“Manchester will not be divided”

Manchester’s response to the terror attack is “Manchester will not be divided”, meaning they will continue to embrace with open arms those that murder their children and rape their daughters.

If, however, a white male member of a college fraternity hits on a drunken slut, then they will continue to throw the book at him. Nothing divisive about that</sarcasm>.

Also, anecdotal reports that young women in Manchester are responding to violence in the way that women are notorious for responding to violence. Hence Trump’s wise and important point that they should be called losers, not monsters. Women love monsters. Looks like fresh crop of light brown fatherless babies is under way. Manchester females are not being divided from Muslim males. The attack, and Manchester’s response to the attack, confirms Muslims as high status, and men who work and pay taxes as low status.

But of course, men in a society where unaccompanied girls attend a Ariana Grande-Butera concert, where unaccompanied girls go to watch prostitutes perform and the prostitutes present as high status, are low status men. Come the restoration, girls who attend such an event will not be blown up, but if they attend unsupervised by their fathers, fiancees, or husbands, will be sent to a home for wayward girls.

The problem with prostitutes is not that sex happens. The problem with prostitutes is that if a whore is high status and well paid, you are low status and low paid. Hence the epidemic of “rape” on campus, and hence the response to the Manchester terror attack. It is illegal for white males to hit on white girls, because it is illegal for white males to be high status.

The problem with an Ariana Grande-Butera concert is that a large part of the audience is unaccompanied eight year old girls, who see whores presented as sexy, successful, and empowered, and an even bigger problem is that the whores that they see really are successful and empowered. We have to stop girls from learning that stuff. Because girls do learn that stuff, men have no reason, no motive, no will, to resist Muslim conquest. Prostitutes should not be sexy, successful, and empowered. But if they are, we should make sure that other girls do not find out about it.

Women should not be allowed to get a substantially better deal by screwing around, and if some women do get a substantially better deal by screwing around, other women should be prevented from discovering it. And if you do let women discover it, your beta males, who are most of your police and soldiers, will not get their dicks wet, in which case they will not fight. And so, Manchester will not be divided. Especially the women.

Tags: ,

103 Responses to ““Manchester will not be divided””

  1. Brandon says:

    At least in America, the vast majority of police officers and soldiers are not beta. Generally, these guys are the true alphas of society.

  2. Anonymous says:


    Gas the puritans.

    (Daily reminder that 95% of “child porn” is teenagers well past puberty)

  3. peppermint says:

    That the left has no plan is the defining comment of neoreaction, even before thr recognition that the left is Christian. While nazis have trouble countersignaling Christianity because Christianity is still seen as implicitly White, Nazi leader Anglin just wrote about the lack of a plan: https://www.dailystormer.com/zbigniew-brzezinski-finally-dead/

    • Anonymous says:

      >thr recognition that the left is Christian

      The modern left is not Christian. It is a chimera composed of white (primarily Anglo; in smaller part French) memes and Jewish memes. Christianity is incidental to the great pozzening that commenced during the Enlightenment: it’s neither the force behind it, nor the solution to it.

      But Christianity can be *part* of the solution.

      • Cavalier says:

        Too guilt-ridden; too much slave morality.

        • Anonymous says:

          Propensity for “guilt” is a chief difference between the West and the Rest. It’s an inbuilt cooperate-cooperate mechanism that non-whites conspicuously lack. Christianity’s emphasis on guilt speaks to its Greco-Roman (white) origins, which stand in stark contrast to its eschatological, bloodthirsty, tribal-minded Jewish origins.

          Christianity can serve as a vehicle for something bigger, and could be discarded at once once that “something bigger” emerges from the memetic portal/wormhole aka the Outside. See: Judaism giving birth to Christianity, thus becoming obsolete. In the short-term (next half century), before the self-perfecting AI takes command, we need plenty of high-IQ people to reproduce, which, as it turns out, necessitates religion.

          The only alternative to Christianity is National Socialism; but why can’t there be cooperation between the two creeds, at least for a short while? Come on folks, disabuse me of my optimism regarding the religion that has dominated the West for two millennia. Let’s see your blackpill.

          If it’s not Christianity that is killing you, if it’s something else — and, also, (((something else))) — that is doing it, then why the rush to extirpate the old faith? Let it die the slow death of sinking to irrelevancy.

          • Cavalier says:

            >Christianity’s emphasis on guilt speaks to its Greco-Roman (white) origins

            1) lol

            2) Christianity started as a literal slave cult run by Jews with the aim of subverting the mighty Romans in retribution for the just desserts juicily dished out to Judea approx. 70 [Current Era] by glorifying the elderly, weak, dumb, and poor, telling them that upon their death, preferably by glorious martyrdom for Israel, they will be first and inherit the Earth, a message understandably popular amongst the Romans’ many slaves and, especially critically, their soldiers.

            Christianity wasn’t even imposed on most of Europe until the second millennium, by coercion, with the advent of the first legitimately modern schools, and by suppressing the pagan rituals. Of course, they didn’t manage to kill everything, or you wouldn’t leave cookies out for Odin, hang wreaths, kiss under mistletoe, decorate pine trees with tinsel and ornaments, dress up in ghoulish outfits in order to extort strangers for snacks, or idolize a female rabbit as a symbol of fertility, but they did manage to — finally and at long last — suppress the vast majority of it all. Nobody knows the old songs or dances anymore, for instance, and though Bach was making references to them as late as the 18th century they’re all now just teardrops in the rain.

            That said, I don’t have any particular antipathy towards kike-stickists, provided they check the other boxes, the ones that really matter, but I, personally, don’t need a Jewish super-ego, thanks.

  4. vxxc2014 says:

    Cops and soldiers aren’t Beta.
    We’re entirely too aggressive.
    We do need to take charge and organize this mesd

    • Cavalier says:

      You’re aggressive and dominant to all the “wrong” people and docile and submissive to all the “right” people. You bitch and moan and talk about coup but never take one step toward taking power for yourself. You’re the ever-loyal servants of your eternal master, the guarantors of his security and the upholder of his order, duly rewarded and sufficiently satisfied by the scraps from his table, needed and necessary until the advent of the fully automatic, sufficiently capable, intelligent turret.

  5. Mackus says:

    In happier news, Beata Szydlo scolded entire EU in her latest speech.
    I checked her wiki page: She and her husband have two sons.
    Previous, pro-EU Polish female PM has one daughter, and is divorcee.

    I think I am noticing pattern here.

    • Turtle says:

      Bigger pattern- politicians never have more than 3 children. Very few exceptions to this ‘rule’ which describes strivers.

      Only humiliated (pride with a fall) or humble (glorying in God, not themselves or the fallen world) women do pregnancy and childbirth, while only humiliated or humble men raise children. This does not mean that parents are great. They are all sinners too, except the saints (and God the Father is not a parent). I mean that parents tend to not do politics or careerism. They’re busy and happy at home, not competing with strangers in the agora. Competing in little league and whose kid is cutest is not good, but it is different than massively public behavior. Or maybe I’m being ignorant… and hoping normies are good. I guess I’m wrong now… normies are the elites, and vice versa.

      Anyway, women should not scold. Scolds are shrews.

      • peppermint says:

        》 while only humiliated or humble men raise children

        e.g. Donald Trump. Real alphas like rock stars don’t raise children.

        • Turtle says:

          Trump was a workaholic father. He did not really raise his children in typical ways. Wives, grandparents, and presumably nannies did the work. Do you really see the Donald changing diapers? I think he focused on mentorship and success. Rock stars tend to die very early, so they don’t have time to raise children- maybe they would beta up if they lived past 27, by the time they were too old for the hottest groupies (I’m guessing 45).

          Also, rock stars can raise children. Rollo Tomassi was one, and has a daughter. It’s weird he’s a ‘manosphere’ guy with only one child, but Vox Day was a popular lyricist too, and has 4 children. These are extreme examples though.

  6. glosoli says:

    Manchester was a false flag. Not even a very good one.
    As usual there was a controlled explosion very near the arena.
    A bomb went off, but the arena itself totally undamaged.
    Spend some time on youtube, there are all sorts of obvious problems with the narrative that is being presented.
    I especially liked the very heavily padded fat mother of a supposed victim, whose padding can be seen moving under her dress.

    Also, not a single *victim* (mostly youngsters) had a FB account, weird eh?
    And the few FB comments that attempt to validate the existence of the faked-up victims come from accounts that are clearly fake themselves, with no ‘friends’.
    Clearly the deep state all over the world is creating this cycle’s ‘bogeyman’, and it’s radical Islam, with ISIS invented by the same evil people.
    They will up the ante as the economy implodes, and get the resurgent nationalism they require, and a few wars too.
    But afterwards, just like after WW2, the left will have taken a huge leap forward once again in its grasp on power.
    I’m beginning to think certain alt-right sites are so blind to this that they’re certainly controlled opposition, stirring things up.

    • Turtle says:

      That the suspect went to Libya and came back, while on a watchlist, indicates he was at least allowed to do violence, even if it was not a ff. The sure fact is that G.B. allows terrorism, and ff.s are less sure, more difficult to prove. I did notice the evidence looking suspicious. Another issue is that when they are hurt, normal people get angry, and want revenge often. If there are no such outcries, then maybe there are no victims.

      • glosoli says:

        Two of the photos they have used as *victims* have been disproved, one by the guy himself on video (alive in the US), the other by a mother complaining that they are using her dead daughter’s photo (dead for 4 years).

        The Libyan guy is probably also a fake guy.
        Radical Islam probably has no interest in conquering the West. Much like Kim Yong Whatisname is not a threat to us either.
        But war is needed during the upcoming credit bubble burst and reset, so war we shall have.

        Be nice to see alt-right sites showing some awareness of these plays.

        • Dave says:

          “Radical Islam probably has no interest in conquering the West.”

          That’s exactly what media, academia, and government have all been telling us for the last fifty years, constantly reminding us not to use the latest terrorist attack as an excuse to think poorly of Muslims. Why don’t they just stop faking terrorist attacks?

          “But war is needed during the upcoming credit bubble burst and reset, so war we shall have.”

          If you have an army and navy at your disposal, it’s stupidly easy to start a war any time you want. Leaders refrain from war not for lack of excuses but for fear of losing.

          • glosoli says:

            The deep state has imported the Muslims.
            The deep state has carried out the false flag attacks.
            The deep state has destabilised the Middle East/North Africa and created Al Queda and ISIS.
            The deep state knows the 100-year bubble is bursting, so they want to stoke up nationalism and a few wars, a good dollop of ferar, all as distractions.
            The wars are never lost by the deep state controllers, as they’re financing it all (and these days supplying all the arms too).
            After the war, after the collapse, they’ll still be there, skimming their pounds of flesh (no doubt literally at some point), and destroying what’s left of the Christian Western civilisation.
            Man, they’re clever but so evil, like their lord the serpent.
            Ultimately, they lose it all.

            • Cavalier says:

              >The deep state has imported the Muslims.


              >The deep state has carried out the false flag attacks.

              Some of them.

              >The deep state has destabilised the Middle East/North Africa and created Al Queda and ISIS.


              >The deep state knows the 100-year bubble is bursting, so they want to stoke up nationalism and a few wars, a good dollop of fear, all as distractions.

              Ehhh, maybe.

              >The wars are never lost by the deep state controllers, as they’re financing it all (and these days supplying all the arms too).


              >Ultimately, they lose it all.

              Non sequitor.

        • peppermint says:

          》 Radical Islam probably has no interest in conquering the West

          They have a funny way of showing it. Only Whites during the last century have decided not to conquer when conquest would be possible.

          》 But war is needed during the upcoming credit bubble burst and reset, so war we shall have.

          Economics is irrelevant. Economists was relevant as a proxy for the ideological war of progressive Whites against Whites and technology and how much work a civilization can bring to bear on its enemies will always be relevant, and the lesson of the 20th century is that Whites can form effective armies with communism and communist dysfunction and capitalism and capitalist dysfunction.

          The inability of today’s economy to so much as give jobs to capable White men leads some to radicalization that happens to mudslime children in White countries evennwith good jobs, therefore jobs or not is a bullet point in how the Boomers ruined our countries and not a sourxe of radicalization, radicalization probably comes from looking for answers to the prohlem of how to get a woman without having a job like a Boomer. Thus ends the interest of the alt-right in economics.

          No war was needed in 2007 or in 1929. No war will be needed next time.

          Hopefully the next bubble pop will lead to a mass exodus from the universities. We will win when people express support for punching professors the way they do for bodyslamming journalists. We can call it the night of broken glasses.

          • glosoli says:

            Ah, you appear to have forgotten WW2. Easily done.

            As for the rest of your comment, it’s a bit too rambling and incoherent for me to follow, it didn’t appear to be related to my point as best as I can tell.

            But rest assured, 2007/8 was just the appetiser, the main course lies directly ahead.

            Get gold, and food, and hunker down.

            • Dave says:

              To summarize Peppermint, the elites do not need war because they have a proven ability to pauperize us without war. Their goal is not to kill us but to reduce us to such penury that we beg to shine their shoes for a nickel.

        • jim says:

          Oh come on.

          It is their holy duty to conquer us.

          Plus we are weak, vulnerable rich, hence natural targets.

          • glosoli says:

            You have to be a tad naive to believe that the current wave of Islamic extremism is coincidentally happening just before the bubble bursts (for good).

            The importation of Muslims has been carefully planned.
            So too the destabilisation of the Middle East, creating the environment for the nutters to gain a foothold. The deep state planners did that remember, all of it.

            And the false flags create the fear, and eventually will create the street battles, and the war (probably with Turkey as the bogey-nation).

            Sure, some of the Muslims believe they need to conquer us.
            But everything has clearly been carefully planned for at least 20 years to lead us to today, and to the next few years.

            • peppermint says:

              = The importation of Muslims has been carefully planned.

              haha sure

              were trannies carefully planned too?

              maybe the conspiracy doesn’t use planning ahead, just goes by what’s best at making lower middle class Whites look uncomfortable and working class Whites angry, and relies on historical falsification and media control to blame their worst mistakes and excesses on conservatives or just never talk about them.

              Ever heard of a zebra club?

              • Cavalier says:

                How many NGOs are dedicated specifically to aiding the immivants and giving them comfort, feeding them, transporting them, and sheltering them? Why do the desperate Moslem refugees in Europe have cell phones, pull money from ATMs, and receive free accommodations while natives freeze in the streets?

                Do you know how much money it take to transport 50 million people between continents in the span of a decade, to convince the border guards to let them all of them in, and to have the media outlets make it religiously legitimate?

                • peppermint says:

                  》How many NGOs are dedicated specifically to aiding the immivants and giving them comfort, feeding them, transporting them, and sheltering them?

                  As many as there are college and grad students and catlady volunteers for, and cash from governments and George Soros.

                  》Why do the desperate Moslem refugees in Europe have cell phones, pull money from ATMs, and receive free accommodations while natives freeze in the streets?

                  Because giving stuff to natives means feeding direct competitors, while giving stuff to mudslimes means conspicuously acting at Matthew 25.

                  》Do you know how much money it take to transport 50 million people between continents in the span of a decade,

                  Not a lot. They walk or pay for transit themselves. Then they get welfare, which already existed, and extra welfare from Matthew 25 Christians and women looking for a man who will treat her like a woman.

                  》 to convince the border guards to let them all of them in,

                  Intimidate, and it costs nothing and feels great to intimidate people.

                  》 and to have the media outlets make it religiously legitimate?

                  That’s their job. It costs nothing, they are more excited to say these things than companies are to advertise on top of it.

                • peppermint says:

                  Today on my normiebook, I saw a bunch of Boomers virtue signaling about the woman who is the first recorded case of female cuckoldry in mammals. These were churchladies, but they were not childless. One of them said this is the true meaning of Christianity.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Spontaneous order virtue signaling is insufficient to explain this phenomenon.

                  The opinions of the masses do not affect the actions of the state except insofar as the state must keep the pretense of the popular mandate.

                  Billions. It takes billions, many billions, and the command-control coordination of thousands of people in key positions throughout society, nevertheless executing the will of one. As Jim is fond of saying, “the Cathedral speaks with one voice”, and, “one thousand megaphones echoing one voice, their master’s voice”… saying, and doing as instructed.

                • peppermint says:

                  Billions is not a lot and could easily be raised in donations if there was a donation drive to help refugees, but is easily extracted from the enemy, lower middle class Whites, and handed to the pet through the hands of the self. Ten thousand grad students and journalists are easy to tell to do what they already want to do.

                  The opinions of the masses matter when the masses come into contact with masses of muslims.

                  Yes, none of this would happen without the Talmudvision and it’s editorial line which is sometimes backed with threats of more than just firing. The criminal conspiracy is allowed to exist because the non-illegal conspiracy broadly approves of motivations. Intimidating people praemium suum est, and people who are on board will forgive it. It’s the same as any gorilla war, but we need to understand that we’re not in a gorilla war against the Jews, we’re in a war against progressives who hide in every university and church, exactly like in Latin America, but have antiracism, feminism, saving the world from global warming, and helping gays as their reasons for being holy, which works better on Christians than communism, since no amount of text torture can make ((Jesus)) order communism except in spirit.

                  In Camp of the Saints, Raspail goes into how each individual can’t or won’t do anything about mass migration. Find an audio book on Alex Linder’s site.

                • peppermint says:

                  Bill is a sleaze who did it to hook up with chicks like Hillary, and when he got too old for most nubiles, chicks like Monica. Hillary is a true believer lawyercunt who got stuck with Bill and justified it to herself because it’s for the greater good. Cheslea is ugly and everyone knows about Bill’s Black lovechild, who Hillary surely feels better about knowing he’s Black.

                • Cavalier says:

                  NGOs don’t get their instruction from the lobotomy box.

                  I’ve read Camp of the Saints, thanks. It was an entertaining read, but fundamentally inaccurate, as the “lack of will” comes from the top and is pushed onto the rank-and-file. When given the opportunity, when allowed to do so, the men-with-guns are willing, even eager, to turn the human refuse’s boats around, sink them if they fail to comply, and to detain illegals in the most casual manner.

                  Hillary Clinton is a very smart sociopath. A true believer she is not.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, the people at the top get off on intimidating the people below them into not doing the right jobs.

                  NGO ppl do get their credentials from lobotomy u. They do it so they can browbeat their betters in college with slogans, or for the women to signal purity and loyalty to the prevailing ideas, and to get intimidating dicks in their mouths.

                  After Manchester, the usual plan of #prayfor wasn’t going to cut it, but fortunately they could find a 13 year old girl that someone joked about terrorism about to be the true victim. This narrative wasn’t waiting in the wings to be deployed. It was discovered and used in real time by eager apologists seeking to browbeat lower middle class and working class White men.

                  When Trayvon was shot, as the details trickled out, the narrative shifted, but because details trickled out too slowly, the narrative that was chosen went too far and ZimZam got away. The same thing happened with Michael Brown, then those other two niggers last summer, and BLM became an embarrassment, since the social climbers are eager to affirm that lower middle class and working class Whites have no rights, but they were wrong in fact if not in principle.

                  There is no need to pay or coordinate liberals to signal or try to form a narrative to browbeat and intimidate. Like mudslimes and terrorism, they do it themselves or in small isolated groups, with maybe some tenuous connection to a backbone group.

                • Cavalier says:

                  ZimZam, Brown, BLM, and so on are either microscopic beans or cheap throwaway handpuppets. You will note for instance that BLM is powered entirely by state and quasi-state money paying cynical professional agitators who don’t give enough of a shit to advocate for any of their policy independently, on their own.

                  Soros & Co. don’t spend many millions of dollars and induce governments to spend many more millions of dollars for their good health and deathbed salvation.

                  Hell, even ISIS is basically BLM writ large.

                • Alf says:

                  It is not just the billions to coordinate the mass immigration, it is also billions into preventing people taking countermeasures against mass immigration.

                  What perhaps started as a criminal conspiracy seems by now to have grown into a quite uniform machine.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Very true, Alfred.

                • peppermint says:

                  BLM riots happen because old women like the woman whose house I’m in right now like signaling. Yes, Jews thumb the scale with their money. The activists may be cynical, but they have jobs that sound important because ideology.

  7. Turtle says:


    This was nice to read. I mean that not much has changed in some ways. Maybe I’m nostalgic though.

  8. Turtle says:

    >> an even bigger problem is that the whores that they see really are successful and empowered

    Until they die early, like Amy Winehouse, or a slut-classmate of mine who killed herself. No, wise girls do not ever think whores are well off. Wise girls would rather be killed than raped. I think the problem is envy of satan and succubi.

    • jim says:

      False life plan. They don’t see woman winding us cat ladies, or dead.

      • Turtle says:

        Perhaps more importantly, they don’t see nuns and wives, besides the few celibate single women (spinsters), ending up well (it’s not very wrong to be a cat lady, though they tend to have other problems). I think it’s strategic that women who live traditionally are both hidden and in hiding. They are kept secret for their own safety (and their husbands’ peace of mind), and because they counter the ‘narrative.’ So everyone has some reason to be quiet about them. I wouldn’t blab if I knew any traditional women (I don’t, aside from pleasant, womanly nuns). I would realize hiding is cowardly, but pride is sin too.

        Humble people are scarcely noticed, if at all. I don’t know if this is a problem. Maybe it’s a form of assortment.

        Anyway, there is no ‘thot life plan.’ They don’t think ahead, like the promiscuous future-AIDS-patients who are not worried about catching the disease, because they don’t plan on living past 40 anyway. It’s hard to relate to or even imagine, but surprisingly common. Maybe suicide is normal.

        • jim says:

          (it’s not very wrong to be a cat lady, though they tend to have other problems).

          It is very wrong to be a cat lady if, as is usually the case, the reason she is a cat lady is that when she was young and hot she screwed one hundred men who were rich, handsome, charismatic, athletic, successful, and had swinging big dicks, but when she hit the wall, no man who would look at her met her standards.

          It is enormously common for women to who are no longer physically attractive, women who are sexually completely invisible to me, to expect, nay to demand, a husband who is in the top 0.1% of attractiveness. This is the false life plan, that women who are merrily fucking an army of men, have plenty of time, all the time in the world, to capriciously choose the best of them to settle down with.

          Women mistake their sexual market value as a cum dump in the executive toilet when they were twenty two, for their marriage market value in marriage market when they are thirty six. It is this grotesquely inflated self esteem, of which being a cat lady is an indication, that is very wrong.

          • Turtle says:

            I meant celibate women have cats the way monasteries can have animal and pets too. Your explanation of the false life plan is very informative. It will guide me in my interactions with women. I also thought sluts don’t like cats. Cats are dignified and have high standards in whom they are affectionate with. Cats are not dogs. Maybe ‘beast lady’ fits better.

            What about women who were sluts, but did ‘settle’ for a beta? I don’t like them; I think they are as unsafe to trust as cat ladies. I’m saying later marriage, with or without ‘reforming,’ does not change a slut. Only the sacrament of confession can actually work, changing her heart.

            By the way, if a girl says she cheated on her bf just by kissing a guy, is that trickle truth, as in they fucked too, or is she unusual? I can’t tell, she’s unpredictable to me.

            • jim says:

              Trickle truth.

              Actual truth likely being that she fucked him with wild abandon that she would never show to someone likely to enter a relationship with her.

              • Turtle says:

                I agree now. She does lie a lot, in pain avoidance (as if sin is an oppressive artifice to be ignored) which actually causes pain. We can’t repent without confession, which is an act of spiritual honesty.

                I fucked up by acting secular to avoid conflict (which happened anyway), which is beta lying, because I wanted her approval. That let her pretend to be chaste for my approval, which I pretended to give, while ignoring my instinctual sense that she is a harlot. I’m not contrite yet, but getting there.

                Part of my motivation was that I am scared of harlots, and in cowardice, pretend they are good women. This is judgmental- if they are so sinful that I ‘need’ to lie about their sins, how can they be so worthy that the God-Man was crucified for them?

                I know I give off beta/Christcuck (cowardly believer lacking the gift of courage) signals, but was too apathetic to improve. I think it’s easy to take the ‘risk’ of challenging one another when we believe God ensures our eternal safety. So I forget to trust God when under social pressure. I also forget that while Christ is present in all of mankind, the Holy Spirit only gives grace to saints. So there is a difference to notice.

                Jim is right that I was oblivious to women’s perception of me. I was mirroring how they dismiss me, by dismissing them. This has the same motivation as described above- if they disdain me, I assume they are sluts, and get upset.

                My emotional ‘mate guarding’ of strange women is not quite beta- it is ‘gamma’ to claim responsibility for the chastity of women I don’t know. If I actually cared, I would remember to pray for harlots. I sometimes do, but fall into despairing hate (that God won’t save them, because they won’t let me help them meet Him) too. So the main cause of my gamma chastitarianism (lol) is my pride in knowing God.

                The solution is that only Christ has seen God, and I am the first among sinners, not so awesome or nice. I am manlier than when I explicitly thought women are inherently better than men, but I still have remnants of this mistake. It feels hard to not be a feminist/cuck, until I remember, “my yoke is light,” and stop running away from God.

                I envy harlots because they get laid whenever they want, and have self-esteem I lack. Perhaps I don’t do sex by choice, but I don’t know if I want it or not. I believe fornication is sin, based on Galatians, while experiencing less lust day after day, much less than a few months ago or when I was a teenager (when androgenization felt crazy).

                In the end, I fear I will disappoint God, and go back to hell. I still deny that He has forgiven my sins, and worry He will change his mind to punish me. I bear unfaith and self-doubt, both caused by an unruly will. God already tells me how He treats me- how can I disagree with His eternal Word?

                I also expect other men to lead me. I ask them to, and they mostly shrug off my request. That’s a serious insult, because refusing authority over someone offering submission (me) implies he (I) is a waste of effort. I guess I’ve assimilated the idea that I’m not worth dating, from my experience of men I trust rejecting me as a spiritual son. I don’t really believe I have ‘issues exclusively with women’- they’re just doing what I wrongly want.

                And I emulate my parents, both positively (same behavior) and negatively (doing the opposite of what they do). This might be genetic too. Every parent sins, so it’s not good to be a lonely clone. I’m reviewing baptism soon, to better believe God has adopted me.

          • Turtle says:

            Actually, I thought about it, and the cat ladies I know are closer to celibacy than most women. They are spinster-like. Sluts/party girls like dogs much more. This could be verified, I believe, with le science and easily collected data.

            The most extreme example of this behavior I know owns livestock, which is uber-animal lady behavior. She loves animals more than people in general, and worships her mother (some women have tattoos in mommy’s handwriting, but usually not quoting anything mommy has said). Her parents divorced early on. Most, if not all, cat ladies have awful relationships with their parents, trying to side with the mother who raised them and taught them that their dad is an evil loser, but realizing mommy ruined many people’s family lives all at once.

            The next one is also in her mid-20s, but only has cats. History: only one known bf. Married parents, pretty alpha dad, pretty mom, but unhappy family. Doesn’t like clubbing or guys hitting on her, due to catholicism, not believing they can sincerely want/love her b/c she’s fat and hates herself, and a strange cutesy demeanor, which she uses, I believe, to avoid sex.

            Cat ladies I know seem undersexed by Jim’s standard.

            Third, early 30s, one child born out of wedlock (refused to abort him, unlike sluts who have abortions for fun) being raised by the baby daddy and his wife, pampers one cat, loves plants and botany, besides stupid religions. Divorced parents early on, grew up on another continent.

            All of these women could be wives. But they treat suitors the same way as their divorced, missing (failed at parenting whether present or not; not enough children anyway) fathers, which is weird but makes perverse sense. They basically generalize hate against ‘all men,’ but feign efforts at romance, rather than actual obedience and quickly requesting marriage. They want to have commitment from men without any investment or risk of their own.

            Sluts are the same in this possessive, falsely entitled (as if all men are her husband-eunuchs) attitude (greed), but there is a difference- sluts seek sensation/ pussy tingles/ dopamine, spinsters seek affection/ warm fuzzies/ oxytocin. Basically, different pleasures/ passions for different impassioned servants of sin. And they can go back and forth between styles of promiscuity, tending to correspond to age, but not perfectly so. Rollo Tomassi’s books cover this subject very well. I’ll look it up later if I find the right chapter; I think it’s called ‘schedules of mating,’ with a timeline.

            They tend to not know what they want… so I got confused by lying ladies twice so far, thinking they *actually* want me to be their friend. No, it’s a fuck test. I somehow don’t have much libido, and would prefer a low-effort, emotionally and intellectually pleasant friendship (lol…) to high-investment ‘sexual benefits,’ but if I’m not hot, I get nothing.

            And it turns out investment in God is the only way to enjoy relationships. I’m reading a homily by St. Isaac the Syrian today, and it clarifies the ethics of friendship. He also says we can’t be chaste and converse with women: “like a lioness with a lamb.” If we are both (us and the woman) predators able to restrain ourselves from “meat” (pussy for us, dick for them), sure, hang out with females. But I can’t do that anymore, at least with women who aren’t Christians.

            By the way, Jim, do you think monasteries are always bad, as refuges for failed people? A stumbling block for most people is that monasticism seems pointless and selfish. Even “Orthodox theologians” insult monastics, out of proud wrath (competing for the sheeple’s idolatrous respect). I don’t adore monks and nuns, but they are blessed. Plenty of saints are/were married or not tonsured though.

            • peppermint says:

              Monasticism is pointless and selfish, but if the person doing it has nothing to offer to the rest of society, it’s better than just putting them down. In mental hospitals and halfway houses there’s this idea that these people can be fixed. They can’t, and releasing them just lets some people exploit not them but their relationships with their families. Their families would be a lot happier if they were monks and nuns selling craft beer and cookies.

              • Turtle says:

                The monastics I know have plenty to offer, and many are college graduates (actually smart ones). Most could have married other churchgoing believers, and are competent in terms of “life skills.” They’re not all fuck-ups by your standards, but they do confess that they depend on God for everything, and are the first among sinners.

                I’m glad you want them to sell real goods. I like their honey and soap, personally, speaking only of (secular) goods anyone would like. They offer great deals, compared to the hipster marketplaces.

                Finally, in some places and times, monasteries are influential and rich. In northern Russia, one particular monastery sold black salt harvested from the ocean, and salt was a scarce necessity, so perhaps it was a monopoly. They really can compete with corporations when the playing field is even.

                Praying much of the time does not make them parasites. The prayer-only model is not common, and I think it’s wrong. Monasteries should be economically independent, thus productive enough to meet their needs and not rely on charity. They generally do charity themselves, from hospitals to schools (and when these things are privatized for worldly profit, we get screwed).

                Finally, the poor and sick are the treasures of the Church. They can all become saints.

                • peppermint says:

                  Why are you so happy that some of your best young men aren’t reproducing? Don’t you want your people to evolve towards those traits you admire?

                • Turtle says:


                  I’m not focused on the men- wombs are scarcer. The acceptance of birth control and ‘motherhood is hard, leave her alone after 2.2 children’ limits fertility more than monasticism does. Maybe 3% of believers are monastics, while married ones with few children are far more numerous. Orthodox young people tend to be cynical, doubting the possibility of marital love. I don’t know why. I’m skeptical but hopeful myself. Monks are considered inferior clergy to married men, but this is because of feminism. Presbyters do not need a presbytera to do their work. Plenty of priests’ wives divorce them and wreak havoc. True marriage is perfect, but sinners are fallen.

                  About non-biological reproduction, monastics are not allowed to have godchildren either, only ‘spiritual children’ whom they guide and support, like neighbors I guess. That, together with the ‘family’ of a monastery, is enough biosocial life.

                  I am more unhappy about divorces than questionable celibacy. Yes, the spinsters and bachelors of my parish are unhappy and agree with sexualists that they need to fuck and God unfairly deprives them of the blessing of pussy/ dick. But the children with divorced parents are worse off, at least it seems that way to me.

                  As for evolution, I don’t believe in it because it contradicts free will. Groups and individuals both have traits, and some are temporally hereditary. But any material resources, such as genes, can be squandered or sacrificed to God. So while plenty of Orthodox people refer to saints of noble rank as ‘of good stock,’ that’s superstitious (a false explanation meant as an alternative to gratitude for God’s gifts and fear of his wrath).

                  The traits I admire, such as women having perky boobs and green eyes, might not be ultimately good- I don’t trust my own judgment. And if God just wanted to ‘maximize behavioral value,’ he would have created robots, not beings capable of sin and love, being prodigal or obedient.

                  The personal question you might wonder about is why I don’t date. The answer: I’m an omega (low beta).

            • jim says:

              Cat ladies I know seem undersexed by Jim’s standard.

              Maybe, but most men grossly under estimate female sexual activity.

              They want to have commitment from men without any investment or risk of their own.

              Sounds like grossly inflated self esteem, and the number one cause of grossly inflated self esteem in women is performing as a cum dumpster for high status, high sexual market value men. Fertile age Women need sex. And if they are not getting it from the nice guy suitor, they are getting it while bending over on the executive toilet.

              It is absolutely the nature of women to fuck, but it is also their nature to fuck one guy at a time. So if they are not fucking their nice guy suitor, they are fucking someone else. Otherwise they would not be able to stop themselves from fucking their nice guy suitor. Conversely, if they are paying once a week visits to the executive toilet, they will not be able to bring themselves to fuck their nice guy suitor, even if intellectually they think it is very important to do so to get him to stick around.

              • Cavalier says:

                Depends on the woman, the specific cultural context, and also there’s a watershed between virginity and sexual activity. It of course remains prudent to assume slut until proven innocent.

              • Turtle says:

                >> Maybe, but most men grossly under estimate female sexual activity.

                I do under estimate all sexual activity, because it’s boring to my virgin (not that I’m claiming chastity) self. Perhaps I’m willfully oblivious (lying). Also, I’m an omega.

                Cat ladies are more sexually active than I think, but less slutty than most women are. To own a cat is, to women, like owning a husband. They really don’t differentiate much, as we can observe in married couples who have cats. Jim’s mistake, I think, is thinking that married women who fuck one husband are very different than cat ladies. I believe there are plenty of married cat ladies, who have children, but, I concede, may have only gotten their cats after ceasing sex with their beta husband. So maybe the demographic I envision, cat lady-hot wives, is tiny. I wouldn’t let my wife have a cat, not that I would have a wife anyway, I think.

                >> Sounds like grossly inflated self esteem, and the number one cause of grossly inflated self esteem in women is performing as a cum dumpster for high status, high sexual market value men.

                I would agree about what causes inflated self esteem, if I did not believe that all sinners’ self esteem is wrong- what’s so great about meeting Jim’s ideals? Do such women please God? I also note that some nuns are proud of themselves, for things like being smart and pretty. Presumably no sex for them, not that I would mind it any more than their pride bothers me, but they act mostly the same as proud sluts. Pride is not about sex- if I ask were to ask women about sin, what would they say, that they’re good girls because they don’t do anal? No, I don’t think so.

                I once insulted a slut, after holding my tongue since the day I met her. And while she might be a virgin, the issue was that she is provocative, thus harming me. I did not slut shame her, because I assume that girls are slut-angels (lol, God judges; I do not), and nobody overheard my disappointment, because I am polite and quiet, but she still cried like a proud bitch. So I think they are proud because of pride, not sexual success. If they wanted sexual success, they would, for example, work out to be flexible and voluptuous. They rarely do, out of sloth and cowardice.

                >> Fertile age Women need sex

                Are nuns sluts?

                I don’t respond well to the pretty girls who smile at me, because I assume they’ll just use me, perhaps because that’s what I want (believe I deserve, cuck-style). I don’t really know what to do, besides my monastic dream (and I know monks can’t get away from women either).

                • jim says:

                  > > Fertile age Women need sex

                  > Are nuns sluts?

                  Actually existent fertile age nuns are sluts, because the extremely tight supervision by older women that used to restrain them has been relaxed.

                • Turtle says:

                  >> Actually existent fertile age nuns are sluts, because the extremely tight supervision by older women that used to restrain them has been relaxed.

                  That’s good to consider. I do remember a r.c. nun getting pregnant, and that was a spectacular news story. But it hasn’t publicly happened among Orthodox nuns. So I thought we’re ok, at least in local women’s monasteries (3 of them). I have noticed that some young monks are huge oneitis-ers, with crushes on orbiting girls who probably do want to fuck them. But this pedestaling is their way of saying “I can’t fuck her, she’s holier than me.” I don’t notice any cads near nuns though.

                • Turtle says:

                  I was reading just now, and see that wive’s shit tests are adulterous:

                  15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson’s wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father’s house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so?

                  16 And Samson’s wife wept before him, and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee?

                  17 And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people.

                  18 And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? And what is stronger than a lion? and he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

                  19 And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father’s house.

                  20 But Samson’s wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend.


                  I think my ‘sticking point’ with attractive women is that I ambivalently respect them, not deciding whether I want or deserve them or not. It’s hard to do ‘inner game’ alone. But the Holy Scriptures are enough. I want to actually find a guide to biblical manhood, not the creepy alpha-swag fag kind (be a playa like King Solomon), but a holy one. Maybe I will be so blessed with a good book.

                • Bee says:


                  “because I assume that girls are slut-angels (lol, God judges; I do not),”

                  You had better learn to judge, 3 reasons why:

                  1. Jesus commanded it in John 7.
                  2. If you don’t judge you can’t have discernment and wisdom.
                  3. One of the main reasons for the clean/unclean foods in the OT was so followers of God would learn to judge (divide rightly). Start simple by judging what food to eat or not eat.

                • Turtle says:

                  I just read St. John 7, and think you referred to verse 24. I don’t understand the phrasing. I’ll ask someone who knows biblical Greek what Jesus says here.

                  What I meant about not judging is that I don’t assume I know the truth. God is truth, and He is omniscient, so he can and does judge. It’s unreliable to judge with limited, fallible information. And what someone’s eternal fate will be is only up to God, not my sense of just desserts.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                What in your view are the sources/causes of over-inflated self-esteem in men?

                • jim says:

                  Men do not have over-inflated self esteem.

                  The correct level of self esteem is the level that makes you smooth when hitting on chicks, and very few men have that level.

                  Ninety percent of self esteem is sex, and the current environment inflates female self esteem and lowers male self esteem.

                • peppermint says:

                  The correct level makes the people over you not think you’re being insolent, hitting on their women, or hitting on women in their area, while letting you hit on women when appropriate. Since everyone is formally equal, it is never appropriate for White men to hit on women, even in secret. Women understand this, of coirse, and accept furtive gestures from the men they identify with as well as actually being hit on by men they don’t identify with but have the authority to hit on them.

                  Women have a much less constrained self esteem because they’re less likely to be killed or injured if they show too much or have women turn away in disgust for cucks if they show too little. Women’s self esteem is based on what kind of men show interest and if they’re told they have a right to the attention of the sexiest men they’ll act like princesses. The new phenomenon of fucking hotter guys than will marry them for years and not reproducing isn’t something women evolved to deal with.

                • jim says:

                  Because male level is too low, do not hit on women, do not defend their women, do not restrain their misbehaving women, do not defend their society.

                  Because female level is too high, no man likely to have a relationship with them is good enough, their husbands are not good enough.

                • Turtle says:

                  Self-esteem might be contextual. Be who you are in the place where you are. Monks who are hierarchs, such as bishops, are ideally humble always, but also Princes in the Church, where they are dressed in gold vestments, diamond-studded crosses, etc. So we can follow this ecclesial example.

                  I don’t really think men are so different from women, unlike everyone else here, but I do ignore non-Christians, biasing my data.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t really think men are so different from women

                  How to test this empirically using data that we both can observe?

                • Turtle says:

                  I have an icon of a saint who appear androgynous, but is male. There is a substantial quantity of saints who cross-dressed, usually to enter a monastery. They are sometimes punished for hiding their faith, but it seems like God does not reward sexual virtue, only spiritual virtue. Some nuns are physically stronger than most men, but I’ll stop with the exceptional examples.

                  The main thing is that Eve comes from Adam’s rib. So she has his DNA, slightly modified if at all. So we can look at the human genome, which is allegedly ~90% the same as a banan’s genome, and 99% ape, and while I doubt this science based on how easy and tempting it is to lie about human origins, maybe we could research genomic sex. I think the X and Y chromosomes are neglected because of PC prohibitions. Why is the X allegedly much alrger than the Y? How can the Y be tiny? What are sex chromosomes like in other creatures? Why didn’t I learn about this in biology class?

                  I dont have the ‘discretionary income’ to buy expensive genetics textbooks. But the data we are looking for might be available in journals, through university libraries. So that’s a start.

                  Looking at behavior, I do think men do hypergamy, for example. I mean this in a general way, where a mate is used as a means to socioeconomic ends. This is exploitation, without love; typically, there is a sinful quid pro quo, as in prostitution.

                  I just remembered that in childhood, children allegedly have very similar sex hormone levels. Unless this is fake science, I conclude that our common human nature (clear before puberty, then remaining but usually compromised) is mysterious- how can the hypothalamus, gonads, etc. all accomplish an adolescent transformation?

                  Finally, men and women generally treat me the same. After a workout, i get more smiles from everyone. Unless all the guys are gay, which is possible, it’s not about sex, more ‘energetic’ or pheromonic. When depressed, I get no smiles. I don’t notice different responses depending on sex.

                  Finally, gender seems like an illusion. I’ve had trouble with ‘masculinity,’ and moved on to just following my conscience, without ‘broing up.’ So these issues might be distractions from spirituality.

                • jim says:

                  > in childhood, children allegedly have very similar sex hormone levels.

                  From 15 weeks to birth, male testosterone in the womb is sky high. This masculinizes the brain and body, causing the boy to be born with a male brain. From birth to about age seven or eight, male and female hormone levels are very similar, and then start to diverge, becoming more and more different as puberty approaches and arrives. Female misconduct starts about nine or so, and then gets steadily worse.

                  > I don’t notice different responses depending on sex.

                  Then something is terribly wrong, or, more likely, you are oblivious. When a man’s eyes meet a woman’s eyes, something happens.

                • Turtle says:

                  >> Then something is terribly wrong, or, more likely, you are oblivious. When a man’s eyes meet a woman’s eyes, something happens.

                  Yes, something happens with any eye contact. But still, besides my partial obliviousness, I do feel like I am treated *mostly* the same by both sexes. Young women seem happier to see me, but I assume that’s the same as when they have been more unhappy to see me- they care more than anyone else does about young men. I guess I’m oblivious to sex itself.

                  I think the wrong thing is that I am only polite, not pursuing women. What else could be wrong?

            • peppermint says:

              they say out loud, as feminists tell them and as a shit test, that they want chocolates and their feet kissed. What they actually want is for a man to give them a sweatshirt and tell them to wear it and use them like a sex toy. They’ll tell you what they really want if you’ll listen. But you won’t.

              Boys play cowboys and indians and always hope that the cowboys will win. Girls write stories about being kidnapped and raped by indians who come burn down their village and have never seen blond hair before.

              I know some catladies who complain about the boys they’re with, sometimes complain privately about lack of sex (meaning: u up 4 sum fuk?), and post various dancing/cosplay/other excuses for lewd pictures, which never fail to get lots of likes.

              Monica Lewinsky was hoping that Bill would leave that shrill bitch Hillary for her. If she hadn’t had that hope, maybe she would be married. There will likely be a chain reaction of marriages as the sexiest people start marrying as soon as the alt-right seizes state power, a chain reaction as each person sees their choices reduced and takes their best available choice.

  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you man!

  10. Bane Blumpf says:

    Hey Jim, any thoughts on Cori Bernardi and his new party? Seems like he’s the only one in Australian politics who isnt a total cuckold

  11. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Jim, curious to know what your stance is on actual prostitution (aka Red Light District, not some thot sleeping around)? My belief is thottery cannot be too prevalent if TFR is to be high, but prostitution is necessary for beta males to get off. After all, likely 33-50% of males would not reproduce even in a free society (low end for white “monogamy” and high end for polygamy), so restricting their options is mighty harsh.

    • Antipas says:

      In a patriarchal system, beta males would have far better access to women who wouldn’t give them the time of day in the current system. If betas are off getting hitched and becoming fathers they don’t have the time or inclination to run around in red light districts. Supply and demand would probably render “red light districts” to a small back alley somewhere.

      • jim says:

        Thereby reducing pay, status, and safety to acceptably low levels.

      • Cavalier says:

        If the state (or, if you prefer, “the powers that be”) is responsible for, or capable of, the coercive redistribution of the means of reproduction, what is the incentive for the state to do so? What is it getting in return? For most of human history, the answer would be: farmers, skilled craftsmen, merchants, and soldiers. In the more recent past, the answer would be: lawyers, accountants, factory workers, and company men. Today, what is the answer? Farming has been mechanized. Most lawyers are useless. Accountants have been deprecated by software. Middle management is bloated and useless: just see Washington. Factory work has been offshored, and if it comes back it will be with automation such that a dozen or two people babysit the machines producing $100mil/yr. What happens to all these purposeless men economically, and why do they need women and a stake in Darwin’s grand future to motivate them to work if their work has no economic utility and they are not employable at any price?

        • A.B. Prosper says:

          The “Right” such as it is, is incapable of even understanding that the problem exists. A such, nothing will be done about it and the economic component of low fertility won’t be addressed for quiet some time.

          Think of it as a combination of complacency bias and the old saw “you can’t teach a man what his job requires him to not know”

          The result will be an indefinite fertility reduction , maybe below replacement till the system falls apart enough to force change, As in psychology, people or societies won’t change until the pain is too great to keep going

          However if the West removes foreigners, zeros out future immigration , it might be able to keep itself alive long enough for a generation or two down the line to address the problem.

          In some ways as detestable and foul Communism is , its resurgence is a good thing. It pushes society to deal with economic inequality and lack of work . They way they way to do it is entirely wrong but the core concept “alienation from the means of production” has a core of truth to it

          My guess is the best case is to combine some of Jim’s lower status for women with either work sharing (a lower work week) and eventually a basic income guarantee or with distributism and economic nationalism , flipping the incentives from “have a kiosk” to hire a kid

          However to do this you’ll need a very natal elite , maybe a religious one who values life . Trump isn’t quite there but he has tons of kids which is good and is a huge step in the right direction

          Europe on those grounds is fucked.

          Think of it his way, even our bad candidate Hillary has at least one child, Anti child, non natal people aren’t really electable here to some higher offices

          Hell even Hilla

        • Lalit says:

          If automation, Then the government must institute the 10 hour work week or else create conditions for it. More leisure time.

        • Bill Wallace says:

          One wonders who sanctioned the reproductive process that yielded Cavalier.

          But once we realize he is the love child of Obama and Barney Frank it all becomes clear.

          Hence the never ending spouting of aimless prose.

    • jim says:

      It is OK provided we make sure it is low status, poorly paid, dangerous, and unattractive.

    • jim says:

      Prostitution is merely girls going from one male to the next to get the best possible deal. The difference between the girl who charges by the hour, and the average modern girl, is merely one of degree. We really should go back to classing any girl who sleeps with one man, then sleeps with another, as a whore.

      • Turtle says:

        This is very useful to know, Jim. It helps me to not take it personally when girls smile oddly, as if I should hit on them even though I’m obviously not interested or capable. I’ll now think they don’t know any better. There are no rational whores- it’s always a mistake- a sin.

        I’m halfway through my book on “Harlots in the Desert.” The modern commentary is unchristian, but the translations of hagiographies (repentant harlots’ lives as saints) are good. I learned that St. Mary of Egypt had sex for fun, not for money, before receiving the gift of contrition. Her life indicates that money and status do not motivate whoring. It’s just what lechers do, even when they can’t afford it, as in getting VD, HIV, expensive divorces from ‘cheating,’ etc.

        So we can’t complain about sex-for-money apart from sex at all. There is no innocent sex *among sinners*, just because marriage is a sacrament. I do believe sex can be pure, but that happened before the fall, and will happen after the apocalypse. In between, I think we are unloving, or there would be no whores.

        • peppermint says:

          = It helps me to not take it personally when girls smile oddly, as if I should hit on them even though I’m obviously not interested or capable.

          their approval means exactly that they think you’re hot. You have eyes too and approve of the appearance of some of them. I would hope that you would smile at the ones who look great, frown at the ones who are fat, and glare at the ones who are with niglets or niggers.

          = I’ll now think they don’t know any better. There are no rational whores- it’s always a mistake- a sin.

          No rational whores? High school and college do funny things to women. Women think that they’re supposed to have a boyfriend by the end of high school and therefore try sleeping with boys to get them. Then in college, every year, and in the summer, they’re vying for a man to marry them, and in the chaos they try sleeping with this one and that one. For this reason women should be excluded from high school and college, but they want in because the sexiest men are in. Fortunately there is no longer any reason to have high school and college in the first place.

          Today very few women marry the cock they’re left sitting on at the musical chairs party at the end of high school. Today few women even marry the cock they’re left sitting on at the end of college. Both of those used to work, and the frigid bitches who wouldn’t put out didn’t get any attention from the hottest men. Today getting married doesn’t even guarantee kids, and it even seems like the opposite of that is the case – if she isn’t preggers when the wedding happens, she’s basically just signing a suicide pact for her genome.

          = I’m halfway through my book on “Harlots in the Desert.” The modern commentary is unchristian, but the translations of hagiographies (repentant harlots’ lives as saints) are good. I learned that St. Mary of Egypt had sex for fun, not for money, before receiving the gift of contrition.

          good for her. Many women do, and make a point of paying for their own snacks when they’re going to fuck on the first date.

          = Her life indicates that money and status do not motivate whoring.

          get this through your thick skull: status motivates all female activity, especially sexual activity, and has for hundreds of millions of years since the first herd and territorial animals

          = So we can’t complain about sex-for-money apart from sex at all. There is no innocent sex *among sinners*, just because marriage is a sacrament.

          what the fuck? the very definition of a sacrament in Christianity is that if it’s done properly it’s guaranteed to be sacred. Meanwhile under White sharia, it’s very clear that child-producing sex within marriage is innocent i.e. not degenerate, and after a child has been produced, further sex for the purpose of maintaining the pair bond is innocent. This is very intuitive. Fathers and brothers don’t like it when a stranger touches their family member, unless he gives her a home and a child. Under the current system, they try to avoid thinking about it, because at some level they know they’re uncomfortable and that they’re not supposed to be.

          = I do believe sex can be pure, but that happened before the fall, and will happen after the apocalypse. In between, I think we are unloving, or there would be no whores.

          What is purity to you? To me it is the opposite of degeneracy.

      • Bruce says:

        I believe that in the Bible, prostitute is only used as a verb and is synonymous with sexually “defiling”, “polluting”, etc. I don’t think “whore” or “harlot” as used in the Bible distinguishes between hourly workers and an unchaste woman.
        I wonder when “prostitute” started to be used restrictively to mean hourly sex workers?
        I think you’re right on this one. Time to reclaim our language.

        • peppermint says:

          The word meretricious sounds like it should mean meritorious, and at some point feminists will try to reclaim it.

          Merit means due or pay, as in Latin. A meretrix is a woman who is paid.

    • Anonymous says:

      Prostitution is essentially exploitation – of men.

      Rather than getting married and having regular sex with their husbands, the prostitutes remove themselves from the marriage market, thus deprive men of having wives, and instead take money in exchange for sex from the very men they refuse to marry.

      Imagine your girlfriend/wife tells you one day: “from now on, if you want to fuck me, you have to pay me”. That’s exploitation, and that’s exactly what whores are doing, except they are doing it from the very beginning of your interaction with them, so at least you’re not deceived by the whole business.

      Instead of capitalizing on the urgent sexual needs of men and on the involuntary celibacy of men (for which they themselves are partly responsible), they should be forced to marry, with no regard for their “consent” or lack thereof. Getting thots married, whether they like it or not, is at the core of the transition from female-dominated (“femdom”) society to male-dominated (“maledom”) society.

      Maledom is the assertion of collective male authority over females through the distribution of the high-priced means of sex-production aka vaginas to every man who belongs to one’s tribe.

      However, despite constituting exploitation of men, prostitution should be legal, because some men need it, whether or not they are exploited by it. But as Jim said, it should be made low-status, ungainful, unattractive, and dangerous for women to engage in it.

  12. Cavalier says:

    Beta males take orders, and the beta males who become cops and grunts are selected first and foremost for obedience. If told to fight, they will fight, even at the hazard of their own existence, with one hand tied behind their back under police rules of engagement while the other side uses guerrilla warfare rules of engagement.

    • vxxc2014 says:

      If we’re Beta males who are the Alphas?
      Do you even know any?
      Obeying orders in the military isn’t Beta.
      Its sense

      • Haflinger says:

        Jim and MOST of the posters here are clearly beta. That’s the main reason for continued insistence on returning to a patriarchy – in the delusion that sycophants of NRx leaders and beliefs will transform into alphas over night.

        • jim says:

          I am getting laid, and I am pretty sure that most of my commenters are getting laid. Equally, those who disagree with the positions expressed in this blog frequently display a curious ignorance of the nature of women that suggests that they are not getting laid.

          I don’t need patriarchy to get laid. I need patriarchy to have a family.

          • Haflinger says:

            Hey Jim how much does that chick you’re banging weigh? Is she half a retard or full on? I’m assuming you went through with the abortion.

            Any beta cuck loser can get laid. Somehow I doubt the quality of the intellect and appearance (and sanity) of all the various females everyone was so quick to jump and claim they are fucking. But then I prefer chicks who I can have an intelligent conversation with. Oddly, most of them are not in favor of a violent restoration of the patriarchy. Who would’ve known….

            • peppermint says:

              》Any beta cuck loser can get laid

              Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander

              》But then I prefer chicks who I can have an intelligent conversation with


              • Cavalier says:


                I don’t know about Half-Buttmunch above, but I prefer chicks I can have an intelligent conversation with as I prefer chicks whose parents, siblings, and extended family I can have an intelligent conversation with. It’s Darwinsong, but we have no rope or mast.

              • Haflinger says:

                It’s hilarious that you find that to be an lol. Chicks are just sperm buckets right, for the continuation of the species? Christ give me a fucking break. What a lonely bleak pathetic outlook.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Do you want descendants, are you aware of the symbolism of the marriage ceremony, and how do you feel about the subsequent consummation: the holy and pure achievement of immortality, the dirtiest and vilest exploitation of the holy and pure untrammeled female, or simply insufficiently sapiosexual — perhaps the newlyweds should cuddle all night long and talk to each other about the intricacies of quantum mechanics and its implications on the nature of existence and the future of humanity’s androidification?

            • jim says:

              If you, Halflinger, were getting laid, you would be more familiar with the nature of women.

            • Sam Cru says:

              Not only are you not getting laid currently, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a virgin.

              All women are in favor of violent restoration of the patriarchy. Why else would they vote for the mass importation of violent, patriarchal Muslims?

            • Lalit says:

              Why did you not mention that you are attracted to her “personality”? Go on. Why stop here? Take it all the way. Complete the cliche.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          People seem to use “beta” to mean “cooperative”.

          If so I am beta and I am sure most others are here too. Being cooperative is not a bad thing. Armies that have discipline and organisation – that are cooperative – win wars, and people who win wars determine policies.

          Muslims’ problems are due to losing wars. Our problems are not due to losing wars. Our problems are due to winning them, then using our power to determine policies that are going to destroy us, which is what this post is about.

          Creating a society of ZFG cads is our current destination and something we want to avoid. Being a ZFG cad in a permissive society of beta women is surely paradise but a society of ZFG cads is Zimbabwe.

        • peppermint says:

          From context, it appears you recognize White sharia, and recognize that implementing White sharia would allow every man who can contribute to society the chance to marry, and are trying to insult people who told you these things out loud.

          I’m an alpha by the liberal/nigger definition of getting laid regularly and having women fighting over me. Under White sharia, an unmarried man of my age with no children would not be considered beta, since beta is a sexual strategy, just pathetic.

    • Bill Wallace says:

      Cavalier couldn’t enter the military and spends his day in a faculty lounge. Here he can demonstrate his alpha qualities by forgiving the subhumans in his 8th grade class for not having done their homework for the 6th straight week and for torching their classmates.

Leave a Reply for Bill Wallace