raped 8 year old girl” at Google or DuckDuckGo or whatever will demonstrate it. Don’t be lazy. If you have a thesis, investigate it to see if it’s true or false.

            But you, Cominator, know that Jim is full of s**t. Look at his replies. He is telling me that I support trannies molesting boys, even as I explicitly state that they should be exterminated. Why does he feel the need to lie about my position, hmm?

            • Allah says:

              Are you claiming that young virgin girls do not like being taken, or that taking young virgin girls is perverted and abnormal? Sensing a bit of a motte and bailey here.

            • The Cominator says:

              The cases of these are generally some real sicko who wants to kidnap and kill the girl… The cases that dont involve kidnapping and murder generally are as Jim described with some exceptions.

              I’m not saying there are no exceptions but overwhelmingly prepubscent predation is by gays, this is covered up by the cathedral because of the war on men.

              • FBI Anon says:

                overwhelmingly prepubscent predation is by gays

                Okay, I don’t disagree with that.

                The cases that dont involve kidnapping and murder generally are as Jim described with some exceptions.

                No, they are not *generally* as Jim describes. I’ve never encountered a single case that fits Jim’s narrative – and he has given no evidence that such cases exist, besides his personal anecdotes. I’ve encountered a gazillion of cases that fit my narrative (i.e. the sane narrative that everyone, including all of NRx outside this specific blog, holds), and with a simple search on the internet, you too will encounter a gazillion cases that fit that narrative.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’ve never encountered a single case that fits Jim’s narrative

                  What exactly does this mean? That you’ve never seen a case reported in the official press that places responsibility on the girl? Or that you’ve never seen a preteen girl behave strangely around alpha males in your personal life?

                  If it’s the former, then it has precisely zero informational value. If it’s the latter, either lying or crimestop (or you just don’t have kids or nieces or married male friends, in which case, sad and pathetic).

            • Starman says:

              @FBI Anon
              Answer the RedPill on Women question now, fed shill. You want to discuss WQ topics? Then answer my women question now.

            • jim says:

              If the internet is full clearcut cases, how come you produce a poster faggot as your poster boy. If your poster boy is not explicitly a girl, he is a poster boy.

              Iron law of poster boys. If the enemy is looking mighty hard for a poster boy to make us care about some issue, and their poster boy is fake, all fake, precisely zero cases.

              There are some prepubescent girls who were subjected to unwanted sexual assault which they found mighty disturbing, but the assailant seems to be always gay.

              If an actual heterosexual male is charged, the girl was not the complainant, rather the girl was misbehaving, and adults in the vicinity decide to charge the nearest male – hence in those rare, exceptional, and unusual cases, (the rare case where the penetrator is male and heterosexual, yet the female is not showing any indications of fertility) the underlying story is usually that she entered his bedroom while he was asleep, closed the door behind her and “he assaulted her”.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Every time Jim dabbles in current events, anti-pedo dragoons appear to manipulate the algorithm. Strange, that.

        • Not Tom says:

          Are you now going to be afraid to open it?

          Of course not. You posted an actual link to a site that (probably) isn’t tracking. If you use dishonest tactics, we’ll treat you like a dishonest person; if you correct your dishonest tactics, we’ll engage more politely. That being said, using dishonest tactics and then framing objections to your dishonest tactics as some other form of unreasonableness is itself a dishonest tactic, so cut it out with that.

          Your last link was a very vague description of a charge, not a conviction. We don’t know anything about the evidence. Assuming it’s valid, yet another case of history of drug usage and petty criminal history. Physiognomy doesn’t look that much like a faggot, but who knows. Maybe you found the one-in-a-million case of non-fag sexual dysfunction.

          Do you dispute the existence of millions of such cases?


          Why don’t you actually *investigate* whether or not your bizarre worldview is correct?

          For the same reason I don’t need to count every individual grain of rice in a bag in order to have a rough idea of how many there are. Smart people who have a handle on basic math, probabilities, and estimation techniques can assess claims like these based on the order of magnitude alone. They literally ask you these kinds of questions in job interviews – real jobs, that is, not Mechanical Turk shill gigs and various other applecart-tipping activities.

          There are approximately 10 million girls in the U.S. aged 5-9, the range of interest here. Even if you accumulated this over decades, and Google’s search results do not go back more than about 20 years, it is literally inconceivable for there to be millions of such cases. It would mean that 1 in 5 or perhaps 1 in 10 pre-pubescent girls get raped. It would mean that every single one of us should know several families who encountered such “predators” and several girls who lost their virginity before age 10. “Millions” is simply not a reasonable first-order approximation.

          If you meant worldwide, then I won’t pretend to know or care what’s happening in India or Africa or Saudi Arabia. And if you meant the western world, it is perhaps not totally impossible, merely ridiculously improbable.

          I could believe that there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of such cases across the entire global population, which makes it literally less important than Coronavirus.

          • FBI Anon says:

            Maybe you found the one-in-a-million case of non-fag sexual dysfunction.

            I could believe that there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of such cases across the entire global population

            Interesting way to deescalate.

            If you concede this much, then all I have left to do (as per the FBI psyop protocol I’m working off, of course) is to ask the reader is to dig for himself and reach his conclusions on this topic based on the knowledge that he independently acquires on his own, using publicly available freely circulating information, rather than blindly relying on anyone else’s purely anecdotal “evidence.” (Apparently, many posters here just haven’t done that at all, despite it being incredibly easy to do) I’m fairly certain and confident that anyone who does that — if he rigidly maintains an open mind — will be able to tell whose position is the most likely to be correct.

            • Speculum says:

              >confirmed for JTRIG

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              You must be very new here. I recommend you go back to the 2017 posts and read, meticulously, through the comments. Maybe search the term “Glenfilthie” and “Carlylian Restorationist” and pay close attention to the exchanges. Then you need to take “Advanced Shaman” and read through the catalog of Setting the Record Straight (linked in blogroll). You are most likely a drive-by whiteknight, but if you are actually interested in discourse, you need to get read in first. Get to know the terrain before you start picking mole hills to die on.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  I see no logical relationship to what Frederick Algernon said. If there is some relationship, needs more explanation. Looks like random scripted spam, presented as a reply to a randomly chosen recent comment.

                  If you are going to insert random scripted spam as a reply, you are going to have to read enough comments to find one that fits the script. If they are paying you to write, they need to pay you to read. You are also going to have to put at least some effort into concocting the connection between the script and what you are supposedly replying to.

            • Not Tom says:

              using publicly available freely circulating information, rather than blindly relying on anyone else’s purely anecdotal “evidence.”

              You mean, using Cathedral-approved megaphones rather than those viciously evil primary sources.

              I wasn’t even intending to deescalate. I’m pointing out that what you’re doing is salami-slicing, and it’s not tolerated here. And since you probably don’t know what salami-slicing is: it’s a variation of motte-and-bailey in which one starts by picking a fringe issue that for all practical purposes may as well not even exist, and demanding consensus that this fringe case is either very evil or very holy (depending on the intended frame), and then progressively broadening the definition until it encompasses completely normal mainstream cases.

              Supposedly everyone must denounce these virtually-nonexistent cases of 6-year-olds being literally raped, almost always by fags. Then we’ll have to agree that 9-year-olds going through early puberty who snuck into a man’s room must also have been coerced somehow. Then we need age-of-consent laws because no girl under age 12, actually age 14, actually age 16, actually age 25, is capable of understanding her own biology. And then eventually we should just admit that any time any man goes PiVing it’s probably rape because at one point she said “nooo” in a giggly slur to her 3-year live-in boyfriend some time after the ritual choking but before the creampie.

              You pretend and are adamant that it’s really just about the extremely rare fringe cases (which you assure us are actually very common, Google and Wikipedia and Rolling Stone Magazine all say so!), but because this isn’t our first rodeo and we’re not a bunch of naive idiots, we know it’s just another form of entryism.

              I don’t care about the fringe cases. Call me when 6-year-old girls being raped is actually our biggest social problem, or even anywhere in the top 100.

        • Anon says:

          1. motte-baily technique, we linked the earlier on this page.
          2. shaming
          3. triggered and outraged. what we call crimestop.
          4. akwardy forced dialect

          lowly soros shill out of ten.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      If you spend any amount of time around children these days, and aren’t completely pozzed, you cannot help but notice the terrifyingly adult way the little girls talk, act, and dress. This is not an isolated incident; it is ubiquitous in modern Western society. The reasons are many: the parents choose to dress them this way, or submit to their children’s demand to “fit in.” Initially, it is play acting. They see it on the Disney channel. They see it in “kids” movies. It is heavily suggested to children that it is cool/right/normal to act older. So they play pretend.

      It is well understood and acknowledged that females mature sooner than males on average. The very natural changes that occur in humans mix with the costume, and baby sluts start growing like mushrooms in late elementary and middle school settings. Which ones are acting and which ones are actual varies, but what doesn’t vary is that to act older, they must seek out and acquire the attention of “men.” Their male classmates are boys, so the set their sites on teachers, older siblings of friends, and highschool boys. This is a feedback loop is reinforced by music, social media, and environment. Cool girls date older guys. They seek out this attention and are ill equipped to manage it once they attain it. Inevitably, a 13 year old gets caught in bed, or some other compromising situation, with an older boy. He may be 15, or 19, or even older. What is little Miss precious to do? She lacks the capacity to articulate what got her into the “mess.” Daddys and Mommys are unable to believe their little angel is capable of cruising for dick. Society says “believe all women,” and who is going to take the side of some 19 year old dirtbag in possession of a middle schooler’s knickers?

      The demi-slut gets away scotch free. The pervert pedophile monster gets the chair,and society rolls on. At 15, she will be hunting for Tyrone Grills or Tommy Motorcycle. If she gets caught, she employs the fallen angel routine. Inevitably, she will hit the wall and, if she doesn’t commit suicide, she will make it here life’s work to sully every other little girl she can in an effort to normalize her pointless penis-pocket existence.

      What about this is pedophilia? How do you ignore this and maintain your perspective of angelic little girls running around in JUICY shorts and cake face? It is so omnipresent that South Park had a recurring gag based on it (Raisins, a reference to Hooters w/ preteens).

      Your lizard brain knows all of this and your chimp brain is programmed to ignore it. When you encounter Jim, your capacity for critical analysis implodes and all you feel is rage. How dare he not believe all women.

      Pedophiles exist; they are called homosexuals. There are even some massively depraved straits that are so bored of the mountains of available flesh that they dabble in the dirt, like junkies that use spit to dissolve meth. But these are very few. The vast majority of actual pedophiles are fags. Look at trans reading hour in gentrified urban libraries. Look at how the sodomites revel in the attention of children, tickling and wrestling and playing dress up, all together.

      The red pill for you is confronting the fact that post-modernity, ultra-progressivism, purity spiralling, and 3rd wave feminism have made it virtually impossible for a 10 year old girl not to be a slut visually and characteristically.

      Feels bad man.

  19. Frederick Algernon says:

    This is kind of tangential, but I have been feeling incredibly morose of late. I made a fool of myself here and got put on moderation. My life got derailed by Covid Hype (it is absolutely a terrifying virus from what I’ve seen from where I work, but the countermeasures, however logical initially, have completely become climate crisis 2.0) and I am stuck in a very frustrating employment purgatory. The history of our country, however commie, pozzed, and pointless it may be in the grand scheme, is being actively erased by multikulti mobs and whites are justifying it as penance. SCOTUS bullshit. LEO bullshit. White erasure. The pill is black.

    …but this is no way to live. So I encourage you, brothers, regardless of my outgroup status at the moment, to not give up or give in. Don’t give up pursuing the truth. Don’t give in to those that demand you abandon passivism. Don’t give up on the future of your children if you have them. Don’t give in to the idea that there are no virtuous women with which to build. Don’t give up on the restoration. Don’t give in to satan and his agents.

    I know this is emotive and silly to a lot of you; I know this is more me speaking to me. But I also know that we live in interesting times, and it is so easy to take the black pill.

    Don’t. Don’t give up. Don’t give in. Rage against the dying of the light. Stay strong, lads. All we have is GNON’s perfect will, and what an ally that is.

    • Andre says:

      “Don’t give in to those that demand you abandon passivism.”

      Why? Why are you attached to this strategy?

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Explain the benefits of the converse. I was champing at the bit two posts ago. I point-blanked Jim about it, and he said Not Yet. So I submit and obey. We gain nothing by dying on the barbed wire if there aren’t Legions behind us ready to exploit the breakthrough. I am no priest. My faith is simple; GNON’S will be done. I am his imperfect instrument. Better men than me will tell me when to stand forth and be counted. Until then, I train, I lift, and I seek to cultivate an aura of control and worthiness.

        Do you have a better strategy?

  20. The Cominator says:


    My man Comey (yes I still believe what I did about him before) screws the enemy again…

    I hope he gets to testify about Russiagate soon.

    • BC says:

      Sounds more like Strzok screwed them, just as he did with his text messages. He noted that Comey said the call was legit.

      You’re idea that Comey was secretly working for Trump is just as bonkers as it was the day you first posted. Comey’s an idiot and so is Strzok. Don’t confused their stupidity with intentionally trying to help Trump.

      • The Cominator says:

        The announcement before the election when you look at with everything else… looks like more than just stupidity.

        Strzok also has the demonic look and mannerisms (more so than anyone alive now even Soros, though Zbiginew Brzienski was worse) of so many leftist Derp state elites which Comey completely lacks… I know that point isn’t exactly scientific but the outright demonic appearance and mannerisms may well be more than coincidence and Comey has none of it.

        • BC says:

          >The announcement before the election when you look at with everything else… looks like more than just stupidity.

          Looks like pure stupidity to me. Comey’s goal was to be J Edger Hoover 2.0. Holding dirt over people is useful in that regard as is making investigations go away, which he did with Hillary. The timing of the event was set off by Strzok sitting on the laptop and it was forced into the open by members of the NYPD who were going to leak the laptop if the investigation didn’t start moving.

          He played similar stupid games with Trump and they ended poorly for Trump as well.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Looks like pure stupidity to me. Comey’s goal was to be J Edger Hoover 2.0. Holding dirt over people is useful in that regard as is making investigations go away, which he did with Hillary. The timing of the event was set off by Strzok sitting on the laptop and it was forced into the open by members of the NYPD who were going to leak the laptop if the investigation didn’t start moving.”

            Yet labtop never leaked…

          • Not Tom says:

            Yeah, I don’t think Comey was really on any “side”, in fact all the evidence seems to suggest he had trouble figuring out which side his bread was buttered on. In all likelihood he was just a bungler, a not-particularly-bright career bureaucrat who sometimes accidentally did what looked like the right thing because he wasn’t very good at determining what was politically advantageous.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              From the counterfactual perspective, what do Comey’s actions look like had Hillary won? I think that is the correct perspective for judging the logic behind many of respective player’s actions, given that was the assumption they were all operating under.

              • The Cominator says:

                A suicide in the making…

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  So Comey was… banking on being suicided? TC, that makes no sense. If he thought Clinton would win, it might make sense to appear neutral than grovel before her Majesty and beg pardon… I guess. He seems incompetent.

            • BC says:

              You should read up on what Comey did during the Anthrax case. The FBI is generally stupid, but Comey is a grade A moron in that case.

            • Pooch says:

              If indicted, Comey strikes me as someone willing to rat on everybody.

  21. Pooch says:

    More schadenfreude…


    I was getting blackpilled about these statues being destroyed but if it means dumb shitlib congressmen getting their ass kicked in the process I’ll take that tradeoff.

  22. Starman says:

    A bit OT:

    “ Appeals court orders judge to dismiss Flynn charges”


    • Not Tom says:

      About damn time. It was looking dicey for a while after the Supreme Court hijinks.

      It should have been 3-0, not 2-1, but just goes to show that numbers matter. Appointing 1 or 2 Trump judges to one court (even the highest court) may not help very much, but appointing hundreds of them all across the country may be making a difference.

      I wonder if the district judge will actually comply, or try to invent some even more ridiculous excuse to disobey the appeals court. We’re getting dangerously close to the point where no leftist anywhere will obey orders from a superior he deems to be insufficiently holy.

      • BC says:

        My guess is he refuses to implement it, but I don’t have any particular insight on the matter.

    • Karl says:

      Strange wording. Usually an appeal court just dismisses a case. Ordering a lower court to do what the appeal court could do is unusual, isn’t it?

      • Not Tom says:

        Actually no, it’s the expected outcome in this case. The circuit court was responding to a request for writ of mandamus: a judicial order compelling a lower court judge to follow the law.

        This was not an actual appeal, more like an… escalation? Sort of like the emergency injunctions Trump has received from the Supreme Court on a few occasions after district judges tried to issue bogus nationwide orders.

    • jim says:

      As I said before, Flynn knows where the bodies are buried. He was in trouble because he was an honest Democrat. Let us hpe Trump appoints him to the FBI, or re-appoints him to his old job.

      This, and the firing of the New York Attorney General, demonstrates that at last Trump can protect his allies from legal persecution, which makes a huge difference.

      Lafayette Park is an interesting number of heads, given that we are in pre-coup mode.

      But it is a little late for Trump to be taking power.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I still maintain DIA is the key peace of the puzzle. They are the only branch of the executive that has the precedent to supplant CIA in both reach and grasp. DHS has USMS which is the force in the courts. It also has BOP, the knights who held the line in the first battle of DC. DIA has JSOC, which is almost exclusively where the military pardons occured. FBI is redundant and easily supplanted by HSI. DIA could easily replace the security council and their JSOC operators are the heros of the Legions and the Republic.

        As I said earlier, the next elite battleground is for the heart, soul, and mind of the court system.

        • Pooch says:

          FBI seems so far pozzed that it may be unsalvageable even if Flynn was appointed to head it.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Flynn and his family, like half the FBI higher-ups, are standard Irish Catholic democrats. Maybe they call themselves “JFK Democrats” or something and cast a few votes for Republicans, but it’s all poz and he is pozzed, or was until poz came for him.

            Flynn was perfectly compatible with Obama-ism, the problem is that he was competent, patriotic and honest enough to do his (advertised) job and state the obvious about Islam as an existential threat, and oppose the Iran deal. That is what got him unpersoned by the Obama administration and sealed his downfall once hired by Trump.

            Flynn hiring his treasonous connected Washington law firm (Covington) is an example of this. He believed in the system and I’m not sure he currently believes there was anything more than a layer of 10-20 bad actors in a couple of agencies that did him in.

            • The Cominator says:

              I grew up in Mass and know the type, no pozzed mick would ever back Trump.

              Flynn may have been a typical pozzed mick before becoming DIA but he got redpilled somewhere along the line as chief of DIA. He can be forgiven for assuming his lawyers were actually going to represent his interests I’m cynical about lawyers but tanking a client’s case for leftism… that was a new low of the American left in the Trump era.

              “and I’m not sure he currently believes there was anything more than a layer of 10-20 bad actors in a couple of agencies that did him in.”

              He knows better.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                Flynn is gagged until his process is over, but his many siblings have been lighting up Twitter for a couple of years with calls for investigation and prosecution of Comey, McCabe, Brennan etc. Which is the boomer (ex?) democrat still-basically-pozzed outrage. Nonpozzed would be to say “burn it all down”, “shatter it into a thousand pieces” while privately meaning “first let’s helicopter all the lawyers”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Burn it all down also has to be generally a private position. Brennan, McCabe Valerie Jarett (Obama the actor just signed off) and their pet dirty FBI agent Strzok were the ones behind the plot and who did blatantly illegal things so no surprise they are naming them.

                  Pointing them out as the most egregious bad actors is not boomer and false its simply true.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Using memes like Beltway, swamp, and even “deep state” as mantras, while pointing specifically to a dozen or so bad actors is the stigmata of diffuse Boomer outrage that the system is not working and we need to Clean House At The Top, by golly. Speaking of the “rank and file” (FBI, police, prosecutors, military etc) is another one. Flynn at least understands the military is run by poz lawyers and masters degree holders.

                  References to “administrative state” (Bannon uses this) and dismantling the New Deal would be more to the point, never mind touching the third rail of anti-diversity.

                • jim says:

                  If Trump arrests half a dozen top people successfully, he can arrest any or all of the top people.

                  Stalin started by arresting one bad apple in the party, ended by arresting a large part of the party.

                  The broom has to start someplace.

                • jim says:

                  If someone refers to the swamp, he is not talking about just half a dozen bad apples.

                  He is saying its a swamp, and these are conspicuously evil swamp critters.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Despite my criticism, it would be hard for me to imagine him saying those things no matter how much he knows or understands. It’s just bad optics for anyone involved in the government to be saying we should burn it all down.

                  But I do also get the sense that he takes seriously the idea that it’s just a dozen bad apples and that the system itself is fine. I don’t see him really even hinting at a deeper level of corruption, much less an ideological problem or a holiness spiral. I’ve come to believe he’s essentially another Classical Liberal™, happy with the status quo (or at least the status quo ante) and just angry that the Overton window is shifting too fast for him.

                  I surely hope he’ll prove me wrong and don’t intend to continue to complain about him, but I’ve decided not to get my hopes up. Trump did a good thing by getting Flynn out of hot water, but history will likely record it as a minor political favor for a friend rather than the grand strategic victory and turning point in the countercoup that we (including me) have all been hyping it up to be. I bet Flynn will end up as a Fox News contributor or some similar “politics-adjacent” job.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > The broom has to start someplace.

                  Imprisoning John Brennan is easier to achieve than nullifying the Pendleton Act. But talking about the first and keeping silent about the second is not strategic silence, it keeps Overton in place (or nearly so) and prevents each goal from supporting the other. The existence of Brennan is an argument against the Pendleton Act, and the existence of the Pendleton act enables the Brennans to wreak havoc on the Flynns with impunity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  SCOTUS has been disappointing but the best way to repeal the Pendleton act would be for a bunch of unitary executive believing SCOTUS justices to rule it an unconstitutional breach of seperation of powers.

          • The Cominator says:

            The FBI used to be nearly entirely composed of lawyers and accountants while I’ve read this isn’t true any longer still a lot of agents are lawyers. Lawyers in addition to being on the whole dishonest people are overwhelmingly pozzed, indeed the legal profession is the main pillar of the priesthood.

            If the FBI is salvagable the 1st step would be an en masse firing of the lawyers.

      • Not Tom says:

        I was thinking similarly: assuming that this is well and truly the end of the Flynn saga (i.e. assuming that the judge either complies with the order or is removed for failing to do so), we may learn a lot about the real character of Trump based on whether or not he rehires Flynn.

        If Flynn walks free but is still treated as a hot potato, politically speaking, then it’s a marginal victory at best, as it would communicate that you can still have your family threatened and life ruined for supporting or working with Trump, you just might be lucky enough to stay out of jail.

        Not to blackpill or anything – just getting the DoJ to drop the charges in the first place is a huge deal, and if you actually read the legal documents from Flynn’s defense team, they’re scathing and hilarious. But as always I’m inclined to look at the big picture; these little diversions might provide some temporary entertainment but don’t truly show us which way the wind is blowing.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Concur and amplify. If Trump is the king we need him to be, he will restore his man and honor him with status and power. If he is a lucky boomer with cojones he will give him a job that is visible but largely meaningless position. If he is weak, he will self aggrandize and forget Flynn. If this is a bad read, I would like to hear why; Flynn was their first target for some reason.

      • Anon 1 says:

        very late .

        I thought by now we should be in mid-coup .
        trump has to secure the next election .

        the only reason he is still in the game is because the cathedral coup are out
        of control as the revolution eat its children .

  23. John Q Public says:

    Guess what?! Moldbug is voting for Joe Biden!

    Sounds like it was a psyop the whole time.


    • KILL PEDOHILES says:


      I just can’t believe that someone whose position has always been that you shouldn’t resist power, and that voting is a total joke, would support *starts crying mid-sentence* the DEMON-CRAPS. How could that possibly have happened?

      You faggots. Trump never mattered, voting never matter, parliamentary politics never mattered, elections never mattered. Anyone talking about “Trump” or “Democrats” (or anything similar) as if that’s an interesting subject is a sub-mental retard, and not a part of NRx. Jim has not been NRx since like 2017, and this comment section is pure cancer.

      • Starman says:


        “not a part of NRx”

        It’s a “my fellow NRxr.”

        Okay, then you should be able to see and answer this question then:

        Complete the following the sentence: Women misbehave because –
        [A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal whites.
        [B] The Jews make them misbehave, since the Jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck blacks and lowlifes. The Jews deliberately intend for dysgenesis to occur, as part of their long-term White Genocide plan.
        [C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
        [D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men.
        [E] They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a conspiracy by men against women.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        I’m starting to think that the Aryan princess angle was started and is promoted by feds, because functional human beings don’t believe a second of it. Are you a fed?



        Even the progressive hive-mind of reddit deep down knows the truth, even a progressive faggot is more brave to face reality. Sure, some will say it’s creepy or is this or is that, but they perfectly acknowledge that these young teenagers are going out of the way to engage in this relationships.

        This is how worthless you are, worse than normie progressives, worse than muzzrats, worse than a trashcan. Do the world a favor and kill yourself, so we don’t have to waste helicopter fuel for you in a few decades.

        • y says:

          Who said anything about teenage girls? And who cares what Reddit says lol?

          People who claim that whenever an adult male rapes a little girl it’s because “she climbed on top of him” will get the electric chair, obviously. Jim and his little cult will be eliminated sooner or later, whether by progs or by real reactionaries, and nobody will notice your disappearance.

          Sexually normal men don’t get “seduced” by prepubescent girls – ever. How is that even possible? You can throw all your logically-fallacious and lawyerly arguments at me, and it still won’t matter – normal men don’t ever get “seduced” by little girls with no breasts and no pubic hair. It literally never, ever happens. What does happen is that they rape them, and then make up idiotic excuses why that’s totally okay.

          Even if all little girls were total 100% insatiable nymphomaniacs, no normal man, in all of human history, was magically “seduced” by one. If you can get “seduced” by a little girl who didn’t even reach puberty, you’re a pervert, a pedophile, and probably a psychopath, and you will get the chair. You can distract and divert and kvetch all you want, but the fact is, you’re on the blog of someone who spent 15+ years ad hoc legitimizing the rape of children.

          That Jim raped a little girl and now claims that she “climbed on top of him” is hilarious, but when the authorities finally lay their hands on him, he’ll have some long explaining to do.

          Good luck, kike.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            It’s just piling more evidence that you are delusional retards and that you never dare address.

            You use the word reactionary but also conveniently ignore the 12 year old girls getting married in Europe throughout all history to 30 year old men.

            Pathetic feminist cuck, just do it, become an hero.

            • y says:

              Oh, so now it’s about girls aged 12 rather than 8.

              You’re triggered.

              • Not Tom says:

                Oh, here it is, we’re back to the nonexistent “exploited 8-year-olds” that are about as real as the “woke 8-year-olds” that progressives imagine exist.

                What is it with lefties and 8-year-old girls? Such a bizarre and degenerate obsession. Though it makes sense as a proxy for 8-year-old boys.

                No doubt this guy’s IP will match the one from a few days ago. People who are actually put off by Jim’s discussion of early female sexuality tend to ignore him, they don’t come here to troll and misrepresent his positions. Just screams “fed shill”, seeding the tip jar and trying to bait someone into the wrong kind of response.

                • y says:

                  You’re a piece of s**t, and based on your argumentative style of massive projection, likely have Jewish ancestry.

                  Jim has been talking about girls aged 8 or 9 for many years. Hundreds, if not thousands, of very explicit posts that strongly suggest “personal experience.”

                  I brought up the disturbing subject in posts fewer than the fingers on your hand, *in response*. So now I’m the perv, and not the blogger who’s been writing about it for well over a decade. The blogger who, coincidentally, condemns the use of words (e.g. pedophile) that shed a light on the reality of sexual abuse.

                  You’re just trying to silence the conversation, because you realize that the jig is up. Nobody supports what you purport to support. At least nobody who counts. Your views are, and will always be, extremely low status, and rightly so. It’s sick.

                • jim says:

                  You support and enable gay predation on small boys, as does the article you link to.

                • Atavistic Morality says:


                  Oh, what is this? Not Tom really did hit the nail, you’re a pedophile that wants to fuck 8 year old boys. That explains it, no wonder you rage against healthy and biologically sane heterosexuality.

                • y says:


                  I think that people who rape prepubescent boys or prepubescent girls (or both) should be exterminated. People who justify the rape of little children, of either sex, should be watched closely by the FBI.

                  Apparently you don’t care about the girls, because you’re an autistic loser, hence a misogynist who blames the victim. 🙂 Misogyny is gay, by the way, half of the MGTOWs suck dick.

                • jim says:

                  And yet, strange to report, you have no problem with drag queen story hour even when it results in sexual acts on the floor of the public library.

                  “Pedophile” is a word that is a lie, created in 1944 to redirect our rage against gays against straight males with seventeen year old girlfriends

                • Starman says:

                  Prove you’re not a fed shill, answer my RedPill on Women question above. It’s multiple choice, so you cannot obfuscate.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >muh sore giny

                  Lol, you’re not even trying.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You’re just trying to silence the conversation

                  “Silence the conversation”? Ahahaha, this is amateur hour shit even by the very low standards of fedposting. It’s as if you’re not even trying to sound like a “fellow nrxer”, you’re just taking language straight out of the SJW playbook. Next thing we know you’ll be talking about “gaslighting”.

                  You’re mad not because we are low status, but because here, you are low status. Year after year of attempted entryism, albeit rather cheaply and lazily implemented entryism, and what do you and your paymasters have to show for it? Nothing.

                  As for the “pedo” nonsense, it’s really not that complicated. Here’s roughly how it breaks down by age, and even the reddit hivemind knows it, as demonstrated several posts above:

                  – By age 14, almost every girl is a raging storm of hormones, actively seeking to get fucked (not by literally any guy – not a whore – but seeking nevertheless) and knowing exactly what that means.

                  – By age 12, about half of all girls have hit puberty, are developing secondary sexual characteristics, and are manifesting some degree of explicit sexuality, probably masturbating regularly. Many are “incels” at this age because boys of the same age are usually clumsy at best and still pre-pubescent at worst, and older (18-20) boys are not really interested, unless she manages to trick them and present as older, which many at least try to do and some succeed. May not precisely seek out intercourse, but will seek out foreplay situations that quickly escalate to intercourse.

                  – By age 10, very common for the behavioral subroutines to have kicked in (flirting, shit testing, possessiveness, especially with preselected adult males), even if the sexual subroutines haven’t. In other words, they often have no idea what they’re getting into, but nevertheless make all the right moves to get into it. This is totally uncontroversial – watch any kids’ movie and this is exactly how the 10-year-old girls behave in it when any alpha male is present. Adult males in reality tend to brush it off, or think it’s “cute” (but not attractive).

                  – By age 8, some girls are going through early puberty or at least adrenarche and doing the same thing as the 10-year-olds mentioned above. However, nearly every sober adult male in command of his own faculties is creeped out by it, because she’s barely even female by hetero male standards. Thus you only ever hear about “encounters” with girls this young in situations where the man was clearly and obviously not in control – such as extremely drunk and half-asleep or fully asleep. And from what I can tell, unclear how many of those situations even led to any real sexual activity, as opposed to e.g. “she woke up in his bed and nothing happened but still that’s weird and creepy”.

                  You, like the degenerate faggot you are, translate this simple bell curve of pubescent age into “Jim says all 8-year-old girls are dirty whores” which just isn’t even in the same zip code, never mind the same ballpark. And you do this presumably because it enables you to feel less guilty about thinking the same thoughts about 8-year-old boys. But 8-year-old girls are not 8-year-old boys, and you know they are not, so you have to make up increasingly insane interpretations of the simple reality in order to make your own position sound sane to yourself.

                  Jim talks about girls aged 8 or 9 because they’re at the tail of the curve. That’s roughly the earliest age when a small but noticeable number of them start behaving in ways that begin to resemble adult females and cease to resemble asexual children worried about cooties. Many, probably most, 8-year-old girls are not manifesting adult behavior, but some are, and that’s the part that makes your head explode, because to the lefty mind it’s impossible to discuss individuals or part of a group, you either talk about the whole group or don’t talk about them at all. Call one person a nigger and you must hate all black people; notice one 8-year-old girl acting in an overtly sexual manner and you must have a boner for all of them.

                  The reason it’s important to notice the behavior of girls this young isn’t because it’s somehow ubiquitous, but because it’s the thin end of the wedge used to drive heterosexual men and women apart; pedo hysteria is the precursor to rape hysteria. If you can believe an 8-year-old girl who clearly threw herself on an adult male could not have “consented” because she was eight, then you can believe a 14-year-old girl who went out to an 18+ nightclub wearing a panty-revealing miniskirt could not have “consented” because she was 14, and then you can believe that a 22-year-old girl who spontaneously ripped off all her clothes and started sucking dick could not have “consented” because she had one glass of wine an hour before. Small lies lead to bigger lies, lead to compete and total denial of reality.

              • Atavistic Morality says:

                It’s always been the same and it’s always been based on the facts, as much as you mongrels try to misconstrue.

                Tell your handler the day of the rope will come and you all will be in the list.

          • jim says:

            > Sexually normal men don’t get “seduced” by prepubescent girls

            Every little girl behaves badly, or at least inconveniently, when there is a non kin adult alpha male with adult female pre-selection around.

            Why no word for pedophile until 1944? Why no mention in the Old or New Testment?

            The normal case, and the most common case actually prosecuted, is that a prepubescent girl entered the bedroom of an alpha adult male, with adult female preselection, when he was drunk and asleep “And he assaulted her”. Check out the charges. The circumstances always smell funny.

            The supply and demand situation for sex between adults and pre-pubescent boys is the reverse of the supply and demand situation for sex between adults and prepubescent girls, with the result that these are dramatically different phenomena. Gays are frequently interested in sex with little girls, because they prefer lack of boobs, but little girls are not interested in sex with adult gays, for lack of adult female pre-selection. What, however, is revealed in every Disney movie is that girls, starting at a very early age, want to be alone with adult nonkin alpha males.

            The supply and demand situation is that absolutely no prepubescent boys are interested in sex, and are particularly disgusted with the thought of sex with adults, with the result that gays seeking sex with boys demand something for which there is no supply, while just about every girl is interested in romance, starting at a ridiculously early age, while very few alpha males with adult female pre-selection are interested in sex with prepubescent girls, resulting in inconvenient and disturbing behavior, which behavior, at age nine, sometimes eight, frequently starts to get physical. Menarche sometimes starts at nine, so not all nine year old girls are “prepubescent” in any case, but disturbing sexual behavior frequently starts at well before menarche at andrenarche (when they start to smell adult) and this is the major cause of the problem, not early menarche.

            • y says:

              The normal case, and the most common case actually prosecuted, is that a prepubescent girl entered the bedroom of an alpha adult male, with adult female preselection, when he was drunk and asleep “And he assaulted her”. Check out the charges. The circumstances always smell funny.

              I checked out hundreds of cases where adults had sexual relations with children (of both sexes, boys and girls). It never “smells funny” to me. What I see is horny men, sometimes sadistic, sometimes homicidal, who prey on little girls if heterosexual, and on little boys if homosexual.

              Give an example of “smells funny” to substantiate your point. For my part, I give the example of Christian Brueckner.

              • Not Tom says:

                Christian Brueckner

                I’d never heard of this guy before now. Looked up a long article on Daily Mail. Summary: Hollywood-adjacent, long history of drugs and petty criminal behavior, frequently used gender-neutral language like “something small” in his alleged dealings with children, and then there’s this photo.

                Poster girl principle in full effect here. Dude’s obviously a faggot, perfectly fits the profile. But of course, the conspicuous absence of any mention of young boys does not smell funny to you because you are a fed shill who is trained not to smell anything, ever.

                • y says:

                  Jim said,

                  Check out the charges. The circumstances always smell funny.

                  That is never the case, however. If it is, prove it. As for Brueckner, it’s just one example (a very recent one, from yesterday or so, which is why I brought it up) out of a million others; certainly one can find plenty of other cases on the web with ease, with varying details.

                  The burden of proof is on your side of the debate to demonstrate that it “smells funny,” not on me to disprove it.

                  Do you really believe that, because of the supposed “supply and demand situation,” no straight child-rapists exist? Only faggots?

                  Do you really believe that it’s always the girls who sneak into the bedroom and climb on top of the completely innocent man?

                • jim says:

                  The burden of proof is always on the party alledging misconduct he intends to punish.

                  When we are in charge, a woman getting behind closed doors with a nonkin adult male will constitute misconduct, the penalty will be indissoluble marriage. Very early marriage will be safe, legal, and, we hope, rare, but the only way to make it rare is to keep girl and women on a very tight leash.

                • Starman says:

                  What’s the matter fed shill?
                  Unable to answer my RedPill on Women question?
                  There’s plenty of commentators here who will happily spoon feed you the answer, if your FBI supervisor lets you see it.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The burden of proof is on your side of the debate to demonstrate that it “smells funny,” not on me to disprove it.

                  Which I did, and you promptly handwaved away as “well that’s just one example”.

                  I’ve shown why your one example was incredibly suspect, now the burden of proof is on you to dig up one example that’s not completely ridiculous – preferably, one that does not rely on the testimony of the girl years later, after journalists and psychiatrists have had ample time to explain to her exactly how she should remember the events in question.

                  When a young boy is molested, he tells his parents and the situation escalates almost immediately. If all of these young girls are being similarly abused, should be able to dig up at least one or two examples that don’t rely on circumstantial/hearsay evidence years after the incident and in which the accused man is not obviously a degenerate faggot.

                • Frederick Algernon says:


                  If you’d actually been following this blog, you’d be following the comments. And if you’d been following the comments, you’d be aware of the walls of text, with links + details, about extreme female misbehavior, ranging from scarily young to pitifully old. You have gone from hundreds to thousands to millions. Put up or shut up. Shaman would absolutely annihilate the board with evidence. You’ve deployed a single case, and it is a fag. Fags are pedophiles, we get that. Provide evidence of your assertion. It shouldn’t be too hard if you’ve got dozens…

                  Inb4 cope and exit.

            • FBI Anon says:

              >disturbing sexual behavior frequently starts at well before menarche at andrenarche (when they start to smell adult)

              Seriously, how do you know that?

              • jim says:

                I take it you are an omega male.

                When I perform the alpha role for the benefit of some chick, her neices and younger sisters always intrude.

                One time I was naked because my girl was giving me a sponge bath, and her two younger sisters suddenly appeared.

                Happens all the time, though usually when I am fully clothed.

                And that is not the worst that happened, just an incident easy to explain and difficult for evil people to deliberately misunderstand. It gets more interesting when I am trying to take a little rest while the aunt or elder sister is busy.

                I get sexually harassed by prepubescent girls all the time, because I always perform dangerous scary alpha when fertile age women are around.

                I wish women with assets reacted so vigorously.

                • Michael says:


                  Had you just never talked about this weird topic, you could have been — and would have been — the official leader of NRx right now.

                  Was bringing up this topic, and in such a manner, time after time, really worth it?

                • Starman says:

                  If Social Matter started using the RedPill on Women test earlier to smoke out entryists, it will still be around.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Had you just never talked about this weird topic, you could have been — and would have been — the official leader of NRx right now.

                  The SJW is always just very concerned for your public reputation and only trying to help. Your credibility is at stake here, Jim! Why can’t you just recant your red-pill views, and recant your horrible thought crimes? Then you could truly lead!

                • Dave says:

                  Jim is the unofficial NRx leader right now because he *hasn’t* moderated his views to appeal to a wider audience. Every NRxer who tried that has quickly faded into irrelevance. If you think Jim is too radical, click here for something more suited to your taste:


              • If you’ve never had a little girl try to flirt with you, you’re probably not very alpha lol.

          • Allah says:

            Perversions decrease reproduction, that’s the whole point. Keeping young virgin girls for one’s exclusive use is likely to massively increase, rather than decrease one’s reproduction. Young virgin girls allegedly being inconvenienced by this is a separate topic, if that’s your grievance, say so.

    • Mike says:

      @John Q Public
      Lol, even Jim himself said to vote for Obama back in 2008 or 2012. And so did Moldbug if I remember correctly. You’re just a fucking retard who can’t see what not believing in democracy actually looks like in practice, and are somehow blind to the kind of funny irony Moldbug has always practiced since the beginning of his blog.

    • Not Tom says:

      Virtually no one here is going to waste their time listening to a podcast, especially by someone they’ve never heard of.

      Text, bitches. The written word. Use it.

    • polifugue says:

      Moldbug is not a psyop, you just lack class.

      Simply being able to internalize the ideas unearthed in Unqualified Reservations places one in the upper strata of consciousness caste. Most upper middle class people are Leftists because Leftism is seen as the intelligent person’s ideology.

      Coming from an unspecified wealthy town within a 50 mile radius of Manhattan, every one of my friends was a staunch Bernie-bro, and all of them are still rabid Leftists. I only knew two young people in my childhood who were conservative, one whose father worked for Fox News. As a confession, I was a rabid supporter of feminism, gay marriage and late-term abortion, more than most of my friends.

      If Moldbug openly supported Trump or irrelevant conservative political issues, no one from people of my background would be willing to read his work.

      Thus, one cannot view Moldbug’s opinions on gay marriage or Bernie Sanders as genuine belief, but as class-signalling. Moldbug understands that caring about issues of which do not matter is unimportant, and most likely does not have a strong opinion on them in the first place.


      When Moldbug endorses Bernie, refers to Bernie-bros as “Optimates” and Trump supporters as “MAGAtards,” he is saying, “you wealthy coastal elites can read my work, I’m not one of those low class Christian Trump supporters, I’m one of you.” People who have read his work should not need babying. His podcast interviews are for elites skeptical of the holiness spiral, people new to NRX, not the hardened veterans of Jim’s blog.

      If Moldbug wished to cease spreading NRX, he would not risk his livelihood on giving interviews in the first place.

  24. Dull Ember says:

    When I saw the post I immediately laughed and thought “Jim called it.”

    One fascinating aspect is which people are outraged enough to cancel their NYT subscriptions — why did they even have one to begin with, and really, it was this that was a line too far? No inner reflection at all from such people, it’s great to have them identify themselves.

  25. Mister Grumpus says:

    Let’s play mind reader:

    This NYT guy. What does HE think or believe he’s doing?

    You can answer at the brainstorm survival level, or the conscious, cerebral, story-telling and curve-fitting level, etc.

    My take:

    One thing I notice is that he’s apparently the last white male in there (technology reporting, haha yeah) so at the survival level he knows he’s “next”, and therefore needs to bring in extra white male scalps to prove his loyalty, for as long as possible, until the lifeboat is ready. Sport jacket Antifa.

    But as for what he consciously believes he’s doing, that’s opaque to me. He’d never have gotten the job without sincerely believing what we understand to be bullshit, so I can’t imagine what movie is playing on his screen, if you will.

    Aside: Who here believes that NYT keeps a “shit list Rolodex” of “outside” people to destroy, in order of… required ambient social progress?

    • BC says:

      In leftist circles you gain power by destroying others. It naturally makes people more afraid of you. This is why Hillary Clinton doesn’t do anything to push back against the rumors she murders people, it’s too her advantage that people area afraid.

      • The Cominator says:

        In all politics great and small generally is good if people are afraid of you.

        One of Trump’s big problems is that any would be traitors ain’t afraid.

        • BC says:

          That would require Trump to have actual power. So far, he doesn’t have any actual power.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Do you see it as a bright line (no power/power) or a spectrum, or something else? I agree that if he had power, his enemies would fear him and his friends demonstrate loyalty, but it feels incorrect to say he is powerless.

            • BC says:

              Trump has potential power, as potential engery, which does scare his foes, but potential power, without an example of being used is of limited usefulness.

  26. Zach says:


    “Everyone who works for the New York Times is evil, and you cannot appease them, because they hate everyone, including themselves.”

  27. Bruce says:

    Steve Hsu was forced to resign. Being Asian wasn’t a defense I guess. You’d think Asian men would be pretty easy to redpill.

    • Karl says:

      Why would you think that?

    • Kevin C. says:

      > You’d think Asian men would be pretty easy to redpill.


      I recall an essay from a few years back, that I can’t find again, by an Asian American about why, despite all the ways Democrats are bad for Asians, and how much Asians may agree with Republicans, they’ll still vote Democrat: that you don’t vote for 乱 (“chaos”), and the Republicans are 乱. It also, indirectly, served to explain why East Asian democracies are all “dominant-party” systems.

      Summarizing in more direct words, Asians don’t really “get” multi-party democracy, or have space in their worldview for “loyal opposition.” There’s simply the Establishment, and all who oppose it are “chaotic” rebels. At the end of a dynasty, when the Establishment is failing and literal civil war starts becoming preferable, only *then* do you support rebels.

      The rest of the time, it doesn’t matter how hostile and tyrannical the Establishment is, or how much you’d prefer the rebels; supporing a rebellion generally just brings down things like the Nine Familial Extermination. And the Establishment tyrranny is a *predictable* tyranny, and thus, often has predictable ways of evading and bypassing the worst elements.

      And the way you get ahead is by sucking up to the Establishment. You publicly endorse the Official Consensus of whatever group you’re in at the moment (without having to actually believe it — see Japanese honne vs. tatemae), and most notably climb the ladder by studying hard on convincingly parroting back whatever the official doctrine is — whether by writing “eight-legged essays” on millennia-old Confucian texts, quoting heavily the Little Red Book, or writing NYT columns on White Privilege — and then go about your life otherwise whenever the Mandarins aren’t watching. Two-faced brownnosing as millenia-old survival strategy against the oldest bureaucratic states.

      And any Asian in America can see that the Dems are clearly the Establishment Party, the people in charge. Which makes Republicans 乱, unsafe to support; better to suck up to the Mandarins, bribe your way around the AA barriers, say the Woke slogans in public, then live unWoke lives in the privacy of your communities.

      (From what I’ve seen, the ones who broke with this pattern by suing Harvard were primarily one’s who’s families have been here the most generations, and so assimilated to Western ideas of meaning what you say and actually taking the slogans seriously and literally rather than empty slogans to be parroted by the ordinary folk and inconsistenty wielded as an arbitrary tool by the powerful.)

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Are there even useful stats on how Asians vote?

        Many census Asians are Indians, mostly high caste Indians, who are primarily whites with some aboriginal admixture and some Semitic admixture. They act and vote like Jews and can be expected to continue to do so.

        Other census Asians are principally Austronesian and are principally docile underclass like Hispanics.

        Actual East Asians – principally Han and Koreans in the US – are usually not broken out of the statistics.

        • Dave says:

          Dual-citizen Indian-Americans vote for the right-wing party in India and the left-wing party in America. There is no contradiction because right-wing policies make a nation stronger and more nationalistic, which is exactly what you don’t want in the nation you’re colonizing.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            This is restricted to north NJ, but a huge amount of the Indians there are quiet Trump supporters. I remember during the ’15/’16 campaign there was a somewhat visible online struggle between dot-indians over who to support and why. I wonder if the pro-Trump sentiment is restricted to that region, middleman minorities, or something else. Disregarding the idea of bloc voting to destabilize the nation (which is a fascinating idea), I am somewhat confident in stating that business minded minorities will quietly support GET in November.

            • Not Tom says:

              Indian voting is likely somewhat complicated by the fact that Trump and Modi seem (seemed?) to have a pretty good relationship, and any steps America takes to weaken China will strengthen India.

              The overwhelming majority still vote left, but in some ways a vote for Trump is actually a vote for India. It really depends on whether they’re more loyal to the heartland or the frontier.

              • Anonymous says:

                This is the truth. I am dot Indian and there is a tremendous amount of silent support for Trump among Hindus in America, and even among Hindus back in India. Trump hates the Chinese, likes Jews, disses Muhamedans. Modi likes Trump, Trump likes Modi. Trump sells India big ticket weapons. He ticks all the right boxes.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Asians support the Strong Horse, even if that horse threatens to trample them to death….They are bred that way…In the words of Greg Cochran, in China the grass blade that sticks up is torn out and thrown away…

      • Pooch says:

        I would just assume non-whites auto-vote for more mass immigration to get their families onto the magic dirt.

  28. Not Tom says:

    I pointed out how foolish and naive he was being by talking to the media – and telling his readers to cooperate! Even most moderate leftists with a platform have learned by now not to do that. How much do you want to bet that that’s how they learned his real name?

    I can easily imagine Scott being just like some of the men in my more distant social circles – intelligent professionals who, having lived mostly sheltered lives, are just doing whatever they can to get by, so I feel a tiny bit of sympathy – very tiny. But this is war, and war is not interested in the concerns of men who sit on the sidelines, if you even grant him that; technically, talking to the NYT made him a collaborator, who thought he’d be rewarded by giving some low-effort aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Historically, these people tend not to be spared by either their nominal friends or their nominal enemies. Who has any use for an ally who can’t figure out which side he’s on, or even admit there’s a conflict?

    For some reason Sailer had taken a liking to the guy, but I say good riddance. To say he dispensed purple pills would be extremely generous. His blog was an elaborate exercise in crimestop, but tailored for the more intelligent who aren’t satisfied with the usual platitudes and chants. I don’t know anyone who was brought over to the “right” by his blog. He was popular with tradcucks who already vote R (but are left in every other respect) and “classical liberals” who endlessly claim to be sick of the left but still vote D and morally and financially support every progressive doctrine and institution. Worthless, the whole lot of ’em. Good riddance, enjoy being eaten by your own side.

    • Novemberrain says:

      I was a libertarian before he introduced me to Moldbug and here I am. Maybe would end up on the right regardless, but still a datapoint.

  29. Javier says:

    After reading his farewell post the one detail that stuck out to me was “I have 10 housemates including 2 kids.”


    This is your reward for obedient leftism? Living in third-world level bunkhouse squalor with 10 square feet of personal space? He’s a working professional with grad-school education too. WTF?

    Follow us and we will help you get a wife, children which share your DNA, and a plot of land and home to call your own.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Excellent point.

    • jim says:

      I will have barbecue sauce on my schadenfreude.

    • Fred says:

      Honestly, I’ve seen that pattern again and again and again and I’ve asked myself the same question as many times. It’s ridiculous. I can see why people who get something out of leftism are loyal to it, but these schmucks who get nothing out of it … why??

      • jim says:

        > but these schmucks who get nothing out of it … why??

        Stockholm syndrome. He refuses to realize that progressives are the reason he does not have an obedient faithful virgin wife, children, a home, and a garden.

      • The Cominator says:

        Almost nobody whos name isn’t Fidel Castro (who becoming ruler of a tropical Island in I think his twenties and fucking a different girl every night I’d say okay he got something out of it) ever did too well out of leftism.

        The devil likes to swindle those who deal with him.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      If he has a pile of money to show for it he may be able to reconstitute a life, preferably in a different country.

      Otherwise his only asset is his medical license. Oops.

  30. Bruce says:

    I’ve only read a couple of his posts. Does he write anything that’s controversial?

    • Javier says:

      He would typically either stick to left-approved topics or go deep into uncontroversial things to avoid the censors. As the thought-police closed in and blocked out more and more forbidden zones, he narrowed his subject matter more and more to talk about the most benign and inoffensive things he could find.

      He always struck me as a man quietly exasperated by the level of oppression all around him yet dutifully obeying it nonetheless.

      • Bruce says:

        Sorry for my ignorance. Why is he being persecuted?

        At some point he must have written something naughty. The only thing I noticed is he has a few un-pc links (I think) on his site like (from memory) Greg Cochran.

        • Javier says:

          We don’t specifically know. Being doxxed may just be a side effect. He claims the article was positive so this may be a case of an arrogant journalist hurting someone because they can. They don’t tend to be the brightest or the most empathetic people.

        • Not Tom says:

          Why is he being persecuted?

          Failing to moderate edgy comments. Failing to address certain known thought-criminals by the proper epithets. Failing to provide the approved explanations for certain mysteries. Failing to grovel before the right authorities with sufficient enthusiasm. Failing to fail to notice certain inconsistencies in the official narrative.

          Take your pick. It doesn’t really matter. All boils down to “insufficient leftism”. Some progressive journolackey believed he could elevate his own status by attacking Scott, and that’s all it takes.

        • jim says:

          In the end, every leftist will be persecuted. By the time the Khmer Rouge fell, almost all the original Khmer Rouge had been murdered by the Khmer Rouge, generally with torture.

          Scott Alexander needs to ask himself how he would now be doing were he in Venezuela.

          • Karl says:

            The question is no thought crime, so he can ask hinself. But an honest answer would be a thought crime.

            Do you think he could commit that thought crime?

            I haven’t read his blog for quite a while as he had less and less interesting content. Not sure whether this was because he wasn’t commiting thought crimes or whether he merely didn’t want to write thought crimes. I suspect the former.

            • jim says:

              I stopped reading his website, because more and more boring as the range of permitted thoughts got smaller and smaller. Interacting with people in real life about hate facts happening right in front of us, looks to me as if the policeman inside is internalized, that they actually cannot see what is in front of their faces.

              • Karl says:

                I also get the impression that there is a policeman inside effectively preventing thought crimes. If Scott Alexander cannot commit thought crimes, I won’t do him any good to ask himself how he would now be doing were he in Venezuela.

                Anyone who has a policeman inside can’t be helped by questions. He’ll first have to learn how to commit a thought crime.

                This seems to be very difficult. Any ideas how a person can be tought to commit a thought crime?

        • Korth says:

          The journo approached Scott under the pretense of writing a positive piece about how he got Covid right earlier than most people. Scott naively believed him, but he’s likely about to receive the JBP treatment, in that the NYT article is going to be a hitpiece on how he’s a horrible enabler of bigotry whose blog is a dogwhistle-laden pipeline to the alt-right, the Covid thing just a footnote at best.

          We’ll see when it gets published.

  31. Contaminated NEET says:

    Ah, that’s the stuff! Rich, satisfying schadenfreude, and piping hot – spoon me up a second helping, please.

  32. Anonymous 2 says:

    For what it’s worth, when I saw it I thought of you, Jim.

  33. The Cominator says:

    When leftists purge rightists or even normies for wrongthink its a problem and we should try to do what we can for them.

    When leftists purge and hopefully kill each other we should laugh at them and high five each other. We certainly should shed no tears for them. If all the leftists torture each other to death for insufficient leftism but can’t effectively do it to normies and people on the right we win. If they are more focused on doing it to each other (and it seems like this is the way things are going) than we win.

    The only leftists who truly aren’t evil are SOME of the new agey vegeterian/vegan types, but they have their own religion and its not progressivism. The rest of them we should imagine dead with a merry tune in our hearts. Thou shalt not suffer a leftist to live, Deus Vult.

    • Karl says:

      What is the difference between a normie and a leftist? Normies are moderate leftists. They subscribe to the same religion.

      I do not think we should try to do what we can for a normie who is purged by rightists. Helping him does us no good as long as he doesn’t reject leftism. Better to just help him fighting the leftists who are attacking him.

      Helping him harm his attackers is useful, preventing normie from suffering from leftism is not.

      • James says:

        Normies are more or less non-religious and aren’t progressive so much as they are doing what it takes to survive. A healthy society has lots of normies.

        That said, I agree with your conclusions. In the end, we need not invest ourselves overly much in defending normies so much as we do in fighting leftists, which may situationally align us with normies.

      • The Cominator says:

        A normie in this sense is someone who is not openly political in any way but winds up being targeted by leftists, think about when they went after youtuber “Pewdiepie” (whatever you think of him) as a normie in this sense.

        So I do not mean normies in the sense of moderate leftists who never attacked people further left (if they did attack people further left it depends, I’d say we should protect Tim Pool but fuck Bill Mahrer) and now find themselves being eater I mean people who weren’t all that political in the 1st place.

        But the right does need to act as a defender of normies if they are to ever turn en masse on the left (as Southern American whites eventually did).

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Rightists, “cuckservative” type especially, get carried away with defending leftists who get attacked by leftists. They see it as an opportunity to win some status points by association with the former leftism of the former leftist. They are not so enthusiastic because they see an opportunity to defend a fellow rightist.

          We should defend everyone, no matter how far left, who is attacked from his left, but the lefter he is the more we should admonish him for his leftism in the process.

          I wish Scott Alexander well in his fight with the New York Times. He has made a strong pre-emptive attack, and he may survive this round. But I wish him well because his articles subtly led moderates on to rightism, exactly what the NYT will accuse him of, not because leftists have a right to not be doxxed by other leftists, which is his position.

          • Not Tom says:

            If I have an enemy, a traitor, and two bullets, I’ll shoot the traitor twice.

            See also: John McCain, John Roberts.

          • jim says:

            He would have certainly endorsed my destruction, and will probably be cheering the tumbrils in the expectation that sufficiently enthusiastic cheering will result in him not being stuffed into the next one. That strategy failed to protect Lavoisier. He complains of cancel culture when he gets cancelled.

            I don’t think Scott made a strong counter attack. A strong counter attack would have been to name the journalist and give out his phone number. As Vox Day says, make the rubble bounce.

            A strong counter attack would have been to recollect all the victims of cancel culture.

            A strong counter attack would have been to reach out to everyone else under attack from the left, a strong counter attack would have been to reach out for allies among the enemies of his real enemies.

            He does not want support from people like me, and I am not giving it. When he is stuffed into the tumbril, he will be alone in the crowded tumbril, as he is alone in his crowded hovel.

            If he wants to join the enemies of his real enemies, then we will welcome him. Meanwhile, I am enjoying schadenfreude.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              He hasn’t defected, but he has pre-emptively attacked. He has attacked about doxxing, not cancelling Nazis, because supposedly the article will be a nice piece about how smart he has been on Coronavirus. If he complains now about the NYT attacking Nazis, he protests too much. All the NYT needs to do is print that Alexander himself says he is a suspected Nazi. Whereas if now NYT publishes the attack article, it looks like retaliation for Alexander mobilising his followers to complain about the NYT. What’s more, those followers are now pre-committed. They do not have the option of waiting for the attack article about Nazis and deciding whether to disassociate themselves from Alexander. They are already associated with him.

              I do not expect that Alexander will defect. I expect he will eventually be destroyed, although he may win this round, because he is vulnerable and hurting the beast only enrages it further. When that happens I will not be very sad for him, though I think the loss of his blog (which is progressive to its core) will result in a few people who can read between the lines failing to find the dissident right who otherwise would have done so. I do expect Alexander will do some damage to the NYT. If I were able I would be happy to assist him, with the only caveat that I would not agree with his justifications.

              • Not Tom says:

                Whereas if now NYT publishes the attack article, it looks like retaliation for Alexander mobilising his followers to complain about the NYT.

                Not really. The average NYT reader has no clue who Scott Alexander is, and definitely has no knowledge of this incident.

                Now if he’d made the rubble bounce, doxed the NYT reporter and forced other media and possibly the NYT themselves to cover the “oh noes evil right-wing nazifascistbadthinkers attacked a pure and innocent journalist”, and everybody had already read that coverage and had a good hearty laugh about it, then publishing the attack piece would look like petty retaliation.

                Our main advantage, if we have one, is agility. The official press is a lumbering dinosaur that takes forever to publish anything that is not breaking news. Multiple counter-memes can be created and disseminated before the official narrative has even seen the light of day. But Scott and his followers are a long, long way from understanding any of that; most of them don’t even really understand or believe in the concept of narrative journalism to begin with, otherwise would not have taken the extremely stupid step of talking to the media.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  There wouldn’t be any rubble. There would be a happy and well NYT reporter running a story about Alexander doxxing NYT reporters, oh and also he’s a Nazi. The threat to doxx Alexander would be forgotten, and current doxxing excused as Nazis have no rights. Then Alexander would be fired and perhaps killed.

                  Full attack makes sense if the Nazi article is already up. Maybe Alexander will do that. Or maybe he will accept the legitimacy of the show trials – most leftists do. Or maybe NYT will blink on the Nazi story; a lot of prestige intellectuals like Alexander, and many of them may have written the NYT. If everyone but nobodies already backed away from Alexander, he’s toast.

                  Our main advantage is unimportance. Who would go into a licensed profession and then get famous making risque posts under his real name (I already knew his name and not because he told me)? It is a losing situation. Makes some sense if you take free speech and left’s claim to rationalism at face value…

                • jim says:

                  > There wouldn’t be any rubble. There would be a happy and well NYT reporter running a story about Alexander doxxing NYT reporters, oh and also he’s a Nazi.

                  Marvel Comics is rubble now. The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, the SFWA, is rubble now. Converged open source projects will soon be rubble.

                  Our enemy can bleed.

                  > Full attack makes sense if the Nazi article is already up.

                  They attack soft targets. Determined vengeance and prompt outrage, including a list of the murderous crimes committed by the New York Times, as for example the latest noose hoax, concocted to murder more white people, would have improved his prospects of continuing to blog, and diminished the likelihood of a trip to the guillotine following the removal of Trump.

                  Vox Day’s advice on how to deal with attack by Social Justice Warriors works. Long before he gave that advice, I spontaneously followed that tactic, and it worked. I kept my job, the social justice warrior did not.

                  Vox Day’s advice works because left cohesion is weak. They prefer soft targets, so if one Social Justice Warrior attacks, and you reveal yourself to be a soft target, they all join in, like sharks smelling blood in the water, and you are destroyed, but if you reveal yourself to be a hard man, strong with righteous rage, they don’t, the one social justice warrior attacking you is isolated, and can be destroyed.

                • Not Tom says:

                  There wouldn’t be any rubble. There would be a happy and well NYT reporter running a story about Alexander doxxing NYT reporters, oh and also he’s a Nazi.

                  Whereas this way there will merely be a happy and well NYT reporter running a story about Alexander making veiled threats to dox NYT reporters, oh and also he’s a Nazi.

                  Huge victory for Scott there. Totally worth the loss of his platform and upcoming loss of his job. I’d add the loss of his other assets, but doesn’t seem like he has any. Frankly, sounds like this guy doesn’t have much to lose, which makes it all the more pathetic that he quietly cancels himself.

                  I don’t care about him. I’m certainly not going to try to rally him or his even sadder fans. But I’m with Jim; weak, low-energy counter that won’t make him any new friends and will only further enrage his enemies.

              • jim says:

                > I do expect Alexander will do some damage to the NYT. If I were able I would be happy to assist him

                Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake. Alexander would not lift a finger to assist you. I am enjoying the damage he is doing to the New York Times, and enjoying the damage the New York Times is doing to him.

                If he had deigned to notice the damage the New York Times was doing to everyone else, then I would be happy to assist him.

                Did he figure out that when the New York Times reported that the garage door opener of a black Nascar driver was a noose, failing to notice that all the garage door openers were “nooses”, and that they had been installed years ago, long before the black Nascar driver was assigned that garage, this would likely result in in black people murdering white people and burning down white people’s homes, while the police stand around like potted palms?

                Somehow he failed to notice that, even as the New York Times threatened to dox him. If he had managed to notice that the New York Times was organizing the murder of white people and the destruction of their homes, while also doxing insufficiently progressive progressives, I might have had some slight sympathy.

                Lots of white people have been murdered or had their homes destroyed in the last couple of weeks, mostly good progressives living in blue state megalopoli. Scott Alexander is a good progressive living a blue state megalopolis, and he does not notice.

                He does not notice the New York Times fanning the flames, even as it doxes him. Nor did Lavoisier notice all the other good people strangely similar to himself being taken in tumbrils to the guillotine.

                • Oliver Crommey says:

                  > “Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake. Alexander would not lift a finger to assist you. I am enjoying the damage he is doing to the New York Times, and enjoying the damage the New York Times is doing to him.”

                  I prefer to see it as when Austria is strong back Prussia, and when Prussia is strong back Austria.

                • jim says:

                  And if Austria is loyal to Prussia?

                • Zach says:

                  Exactly. Spot on.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “And if Austria is loyal to Prussia?”

                  It does not really matter, so long as you do not accidentally become emotionally invested and keep backing “weak” Austria if it starts winning. Tends to happen with demotic wars of today, but did not happen so much when Austria was constantly fighting Prussia.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        What is the difference between a normie and a leftist? Normies are moderate leftists. They subscribe to the same religion.

        What does “normie” mean to you? Even here in New England, there are plenty of people who don’t care about politics or even vote, but have no illusions about racial minorities, don’t buy into the whole women-with-penises shtick, and tell plenty of politically incorrect jokes that would lose them their job if they were a professor telling them, except that they’re not going to lose their jobs because they are plumbers or own landscaping companies.

        These people don’t subscribe to the leftist religion. They are noncombatants in the Culture Wars, but nonetheless sane. If they’re not “normies” by the accepted definition, then we need a new word.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Even here in New England, there are plenty of people who don’t care about politics or even vote, but have no illusions about racial minorities, don’t buy into the whole women-with-penises shtick, and tell plenty of politically incorrect jokes that would lose them their job if they were a professor telling them”

          I lived there too a lot of normies became leftists in Obama’s second term and New England became like hell… there weren’t too many remaining up there when I left.

        • Fred says:

          >They are noncombatants

          “In 2020, everyone is either a collaborator or a dissident”

        • Karl says:

          The people you discribe actively reject central aspects of the leftist religion. I my eyes the are rightists.

          A normie is someone who doesn’t think too closely about the leftist religion. He accepts leftist dogma, but considers it maybe a bit extreme. He blieves in equality, feminism, anti-racism, democracy and considers discrimination a terrible evil. He is not political, but obeys anyone who is in power.

          • The Cominator says:

            Read what Mike in Boston said, they are not all like this at all. But they are becoming rarer in blue areas as the leftist cult becomes more powerful and more demanding there.

        • Encelad says:

          In my experience, many “normies” are indeed lefists, but they are not actually that evil. Conversely they are mostly decent people, and since every mainstream media tells them the progs are the good guys, they are progs. The typical leftist I am acquainted with, is a slightly above average intelligence person, who believes to be some sort of genius because he attended college. He watches CNN* and John Oliver* (*the equivalent), and spits out “ORANGE MAN BAD” on social media, along with every Cathedral meme, believing it is his own thought. If a restoration happens, he would change his mind on everything, believing it was the deep reasoning of his superior brain that brought him to evolve his opinions. Actually it would be just the TV broadcasting different memes. It might even be that, as Jim says, he wouldn’t even notice his ideas are now different.

          • The Cominator says:

            When you become a leftist you stop being a normie and you become evil.

            “The typical leftist I am acquainted with, is a slightly above average intelligence person, who believes to be some sort of genius because he attended college. He watches CNN* and John Oliver* (*the equivalent), and spits out “ORANGE MAN BAD” on social media”

            Yes that is your typical leftist an evil brainwashed midwit who thinks they are a genius because they believe what they are told and all of them should be helicoptered every fucking last one, the younger women should become concubines for shitlords until they hit the wall at which point they should be helicoptered.

            • Dave says:

              I drove through a BLM march the other day, about a hundred fertile-age white women and a few soyboys. They were doing what young single women always do, making a lot of noise in the subconscious hope that strong, virile men would drag them away and start knocking babies out of them.

              They’ll get their wish if the police are disbanded, but they and their babies will likely end up dead if their captors aren’t white. Instincts don’t work well between races.

            • Encelad says:

              If, together with the priesthood, you intend to helicopter all nominally aligned leftist, you are gonna helicopter quite a lot of people. While leftist priests are dangerous and insane, most of leftist normies are more accurately represented by the NPC meme. I don’t see them as a big problem, just switch the channel and they will react accordingly.

              If you are talking about purging leftism intended as stamping out all “defect” attitude, to obtain a total cooperate – cooperate society, that would be impossible, since the more society tends toward trust and cooperation, the more advantage for the cheater, thus the more draconian measures to avoid defect. In an utopian total cooperative society, where everyone trusts everyone else, a pure cheater would have an astronomical fitness, and their genes would spread like wildfire. People from Nordic countries, who evolved to be more cooperative due to rigid climate, turned out to be the worst affected by pathological altruism, and they ended up to be the most pozzed.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        A normie is one who follows the politics of those above him. Havel’s Greengrocer is a normie. When you get a normie in a re-education program after the restoration and you explain the new rules, he will immediately internalize them and will probably think things were always that way.

        • jim says:

          We will restore the Republic, as Caesar Augustus did, I pray with Trump as Caesar Augustus, possibly after a Stalin causes the progressive faith to wither away, and James the Second replaces Cromwell. To the normie in London, the restoration was the King returning to London. The monarchy had never ended, thus the monarchy was not restored. And similarly, the Republic will never have ended, therefore never restored.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I am aware from their perspectives nothing is ever restored, it simply is. From our point of view, of course, we notice these things. From our perspective, massive changes occur and everyone falls in line. From theirs, nothing that serious actually changes and life mysteriously gets better, which they like.

            My point is that a normie will adhere to the ideology of whatever elite is in power. If they tell him some really weird, obviously false idea then he might try to ignore it or work around it at some level, but he will mouth platitudes. Only people at a higher awareness actually develop their own ideas and worldviews. Everyone else gets them from above.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      There aren’t clear definitions of what a rightist or a normie is at this point in time. Are cuckservatives rightists or leftists? Are Democrat voters that don’t engage in twitter mob justice leftists or normies? Are Republican votes that don’t vote for Trump leftists or normies? And are blue azure Trump voters rightists or normies?

      These days I can’t even tell anymore what the fuck “my race” is supposed to be, because the amount of whites that want to kill me, rape my children and they think it’s funny (MDE™) seems to increase by the day.

      In my mind I’m waiting for election day to call teams. People that vote Trump (or the national equivalent) = ally. People that vote for someone else = enemy. People that don’t vote at all = normie. Everything else seems delusional.

    • Racist says:

      In 2020, 95% of people are leftists. Even the conservatives. I believe they can be saved. Scott Alexander’s heart was in the right place, though he can be quite a coward when it comes to pressure. He seems to respect the truth. He’d probably NRx alongside Moldbug if he were more red-blooded.

      • jim says:

        > He’d probably NRx alongside Moldbug if he were more red-blooded.

        But he is not. If Trump does not become Caesar Augustus, Scott Alexander will suffer the same fate as Lavoisier. The revolution devours its children.

        • Pooch says:

          And what becomes of us if Trump does not become Caesar?

          • jim says:

            I have made preparation for that contingency. Scott Alexander has not.

            • Mountain Dude says:

              Without violating your own security, what sort of preparations would you suggest it would be prudent to take at this time?

              • The Cominator says:

                Above all don’t be in a big city amongst a lot of shitlibs.

                Leftism is based on covetousness and in the extreme form the desire to destroy the unholy to bring about the “heaven on earth” which is always just out of reach.

                Silence of the Lambs: How does one begin to covet, one begins by coveting what they see every day.

              • jim says:

                Passports and residence permits on the periphery of the American hegemony, or outside it, and invest in good crypto currency – not your only or primary investment, but a shits hit the fan investment. Not because it might take over the world and appreciate in value, not because the US dollar might be effectively demonetized the way the Venezuelan Bolivar was, but because you individually might be demonetized. Every few months it gets harder and harder to move money around through the regular banks and institutions like paypal, even for entirely boring and completely legitimate activities.

                Also practice how to kill people with weapons that are legal to transport on planes internationally and with your bare hands.

                Stockpile more effectual weapons and food supplies in a pleasant rural location. Choose stuff that will keep indefinitely and is cheap, without worrying much about whether it is healthy still less if it is tasty, because I doubt if it is ever going to be used, but you might need to hide from, rather than flee the crisis. By and large survivors of past crises fled, but some just sat tight quietly for the duration. In the past, refugees have had better success than preppers, but you should be ready for all eventualities. If Harvard takes the entire American Empire down with it, refugee might not be a good option, but the usual pattern is that things remain relatively quiet on the periphery of empire.

                Expect the unexpected.

                • ten says:

                  What is quality crypto? I am a total crypto noob, i trade bc on bitstamp (a generic crypto trading platform) and most of my crypto assets are there, while i have sent some to other wallets. Bitstamp requires me to register with passport etc, so i assume i could get shut out of those assets easily if i were to be targeted. Shallowly googling how to secure my stuff just leads to other platforms like bitstamp so i don’t know.

                • jim says:

                  Bitcoin and Monaro are the real thing. The rest are for the most part scams piled on top of scams, though I have some siacoin.

                  I recommend you purchase bitcoin under your own official name and id using US dollars, then convert it into monaro on your own wallet running on your computer, then, on another identity, turn it back into bitcoin.

                  A better solution is to buy bitcoin from friends of friends. All big central nodes are monitored.

                  Not that I have investigated every crypto currency. There were a couple of thousand at last count, and the ones that have something useful and valuable get lost in the shouting from a thousand scammers.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Ethereum is effectively crap, but it’s probably not going away, because people are people and there’s a ton of inertia (not to mention a whole token ecosystem, even if the tokens are also crap).

                  I’m pretty sure Decred is legit, it’s been around for a long time and the proof of stake system should in theory protect it from too many bad decisions. And if you intend to park money in crypto for a long time (not trade it) then you can stake it and get interest – but, like any real investment, it is illiquid while staked.

                  Bitcoin and Monero are definitely the two most important, though, and Monero only because of the privacy benefits. If you have or plan to have substantial crypto assets, almost all of it should be BTC. For me it’s something like 90%.

                • Dave says:

                  I don’t see the point of laundering Bitcoin through Monero. You pay fees on both currencies in both directions, plus fees for the exchange. Why not just use Monero?

                  If you’re not a criminal, Bitcoin’s fees are too high, and if you are a criminal, Bitcoin is easy to track.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing enough support for Monero as a currency.

                  And scaling problems mean that there likely never will be support for Monero as a currency.

                  Bitcoin fees are getting high because of scaling problems, but Monero will run into scaling problems faster than Bitcoin.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Why not just use Monero?

                  Hard to transact with, doesn’t hold its value well, may be banned from mainstream exchanges some day if banks and regulators decide they’ve had enough of the “money laundering” (not really, but they can call it that and the press will repeat it uncritically).

                  It’s not safe as a long-term store of value right now, just happens to be useful as a short-term medium of exchange.

                  Exchange fees are trivial, we’re generally talking sub-1% for a round trip.

                • Mountain Dude says:

                  “Stockpile more effectual weapons and food supplies in a pleasant rural location.”

                  What’s a reasonable set of weapons for such a situation? Lots of survivalist types suggesting exotic gear. But what’s the ideal all-purpose rifle, for example, for defending a modest homestead in a pleasant rural location?

                • Green Fields says:

                  During the crypto bull run of 2017, Bitcoin had 20+ minute transaction times. How can it be the future? Surely something will displace it long term

                • Pooch says:

                  what’s the ideal all-purpose rifle, for example, for defending a modest homestead in a pleasant rural location?

                  AR-15/M4 w/ good optics. If you are new to shooting, find gun buddies to show you the ropes.

                • i says:

                  A handgun is primarily useful for getting to your rifle. In a home defense situation, the rifle is apt to be used at relatively short range, and the hand gun at extremely short range, when both you and the target are energetically moving, and the target has one hand grabbing your hand gun, and the other hand has just punched you hard in the face.

                  For this reason, quite small handguns are better. 22 is quite lethal, and though a 22 takes more shots to stop a target, you are not shooting at a range. A survey of hostile encounters shows on average fewer shots fired to stop the target, though it takes more shots that actually hit the target to stop the target than a bigger gun would take. Anything a big gun can do better than a 22, a rifle does way better than any handgun. Stopping power is useless in a handgun if you have to take the time to carefully aim, and useless if you miss. The bigger the handgun, the more people miss in a close encounter and the slower they fire in a close encounter.

                  A reflex sight, makes a huge difference on a rifle in rapid target acquisition and accurate aiming. It is enormously quicker to aim and fire accurately.

                  An reflex sight on a handgun is of questionable value, since handgun encounters are close range and rapid movement. But one on a rifle makes a very big difference. Because hand guns are primarily useful in very close range encounters with very rapid change of shooting angle, a green laser that actually shines a dot on the target (rather than a reflex sight that generates the image of the dot at infinity in the sight) is very useful in a handgun, but for a rifle, a reflex sight that creates the image of a dot at infinity is more useful, an image that only the man holding the gun can see.

                  At the range you are using a handgun as if it were a rifle. This is an unrealistic exercise. Unrealistic exercises are better than nothing, but one must be mindful of the lack of realism. In a real handgun encounter, people are not using their handgun iron sight, while at the range they are using it.

                  In any situation where a handgun iron sight is useful, a rifle is a great deal more useful. In any situation where big handgun is more useful than a small handgun, a rifle is more useful than the biggest handgun.

                  Small handgun, the smaller the better, with a green laser sight that paints a green laser dot on the target. Green dots are more visible in daylight.

                  Rifle with a reflex sight. Red dot images at infinity are useful day and night, and will not impede night vision.

                  Scopes are impossible to use in a situation requiring swift action, because you have to line up your eye carefully, just as with an iron sight. Reflex sights, that create an image of a red dot at infinity with no magnification, allow much swifter action than either iron sights or scopes, though less swift that green dot laser handgun sights that actually shine a laser on the target.

                  The sights matter, the caliber does not matter. Armies in peacetime are always going to bigger calibers, armies that face actual battle always drift to more and smaller bullets. Speed of reaction beats size of impact. The shortest OODA loop always wins.

                • Not Tom says:

                  During the crypto bull run of 2017, Bitcoin had 20+ minute transaction times. How can it be the future?

                  ACH transfers and credit card purchases have 3-day clearing times. They just appear instantaneous because banks trust each other, assume most transfers will go through, and have a way to penalize users of the system for bad transfers.

                  Same goes for checks, mind you. Those still exist. How did society ever operate on paper checks – basically glorified IOU notes – knowing that one might bounce? Bitcoin transactions appear on the blockchain right away, they just aren’t verified instantly.

                  Personally, I’d rather see the problem solved technologically with enhancements like side chains than with an error-prone human trust system. But just pointing out that scaling is hardly the limiting factor for Bitcoin; inertia and credit addiction are the limiting factors.

                • James says:

                  Indeed. When Rome fell, Britain had pictish raids, but the Romano-British did well for themselves for centuries even without the central empire’s support, even with all troops withdrawn.

                  For me, Australia or NZ are good choices, apart from the shitty gun control and the presence of State Department lackeys. I imagine the latter will definitely not be an issue for long if the US goes rotten. They have so much going for them, including a vast abundance of energy, mining, and agricultural wealth, a language that I understand, and a population that by and large looks and thinks in the same ballpark as me, albeit more pozzed. The isolation they possess is icing on the cake — I see them perhaps being harassed and cut out of regional influence, but not actually invaded or vassalized by anyone else in the near future.

                  Chile is a distant second choice. Low corruption for a Latin American country, good rule of law, and a bit more gun freedom than Australia. They also have a lot of natural resource wealth, enough to tide them over in the case of global supply chain collapse, albeit without the sheer diversity and efficiency of Oceania. The local culture and language is a barrier for me, but they’re like distant cousins or neighbors, culturally, where Oceanians are something like first cousins.

                  It seems Jim is partial to the Philippines, but having been there, I just didn’t like it. Even in the countryside it’s crowded, and the entire environment feels…oppressive. Even given liberty, there isn’t much freedom, largely due to the lack of space and resources. They’re tremendously dependent on raw material imports, as well. When the call centers shut down, and remittences from the US stops flowing, I imagine they’re going to see unrest that’s just unimaginable to a Westerner such as myself.

                  However, in principal, the fringes of the empire that are just less caught up in the holiness spiral are the right place to be.

  34. FrankNorman says:

    No wonder the Lefty media loves Communist China so much…

    • The Cominator says:

      China not really communist that is a tradcuck/conservatism inc meme.

      BUT they have proven themselves a bad actor via 1st deliberately sealing Wuhan off from the rest of China BUT allowing International travel and then enacting retarded lockdowns I think to deliberately cause panic because they wanted Trump out and figured the Democrats were just too insane and retarded to be able to beat him.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Say Com, you’re pretty hard core. What do you make of this:

        You’re not wrong about China closing Wuhan to China, but not to everywhere else. A solid in-group sociopathic survival strategy. Fine.

        But just a few agents could have spread Corona-saliva with paper towels onto subway turnstiles from sea to shining sea for cheap.

        Remember those suspiciously timely social videos that caught Chinese people “in the act” of wiping something-or-other on American (and European?) park benches and stuff?

        I don’t have a take. I don’t have a narrative. I can’t fit these elements together into a scenario that makes sense. The best I can do is that 1: the videos are fakes made by China hawks and 2: that there’s actually so little intel manpower out there that virus-smearing ops aren’t really possible.

        How unsatisfying, though.

  35. Starman says:

    The scumbag journalist that is threatening Scott Alexander is:

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      I think that is the journalist’s editor, not the cretin himself. Either way, fuck them. They work for the NYT and they are outgroup; enemy. Do take care not to attract attention to yourself.

    • Anon 1 says:

      The reporter is at

      • BC says:

        LOL, let him take Scott’s head. Don’t protect those who are against us.

        • Scott’s faggoty polyamorous commune is child abuse. Even if he were drawn and quartered publicly, or thrown into a pit of starving rats, I would still feel that justice was not done.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            In the previous references Ive seen from him to his house, I assumed he meant a private residence. Is Scott the owner of the polyhouse?

            • jim says:

              There are ten people in the house where Scott lives. He is unmarried, no children, and his sexual relationships consist of beta orbiting his girlfriend while she fucks bad boys who show no interest in hanging around.

              This is how the Cathedral rewards high IQ loyalists with prestigious degrees from prestigious institutions. Most third world peasants have a better life than he does.

              • Pete says:

                Given Scott’s intelligence and education, I imagine he makes decent money.

                He’s probably paying the bills while the other nine sit around smoking dope.

                He should kick them out, or if that’s too confrontational just disappear one day – get his own single apartment and let them figure out how to pay for their own lives.

      • Yul Bornhold says:

        Now that’s some sinister physiognomy right there.

Leave a Reply