Holy war is coming, as the poz gets ever more extreme, ever faster, and our ruling elite increasingly uses state coercion and the FBI to accomplish political outcomes, coercing fellow members of the political elite for political reasons.
Have to bring a gun to a gunfight, and a faith to a holy war.
Deus Vult.
Whites are detribalized, and contrary to the white nationalists, “white†is not a tribal identifier. Whites are wolf to whites. A religion, defining religion broadly to include things like communism and poz, is a synthetic tribe. To win, we need a faith.
With our enemies going further and further into delusion, we have to form a faith on the Truth of Gnon, the Will of God as manifested in the natural order, the Logos manifested in the order of the world, natural law as the will of God. We will, in accordance with the Christianity of about a thousand years ago, interpret Christ as, among other things, the incarnation of the Logos, and thus interpret his words as in accordance with game theory and evolutionary psychology, and divine prophecies as the predictable outcome of cause and effect.
One can deduce ought from is, which is exactly what the Book of Solomon and the copybook headings do, what every reasonable person does in practice. If one is a strict atheist materialist, then “good†is what game theory and evolutionary psychology tells us that we should desire in our kin, our friends, and the character of those that we should ally with. If God created the world then “is†was created by God, and cause and effect a manifestation of the Logos. And if a Christian, then cause and effect manifested as wholly man, and that man ended Talmudic legalism, ended the practice of deducing “ought†from some other “ought†taken as given and absolute and then deducing ever sillier and ever more repugnant conclusions from the first “oughtâ€, whether one takes that given “ought†as the “greatest good for the greatest numberâ€, or takes as that given “ought†that one should not boil a goat in its mother’s milk.
The expulsion of the Jews by the Romans illustrates the Divine Logos telling us “The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life†The divine will manifested through entirely natural causes, because the natural order of the universe reflects the will of God. And the spirit of the law, being manifest in cause and effect and manifest in the natural order, needs to be understood with reference to natural law, game theory, and evolutionary psychology. When the Jews obeyed the letter of the law while massively violating the spirit of the law, they were, in accordance with prophecy, expelled from Israel – which reflects the will of God and divine prophecy, but also reflects the fact that if you violate the spirit of the law, you will get into stupid wars with your neighbors, and eventually war with one of your neighbors that happens to be a six hundred pound gorilla. The Jews got into war with Rome not because of corrupt Roman tax collectors, oppressive taxation, harsh Roman law enforcement, and all that, but because they were so scrupulous about avoiding contamination by blood that they wound up getting covered in the wrongfully spilled blood of a Roman cop whom they murdered in the performance of his duty while he was attempting to impartially enforce a just, reasonable, and necessary law that applied to everyone. Which would not have led to war had they not felt so very righteous about it because they were being so faithful to rule about avoiding blood – so faithful to it that they spectacularly disregarded the commandments on coveting, theft, and murder. Attending synagogue while avoiding walking on ground contaminated by chicken blood was so terribly important that they could do anything they liked to accomplish these holy goals, including theft and murder, and their great determination to accomplish these holy goals demonstrated their superior holiness. And their stubborn self righteousness over this incident eventually and predictably led to the Romans going Roman on them.
In Christianity, the rot set in on women about a thousand years ago, with romance and contractual marriage, with natural law increasingly being tortured to fit church doctrines that were increasingly arbitrary, unreasonable, and out of contact with reality, and with contractual marriage quietly and subtly replacing sacramental marriage, though Christianity only went really progressive on women during the twentieth century. We endorse old style contractual and old style sacramental marriage right now, at least as a moral standard and ritual solemnization, even though we are in no position to enforce it collectively, and after we gain power, start by rolling contractual marriage back to the late eighteenth century, while celebrating sacramental marriage at least symbolically, and eventually go all the way back to sacramental marriage. We approve of and support husbands and fathers unilaterally enforcing it, even though such enforcement is highly illegal and subject to social disapproval, and we will have our marriage ceremonies proclaim it.
Evolutionary psychology and game theory implies that the family law of the Old Temple Hebrews and the first Millenium Christian Church was entirely correct, and the eighteenth century Christian position on family, war, identity, and the establishment of religion was quite good.
Pozzed Christianity, which dumps on fathers on father’s day and tells us we are Homer Simpson, and which thinks that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is far more important that a bunch of priests having gay sex in a great big pile, because the priests were all consenting adults, is not Christian.
Chaos is coming. Chaos is already here, and will get a lot worse. Eventually order will be restored through Caesarism, that being the cycle of history. I hope this happens soon, with Holy American Emperor Trump, but if it does not happen soon, it will happen eventually, possibly after a century of blood and ruin.
When it starts happening, and I hope it is beginning now, we should catch that tide and sail it to victory.
Revolutionary movements never get anywhere without backing from a substantial faction of the elite. So what section of the elite is going to back us?
Warriors need priests, and priests need warriors. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, so they tend to struggle for power, priests destroying the military, instead of sustaining it and giving it cohesion. The recent stupid wars where the military fought for no sane, useful, or achievable purpose, with one hand tied behind its back, were attacks by the priesthood on the military, as was insourcing logistics, putting camp followers in military uniforms.
To explain these stupid wars, people say they were fought for Israel, but if fought for Israel, would have been fought to win, rather than lose. If fought for Israel, we would not have women in the military, Israel would not have women in the military, we would not have kicked Israel out of Gaza, and logistic workers would not be wearing warrior uniforms.
We are priests who believe warriors should rule (using the term “priesthood†to mean any knowledge faction that internally coordinates its story in order to give the story more effect and in order to gain power, analogously to using the term “religion” to include communism and poz.) We are therefore in a good position to catch the coming tide.
The time of Ceasarism approaches. Caesar, Napoleon, or Augustus will need priests who say and believe his rule under God is right, because God said so, because one stationary bandit is better than mobile banditry, and because one King three thousand miles away is better than a thousand kings three miles away.
These WRP questions are way better than any I posted!
One more, if I may.
What is the father’s role regarding the sex life of his daughter
[—] Believe it or not, the father’s role is to lay back and allow his daughter to experiment with all that life has to offer. He needs to support her and stand by her, and yes, he needs to let her make mistakes and learn from them. Part of growing up is doing silly things, such as inviting a failed rock singer to fuck you up the ass while sucking off his equally failed drummer, and this is going to happen anyway, so no reason to make a big fuss about it. The important thing is to be there for her when she needs you, and to love her unconditionally. Offer her guidance, support her morally, financially, emotionally, and however you can, but otherwise don’t interfere in her day to day life. When she grows up, she will deeply appreciate all that you’ve done for her and given her, and hopefully, when you get old, she will be there for you.
[—] The father’s role is guarding the chastity of his daughter until the time is right for her to marry, which is up to him to decide. The meaning of patriarchy is that the father shall be the sole arbiter of who his daughter has sex with, ergo it follows that no man can be tolerated to molest her without his explicit permission. If someone deflowers your daughter sans your own consent, regardless of his willingness and ability to promptly take possession of her or lack thereof, you are fully entitled to execute him, or use whatever means are available to you to penalize him for spoiling your property. Moreover, even if she has already lost her virginity, you are entitled to penalize anyone else who seduces her.
[—] The father’s role is to keep his daughter chaste until her late teens or early twenties, primarily by intimidating all her actual or potential suitors with very scary-sounding threats of physical and lethal violence. Then, when she reaches adulthood, he should allow her to make a rational, cold-headed decision about whom to date, knowing that he raised her well. Who wouldn’t want to date an 18-year-old virgin, right? (It may also be helpful to imbue her with suspicion towards men, so that she will stay away from trouble) This traditional fatherly function is a surefire way to guarantee that whoever she pairs up with will be a worthy, virtuous, and honest man, rather than some sleazy disgusting jerk.
[xxx] The father’s role is getting his daughter married off to someone who’s in a position to make her his wife; his role is to transfer ownership over his daughter to someone else who can own her and satisfy her urgent sexual needs, preferably someone well-established. If a father fails to marry his daughter off, she is apt to lose her virginity to the local drug dealer. Moreover, crying “Abloo-abloo, someone abducted my teenage daughter, a-boo-hoo-hoo, my teenage daughter eloped” is improper, unreasonable, and utterly blue-pilled. If someone abducted your teenage daughter, it’s because you failed to marry her off, i.e. you did not fulfill your role as a father, possibly because you adhere to a recent Satanic inversion of Christianity.
[—] Excuse me? Father’s role? As a divorced lesbian single-mother, I am deeply offended by the premise behind this question, and refuse to answer it with anything other than a “Fuck you, bigot.”
The gist of that is to differentiate Reaction from Trad-Conism. Simply put, Reactionaries place husbands before fathers, Trad-Cons place fathers before husbands. Sure, ideally, the interests of husbands and fathers should be identical. But in practice, blue-pilled fathers are always going to see it as their role to keep their daughters chaste well past the age when they are apt to elope, so we need to state clearly and unequivocally that if you fail to transfer your ownership over your daughter in time to someone who’s in a position to make her his wife, you absolutely deserve to have someone marry her by abduction, and have no grounds to grumble about it.
When Jim writes,
He reads the Trad-Cons out of Reaction. There’s a simmering problem of Trad-Con entryists pretending to be Reactionaries and pushing their blue-pilled views inside Reaction. Well, Trad-Cons were blue-pilled in the 19th century, and surely are no less blue-pilled in the 21st. By stating clearly that husbandhood takes precedence over fatherhood when the two clash, that it is more important to provide young girls with husbands, than it is to satisfy daddy’s misguided emotions, Jim rightly and justifiably tells the Trad-Cons to take their insane and demonic bullshit elsewhere.
Thus when we state that the father’s role is to transfer ownership over his daughter to someone who can own her as a wife and, if she shows secondary sexual characteristics, have reproductive sex with her, rather than to mostly-futilely “guard her chastity” until the day when dear daddy finally decides that the time is right for her to marry (fathers are usually unable to determine when the time is right, as they much prefer to ignore the clear signs of their disturbingly young daughters’ sex drives volcanically setting in), we practically oblige the fathers to look for husbands all the sooner, lest the daughter be married by abduction, a distinct possibility in a Reactionary society.
Reactionaries prioritize marriage, Trad-Cons prioritize keeping daughters chaste well past a reasonable age, the two views are incompatible, and Trad-Con entryists should beware of trying to pass off Trad-Conism as Reaction: It isn’t, and we see exactly what you’re trying to do.
I do not sympathize with the trad-con view at all but I prefer arranged marriage to abduction because Jeremy Meeks is quite capable of the latter. Marriage should be arranged quickly after a female hits puberty ideally but abduction marriage should be latter if the father fails.
>Simply put, Reactionaries place husbands before fathers,
This idea is self-contradictory, and should read: Reactionaries place youth before husbands-fathers. In short, just another Leftist ideology, but not the type that gets you money, status and power.
Reactionaries value fertility and reproduction, and do indeed proudly promise young brides, but you are being disingenuous like all Trad-Con entryists.
The interests of husbands and fathers should be identical. If not identical (because father is blue pilled), then husband takes precedence. Marrying off young girls is a priority, while “protecting” their virginity well past reasonable age is a recent demonic innovation rooted in lies about human nature and lies about female nature.
Failure to transfer ownership to a husband in time leads to sexual misbehavior on the part of girls, and should result in marriage through abduction to reinstate order. We are not here to satisfy your blue-pilled notion of “protecting” your daughter from sex. We are here to restore young fertile marriage. If you won’t marry off your daughter to a husband selected by you, she will be married off anyway to a husband not selected by you. Suck it up and do your job of transferring ownership over her in time.
And calling us leftists is ridiculous. You are criticizing us from the demonic Puritan left, not from the right.
Let me get this straight: under Restoration, men own their women, except when they don’t, and the function of the State will be to oversee the re-distribution of private property (in this case, women) from its rightful owners to those who aren’t its rightful owners, by preventing the rightful owners from resisting when social inferiors who aren’t the rightful owners come to take it by force, and thus enabling said social inferiors to take things that belong to them by force with impunity. Where have I heard this before. Oh right, Socialist ideology. Anarcho-tyranny. Just not the type that gets you tenure, Soros bucks, and a Senate seat.
Sophist analogy.
A father’s ownership over his daughter is practically null and void when she reaches the age of volcanic lust, which can be uncomfortably early or uncomfortably late. Technically he still owns her, in reality nobody owns her – she is going to climb mountains of broken glass to fuck her demon lover. Thus a father should transfer ownership over her to a man selected by himself in advance, so that she will be a virgin on her wedding day.
Reactionary society will obligate her lover her to keep her. If you failed to marry her off in time, you have neglected your fatherly role, so now her deflowerer (or, if she’s been a thot, any man willing and able to own her) is her husband, and you have only yourself to blame for this situation.
Unlike an inanimate object or an intangible asset, a daughter past a certain point is uncontrollable, and apt to cause great trouble to society. “Protecting” her virginity past a reasonable age is wrongful conduct, and wholly impractical. Thus you retain technical ownership, but lose effective ownership. She urgently needs to score, and will do whatever it takes to score, and your failure to acknowledge that stems from demonic heresy. She is going to misbehave, and we are going to stop her misbehavior by doing what you have failed to do – ensuring that she is married.
Husbandhood out-alphas fatherhood. She is going to score, and we seek to make it so that the man who ends up having sex with her will keep her. Thus the real crime is not abducting her, but letting her go. It is better that she has reproductive sex in a marital context, than that she has orgies with a succession of failed musicians and drug dealers.
We are going to stop her misbehavior, which you failed to stop. Past a certain point, you can no longer practically own her. Someone else will own her, and you’re gonna get over it.
Maybe families should get a family rank code based on wealth and IQ.
Males without a good enough rank cannot abduct from families of higher rank (at least not without permission from the father) but can from families of equal or lower rank and this will solve the unsuitability problem with abduction.
Would it not in this case be easier to pass a law requiring Dad to marry off daughter by a certain age, or (even easier) that prevents him from vetoing a marriage proposal after a certain age, than to allow flagrant offenses against the public peace like abduction (something NO urban society under Sovereign law and order is ever going to allow or could allow, no matter what some hillbillies or Semitic/African herdsmen do or once did).
You mean like… Age of Consent laws?
We will move towards Old Testament rules, which are more in accord with human nature and evolutionary psychology.
The nature of women is to behave in ways that in the ancestral environment got them out of the authority of males who did not give them reproductive sex and under the authority of men that did give them reproductive sex.
The Old Testament tells us that this should happen. It should happen in an orderly fashion, but “orderly” does not mean it is reasonable to attempt to delay it indefinitely, and it has several stories about unreasonable delay, the point being that such delay was wrong and oppressive, and it was reasonable and natural that the women misbehaved.
Sexual choices tend to have very large externalities, therefore it is right for the state, church, and society to interfere. Where institutions fail to result in the orderly transfer of women reaching fertile age, you are going to get feral women and disorderly transfer of women reaching fertile age.
The state, the church, society, and the family should attempt to ensure orderly transfer, but when disorderly transfer happens, as inevitably it frequently will, we should attempt to regularize that transfer, rather than attempting to prevent it in ways that oppose the transfer, and attempt to unreasonably preserve virginity. The point of virginity is that the woman should wind up having sex with one man, not that she should wind up not having sex.
The state should back fathers, not against cads, but against feral daughters who give cads opportunity. It should not support fathers against husbands and potential husbands – should not support the father’s property right against the daughter’s desire to get some action, except to the extent that the daughter is apt to pursue her desires in ways unlikely to lead to marriage.
The big problem with the Rotherham rape fest and all the similar Muslim rape fests of Christian girls, was that the girls, and frequently their mothers, were complicit in all that rape. It was a feral woman problem. The state should have put them under the authority of Christian males.
I cannot follow you here. As I recall it, they DID try to get justice for the rapes, but the police were ordered to wave off due to political correctness, or they anticipated that they would be ordered to wave off if they did anything.
A bunch of hostile foreigners invaded England and raped its young women.
It’s a pity that England doesn’t have the death penalty.
Yeah, no.
The mothers and the daughters were pretty darn fine with the rapes. Police got wind of all that when various third parties started noticing that jailbaits hang out with Pakis and Afghans and decided to report that.
If women are attracted to alpha males and don’t mind rape, and actually go out of their way to get raped, then why do women runaway when they’ve been kidnapped? Surely kidnapping a bitch is one of the most alpha methods of asserting dominance and women should be attracted to their kidnapper. The women should be ecstatic that they’re in the possession of an alpha male.
There’s two kidnapping cases in particular that confuse me, the first is the Ariel Castro case. In 2002 Castro kidnapped three teenage girls and kept them in his basement for 10 years. He fucked them and beat them regularly, so they presumably should have been content, but they ran away.
The second case is the Jayme Closs case. The kidnapper, Jake Patterson, kidnapped 13 year old Jayme Closs, after murdering her parents with a shotgun. Jayme eventually escaped. I don’t think Patterson ever had sex with her, so maybe that’s why she ran away.
Beating them raping them and locking them in a cage alone will certainly not produce the stockholm syndrome effect.
The situation in Beauty and the Beast is more how Stockholm Syndrome actually works. If you are hiding her in a cage and must keep it secret it not only sucks for her it means you aren’t alpha enough to ward off challengers.
Women are adapted to being carried off as sex slaves by conquerors who openly can take them. But not even the most masochistic of women want to be kept in a literal small cage in a dank basement for years and years.
Link? I’m not an expert on this episode, so you might be right, but I’m not inclined to take “horny thots” as the null hypothesis in this case.
Why not? “horny thots†accurately describes workplace sexual harassment happening in front of my eyes and your eyes, and as soon as they started aggressively searching for poster girls, turned out to accurately describe the college rape crisis.
If something happens in every case where you have reliable data, it should be the null hypothesis all cases where there is insufficient data. It is always horny thots. Unless you have compelling evidence that this case is different, you should assume horny thots.
That they are called “grooming gangs†should tip you off. They targeted fatherless girls, who went under their own power into situations where they were likely to be brutally gang raped and kept on going under their own power into situations where they were likely to be brutally gang raped. That someone was “groomedâ€, and the grooming led to her not just being raped once, but raped repeatedly for many years should tell you that their was female and maternal complicity in these rapes.
“grooming†implies the chick going under her own power into situations likely to result in brutal gang rape, and “years†implies she keeps on going under her own power into situations likely to result in brutal gang rape.
These chicks were looking for male authority and male ownership in all the wrong places, because male authority and male ownership has been destroyed in what used to be the right places.
They only became embittered when male authority failed to exercise ownership, and the alpha male failed to assign ownership to one of his beta male followers, but instead kept on sharing her around like a bottle of beer.
Looking into it. Finding that evidence is mixed.
Will be back in a bit.
The evidence is mixed because female behavior is confusing and opaque, and even more confusing and opaque if you are blue pilled, and because people do not want to see what is in front of their noses.
“kidnapped 13 year old Jayme Closs, after murdering her parents with a shotgun.”
In one such case, they found security footage where he stopped for gas during the getaway and she walked into the mini-mart to buy something. It wasn’t a kidnapping at all but a girl tricking a horny teenager into driving to her state, offing her parents, and taking the blame for it. Of course the prosecutors white-knighted and didn’t charge her.
That Jayme Closs thing is from Wisconsin.
Looking into this is horrifying. Probably going to do something else and calm down from the anger.
Jim:
If you’re accusing me of being blue-pilled, I don’t know what to tell you. One of the reasons I hang out here is that it’s the only forum I know of that’s more red-pilled than me, which is refreshing.
Shaman:
and Jim:
Jim’s statement is true. Shaman’s may be true – I haven’t sampled many rescued whore sob stories – BUT: They can be pushed too far.
The epistemology in these statements would leave us in a position in which no evidence ever counts for anything.
What would be evidence that the girls didn’t want to be raped?
If you think an eleven year old girl is incapable of deliberately seeking out men who would do terrible things, and tempting them to do terrible things, you are blue pilled. You critiqued some books written for women where the adult female protagonist sought out terrible violence against herself. Chances are that it was in the “Young adult” section.
Rape is difficult to define or recognize in humans or cats.
Its a shit test. She wants you to pass and she wants you to fail. She wants to win, and she wants to lose.
Asking whether a woman was raped is not really a very useful question, hard to answer, hard to say what it means. If a home invasion leads to sex, we should punish the home invader. If daughter wandering of to an Arianna Grande concert leads to sex we should punish the daughter.
If you ask “was this women really raped?” Or “did this woman want to be raped” your question is unlikely to make much sense, and the answers are unlikely to make much sense. It is not that women want things or don’t want certain things. It is more that they are apt to act in ways that in the ancestral environment, would cause those things to happen or avoid those things happening. Lacking male authority in their lives, they headed towards male authority, and to the lizard brain of a female, violence and cruelty to the weak looks like male authority.
I’ll offer this:
Trying to escape, and not desisting until her captors beat her so badly that she was lying in a pool of her own blood, would be evidence that she wanted to escape the rapists.
Not actually escaping, when she had ample opportunity to do so, would be evidence that she did not want to escape her rapists.
None of these girls were continually locked up for very long. Any of them could have headed down the road and kept right on going for five hundred miles. These girls kept hanging around violence and cruelty, when there was absolutely nothing stopping them from making themselves scarce.
That’s not exactly what I think, but I’ll be back later. Meanwhile, if the SJW Commissars ever achieve their Orwellian dystopia (God forbid) and charge me with a “Misogynist hate speech” crime, I’ll cite that “you are blue pilled” as part of my defense.
As Jim has said the SJWs are going to be burning each other for witchcraft and most of them are really only interested in leftism because its really about knocking things over so they can steal.
Being a rich white guy (who has stuff they want to steal) will be more dangerous to you then your political views. So they will kill me, but they would kill me if I was a Democrat without the right connections…
Not Tom: ‘I realize it’s disturbing to imagine that sweet English girls would be attracted to gross barbarian street shitters, but that’s what happens when the local men are weak and gay. Girls can be attracted to literal apes under the right circumstances.’
Supply and demand. There was also the added convenience of them being a segregated community offering anonymity. If there was a supply of white men offering what they sought, they would prefer them. Hence why white girls only obsess over white serial killers.
I can find many clear cut cases in favor of Jim’s thesis, but all potential evidence against it is ambiguous.
For example, the main poster girl was from a family who ran a local post office. The police ignored her complaints and lost the evidence she submitted. The problem is that it seems that it was her family who went to the police, not her, and she was voluntarily hanging around with her groomers for years, including after being interviewed by the police.
She claims that this is because her groomers threatened her family.
This could indeed mean that she kept going back because the groomers threatened her family.
But it could also mean that she kept going back *because the groomers threatened her family*.
In the end her family decided to move to Spain to avoid the abuse. But why all the way to Spain?
An interview full of contradictions can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8qkO3NZpzE
‘He was my knight in shining armor’
‘I went into sexual exploitation without even knowing it.’
‘I wouldn’t do very well in court because I could be aggressive and I wasn’t always helpful.’
The one thing that Jim is incorrect about is that they did not willingly get prostituted out to random asian betas other than to please their main groomer.
This sounds like she could not do well in court because she behaves like every women ever when friends and family try to get her away from an abusive lover. And when Mr Nice Guy tries to get her away from an abusive lover, he gets all the flack that the bad boy should be getting in theory, but never is. When Mr Nice Guy attempts a rescue, then she ‘could be aggressive.’
If they refused, they were threatened with death. Their parents were threatened with death. They were doused in gasoline and were told they were going to be immolated. They were burned with cigarettes for resisting. They were locked up so they couldn’t escape. They were beaten when they tried unsuccessfully to escape. After one such beating a victim described herself as lying in a pool of her own blood.
Every single “rescued” whore has identical or similar sob-stories. Yet, the incontrovertible fact of the matter is that loose and promiscuous women — especially when their single mother herself fucks a succession of demon lovers — keep coming back for more, even when no or very little compulsion is applied. They are drawn to brutal rape like magnets; consider why it is that girls from intact and functional homes somehow magically succeed to avoid becoming Pakis’ butt-sluts.
Nuts.
Why did these girls not just wander off to a lover on the other side of town and leave no forwarding address.
Also what is this crap about “parents”? It was “Mother”, not “parents”, because Dad had been evicted by the authorities. When he butted his nose in, authorities came down on him like a ton of bricks for racism, sexism, and so on and so forth, not the Muslims.
Shaman, Jim,
I’ll keep digging into this. Links would help me out as I do so.
On evidence being mixed:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-rotherham-suspects-victims-girls-rape-uk-nca-prosecutions-a8609511.html
On one hand,
“The court heard that the seven men befriended the girls, with some leading them to believe they were their boyfriends, before passing them around to be sexually abused by multiple offendersâ€
On the other hand,
“They were often sexually abused on mattresses on the floor and locked in rooms so that they couldn’t escape.â€
This link also says that one girl “had sex†with 100 men by the time she was 16. No, she didn’t think 100 men were exceptionally alpha and voluntarily wanted to fuck them.
Violence is alpha. Most of those hundred men were quite violent. These girls headed towards the violence and the cruelty, when they could easily have headed away from it.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
In some cases in which the children – 11-year-old girls, for fuck’s sake! – apparently left “voluntarily†with the rapists, it was because they were being threatened, or their families were being threatened, with violence including death, if they didn’t cooperate.
“The perpetrators set about obtaining personal information about the girls and their families—where their parents worked, for example—details that were used to threaten the girls if they tried to withdraw. Windows at family homes were smashed; threats were made to rape mothers and younger sisters. The children came to believe that the only way to keep their families safe was to cooperate.â€
“A victim decided to file a complaint with the police. The perpetrators had smashed her parents’ windows and broken her brothers’ legs to stop her from reporting the rapes. Weir took her to the police station, but while there the victim received a text from the perpetrator to say he had her 11-year-old sister with him, and it was “your choice”. This led the victim to believe someone had told the perpetrator she was at the police station, and she decided not to proceed with the complaint.â€
Nuts
The Rotherham girls went towards the violence, the threats, and the cruelty, when there was absolutely nothing stopping them from going away from the violence, the threats, and the cruelty.
In one case, it’s expicitly stated that the victim did:
“After eight months in her house of hell [eight months due to other escape attempts failing], I eventually seized my chance and fled. Social services moved me to a different care home, eight miles from Rotherham.â€
https://www.facebook.com/AbusersXposed/videos/my-safe-haven-was-a-trap-rotherham-teen-groomed-by-asian-sex-gang-was-saved-by-h/377928552560975/
But they tracked her down again.
It’s horrific, but we shouldn’t avert our eyes from the horror. A bunch of hostile foreigners invaded England and raped its girls. Yes, it makes one’s blood boil to think of it, but we have to pay attention to threats.
Nuts
That is not what is explicitly stated.
Eight months? Why not eight hours?
eight miles? Why not eighty miles?
“Moved me”? Why not move herself?
She does not seem to have been trying very energetically to escape.
That does not sound like her trying to escape. That sounds like social services dicking around.
They went towards the people threatening them because they were threatened? Indeed they did, but not in the sense that they, and you, are trying to claim.
You say in shocked tones that one of these whores was eleven, as if all eleven year old girls were sexless angels. Hell, I have seen worse behavior from nine.
Come on. You’re giving way too much weight to the words of sluts and whores. We all agree that Muslims and darkies should fuck out of white countries, but that doesn’t change the girls’ complicity, which now gets retconned to “I was a good girl, didn’t do nothing.” No, they were not good girls.
I’d be willing to concede that many of the Rotherham girls got way more than they bargained for – that they went in anticipating a bit of slapping around and rough sex, in line with Anglosphere norms, not being locked up and passed like a doobie from one grotesque subhuman to the next.
But I side with Jim and shaman in my total disbelief that the girls were actually pure and innocent, as opposed to dirty whores from broken families who were just too stupid to realize how badly their adventures would turn out.
To my knowledge, Jim hasn’t explicitly stated that ordinary girls go out seeking the most violent, brutal and horrifying treatment imaginable; only that there is a certain minimum level of domination that must be met by fathers and especially husbands, which if not met will result in girls going off on sexual adventures. Some adventures end badly, but the adventuring happens on purpose.
Okay, one girl escaped and they tracked her down again. How is that different from regular whores who get the brilliant idea to run away from their pimps and keep the money for themselves? Hey there, it’s time for another episode of “bitch, where’s my money!” It’s a far more primitive version of civilization than what most of us are used to, and positively barbaric compared to what reactionaries would like to (re)implement, but it’s basically the norm in low-IQ societies without intact marriage. Feral women and violent men are two sides of the same coin.
If anything, this completely supports the Jimian view. So this girl says that Ash took complete ownership of her, did whatever he wanted, whenever he liked. And she did so exactly for over a decade?
Broke: it was against her will
Woke: she rather liked it.
The fact that she was in contact with social services at the time, thus having ample opportunity to ‘escape’, shows she had little intention to escape.
If a chick is in contact with family and social services, she is in contact with the road. If she does not want to be raped, hit road, start walking. Continue walking for eight hours. During her journey, unless she resolutely avoids eye contact, which she will, she will encounter frequent white knights, some of them with expensive cars and well dressed, whom she will blow off.
You guys who are saying “why didn’t they just bolt?” are ignoring (at least) two things:
(1) Often they did!
(2) Children don’t have nearly as much autonomy as adults do. Yes, if we want to “just hit the road” then we will. We have money, experience… CARS… some idea about where to go… the ability to find new employment legally… If an 11-year-old girl wants to scram, HOW? Seriously, “Just hit the road”? What is she going to do when she gets hungry, FFS?
Go to the cops? They ignored the appeals for help and in at least one case destroyed records of those appeals (I have a link somewhere, on request). “Social services”-type places? They were either in league with the rapists (put “Karen MacGregor” into a search engine) or helpless to do anything about it.
Your poster girls for bolting did not bolt: “eight miles” “social services moved me”
It does not take that long to walk a whole lot further than eight miles, and applying to social services is not bolting.
If the poster girl is like that, all of them are like that. Bolting involves moving oneself. They voluntarily went into a dangerous situation with very bad men, chose to remain in that situation after those bad men had demonstrated how bad they were, and were unhelpful when attempts were made to remove them from the situation.
Violence against the weak, and cruelty to the weak, is alpha in the eyes of women. All Women Are Like That. James Bond fights Jaws because the story is largely targeted at males. Sparkly Vampires, on the other hand …. Maui demonstrates how alpha he is by tossing Moana overboard into a vast expanse of deep ocean, and by pissing on her. No hero targeted at males ever acts like that. All heroes targeted at females act like that. Similarly, David Bowie’s character in “The Labyrinth”.
All male heroes targeted at nine year old girls are like that, therefore all nine year old girls are like that. Heroes targeted at eight year old girls, tend to be nicer. Cinderella’s prince is a massively preselected rich and powerful nice guy. Maui, targeted at nine year olds, is an arrogant asshole with a violent and criminal past. David Bowie’s character in “The Labyrinth” (targeted at ten to twelve year old girls) is a literal demon, prefiguring the sparkly vampire genre.
All women are like that. You are not presenting evidence that these girls were unicorns. Rather, the evidence you present indicates that they were like all women, that your poster girls were like all women.
The lesson of Rotherham is not that we need to expel Muslims, though we do need to expel Muslims because a significant Muslim minority always results in low level civil war and nogo areas, frequently escalating into high level civil war, at thirty percent Muslim often resulting in the need to engage in area bombing of cities. The lesson of Rotherham is that white Christian males need to be allowed to be alpha, and that we need to keep women under control.
All of them were old enough that nicely dressed white knights with nice cars keep coming out of the woodwork offering them assistance if they show any signs of distress, or even if they don’t.
Jim: “Why did these girls not just wander off to a lover on the other side of town and leave no forwarding address.â€
Me “In one case, it’s expicitly stated that the victim did.â€
Jim: “Nuts That is not what is explicitly stated.â€
What I was thinking of was this:
https://www.facebook.com/AbusersXposed/videos/my-safe-haven-was-a-trap-rotherham-teen-groomed-by-asian-sex-gang-was-saved-by-h/377928552560975/
“After eight months in her house of hell, I eventually seized my chance and fled. Social services moved me to a different care home, eight miles from Rotherham.â€
But one day Joanne was told by one of the care workers that a message had been left for her from her ‘Auntie Kaz’.
She said: “I felt a sickening knot of dread tighten in my stomach as I realised it was Karen. She’d found me.
“She’d moved to Sheffield and left me her new number. I ignored it and never rang her – but then one day, she turned up at the home.
Fuck, when I do a bunch of paragraphs in bold, why do only some of them come out in bold?
Yet she had no difficulty moving herself into a dangerous situation.
And she continued to not move herself out of a dangerous situation when she was no longer a kid.
She could walk one hundred miles, and worry about the apartment later. Even adult women seldom think that far ahead.
If social services kept bothering her and her mother where she was, they would go right on bothering her when she was a hundred miles away.
From the age of ten or so, to menopause, it is always true when an adult alpha male with adult female preselection is in the vicinity.
Twenty-year-old women who have grown up in normal circumstances know this. They know the power of their magic vagina to obtain help, resources, etc. from white knights. 11-year-old girls who have been gang-raped and burned with cigarettes when they tried to resist, and have had other adults who are supposed to be on their side horrifically betray them, don’t know it.
If she starts walking, she will get somewhere. You can walk for three days without water and three weeks without food. You can walk one thousand miles with no food. I have walked seventy miles over rough country with no food, and it was not hard. They did not start walking, and continued to not walk even when they developed boobs and all that with the demonstrated capacity to cause all the blood to run from a man’s brain into his dick. Their behavior after they developed boobs was the same as their behavior before they developed boobs.
And don’t tell us their “parents” were threatened. I don’t see any fathers in these stories being threatened except by police and social services.
This is a seen / unseen problem – the girls who did effectively bolt wouldn’t get interviewed afterward if they successfully bolted.
Girls who successfully bolted would have been covered up by absolutely *everyone* because they’re fatal to everyone’s story. The social workers / authorities who were working with the Mohamadens would be embarrassed that the girls had to hide from them to get away. The trad cons would be embarrassed that any girls got away because it would imply that the ones that didn’t were at least partially complicit. The girls themselves would be selected from the least trusting of authority so they’re also the least likely to come forward.
Everyone is looking for a poster girl. The problem was ignored for a long time in large part because the victims make very poor poster girls.
If a girl just up and bolted and showed up homeless one hundred miles from Rotherham, with a terrible tale of why she had to flee, you would never stop hearing about her. Such a girl would be exactly what the tradcons, the white knights, and blue pilled white nationalists hunger and thirst for. Even the feminists would be happy. They are always looking for a rape victim whose family was unhelpful.
The comments under my name at 2019-07-14 at 03:20 and 2019-07-14 at 03:24 were not totally written by me. Guessing Jim is replying within the comment because the chain of comments is becoming too long to conveniently follow. Could cause confusion, though.
Jim: “‘Moved me’? Why not move herself?â€
Me: “Because she was a kid!â€
Jim: “Yet she had no difficulty moving herself into a dangerous situation.â€
No. The rapists came to them where they lived. They didn’t go seeking out rapists!
Not true. They went to the rapists. The rapists did not come to them. There were no incidents of home invasion, even though violent home invasion is effectively legal in Britain, and in some cases they had to travel very considerable distances to get to the rapists.
I doubt this is true for the average human. I *really* doubt it is true for the average 11-year-old girl. And I *REALLY* doubt that, even if it is true, that that 11-year-old girl knows it.
Alf:
See comments on the girls being threatened with violence, their families being threatened with violence, and people they appealed to for help being unhelpful at best.
Alf, if she had been drawn into the gang at age 19 – having had a normal life before that – and stayed until she was 21, then sure, it would be just another example of a woman choosing a violent man and then trying for attention and sympathy about it. That was not the situation here.
Nuts.
Girls have no difficulty not being around nice guy betas. Somehow the Rotherham chicks – and they were not children – just could not help being around bad guys.
It is notorious that women just somehow cannot help being around bad guys.
If someone they perceived as creepy was creeping on them – someone like Feynman or Bezos, the guy in the corner office of the skyscraper – they would have just gone and kept right on going.
It is not that hard to just go away and worry about where you are going to later, and eleven year old girls (and most of these girls were considerably older and bigger boobed than eleven) do that all the time – trouble is that they are heading away from nice guys towards bad guys, rather than in the other direction, and they never head towards their dad.
I see thirteen year old girls travel four hundred miles to Arlie beach to get laid and eleven year olds forty miles to get laid. The Rotherham chicks somehow could not travel ten miles to avoid getting laid.
If a thirteen year old chick can travel four hundred miles to Arlie Beach to get laid, she can travel forty miles from Rotherham to avoid being laid.
Jim: “And don’t tell us their “parents†were threatened.â€
They were!
From https://infogalactic.com/info/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal:
The perpetrators set about obtaining personal information about the girls and their families—where their parents worked, for example—details that were used to threaten the girls if they tried to withdraw. Windows at family homes were smashed; threats were made to rape mothers and younger sisters.
The perpetrators had smashed her parents’ windows and broken her brothers’ legs to stop her from reporting the rapes.
From the official inquiry:
On some occasions child victims went back to perpetrators in the belief that this was the only way their parents and other children in the family would be safe…
The beatings would start, then the threats. “Tell anyone and we’ll hurt your mum. You told us where she lives …â€
But obviously the girls already had personal information about the bad guys. Think about the implications.
implies that the perpetrators did not have personal information until after the girls came to them, that they lived a long way from the girls, that they were far away strangers, that at the time the girls arrived and the perpetrators place, the perpetrators had no idea where they were from. The perpetrators had not come their place until considerably later – and in most cases never.
“set about obtaining personal information” when obviously the girls already had personal information, implies that they met through the girls stalking them, not them stalking the girls, implies that they met the girls a long way from the girls home, hence likely rather close to the rapists own home.
That they later obtained personal information about the girls implies that they met through the girls stalking them, not them stalking the girls.
The girls knew who they were and where they lived. The bad guys did not, initially, know who the girls were and where they lived.
Bad guys, and guys that plausibly appear bad, are often bothered by chicks showing up out of the blue, often kind of weird chicks. I often say “All women are like that”, but not all women are like the ones that track you down and show up on your doorstep. There is apt to be a catch in what seems like manna from heaven.
And in some case a hell of a long way. The girls strange inability to go away from rapists was not matched by any similar inability to go towards from rapists.
Lets think about how they met. They met under circumstances that did not provide the rapists with personal information about the girls families – which implies the girls were cruising a long way from home – hence cruising to get nailed. And then the girls got nailed, so they were at the rapists place, and the rapists still did not know where the girls lived. The rapists had to obtain personal information later. How come the “grooming gang” did not already have that information in the course of grooming?
It is unlikely that “grooming gangs” groomed with sweet talk and chocolates, for we all know that is not how you get a girl to come to your place. So, chances are, when the girls went to the rapists place, the rapists were hanging out near their own place and acting in much the same way as they acted when the girls failed to leave the rapists’ place.
“Obtained personal information” tells you what was really going on, just as “social services moved me” tells you what was really going on. The chicks stalked them first.
The women abducted into Islamic sex slavery were of course badly behaving and at least subconsciously sought it ought sure.
But I do imagine that once enslaved their families certainly were threatened that they better not say anything and the airstrip one police were either useless or would bust families who said anything for Islamaphobia and there were probably some girls who wanted to escape but were told they’d be killed their families etc would be killed and only then fully submitted.
I don’t give the girls a pussy pass for acting badly but you have to recognize that the Islamics were quite capable of practicing savage organized violence and coercion and weren’t hampered at all by the authorities. Women tend to submit to such men as conquerors but it was certainly the failure of the British government that they got to act that way.
They. Weren’t. Children. Stop calling them that.
Maybe a small handful were as young as 11, which in some cases is pubescent. The majority were unambiguously old enough to know exactly what they were doing.
You’re not listening. How does an 11-year-old English girl get within 500 feet of violent Paki rapists? How do they even know she exists? Her father didn’t take her there. She ran off.
If they were storming into random houses and hauling off girls kicking and screaming, that would have been reported everywhere.
Still not listening. Where are the fathers?
Side note: While Infogalactic is probably a more objective source than Wikipedia, its editorial position is still intensely blue-pilled, and does not acknowledge, like the Old Testament does, that a 12-year-old girl is an adult, not a child. She does not mature emotionally past that point, only physically.
These two facts can both be true:
1) The Rotherham girls acted with intent; they are not innocent victims.
2) Muslims in significant numbers should not live within 1000 miles of western civilization; nor should Pakis, and especially not Paki Muslims.
The evidence is mixed. But this is a very clear-cut case:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/01/sammy-woodhouse-interview
– Repeatedly runs away from large loving family to be with groomer, once for 2 months.
– Wants to have groomer’s child, parents prevent this, gets abortion.
– ‘Around the same time, the violence started. She says she experienced it on an almost daily basis. “I kept going back…’
– ‘Woodhouse finally got away from the man when he was sent to prison in 2001 for a violent offence.’ So desperate was she to get away that she had his child while he was in prison against her parents’ wishes.
I don’t like the Jimian thesis at all. But it also makes me wonder about one of the worse reported cases of the 12 yr old in Oldham abused by 3 separate gangs in 48hrs. Why did she go to a muslim area alone? Why did she get in cars with pakistani men on 2 occasions and follow a pakistani man to his house on another when each time led to abuse? Why did she sit in the final gang of abusers’ house drinking alcohol making no effort to escape?
There was also a youtube video of a girl abused (not in Rotherham) and I couldn’t get through it partly because she kept giggling about things like being made to sleep on the floor and seemed to be trying to rile up the male interviewer. Possibly a psychological coping mechanism, but it was very noticeable.
Not Tom: “They. Weren’t. Children. Stop calling them that.â€
Some of them were certainly children.
If she is down to fuck, not a child any more. She is a chick. These chicks were down to fuck. And they were not only down to fuck, they were looking for a bit of the rough stuff.
Not Tom: “You’re not listening. How does an 11-year-old English girl get within 500 feet of violent Paki rapists?â€
Jim: “They [the girls] went to the rapists. The rapists did not come to them.â€
Jim: “the perpetrators did not have personal information until after the girls came to them…â€
All this is wrong. The rapists do what predators always do; they went to where the prey was.
From the Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
Other girls were targeted at train and bus stations.
Also, some of the rapists were taxi drivers, which put them in an excellent position to screen and hunt girls.
From the independent inquiry by Alexis Jay:
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham.pdf
The [Taxi] Licensing Enforcement Officer took the step of formally writing to the Police following the incidents of alleged attempted abductions by drivers, complaining about the Police failure to act. In one incident, a driver accosted a 13-year-old girl. She refused to do what he asked and reported this to her parents who followed the taxi through the town, where they managed to identify the driver and dialled 999 for assistance. According to the Licensing Enforcement Officer, the Police did not attend until later and took no action. In his email to the Police he stated that ‘a simple check would have revealed that the driver had been arrested a week previously in Bradford for a successful kidnapping of a lone female.’
Targeted far from home, then went far from home to the rapists homes under their own power – and stayed there under their own power.
These are girls behaving badly. What the #$%^& were they doing going off to some paki’s place under their own power? You think that is acceptable behavior?
Everyone knows that if a girl goes to your place, she is down to fuck. They were down to fuck pakis.
When the paki hits on a chick in the train station, far from her home, he is targeting the chick. When the chick goes with him to his home, the chick is targeting the paki. These chicks deserved to be beaten and wanted to be beaten, trouble is that they were finding their beatings in the wrong places.
Who is hunting whom at the train station? You cannot tell. And then they head from the train station to the paki’s place. Then you can tell who is hunting whom. Similarly, taxi drivers. This looks more like chicks hunting men than men hunting chicks.
When they meet at the train station, you cannot tell who is hunting, and who is being hunted. When they go from the train station to the paki’s place, then you can tell who is really the hunter, and who is really the hunted.
These chicks were deprived of their fathers by their mothers, by the police, by the schools, and by social services, deprived of male authority in their lives, and were aggressively hunting for male authority in all the wrong places.
Alao from the inquiry:
One of the local Pakistani women’s groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates at dinner times and after school.
And then the girl goes with a man who does not know her family, and whose family does not know her, to his place.
You see the word “targeted” and think “knocked unconscious, then hauled off in burlap sacks”.
I see the word “targeted” and think “aggressively hit on”, to which the girls may have briefly showed some token resistance and then demonstrated being DTF.
Why are 11 year old girls alone at train stations anyway? Most fathers would be pretty nervous about that, especially in a city with high non-white population.
Jim: “I see thirteen year old girls travel four hundred miles to Arlie beach to get laid and eleven year olds forty miles to get laid.â€
My attitude toward the 11-year-old one is the same as your attitude toward the statement that the rapists were threatening girls’ families: Simple disbelief.
Oak: “The evidence is mixed. But this is a very clear-cut case…â€
Sure. That’s a good example of my statement way above that the evidence is mixed. I’m not arguing that there’s no such thing as a chick who wants an ultra-violent thug. (I post news articles about that on my freakin’ blog, fer Gossake.)
If an eleven year old meets someone at a train station and goes with him to his home, she is down to fuck.
If she meets a paki at the train station and goes with him to his home, probably has a pretty good idea that she is heading for a beating, as well as a fuck.
The blue pill story is that these chicks innocently went off with the pakis because they innocently thought the pakis were blue pilled soyboys. Obviously the pakis were not pretending to be blue pilled soyboys. Not seeing any mention of chocolates and roses.
These chicks were beaten, but heading off to the paki’s place, obviously deserved a beating – just not from a paki. And, heading off the the paki’s place, obviously wanted a beating.
Jim: “went far from home to the rapists homes under their own powerâ€
See above, from the official inquiry:
“In one incident, a driver accosted a 13-year-old girl. She refused to do what he asked and reported this to her parents who followed the taxi through the town, where they managed to identify the driver and dialled 999 for assistance.â€
Jim: “Obviously the pakis were not pretending to be blue pilled soyboys. Not seeing any mention of chocolates and roses.â€
They did that at first, sometimes (most times?). There was a certain amount of, “He came on all nice at first, then, once he knew where I lived, etc., told me to blow him and his 100 friends or he’d kill me and break my brother’s legs.â€
Not Tom: “Why are 11 year old girls alone at train stations anyway?â€
I don’t know, but I can think of reasons other than, “trying to get raped.â€
That is not a counter example – the paki did not follow the girl, did not stalk the girl, and the girl was not raped. For lack of following or stalking, in order to get raped, she would have had to follow the paki or stalk the paki. She declined to follow him, failed to stalk him, therefore no rape ensued.
In order to fit the blue pill story that you are telling, you have to find a story where the paki accosted the girl, she blew him off, and further interactions happened because he followed her or he stalked her.
Which you are not providing, therefore never happened, not once, not ever. The girls stalked the pakis, the pakis did not stalk the girls. You provide an example of one girl who did not stalk, but she is also an example of one girl who was not raped, was not stalked, and was not followed. You need to provide an example of a girl who did not follow, did not stalk, who was followed, was stalked, and who was raped.
You say these things happened, but you are not providing examples of them happening. The poster girl you provide, who, unlike most of the other girls, failed to stalk and failed to follow, was not stalked, not followed, and not raped
Nuts
If that ever happened, even once, you would have better poster girls. The inquiry would have better poster girls.
You keep saying “Yes, it happened, here is an example from the inquiry” and then your example is absolutely nothing like the thing that it is supposedly an example of.
The girls stalked the pakis and followed the pakis. The pakis never stalked the girls or followed the girls until after the girls had been servicing them for months.
In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose, and none of the poster girls you have presented are inconsistent with the story told in the Book of Proverbs.
If the Book of Proverbs story was ever untrue, you would have better poster girls.
Show me a poster girl where he met her at the train station or he was a taxi driver, she blew him off rather than stalking him or following him home, and then he followed her or stalked her. For that matter, show me a poster girl where she followed him home, but he gave her roses and chocolates to induce her to follow him home.
Men perform and women choose. The pakis performed in taxis and at train stations, and some chicks chose them – and proceeded to stalk them or follow them home. That is the reality, as accurately depicted in the Book Of Proverbs.
Even though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, the reality is men performing and women choosing. It is always like that and every single one of your poster girls is consistent with the way it always is. Give me a counter example that actually is a counter example. All women are like that. Your poster girls are like that. All your poster girls are like that. The nearest thing you can find is a poster girl that failed to follow him home – but in that case, he declines to follow her home.
Jim: “What the #$%^& were they doing going off to some paki’s place under their own power? You think that is acceptable behavior?â€
That’s not what they did – not in all cases, anyway. And no, it’s not within a parsec of acceptable behavior.
Neurotoxin, what I said to Nikolai applies here as well: When a chick really doesn’t want to fuck someone, she’ll find endless ways to avoid fucking him. Any incel hanging out here, and even those who aren’t currently incels, will tell you as much.
These 11-year-old skanks and slags took clear action to be at the right place, and at the right time, that sex with the Pakis may happen.
2019 is boring: “Neurotoxin, what I said to Nikolai applies here as well: When a chick really doesn’t want to fuck someone, she’ll find endless ways to avoid fucking him.â€
Sure, in peaceful, well-ordered western societies. Sure, at a frat party on the campus of Princeton. Not in areas that have been taken over by foreign criminal gangs.
But these chicks traveled considerable distances from their homes to find areas that had been taken over by foreign criminal gangs. Not seeing any stories of chicks being abducted by the paki next door, or even the paki down the road. I see this a lot – white girls, particularly white girls who have been denied their fathers, somehow winding up in a very bad neighborhood with no plausible explanation of what they are doing there.
Jim: “They [the girls] went to the rapists. The rapists did not come to them.â€
I have provided this, from the official inquiry:
The [Taxi] Licensing Enforcement Officer took the step of formally writing to the Police following the incidents of alleged attempted abductions by drivers… In one incident, a driver accosted a 13-year-old girl. She refused to do what he asked and reported this to her parents… In his email to the Police he [the Taxi Licensing Officer] stated that ‘a simple check would have revealed that the driver had been arrested a week previously in Bradford for a successful kidnapping of a lone female.’
So that’s one attempted rape and one successful kidnapping.
Jim: “That is not a counter example – the paki did not follow the girl, did not stalk the girl, and the girl was not raped.â€
Yes it is. Please stop moving the goal posts. You didn’t say anything about “stalking†before. You said “They [the girls] went to the rapists. The rapists did not come to them.â€
I’ve provided three examples of the rapists going to where the prey was; the schools, bus and train stations, and being taxi drivers to gain access to girls.
No you have not.
If the rapists went to the train station, stuffed the girls into burlap sacks and carried them kicking and screaming back to where the rapists lived, then you could say you have provided examples. If the taxi driver drove her to his place with her screaming, banging on the windows and opening the doors while the car was in rapid motion, then you could say you have provided examples. If the taxi driver drove her to a isolated lane in the countryside …
You cannot have sex at the train station. The chick has to come to your place. Or you have to bring the chick to your place. Possibly in a burlap sack.
So you have to provide examples of the girl getting to the paki rapist’s place by some process other than stalking or following the paki rapists. Such as being stuffed in a burlap sack and carried off.
Rapists going to the train station is not an example. Explain how the girls got from the train station to the rapists place.
If the girls get to the paki rapist’s place from the train station under their own power, the rapists are not going to the train station to get access to girls, the girls are going to the train station to get access to the rapists.
The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, but the reality is that men perform and women choose.
It is not enough to say “rape” “rape” “rape” “rape” “rape” “rape” “rape” “rape”. Most of the time, most rapes are the result of women spending a lot of time, energy, and effort to get themselves raped. We need examples of girls arriving at the home of a packi rape gang by some means other than stalking or following the paki rapists, such as being carried there in a burlap sack, and then making a vigorous effort to not remain at the rape house.
We are seeing a conspicuous absence of poster girls making vigorous efforts to leave, and a conspicuous absence of poster girls being dragged there in the face of their brave resistance. You tell us a girl was abducted. Maybe. Exactly how was she abducted? Burlap sack? Or abducted as in “He took her to his place, taking a train then a bus and then walking through crowded streets a considerable distance.”
Given the striking lack of vigorous efforts to leave, I would like to hear some more about these “abductions”. The details are strangely vague.
Jim: “The girls stalked the pakis, the pakis did not stalk the girls. You provide an example of one girl who did not stalk, but she is also an example of one girl who was not raped, was not stalked, and was not followed. You need to provide an example of a girl who did not follow, did not stalk, who was followed, was stalked, and who was raped.â€
No I don’t. I only need to provide an example of an attempted rape to make my point. Whether the attempt was successful or not is completely irrelevant.
Nuts.
You are expanding the definition of rape without limit.
It would only be attempted rape if he drove the taxi to his place with her in it while she was vigorously objecting and trying to exit the taxi. She chose not to go to his place, and surprise surprise, he failed the shit test by not taking her to his place and not even attempting to take her to his place against her purported will. No wonder her pussy dried up!
It is not attempted rape unless the attempt fails because of her forceful and vigorous efforts to escape or to summon help. Otherwise, it is hitting on a chick but failing the ensuing shit test.
One moment rape is throttling a girl unconscious, stuffing her in a burlap sack, tossing her over your shoulders, and dragging her off to your lair, the next it is chicks complaining about men hitting on them but failing the inevitable ensuing shit test.
It is Motte and Bailey rape!
Give us one definition of rape and then stick to it. You don’t get to point the finger at any man a girl retroactively deems creepy and cry “rapist”. If the taxi driver had actually stuffed her in a burlap sack and carried her off to his lair, chances are she would never have made a complaint about him. Chances are she was consciously or unconsciously looking for a taxi driver who would throttle her unconscious, stuff her in a burlap sack, and carry her off to his lair, and was pissed because this one was too weak to do so.
You need to present a poster girl whose behavior contradicts that conjecture. There is a strange lack of such poster girls, suggesting the taxi driver would have passed the test just fine had he employed a burlap sack.
The absence of complaints involving burlap sacks indicates that either paki rapists are so virtuous that they do not employ burlap sacks, or their targets are so lustful that they fail to complain about burlap sacks. The latter possibility seems far likelier, and is consistent with the strange inability to walk away from beatings and gang bangs and keep on walking.
“Attempted rape” is bullshit, and “kidnapping” that doesn’t lead to any sex is bullshit and irrelevant. You are changing the goal posts: We’re talking about how sex does happen, not how it doesn’t happen.
Jim is telling you that whenever the girls rejected the Pakis’ advances, absolutely no sex ensued. This is indeed the fact of the matter, which you have not refuted.
And when sex has occurred, it’s been whenever a young dripping wet slut was eager enough to go to the Paki’s home and spread her holes for him and even for his friends. Thus, none one of them was “raped” against her will – they were all “raped” consensually, i.e., they were horny wet down-to-fuck and therefore voluntarily went to the Pakis’ homes, away from their own homes, for the rough stuff, which they rather enjoyed.
How can you claim that “the rapists” came to them when no actual rape occurred? This isn’t Jim moving goalposts, this is you splitting hairs.
We keep asking for one example – literally one – where the actual supposedly non-consensual sex is clearly preceded by a concerted effort by the victim to avoid the sex. And we keep getting examples of either no sex at all, or sex in situations where escape was clearly possible.
Instead of one poster girl for forceful abduction and rape, we have two half-poster girls, one for attempted and failed abduction, and the other for running off and not having sex. One shoe and one sock do not equal footwear, and one “accosting” and one abduction sans sex do not equal premeditated targeted rape.
I realize it’s disturbing to imagine that sweet English girls would be attracted to gross barbarian street shitters, but that’s what happens when the local men are weak and gay. Girls can be attracted to literal apes under the right circumstances.
Lets ask about the middle case did the “slaves” who feared to escape when escape should be not too hard plausibly fear immediate death if escape failed.
Cmon this is weak sauce. Of course you need to provide an example of an abduction, that is the whole shtick of your argument: if some of this really happened against girls' will, then there has to be evidence of that.
In your example, the driver asks the girl to come with him, and when she refuses, she is promptly let go. Again, that is evidence against your case, not in favor.
Jim: “But these chicks traveled considerable distances from their homes to find areas that had been taken over by foreign criminal gangs.â€
No, they didn’t. That’s what I’m telling you. The rapists hunted them, at bus/train stations, at schools, and by taking jobs as taxi drivers.
Me: “I’ve provided three examples of the rapists going to where the prey was; the schools, bus and train stations, and being taxi drivers to gain access to girls.â€
Jim: “No you have not. If the rapists went to the train station, stuffed the girls into burlap sacks and carried them kicking and screaming back to where the rapists lived, then you could say you have provided examples.â€
Remember I was responding to: Your statement, “They [the girls] went to the rapists. The rapists did not come to them.â€
But you cannot rape a girl at a school or train station. You have to get her from the school or train station to your place.
The girls went, went considerable distances, to the rapists places. The girls went to the rapists, the rapists did not come to them. You have provided no counter examples.’ I ask you for counter examples, and you just don’t give them.
Men perform and women choose. The rapists go to train stations to perform, and at the train stations, the women choose.
And you responded, and continue to respond, by giving examples of the girls travelling considerable distances to get to the rapists.
The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, but men perform, and women choose. What you have described is men going to train stations to perform and women making wicked and repugnant choices, choosing by going considerable distances to places overrun by foreign violent criminal gangs.
The girls went to the rapists. The rapists did not come to them. And each and every one of your examples demonstrates this, each and every poster girl is women choosing – badly, choosing by travelling long distances to get to pakis.
Jim: “So you have to provide examples of the girl getting to the paki rapist’s place by some process other than stalking or following the paki rapists.â€
There is at least one detailed account of a girl being drawn into a relationship with one of these thugs who acted like a solicitous boyfriend at first. Only later did it change to, “Blow me and my friends or I’ll beat you senseless.â€
Details:
https://www.facebook.com/AbusersXposed/videos/my-safe-haven-was-a-trap-rotherham-teen-groomed-by-asian-sex-gang-was-saved-by-h/377928552560975/
That last sentence, as well as the “lying in a pool of my own blood” from above, also responds to your:
“We are seeing a conspicuous absence of poster girls making vigorous efforts to leave… Given the striking lack of vigorous efforts to leave, I would like to hear some more about these ‘abductions’. The details are strangely vague.â€
Nuts
If she was beaten and burned with cigarettes, and did not rather like hanging out with a man who might beat her and burn her with cigarettes, why did she not just hit the road, start walking, and keep on walking? It really does not take very long at all to put a considerable distance behind you.
And you are still not giving us any abductions. All your abductions are the chick heading off to where the rapists are, not the rapists coming to where the chick is, nor the rapists dragging her off to a place they can rape her.
Jim: “Give us one definition of rape and then stick to it.â€
I resent the implication that I’ve been playing definitional games, but whatever. For the purposes of this thread, I’ll define:
Rape is when a girl/woman is coerced into sex, where “coerced†means:
1. Being physically forced to through overwhelming strength,
2. Induced to cooperate through physical torture (e.g., beating, being burned with cigarettes),
3. Being threatened with either of the above,
4. Having family or other people they care about being threatened with any of the above,
OR
5. Being dosed with drugs, including alcohol, so that they assent to things they normally would not assent to.
(By the way, I also believe in the concept of statutory rape, i.e. there are people too young to consent. But that’s not my (main) point in this thread. I’m NOT saying, “They were all enthusiastically consenting, but due to their age, their consent technically doesn’t count.â€)
None of your examples fit your definition, or if they do, your definition is alarmingly vague and slippery.
A girl is not “forced by overwhelming strength” if she goes a long distance to be isolated in the presence of overwhelming strength, and then keeps on hanging around isolated in the presence of overwhelming strength. In that context, the forcing by overwhelming strength is merely the dance, the performance, the reality is men performing and women choosing.
Shaman: “Jim is telling you that whenever the girls rejected the Pakis’ advances, absolutely no sex ensued. This is indeed the fact of the matter, which you have not refuted.â€
Not Tom: “We keep asking for one example – literally one – where the actual supposedly non-consensual sex is clearly preceded by a concerted effort by the victim to avoid the sex.â€
Every time I provide an example, you guys simply ignore it and say that I’ve provided no examples. I provided the example of the girl who was burned with cigarettes if she resisted. Also, tried to escape, and when that failed, was punished by being beaten until she was “lying in a pool of her own blood.†In other words, she was physically tortured into stopping resisting.
This example, with other things I’ve said, just vanished into the aether in this thread. They get memory-holed. Or, they are coldly dismissed as somehow not counting.
None of your examples are examples.
We explain the problem with your example every time, and then you just give us another example with the same problems. Your abductions are not abductions, and your escape attempts are girls sticking like flypaper.
You say “rapists went to the train station where the girls were”. But, in order to be raped, the girls then traveled a considerable distance from the train station to where the pakis were.
You say “when she tried to get away, she was burned with cigarettes”.
If she actually tried to get away, you need to tell us what she did to actually try to get away.
When a girl tries to get away from a beta, she vanishes without trace. If she had actually tried to get away, we would be hearing about what she did to get away, not hearing about the burning with cigarettes.
The only time a girl ever complained about me sexually harassing her was I was not guilty of sexually harassing her, and not only not guilty, but when I was doing my damnedest to avoid her (her shit tests being brutal, unpleasant, unpassable, and exposing me to grave legal danger even if I deliberately failed them) and there was absolutely no reason why I should ever run into her by accident. There was no plausible explanation of why we would ever meet again. Then again she runs into me “by accident”.
What had happened was I had hit on her a couple of times, got a shit test that shut me down, but shrugged it off with good style, gave up – and then, me having given up, she started stalking me down, and giving me more and even harsher shit tests. If you fail a shit test, but do so in a way that gives her hope you might pass, she is likely to give you another opportunity to pass. Trouble was that the opportunities she was giving me were distressing, unpleasant, and likely to send me to jail. No way I could pass short of carrying her off to my lair in a sack, and if I attempted to just quietly ignore her and mind my own business, was likely to be charged and convicted with attempting to carry her off to my lair in a sack. When society gives women nuclear weapons, they are apt to use them. Hence the failure of businesses with women in power.
So it is not enough to give us this shit about abduction, burning with cigarettes, pool of her own blood. It is just never true. Or rather it is always true, but the girls are always complicit, and frequently the aggressors, going to astonishing lengths to make it happen. I am a victim of lustful women here and so were those paki rapists. I know how women act. These chicks were not abducted. They went to the rapists, the rapists did not go to them. They were not forced to stay with the rapists, they were impossible to remove from the rapists.
Don’t tell us “she tried to escape and was burned with cigarettes” Given the notorious difficulty of removing women from men who mistreat them, that is no answer to why she failed to escape. Tell us how she tried to escape. If she was burned with cigarettes, sounds like she was not trying very hard. Sounds like she rather liked being with a man who might burn her with cigarettes, and was impossible to remove from that man.
Jim: “If she was beaten and burned with cigarettes, and did not rather like hanging out with a man who might beat her and burn her with cigarettes, why did she not just hit the road, start walking, and keep on walking?â€
She DID try that, several times, apparently! They beat her bloody!
So, “why did she not just hit the road, start walking, and keep on walking?â€
Because she was afraid she’d beaten within an inch of her life, or beaten to death, if they caught her!
Cominator weighs in with common sense:
“did the “slaves†who feared to escape when escape should be not too hard plausibly fear immediate death if escape failed.â€
Exactly!
Nuts
She did not try that, not even once, because it only takes a few minutes to put enough distance behind you that people cannot find you. If they found her, it is because she wanted to be found. If they had signalled beta, they would have been mysteriously unable to find her.
> 1. Being physically forced to through overwhelming strength,
Thus all men are rapists
> 3. Being threatened with either of the above,
…and if you threaten to control your woman, and later bone her, you’re a rapist
> 4. Having family or other people they care about being threatened with any of the above,
if you insult her family, instead of threatening her, you’re still a rapist
> 5. Being dosed with drugs, including alcohol, so that they assent to things they normally would not assent to.
Can I charge a ho with rape for giving me weed and then spreading her legs?
Neurotoxin,
Cigarette Girl was a lustful lascivious slut with a dripping wet pussy heatedly cruising for rough sex with Pakis, who tenaciously followed her Playboy Ash to whatever place he told her to go with him, and — according to her own account — eagerly anticipated drinking alcohol with him and his friends.
You are completely insane if you don’t see what the rest of us do.
If Cigarette Girl is your poster girl, despite her following Badboy Ash to a place where they could hang out in privacy and inebriation, then this conclusively proves that the “chaste girls groomed by predatory rapists” narrative is totally, completely, 100% false, all of it, and every single aspect of it. It is a Blue Pilled narrative rooted in lies about female nature, lies as transparently false as lies can be.
Posted in wrong thread:
https://blog.reaction.la/war/the-faith/#comment-2114923
Jim: “you responded, and continue to respond, by giving examples of the girls travelling considerable distances to get to the rapists.â€
No I haven’t. What are you even talking about? Please quote me saying this, or stop asserting it.
Jim: “The girls went to the rapists, the rapists did not come to them. You have provided no counter examples.’ I ask you for counter examples, and you just don’t give them.â€
Why do you keep saying this? I’ve mentioned many times that the rapists hunted them, at bus/train stations, at schools, and by taking jobs as taxi drivers.
Also, they would come by the orphanage/social services/whatever places where the girls were and drive off with them. If the guy at the front desk told them to stop, they just threatened him. Oh, and the girls went “willingly  if you’re willing to say that “Come with me or I’ll burn you with cigarettes, break your brother’s legs, etc.†is “willingly.â€
Unresponsive.
This would be a response if you provided evidence of the rapists dragging them from the station to the paki’s place, or following them from the station to the girls place, But since the girls went to the rapists place, it directly contradicts the blue pill interpretation.
Is evidence that the girls were hanging out at the station to find paki rapists, as depicted by King Solomon, not evidence that the paki rapists were hanging out at station to find girls.
Before you present stuff that you think supports your story, ask yourself what story King Solomon would interpret it as supporting.
It is absolutely obvious that the girls were at the station looking for rapists, the rapists were not at the station to look for girls, so let us inquire about rapists at the school gates.
Notice that no one suggests that they were hitting on English girls at the school gates. Supposedly Pakis were predating only on Paki girls.
But this only makes sense if they already had some social connection with the girls. Which implies that they had some legitimate reason to be at the gates.
Which implies that the Paki schoolgirld, corrupted by England, were seducing paki men.
Jim: “If she was beaten and burned with cigarettes, and did not rather like hanging out with a man who might beat her and burn her with cigarettes, why did she not just hit the road, start walking, and keep on walking?â€
We’ve already done this one. Because she was tortured, threatened with more torture, her family was threatened, etc.
Jim: “Your abductions are not abductions, and your escape attempts are girls sticking like flypaper.â€
In one case, a girl tried to escape through a window but was physically dragged back in by her ankle.
She was then beaten badly.
By the way, in some cases – including the foregoing one, IIRC – a main captor was a woman, so your (outrageous) theory that girls would stick around for alpha thug cock doesn’t even make sense on its own terms.
Why would she hang out with the female captor when she could just go to where the thugs lived and hang out there?
Nuts.
As as explanation of why she failed to flee in the next couple of hours, plausible. As an explanation of why she failed to flee in the next couple of years, fails the giggle test.
Ask yourself how the court of King Solomon would have responded to the evidence that you present. They would have interpreted your evidence as evidence of lustful women corrupting men.
Jim: “it only takes a few minutes to put enough distance behind you that people cannot find you.â€
We’ve already done this one too. BTW, it’s even riskier than I realized at first because many rapists were taxi drivers, so were in an excellent position to cruise the streets looking for runaways.
Shaman: “according to her own account — eagerly anticipated drinking alcohol with him and his friends.â€
At first, sure.
“If Cigarette Girl is your poster girl, despite her following Badboy Ash to a place where they could hang out in privacy…â€
Again, at first, sure. But why accept her statements that it was voluntary when he was still acting normal, but not accept her statements that she tried to escape after he said, “Have sex with my 100 friends or I’ll torture you�
This is not a reply.
Do try to make an argument or provide evidence, rather than emitting random blue pill shibboleths and then assuming blue pill buttons have been pressed.
You emit facts that are not evidence of the blue pill account, and, without evidence, argument, or any explanation, presuppose that these facts should some how be force fitted into the blue pill story, even though they don’t actually fit.
If Pakis hit on them at the station, then lured them into a lonely spot with chocolates and roses, then raped them, and the girls were not expecting the rape, and not manipulating the Pakis into raping, we would expect a lot more complaints of the form “He raped me”, and considerably fewer complaints of the form “He raped me, and then went on raping me for the next five years”.
because she could have easily escaped, and instead hung around for years.
Nuts
You have not provided one example of a taxi driver abducting even a girl who voluntarily got into his taxi, except as blue pillers define abduction. The idea that taxi drivers were jumping into the street and hauling unaccompanied girls into their taxis is insane. If it happened you would have evidence of it happening. She would be the poster girl I I keep asking you to provide, who is mysteriously nowhere to be found.
If they were hunting girls in the manner you depict, would have happened. If it happened, would be evidence. No evidence, therefore not happening, therefore the girls were hunting packis to rape them, packi rapists were not hunting girls to rape.
It was unaccompanied girls jumping into their taxis. If an unaccompanied girl gets into a taxi, there is going to be a considerable chance that she winds up banging the taxi driver. We should not allow unaccompanied women and girls to catch taxis, any more that we allow taxis to catch unaccompanied girls in the manner that you imagine.
Your story presupposes that unaccompanied girls hopping into taxis is a perfectly normal thing that happens in a perfectly normal healthy society and there is nothing suspicious, abnormal, or immoral about it. I don’t think so. It is madness, evil, and degeneracy. Pretty sure that back when I was in Dubai they did not allow that sort of thing, and would assume that if it happened, sex would quite likely ensue.
‘
You assume that women are likely to cooperate in suppressing the behavior we want to suppress. I do not share your assumption. This is why we are talking at cross purposes.
None of your evidence is evidence, because you are assuming it is self evident that girls would not want this behavior, that I agree, that everyone agrees, that girls do not want this behavior, when it is absolutely obvious that they do want this behavior, or if they do not want it, are for some strange reason massively unhelpful in our attempts to prevent it.
dubai
From the inquiry:
We read the files of ten boys who were groomed and abused by the lone male prosecuted and sentenced in 2007, and a further seven files of boys/young men who were his alleged victims. Following the trial, children’s social care considered only two of the ten victims to meet the threshold for social care, although many had been raped…
Try to explain that away as the well-known female desire for alpha thug cock.
Like everything you post on this issue, I fail to see the relevance.
You sound as if you think you are making an argument, and sometimes you say you have made an argument, but I don’t see any arguments nor any evidence.
If you think that this is somehow relevant to something, you need to explain what it is relevant to and how it is relevant.
I have absolutely no idea what your point is, nor how gay behaviour could conceivably be relevant to straight behaviour.
Did the gays have some connection to the straights? Seems highly improbable, and if there was some connection you have to provide evidence for it, and, after providing that evidence, explain how it makes gay behaviour evidence of straight behaviour.
1. Because she did not make any serious attempt to escape for years, or she would have disappeared out of sight, since walking away and keeping on walking is easy enough;
2. And because she had already indicated that she was interested in Ash’s crew and looked froward to getting drunk with them, which usually shortly precedes wild orgies (she was a dirty slut);
3. And because she voluntarily enthusiastically followed him, possibly together with his friends, to a place where she could have sex with him, and with them, and drink alcohol with him, and with them, in privacy;
4. And because it’s the same old story that every “rescued” girl, especially after social services sell her on the Blue Pill victimization account of what happened, tells – in order to cover the glaringly obvious fact that she’s been a horny wet thot.
Jim: “It is absolutely obvious that the girls were at the station looking for rapistsâ€
You and I have very different notions of “absolutely obvious.â€
Jim: “Do try to make an argument or provide evidenceâ€
I don’t know what I can do, other citing, and in many cases quoting, the documentary evidence.
Jim: “because she could have easily escapedâ€
We’ve done this one.
Jim: “You have not provided one example of a taxi driver abducting even a girl who voluntarily got into his taxi, except as blue pillers define abduction.â€
There was the taxi driver who was arrested for a “successful kidnapping.†I don’t know any more about that incident. However, the main issue here is rape. The “successful kidnapping†and the unsuccessful attempted kidnapping are relevant because he was obviously attempting to kidnap them to rape them. He wasn’t doing it to get a fourth person to round out a bridge game.
“The idea that taxi drivers were jumping into the street and hauling unaccompanied girls into their taxis is insane. If it happened you would have evidence of it happening.â€
Indeed, I know of no such incident in which they were “jumping into the street and hauling unaccompanied girls into their taxis.â€
The documentary evidence you present at best fails to support your claims, and in many cases directly contradicts your claims.
I have asked you to provide the logical steps, the process of reasoning, which leads you to draw conclusions from the documentary evidence, but you simply refuse to explain the thread of logic that connects your evidence to your conclusions.
Pretend I was born in Dubai – Assume you are talking to a man from Dubai who thinks that if an unaccompanied fertile age woman gets into a taxi with a male driver, they both should be arrested and charged with a sex crime (which was the way things were in Dubai back when I was there) who thinks that it is absolutely obvious that if an unaccompanied fertile age woman gets into a taxi with a male driver, chances are she is hoping for some action, and they both should be thrown in the slammer for obvious naughty intentions irrespective of whether any naughty actions ensued.
Then explain to that man from Dubai the logic that enables you to draw the conclusions you draw from the evidence you present, because not only do I not agree with the conclusions you draw, it is utterly inexplicable and incomprehensible to me what leads you to draw those conclusions. Not only do they not support your conclusions, I cannot fathom why you might imagine that they support your conclusions.
I cannot understand why you think this evidence might persuade anyone who is not obstinately and stubbornly determined to believe in the chastity and purity of young English women regardless of evidence.
Explain how the evidence you present supports the conclusions that you draw. I just don’t see any thread of logic, and you refuse to provide a thread of logic connecting your evidence to your conclusions.
And then you make up some crazy and logically impossible fantasy about what supposed must have happened – and this internally inconsistent fantasy, not the “successful kidnapping.†is your evidence.
It is an odd thing to be charged with. What did he kidnap her for if not to have sex with her? If he did not have sex with her, not successful kidnapping – and probably not kidnapping at all. Probably some chick hitting him a shit test, which he flunked out by failure to kidnap her.
There was a chick stalking me who kept telling people that I was stalking her – I was doing my damnedest to avoid her, because her shit tests were utterly unpassable, and her sexual fantasies were likely to send me to jail for supposedly fulfilling them. So, my natural assumption is that he successfully kidnapped that chick the way I was successfully kidnapping my stalker despite my determined efforts to avoid her.
Maybe that is not what happened. I don’t know what happened. But I do know that your fantasy about some pure English girl being forced, to her great surprise, to have sex did not happen, because you just gave as your poster girl, your killer evidence, your decisive argument, a girl to whom it did not happen.
Your evidence is not evidence of a girl being forced to have sex, because somehow she did not have sex – despite somehow winding up in circumstances where violent sex was highly probable, which circumstances these girls seem to somehow find themselves in with great regularity.
I have explained why it is absolutely obvious that the girls were at the station looking for rapists. You have failed to explain why it is supposedly obvious that the rapists were at the station looking for girls.
Criticize my explanation, or provide your explanation. Better, do both. Talk to the strangely foreign man from Dubai, who not only fails to share your presuppositions, but is entirely unaware of them.
I have explained to you my process of reasoning, laying my presuppositions on the table in the process. You failed to explain your process of reasoning, and your presuppositions remain utterly mysterious to me.
I was born in a social environment where, as in Dubai, everyone took for granted that girls were apt to go looking for bad events and bad people, which social presupposition was somewhat countered by the blue pill and progressive propaganda offensive at school and university, but in due course my birth beliefs were amply confirmed by the misbehavior of women. If you act like you might rape girls, girls will go out of their way to give you the opportunity to do so, and you will sometimes have to grab your younger female kin and haul them back from “innocently” wandering off into circumstances were strange men might rape them. So that is where I am coming from, and it sure looks like that was where the Rotherham girls were going to.
Where are you coming from? I just cannot make any sense out what you are saying.
Shaman: “Because she did not make any serious attempt to escape for yearsâ€
Jim and I have done this one (at excruciating length); see above.
“or she would have disappeared out of sight, since walking away and keeping on walking is easy enoughâ€
Done it.
(Alf, if you’re reading this, I briefly responded to your last post at the end.)
Well, kids, it’s been real, but we’re just going in circles now and I’ve already spent too much time on this. See you in another thread some time.
No. I have done it at excruciating length. You have remained stubbornly oblivious and obstinately refused to respond.
If there was one girl once who once made a serious escape attempt, she would be the poster girl. You have no poster girls. What you have instead of poster girls is a pile of trash sluts offering unconvincing and improbable excuses for sticking around with their abusive lovers for years.
So, she tried to escape through the window and was dragged back by her foot. Did they keep holding onto her foot for the next several years?
They did not pull her leg. You are pulling my leg.
Now you’re just playing the usual entryist game of attributing arguments to people who never made those arguments. If you aren’t an entryist, you’re acting like one.
The goal of a reactionary state, in terms of sexual relations, is to ensure that as many fertile females as possible end up in healthy monogamous relationships. The preferred mechanism of this is restricting female hypergamy, allowing the male hierarchy to assert itself, and making certain uncivilized edge cases – General Butt Naked – as low-status as possible. And all the state has to do to facilitate this, 99% of the time, is stay the hell out of the way.
There’s no “redistribution” here. Your teenage daughter eloped with a guy you didn’t like. Tough titties, loserdad – should’ve found her a husband sooner. It’s only a crime if he abandons her.
Crying “anarcho-tyranny” when absolutely nothing of the sort is happening just makes it look like you’re regurgitating memes you don’t understand.
“Tough titties loserdad”- but what if poor old loserdad has a few carloads of sons, brothers, cousins, and allies with him, all armed w/guns and baseball bats. Because the possibility is a corollary of the type of Kingless social and political environment under which bridal abduction happens.
He does not need a few carloads of sons to beat his daughter, and attempting to beat up the evil males causing his daughter to misbehave is unlikely to result in the expected or intended results.
Resisting the propensity of women to get laid just results in more violent, irregular, and immoral sexuality, not less.
This is the same story as we are seeing with sexual harassment and rape. All sexual harassment complaints and almost all rape complaints are actually complaints about lack of rape and lack of sexual harassment. The Rotherham girls found Muslims to rape them because they could not find Christians to rape them.
Seeing bad sexual activity, we declare women to be the innocent victims, and escalate our actions against men. It is not working. It is consistently and spectacularly not working.
If you check out the stories of the Rotherham girls, yes, they were raped and beaten and all that, but they don’t seem to have been trying terribly hard to avoid being raped and beaten. If you don’t give women the male authority and sex that they need, they are going to find it in bad places, and dad having a carload of sons and allies will just cause them to search in worse and further places.
Who said anything about Kingless? Monarchs are essential for civilization. All of this is happening under the direct authority and blessing of the king.
I’d hope that loserdad’s male relatives and friends aren’t retarded enough to take vengeance on muh evil daughter-seducer, and would instead tell him to stop being such a damn retard. But if it’s a whole family of violent retards, then absolutely the king needs to intervene at that point and keep the violent retards far away from civilized society.
Further thought on the question makes me realize that the shotgun marriage and the successful bridal abduction rest on the same principle: namely that, other things equal, the affront to the father’s honour is deemed to be remedied, and the war of families concluded, once the girl and her lover/abductor are married and a bride price paid or other restitution made where applicable.
However, there would still be the matter of offense against the honour of the Sovereign for breach of the King’s peace in case of outright abduction.
Also problem of high-caste girl eloping w/being abducted by lo-caste guy. I’m sure most of you would have a severe problem with your daughter or sister being taken by Tyrone- and the reason you’d have it is because your social status would take an enormous hit at least in your eyes. Under the ancient laws of the Hindus the girl, guy, and offspring automatically become untouchables w/no status in such a case.
Another problem is what happens if Dad had already promised her to somebody else. Basic principles of justice would dictate that the upstart owes Dad some money in damages and possibly lots of it.
Biblical rule: No abduction of married or bethrothed.
You will notice that among all the sex and marriage conflicts reported by the Old Testament, it does not contain a single example of the scenario so beloved of blue pillers: the family of X “rescuing” their daughter from the family of Y.
When King David’s daughter Tamar is raped by her half brother Amnon, she complains that this is immoral because he is her half brother, because it occurred contrary to the patriarchal authority of her father and King, and because Amnon let her go afterwards.
Nope – not in the father’s or daughter’s interest to enforce that. He’s going to impoverish the husband of his daughter and father of his grandchildren?
>You will notice that among all the sex and marriage conflicts reported by the Old Testament, it does not contain a single example of the scenario so beloved of blue pillers: the family of X “rescuing†their daughter from the family from the family of Y.
From what I’ve been able to gather doing cursory reading on the subject one of the reasons bridal abduction works is because the family typically doesn’t *want* to take her back once abducted b/c once deflowered will be unmarriageable and in any case disgraced (this is alluded to in Deuteronomical provision forbidding abductor from ever putting girl away).
That is the blue pill reason.
The red pill reason is that if a daughter is abducted by X, and you “rescue” her, there is a remarkably high likelihood that she will subsequently be abducted by Y.
From Herodotus’ Histories:
Yes, but in a reactionary state, Tyrone wouldn’t live within a hundred miles of my daughter. Failed musicians and actors will be low status, so she is unlikely to elope with them, and they are also are unlikely to be the types to kidnap her at gunpoint.
Outlaw bikers are a small risk, but honestly there aren’t that many of them and most of them aren’t really that bad – and still aren’t the types to kidnap small children in the middle of the night with a burlap sack. If daddy doesn’t want daughter hooking up with outlaw bikers, marry her off before she has that chance.
>conflicts reported by the Old Testament, it does not contain a single example of the scenario so beloved of blue pillers: the family of X “rescuing†their daughter from the family of Y.
Maybe I’m not understanding it correctly, but Genesis 34 appears to be a story about Jacob’s daughter being upducted, the abductor wanting to marry her, but the brothers conspiring to fight her abductor for “defiling” her.
I stand corrected
Just so we are clear about what the Bible says:
Exodus 16-17:
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Deuteronomy 28-29:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Does the Bible say anything about killing the man, Doug? No, the Bible doesn’t mention execution at all in this very specific context. What Doug advocates is a recent distortion of both common sense and historically precedented practice, and as is usually the case with recent distortions, its origin is some abominable reinterpretation of the Bible intended to make it say what it doesn’t say and imply what it doesn’t imply.
You can be as militantly atheist as Richard Dawkins and still subscribe to the view that what the Bible says here makes perfect sense, while recent demonic distortions of the Bible make no sense and don’t belong in Reaction.
Wizardseer, the people whom you call “trad-cons”, who emphasize fatherhood rather than husbandness and imagine a way of doing things in which a father retains control over his daughter until he finds a man who seems to him to be entirely right for her, even if she’s 22 by the time he finds the right one for her, and until then keeps other men away from her by threatening them with violence and punishing them if they get too close —
these people assume that young females will have a lot of freedom to move around in public places and chat with young men in the corners of rooms (not necessarily unseen, but at least unheard by others situated several feet away, and thus able to make “let’s meet at eight on the corner” arrangements with them) at parties or shops and so forth.
So, given this assumption — do you share it? — the question becomes, Is it best for the family and for the girl (two distinct sub-questions, and of course the father WILL want what he deems best for the girl) to make her wait until age 22 as opposed to giving her much earlier to someone who may be inferior?
It seems uncharitable to call the “make her wait” answer “demonic”. “Make her wait” may be a foolish (in its social consequences) and unkind (to her) response, but hardly demonic!
It’s not demonic, for it affirms a principle of order — supremacy of the father as such — and orderliness is the opposite of pandemonium.
Waiting till she’s 22 to find her a husband — while keeping her a virgin — is extremely difficult, a strategy so prone to failure as not be worth attempting.
It is the idea that it’s not extremely difficult and not totally prone to failure that is of demonic origin (I use demonic in the “Demons Real or Metaphorical” sense, of course), the same demonic origin behind the blue-pill in general. The blue-pill is a steaming pile of lies about human nature and female nature, and lies are of the Devil, hailing directly from Gehenna.
When you write:
You make it sound like a mighty implausible scenario is actually plausible and practicable and doable. It isn’t, and to maintain otherwise is to lie, either to other people or to oneself or both. Furthermore, you make an undesirable scenario — treating the daughter as innately chaste, and men as innately sinful — sound like it’s desirable. It isn’t.
So to answer your question: It is better to marry her off when she reaches the point in her development when elopement or “It just happened” become a high likelihood (if not prior to that point), which can happen relatively early or relatively late, as there’s great variety among women when it comes to sex-drive onset. The husband is imperfect? No one’s perfect, and promising her a billionaire prince rock-star is wrong anyway.
The only alternative is chaining her to a wall in the basement kicking and screaming, and a horny woman burning with lust will find a way to cheat that, too.
By the way, why would there be any need to wait till she’s 22 in the first place? (Answer: Puritanism and Feminism and nothing else) In a functional society, she could find at 16 as many high-quality suitors as at 22, if not more so. It makes zero sense to wait these six additional years, and all the excuses to do sound awfully similar to arguments that the Social Purity Movement would concoct.
Waiting till 22 is neither desirable nor practical, it doesn’t benefit the girl, nor does it benefit her potential husband. Puritans are indeed very good at coming up with endless clever excuses why reproductive sex should be postponed as much as possible. Hey, how about not postponing reproductive sex?
This is from the Wiki “Western European marriage patterns”:
“In Yorkshire in the 14th and 15th centuries, the age range for most brides was between 18 and 22 years and the age of the grooms was similar; rural Yorkshire women tended to marry in their late teens to early twenties while their urban counterparts married in their early to middle twenties.”
— from which we are to conclude that fathers are unreasonably bossy and their daughters perennially exasperated?
> ages of grooms was similar
that sounds really weird, because women always like older men
And older men are also in a better position to own wives, for example 17-year-old Romeo and 13-year-old Juliet, who should have married, and could have married; evidently, the problem of blue-pilled parents was familiar enough to Shakespeare that he used it for social commentary.
But even if marrying 18-22 was only true of females (let’s say that they married men who were often several years older), still … that’s what was going on in Yorkshire way back in the Olden Days. So fathers must have been threatening to beat guys with sticks if they came too close to their daughters, right? Or maybe the girls were just fucking around the way they do today, but using pig-intestine condoms and morning-after witch-poison and doing infanticides instead of abortions? Probably, come to think of it.
How reliable are these statistics?
In pre-modern life female puberty set in slightly later then today for whatever reason but to my knowledge average age of marriage was 16-18. Generally arranged and not by abduction/elopement.
Certainly some did (strict purdah has never been the custom in Northern and Western Europe and its not really all that suitable for us) but it was not very common in the era before modern feminism because unmarried girls were rare and to the extent they existed it was because the female population tended to outnumber the male population.
Women becoming professional prostitutes on the other hand was very common up until it was banned by the force of the female vote.
It rests on the demonic blue pill story that women really don’t like sex, and evil men compel and pressure them into having sex. Which is of demonic origin. Old and New Testaments have a different view.
The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, but the prey wants to be caught by a wolf sufficiently fast, she wants to be conquered by a man strong enough to conquer her against her strong resistance. It is a dance, it is not real predation. The story that it is real predation, that women need protection to remain virgins, that women need protection from rape and sexual harassment, rather than restraint to prevent them from seeking out rape and sexual harassment, that they need protection from sex to remain virgins, rather than detention and restraint to remain virgins, is of demonic origin. Old Testament tells us that if you keep your daughter virgin for an unreasonable time, you are mistreating her, not protecting her. “Protection” is a gnostic and demonic heresy.
The order the father is maintaining is in practice difficult to maintain without drastic coercion directed at his daughter. Unreasonable coercion to keep a woman virgin for an unreasonable time is depicted as wrongful conduct in the old testament, and the story that drastic coercion is unnecessary is a demonic lie, which creates disorder, not order.
This is related to the sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace problem. Women seldom, as far as I can tell never, complain about actual sexual harassment. They use the superweapon of sexual harassment charges to shit test alpha males, to drive beta males employees and customers out of the business, and to pretend to one alpha male that they have preselection from another alpha male. All sexual harassment charges are bogus, not because sexual harassment never happens (I well know it happens, having done some myself) but because women invariably use them for purposes other than preventing sexual harassment. They rather like sexual harassment, they really like shit testing alpha males a lot, and they dislike having beta male employees and customers around the workplace. All women are like that. All sexual harassment charges are like that.
Dad protecting his virgin daughter from evil male predators has very similar results to Human Resources “preventing” sexual harassment, which results, whether from Human Resources or Dad, are indeed demonic.
Okay. I like the “dance” image, Magister.
Wizardseer, I think that about five years ago you suggested that given current girls-roaming-free conditions that individual fathers are really powerless to overcome it would be reasonable for a father to tell his daughter, “I want three grandchildren from you — that’s my only demand.” (In other words, no pressure about marriage as opposed to a series of boyfriends — you just want those grandchildren.) If that was you — do you still hold by this?
I don’t recollect something like that; it doesn’t sound like a thing that I’d write. It’s obviously better to have 3 grandchildren than fewer, but ideally, preferably they should all be from the same husband and grow up in the same household, rather than from 3 different men in several different households. Also obviously, better to have more than that.
(I do vaguely remember a similar idea, so maybe I did say something similar)
>What Doug advocates is a recent distortion of both common sense and historically precedented practice, and as is usually the case with recent distortions.
What I advocate is legal remedies that PREVENT people from getting killed. You’ll note that Deuteronomy imposes a huge fine and permanent civil disabilities on the offender.
Neither of those laws say that bridal abduction is OK.
Deut explicitly says it is okay, he gets to keep her if he can pay 50 shekels. Exodus says if the father diasgrees and they’ve had sex he has to forfeit her and pay as much as her dowry would have been. Those rules are a lot more father-affirming than what we have now. Most marriages now are by abduction, the man and woman moving in together without consulting her father.
Most marriages now have been emptied of meaning, indeed have been empty of meaning for over a century, because husbands are not allowed to effectively own wives due to state intervention.
First they said that fathers are more alpha than husbands. Then they said that the government is more alpha than both husbands and fathers.
We are going to reverse that completely: Husbands will be more alpha than fathers, and both will be more alpha than the government. Trad-Cons want (or say that they want) to revert Stage 2 Melanoma back to Stage 1 Melanoma. We want to cure it completely.
Anyone who objects to husbands out-alphaing fathers, and both out-alphaing the government, is not a Reactionary.
Of course. The oldest people I know met without her family knowing, but unlike the let’s you and him fight thing, which happens IRL and everyone around gets scared and wants guy to take crazy girl home, the alternative at least could be shown on film, in The Godfather, Michael asks the father of a girl, in his evil backwards mafia way, to let him marry her. My point was that people were arguing for something there isn’t really much cultural memory of against a feminist strawman.
Every time you express yourself about the WP, cuckermint, there is damage and ruin and confusion. For example, your writing “Most marriages now are by abduction” gave Doug the false impression that NRx shares the Blue Pill frame.
No, there is no legal marriage by abduction now, and moreover, there is no legal marriage at all now. To say that we currently have marriage by abduction demonstrates a lack of understanding of what MBA is, even though it has been precisely, repeatedly, lucidly, vividly, vehemently (and some more adverbs apply) explained at very great length and in excruciating and tedious detail.
When you post hardly-intelligible spam about other topics, that can be tolerated — for example, I actually enjoyed your “I would eat fish and chips with CR” bit — but when you talk about the WP, there is only cost, and no benefit. To insult you, one can tell you to only write about weed and video games, but objectively, you can contribute some entertainment value by writing about some other subjects, too. You really have to stay away from the WP, though.
In this post, Jim writes: “The family law of the Old Temple Hebrews and the first Millenium Christian Church was entirely correct.” We are going to restore both the lost social technology herein referenced, and the memeplex that enables it. Which means that your Modernist Musings about anything WP-related have to go.
When you stop posting Modernist Musings about the WP, you will cease being cuckermint and will once again become peppermint.
Doug misinterpreted a passage of Deut saying the king shouldn’t try to get too much horses or wives or golds. Surely Fnargl wants horses wives and golds and doesn’t want to read the Bible all day, but he actually wants the long term Laffer maximum or horses, wives, and golds, and the Bible has a lot of relevant things to say about how to get that. Okay, build the memeplex.
I know my contribution is pretty much if a working class degenerate could speak what would it sound like. Me and my chaverim will be the first to register our claims with the reactionary state, which is far more plausible than social security, but the only reason to register now is maybe if you can’t tell HR you’re lesbians and need healthcare for your domestic partner if you’re lucky enough to have benefits. Eventually the government is going to figure out how to apply divorce to us anyway.
After expressing unawareness of penguins, and mentioning (ig)noble savageism from Tully for completeness, Aquinas concludes that marriage is a natural office, which he pretty much has to from Gen 2:25, in which the KJV committee uses the phrase cleaves to, there, in 34:3 about Shechem and Dinah, and where Jesus quotes Gen 2:25 saying what God has joined let no man separate.
As for abduction, in the Roman Twelve Tablets if a woman lives with a man for a year she’s his and my chaver who’s depressed because his gf ran away to destroy herself should have chained her to the kitchen sink and will be able to after the day all pigs would die or at least stop being pigs.
I get that using words in non-standard ways without saying so isn’t helpful but there’s something to be said for marriage by abduction in what my chaverim are up to, though it shouldn’t have been said during the most interesting debate of 2019. It’s not as good as what the KJV committee had in their personal lives but it’s what we have. What my chaverim need is to knock their gfs up more and start acting like they’re married by abduction. It isn’t all wishful thinking, some of them have the right idea.
Phew, finally some successful transmission.
Anyway, marriage by abduction is not a great theological innovation. Every man on Earth who is not a cuckold faggot understands that when your friend and a “female companion” are alone together, and she is not owned by any man who can provide her with reproductive sex, then your friend is her natural owner, and as you say, Matthew 19:6 applies.
The Progressive State does not recognize any ownership of men over women, which means that marriage has been abolished and dead for quite a while, but the Reactionary state will – this can be likened to an application of formalism to boyfriend-girlfriend dynamics, if you stubbornly insist on using modern (degenerate) terminology. And that will be a good thing, contrary to Doug’s blue pilled white knight concern trolling.
As Jim wrote in the previous thread:
Glad that 2019, boring as it is, has nonetheless been made a useful year.
Sempai, last time we had a debate I came away with a visceral awareness that Matt Groening hates me and a bunch of stuff to go study, so I have to take your pessimism seriously, but from what I’m looking at right now, you make it sound worse than it is. Sure there are sluts who bring trash into their kid’s house, but there are also guys who are happily boyfriended to a beautiful woman and have a good family.
The men in between need to know that their responsibility isn’t to her, or to her family though it’s good optics to visit the graves of her ancestors and pray that they watch over his family, but to God. The white knight state came from men like me virtue signaling about how we don’t need to use a stick for domestic discipline instead of being respectful of their less fortunate neighbors. Yes, every man who practices female husbandry has to use the many forms of coersion feminists have catalogued, was there a word on the shelf for boyfriendhoods with more coersion than is usually politely talked about? The men with a slut ex who has their kid need the pigs to get lazy about white knighting so they can be a family.
Anyway, all these traddad posts and no one posted the real traddad slogan, “what are your intentions regarding my daughter”.
Since all men are attracted to females with secondary sexual characteristics, which begin manifesting around age 12 or so, it should be automatically assumed that their intention is to jump her bones, bang her like a drum, and fuck her brains out.
And she is going crawl nine hundred miles over broken glass to put herself in exactly those situations most likely to lead to sex with a long succession of demon lovers. Which is why all those healthy normal heterosexual men are irrelevant and there is no point discussing them, as the real problem is that the chicken is roaming free, and violently resists attempts to restrict her movement, not that the world isn’t safe for chickens to roam free.
It is even worse than I make it sound: Each generation has fewer intact families, and more incels and whores. Men have lost control over women, both collectively and individually, which is why you are using anti-concepts such as “boyfriends,” “girlfriends” and “dating” rather than (respectively) “fornicators,” fornicatresses,” and “fucking.” You are using lying words popularized by lying fornicatressses. It’s the rectification of names once again.
The problem with fornication is that at every moment the fertile female can decide to switch to a more alpha fornicator, as her hypergamous sexuality dictates, since her present fornicator does not own her; and since official marriage has been gutted of all meaning, and with a divorce rate of 40%-50%, modern official “marriage” is essentially fornication, even when ostensibly permanent. As Jim wrote:
Now, sure, you still need to behave as if the Restoration has already occurred; thus you are right when you say:
But the reality is that marriage is dead, all marriage now being glorified fornication, and by normalizing anti-concepts such as “boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” and “dating,” you are giving justification for the pigs to white knight on behalf of sluts. Reaction wants marriage, not fornication, to be enforced by State, Church, and Society, and recognized by God, State, man, and family. Private enforcement is a necessary substitute, but liable to fail – we want genuine enforcement, genuine social tech to back up husbands.
Premarital sex that promptly leads to marriage is fine, sex in the context of betrothal is fine. That’s all part of the mating dance.
In contrast, when the entire society is full of unowned women and Jeremy Meeks, when a legion of thots fornicate with a few cads, when there is an overabundance of whores, and extreme shortage of virgin brides, when the percentage of men hanging out and rubbing one out in mom’s basement keeps steeply rising, when pumping and dumping of virgins is tolerated, and serial monogamy is tolerated, when you can’t shoot dead the adulterer who fucks your wife and/or your adulterous wife, when men’s natural attraction to fertile females is vilified and used to lock ’em up, and homosexuals’ unnatural attraction to prepubescent boys is legitimized and celebrated, when 9-year-old boys are brought in for diddling at the local library’s Drag Queen Story Hour, when rampant frivorce-rape results in beta ex-husbands’ children suffering unfortunate accidents because slut-mom had been granted custody, when the meat of boiled-alive babies wanted by their fathers is either sold to the highest bidder or socialistically redistributed to laboratories for research purposes, then truly you are living in Sodom and Gomorrah in which unsurprisingly the average TFR is below replacement level and military age male Sub-Saharan Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy are going to conquer you.
“Boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” and “dating” are from Satan. If the Progressive State is compelling us to fornicate, because marriage is illegal and unimplementable, then we should at least be honest about what we are: Fornicators. Perhaps involuntarily so, so maybe instead of using “boyfriend,” you should use the neologism “inforn,” as in “involuntary fornicator.” Your chaverim should definitely knock up their fornicatresses, but Reaction wants to go much further than that.
No, Jim is the one advocating legal remedies preventing death: It is illegal for you to assault or kill a man because he married your daughter against your wishes. He out-alpha’ed you, get over it.
A reliable test for sniffing out white knights.
You walk the sidewalk with your wife or girlfriend, when she and another man stumble into each other. The man keeps walking, but she looks at you like a poor puppy and says, “Ouch.”
A) I’m going to follow that man and beat the shit out of him for stumbling into her.
B) I’m going to follow that man and demand that he apologize to her for stumbling into her. If he refuses, I’ll beat the shit out of him.
C) When we get home, I’ll tell her what a bad, bad man he must be, and I’ll take it upon myself to compensate her for her painful experience by being double extra super-plus nice.
D) She stumbled into him to create a “Let you and him fight” shit test. When we get home I’ll punish her for it, possibly with a stick, and warn her not to play with fire ever again.
E) My autism is so debilitating that I possess no means of analyzing this situation.
F – She’s a fucking idiot whom I would never have hooked up with in the first place.
Wrong answer. All Women Are Like That.
Really?
@Not God
Shill detected.
You have been preaching neoreaction to your circle of friends for a few months and are just starting to gain traction. One day one of your friends shows you an article on neoreaction published by the New York Times. The headline says:
A) NRx allows violence against women, but that’s ok because the more credible the threat, the less likely it is to be used
B) NRx calls for marrying off of young women, but that’s ok because it actually works out better for them socially
C) NRx undefines the word “rape”, but that’s ok because it means a higher rate of marriage and fewer unwanted children
D) Violent pedophilic rape cult calls for an end to democracy
Top kek. It would say D. and you aren’t a shill.
Oh no, we’d better change all of our positions because the propaganda arm of Moloch might say mean things about us!
I am concerned! Aren’t you concerned? Everyone, throw away your Old Testaments and start reading Marx and Foucault, right now!
(P.S. isn’t it interesting how the establishment media, in actual fact, says nothing at all about NRx, yet is positively obsessed with the blue- and purple-pilled alt-right? Makes you think…)
They also try not to cover the chans too much (despite the chans now being overrun with shills and glownaggers). Some of the Cathedral’s top people know that neoreaction and the memes of the (non-shill) meme warriors are like the Nietzchean abyss. If their followers stare into it, it will stare back at them.
So they don’t want the ideas publicized at all, they want the opposition to be bluepilled nazis who are all feds and shills anyway. The only hit pieces I’ve seen on NRx was something in National Cuckview once.
Just so. If the New York Times ever does write a hit piece on Neoreaction, one thing I can virtually guarantee it won’t contain is hyperlinks. They will tell their followers how to feel about it, in oblique terms, but under no circumstances will they convey the substance or even attempt to summarize it.
You reply to clear sarcasm with opaque sarcasm. State your position in such a way that we can understand what your position is.
I’m out. Good luck guys.
Analogy time – Charles Murray is closer to the mainstream than Greg Cochran and gets much worse treatment – in fact Greg Cochran gets mostly ignored.
It’s a shit test, but delayed punishment doesn’t work on women. Playfully dismissing the test is the best you can do in a modern social context.
That being said, you only get the “lets you and him fight” when your girl is insecure about your dominance over other men. Which you should be demonstrating regularly, just not on her terms.
> she looks at you like a poor puppy and says, “Ouch.â€
‘lol don’t be a drama queen.’
Soft D) (“You’ve got eyes, hon, use ’em.”) to E) to F) as in probably did not notice or if yes did not care. I don’t think if shit tests like that ever happened to me, but me not noticing them because usually lost in thoughts might be an automatic pass, dunno. My discussions with wife usually look like: “…were you listening to what I said?” “I was looking at this book/screen, not you, so what do you think?” “Well it’s important. Remember that guy who wanted to buy our old washing machine last week?” “I don’t.” “He didn’t call back, but whatever…” seriously, either shit tests don’t happen to me or they go like a mile under my radar.
Poland is exempting the young under 26 from income tax.
https://amp.france24.com/en/20190705-poland-moves-exempt-young-workers-income-tax
That’s a reactionary government putting something material on the table.
Income taxes are Prog and Neoliberal looting.
We need to offer something to the young other than a very long term maybe of sacred marriage and paterfamilias.
The IRA, Taliban, Hizbollah and others succeeded because they immediately materially improved the commons lot with functioning courts and social services.
What does reaction offer?
It is stupid to offer people free money. The left will always outbid us.
We offer wives, sons, and dignity. When I was in Cuba three decades ago, I noticed Cubans walked small and were afraid all the time. Today, white males in the US walk small and are afraid all the time. We will make them unafraid.
Poland’s government isn’t reactionary, it’s maybe vaguely paleoconservative.
I’ve noticed you tend to label anything that opposes the worst excesses of modern progressivism as reactionary. That’s the leftist definition of reactionary, not ours. Reaction doesn’t seek to “immediately materially improve the common lot”; it seeks to cure the disease, not pump the patient full of heroin to dull the pain.
If you want quick fixes that feel like “doing something”, are popular with adolescents and the lower classes and don’t solve the underlying problems, then by all means support Conservatives, because they’ve got tons of those. Reaction is actually a movement for the elite and middle classes, explicitly eschewing HLvM. Playing at democracy is pandering to the low, which is poison for right-wing movements.
We’ll get power, one way or another – just not in the way you imagine it happening.
Less taxes =/ free money.
And you have to GET POWER to offer anything.
Never mind take us to the old testament.
Not to mention letting the young eat as opposed to feeding the Cathedral is harm to our enemies.
Poland wants more young Poles.
So it lets them get to 85K zloty before taxing them under the age of 26.
Because you’re not offering anything.
Poland is….
>And you have to GET POWER to offer anything.
Never mind take us to the old testament.
Yes- figuring out how to defeat the across-the-board failure of will on the part of our people is more important than all the other questions put together. As Trotsky said: “even the barricades are more important than morality”.
Yes- a complete failure of will.
The best or even the decent lack all indeed any conviction.
A conviction you kill for, you suffer for, you die for.
Of course action like manual labor is seen as low status.
Also its hard and dangerous.
…action is low status unless you’re a criminal.
Embrace the crime then.
You’ll damn sure get more chicks.
What Reaction seeks is not ideological purity, but ideological clarity. It must be able to accurately determine what is in and what is out.
There is a big problem of entryism right now. The entryists employ two consecutive tricks:
1. “Reaction, properly understood, is [not Reaction].”
2. “Welp, you see, my worldview is truly more right-wing than Reaction.”
Take CR for example. He started out by pretending that Reaction, properly understood, is Communism. When he was called out on that, he quickly switched to “I am more right-wing than Reaction.”
Nazis are a similar case. They start with “Greetings fellow Reactionaries, gas the kikes – 1488.” When it’s explained to them that they are patently not Reactionaries, they claim to be to the right of Reaction, despite being kilometers to its left.
Trad-Cons are the same old story. They try to pass off their unique brand of “Traditional Conservatism” as Reaction. When confronted about employing this tactic, they move on to “Trad-Conism is to the right of Reaction.”
Reaction can tolerate some dissent from those to its left. (In this context, right-wing stands for natural order, left-wing stands for unnatural disorder) We are not looking for 100% ideological purity. However, what should emphatically not be tolerated is dishonesty and unclarity about it. If you are to the left of Reaction, say so explicitly. Those who admit to being more left-wing than Reaction are allowed both to contribute whatever they can contribute and to argue their respective worldviews, provided they don’t repetitiously spam their lies, evil, and madness, and don’t use disingenuous argumentation tactics, as is common among madmen, dumbasses, and paid shills.
Those who falsely claim to advocate Reaction when they really advocate Communism, Nazism, Troofism, Progressivism, or Trad-Conism, and who later switch to “I am actually more right-wing than Reaction,” are being disingenuous. That is classic entryism.
Yes I dissent on a couple of issues I think slavery will fuck up the labor market because history shows it. I think you need SOME very small limitations on paterfamilias. But I don’t try to introduce any socialist or Cathedral memes into the reactionary memeplex when I am dissenting. I point out that there are actual severe economic drawbacks to chattel slavery and that societies where killing wives for adultery is legal or tolerated by the law tend to also be plagued by clannism and blood feuds. If the guilty pair are caught in the act in your own house… maybe an exception can be made.
CR wasn’t thinking he had a script to follow and we could tell he wasn’t allowed to deviate from that script.
Trad-cons are essentially feminine in their thinking, when their views are demonstrated as unworkable their defense tends to be muh moralfagging and muh feels. They aren’t script shills but they just aren’t really thinking either.
>that societies where killing wives for adultery is legal or tolerated by the law tend to also be plagued by clannism and blood feuds.
You haven’t presented any evidence of this assertion beyond hand waving.
Clans on the other hand are a more primitive evolutionary system re-invoked when civilization collapses as a way to protect people from the collapse of order. They’re created and maintained by cousin marriage. Ban cousin marriage and the system goes away as demonstrated in middle ages Europe.
Siciliy, certain places in India, Muslim societies and various Central Asian livestock fuckers have historically either had legal murder of adulterers or total judicial tolerance for it.
They are also all clannish blood feud societies. Statisical evidence on such things is probably impossible to get I just note the type of societies where that law exists.
It DID exist by law in the Roman Republic (where the term Paterfamilias came from) but probably in order that blood feuds not occur it was not carried out. And by the late Roman Republic wives were almost as bad as modern American wives… which leads me to believe that the custom got to the point that any attempt to discipline a bad wife got taken as some kind of insult to the wife’s family… even if they knew the bitch deserved it.
China also had a Roman paterfamilias law and maybe it was carried out there in practice (and China was a civilized society for centuries) and maybe it wasn’t I just don’t know enough about how the paterfamilias system in China worked in practice.
Agreed with ban on cousin marriage. All those societies above also generally practice cousin marriage except I think Sicily.
>It DID exist by law in the Roman Republic (where the term Paterfamilias came from) but probably in order that blood feuds not occur it was not carried out.
From reading the Wikipedia description of it you seem to be repeating the standard progressive lie: Yes it existed legally, but it didn’t really happen. This is typically for progressive re-writing of history. You’re going to need actual evidence instead of progressive history to make a compelling case.
>And by the late Roman Republic wives were almost as bad as modern American wives… which leads me to believe that the custom got to the point that any attempt to discipline a bad wife got taken as some kind of insult to the wife’s family… even if they knew the bitch deserved it.
No it’s evidence that men were failing their shittests and women ran Rome, which has been widely noted. It took a patriarchal religion like Christianity to stop the rot.
You are making an argument against me that contradicts itself.
If Paterfamilias killings of bad wives were a regular occurence then women would not have been running amok and ruining Rome (which you conceded that they were). But yet you argue that Paterfamilias disciplinary powers against wives WERE exercised despite this. BOTH cannot be true. That wives were running amok tells me Paterfamilias disciplinary powers were for some reason not exercised.
The most likely reason Paterfamilias disciplinary powers against wives were not exercised is because the men FEARED to exercise them. The most likely reason the men FEARED to exercise them even though legally entitled to was they fear extralegal reprisals ie from the wifes family.
You are mangling together Roman societies and Roman culture that were centuries apart. Absolute power for the husband was early Republic. The Augustan rules on marriage made the husband a guest in wife’s household, retaining in superficial form ancient Roman institutions that had long been thoroughly gutted in actual practice.
By the time of the Graachi, we start to see “strong empowered women” and all that.
The husband had absolute power in cum manu. But at the time all this immorality was occurring, marriage was either sine manu, or people were shacking up irregularly and calling it marriage.
Cum Manu was dead as stone by the time of Christ, but the Christian marriage ritual is based on Marriage cum manu, suggesting that the Christians were reviving socially what they were not allowed to enforce legally.
Clearly reading late literature from the Republic the wives were running amok and acting terribly as far back as the time of the Gracchi long before the Augustan marriage laws.
Paterfamilias authority may very well have been exercised under the kings and maybe the early Republic but by the time Rome became a great power it was not exercised against wives at least in actual practice.
It was not legally available to be exercised against wives.
Rome had several distinct forms of marriage. And, if married sine manu, you were screwed.
Marriage sine manu was a shit test that the Romans failed.
Okay you edited your post as I was writing mine and we agree about the time of the Gracchi and that women were acting very badly in practice…
But DE JURE the Paterfamilias still had absolute power all the way through the Republic. But it wasn’t exercised in practice even if it existed in law. I have my theory as to why.
Okay between Patriacians the norm was a strict form of marriage (It was called confareito or something) but literature suggests patrician wives in such marriages were not any better.
Romans had many of their daughters killed by exposure. Whilst christians having no abortions and saving the unwanted children of romans had an abundance of women.(From book Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark). This ensured the triumph of christianity through sex ratio alone.
And the demographic demise of pagan rome.
All tend to be rather low-IQ and low-functioning areas. African societies that don’t permit this also have clannishness and blood feuds.
We should at least consider the possibility that the common denominator for tribal warfare is low intelligence and weak/incompetent governance, and that their handling of adultery isn’t the central issue per se. It could even be that harsh punishments for adultery were an important part of the evolutionary process leading to high intelligence and cooperate-cooperate equilibrium in the first place.
Despite our disagreements, I respect you, as you have integrity; you are not an entryist, and anyone who accuses you of entryism is wrong.
You are right about their feminine thinking. Their “worldview,” such as it is, is merely a thinly disguised collection of rationalizations for blue-pilled emotions. They instinctively feel that women in general are angelic, and that women of their own family are outright godesses. They don’t think – they emote like a bunch of girly girls.
Then again, maybe in real life they are less blue-pilled than they like to pretend on the internet. According to Jim, some white knights talk a big talk on the internet, but fail to act according to their own stated white knight positions in real life. For example, some claim that relationships between adult men and teenage women greatly disturb them, yet, if I understand Jim correctly, in real life these people don’t actually respond so hysterically when they witness such relationships in front of them. They claim to be deeply bothered by such horrendous “pedophilia,” but it doesn’t bother them at all when they actually see it.
(So perhaps Doug is a reasonable person in real life, but due to his emotions, he feels compelled to advocate his blue-pilled demonic heresy over here)
Be that as it may, Reaction must rigidly maintain its memetic sovereignty, and the blue-pill must always be regarded as enemy number one. The WP is the most urgent issue, and there has to be perfect clarity about what went wrong and what Reaction wants to do about it. For us to have memetic sovereignty, need to accurately diagnose cases of ideological entryism, especially of the blue-pill variety.
I wonder where they see these NAWALT angels that give them such an impression…
The closest things to NAWALT angels that I’ve known well one was a textbook case of BPD who destroyed herself (this was despite getting married she was not unowned and her husband was not a pussy and but she probably was unable to feel happy and owned without a severe beating… and it wasn’t that she was stupid white women with IQs over 120 are very rare…) the other while the most sweet selfless girl you ever met and for many years as honorable as any guy about keeping her word once given was also prone to impulsive stupid self destructive behaviour (that and while she didn’t destroy herself changed into a more typical American bitch years later…).
I just can’t comprehend how meeting and dealing with actual women they could hold to the Victorian Angel idea… the two women I mentioned above were very angelic in some ways far more so then other women but also horribly flawed.
>I wonder where they see these NAWALT angels that give them such an impression…
From Illimitable Men, I’ve heard the idea that it was bluepilled mens’ doting, caring mothers that caused them to expect women being like that, while men who grew up with neglectful or crazy mothers can handle women better as they already know what to expect from them.
Doug pwnz. Echo chambers suck. If there is disagreement, could hardly do better than Doug IMO. Similarly, tends not turn a place into an Amish knitting circle of girly drama.
And yet, he devotes his blog to sniping and griping about NRx.
The single-minded obsession with the left-right axis or even the Euclidean “compass” is part of the problem. The most literal, faithful interpretation of left vs. right is revolutionaries vs. royalists, but of course that says nothing about the WQ, race realism, etc.
Reaction is reaction. Maybe there are ideologies out there that are “to the right” of it, using any of the thousand and one definitions of “right” that are in circulation today, but it’s irrelevant if the definitions of left and right are themselves corrupted by centuries of progressive social engineering and holiness spiraling. It would be like trying to have our discussions about sex relations using the word “gender” as defined by progressive gender theory. Reaction is what it is, and if you think you’re on the right of it, then good for you, find some other community that meets with your approval.
Anyone asserting that reaction isn’t far-enough right is infringing on the memetic sovereignty that’s been discussed prior; it’s an attempt to subordinate the tenets of reaction, themselves based on natural order, to some unnatural and exploitable higher-order abstract principle.
You’re probably in the top 5 most intelligent posters here; I’d appreciate hearing your take (if you have one) on Carlyle’s Great Man Theory of History, i.e.,
Anyone else who has an opinion in invited to share it.
Carlyle liked to work himself up into a mental froth. I spent about a month trying to extract a coherent system of concepts from Sartor Resartus and failed. I like how he tried to make use of Milton’s image-system (Chaos and Old Night, the road laid down over them), itself drawn from Hesiod — but he didn’t put any effort into using these images consistently, which was annoying. And it’s the same sort of thing in the other 4 Carlyle books (including the one you mention) I redd. One ends up thinking, “What gives this guy the right to dominate my time this way?’
Oh, sorry, you weren’t asking about Carlyle, you were asking about the Great Man Theory of History. Well, all of the Great Men that Carlyle spends chapters on were boring people that you wouldn’t want to hang out with. “Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world” — what crap — we’ve got a Great Man sort of person as president right now; do Thoughts “dwell” in him?
Interesting. Perhaps we should differentiate between Great Warrior-Leaders and Great Priest-Thinkers. Such a differentiation would still be in line with the GMToH, while being nuanced enough to allow us to categorize individuals like Alexander the Great as the former and individuals like Karl Marx (may he roast in Hell) as the latter.
Btw, is Carlyle a really dipshit?
I regret to say that I haven’t read all of the NRx recommended Carlyle material; I know of the Great Man theory, and have read lots of fragments of Carlyle quoted by Moldbug, so I’ll attempt a response, but keep in mind it may be colored by a lack of context.
The empirical evidence for Great Man theory is the Pareto Principle. I’m not sure if it’s been discussed here before, but once you know what a Pareto distribution looks like (“long tail”, or 80/20 rule), you start to see them literally everywhere. It’s not actually an 80/20 rule but a square-root law, so for example if your company has 10,000 employees, roughly 100 of them or only 1% are responsible for about half of the innovation. And among those 100, roughly 10 of them accomplish more than the other 90.
More empirical evidence rests with the fact that historical geniuses are usually not one-hit wonders. Newton made tons of discoveries, Einstein made tons of theories and proofs, Da Vinci made tons of inventions, Monet painted tons of great works. The output of geniuses isn’t just greater than the output of normals, it’s exponentially greater. I’ve heard it said that IQ, despite having a normal distribution, works more like a logarithmic scale, with each +SD corresponding to exponentially greater “processing power” – don’t know if that’s been proven, but it would explain an awful lot.
Carlyle’s claim that all history is the history of these great men is probably poetic license. If we want to analyze and nitpick and be a bit spergy about it, it’s probably more like 80% of history, or to be even more spergy, it’s a fractal hierarchy. Which doesn’t really change the prescription at all: if we want to continue innovating as a species, we have to set up and maintain the conditions necessary for great men to be born and flourish, because average people, despite being totally necessary for civilization, don’t relatively innovate or produce all that much.
As you can probably tell, my mind tends toward the naturalistic and materialistic, so when claims are made about spirits and souls and so on, I have to translate back and forth to material observations. If you wanted a purely spiritual take on it, I’m probably the wrong guy to ask.
Thanks, high-quality post.
Jim, what’s your interpretation of the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34? I can’t find any Patristic commentary on it, but the way I read it, it appears to back up Doug’s view that it’s improper to take a girl’s virginity without her father’s permission, even if you’re sincerely committed to marrying her. And that Simeon and Levi had a right to be angry, though killing every man in the city was a disproportionate and wrathful response.
There’s no mention of Dinah being punished for it, in stark contrast to when Judah found out about Tamar’s harlotry and was about to have her burned to death.
I’m inclined to say that norms regulating in-group behavior do not apply to relations with out-groups, which explains the discrepancy between what Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22 prescribe and what Genesis 34 describes. But I’ll wait for Jim’s take to make up my mind.
“And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully”
Indicating that this behavior was a violation of social norms prevailing.
You will notice at no time does anyone consider “rescuing” their sister. Shechem allowed their sister to wander back, which he should not have done, and then subsequently decides to ask the clan of Jacob to send her back.
The problem was that they did not want a foreigner to marry their sister, thereby entering into a clan alliance with foreigners, rather than that they did not want someone who abducted their sister to keep her.
On the one hand, the Old Testament commends their ethnocentrism, but they way they gave effect to it is not endorsed.
Notice that the sister was wandering off in a way that put her at risk of being abducted by outsiders. The position that the sons of Jacob took implies that if she had been abducted by one of their own people, no big problem. Or rather that was what they said. They were upset that she was “defiled”- but the absence of a rescue expedition would imply that the defilement consisted of her wandering back.
Genesis 34:26 NKJV
“26 And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went out. ”
She was still at Shechem’s house, and they did rescue her.
Where are you getting the idea Shechem allowed her to wander back, and that they didn’t rescue her?
I stand corrected.
I misread.
This is indeed an example of the Blue Pill Scenario.
That the sons of Israel, Old Testament Patriarchs just three generations from Abraham, are bluepilled white knights strikes me as an unreasonably stringent definition of red pilled. It seems entirely natural that fathers and brothers take offense to men improperly courting the women of their family. Whether in Biblical times or 2019. Shortly after my ex and I broke up, her father tried to pressure her into getting me arrested.
Marriages should follow the blueprint Isaac and Rebekah. When Abraham’s servant meets Rebekah at the well, he doesn’t just kidnap her and drag her to Isaac. The servant meets her family, gets the permission of her brother and father, gives them gifts, and then takes her to be Isaac’s wife. That’s how it should be done. I don’t understand why this is such a contentious point.
The bible covers a lot of times and a lot of cultures. Abraham lived for a time in an Egypt that was decadent and sexually emancipated, similar to the modern era, perhaps worse. Recollect Abraham telling his wife to sleep with the Pharaoh.
First Temple Israel was wonderfully red pilled. I say, revive the family law and sexual laws of First Temple Israel and first millenium Christianity. I don’t say “revive the family law of the patriarchs”
During the rape of Tamar, Tamar accuses of her rapist half brother Amnon of Egyptian values. We don’t want to revive the values of a collapsing and decadent civilization. We don’t want to revive Abraham going along with Egyptian values. We don’t even want to revive the values of the early Moses, rather the values of Moses after the ten commandments.
The rescue mission is condemned, “in their anger they slew a man”, not the whole village, so it’s still wrong to take her back if they only would have had to kill Shechem. Sometimes people misinterpret the Bible as only stories of good behavior or morality play stories of bad behavior, but this is condemned.
Meanwhile, today’s Dinah’s who go out to see the daughters of the land would be so lucky to meet a Shechem. The male status hierarchy would have been more visible then.
Simeon and Levi made Jacob stink among the inhabitants of the land. Chapter 49 says they they were cruel and says how they’re going to be cursed for it.
Dinah isn’t really mentioned much later. A more interesting story is Rahab the Harlot, what if the king of Jericho had been prepared to tell his soldiers to take one for the team and rape the information out of her instead of asking her nicely? A lot of women who sleep with White men are apparently being told by those men to shill against White people.
Anyway John Lennon had a song about how he’s going to kill a woman who leaves him, making lots of girls swoon because women want to hear their man is willing to use deadly force to defend his family. Then he became a house-husband to his second wife, and today’s male rock stars are pathetic.
I never really liked the Beatles, what song are you referring to?
Run For Your Life.
While we’re at it, Judges 21:16-23 does not condemn marriage by abduction, and tacitly endorses it.
16 Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?
17 And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.
18 Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin.
19 Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the Lord in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.
20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;
21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.
23 And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them.
Some may rejoin that this is merely Kingless behavior, but God doesn’t take issue with the actions undertaken, as reproduction is more vital to His interests than an orderly transfer of ownership over daughters. Marriage by abduction is sometimes indispensable, according to the OT.
Not gonna go on about this forever as I’ve got to get back to work tomorrow, but note the following instruction: “And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.”
In other words, when carloads of Shilohs show up with guns and baseball bats, here’s how you’re going to talk them down.
Do you understand the context of “for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty”? (Not, you absolutely don’t understand the context) It is that the Israelites took an oath before God not to give their daughters to the Benjaminites because of the Gibeah affair and subsequent civil war, as described in Judges 19-20, not that fathers and brothers in general cannot tolerate marriage by abduction.
As is typical of Conservadaddies whenever they quote the Bible, you take a verse that explicitly contradicts your argument and present as affirming your argument. This verse unequivocally confirms that, under normal circumstances, fathers and brothers do in fact tolerate marriage by abduction.
Am I wrong in suspecting that a major issue of contention here arises from this situation?:
Nice 22 year old programmer: “Yes, sir, I had sex with your obviously pubescent 14 year old daughter, who definitely wanted it, and now I’m going to marry her, so don’t kill me.”
Dad: “Sorry, I’m gonna fucking kill you.”
Nice 22 year old programmer: “Police! Help!”
Policeman: “Sorry, Dad, you gotta let him marry her now instead of killing him; that’s the law.”
Dad: “Shit. Okay.”
I mean that the Dads of the world worry that Reactionary Law will put them in this situation, where their Dad-Authority is overruled by the Power of the State …
and the Dads are likely to protest, “Hey, isn’t this a lot like the Progressive State forcing me to send my daughter to a high school where she’s trained to become a career-girl?”
So do you respond, “Yes, but only in the sense that the State is imposing its will upon you with regard to your daughter; the difference is that the Progressive State is forcing something bad upon you with regard to your daughter, while the Reactionary State will be forcing something good upon you with regard to her”?
Forbidding fathers from unlawfully killing their daughters’ husbands is quite far from Draconian State Oppression.
What blue-pillers fear is that evil men will ruin their innately chaste angelic princesses. The red-pill is that girls are sexually uncontrollable, will crawl a hundred miles over broken glass to get banged like drums by alpha males, and therefore need to be under the authority of men who can provide them with reproductive sex.
Okay, so does this scenario work?:
Dad: “Get the fuck away from my daughter, you scumbag punk!”
Joey: “Hey man, she’s like 14 and has boobs and everything — lighten up!”
Cindy: “Yeah, dad, why you don’t lighten up? We’re just talking!”
Dad: “We’ll discuss this later, Cindy. As for you, punk, fuck off or I put my fist through your face, and if I ever see you around my daughter again you’re gonna die.”
[Later …]
Dad: “Okay, Cindy, you’ve got three choices — Archibald the computer programmer, Seymour the electrical engineer, or staying chained to the basement wall until I come up with a couple of new names for your consideration.”
Cindy: “But I love Joey!”
Dad: “Sorry — no scumbag punk’s gonna marry my daughter. Archibald or Seymour or the wall — which is it?”
The fact that Joey had private access to Cindy sealed the deal. Proper response to get them hitched, because they’ve probably already fucked.
The reason male chaperones were so common in the past is to prevent City from hooking up with Joey. Hell I used to have to chaperone my sister around when starting around 11 or so. I didn’t understand why and my parents probably couldn’t have explained it but they were continuing a very old practice deigned to safeguard my sister’s virginity.
Exactly so.
Here is where I disagree shaman, if Joey is unsuitable (lets say not a total criminal or something like that but hes a local band musician with a menial day job) and Cindy is hot you’ll probably be able to find some more suitable guy to have her even if they already fucked. Then if Cindy sneaks out at night on her new husband to bang Joey her new husband can beat the shit out of her and have Joey whipped in public square while a mob tosses rotten fruit at him and she’ll realize her new husband is more alpha because he can beat the shit out of her and have Joey whipped and mocked in public, and hell maybe Joey will learn to make something of himself so he can actually get a hot wife.
There is no need to have any of them killed in this case or to have Cindy marry her unsuitable boyfriend, just some severe coercion and beatings and public humiliation. Pitiless severity should be reserved for real criminals and shitlibs…
So while I don’t favor age of consent laws marriage by abduction should only be after a certain age. If the father can’t get Cindy married off by 20 despite hotness Joey can have her and the father shouldn’t be able to stop it.
>Here is where I disagree shaman, if Joey is unsuitable (lets say not a total criminal or something like that but hes a local band musician with a menial day job) and Cindy is hot you’ll probably be able to find some more suitable guy to have her even if they already fucked.
Once they’ve fucked you have to kill Joey to make her somewhat suitable for marriage. Otherwise she will fuck him again. The very act of a man lowering himself to marry used goods makes him less alpha.
Joey may very well have to be shipped in public square and Cindy beaten with a stick. In 95% of cases anyway that should be enough.
This is exactly the demonic blue-pill white-knighting behavior everyone here is saying needs to disappear in order for civilization to be restored. So yes, any father who makes these threats and would actually follow up on them is a disgrace and a danger to his kin and tribe. He’s threatening to kill a member of his own tribe because of his own failure to marry her off when she was showing signs of sexual behavior.
It is nothing like the state forcing her into public “education”. In that scenario, the state is intruding on kin relations and actively compelling behavior. In the bridal-abduction scenario, the state is simply saying that killing a man because you’re really angry he scored with your daughter is still murder, just like stealing from the grocery store because you’re really hungry is still theft. Civilized men control their emotions and act rationally. A judge might be lenient, for example if the man’s name was Tyrone, but murder is murder.
From a property-law point of view, I’d argue that a girl who ceases to be a virgin also immediately ceases to be the property of her father. Regardless of whether or not he permitted or intended it, the fact is that he can no longer control her sexuality, and since being a “property owner” implies control over said property, he is de facto not her owner. She can then either be unowned (disastrous) or formally – de jure – transferred to her lover as a new wife.
Note that the above does not imply that a girl automatically remains property of her father until losing her virginity. A 30-year-old unmarried female virgin, were such a thing to exist, is clearly the property of no one.
It’s funny how the Conservadaddies always bring up Tyrone to argue against intra-ethnic marriage among civilized people. It should be known as a formal fallacy… Argumentum ad Tyronum.
Tyrone (lets say Tyrone is an honest man, because Jeremy Meeks who wasn’t will just either be hanged or condemned to penal servitude in exile) isn’t going to be allowed in a good neighborhood in a reactionary society except maybe as a clearly low status servant.
There may well be a few good upper class higher IQ blacks in good neighborhoods but that isn’t a huge problem.
That’s why I called him “Joey”. He’s an Italian from Staten Island — his great-grandparents are from Calabria, not Sicily. There aren’t any working class WASPS in NYC, so I couldn’t call him “Billy Joe” — I did the best I could.
The comment about Conservadaddies was not directed at you – you can still probably be redeemed. Once you grok our priorities, you’ll be on our side, as there’s no substantial emotional impediment in your case (presumably), unlike in the case of real, hopeless Conservadaddies whose psychological effeminacy vis-a-vis female family members knows no bounds.
That’s bc ethnocentrism is a legitimate reason to drive a potential mate for your child off.
I think I understand FF, he is not advocating the death penalty for our young Joseph. Instead he is asking if Dad has the right to throw Cindy in the basement and tell young Joseph to get off his lawn.
I think that depends on the age of Cindy. If she is below majority yes. If above, no.
Now the question becomes, is there such a state of free agency for women and if so under what circumstances?
I guess I should have spelled it out explicitly or somehow made it obvious, without ruining the flow of the exchange, that Cindy has not had sex with Joey. In fact, she’s a virgin. A footnote to this effect would have fucked up the flow, but I thought that it was obvious.
The whole point of the exchange is to set up a situation where Dad AGREES with you guys about marrying his daughter off young — I was making sure you were okay with Dad not letting bad boys near her before then.
As soon as Dad realizes that she wants to have sex he marries her off. That’s the point. I thought that you’d approve of him.
Now I’m kind of mystified. Dad can’t keep a scumbag away from his virgin daughter before marrying her off at age 14?
You’re on Joey’s side, not Dad’s here? Remember, Cindy IS A VIRGIN — this is stipulated.
Misdiagnosis of the problem. Joey is not seducing her. She is seducing him. Joey’s sexuality, Italian as it is, is still manageable. Her sexuality is completely unmanageable. Eggs precious, sperm cheap; women gatekeepers of sex, not men. Thus no point going on about Joey. Go on about the sexual misdeeds of the young temptress who has a propensity to disappear out of sight to the company of Chads, and who flirts with boys right next to her dad.
What does it matter who’s seducing whom? Dad wants to keep her from having sex until she’s married; to do this, he might have to (politely, okay) ward off local boys — and I’m granting that he should now get her married as soon as possible, which is why he gives her the Archibald-Seymour-wall choice.
It matters very much whom you depict as responsible for the situation and whom you depicted as not responsible for it. In your scenario, Cindy is a cute, shy, and innocent-presenting girl who didn’t do nothing, while Joey is solely responsible for the flirting that ensued from their encounter. This is not how things work in real life, not the actual observed behavior of the mating dance.
When girls run off to party behind dad’s back, or openly flirt with boys right in front of dad, it’s because they have already become — to put it, again, vehemently — dirty sluts who take hot cum loads up the ass, take facial cum shots into the mouth by an orgy circle in the club’s bathroom stall at 3 A.M., and gush their vaginal fluids like the Niagara Falls all over a long succession of alpha male Chads.
The scenario you described is movie-like, not realistic. It’s like it has been taken off a romantic comedy or something. In real life, girls run off and get banged by drums behind dad’s back, and to prevent that, need to arrest the girls, rather than trying to arrest all the men in the world.
No, he absolutely does not need to ward off local boys. He needs to beat his daughter with a stick for sneaking out of sight to engage in “unspecified” activities that happen to involve an exchange of fluids. Local men, or (as is too often the case) distant men, are not the problem. Her crawling nine miles over broken glass to fraternize with alpha male Chads at the night party is the problem.
The scenario you describe is not taken from reality, and it is not realistic because it misdiagnoses the source of sexual misconduct. Sexual activity does in fact occur, but your scenario, instead of acknowledging that, and instead of acknowledging the daughter’s prior misbehavior that has led to the sexual activity taking place, presents daddy as “warding off local boys” as if that is the issue. That is not the issue.
We need to control women. You want to control men. That is a displacement activity from failing the shit test that women have hit us with.
You are failing the test. Cindy’s dad is failing the test.
>> What does it matter who’s seducing whom?
> We need to control women. You want to control men. That is a displacement activity from failing the shit test that women have hit us with.
> You are failing the test. Cindy’s dad is failing the test.
See this timeless essay by Dalrock.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/
> > What does it matter who’s seducing whom?
> We need to control women. You want to control men. That is a displacement activity from failing the shit test that women have hit us with.
See this timeless essay by Dalrock
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/
I had assumed otherwise, so my previous replies can be considered in that context.
This scenario seems very unlikely if she is really still a virgin. For one thing, I don’t understand how Cindy arrived at the father’s front door, with Joey. If she sneaks off in the middle of the night, she’s going to come back alone; and if they were in a public place and making out in a corner, the father really has no right to tell Joey where he can and can’t go – it’s not his property.
I’m going to assume the latter – that dad caught them flirting in a public place – because the other possibility doesn’t make sense. Also going to assume that she decided she was “in love” 10 minutes after meeting him, because otherwise the father would have to have ignored a long pattern of misbehavior. In that scenario, the appropriate response is to apologize to Joey for the misunderstanding, take Cindy home immediately, reintroduce her to Mr. Stick, and then have the marriage conversation.
@Friendly Fred
What if I told you a terrible truth? That if Archibald had the backing of the community and the will to impose it on Cindy, that she would eventually “fall out of Love†with Joey and fall “into love†with Archibald?
Is it always true? Maybe not. But from reading and listening and observing I think it more likely true than not. I’d defer to the more experienced men here on that topic.
Women are far colder and ruthless in certain ways then we men are. This is bc they are far weaker in nearly every way and they know it. A strong secure man won’t keep pounding his enemy into the ground, a weak insecure man will not stop until his enemy and all his enemies relatives die screaming. The weak man has no other option.
It is as hard for a woman to love a man she perceives as weak in the same way that Any of us would have a hard time loving woman whose physical appearance is grotesque. It can be done but it is difficult.
Similarly it is as easy for a woman to love a man who is ruthless and strong as it would be for any of us to love a woman who is physically beautiful and graceful.
Joey was driven off, therefore Joey is weak
Archibald has the backing of his community and fsther. This is an aspect of preselection which is like crack cocaine to women
Archibald will be allowed to beat her with a stick if she proves recalcitrant, and as her husband there is no concept of rape, which means he can exert his force over her to physically compel her to his will. If he can manage to keep his insecurity in check and gets good advice he can have a pretty good chance in impressing her with his power and strength. Again, not everything to women, they like the physical far far more than they let on, but it is quite a lot. Maybe even enough for happiness.
@Friendly Fred: It is *exactly* that. Indeed, as someone else pointed out several posts above legal bridal abduction is what we have already under Feminist rule where the father has no say whatsoever and if his daughter goes with Tyrone not only is there nothing he can even legitimately say let alone do about it, but Tyrone isn’t even obliged to marry her and then give the old man a few bucks in order to make it right.
@Doug
If I had read your comment before posting I wouldn’t have posted. Spot on.
The person who made that claim is cuckermint, who never gets the WP right, and has been curb stomped for that reason.
Nuts.
We don’t have legal bride abduction, and we don’t have legal marriage at all. Legal bride abduction means that the abducter is not allowed to let the unbetrothed virgin who jumped his bones go – he has to marry her. The crime is not abducting her, but setting her free. We don’t have anything remotely similar.
Today marriage is illegal throughout the West, and certainly marriage by abduction; all women are now completely liberated to fuck as many Chads as they desire. That is the very opposite of legal bridal abduction, the very opposite of marrying unbetrothed virgins who sexually misbehave by independently taking ownership of them.
There won’t be Tyrone in a Reactionary society, and definitely not marriage to Tyrone. Anyone bringing Tyrone is being disingenuous, is projecting current issues on post-Restoration society.
Exactly the problem.
>â€There won’t be Tyrone in a Reactionary society, and definitely not marriage to Tyrone. Anyone bringing Tyrone is being disingenuous, is projecting current issues on post-Restoration society.â€
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that in a proper Reactionary society, there won’t be any blacks or Italians and that only Anglo-Saxons will be allowed?
A reactionary society will be in general an apartheid society. The vast majority of blacks or at least young black males won’t be allowed in good white neighborhoods, a few outstanding wealthy high iq blacks who are exempted. You can of course choose to live in mixed neighborhoods which will be allowed but I don’t imagine many whites would do so.
I don’t know where this stuff about Italians is coming from.
I guess I’m naive, but I didn’t realize the racial policies that would take place in a reactionary society. I feel like the racial policies of reaction should be discussed more or maybe these are just seen as a given by everyone else. As a black, I’m worried that I would be grouped in with other blacks and minorities.
Also as a side note, I’m confused on the reactionary stance of morality, I am a true believer in God and believe that God has declared prostitution, pornography, and fornication as immoral and therefore, these acts should not be allowed. I guess that’s considered “moralfagging†to harp on these issues. But reaction seems to be concerned more with utility than morality, which is confusing because reaction also seems to be intertwined with biblical precedent.
The stuff about Italians comes from the hypotheticals discussed by Friendly Fred and 2019 is boring, in which they use stereotypical Italian names to discuss the woman question.
I don’t consider myself an entryist but I do disagree on some aspects of reaction that conflict with Catholic morality. I don’t think I’ve portrayed my dissent disingenuously.
Forced integration is a failure and we plan to end it. We’ve never really felt the need to discuss the details as much as discussing race too much draws entryists and feds and most of us agree on general principles, the woman question is far more complicated and less discussed elsewhere in detail (and so complicated by lies) that it is discussed here far more.
I’m opposed to killing or confiscating property of any US citizens strictly on account of race and most of us are as well, so you don’t need to worry on that account. But we are going to let the pre civil rights de facto segregation reassert itself by following the Jared Taylor program basically.
Of course minorities who fight for the left wil be dealt with… But personally I hate white shitlibs far far far more then minority ones and if it were up to me they’d get far less mercy.
Structuring society on moralfagging in ways that oppose human nature doesn’t work. Its hard enough to keep people from organizing into warring tribes to smash and grab their neighbors stuff. We aim to ruthlessly optimize society for civilized efficiency.
Christendom permitted prostituion for centuries for similar reasons and so should we. I’m actually confused by Jim’s seeming reluctance to go with the pure reactionary position on prostitution that the state should do absolutely nothing to prevent it besides keeping it off the streets of good neighborhoods.
The monarchy cannot be a Catholic one because of the principle of national sovereignity and warrior/monarchial supremacy over priests. The Papacy (in addition to being generally corrupt and run by our enemies) is not compatible with this. Jim has agreed that in the long term a reactionary state should plan to fold all American Catholic Churches into the Orthodox Church (which works great as a reactionary church).
In addition if you are stubbornly Catholic St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both argued that prostitution needs to be legal.
I don’t believe you. I think you hate Christianity and hate Christ.
And the reason I think that is that in your list of sexual sins, you left out the sin of adultery, the sin of women sleeping with one man, and then sleeping with another man, which is the only sexual sin that God and Bible directly and unambiguously call out, which sin has today been elevated into a sacred human right, a right so sacred as to totally trump all other human rights.
You focused only on sins that men are apt to commit, but which are barely mentioned in the bible, and ignored sins that women commit massively, disruptively, and hurtfully, and which totally dominate and control our society.
It is absolutely obvious that biblical family law and sexual law is profoundly reactionary, unimaginably reactionary by modern standards, and that reactionaries unambiguously intend to institute something that is a whole lot closer to biblical law.
If you were not inclined to spit on Christ and Christianity, the problem of adultery, of women sleeping with one man after another and then very belatedly getting married, and then likely continuing to sleep with one man after another, would be at the top of your list.
My interpretation of the situation is that a massive crackdown on female sexuality is urgently needed, that the house is burning down around us, but that the crackdown on male sexuality has gone to insanely over the top extreme, and needs to be relaxed quite a bit. Now we could argue whether it needs to be relaxed or tightened up, but debating that while ignoring the house burning down around us is anti christian.
Whenever I hear someone telling me that Christianity, rightly understood, is progressivism, and if we disagree with progressivism, we are being unchristian, it is usually someone who thinks that “piss Christ” was great art and Global Warming is the great moral challenge of our time.
Now if you had said
then I would believe you might be a Christian.
But you don’t want to crack down on prostitutes and pornstars, you want to crack down on men looking at porn stars. Therefore, not a Christian. Anyone who gives a leftist account of Christian sexual morality should not be allowed to get away with putting on moral airs while he arranges for nine year old boys to be sodomized, castrated, and transexualized. If someone actually is Christian, and actually concerned with Christian sexual morality, will be primarily concerned about the discrepancy between Christian sexual morality, and the sexual morality of the recent one hundred and fifty years.
KK(K) wrote:
This is not Christianity, but a recent demonic Puritan mockery thereof, which in light of the African “plot twist” probably stems from actual demonic voices screaming in KK’s ear.
@kawaii_kike “Tyrone”= shorthand for lower-class Black guy w/criminal tendencies that White women increasingly get mixed up with. The reference I made was based on a true local story which happened when I was growing up, in which there was almost a race riot in this part of town where a lot of Italians and also a lot Blacks lived. An Italian high-school girl and a Black guy were discovered to have been having a secret tryst. Her male relatives were not impressed and relations between the two communities quickly soured in a dangerous way. My personal stance on the race question, based in part on this story, is that part of any future social settlement keeping the peace and overall good relations between the races will have to involve a ban on mixed marriages.
Jim, you are attributing malicious intent where there is none and you are slandering me. I love Christ and love Christianity.
The Bible very clearly denounces fornicators. The reason I left out adultery on my list of sexual sins is because it was already talked about in great detail by you and others. The list of sexual sins I brought up were sins that I thought were being ignored by reaction.
>“I am a Christian, and we have to crack down on women speaking in Church, women engaging in serial monogamy, women cutting their hair short, women wearing that which pertaineth to a man, expel sodomites, bumboys, and effeminates – and also we have to do something about prostitutes and pornstarsâ€
I agree with the entirety of the above statement, I do want to crack down on pornstars, prostitutes, and adulteresses with extreme prejudice. If burning, beating, and public flogging is what it takes to control misbehaving women then I welcome it with open arms.
But I see your point that female sexuality is the predominant and far more pressing issue and me focusing on male sexuality is kind of nitpicking.
@shaman
Sex outside of marriage is a sin and I want to reduce sin as much as possible and if circumcision reduces sexual urges then this helps control the volcanic sex drives of women and is good, not Puritan mockery.
If there is a consensus, it’s probably de facto voluntary segregation and not Jim Crow segregation, but this would probably vary by state/region depending on crime. Some would be Jim Crow, others would be Jared Taylor, none would be allowed to have a Civil Rights Act or Fair Housing Act.
“Tyrone” is shorthand for the thuggish underclass. I don’t know any middle-class blacks named Tyrone. Middle-class blacks adopt Anglo names. In the hypothetical reactionary state, if you chose to live in or near a predominantly-white community – let’s say it’s a Taylor state and the community has vetted you and decided that you’re one of the few who will fit in – then I would expect that you, and/or your kids, would still face a lot of suspicion and resistance to interracial relationships.
But that’s not Reaction, that’s reality. If you look at polls today, most people still don’t really approve of interracial dating, and that’s despite 50 years of non-stop bombardment of IR propaganda in media, entertainment and advertising. Tribalism isn’t going away.
If I were you, I’d take comfort in the fact that black people in America did way better back in the segregated 1920s-1950s than they did in the desegregated post-1960s period. They did way better in nearly every dimension: higher income, lower crime, more families. You imagine yourself being forced to live in a Chicago slum, but under reactionary rule it would be more like one of the historical Black Wall Streets, because we would actually put all of the unmanageable criminals in prison, or just execute them, and of the people remaining, most would be happily married.
To filter out the wignats and other unsympathetic characters while still embracing ethno-nationalism, blogger Handle cleverly defined the NRx position as “Multi-Zionism,” i.e., every ethnicity should emulate the founders of Israel: establish ethno-states for everyone!
Now, we here aren’t fond of the “One Drop Rule,” so someone who’s 1/8 black and 7/8 white may be categorized as simply white; thus Alexander Pushkin should really be counted as a Russian, not a “Russian-Cameroonian” or something like that. It really depends on the compatibility level, while also taking the regression to the mean phenomenon into account.
Tyrone is an archetype; he is Bixnoodus Americanus. A nigger’s nigger. Hey, I’m unabashedly supportive of holocausting those who can’t function at all within civilization – one central reason I support the legalization of all drugs is to kill niggers and other inferior specimens.
Now if you say, “I’m an Oreo Cookie: black on the outside, white on the inside,” and if you can get your typically African superstitious proclivities under control, then AFAIC you don’t count as a nigger, just a normie-compatible black person, and come the Restoration, you will be given your own plot of land, preferably far away from these wypipo crackers genetically engineered by Yakub (I know, I know, you’re Catholic, not Nation of Islam – it’s a joke), and maybe even some slaves from your own kin:
Joke: “MUHFUGGA GIBSME REPARATIONS FO’ SLAVERY.”
Woke: “I’m black myself and I’d like to avail myself of some black slaves, thank you very much.”
(Cominator objects to chattel slavery, so you see, we’re not monolithic)
Point is, Tyrone is not a synonym for all blacks, just those blacks who’ll likely end up on the wrong side of the heroin needle when all drugs are legalized, and after the harsh selection for basic competence, the tiny black remnant (of which you may well be a member) shall be given its own territories separate from whites, where you will be free to run things your own way, as long as you don’t create too many negative externalities for other races and ethnic groups.
We won’t insist on racial purity as a state policy (no need to explicitly ban interracial marriage), but immigration to whites zones — i.e., most of the country under our rule — will be greatly restricted to whites and to those compatible with white society, which naturally excludes the vast overwhelming majority of blacks. On the private level, most white fathers will be rather reluctant to give their daughters away to BASED black gentlemen, but if you’re really outstanding, who knows. But why not stick with your own race? Get yourself a nice black lady with thicc heavy booty and all that, and be merry with her.
Obviously the races should remain separate, and moreover, different ethnic groups should practice intra-ethnic breeding rather than inter-ethnic breeding, but things are flexible and fluid enough to allow for some exceptions to the general rule. As I said, a “One Drop Rule” is not needed much, but the restoration of families and the establishment of “Multi-Zionism” entail fragmentation along racial and ethnic lines, not — needless to say — intermixing.
Let’s get serious, there will probably occur a race war, though hopefully whites will win it rather swiftly, and blacks wise enough to stay out of it will be rewarded by not being holocausted: This is incredibly generous, considering all the demonic suffering that you inflict on whites on a daily basis. (Same applies to other groups dumb enough to fight a race war against whites) You’ll be offered to go back to Africa with some compensation, or to live in a separate black territory in America, or — if you’re really decent — to live among whitey, though your status will not be “equal” to that of those officially categorized as whites. #Sorry #NotSorry
The nigger is kinda like an archetype itself, in that some niggers are as pale as snow, i.e. all races produce the “Spiritual Physiognomy” (to borrow a Spenglerian term from Aidan McLear) of the nigger, though some races and ethnicities are on average more nigger-like than others. Simply put, those who are very dumb and very aggressive will not exist in a Reactionary society, or perhaps will exist as low-status slaves; free people won’t marry into them, and I advocate mass sterilization of niggers from all races.
The primary enemy is not blacks, indeed, the primary enemy is not any specific ethnic group, but a hostile memeplex. Blacks and browns are racially incompatible with white civilization, but need not necessarily be ideological adversaries; as Steve Sailer often says, “That’s what different countries are for.”
To further console you, lemme note that browns are much more likely to be outright political enemies than blacks, one reason being that blacks have such a low average IQ that a coherent weltanschauung is quite beyond their cognitive purview. But it’s not merely IQ, obviously; the African nature is essentially devoid of abstract concerns, such as ideology, in sharp contrast to e.g. brown Semitic Mohammedans, and also in contrast to spics. No offense intended, but blacks really are fundamentally different from the rest of humanity, and are more like a type of unreasoning — ergo apolitical — animal (this is true both of Sub-Saharan Africans and of Aborigines, despite them being two altogether different races). So you see m8, that may actually play to your favor, ironically.
Tl;dr: Broad separation by territory (there will naturally be exceptions), cooperation with those willing to cooperate, and absolute genocide of those unwilling to cooperate.
Reaction 101 on the WP is that marriage has been highly illegal for a long while, ever since men lost property rights over women, hence defect-defect equilibrium, plummeting reproduction, and dysgenesis.
For marriage to be legal again, need to restore property rights over women. Sexually misbehaving girls need to be owned by men who can give them reproductive sex, need to be under the legal authority of husbands who can fuck their brains out, hence husbandhood out-alphas fatherhood. If you deflower an unbetrothed virgin, need to keep her. A non-virgin slut is up for grabs to whoever is willing to take her.
There is nothing remotely similar to that in the West, and hasn’t been for a long while. Coverture is now strictly illegal, whereas divorce on demand is both legal and encouraged. That is the problem, and anyone suggesting or implying otherwise has no grasp of Reaction 101 on the WP.
I’m not going to get irritated … not … not … geez, I DO NOT WANT TO GET “mirrored” — DON’T MIRROR ME, BRO!
But I kind of feel as though fathers are getting their balls cut off here, kind of the way the way fathers are getting their balls cut off now in the real Progressive world.
Your narrative does not correspond to how things work in real life. If a daughter is openly flirting with someone next to dad, it should be assumed that she has already hopped on the cock carousel, and is looking for her next upgrade thereon. It should be assumed that a dick, or rather several dicks, have already jizzed their nuts out inside her cunt and the other two orifices. It should be assumed that she opened her big teenage mouth and gulped in a bunch of facial cumloads.
Joey is not the problem, and blaming it on him is blue-pilled as f**k. If you don’t like greasy wops and dagos, that’s perfectly fine, indeed spaghetti doesn’t mix very well with biscuits or whatever – what is not fine is the assumption that he is seducing her, rather than vice versa. And if she is seducing him, then “I’ll beat you up and kill you, punk” is sheer idiocy; dad should beat his daughter up, and then promptly marry her off, perhaps to one of his incel-in-denial friends.
Okay, Joey’s not the problem and Dad shouldn’t be rude to him. He should just pull Cindy away from Joey and marry her off as quickly as possible. CINDY IS A VIRGIN.
(I like NYC Italians, by the way. I just needed a name suggesting a group that would be likelier than WASPS to include guys that Dad wouldn’t want Cindy to have sex with.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCuMWrfXG4E
You gotta marry her off before Billy Joel abducts her.
No, she really isn’t, and adding a line to the original story saying “Cindy is a virgin” would be lying.
If she were as innocuous and innocent as your scenario depicts, she would not be sexually flirting with Joey in front of dad. But of course she is flirting with him: She wants to jump his bones, and has probably already jumped the bones of a few men before him.
And no, re-writing the story to present her as more innocent will not make the story more realistic, but just the opposite, will only make the situation even more absurd, i.e. will make the story even less realistic: Young girls have volcanic sex drives, so of course she will be flirting with him. This is natural.
What is not natural is dad trying to keep her a virgin past reasonable age, instead of marrying her off, or allowing someone else (e.g. Joey) to take her.
I thought of her as a virgin when I wrote the scenario, so it isn’t lying to assert afterwards that she’s a virgin — lying involves intent to deceive and there’s no intent to deceive. I assumed that people would assume she’s a virgin because her age is explicitly given as 14 and I assumed that most people would assume, as I do, that regardless of the volcanic character of the average 14 year old girl’s sex-drive she’s overwhelmingly likely to be a virgin (she probably masturbates a lot.)
“What is not natural is dad trying to keep her a virgin past reasonable age, instead of marrying her off, or allowing someone else (e.g. Joey) to take her.” — I have him telling her that she has to choose Archibald or Seymour or stay chained to the basement wall until he comes up with a couple of new names for her consideration, so his intending to marry her off quickly is explicitly written into the story.
14 y/o virginity is possible even if she is the flirtatious type, at 16 not so much.
The presumption that Cindy is a virgin, and that it is Joey that is endangering her virginity, is what is wrong with this scenario.
Cindy is endangering her virginity – and was likely popped at nine.
Don’t forget to follow the Bible and allow the father to collect a years worth of salary for a middle class male as a fine, provided the father can prove she was a virgin before she banged her (current) One True Love
Nuts
The progressive state demands that you send your daughter out of sight.
We don’t
Enormous difference.
Your daughters is going to wander off anyway, but under our state you will be able to have her hauled back on a leash by the cops and beat her with a stick.
This is absolutely nothing remotely like the progressive state.
Will we even have professional standing police outside of major cities? I always had imagined we generally would not.
I thought we would have justices of the peace (unpaid gentlemen, and it should be restricted to rich men only not low class status seekers, who work part time) but true police only in large cities.
Cops, hotel security, mall security, the officer of the militia: the general concept is that the authority of husbands and fathers to use force will be backed by society and the state, who will physically support them in the use of force on erring daughters, but when there is a conflict between husband and father over the daughter, the state and society will normally back the husband.
On the role of cops: Private security gets ultimately backed by the militia, but state force is not routinely involved in day to day stuff. But when serious push comes to serious shove, state force shows up to make sure that the good guys win.
Most use of force needs to privatized, partly because socialism fails, partly because males who are high status in the male hierarchy need to be able to use force, so that upper class virgins stop “falling in love” with Jeremy Meeks.
But the state is the ultimate arbiter of force, and will kick ass from time to time – less frequently than at present, but still, when push comes to shove.
The problem is always not so much force – any man can can coerce any women, and women rather like it. The problem is that you cannot find your daughter. She is away in some vaguely specified place doing something vaguely specified. So we need a rule that hotels and such like card women – not for age, but for being unaccompanied, to make sure they are authorized to be unaccompanied, or that the male accompanying them has authority to do so.
When I was a young man, there were a whole lot of places where unaccompanied women were not permitted to go, and where the males accompanying women would be asked about their connection to those women. We are going to set things back to the way I remember them being, and that is what I meant by “The cops hauling your daughter back on a leash”
Yes there will of course be a militia (of which all able bodied men not suspected of disloyalty should be nominally a part of) but I don’t think small towns should have many paid government employees at all. I’d also get rid of “speed limits” so that eliminates the “need” for most small town cops.
Most local government employees to the extent they need to exist at all should be replaced with unpaid gentlemen volunteer employees. Justices of the peace (the only permanent day to day government “law enforcement” outside of the cities) in particular will be open only to men already of independent means. In the event of serious disturbances the state can of course mobilize the militia or the standing army (and there should of course be an Imperial Secret Police tasked with finding and disappearing active shitlibs, communists, feminists, anti-monarchists etc.).
Cities realistically will have to retain professional police departments.
Many hick towns here in Canada have traditionally managed to get along w/no police force at all and continue to. RCMP or provincial cops are called in when a serious crime happens but otherwise no State presence whatsoever. You could do whatever you like in these towns as long as it doesn’t seriously bother anybody (ex. open carry in a country where that’s severely forbidden by law, ride bob-street-legal dirt bikes on streets and do it without wearing a helmet, etc. etc.).
correction: should read “non-street-legal dirt bikes”
Most cops these days are utter degenerates. The average pig is made from the same cloth as Philip Brailsford and his ilk.
There are entire departments that need not exist.
All modern sex-crime legislation will be scraped. “He is punished for fucking a 11-year-old escort” and “He is punished for possessing an erotic video of a 11-year-old chick masturbating to a squirting orgasm with her toothbrush” will be completely incomprehensible notions, suggestions so bizarre and alien that no person will recognize them as anything other than nightmarish, dystopian gibberish. (Let the cucks get triggered! Let the “pedo” accusations rain on me! I want the white knights to finally, finally, finally GTFO and never return)
What just happened to Donald Trump’s old-time friend (and what may very possibly happen soon enough to the God-Emperor himself), Jeffrey Epstein, will be literally mentally impossible to process; what is right now happening all over the Anglosphere and Western Europe with these “child sex trafficking” hysterical witch-hunts will be remembered as a quaint burst of full-on florid howling-at-the-moon frothing-at-the-mouth psycho-psychopolitical madness. The new sex-related legislation will be in line with recent discussions here. If you really want to stop 11-year-olds from selling their thinly-haired pussies as escorts, then punish them for doing it, beat them with a heavy stick for doing it.
Drugs should be considered low status, unbecoming of gentlemen, but legal – the police has no business regulating the drugs market. Let subhumans destroy themselves as they see fit; let St. Darwin do his job. (I feel less strongly about this issue, though)
I presume that you read voxday article and the comments. But jeff is a key player in the c
Cabal. And his interrogation will lead to the real demons that like to murder and torture.
I don’t read VD or his comments, and I would much rather rely on Jim for political prognostication than on Qanon and similar crazy stuff.
The real crime is espionage. Make the enemy live up to his own rules just clouds the issue and confuses people.
The real crime is that Nikolai (who admires you) keeps asking you questions and you rudely refuse to answer them, because you’re a piece of shit. Stop spamming our discussion of the WP, you little faggot, or you’ll receive a bullycide ten times worse than the previous one, and ten times worse than what Kookanic received.
Talk about issues you’re more familiar with, such as how that bisexual guy at the gym stole your girlfriend, and how your poor reality testing made you conclude from that awful cucksperience that Jim should be violently murdered for being a “pedophile.”
Literal satanic panic. The purple-pillers are positively elated by the Epstein news. They finally caught Muh Jewish Pedos! Justice has been done! Hollywood Pedos are next! All of you terrible black-pillers were worried that Trump wouldn’t put Epstein in prison (a concern expressed by no one, ever; the blackpillers were worried that Trump wouldn’t put Hillary in prison, or Obama, or the Awan brothers, or…), but he actually went and did it! The madman!
It’s just like the satanic panic of the 1980s, not because it’s blaming Satan (who does exist, either in reality or metaphorically), but because the behavior it insists is satanic is either boring cheesy occultism or sexual mores that were completely ordinary from the time of the Old Testament up to about 60 years ago.
From what I’m reading in MSM, these weren’t even 11-year-old sluts; the youngest they found was 14, or approximately peak female fertility.
My optimistic hope is that Epstein already agreed behind closed doors to give up the dirt on various power players to Team Trump, and the arrest is just political theater for his blue-pilled base. A plea bargain provides political cover so that they appear to be adversaries and not old boys palling around trading secrets.
Where I disagree with you (and shaman) on the satanic panic thing is that while I don’t see heterosexual sex with postpubescents (which as far as I know is what Epstein was involved with, nothing as of yet more sinister) as something that should be a crime much of the pizzagate stuff implied many things far far worse that indeed definitely should be crimes.
Now maybe it was a clever hoax concocted by some of ours to kneecap Hillary shortly before the election (coordinated with the Comey dump) but Podesta was clearly using code in his emails and there were indeed things way way off about David Brock’s boyfriends’ pizza place…
Pizzagate, beyond typical screeching pedo-hysteria, implied cannibalism and necrophilia in underground basements and similar stuff. These things are already crimes. But pizzagate itself is a hoax, whatever the intention behind it.
I dispute 95%-100% of the materials provided by pizzagate (and a solid 100% of its supposed “implications”), but I don’t dispute the general idea that there are some legitimately weird, creepy people among shitlibs. Problem is, autistics are bad at telling that edgy humor is sometimes just that: edgy humor, so they are bad at telling which individuals are truly creepy, and which ones only LARP for shits and giggles.
Really, if you want to find folks whose psychology is altogether twisted, as in “insane-in-the-membrane, crazy-in-the-coconut” twisted, among members of the Cathedral, then instead of wasting time with various politicians and their associates — who are usually shallow, uninteresting, boring people — go look up the ardent abortion enthusiasts, those wide-eyed women who are so, so excited about “terminating pregnancies.” Bureaucrats and apparatchiks may have edgy humor, and hang around some other people with edgy humor, but if you want to see genuine Moloch worship, observe the pro-abortion activists.
Related:
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/intact-fetal-cadavers/
Not totally unreasonable to think that the Podestas and some others in the DC elite have to be initiated in a mutual blackmail cult that involves doing something so horrible that they could never “plea deal” out and rat. BTW I DO NOT think Epstein was part of that, I think Epstein was CIA (whiich is how he got his money and his sweetheart deal) and his island was a more traditional honeypot.
If they have to rape and kill a kid to get initiated that would do it and it would not surprise me about these people at all.
I dunno. I prefer falsifiable claims over unfalsifiable ones, and “X is involved in a secret blackmail cult” is not particularly falsifiable.
Is there any indication that the KGB was running something similar to that asserted by pizzagate? (Meaning, not regular honeypots, but initiation rites involving cannibalism and necrophilia)
In the Yagoda and Yezhov days before Stalin and Beria purged the early Bolsheviks (who were mostly composed of insane sadistic psychopaths) the NKVD certainly routinely raped and killed and tortured people with almost no legal pretexts of any kind.
But it wasn’t really a blackmail cult.
Post Beria the KGB was the most rational organ in the Soviet government by far and I’m not sure if Beria really was the sadistic psycho his enemies claimed him to be given that when he took over the NKVD he cracked down quite ruthlessly on random unauthorized rapes killings and tortures (because Beria was never a leftist of any kind).
So at least since 1937 I would have to say no… but the Cathedral is far more insane then the Soviet government post 1937 and that reflects a leadership that is far more evil and insane.
“under our state you will be able to have her hauled back …” —
So you’re okay with the Dad-Joey-Cindy scenario, right, Teacher? Because that’s what Dad does to Cindy, basically, without the cops’ help.
What do you mean by “nuts”, by the way. Is that like, “What you’re saying is insane,” or is it more of an irritated, “Oh, bullshit!”?
“Nuts” means the former, and is often used in the context of someone saying something crazy and passing it off as normal, e.g., “Women are dislike aggressive men, and flock after nice guys,” a blue-pilled line that boomercons had used to say before the Manosphere happened.
No I am totally not OK with Dad-Joey-Scenario, which is completely and radically different in ways that I have explained repeatedly and at length, that everyone has explained to you vehemently and at length.
The scenario I endorse is that Hotel security chains Cindy in the lady’s room for Dad to collect, because she is cruising for Joey and likely cruising for an upgrade to Joey, or the cops crash the midnight beach party on Arlie Beach where Cindy is partying with Joey and numerous friends of Joey, some of whom she rather suspects of being more alpha than Joey, in her underwear. The cops toss her in the cop car, and every other unescorted or improperly escorted female in the cop car, and take her home to dad. Or, more likely, they notice that she is four hundred miles from home, with no local address (for the chicks on Arlie beach are generally four hundred miles from home with no local address) and tell Dad to come to the cop shop to collect her.
Now as the cops or Arlie beach park security start checking the girls escorts, Joey may then protest, “Hey, I am her fiancee, and we are going to get married.”
To which the cops might then reply. “OK, we have a JP and chaplain at the cop shop in the morning. You can marry her in her cell.” But if Joey had abducted Cindy and then married her, she would be properly escorted, and there would be no problem.
If Joey had abducted her and then married her and was effectively asserting his marital rights over her, she probably would not be partying at midnight on Arlie Beach.
And if she was partying at midnight on Arlie Beach with Joey, Joey would probably not feel inclined to marry her at the cop shop in the morning, because he would be inclined to suspect that tomorrow night, she would be partying on Arlie beach with someone else.
“… that I have explained repeatedly and at length, that everyone has explained to you vehemently and at length.” Sorry, Everyone. I still don’t get the picture. I’m looking for a picture or set of pictures that have a real-world feel to them — not pictures involving hotel security and midnight beaches but pictures involving Staten Island backyard barbecues or street corners between the home and the supermarket.
Presumably even in Reactionary Land Cindy will be allowed to go to the supermarket to buy orange juice, and maybe Dad’s returning from the gym at the same time and runs into talking to Joey on the corner.
Okay, so I shouldn’t have had Dad be so rude to Joey. Dad should just politely say, “Excuse us, Joey,” and lead Cindy into the house and give her the same Archibald-or-Seymour-or-wall choice that I had him give her? Assume that she’s a virgin and Dad knows that she is and is only now focusing on her need for sex.
Okay, but you’ve presented us with a scenario that is already unrealistic. Specifically what events preceded this potential confrontation between Dad, Cindy and Joey?
Scenario 1: They’re in Dad’s living room. Makes no sense at all. How did Joey get in the house? Is Dad allowing Cindy to organize house parties, to which failed musicians and outlaw bikers are invited? The degree of paternal neglect required to get to this point is staggering, and Joey would probably be a better husband and father than Dad.
Scenario 2: They’re at Dad’s front door. Why did Cindy bring him there? Either it is completely normal for her to bring guys home, hence already a slut, or it is some insane over-the-top shit test for Dad that could only happen if relations between Dad and Cindy were already in terrible shape, such as Dad trying to “guard” her for way too long. If the latter, they don’t really want to get married, because if they did, they would have actually gotten married, not showed up at Dad’s doorstep as a provocation. She’s not in love, he’s not going to marry her, and she’s just doing it to piss off Daddy and clearly needs either a real husband or more affection from Mr. Stick.
Scenario 3: They’re in some location other than the father’s home. Is Joey just some random guy she met 10 minutes ago and they’re already at second base? If so, she’s a total slut and possibly nympho, and it makes no sense that Dad didn’t see the signs years ago. Or is Joey some guy she already knew fairly well – perhaps they’re at Dad’s friend’s house and he’s their son – in which case, why the hell does Dad keep taking Cindy to hang out with Joey?
Scenario 4: Jim’s vision of the future comes to pass, and unescorted women are locked up until the father can come pick them up. Despite only having met her yesterday, in South Beach, Miami, during spring break, Joey resolved in the 20 minutes they were grinding (just before authorities busted up the party) that she is a perfect 10, the only woman he’ll ever love, and he is now anxiously awaiting the chaplain while he and Cindy stare longingly at each other from opposite sides of the cell door. The father his driven all the way from Minnesota and wants to take her back, but Joey insists that he really wants to marry her.
In this last contrived, outlandish, ridiculous scenario: assuming Cindy was not already betrothed to another man, then Joey’s rights take precedence over the father’s. But in reality, this scenario is never going to happen, because any father who let his daughter cross several state lines to party during spring break is actually going to tell Joey, “thank you for taking her off my hands, she was driving me crazy”. Case closed.
In 1970, seven years after the start of second wave feminism, it was still the case that unescorted women were not allowed to go some places, and suspicious escorts were apt to be asked questions by authority figures, and in socially conservative countries on the periphery of the USG hegemony there are still today establishments with signs forbidding unescorted women, so my scenario is considerably less drastic than the desired end goal: All the way back to first temple Israel rules, and first Millenium Christian rules.
If my scenario seems unthinkably radical, reflect that Obama’s 2008 position on gays now seems unthinkably radical.
It wasn’t my intention to portray your prescription as outlandish or unthinkable – only that it would be outlandish and ridiculous for Fred’s hypothetical scenario to occur in such an environment.
“In 1970, seven years after the start of second wave feminism, it was still the case that unescorted women were not allowed to go some places, and suspicious escorts were apt to be asked questions by authority figures”
My mom’s uncle owned a “roadside community” of four cabins in the outskirts of the Washington DC area in the 1930s. This was sort of the precursor of motels. My mom says that he did not allow couples with local addresses to rent a cabin. Only couples from far away (presumably married travelers) could rent. I guess this was one of his heuristics.
The idea that the problem is some male you can actually find is unrealistic. Pubescent daughters have a propensity for getting out of sight.
Cindy’s talking to Joey at Dad’s backyard barbecue on Staten Island — Joey wandered in off the street with Carmine and Tony.
Boisterous extroverted Rocco should ideally have his own female company, and won’t be sniffing around WASP and mischling communities, eh.
But when the daughter flirts with Rocco in front of loserdad, the misbehavior and subsequent punishment should be hers; she is uncontrollable and is going after Rocco for the same reason that teenage British skanks and slags go after Pakis – women always go after the man most likely to violently rape them. It’s time for dad to transfer ownership, presently.
So is the problem with my scenario just that Dad’s so rude to Joey? What if he just says, “Excuse us, Joey,” and leads Cindy (whom he knows to be a virgin) into the house and gives her the Archibald-or-Seymour-or-wall choice?
The problem with your scenario is that the chick says to two alpha males “let’s you and him fight”, and then they do, instead of Cindy getting a spanking.
The problem with your scenario is that Dad, and the entire society, and the entire male status hierarchy, is failing Cindy’s shit test. So Cindy wanders off out of sight loserDad, and finds someone who passes her shit tests.
Restating my question from above: do Cindy and Joey have some preexisting relationship? If so, it’s far too late for Dad to be intervening. On the other hand, if Cindy is so horny that she’s getting ready to jump random strangers who walk in off the street into her dad’s backyard, then Dad is completely out to lunch, has been ignoring all kinds of signs up until now, and the odds of Cindy actually still being a virgin are slim to nil.
But more importantly, this scenario is also unrealistic, because if Joey is just a random guy who was walking down the street and smelled BBQ, then Dad can’t possibly know that there’s anything wrong with him – I mean unless he’s literally homeless, looks homeless and smells homeless, but at that point we’re just concocting ever more absurd scenarios to try to prove that the rule must be invalid because the rule has imaginary exceptions, which is redolent of leftist subversion.
I’m not calling you a leftist or accusing you of subversion, by the way, just explaining how the meme infection works and how you can cure yourself. Ask yourself if any of these scenarios of yours are realistic; ask yourself what prior events must have taken place in order to make them realistic.
Anyway, Dad does have the right to tell people he doesn’t know and who weren’t invited to get off his property. So he can tell Joey to get lost, but if he doesn’t immediately take her to see Mr. Stick afterward, then it’s just going to happen again.
Cameron Boyce; that last pic and the unspecified medical condition;
The Poz.
Agree?
“Deus Vult” was a battle cry called out by crusaders at the declaration of the First Crusade in 1095.
Lots of commenters talking online about “Deus Vult” and Holy War, but how many have seen actual combat?
I remember the day Andrija the invincible collapsed for the first time, the warrior of warriors whom we’d never seen without his shell: around Vitez, one morning like all the others in a village like all the others, when tensions were at their height with the Muslims
a warm morning, a little misty, a munitions transport going north, a few kilometres from Travnik the deadly beauty one fine morning with a smell of spring, with Sergeant Mile and Vlaho the crazy driver at the steering wheel
I don’t remember why we stopped near that building, probably because there was a corpse on the threshold, an old man, an entire cartridge clip in his head and chest, machine-gunned from quite close up and his dog too, a Croatian house, the door was open, a smell of incense wafted out as from a church, a dark interior and wood furniture, shutters closed they must have been shot at night, the guy and his mutt, why had he opened his door
why had he gone out, Mile signed to us, a trembling orangey light was coming from a room in the back, a tiny fire, something’s burning, all three of us move towards it, Vlaho remains behind to watch the entrance, a big bedroom with candles everywhere, dozens of candles still lit and on the double bed an old lady stretched out her hands on her chest a black or dark-grey dress her eyes closed and I don’t understand
Andrija takes off his helmet as a sign of respect, he takes off his helmet sighs and mumbles something, Mile and I imitate him without understanding, all three of us are in the process of watching over an old woman who doesn’t know she’s a widow, that her husband who lit all these candles for her was shot with his dog on his doorstep by unknown men or neighbours, she has heard nothing, on her deathbed, not the machine-gun volleys outside, not the footsteps in her house, not the laughter of those who jammed that large crucifix straight upright into the middle of her stomach, its absurd shadow is dancing on the wall next to the lowered faces of Andrija and Mile, bare-headed
and it’s Vlaho’s voice that wakes us up, u kurac, he has just entered the room, fuck, what the hell are you doing here, are we going yes or no, he glances crazily at the grandmother at her desecrated body, I put my helmet back on, Mile puts his helmet on, and we leave like robots not saying a word we climb into the Jeep Andrija sits down next to me he remains silent his eyes gazing into space the tears are beginning to flow onto his cheeks he gently wipes them away with his sleeve, he doesn’t sob he looks at the countryside the houses the trees I watch him he cries like a silent fountain without hiding it, why, he’s seen lots of corpses, young, old, male, female, burnt black, cut into pieces, machine-gunned, naked, dressed or even undressed by an explosion, why this one
Andrija will die a few weeks later, he’ll have time to avenge his own tears, to cauterise his tears in the flames, to ravage enemy bodies in turn, houses, families, exulting with Ajax son of Telamon, with Ulysses in the ruins of Troy, Andrija the furious was avenging that unknown grandmother he never mentioned again, I still have in my mind’s eye the shadow of Christ on the flowered wallpaper, in the gleam of the candles, nothing had been disturbed, no vengeful inscription on the walls, nothing, it was a strange miracle this crucifix stuck God knows how into the flesh of this old woman
Andrija upset without showing it by this sign, Sergeant Mile didn’t say anything either, Eduardo Rózsa cracked too one day, and Millán-Astray, and Achilles son of Peleus, one day one fine day when nothing prepared you for it, and I too, I cracked, fissured like a clay wall slowly drying, in Venice it was a collapse followed by ghostly wandering through the hallways of the Zone, you die many times and today in this train all the names in this secret suitcase draw me to the bottom like the cinderblock attached to the legs of a prisoner thrown into the Tiber or the Danube, in the middle of middle-class Emilia, a train where the travellers are all sitting nicely, a car of passengers ignoring each other, pretending not to see the fate they share, these shared kilometres entrusted to the Great Conductor friend of model railways of halberds and of the end of the world, some facing forward and others with their back to their destination, like me, their gaze turned to the rear, to black night, to Milan the departure station:
Millán-Astray Franco’s friend, the thin one-eyed one-armed general the Legionary responsible for splendid massacres in Morocco had a guilty passion for decapitation, he liked to slit the darkie’s throat with a bayonet, that was his weakness, not to say his hobby, in 1920 he founded the Spanish Foreign Legion, after a stay in Sidi Bel Abbès with the French who are always proud of their military cunning, a natural colonial mutual aid, the French Legionnaires made a great impression on Millán who was neither one-eyed nor one-armed at the time, just obsessed, fascinated with death, Millán formed his Legion in Morocco for Spain to which the poor, the hoodlums, the banished from all over Europe rushed, and he welcomed them singing them hymns—
the Spanish Legionaries whom I came across in Iraq looked like young newlyweds dressed for their weddings, they sang while they marched quickly, soy el novio de la muerte, to their nuptials like those of their ancestors in Africa, to whom Millán said you are dead, full of lice, vulgar, you are dead and you owe this new life to death, you will live again by giving death, as good fiancés you will serve, pay court to the Reaper with passion, hand Lady Death the scythe, sharpen it buff it polish it brandish it in her place in Morocco first then after the beginning of Franco’s anti-Red crusade on the very soil of the homeland, in Andalusia, in Madrid then on the Ebro in the last great offensive, in Morocco against the bloody Berbers tamers of mares, in the military disasters of the Spanish protectorate that allowed the ephemeral creation of the first independent republic in Africa, the natives’ Republic of the Rif, the republic of Abd el-Krim el-Khattabi whose creased, yellowed bank bills you can still find at the second-hand stores in Tétouan
Abd el-Krim the hero, the gravedigger of Spaniards was on the point of losing Melilla after the disaster of the Battle of Annual in July 1921 where 10,000 poorly armed, malnourished Spanish soldiers perished, without leaders and without discipline, one of the most resounding military blunders after the Somme and the Chemin des Dames, which would make the liberal monarchy of Alfonso XIII the Roman exile tremble: did he know, in his room in the Grand Hotel on the Piazza Esedra, with his collection of slippers and his princely visits, that his enemy of the time, the Berber cadi with the ponies, had found asylum in Cairo, at the court of King Farouk the anglophile:
I picture him smoking a hookah by the Nile, for years, until, one day in 1956, the new king of independent Morocco suggested he return home—he refuses, maybe because he likes Nasser and Tahia Kezem too much, or maybe because he prefers to have his blood sucked by Cairo mosquitoes rather than by a Sharifian king, he dies without ever seeing his country again or holding a weapon, aside from a 9-millimetre Campo Giro picked up from the mutilated corpse of General Silvestre, commander of the Rif Army, the buffalo-horn-plated butt of which, smooth and scratchless, bears the arms of Alfonso XIII sent into exile by the defeat of his general and his brand-new pistol
Silvestre the murdered with the undiscoverable scattered body, replaced by the brothers Franco Bahamonde and Juan Yagüe, eagles with poetic names, and their elder brother Millán-Astray with the absent eye, to whom his legionaries offered pretty wicker baskets garnished with decapitated Berber heads, to his great delight, just as before him, around 1840, Lucien de Montagnac, a colonel who was also one-armed, the pacifier of Algeria, staved off colonial boredom by decapitating Arabs like artichokes—
I suddenly see Henryk Ross’s photo of the Åódź ghetto, a crate full of men’s heads next to another larger one where the headless bodies are piled up, that would have delighted Astray the one-eyed or Montagnac the ill-tempered, admirers of the samurais with the slender swords and of those saints who carried their own decapitated heads: long after his wars, Millán-Astray the bird of prey translated the Japanese BushidÅ into Spanish, code of honour and of honourable death, of decapitation of the conquered soldier, law of the friend who slices your neck and thus saves you from suffering, just as the French revolutionaries adopted the guillotine for its democratic painless aspect, a king’s death for everyone, the leader’s rolling in a basket, whereas before the Revolution decapitation was reserved for nobles, with commoners dying in spectacular torments, drawn and quartered or burnt for the most part, if they survived questioning—
in Damascus not long ago they hanged opponents from immense streetlights on the Square of the Abbasids, from the raised basket used in Paris to trim trees
I remember one day a hanged man who had stayed up too long ended up being decapitated from his body and fell his head rolled between the cars provoking an accident which caused one more death, an innocent little girl, probably just as innocent as the guy whose shoulderless face had frightened the driver, also innocent, just as there are lots of innocent men among the killers in the suitcase, as many as there are among the victims, murderers rapists throat-slitters ritual decapitators who learned to handle their knives on lambs or sheep, then Zeus did the rest, in Algeria my Islamists were the world champions of decapitation, in Bosnia the mujahideen killed their prisoners in the same way, the way you bleed an animal, and my own entrance to the Boulevard Mortier bore the sign of seven monks’ heads abandoned in a ditch
I can’t escape decapitation, these faces pursue me, up to Rome and Caravaggio with his head of Goliath David’s fist closed in the bloody hair or in the so-refined Palazzo Barberini Judith with her sword in Holofernes’s throat, the blood gushes so nicely, the beautiful widow looks both disgusted and resigned as she severs the carotid artery, the servant holds the bag that will surround the damp relic its eyes wide open, its hair sticky, a somber image among the religious scenes, the Saints Jerome, the portraits of bishops become popes, the innocent girls wild Judith neatly beheads the Babylonian general, to save her people in the same way Salome obtained the head of the Baptist, beheaded in his cell by a brutal guard, with a thick knife, as shown by Caravaggio, again, on the immense canvas in the cathedral of the Order of the Knights of St John in Malta, summer of 1608, when the order was incorporated, a year after arriving in the impregnable island, forty years after the Ottoman siege when Jean de Valette shot Turkish heads out of his cannons like cannonballs, to frighten the enemy
Michelangelo Merisi di Caravaggio the Milanese would have liked to die beheaded, he died ill on a beach in Argentario, facing the grey sea that he had never painted, or that he had always painted, in the dark immensities where the bodies of beautiful boys and saints are born, of murderers prostitutes soldiers disguised as saints, Caravaggio great master of darkness and decapitation
That ain’t actual combat. THIS is actual combat:
“Lunging she kills a pair of massive Trojans, Butes and Orsilochus. Butes, his back turned, she stabs between the helmet and breastplate, just where the horseman’s neck shines bare and the shield on his left arm dangles down, off guard. And fleeing Orsilochus now as the Trojan drives her round in a huge ring, Camilla tricks him, wheeling inside him, quick, the pursuer now the pursued as she rears above him — praying, begging for mercy — her battle-axe smashes down, blow after blow through armor, bone, splitting his skull, warm brains from the wound go splashing down his face.” (Aeneid, trans. Fagles, Book 11.)
You can’t explain combat.
Let ‘em learn.
Train them if they’ll listen.
Keep the best of the litter from getting killed first combat.
The good especially best do die young.
I plan on knocking the wind out of two of them up front if shit happens.
Cuz its best they make it longer.
Make peace with the heads.
Yes you can.
Stare at em, tell them it was war and ignore them.
I had to make peace with no head (50 cal).
You can make peace to a face.
Like always a coin toss.
No I still don’t like reviewing the movie.
Stop doing the rerun.
That doesn’t work.
Rest of you pay attention.
You never had a choice.
The enemy chose our extinction.
We choose to live.
The genre where the fragile mind of the effete intellectual or academic thrust into war is damaged beyond repair, has been rather popular. But men are normally pretty well constructed to do violence without our minds shattering.
Yeah but its bothering him so I tried to tell him how to put down the bag of bricks.
Also not to try and explain combat.
Let em learn.
=================
I didn’t bring up effete intellectuals.
Yes its a Trope.
Give them a shovel and a rifle and yes they’ll adapt well enough.
As you can gather eventually it takes a toll.
In some ways the 90s Balkans wars (that he’s referring) were worse than what the Middle East has gone through.
The woman question is descending into too much depth.
One wonders if the intent is traps for our host or others…
Is she blood or marriage?
NO. = not your problem
YES= your problem. We see nothing.
No one talks to the authorities.
NJ state motto applies; nobody saw nothing.
You’re not going to tell us which issues to discuss and which not.
When you say:
What you really mean is: “I am constantly out of my depth. I have nothing relevant to say about this issue, being the childless old white knight loser that I am. So guys, why don’t you stop talking about the WP, swallow my blue pilled ideology already, and start talking instead about such wise and profound ideas as ORGANIZE! ATTACK! ACTION! ATTACK! GO! ORGANIZE! ATTACK! DO SOMETHING! AHHHHHH!”
You’ve spammed your irrelevant walls of text all over Nick Land’s blog. You were tolerated to do so here, but now you apparently decided to reveal your true colors: An ideological enemy who is neither intelligent enough to be here, nor red-pilled enough to support us from the outside. Literally, 100% useless.
You fucked up.
Reminder that you think that this kind of thinking represents a sound, healthy worldview:
This is actually the option that you chose, blue-piller. Then you said:
This is not the first time you spread the blue-pill here. Previously, I let it go. Not this time, celibate cuck. You are a childless white knight who wants to beat Jim (a father and grandfather) up because your hypothetical daughter is going misbehave, as you said very explicitly by choosing option 1 (C).
Do you think that your childlessness and celibacy are related to your blue-pilled views, perhaps? Yeah, no need to guess too long: You are a childless incel, and while normally that would not be grounds for abuse, you will indeed receive abuse because you are a blue-pilled white knight faggot entryist. Newsflash: All women everywhere are deeply repulsed by men like you, and in your guts you know damn well that you don’t deserve the love of women, hence indeed you won’t receive it.
You’ll die childless and celibate, as all white knights deserve. Now take your effluvia elsewhere, Tard-Con, or things will escalate – BEAUTIFULLY.
The idea of a holiness spiral is to get money, status, and power by angling for the strictest possible interpretation of a socially *dominant* ideology. Holiness-spiraling behaviour within a socially proscribed ideology not only doesn’t work, but accomplishes the opposite. You might call it a “degradation spiral”. Example: “Everybody is blue pilled except for me”. What’s the definition of red pill? “The red pill means talking about underage girls as much possible”. And so the logic of the degradation spiral, instead of leading to the heights of status, leads instead to the subterranean depths of revocation of civil status and imprisonment, but for good measure total loss of status in the social world of status-less people behind bars as well once they check your paperwork and find out what you’re there for.
Your ideology has been rejected, so now it’s back to Sophist Analogies.
No, it is not a “holiness spiral” to clarify what Neoreaction is, and what it is not. I don’t give a damn what anonymous people on the internet think of me, otherwise I wouldn’t change a handle every few months or so; this is a purely ideological battle here, in which there is a right side (NRx) and a wrong side (various entryist ideologies), and I want to make sure that the good guys win. From time to time, that requires me, and some others here, to bullycide the bad guys. It has to happen, or the blog will descend to 100% entryism 100% of the time.
As for:
I never said or implied that. There are plenty of absolutely red-pilled commenters here. Indeed, most of the good ones are. In fact, Jim is probably more red-pilled than me: His positions often enough go further than mine. So if this is your “take down,” nope, not applicable. Try something else.
Jim can talk about whatever the heck he wants on his blog. You’re not going to tell Jim what to talk about on his own blog. No, he will tell you what comments are allowed, and what comments are not allowed, and “muh poor innocent chaste angelic girls” is… Yeah, you get it: It doesn’t belong here.
The realization that you are Blue Pilled hits hard, but understand this: Nobody cares about your emotions. In a few months, after the inevitable happens, people are going to marvel at the high (and ever rising) quality of the discussions here, marvel at this community’s ability to attract ever more intelligent and based people, and marvel at the clarity which the NRx worldview is going to achieve; the current whining of blue-pillers will surely be a thing of the past.
Yeah yeah, I’ll “lose status” be “behind bars.” In reality, you have no idea how highly regarded my reputation is among my peers and how successful my dissemination of NRx views has been, though I have no intention of disclosing anything about it right now (maybe later) – some things really do speak for themselves, and ’nuff said.
You basically just called me a criminal child molester who belongs in prison simply for speaking views that are the consensus in NRx, just as your predecessors called Jim that precisely for that reason precisely. Yet, Jim is here and has been for years, and I am here and have been for years, and if you continue calling people criminal child molesters, you won’t be here.
>So if this is your “take down,†nope, not applicable. Try something else.
Okay then- your recent spazzpoasts confirm what I though pretty much the second I read you for the time: You are a typical Puritan, but not the successful kind:
-appoints himself supreme arbiter of a doctrine, w/no mandate from any hierarchy anybody can discern.
-thinks the correct interpretation of doctrine is grotesque hyper-extension of precept with autistic indifference to social consequences.
-thinks said interpretation over-rules human nature.
-seems to know exactly what the Sovereign must do, presumes to dictate exacting minutiae of law and policy to his Prince.
-thinks he’s arrived at some specific rule or set of rules applicable in all times and places, regardless of local customs, needs or other particularities.
-thinks he’s a priest, but doesn’t understand difference between priest and intellectual.
-no respect for anything or anybody, total lack of class (insulting a combat veteran)
-hopes to turn juniors against seniors, subvert the rights of the head of family.
-dreams of restoring Biblical law and society outside of Biblical times, and thus agrees that the people have to right to live Kinglessly if they feel like it, and vote in democratic elections. (Deuteronomy 17: 14-20
There is very little, if any difference at all between priests and intellectuals.
The interesting thing about Sir Tard-Cuck is that, in very plain language, he has already distanced and disassociated himself from NRx here. Thus, he is a Tard-Cuck entryist into NRx according to his own blog, yet he keeps desperately trying to peddle the Blue Pill here, and to disingenuously pretend that everyone agrees with the Blue Pill.
He had some nasty things to say about Jim and NRx at that link.
What blog and what link and how do you know all this stuff
The link is in the word “here” in my comment, which should appear in blue. Here’s an archived version, in case he wants to delete the evidence:
http://archive.fo/BZaB7
You have commented on his blog yourself, actually, and argued with him about his Blue Pilled position. Doug has been insulting Jim and NRx for some time, yet he accuses me of disrespect, lol.
Truth is, I respect those who deserve it. Tard-Cucks don’t deserve it.
The link is in the word “here†in my comment, which should appear in blue.
You have commented on his blog yourself, actually, and argued with him about his Blue Pilled position. Doug has been insulting Jim and NRx for some time, yet he accuses me of disrespect. *face-palm*
Truth is, I respect those who deserve it. The Blue Pilled don’t deserve it.
Very interesting; I notice that even on his own blog he’s fond of the Appeal to [Legal] Consequences argument. “Maybe all of these things are true, but they aren’t popular and saying them to the wrong people could get you locked up, so stop saying them!”
I’m not sure if it’s deliberate sophistry, or an actual inability to firewall the snowballing progressive legalism from anthropology and morality. Dissidents of all stripes need to maintain a kind of cognitive barrier between the actual truth and the official truth, and his seems… leaky.
Anyway, Muslims and many Indians morally approve of young brides and arranged marriages, yet you don’t see them being locked up. At least in the USA, it is not illegal to simply advocate for laws or revocation of laws. We are law-abiding; we don’t pass around sinister pixels or abduct 12-year-old girls to marry, we merely assert, with evidence, that those laws are unjust and inhumane.
Aah
Thx.
As I see it, the diff is that:
-priest has care over the community at large (performs rituals, administers sacraments, settles disputes, sundry other tasks according to the religion in question). Intellectual has care only over his students if he teaches, or nobody except his family.
-Priest is appointed by a superior, intellectual need not be.
-Priest generally not in the business of interpreting doctrine, intellectual always is no matter how tight the restraints on his interpretive fiat (even if he’s a propagandist working from a script he’ll still present it as original work).
@alf
Then, what was Martin Luther?
Seems to me ‘intellectual’ is just the 20th century version of what used to be called a ‘priest’, just as ‘ideology’ has replaced ‘religion’. Same thing, different branding.
But ideology in the modern sense entirely centred around the State, in traditional religion the political is either a matter of detail, or indifference.
Nuts.
In traditional religion, and the traditional state, the King rules under God, the Holy Roman Emperor appoints the Pope, and the King appoints the Archbishop. Missionaries are an instrument of state influence, and armies are an instrument of missionary influence.
This surely describes professors, Judges, and mainstream media personalities better than it discribes priests of the Catholic Church, making professors far more priests than some guy with a backwards collar.
Again, professors, judges, and members of the mainstream media always appointed by their superiors.
The central shtick of a priesthood is that you hear the same story from multiple seemingly independent sources, though really you are only hearing it from one source.
When a propagandist is working from a script and presents it as his own original and independent work, he is just escalating what priests do by lying about what he is doing. He is priesting, not intellectualizing, and he is lying about it.
A priesthood composed of good people doing good work will tell the truth about what they are doing. The rightful priesthood will tell the truth about what they are doing and how they are organized
Yes, but I mean that in traditional religion Church jurisidiction is over the soul; King or other political authority is jurisdiction over worldly goods. Church technically isn’t supposed to directly meddle in politics (although it sometimes does so anyways), but formally insists only that the Sovereign power not exceed the bounds of Divine and natural law. Contrast w/Cathedral which doesn’t do anything else than prescribe the exact formal specifications to which State organization must conform (“constitutional government”) and dictate every detail of the State’s actions in every matter from top to bottom.
You are now lying through your teeth, having been debunked completely.
Nuts.
I never appointed anyone to anything. I present my views, and the views that NRx in general holds. Jim has made his position amply clear, and everyone else made their position amply clear. Provide an instance of me appointing anyone to anything, or shut up.
The position of everyone here who is not a Tard-Cuck or other kind of entryist has been made abundantly clear to you, repeatedly, and vehemently. It is not a fringe position here. It is the consensus, as affirmed by Jim and by everyone else who is not some kind of entryist. Read Reaction 101 on Women, and explain in what way I deviate from it. In fact, my position is somewhat milder, but not a whole lot milder, than some things that Jim says.
Typical projection. The Tard-Cuck Blue Piller position that women are always chaste, men always sinful, is not in line human nature. The Blue Pilled lie that women can be easily controlled is absolutely in contradiction of human nature. Thus you are lying about NRx, accusing it of your own flaw. Our position, that women are prone to sexual misbehavior from an early age, is an accurate assessment of human nature; and our position that girls past a certain age cannot be effectively, practically owned by their fathers, is likewise an acurate reflection of human nature.
No idea what you’re on about. Express yourself in a non-sophist way, so people can understand better what lies you’re trying to spin and what projection you’re trying to pull off.
AWALT.
We seek to be the priesthood come the restoration, and that requires a whole lot of intellectual heavy lifting. That’s what we are doing here.
Insulting idiotic people back is definitely allowed, and creative insults that have substance are always allowed. Hey, everyone disagrees with you: So do you keep class by going on and on and on about the innate chastity of women?
Normally, when husband and father clash over daughter, husband is backed up. This is the Reactionary position, which Jim has explained repetitiously, and others (including myself) have also explained repetitiously. Your obstinacy is not a good trait.
Proving, once again, that you are ignorant of NRx on a fundamental level.
You’ve been thoroughly PWNED, ideologically speaking. Pack it up, and accept that you lost. By keeping up the Blue Bill spamfests, you make yourself less and less wanted here. Take note.
The points Doug dissents from Jim on are bastardicide and marriage by abduction.
“I present my views, and the views that NRx in general holds.”
Surely NRx is more than just Jim’s blog. If ‘NRx’ refers to the loosely organized network of blogs and publications that call themselves reactionary and link to one another, I don’t think you’re accurately presenting the consensus of NRx.
I’m fairly certain that if you were to ask the opinion of reactionary blogs and their commenters (Ryan Landry, Mark Citadel, Free Northener, Yuray, Nick Land, Nick B Steves, Bonald, PT Carlo, Perilloux, Zero HP Lovecraft, Spandrell etc. etc.) they’d overwhelmingly side with Doug on those points of contention.
Wrong, I DISSENT from him on bastardcide and I was by far the most energetic and fanatical dissenter on that issue. I said it was monstrous AND unnecessary and argued a lot on this point.
I also mostly dissent on marriage by abduction. Saying that some details need to be worked out…
But I did not bring bluepill bullshit into my dissents. In fact one of my objections to marriage by abduction was that in many ways it would be female choice by other means rather then pro eugenics and pro social.
Doug has been bringing in tradcuck memes that is the problem not his dissents.
Yes, indeed it would. We need to allow females to choose an owner who will provide them with reproductive sex, if a suitable owner does not get organized for them in a more orderly and prosocial manner. What we need to prevent is females choosing to endlessly cruise for higher grade semen than the semen they are currently getting.
Argument by fake consensus.
The only guy I see there likely to disagree is Nick B Steves of Socialist Matter, who seems to have left the movement and gone silent partly over sex, but mostly over Capitalism, Trump, Human Biological Diversity, Monarchism, Family, putting gays back in the closet, and all that. He decided that everyone else was far too egregiously extreme about just about everything. The Socialist Matter website, like so many websites and software projects that allow Social Justice Warriors in, broke and never got fixed. Social Justice Warriors like to get control of technology, but they cannot modify it, maintain it, or fix it when it breaks. Social Justice Warriors breaking other people’s technology is analogous to socialists running out of other people’s money. As breadlines are to socialism, bitrot is to Social Justice. Not that that is necessarily how the Socialist Matter Website broke, I am just guessing, but that is the pattern.
Nick B Steves is not talking to reactionaries any more. Some of the others, notably Spandrell, still are talking. Ask Spandrell about Jim’s views on women (As expressed by me in one of my many posts on the topic, not your version of them.) Ask him what he thinks of one of my more egregious posts.
I used to get some hestia traffic, now I get no traffic from them, from which I gather the whole Social Matter as ‘official NRx’ is officially dead. We should learn from their mistakes, not repeat them.
Socialist Matter died because they let entryists in. I don’t think the entryists deliberately killed it. They wanted to converge reaction, and killing Socialist Matter was contrary to that goal, but they were neither highly motivated to keep it alive, nor competent to keep it alive.
The women question is a good acid test for entryism. Entryists cannot even acknowledge that the red pill says what it says. Not only can they not commit thoughtcrime, they cannot even acknowledge that you are committing thoughtcrime.
You are a great simplifier of leftist though.
They cannot even acknowledge that the WRP is possible for anyone to concieve of… For the religion of progressive equality it is like some evil fantasy God whos name cannot be spoken.
By the way Cominator, Jim has already stated regarding the monopolization of pussy by Jeremy Meeks:
As long as the sex ratio is 1:1, that is exactly the right prescription: the Virginariat seizing the means of reproduction from the Chadeoisie and redistributing them more or less equally to create a Heaven on Earth of Pussocialism.
“The King is worried that men do not seem keen on working, paying taxes, or soldiering.”
Not a problem as long as food can be harvested with combines, money can be printed to buy goods made in China, and wars can be fought by black female drone pilots in Des Moines dropping bombs on tribesmen in Afghanistan.
Socialism always runs out of other people’s money. If you are very lucky it then collapses, but what usually happens is that it starts murdering millions. And then conscripts the survivors and hurls them in human wave attacks against the machine gun emplacements of governments who have allowed their taxpayers to retain some property that the socialists want, having destroyed all the property within their power.
US technological superiority is collapsing as a result of social justice warrior induced bitrot. There are no black female drone pilots, because they crash their drones. The US navy is increasingly unable to sail out of port without running into things because of captainesses.
I’m pretty sure Dave was joking. Pretty sure. It’s hard to tell these days.
Regarding this:
I don’t follow all of those guys, but am amused by the suggestion that Mark Yuray, Spandrell, or Zero HP Lovecraft would dispense blue pills. Some of them do tend to talk less about the WRP in particular, preferring to opine on matters of government, economics, male sociology or just random cryptic memes, but instead of telling us that you’re “fairly certain” they disagree with Jim, how about actually finding a single instance of that happening?
You’ve also conspicuously omitted Aidan MacLear, Alf, and anyone else who demonstrably agrees with Jim on most of these issues. I wonder why that is.
NRx is clearly not a perfectly homogeneous community (yet), but where there is disagreement, it tends to be regarding priorities, specific policy prescriptions, and occasionally strategy; bikeshed issues, not dramatic rifts over the core tenets, of which WRP is one.
>I used to get some hestia traffic, now I get no traffic from them, from which I gather the whole Social Matter as ‘official NRx’ is officially dead.
It’s dead.
https://theamericansun.com/2019/06/21/things-disappear-five-friday-reads-6-21-19/
“I gather the whole Social Matter as ‘official NRx’ is officially dead”
It is my understanding that the guys at Hestia decided to focus more on irl stuff and less on writing essays and making podcasts. Much like how since Moldbug stopped writing at UR he managed to get Peter Thiel on our side. Or maybe that’s just a massive cope for them not being able to keep their website running.
On Nick B Steves, I really don’t see any of the things you complain about Jim. He was one of the first writers I was following when I initially got into NRx. I’ve listened to countless podcasts of his, read many of his articles and regularly browsed his twitter. Out of all the Catholic reactionaries I read, he was the most influential in my conversion. Never saw anything blue pilled.
A guy who appears regularly on TRS podcasts isn’t blue pilled on race, a Catholic patriarch who homeschools 8 kids isn’t blue pilled on women or family and I’ve never seen him say anything bad about Trump. Do you have any examples of him saying anything blue pilled?
“but instead of telling us that you’re “fairly certain†they disagree with Jim, how about actually finding a single instance of that happening?”
Sure, here’s a short thread of Mark Yuray disagreeing with Jim on whether or not white girls are attracted to muslims.
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/hitting-your-woman-with-a-stick/#comment-1408695
If they disagree on this, I can imagine them disagreeing on marriage by abduction. Not that they disagree on women in general of course. As for the rest, most of the bloggers I named are devout Christians who I don’t think would support the tacit acceptance of inconvenient children ‘mysteriously disappearing’.
This fails to explain the fact that the Socialist Matter website broke and stayed broken.
We know what Moldbug is doing now. If the Hestia guys are focusing on irl matters, what are they doing?
Looks to me that anyone who has trouble swallowing the red pill, has trouble swallowing reaction. If you don’t want to change the fact that the superior races are failing to reproduce and will disappear, if you don’t want to change the fact that marriage and family is broken, what changes do you have in mind?
If you are only planning “realistic” changes to marriage and the family, you only planning “realistic” political change. And “realistic” conservatism got us on flight 93 heading straight to the ground.
And what is Mark Yuray doing now? What did he ever do?
In order to have families and children, men and woman have to cooperated. In a game of prisoner’s dilemma with few iterations, the outcome is defect/defect. And your people and your civilization vanish.
There are a lot of shills in the reactionary movement, working from scripts under the supervision of our enemies and in the pay of our enemies.
Looks mighty like you are one of them. If you want your comments to appear, take the test I asked you to take, answer some of the questions I asked.
The catechism is not going to weed out all enemy infiltrators, but it is a good start. Can you accurately state and respond to our beliefs, even if only enough to say you don’t share them and explain why you disagree?
So far, all enemy infiltrators act as if saying the catechism, even if only to explain their disagreement with it, will have an effect similar to holy water on a vampire. You will burst into flame and turn into dust.
It is like Angela Dorothea Merkel shrinking fearfully away from the German flag, like a vampire fearing sunlight, as though the flag was emitting a powerful radiation to destroy German evildoers.
>We know what Moldbug is doing now.
Moldbug left Tlon. I hope he starts writing again.
Or doing a shimmy dance every time the national anthem is played. How is it possible for a person with such nerves to remain standing?
“If you don’t want to change the fact that the superior races are failing to reproduce and will disappear, if you don’t want to change the fact that marriage and family is broken, what changes do you have in mind?”
I’m absolutely certain that the people at Hestia want to change those facts. Nick B Steves in particular is changing those facts by having 8 white children and iirc Landry said he had 3+. Patriarchs with large families are obviously committed to restoring marriage and family.
“And what is Mark Yuray doing now?”
Don’t know. Perhaps writing under a different pseudonym, perhaps working on irl stuff, perhaps sitting at home drinking beer and watching anime.
“What did he ever do?”
He wrote excellent reactionary essays, same as you.
“In order to have families and children, men and woman have to cooperated. In a game of prisoner’s dilemma with few iterations, the outcome is defect/defect. And your people and your civilization vanish.”
Completely agree. I just think said cooperation can be accomplished without kidnapping.
There are no people at Hestia any more. It died under the control of entryists. And if they wanted to change those facts, would have stated the red pill facts and asserted the moral truths implied by those facts.
Nick B Steves uses the word “pedophilia” unironically, which implies he will permit those white children to be seated on the laps of drag queens at Drag Queen Story our. He is unlikely to have white grandchildren.
Did he. As I recall it, he always dodged anything disturbing or dangerous, same as Slate Star Codex and Jordan Peterson. Link me to one of his “excellent essays”
Can it now? Maybe. Perhaps. Explain how you are going to accomplish it.
You are like the man who says he does not want killing fields and slave labor camps and does not want to murder everyone with glasses, but he does want free medical care for all.
And then he gets British National health, which does not have killing fields and slave labor camps, but there is something horribly wrong with the free medical care for all. If you have a toothache and want it fixed without waiting in agony for the tooth to fall out, you had better fly out to some place that does not have free dentistry, and if you are an old man with a chest infection that is giving you some difficulty breathing, you are likely to find that your local hospital is behind on its quota for murdering old people, and instead of getting the seven day course of antibiotics that would have cured your chest infection, you get massive doses of tranquilizers, a bed, and no food and no water.
So he then says “Oops. That is not quite what I wanted. But all we need to do to fix this is to punish dentists more severely for wrecking the plan, and no I am not walking the path that leads to murdering everyone with glasses, and the old folk were costing too much anyway.”
So tell us, how is your society going to handle a fertile age woman who finds that no man who meets her lengthy list of requirements and passes her shit tests gives her more than a two am booty call followed by being kicked out of bed first thing in the morning, and who when she does encounter a man meets her lengthy list of requirements, and does not kick her out before he brews his morning coffee, promptly gives him a shit test that he is bound to fail?
What is your end plan to fixing that problem?
We are punishing and compelling men in an ever more draconian fashion, and it is failing, and every day fails worse. Any solution is going to involve some punishment and compulsion of women.
So, you are totally in favor of fixing the problem provided women always get off scott free and never suffer any adverse consequences for foolish and wicked condcuct?
So, under your plan, when do we compel women, and who compels them?
Drastic coercive measures are required to stop girls from crawling nine hundred miles over broken glass to get banked like drums by alpha male Chads. A father who fails to take such drastic measures, and fails to marry off his daughter in time, should absolutely expect her to get married by abduction. A Blue Pilled father who seeks to (and believes that he can) keep his daughter a virgin forever or for an unreasonably long time is an abusive and Satanic father, at war with human nature and female nature.
Due to the disturbing prevalence of Blue Pilled thinking in society, of fathers considering their “little princess” to be innately chaste and angelic, the inevitable result is that MBA will be a commonplace and unexceptional phenomenon; fathers will be made to understand that it’s in their interest that their horny daughters be under the ownership and authority of men who can provide them with reproductive sex, and Blue Pillers will be severely beaten in public and have their lying tongues cut off, and will be rendered extremely low status.
MBA, like shotgun marriage, is without the father’s consent and quite likely without the girl’s consent. As always, the best way to avoid MBA and shotgun marriage is to arrange marriage in advance; and it’s feasible enough to look for signs of sexual misbehavior in one’s daughter and to immediately respond to such signs by introducing her to her future husband, i.e. betrothal.
Pdimov:
Agreed; I want Moldbug, Land, Boetel, and Dampier to fully reemerge.
Nikolai:
Nope. His writings were entertaining, but he didn’t do any heavy intellectual lifting.
>the inevitable result is that MBA will be a commonplace and unexceptional phenomenon; fathers will be made to understand that it’s in their interest that their horny daughters be under the ownership and authority of men who can provide them with reproductive sex, and Blue Pillers will be severely beaten in public and have their lying tongues cut off, and will be rendered extremely low status.
You sure seem to know exactly what the new regime will do. Are you going to be the Sovereign?
I understand that it hurts that the last 10,000 years confirm our account of marriage, not yours. You’ll get over it, though. In the meanwhile, you really shouldn’t try to stir disruption here; we’re trying to coordinate our memeplex (as a priesthood ought to do), and your attempts to subjugate our memetic sovereignty to Trad-Conism are a bit annoying.
You came here to concern troll. That failed – now move on. Perhaps you can resurrect Hestia Society and be their leader? I’m sure they’ll agree that reactionary ideas are totally impractical, unless those ideas involve liquidating the bourgeoisie.
This is such an entryist giveaway. Concern troll, exactly.
>As I recall it, he always dodged anything disturbing or dangerous
Wasn’t this the whole point of Social Matter? To carefully spread reactionary memes without triggering an immune response. Essays you could share on Facebook under your real name.
Unfortunately, this in practice amounted to not spreading reactionary memes, particularly towards the end, recapitulating the failure of conservatism, ending in assimilation to progressivism.
The “careful spreading” tactic is the tactic of entryism, and it works, but you have to keep iron discipline, exercised by fanatical burning true believers, over your entryists, or else they assimilate to the group targeted for entry, and you get reverse entryism, which is what happened to Social Matter. Instead of successfully practicing entryism, which is perfectly sound and highly effective strategy, they were entered.
It is hard to enforce iron discipline unless you are funded, and your entryists well rewarded, thus entryism is a tactic more likely to be effective for our enemies than for us.
It was not a stupid idea, but hard to pull off without strict discipline and a strong cadre burning with the faith.
If Socialist Matter was practicing entryism, they should have been talking to the enemy, saying “Hail fellow progressive”, and giving them reactionary ideas, disguised as progressive ideas. Unfortunately, Socialist Matter were talking to us, saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, and giving us progressive ideas, disguised as reactionary ideas. Entryism resulted in reverse entryism. It is a well known risk and failure mode of entryism, and the only solution is true believers with strong authority and tight supervision over the entryists. You really have to pay them, and pay them well.
In the beginning, Social Matter was genuinely attempting to pursue an entryist strategy against the left. In the end, not.
“Nick B Steves uses the word “pedophilia†unironically, which implies he will permit those white children to be seated on the laps of drag queens at Drag Queen Story our. He is unlikely to have white grandchildren.”
Absolutely nuts. Nick B Steves homeschools all his kids. He doesn’t even let them in a public school and you think he’d let them attend drag queen story hour? He’ll likely have more white grandchildren than this entire comment section combined.
“As I recall it, he always dodged anything disturbing or dangerous, same as Slate Star Codex and Jordan Peterson. Link me to one of his “excellent essays—
Social Matter is down, so all his best work is lost to the ether. In particular he wrote some great stuff on right wing activism vs passivism, on ethno-nationalism’s leftist tendencies, on geo-politics and American-Russian relations and even a couple good articles on women. I distinctly recall in one article Yuray wrote about women and prostitution there was a bluepiller in the comments and Yuray completely bullycided him. He went as far as saying that, come the restoration, he’d have women’s schools bombed to rubble. Would Jordan Peterson say anything like that?
“So tell us, how is your society going to handle a fertile age woman who finds that no man who meets her lengthy list of requirements and passes her shit tests gives her more than a two am booty call followed by being kicked out of bed first thing in the morning, and who when she does encounter a man meets her lengthy list of requirements, and does not kick her out before he brews his morning coffee, promptly gives him a shit test that he is bound to fail?”
First do everything possible to prevent a woman from getting herself in that situation. Restore Patriarchal property rights, make women are property of their fathers in much the same way that children are property of their parents. Keep them under control as much as you can, marry them off around 15 or 16 (yes yes shaman, if she starts younger than marry her off at that age). Forbid unaccompanied women from going to places where seduction is likely to occur (bars, hotels, beach parties etc). If she fornicates with some guy, father should be strongly encouraged, but not required, to shotgun marry the two, as Exodus prescribes.
If all that fails and she ends up in the situation you describe, her dad should put her in a home for wayward girls to instill some discipline and hope some guy is willing to settle for used goods. If no such man comes forward after a while, there’s always sisterhood. If she’s improperly disposed to religious life, then unfortunately, she’ll probably end up in a brothel.
“So, you are totally in favor of fixing the problem provided women always get off scott free and never suffer any adverse consequences for foolish and wicked condcuct?”
You attribute to me a position 500 miles to my left or imply that my position will lead inexorably to something 500 miles to my left. This is not the first time you have done so. And you do the same thing to Nick B Steves, Mark Yuray and kawaii kike. You will likely do the same thing to Neurotoxin for claiming that Rotherham rape gangs threatening to kill the girl’s parents and siblings prevented said girls from leaving.
I will reiterate my actual position: Patriarchy literally means rule by fathers. State, society and Church should back up the father’s rights over his household in general and women in particular. Kidnapping a woman is a violation of the father’s rights. Maybe I’d make an exception for a woman who’s living far from home sleeping in the same guys bed every night, in which case she’s essentially already married to him and they should make it official instead of living in sin, even if the girl stubbornly refuses.
But marriages should generally be done after the fashion of Isaac and Rebekah. Abraham’s servant does not abduct Rebekah after meeting her at the well. He gives her gifts, meets her family, negotiates her marriage with her father and brother, they come to an acceptable arrangement, he gives her family gifts and takes her off to Isaac. Orderly and amicable transfer of property. That’s how it should be done.
That no one, least of all Nick B Steves himself, bothered to keep his “best work” around, suggests it lacked anything of interest or substance. His work has vanished like an idle wind.
Conspicuously lacking from your response was: “Force her to accept a suitable husband under threat of being forced to marry to some suitable man whether she accepted him or not him or not”: Conspicuously lacking from your response was the line up on the docks of late eighteenth century Australia, where a woman had to consent to one of the potential husbands available, or get assigned as servant and concubine. Conspicuously lacking from your response was the solution of Genesis 38:24: Burn her alive.
Now burning her alive does strike me as a bit excessive, but it is clear that the entire bible from beginning to end does not accept a woman screwing around and prompt and drastic coercion to assign her to one man, is the normal solution.
You propose that when a woman insists on getting her way sexually, she always gets her way. But it is a shit test. The woman does not actually want to get her way, and wants a man strong enough to subdue her. If she can get her way, she will insist upon getting her way, but will not be happy.
Your position on sex relations resembles the Marxist position on trade relations: just assume everybody will cooperate, everybody will work hard, and then, utopia.
Obviously, if daughter is reasonably well-behaved and father marries her off early enough, then the transfer can be orderly and no abduction need take place (nor will take place).
But we are asking you about failsafes, and you are stubbornly ignoring the question. What happens when father is blue-pilled, or worse, prone to white-knighting? What happens when daughter is simply out-of-control, and violently resists attempts to keep her away from bars and beach parties, and starts doing this at age 12, when according to your system most fathers would not have made preparations to marry them off? What happens when she’s very plain, and father doesn’t have suitors knocking at his door with marriage proposals, and is simply unable to marry her off as soon as he’d like?
Where do these situations lead, in your ideal system? She’ll end up in a nunnery, apparently – a nunnery with electrified fences. Or a brothel. But this is extremely suboptimal, because many of them could have ended up with husbands. Also similar to the Marxist frame in that individuals who don’t behave 100% ideally are wreckers who need to disappear, and when private enforcement inevitably breaks down (because of blue-pilled fathers) then you need active enforcement by the state. Essentially the state will have to… er… abduct the misbehaving girls, and put them in nunneries or brothels.
In any case, this is not in accordance with nature, either, because forcing prospective husbands to supplicate in this way inevitably casts them as betas in the female eye, inferior to the father, implying that there might be better men out there (because after all, her father is already one). It can’t be enforced, and what can’t continue, won’t continue.
You weren’t involved in 2014-2015, or you would’ve known about the Justine (Justin) Tunney affair, in which Michael Anissimov — himself an utter degenerate, but whatever — said that trannies need to be formally excluded from NRx, while Nick B. Steves most vehemently disagreed with that; apparently Justine Tunney is our ally and we need to embrace “her.”
Why did NBS call for an inclusion of a literal transsexual into NRx, Nikolai? Today, that sounds unbelievable to you (because someone, ahem, bullycided all the gay weirdos out of NRx 0.2, which there were many, believe me), yet that was the deal. Sure, Mike went into a typical disproportionate melt-down over it, but NBS was absolutely wrong, and not coincidentally, he had supporters among the same people who would later establish Socialist Matter and similar cul-de-sac projects.
Do we agree, Nikolai, that fuck-ups like Justin Tunney don’t belong in this movement? Yes, if you are honest, you will admit that you 100% agree. Then perhaps you should ask NBS why he wanted to embrace Tranny Tunney.
The only things I “distinctly” remember from Yuray’s writings are an article in which he explained that alcohol-drinking is absolutely essential to human civilization (that may be right, though it’s pretty funny given his Slavic background), and him going on an 8chan thread and explaining that listening to music on one’s headphones while outside is the worst, most degenerate and anti-social way to experience music, totally unbefitting of true reactionaries. Yeah, Yuray acted like a lolcow, though perhaps not extremely so. Anyway, you really shouldn’t pretend that someone like Yuray is in the same league as Jim.
These guys claim that they’ve “taken NRx off-line,” yet one is left wondering whether or not their actions are rather premature and ill-conceived.
Hey Nikolai, would you believe me if I told you that NBS actually went on Jim’s blog — as well as everywhere — to advocate for the inclusion of transsexuals?
https://blog.reaction.la/politics/official-reactionary-position/
Who wrote the first comment in that thread, and what was the content of that, hmm? Read the rest of NBS’ pro-trans comments on that post – and then tell me again if you find it unbelievable that NBS would allow his kids on Tranny Story Hour.
Social Matter? Transsexual Matter!
NBS on the inclusion of Tranny Tunney and trannies in general into NRx:
Very important not to hurt a transsexual’s feelings. NBS’ brain says that these are ladies. Sure, reality itself has Austin Powers’ take: “That’s a man, baby,” but NBS is telling us that hurting the feelings of fake-fanny tranny entryists is wrong, because, you know… it’s hurtful lol.
And that is wrong, because we need to appeal to such people. To paraphrase someone who said something:
“I think there is a resurgence of cis-bigotry in NRx because at this point in time NRx has not yet learned how to be trans-inclusive. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. NRx is not going to be the monolithic movement it once was in the last decade. Catholic shitposters are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for NRx to make. It is now going into a trans-inclusive mode and Catholic shitposters will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, NRx will not survive.”
Since NBS literally met with a tranny for a bit of smoking and chatting, again I ask: Would he make the effort to prevent his children from attending Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library? Maybe they’ve already attended – who even knows.
NRx has not yet learned how to be trans-inclusive…
>(because someone, ahem, bullycided all the gay weirdos out of NRx 0.2, which there were many, believe me)
Is that where Nydwracu went?
He quit because of trolling perpetrated by some other people. In retrospect, many of the original NRx thinkers left very little useful material to work with or at least to enjoy, so scarcely anyone even remembers them today. Other than his introduction of Fnord into official NRx lexicon, what are his contributions?
There is an official NRx lexicon?
There should be. But I have not seen it.
Perhaps I should not have referenced an “official lexicon,” but rather the “familiar set of NRx shibboleths,” though in practice that’s the same thing. “Fnord” is a Discordian meme that Nydwracu, Nick Land, and Scott Alexander popularized within NRx, and for a time everyone was familiar with the concept, similarly to e.g. Gnon, DROM, Cathedral.
If we define fnords as words (or phrases) intended as cognito-emotional blockers, designed to prevent rational evaluation of the text in which they appear by subconsciously generating feelings of uneasiness, then arguably mainstream articles about the Online Incel Community are the most striking examples of fnord-riddled verbiage, with a whopping average of approximately 30% of the content in these articles being fnords.
You’re not supposed to gain new information; you’re supposed to get a feeling that something is terribly wrong, with a “takeaway” that can be distilled simply as “INCEL COMMUNITY BAD.”
The concept of Non-Player Characters is pertinent here, in that these individuals’ speech — or, indeed, script — over-relies on the usage of fnords, and one’s ability to “see the fnords” allows one to realize that the NPC’s speech consists of little more than repetition of political mantras, with next to no informational processing working in the background, i.e., Orwell’s thoughtless DUCKSPEAK.
The phenomenon is not, however, confined to shitlib reporting on internet bogeymen; much of what circulates on the alt-right, including the notorious Qanon, is duck-spoken fnords – see for example the generic spam-like non sequitur comment down thread by xlibris, which comment amounts to some 85% fnord-text intended to scare-monger the audience into hating Jeffrey Epstein and Jewish “pedophiles”; the alt-right equivalent of ORANGE MAN BAD seems to be SEMITIC MAN BAD, or a common variant, SEMITIC MAN PEDO.
Here’s xlibris’ comment stripped of non-fnord text, a wall-of-text of his fnords:
When approximately 85% of a text is fnords, you’re dealing with a propaganda-posting NPC. Pure duckspeak. Kudos to Nydwracu for introducing this notion into NRx.
Anyway, you are right: There should be an official NRx lexicon (or list of useful concepts; and then there should be another list of anti-concepts); compiling one may be an interesting project indeed. I’ll see what I can do, when I have the time.
Well, Social[ist] Matter had one…
Maybe it’s time to recreate and improve upon it. On the other hand, doesn’t that make it easier for entryists to fake their way in?
There’s also an interesting pattern in what you classify as non-fnord text: “workers say”, “an engineer says”, “I’ve no idea if”, “but make no mistake”, “so he’s either”, “or merely a”.
Anonymous attributions and pseudo-deductions, both intended to give weight to the fnords by suggesting they’re either logic- or evidence-based, rather than wild speculation. Between the fnords and what I’ll call fnord-amplifiers, there’s no actual content.
Not sure if I totally agree with your classification, though. For example, “had children tortured & murdered” is a pretty explicit allegation, not a vague trigger-word. I understand fnords as being devoid of meaning on their own; “bigot”, “racism”, “harm”, “authoritarian”, etc.
That’s true, but the same critique can all the more so be made against the WRP questions: An entryist who finds them can just copy and paste the correct answers with a few minor word alterations, and thereby sneak in. (But this refers to independent entryists; paid and supervised shills probably won’t pull that off, since it’s a forbidden deviation from their scripts) Generally I wouldn’t worry about it: We need to clearly state what we believe, and not being a secret cult, it follows that our enemies will be exposed to the finer points of our worldview – no avoiding that.
I tend to believe that the objective truth is strongly and demonstrably on our side, so someone intelligent enough to actually grasp our thoughtcrimes is not unlikely to embrace them, if only secretly. Idiots probably can’t really understand what our thoughtcrimes even are, thus no need to worry about entryism from them — they just need to be bullycided — whereas a truly intelligent person, even if he sets out to study our worldview in order to harm us, is likely to eventually see the light.
Nah, they cannot.
They can cheerfully lie without hesitation, but saying our words triggers their crimestop module and shuts them down.
It is like holy water on a vampire or a demon being burned by touching the bible. Remember Angela Merkel shrinking from the German flag.
The devil can quote scripture to his purpose, and they will be able to quote fragments, but only by surrounding them with an obviously false context and attributing to the fragment an obviously false meaning, surrounding the very short fragment by a massive wall of text giving it a false meaning and context. The wall of text is not so much to deceive and persuade us, as to deceive and persuade their crimestop module.
Crimestop is crippling, and no end of things can trigger it.
Not Tom: you conspicuously ignore the part where I mention homes for wayward girls, a solution Jim has often explicitly endorsed. I’ll make it abundantly clear, if a girl misbehaves at an early age, try to marry her off to the guy she misbehaved with, if he’s an unacceptable husband, the father should try to marry her off at a discount to a suitable man.
If a girl is found somewhere she shouldn’t be and doing something she shouldn’t be doing, cops bring her back to her father. If her dad is bluepilled or simply can’t control her then the 3rd or 4th time she’s found misbehaving, the cops should just take her straight to the home for wayward girls. Any guy willing to kidnap her would be willing to take possession of her at the home and marry her there legitimately.
If she’s plain looking, then obviously will have to settle for a lesser husband, supply and demand (was this supposed to be a gotcha?). Pretty sure Rebekah saw Isaac as alpha even though he didn’t kidnap her. As was the case with most arranged marriages. My solution is more or less what was done in Christendom for centuries and centuries, seems to have worked pretty well until the 1800s or so. I suppose you could tell me that Medieval Christians were secretly marxists, but it’d be a rather laughable position.
Shaman: If you wanted to discredit NBS, you probably shouldn’t have linked to a post where Jim, the most right wing man on the internet, explicitly endorses, quotes and links to NBS’ position.
A key qualifier in Nick’s statement is “in certain situations” meaning that it’s unnecessary to offend a tranny in cases where the tranny is apt to cause a scene or get you fired. In the current year and in 2014, dealing with degenerates is unavoidable. Especially if you’re in a blue state. Even Jim has admitted to having gay friends and had that whole episode where a tranny cooked him dinner and offered Jim her(?) virginity. I was good friends in high school with a gay jew, we shared a lot of banter, I frequently make jokes about killing all the fags and stuff like that. Would not let that guy babysit my children. I think Nick shares a similar position to the tranny. That he’d share a cigarette with him doesn’t mean he’d take his kids to drag queen story time.
Trannies obviously don’t belong in the inner party. Nick’s strategy has always been a thousand ticks on the beast. The beast is the Cathedral and a tick is any sort of dissident thinker that drives people away from full blown leftism. His position is that even if other ticks are degenerate doxxers (Forney) or wrong about certain issues (the entire alt-right on women) we should still let them do their thing as the goal is to overcome the Cathedral rather than help it by swatting away rival ticks.
I don’t have the time to look into the whole Justin/Justine fiasco, since Jim sided with Nick I trust that his position was fine. The comments on that post look like minor and amicable squabbling over politeness while they agreeing on the main points. Social matter has, of course, repeatedly condemned drag queen story hour. Ryan Landry did a whole episode of Weimerica weekly about it.
No, I conspicuously reiterated and addressed that part as a nunnery and eventually brothel. What is the point of lying to me about what I literally just said?
…as an option for actual wayward girls. Strays, or girls put there by their fathers.
That’s MBA and/or shotgun marriage, but it’s not try, it’s require.
We reject your definitions of “unacceptable” and “suitable” as being exclusively determined by the father. Stop smuggling those in.
And there it is, exactly where I said you’d end up. Instead of private abduction by future husband, which most girls are happy with, we’ll have state abduction by the police, which emasculates both men and embarrasses the whole family. Socialism. No thanks.
Nikolai,
Nick B. Steves, who sees no enemies to his left, and no friends to his right, had brought in legions of SJWs and outright retards into NRx, and subsequently failed to disassociate from them. Thus all his projects have gone down the drain. We should learn from this experience and not repeat his mistakes.
Obvious difference between a home for wayward girls and a nunnery. The point of the former is to salvage used goods, the point of the latter is to house religious sisters. A man can waltz into the former and claim a wife, whereas a man cannot violate a sister’s vow of celibacy.
Obvious difference between a shotgun marriage and MBA. Shotgun marriage is the father making the fornicator marry his daughter (who do you think is pointing the shotgun at whom?) In an MBA the fornicator steals the daughter from the father.
This post is entitled The Faith, let’s see what The Faith says on the matter. Exodus 22:17 states that it’s up to the father to decide whether or not his daughter marries the guy she fornicated with. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 implies that it’s solely up to the father whether or not his daughter gets married and Paul encourages the father to keep his daughter unmarried unless she strongly desires to be wed.
St. Basil the Great, Church Father, Holy Hierarch, Doctor of the Church, writes in letter 199 XXII “Men who keep women carried off by violence, if they carried them off when betrothed to other men, must not be received before removal of the women and their restoration to those to whom they were first contracted, whether they wish to receive them, or to separate from them. In the case of a girl who has been taken when not betrothed, she ought first to be removed, and restored to her own people, and handed over to the will of her own people whether parents, or brothers, or any one having authority over her. If they choose to give her up, the cohabitation may stand; but, if they refuse, no violence should be used.
In the case of a man having a wife by seduction, be it secret or by violence, he must be held guilty of fornication. The punishment of fornicators is fixed at four years. In the first year they must be expelled from prayer, and weep at the door of the church; in the second they may be received to sermon; in the third to penance; in the fourth to standing with the people, while they are withheld from the oblation. Finally, they may be admitted to the communion of the good gift.”
There’s a reason it’s called a patriarchy and not a fornicatorarchy. I suppose you could tell me that Scripture, Tradition and the Communion of Saints are Marxist and that Sts. Moses, Paul and Basil were all bluepilled cucks. At which point I’d tell you to repent and believe in the Gospel.
Btw you might wanna check out Nick Land’s twitter if you want more examples of established neoreactionaries dissenting from the Jimian position.
In context, it should be clear that it is marriage against the will of either party – the girl wants to continue partying, and if children ensue her family will somehow take care of things, and the guy might well want to continue partying, while the family wants him stuck with responsibility for their daughter and grandchildren, and their daughter stuck with him. If she does not want to get married and very likely she does not want to get married, this indicates she will likely continue partying and eventually stick her family with an absolutely fatherless child.
Meanwhile, regardless of the will of the daughter, the family of the daughter, or the will of he man who banged her, the state wants to enforce its “one pussy per customer” rule. He will pop fewer balloons if he has the full time job of taking care of one chick. Having to look after her, and her looking after him, is going to cramp his style a bit. So the state wants them to damn well marry even if the whole damn lot disagree.
Maybe everyone involved is in favor of partying forever, but the state knows that when it comes to partying, the men it relies on to pay taxes and fight wars are apt to be the losers.
If his daughter is abducted, and he refuses marriage, well, OK, he gets his way, but, according to Exodus 22:17 he is being wrong, extreme, and unreasonable.
Presumably there are some cases where it is going to be a lot more wrong to refuse than other cases. Sex is messy, and it is hard to lay down hard and fast rules – but the rule of 22:17 is that it is not the father’s choice, except when it is.
Tedious and irrelevant to this conversation.
Tedious and wrong. You pulled that definition out of thin air. It certainly didn’t come from Jim, who specifically said upthread:
If it can happen without the consent of the father, it’s not ipso facto performed by the father.
The devil can cite scripture for his purpose. We’ve already seen dozens of Old Testament endorsements of MBA upthread.
Marriage isn’t fornication, and patriarchy doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s rule by men, not rule by fathers.
No, but I’ll tell you that you are one.
Jim is the Gospel.
“Tedious and wrong. You pulled that definition out of thin air.”
This is the standard definition of a shotgun marriage, moron. Google image search “shotgun marriage”. Every photo is a bride and groom with the bride’s father pointing a shotgun at the groom. Exactly what I described.
“Marriage isn’t fornication, and patriarchy doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s rule by men, not rule by fathers.”
Fornication is sex outside of marriage. Kidnapping is not a wedding. See St. Basil on the subject and see how Shechem tries to arrange a marriage for him and Dinah after defiling her. Implying that, even in Old Testament times, kidnapping and fornication does not constitute a marriage.
Also ‘Patri’ literally means ‘father’ and ‘archy’ means ‘rule by’. Where do you think the word patriarchy comes from? “Patriarchy from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhÄ“s ‘ruling father’” You’re trying to tell me that ‘rule by fathers’ doesn’t really mean rule by fathers?
“Jim is the Gospel.”
Did this sound clever in your head? This is just the right wing equivalent of cringe fedora tipping. Sorry bro, I’m gonna have to go with Jesus Christ over Foghorn Leghorn.
Blue pill propaganda. It fails to reflect the reality that it is women, not men, who are resisting and delaying marriage. The problem is that when a man settles down with a woman, he is fine with keeping her, though he may want to fuck other women as well, but women are apt to be permanently on the prowl.
The problem is never or rarely getting men to get married. The problem is forcing women to accept marriage, forcing them to make their choice once and forever. They don’t wanna. They want drama, conquest, then more drama and reconquest by a new conqueror. Observe romance sequels.
As I am always saying, Chastity and Monogamy were invented when a band of ape men killed the males of another band of ape men, killed their mothers, killed their children, and took their fertile age females for themselves. Women have never been on board with chastity and monogamy. They want the alpha male to kill all the other males and rape all the other males’ women. Female sexuality is disruptive to male cohesion, as you can see in any workplace.
You favor a satanic inversion of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ as interpreted by gnostics and progressives, not the Jesus Christ of the Christian tradition.
First Millenium Christianity supported Old Testament marriage, where the wife was given completely from the power of her birth family to her husband family, as Tamar, Genesis 38 was.
You say that patriarchy is authority of fathers, but in the Old and New Testaments, power over the wife corresponds to Roman cum Manu marriage, where power over the wife goes completely, absolutely, and irrevocably to the husband. And thus the husband is in his wife’s eyes, alpha.
Further, you have one case of the Jews objecting to marriage by abduction – and no end of cases of them practicing marriage by abduction. One case of them objecting does not make marriage by abduction wrong, any more than Abraham engaging in wife sharing makes wife sharing right. You should not invoke Genesis for moral examples, nor Exodus until the ten commandments.
The idea of religion as a detailed and coherent divinely imposed morality does not really show up in Bible until the Axial age when we get divinely backed lawgivers, does not really show up until Moses gets the ten commandments. The bible does not take any very specific position on moral questions until Moses gets the ten commandments.
What seems to have happened is that towards the end of the Bronze Age, civilization was falling apart, and people started thinking about how to hold it together, much as we are today as our civilization falls apart. Then after things fell apart, those putting things together again called upon God, and you got the Axial age.
Calling upon God, however, led to the error of deducing ought from ought – phariseeism, the trolly problem, and the Jewish obsession with cheese crumbs. So, in the Christian age, we were told to ditch the letter of the law.
And this time around, we call on Gnon, uniting the old and new Testaments.
First you argue that we need to use the “standard” (actually progressive) definition, and then literally two paragraphs down you argue that we need to not use the standard definition. Top marks.
And abduction is not kidnapping, because no kids are involved.
Indeed. The great thing – for you – about Jesus Christ is that he isn’t around to tell any of us what he really meant, so you can freely employ all sorts of heretical interpretations in your Argumentum ad Jesusum..
At least until you get called out on it, which has happened several times already.
And don’t call me “bro” unless you’ve got the guns to prove it.
>unless those ideas involve liquidating the bourgeoisie.
Nah that would be *your* department. Communists wanted to take the assets of the bourgeois by force; you want to take their women by force. The common denominator is that you want to take what doesn’t belong to you, and want to bring down all law and order to accomplish it. You would likewise Kulak the middle class people if they resisted, only you’d call them blue-pilled instead of reactionaries. Carry on w/the memeplexing though, Lenin and Mao got results maybe you will be able to too.
Your horny 13-year-old daughter who runs off at night wearing underwear is no longer owned by you.
Okay, since you’re so fond of analogies, think about it this way: You technically own a slave, but in practice that slave does whatever the heck he wants, running all over town and spreading mischief and mayhem, and you can’t seem to gain control over him; is it not 100% natural that someone will take matters into his own hands and do whatever is necessary to stop your slave’s misbehavior?
Same applies to the aforementioned horny 13-year-old daughter who runs off at night wearing a bikini and nothing else: Technically you own her, practically she needs someone to fuck her brains out and is going to cause chaos until she gets her sexual needs satisfied, and since (being Blue Pilled) you have failed to marry her off, someone is going to take matters into his own hands and get her MbA.
No use crying “abloo-abloo” about it: If your property uncontrollably destructively misbehaves when technically under your ownership, that misbehaving destructive property will be transferred to someone who is capable of managing it rightfully.
It’s not even remotely reminiscent of Communism, because we’re not toppling an apple cart and redistributing the apples; we’re putting a stop an outbreak of eruptive volcanic forces threatening to consume our town, in light of the (former) volcano owner’s rank incompetence in managing the situation. Yes, conservadaddy, you used to own a volcano, but since you couldn’t and wouldn’t get it under control, we did – after having taken over it and by managing it properly. Deal with it.
The Blue Pill equals female sexual misbehavior, infanticide of children wanted by their father at the hands of slut-mom’s new drug-dealing boyfriend, cannibalization of baby meat and intact fetal cadavers, 9-year-old boys diddled at Crossdresser Story Hour, and killjoyhood.
All women are like that. Human nature is unchanging. State law, Christian doctrine, and social enforcement needs to reflect that unchanging and universal nature, the nature of woman as accurately depicted by the red pill.
The family law and sex law of First Temple Israel and First Millenium Christianity reflected the universal and unchanging nature of women. Blue pill Christianity, as a result of holiness spiraling, instituted new, stupid, and ever more destructive laws, and to justify these spiteful, evil, hateful, and increasingly demonic laws had to indoctrinated everyone with an entirely deluded account of female nature.
>All women are like that. Human nature is unchanging. State law, Christian doctrine, and social enforcement needs to reflect that unchanging and universal nature, the nature of woman as accurately depicted by the red pill.
There’s varying methods throughout history of doing that though, and the methods have to be compatible with other core customs and practices. In our case private enforcement will have to be adjusted according to the Sovereign power’s insistence on a public monopoly on justice and law enforcement, since in the West this has been regarded as the very essence of State sovereignty and will likely continue to be.
As Jim has pointed out up until the progressive era in the early 1900s the west had a very cheerful attitude toward pro social private violence.
Depends what kind of violence. Well into the 20th c. they’d still let guys have a fight if nobody pulled out a gun. Immediate community would supervise fight to make sure. No they wouldn’t let you kidnap anybody though, and won’t in any foreseeable future, barring some kind of Mad Max scenario in which the goodmen of the town would simply re-found the State and that would be the end of that.
I agree but you are moving the goalposts from what you said above (which i did not agree with).
The Western tradition was that the state had a monopoly (or at least had to sanction) ORGANIZED violence but was quite willing to allow pro-social private violence and that most “law enforcement” was merely the state blessing people protecting their own lives and property. Saying otherwise is progressive history. And bringing in bluepill anticoncepts and history is what gets you in trouble here not merely disagreeing.
I dissent from Jim on a lot of particulars in terms of marriage laws… we want to go into the same direction but differ on a lot of details. I don’t bring in bluepill history and anticoncepts when I disagree.
Things I have disagreed with Jim on.
1. I’m against chattel slavery on a permanent basis (rather then a temporary solution to what to do with all the shitlibs after a civil war)… I think bringing that one back is a horrible idea. Slavery in the long term is not good the economy… not only does it act as a huge subsidy for existing slaveholders but as a huge tax on free laborers. Its historically not been good for economies that practiced it, the North economically massively outperformed the South and Prussia/Germany outperformed Russia in the 19th century.
Rome mostly stopped advancing in non-military technology after the Punic wars when they acquired masses of slaves… it also created the whole Populares-Optimate conflict.
Conclusion is that it is best if the king bans chattel slavery. Left wing women after the civil war can be sold as non-hereditary bound concubines… but they cannot be allowed to work outside their masters home.
2. I’m all for general incorporation (Jim seems to be against it or undecided with severe reservations). The greatest economic growth in history was in the 19th century, after general incorporation but before the progressive regulatory state.
Yes it was a mistake to get rid of enforcable apprenticeship and I agree 100% with Jim on bringing it back but I think general incorporation is absolutely fantastic.
3. Punishment for adultery/how severely you can discipline women and children under normal circumstances… I think if you send your wife and kids to the emergency room without very clear severe provacation something should be done. I think you should be able to have adulteress and such publically humilated and whipped more severely then normally would be allowed… but I’m against quite allowing death for it.
4. I have resevations about marriage by abduction at younger ages without the father’s consent. Particulary if the father is intelligent and respectable or wealthy and the boy is stupid and not really suitable. I’m not sure about how the details of this should be handled.
5. Strong strongly opposed to bastardcide, if the kid likes to torture small animals or start fires that is a different matter.
6. On most issues I tend to be more moderate and humane then Jim… but not this one.
I think that all male leftists should be helicopter rided should it come to civil war and we win, EVERY LAST ONE. Male leftists are vermin and the best way to eradicate the leftist memeplex is to eradicate leftists. Jim has suggested we won’t need to do many helicopter rides. This is the mistake the right always makes… wipe them out I say.
Male leftists unlike bastards are not innocent, why should we spare a single one of them.
Here is one way we could give effect to it: For husband rights to trump and supercede father rights, you have to hold an actual marriage ceremony before God, man, and family.
For the state to back husband rights against father rights, the state has to register and record your marriage: It has to be held before, God, man, family and the state.
We have contractual and sacramental marriage, still have it in form though contractual marriage died in the seventies, and sacramental marriage has been played down for a thousand years. Ideally a marriage shold be both contractual and sacramental: The bride says “I do”, and the groom says “with this ring I the wed” Contractual marriage is subject to the natural law of contract. Sacramental marriage subject to the Revelatory law of God.
The state might forbid sacramental only marriages, unilateral marriage, and refuse to recognize and enforce husband rights in that case, unless the bride is plausibly badly behaved, (As, for example, she was detained while partying unescorted or improperly escorted, or went behind closed doors with a man) the father ineffectual at controlling her, and the husband has demonstrable capability to take care of a wife. (As, for example, two years of tax returns, or successful completion of an apprenticeship.)
There was an interesting blackmail case in the eighteenth century where a man was blackmailed for a very large sum of money and state secrets because he allowed another man’s wife to enter his hotel room and close the door behind her, and no end of shotgun marriages for similar reasons.
Everyone knows that if a girl goes to your place “for a cup of coffee”, or to see your etchings, she is down to fuck. In reactionary America, the state will know what everyone knows, and sacramental marriage, not necessarily accompanied by contractual marriage, should ensue.
Doug is not merely disagreeing with Jim; he is actively concern trolling, in similar fashion to CR: “You cannot do X, because people won’t let you.”
Yes, we can do X, and we will, and the people will be meme’d into supporting our program.
There is some difference between coup-complete and jihad complete problems.
Some of what Jim wants to do I would grudgingly agree are more “jihad complete” then “coup-complete”.
Allowing arranged marriages for 16 year old girls is coup complete, allowing marriage by abduction for badly behaving 12 year old girls… jihad complete. I’m not saying you couldn’t eventually bring society around but don’t try to do it anytime soon even if you win the war. Wait for a generation after at least.
Nuts
It is vastly easier to allow marriage by abduction for badly behaved twelve year old girls than to get parents to put their terrified children on the laps of drag queens, for one is in accordance with human nature, and the nature of the people doing it, and the other contrary to human nature.
If authority stops forbidding marriage by abduction of badly behaved girls (the crime being letting them go afterwards) it will happen. And who will care?
Compared to the radical overnight social changes that keep being forced down our throats every couple of years, marriage by abduction is nothing at all.
We allow the murder of babies against the will of the father immediately after they are born, and no one blinks. You think they are going to blink at marriage by abduction?
I have ONE who I would very much like to spare (I think if I can get him to move out of Boston he’ll eventually listen) but we need to be realistic about what it will take to really eradicate their memeplex… the bioleninist/free shit memeplex has a formidable appeal. Eradicating it in such a way that it never recovers will require ruthless measures.
In 2008, Obama was against Gay Marriage.
In 2019, 8-year-old children are are brought to Drag Queen Story Hour, and are themselves genitally and hormonally disfigured into trannies.
It’s pretty obvious that “the people” derive their sense of morality from the priesthood. If the priesthood decided that incestuous necrophilia, bestial necrophilia, bestial coprophagia, and so on, was in vogue, then it would be in vogue.
Sure, independent minded intelligent people may notice that something is amiss when the fancy restaurant’s menu starts containing a meal called “Human Baby Meat” (it tastes just like chicken). But the NPCs will not notice anything, and the NPCs set the tone in accordance with the latest psyop and the latest official or unofficial script issued from the Cathedral.
“Come on shaman, you don’t really believe your own nonsense” – and yet, the fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood sells baby meat and toddlers are undergoing “sex change” surgeries and put on hormone blockers. Contrary to CR and Doug, the individualistic, atomized citizenry is not going to do shit without prompting from above, by an elite faction.
If abortion is not murder, if Abortion is BEAUTIFUL, then why not eat a fetus? And why not have sex with an intact fetal cadaver? If your father or your dog died, would you not pay him your last respects by shoving some of his bones into your anus, after consuming some of the surrounding flesh? Why are you recoiling in horror and revulsion, bigot? Isn’t morbidity erotic? Did not Ted Bundy have a point?
“ABORTION IS BEAUTIFUL!” – Planned Parenthood
Yes indeed friends, abortion is beautiful, says a woman who underwent it:
But wait, there’s more; a different website quotes a would-be abortionist as saying:
If Jim and We his Sycophants were not such pseudo-scientific misogynistic moralistic Bible-thumpers, we too would realize that abortion is beautiful. It is an aesthetically pleasing, appealing thing for sure. Watching a fetus sliced to shreds is as psychologically comforting and elating as looking at the Sistine Chapel. It’s just beautiful.
Truth is, “the people” can be convinced of absolutely anything. Moreover, they are so emotionally numb that they don’t really need much convincing to keep quiet – prolefeed is incredibly effective. Honestly, Cominator – compared with the grotesques of the current year, would not even you accept literally everything on Jim’s list — bastardicide, marriage by abduction, en masse enslavement of feral niggers, spics, and towelheads, the whole bit — just to have something different than Globohomo Morality up in the air?
>progressive history. […] bluepill history and anticoncepts.
????
Blue pill history: Fake history taught in schools. Gets rewritten at alarmingly frequent intervals. Projects the latest weirdness back in time, creating a Fred Flintstone version of the past. Except when there is something about the present that they now intend to destroy, in which case it only happened yesterday. Examples: They still cannot acknowledge that Regency England had a regent that was not appointed by Parliament, but by God, so they either deny he was ever Regent, imply that parliament appointed him, or both simultaneously. The Great Zimabwe.
Anticoncept: Orwellian newspeak. Words coined to shut down crimethought, prevent noticing, and just plain lie. An anticoncept makes things that alike different, and things that are different alike. Examples “Pedophilia”, “racism”, “psychopath”, “sweatshop”, “self harm”.
“I think that all male leftists should be helicopter rided should it come to civil war and we win, EVERY LAST ONE.”
Have you thought about the inefficiency of helicopter rides? If you wanted to kill ALL, why would you use helicopter rides?
Killing ALL is leftist (fun and games until ALL expands to include you); right-wing coups kill only the minimum necessary. Hence helicopter rides. Eliminate only the worst, the rest fall in line.
Useful euphemistic phrase is euphemistic…
>Projects the latest weirdness back in time, creating a Fred Flintstone version of the past. Except when there is something about the present that they now intend to destroy, in which case it only happened yesterday.
“History is the struggle of women and minorities for a seat at the table of [field] from which they were unjustly excluded”
And *at the same time*:
“Women and minorities have always exercised prominent roles in [field]”
And finally:
“The struggle for inclusion and social justice isn’t even close to being won”.
> No they wouldn’t let you kidnap anybody though,
there’s a miserable slut with a kid she regularly endangers and a man who wants nothing more than to be a family. This is what I don’t get about the whole sluts and kids without fathers are great thing, it just doesn’t work out. What if Dinah had come back pregnant, what would have happened to Shechem’s baby?
Very good. But can you take a step farther than criticizing only the latest bleeding-edge SJW insanity?
Circa 1925:
“Prostitution is a form of slavery. Women are promiscuous and immoral because men force them.”
At the same time:
“Women have always been strong and independent. Flappers and petting parties today are just like the Gibson Girls 30 years ago.”
And finally:
“Property requirements for voting are a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise women, and we still have a long way to go toward true equality.”
>Very good. But can you take a step farther than criticizing only the latest bleeding-edge SJW insanity?
Sure can. The following was the prototype for all such revisionism:
Late 18th c. British North America
“History is the process whereby Reason enlightens men about the injustice of submitting to despots who tax and legislate without their consent, and the struggle for Liberty and the Rights of Man against taxation without representation, etc.”
“Amongst the Anglo-Saxons the power of legislation and taxation have always been vested in the subject.”
“Now we’ve abolished monarchy, and yet the struggle for democracy is far from complete”.
Another thing:
Tard-Cuckism has been wholesale rejected, you utter ideological loser; it is Neo-Reaction that is on the rise, and your bitter whining about it only makes our triumphs all the more delicious. Deal with it: Tard-Cuckism is a pile of blue pilled demonic lies, and unsurprisingly, Tard-Cuckism is as dead as an ideology can be. NRx, however, is only growing stronger.
What most people are saying when they talk about “underage” girls is that there’s no real difference between age 12 and 18, and some girls mature even earlier. It’s not an obsession with age, but rather what Moldbug would call “anti-spin”, an attempt to coax other people out of their obsession with age.
A ten-year-old boy does not go cruising for anal penetration, and we can test this empirically by studying the unrestricted behavior of ten-year-old boys around other boys of his own age and older heterosexual men. On the other hand, most 12-year-old girls do go cruising for vaginal penetration, and we can test this empirically by studying the unrestricted behavior of 12-year-old girls around 12-year-old boys, 18-year-old boys, 50-year-old men, horses, large dogs, cars with stick shifts, and certain kinds of vegetable produce. And this is no different from the behavior of 18-year-old girls, except that 18-year-old girls have a much easier time attracting men of any age because their secondary sex characteristics are more fully developed.
The only reason why “underage” girls are important is because AoC laws and Puritan sexual mores declare that girls of a young age cannot have sex drives, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that men manipulate and force them, and if 12-year-old girls are completely innocent, then why not 18? Why not 45? Why not all women are completely innocent, and all men are disgusting creeps whose sexuality needs to be criminalized? That is the real holiness spiral, and there is no point in pretending that it is theoretical or hypothetical because that is exactly the trajectory that feminism has followed, right up to the #MeToo movement in which 70-year-old slags claim that rich men preyed on them 30 years ago in order to get cash settlements or just petty revenge.
What reactionaries want is for men to recognize that girls have a sex drive whenever they show signs of having a sex drive, which can be earlier than a lot of men – including their fathers – expect. We want men to be legally able to treat girls as girls and women as women. And unfortunately it seems that this needs repeating fairly often, because tradcons/boomercons/alt-lite keep stumbling in here and whining about “muh underage girls”.
AoC laws, and the long-term effect they’ve had on public morality, are rocket fuel for feminism. They plant the idea that some girls who commit indecent acts only did so because of evil men, and it is a very slippery slope indeed from “some” to “all”. Curing the patient requires killing the disease, not merely managing the symptoms.
AoC laws enjoy runaway popularity w/ the common man, and with very good reason: the common man, having been strictly forbidden by the State from using violence or the threat of it to keep the chastity of his women intact (it does not matter who is cruising for what; everyone including the old man already knew that teenagers have sexual desires, which isn’t some kind of enormous recent scientific discovery), has an absolutely and incontrovertibly rightful expectation that the State will use violence or the threat of it on his behalf in this area- and even the Liberal State is not yet disordered enough to totally disdain to do so, which would be a fundamental injustice even by Liberal standards. So the stopgap solution was AoC- which *of course* is premised on blue-pilled assumptions, because as of right now *any* legislative solution to any social problem must be premised on blue-pilled assumptions or at least compatible with them in order to avoid being vetoed by the Cathedral. It would be a grave injustice to take this last crumb away from the middle class without restoring patriarchal rights first; to talk about doing the former in advance of doing the latter is to put the cart before the horse, and moreover in a way guaranteed to give people the wrong idea.
AoC laws do not give suitable men 1st crack, quite the opposite.
But they’re better than nothing, not least of all for a reason I forgot to mention: they comprise some the very last vestiges of formal acknowledgment that teenage girls aren’t strong independent warriors who alone know what’s good for them, since it’s their body their choice. These judicial proceedings in fact represent law working the way Nature intended it to in that they are a contest between men in which what the female at the centre of the controversy wants and thinks is explicitly deemed completely irrelevant at the outset, on the grounds that said female lacks the faculty of judgment and that therefore *it does not matter what she thinks*. If anything, I for one want to see *more* laws like this not less, laws that would cover every stage of the life course from cradle to grave.
Nuts
These “pedophilia” proceedings presuppose that men are responsible for the bad conduct of women. They consist of men doing counterproductive, cruel, evil, stupid, and destructive things because there is a real problem that they cannot address, or even acknowledge.
These proceedings are evil, destructive, and conducted by evil men for evil motives, that motive being to perpetuate, not solve, the problem. They are not better than nothing, because they not merely distract from the problem of misbehaving girls, they punish random males who are vaguely in the general vicinity of misbehaving girls, giving misbehaving girls superweapons to facilitate their continuing misbehavior.
Further, being in possession of superweapons makes it harder for the girl to accomplish what she is unconsciously trying to accomplish, harder for her to find an owner, because she will use those superweapons to shit test any male who might take possession of her.
Look at Mastodon: Mastodon exists because of censorship of cartoon depictions of females deemed under age – though most of the females depicted have boobs large enough to make excellent pillows, and highly effective flotation devices if lost at sea.
Then the progressives took over Mastodon, and used it to push cartoon depictions of small boys being transexualized. After all, if one cartoon depiction of an “underage” girl with boobs large enough to rescue someone lost at sea, same thing as a cartoon depiction of a small boy being sex changed, right? Thus we see “pedophilia” being used to push gay sex and sex changes for small boys to straights.
The Mastodon that is pushing transexualization of nine year old boys to straights using the concept of “pedophiia” the same Mastodon as is attempting to deplatform Gab for allowing racism.
Okay, now this is just straight-up entryism, trying to present a false dilemma between progressivism and blue-pilled trad-conservatism. It’s bullshit. Stop it.
And this is the real problem with sex crime laws, that a woman is subconsciously tempted to use legal superweapons to test which male is strong enough to overcome them (after all the chief or king of the tribe could), being the slaves of ancient instincts. Or consciously tempted to use them for her own destructive or self destructive purposes.
Age of consent laws set below 14 aren’t so bad in this respect because its rare women are so uncontrollable or troublesome before this age (it happens but very rare) but they REALLY REALLY shouldn’t be higher then 14.
AoC laws preceded “domestic violence” hysteria and no-fault divorce, not the other way around. Your conclusion is incorrect because your chronology is impossible.
The AoC was as low as 7 years old in some regions of the USA at certain times. The assertion that raising the AoC was a popular move at the time it was raised requires evidence, because in more recent history, raising the AoC has been an extremely unpopular move, such as about 10 years ago when they did it in Canada. Even with horribly blue-pilled assumptions, 14 years old was a common AoC until the early 21st century, and 12 years old was common not long before that – and it is not in evidence that common people demanded even that lower AoC, rather than having it imposed on them like the Mann Act and Civil Rights Act.
The “common man” tends to accept and internalize whatever the laws happen to be at the time, and yet raising the AoC is consistently unpopular. The facts, to the extent that we have any facts, indicate the opposite of what you claim.
It’s far more likely that raising AoC was popular with the same sorts of women who also advocated prohibition of alcohol and other stupid “vice” laws.
Observed behavior is that the common man, seeing conspicuous age differences in real life, does not react in practice as he piously proclaim he would. It is doublethink and crimestop. Once in a while you get negative reactions from the common woman, but that is very obviously just sour grapes – the chronic female belief that men can be and should be shamed into desiring women past fertile age.
In my sixties I was living with a chick who regularly got carded in the pub and was frequently mistaken for being school age. No negative reaction from males. One negative reaction from a woman who asked how old she was, and suggested that she appeared to be fourteen. I replied sternly: “She is old enough to get pregnant, and I am young enough to father children”, and the topic was instantly dropped.
When I was a young man, a very]long time ago, I had one negative interaction over this issue with police, who were entirely polite and apologetic, and explained they had to investigate because “an old woman complained”. No one actually wants to enforce these laws in real life against men escorting fertile age women.
The reactionary doctrine that fertile age is what matters is simply unchallengeable. It is so obviously true that no one questions it in real life, if it is stated.
People theoretically support age of consent laws in the same doublethink crimestop way they support the rest of the progressive agenda. No one wants to enforce these laws against real life people unless they have some other reason for wanting to get the target male. They are only going after Epstein because they hope to get him to compose on Trump.
I am reminded of a former acquaintance, a white man’s white man with a typical white guy name and typical white guy hobbies like TV and football, not a ladykiller by any means but generally getting a decent amount of play. I never actually saw him with any girl more than a few years his junior, but one of his slogans was: if there’s grass on the field, play ball. Always stated in that half-joking tone suggesting “officially it’s a joke, but…”.
In my college days, the unwritten rule/taboo for dating age gaps was “half your age plus five years”, implying it is perfectly normal for 18-year-olds to bone 14-year-olds, and 25-year-olds to bone 17-year-olds. Definitely prudish by biblical standards, but still far looser than the norms that guys pretend to have when they think that older women or FBI agents are listening in, and technically in violation of current AoC laws. Also, there were variations; in some circles it was half plus three, so 18/12 or 25/15 would be fine.
I can think of many more stories like this, some quite a bit juicier, but will have to withhold them to avoid leaving too many breadcrumbs for griefers to follow. The salient point is that it’s all terribly ordinary and most guys know it. In practice, AoC violations are pretty much only ever an issue when either (a) the mother finds out and goes mental, or (b) it’s dirt that can be used against a political enemy like Roy Moore.
To be honest, I have to wonder if some of these screechers are not only incel, but have never even been part of a normal male social group. Guys who had male friends in high school or early college must surely know all of this already.
Wrong on all points.
Uh – lay off the drugs before posting.
Translation from your native tongue (Drooled Retardese): “I have no response, I am indeed by my own admission a childless white knight faggot, so I’ll come up with a non-entertaining insult and call it a day.”
Isn’t it peculiar how blue-pillers are always, invariably, total failures at everything? Like, don’t people just realize eventually that blue-pilled thoughts flow from cognitively impaired brains, and conclude that such people should just be ignored? Maybe they do realize that and do conclude that. 🙂
By the way, why do you press Enter after every sentence, Tard-Cuck? Half of the people here don’t read your comments for that very reason. Seems that you are not intelligent enough to use either readable sentence structure, or proper paragraph structure. It all sounds like:
Blah.
Blah.
Blah.
Blah.
Blah.
That’s how your posts read, and everyone who’s honest will confirm this accurate impression. The funniest of all is when you respond to yourself, thus creating entire threads of Verbal Vomit. It reads like:
This, and nothing else, is your “contribution” to all the NRx communities that ever accepted you. People don’t read your posts. I have a feeling that Jim only reads, like, 50% of your posts from beginning to end – and responds to perhaps 5%.
If you’re going to post endless walls of text, at least say something smart or entertaining. But nah, you’re here to tell us about your blue-pilled worldview, and about how Jim is dangerous sexual predator because your hypothetical daughter is a big whore, and how people here should opt for celibacy and childlessness like “traditional” (lol, no) white knights like you.
You are not “traditional.” No old loser with 0 children is “traditional.” You are a demonic blue-piller who is constantly out of his depth. You are a serial spammer of Nutty Nonsense. You’re boring, and lame, and your condition IRL reflects your character precisely: Achieved nothing, loveless, childless, and mentally handicapped.
Does it feel good, or bad, knowing that you’ll die leaving absolutely no legacy behind you? Does it feel good, or bad, being a childless old loser? Does it feel good, or bad, being unable to even think like a real human?
You scare no one here with your “HURR DURR, I’M GONNA BEAT UP MEN WHO TALK TO MY NON-EXISTENT DAUGHTER.” You’re not going to beat anyone up, and you’ll never have children at all. Stop wasting everyone’s time with your Tard-Cuck LARPing.
Lol.
Brah.
You’re headed for the looney bin, rehab or jail.
Be sure to share your views on no age of consent.
Its true I don’t want to talk much about women, I want to talk about war- Holy war. As part of the bargain we get stable marriage.
We can safely form families.
How many kids have you had again? BTW?
Since this seems to be important.
That’s a woman’s not man’s Victory you know.
Men don’t win by children.
Women do.
Its also true I like to break up my thoughts into separate sentences.
Finally; you don’t let anything go here.
Jim does.
Shan’t engage further.
Out.
Shan’t be engaging further.
Believe me, I’ve been here before you, and will be here long after you.
Abolition of the AoC is the NRx consensus. You are not familiar with NRx ideology, you don’t even have enough oxygenated brain cells to grasp it anyway, and you all you ever do is spam the blog with the same old boring “ATTACK! ACTION! ORGANIZE! START DOING! GO GO GO!” and so on and so forth.
Have you ever had an original idea in your entire pointless life?
Cringe and blue-pilled. The future belongs to those who show up. By your own admission, you have left no descendants to show up – LOSER.
Of course. Now stop spamming his blog with blue pilled lies, and stop telling us how you’re going to beat evil men up for talking to your non-existent daughter. If you continue spamming the blue-pill, there is a fair chance that you’ll have your sweaty butt kicked out of here by the entire community and, of course, by the host.
This is the priesthood. You will submit to your intellectuals and ideological superiors, or they will bullycide you. These are the rules, Tard-Cuck.
>Abolition of the AoC is the NRx consensus.
Yes. But I would also say, low AOC is far less harmful than high AOC.
14 like in half of Europe is OK because most parents are able to keep 14 year old daughters out of night clubs and parties. Curfew at 21:00 and so on. Most parents are able to treat a 14 as still very much like a child with those kinds of rules. At 16 it is harder, at 17 it is very hard. (In the current system!) They demand to go out, to dance, and party. Loudly. And they want sex. Especially after drinking, which is solvable if older girls are buying or simply a busy bar has no time for carding them. They seduce guys in night clubs. Do those guys deserve prison? Don’t think so. Should they card the girls? Nothing would destroy a romantic mood faster than going “Your papers, please!â€.
There is also the thing called Fast/Slow Life History Strategy. It is fascinating causal link between a lot of apparently different but correlated things. Basically folks who had a stressful childhood do stuff faster. Not only they are likely to have high time preferences, be impulsive, but also in the physical sense, get to puberty faster, and look older than their age. In our school puberty tended to be 12-13. But it can be as early as 9 and as late as 15. And I think the theory checks out, it is always those kids from the super highly functional rich and well educated families who look like children at 15. Both girls and guys. Meanwhile, you go to some thrashy area, and you see 13 years old boys pretty much looking like mini-men and the girls mini-women.
I should add: the speed of Life History Strategy is *correlated* with childhood stress, and the usual nurture-only social scientists tend to assume it is caused by it. However it is entirely possible it is genetic, have impulsive genes, age faster, while your parents’ impulsive genetics make your childhood stressful. Kinda like that study that showed that it is not getting spanked as a child that leads to bad life outcomes, rather it is having the kind of genetics you get from parents who are most likely to often spank their children does. Kids with impulsive genetics kids misbehave, parents with impulsive genetics spank them.
Anyway, the point is, with a nice not stressful childhood and/or nice genetics, girls don’t have puberty and look fuckworthy much earlier than 14. And men who fuck pre-puberty children do deserve prison. Hence while AoC is generally the bad approach, 14 is in practice not too harmful.
I don’t get it. If you accept that:
1. There is great variety among girls, some getting horny at 15, others at 9;
2. You accept that horny girls, whatever their age, are going to seek out to get laid, and will often enough succeed;
Then what sense is there is in having any AoC higher than, say, 8? An AoC of 14 would make some sense if we lived in a world where no girls sexually misbehave prior to 14, no girls are fuckable prior to 14, or if it were totally feasible to firmly and tightly control all girls younger than 14.
Since, so it seems, you accept that this is not at all the case, what logic is there in punishing men for the sexual proclivities of girls younger than 14? The girls are still going to get banged, but now your prison is filled with members of your in-group, overwhelmingly warriors, workers, and taxpayers who aren’t priestly and nerdy enough to reason themselves into celibacy.
I can accept an AoC of 8, but anything higher simply allows girls to sexually misbehave while placing the blame on men. There is also a slippery slope issue, in that, first they introduced relatively sensible AoC laws, but as always happens with Progressive legislation (and make no mistake, AoC has always been fundamentally Progressive), it rapidly degenerated to the unspeakable Lovecraftian abomination of unreasonably high AoC such as 18 in some American states.
Thus, sure, lower is better than higher, but abolishing it altogether in favor of other methods to deal with the problem — such as those discussed at very great and tedious length in this thread — is far better.
>An AoC of 14 would make some sense if we lived in a world where no girls sexually misbehave prior to 14
My point is that their parents usually succeed to control them prior 14.
>what logic is there in punishing men for the sexual proclivities of girls younger than 14?
None at all, this is why I accept the abolition consensus. My point was that it is less bad, does not do much harm, because it rarely happens. When it does happen, it is still bad to punish the man for it.
>The girls are still going to get banged, but now your prison is filled with members of your in-group, overwhelmingly warriors, workers, and taxpayers
Not really. My reasoning is that puberty at 9 happens in trashy circles. My in-group is middle-class who don’t mingle much with trashy people (not that much white trash is left in Europe, except the UK, anyway) and I don’t really care much for trashy men. More importantly, in trashy circles a lot of law-breaking goes unreported and unpunished. It is in middle-class circles where charges are typically pressed and their daughters do not reach puberty much earlier than 14.
>Thus, sure, lower is better than higher, but abolishing it altogether in favor of other methods to deal with the problem — such as those discussed at very great and tedious length in this thread — is far better.
Yes, that is why I accept the abolition consensus.
>Not really. My reasoning is that puberty at 9 happens in trashy circles. My in-group is middle-class who don’t mingle much with trashy people (not that much white trash is left in Europe, except the UK, anyway) and I don’t really care much for trashy men. More importantly, in trashy circles a lot of law-breaking goes unreported and unpunished. It is in middle-class circles where charges are typically pressed and their daughters do not reach puberty much earlier than 14.
I should probably expand on this. In 14 AoC countries gypsy girls regularly live with a man at 12. But who cares? Certainly not the police. They have more important shit to do. The girls parents don’t push them. Their culture is that they are happy to get grandchildren from 12 years old daughters. Likely something similar with the ahola snackbar types. Who cares? Hardly any white trash left over here. How much white trash is left in the US anyway? Not much I think. Parents of the kind who would care and would push charges are also parents of the kind whose daughters have their puberty not much before 14.
@TheDividualist
Early puberty is caused by Fatherlessness in most cases.
Not talking about early puberty.
I am talking about all nine year old girls.
Trashy behavior of children is today a worse problem for the upper class and the elite than it is for the working class, because the center of the disease is Harvard.
>There is also a slippery slope issue, in that, first they introduced relatively sensible AoC laws, but as always happens with Progressive legislation (and make no mistake, AoC has always been fundamentally Progressive), it rapidly degenerated to the unspeakable Lovecraftian abomination of unreasonably high AoC such as 18 in some American states.
Now this is an actually good argument. My point was that me living in typically 14 AoC countries and this was fairly stable for a long time, for me it is not really a high priority to fix this. If you live in a 18 place, better to go full reactionary on it and abolish the whole thing. And the argument that it is something prone to attract holiness spirals and the AoC increases rapidly whenever it does is very good. It is entirely possible that while it was stable here at 14 for a long time, the Epstein news or some other news will launch a spiral and we too get 16 or 18.
So I understand and accept your point: do not ignore the danger of Prog rules that seem on the whole fairly harmless because you got a fairly moderate version of them, because they can at any time launch a spiral and implement a far more extreme version of them. Point well taken.
No, Tard-Cuck, that is absolutely NOT what you are doing.
In a now deleted, but very excellent comment, Jim explained what complex sentence structure and complex paragraph structure are, and how to tell if a comment is merely a wall-of-text written by a retard, or something more sophisticated. Jim explained that when people make up paragraphs at random, one has to read the text in order to tell that the writer is an idiot. But when there is simply a wall of text, or in your case, all lines are separated from each other completely, it is possible to tell that the writer is an idiot without reading a single word of his.
Thus when you post, and then respond to yourself, and then again respond to yourself:
It is possible to tell that the writer (you) is an utter absolute idiot, without reading anything at all, as indeed I suspect many people don’t pay much attention to your disjointed irrelevant walls of text. And, voila, you really are an idiot who has never had an interesting or original thought in his entire life, who is a Serial Spammer of Nutty Nonsense, who is not even familiar with NRx on the most basic level, and who is a Blue Piller dumbass.
I am noting that shaman answered all parts of vxxc’s post except for this one:
I refer specifically to Jim’s comment here, which I will quote in full:
(Emphasis mine)
Suppose Dad and 14 year old virgin Cindy are walking home from Key Food with groceries, and 16-year old Billy Joe, leaning against the wall of the JUUL/bong store next to Jimmy Bob, says, “Hey, cutie, can I get to know you?”
Now, of course Cindy and Billy Joe don’t go to the same school, because this is Reactionary USA 2035 and girls go to girls-only schools and only through their 15th year. But Cindy has seen Billy Joe lounging there before and knows that he’s a neighborhood kid. She smiles over at him and says, “You wish!”
Jimmy Bob calls over, “I got some for you better than what he has, doll-face!”
Cindy calls back — over her shoulder now — “Keep dreaming, loser!”
Okay, so I agree that Dad shouldn’t let Cindy out of the house unaccompanied by either him or her huge older brother again until she’s married. And let’s assume that he’s going to marry her off very quickly.
But should Dad just ignore Billy Joe and Jimmy Bob? Even though they’re blatantly disrespecting his not-yet-transferred ownership of Cindy?
If he doesn’t let her out of the house at all until she’s married, in order to avoid this kind of humiliating situation, isn’t he letting Billy Joe and Jimmy Bob dictate what he allows or doesn’t allow his own daughter to do?
Why would the average woman go to school at all beyond basic literacy and arithmetic?
Cooking, sewing, and at least one musical instrument, so she can demonstrate to potential husbands that she’s not clumsy, lazy, or stupid.
The state should not be involved with such.
There should be a complete separation of Church and State.
No state involved at all.
Can already be done under Establishment clause of the 1st.
Its always been religion.
Can be bludgeoned in with all the abuse.
Can be incentivized by the end of property taxes- all politics is local.
Christie was NJ governor on property (school) taxes.
Can raise the youth with debt wipeout- legal default / bankruptcy.
Can then raze the schools – burn their tormentors.
Burn the schools. They have defiled our churches/ we burn theirs.
Nothing says new power rises like the local seat of power in flames.
*as for education that can be private, and the Internet makes it possible for all to be home schooled for a decade.
Mass education 19th century solution. Its 2019.
Its 2019. Burn Baby Burn.
Reaction 101 there is always a state religion.
> There should be a complete separation of Church and State.
> No state involved at all.
Nuts.
‘
There never has been separation of Church and State, and there never will be separation of Church and State. It is always a lie to cover the Church takeover of State.
Separation has always failed, and will always fail. Easier to abolish the state, than to separate Church from State. The Godar did a good job of nearly abolishing the state, in favor of the Temple, but no one has ever abolished the state religion, and no one ever will.
He’s right about crypto, BTC and Libra.
https://www.epsilontheory.com/the-spanish-prisoner/?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=ET%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email
@ shaman
You don’t want to miss the Nrx Pedo Pride Parade, which will take place in San Francisco, on Sunday morning, June 28, 2019 at 10:30am.
Be sure to arrive on time, and bring plenty of pedo spirit. The parade will kick off from the Embarcadero, then travel down Market Street before finishing up at the Civic Center.
Nrx Pedo Pride will feature over 20 community-run spaces, including music stages, community events, a pedo garden and a pedo Youth space
A picture says a thousand prides.
Share your best moment of pedo pride on Instagram and go into the running to win a $500 misterb&b travel to Thailand voucher!
Back when I was a lad, we called these “raves”.
@ shaman
Typo, apologies, that should read:
the NRx Pedo Pride Parade
San Francisco, Sunday morning, June 28, 2019 at 10:30am
Featuring an NRx pedo Youth Space!
You don’t want to miss it!
The reason you write “an NRx” rather than “a NRx” is that, in your mind, it is pronounced as an acronym (En-Ar-Ex), instead of Neoreaction or Neoreactionary. This is a clue as to you being from outside our secret pedo-rapist club. Are you the guy who wrote the homosexual fan fiction about me, which I didn’t bother reading?
Srsly we already have Priests that rape kids.
We don’t need more.
We also have plenty of delusional psychotics, don’t need more.
Even tards can figure that out.
We also don’t need holiness spirals – again saturated market, the Left owns it.
We don’t need the gay agenda state law #7: repeal all age of consent laws.
Society can get pedophilia from the Left.
Doesn’t need it from The Right.
*now in my view that was never what Jim was saying, or I wouldn’t be here.
In my humble practical view he’s saying that feral daughters and women are the Fathers and Families problem. The state should not be involved except to support Fathers. This was practice at least into 80s you know. Could quickly become practice again.
AoC laws criminalize male sexuality and puts innocent men in prison. The state will support fathers and husbands, but the rights of the husband supersede that of the father. Women start craving cock at a young age, so either the father chains his 12 year old in the basement or she’ll sneak out and get fucked. The solution to this is to marry women off early.
I think you’re a bit delusional, multiple people have explained the reactionary position and explained the purpose of lowering the AoC. The red pill can be hard to swallow. By calling shaman a pedo for informing you of the proper Nrx canon, you are essentially calling everyone else here a pedophile as well.
Also, women in biblical times got married way before 18, and it was completely normal before progressives fucked society.
The concept of pedophilia is an anti concept – intended to make gay sexual attraction to prepubescent boys equivalent to the normal male attraction to fertile age females, constructed to normalize gay sex and gays recruiting small boys for sex change operations.
Age of consent laws are a displacement activity – having made consent central, the results were so horrifying that we made ever escalating categories of people incapable of consent. The actual solution is to abolish consent as legally significant. If someone contracts to exchange a load of wheat for a load of iron, the state decides that there are no end of externalities that supposedly justify intervening in that contract, but obvious and terrible externalities to sexual decisions, sexual decisions often made while in the grip of irresistible irrational internal forces, are never deemed grounds for intervening in sexual decisions.
Consent should not matter, and female consent particularly should not matter, because female consent is opaque, and most opaque to the woman herself. In the vast majority of cases where a woman was no kidding raped for real, she was not trying very hard to avoid being raped for real, and in the vast majority of cases where a woman is raped for real, she fails to complain about it. In the great majority of cases where a woman complains about real rape, it is because the would be rapist chickened out at the last minute, indicating not alpha, or was interrupted, indicating less alpha than whoever interrupted him.
How is it possible that there have been literally dozens of posts and replies on this topic from Jim over the past month or two, including conversations that you yourself participated in, and you’ve apparently absorbed nothing at all from any of them?
How can you read what Jim is saying, not obliquely but clearly spelled out in multiple posts and replies about pedophilia being an anti-concept and women becoming sexually active at very young ages and husbands’ rights taking precedence over fathers’ rights, and infer that “was never what Jim was saying”?
How are you able to read his plain words over and over again and hallucinate a completely different position that is very nearly the exact opposite of the stated position?
I try to avoid getting overly personal in these debates, but in this case I’m just blown away. Apparently you’re managing to do completely by accident what academy progressives train themselves for years to do on purpose. It’s like some freakish Chinese Room experiment.
@Not Tom
In the most important FBI entryist attempt – the Pee Pee Dossier – the FBI’s devotion to the bluepill caused them to fail to blackmail the RedPilled President Trump.
The pee pee dossier was so bad everyone on the Chans was convinced briefly (based on some tweets) that a channer had sold the bullshit to Rick Wilson who finally managed to get buzzfeed to publish it. That anyone besides Rick Wilson (and ESPECIALLY deranged anti Trumper cuck republican) ever took seriously that Trump hired hookers to piss in the hotel bed Obama stayed in… we just couldn’t fathom it.
You’ve been memed into believing that “pedophile” is a sexual orientation, that there are a lot of adult men out there who want to exclusively bang prepubescent girls and try very hard to make it happen.
Sometimes men fuck 8yo girls, for the same reason that cowboys with no women around fuck livestock and men in prison fuck other men. If your cowboys have wives, they’re not fucking their mares.
If you stop men from wifing up girls shortly after said girls get absurdly horny (think about how badly you wanted to fuck when you were 14, and then realize a girl that age is -even hornier-) then by the time AoC hits, the girl is already unmarriageable, having gone through ten criminals and the family dog before a law-abiding man’s legally allowed to fuck her.
In Reactionary USA 2035 —
There’s going to be a period of at least several months and very likely a couple of years between the onset of Cindy’s adolescence and Dad’s finding of a satisfactory husband for her. No real Dad is going chain his Cindy to the basement wall during those months or even couple of years. Even if Cindy is always accompanied by Dad or older brother when she goes out to the store or for a morning walk or whatever, there will be plenty of occasions on which she is able to exchange pleasantries with men whom she finds attractive and who find her attractive.
I grant that Dad’s goal of preventing Cindy (WHO IS A VIRGIN, WHOSE SATISFACTORY MATE IS BEING DILIGENTLY SOUGHT BY DAD BUT HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND) from have sex with these men will be primarily and most effectively served through Dad’s chastening of Cindy rather than through his rebuking of these men. But is Dad not permitted to rebuke men who flirt with Cindy (even when, as may frequently be the case, she clearly invites their flirtation), when these men through their flirtation with her evidently express disrespect for the authority over her that he has not yet transferred to the husband whom he has not yet found for her but is diligently seeking?
Suppose he says, “Stop talking to my daughter” (no threatens, no insults) and they persist in doing so — aren’t they now guilty of harassing him? Aren’t they behaving like people who not only continue leaning against your parked car, but also rest their drinks atop it, even after you’ve asked them not to do so?
No white male ever flirts with a woman under the authority of a plausibly alpha male who is present. Never happens. Ever.
This is like feminists worrying about a virtuous traditional wife being violently abused by a patriarchal husband. They have been looking or a poster girl for two centuries. Have not found one.
The problem is always that Cindy wanders off on some plausible excuse, but somehow persistently wanders into sketchy places full of sketchy people which her plausible excuse, which she perhaps believes, gives her no reason to wander into. Or the host, who might be expected to prevent misconduct, gets drunk and falls asleep, and kinfolk, who might be expected to prevent misconduct, go home, and she for some inexplicable reason does not go home with them. Or she wants to wander off and see the sights, and has been specifically forbidden to visit certain places, which have no sights to see, and has definitely said that she has no intention of visiting those places, but somehow goes there anyway.
I’m inclined to agree that if Cindy is always accompanied by Dad or by Dad’s trustworthy adult male representative when she goes outside then it’s highly unlikely that any serious trouble will arise, but my impression now is that being the father of an unmarried adolescent daughter in Reactionary USA 2035 would be extremely demanding, stressful work because (if I understand you correctly) if she succeeds in wandering off then any man to whom she presents herself is allowed to take possession of her.
For how long, in Reactionary USA 2035, is Dad allowed to prevent unmarried Cindy from “wandering off” (in which case, if I understand you correctly, his ownership of her would be automatically transferred to the first man she has sex with)? Is he permitted to retain physical control over her (preventing her from wandering off) only until she’s 14? 16? 21? 49?
In reactionary America, he will be entitled to retain physical control over her until early twenties, in accordance with the Old Testament position that you are supposed to find a husband for fertile age women under your authority in reasonable time, and if you don’t, you are being neglectful and abusive.
However, in reactionary America, her wandering off at any fertile or near fertile age is likely to result in shotgun marriage, not only without the consent of her father, but not necessarily with her consent either.
That the man who deflowers her would take possession of her is not a problem. The problem is exactly when the man who deflowers her does not take possession of her. The crime is not abduction of unbetrothed virgins, but letting them go. It is not “extremely demanding, stressful work” when the father wants to transfer ownership over her to someone else.
Sure, ideally, the father should arrange the marriage before she is apt to wander off, should introduce her to her future husband. But failure to do so should naturally result in her being taken possession of by a man who can provide her with reproductive sex, and and that is a good thing. You’re still stuck in the “How do I prevent her from having sex” frame. That is not not the NRx frame. The NRx frame is making sure that the man who deflowers her, will own her, or if she has been a dirty slutty thot, then that she will cease being a dirty slutty thot by having someone finally take permanent possession of her. Cindy is apt to wander off and sexually misbehave from a young age, drastic coercion is needed to prevent that, and it is better to either marry her off, or allow her to be owned by Joey, which is not “extremely demanding, stressful work.”
He is permitted to use drastic coercion to prevent her from sexually misbehaving, he is permitted to beat her with a stick, but it is wrongful and outright Satanic — as per e.g. Paul’s understanding of Satan — conduct to prevent a horny girl from getting some action for an unreasonably long time, thus he should marry her off, or let Joey take her. I’m really not sure why this is such a complex idea. It is the father’s role to transfer ownership, and he should want to transfer ownership, thus he should want to marry her off, or failing that, should be very glad someone wants to own her.
Judges 19:1-4 may be relevant:
Do you understand? The fathers of sexually misbehaving women want — WANT — them to be owned by someone who can provide them with reproductive sex. Transfer of ownership is in the father’s interest. Joey should own Cindy, and Cindy’s father should rejoice in that. This situation is not “stressful” at all. Is is the absolute complete opposite of stressful.
Trying to keep Cindy a virgin forever or for too long is doing Satan’s work. That is indeed “extremely demanding, stressful work,” which the father has no reason to do, and should be condemned by Church and society if he does so. After we restore marriage, fathers will gladly want to transfer ownership. They will often do so by arranging marriage, but often enough, there will be shotgun marriage, or marriage by abduction.
Just so you understand how much Dad should be glad that Cindy, who — contrary to your assertions — is clearly not a virgin, has someone willing to own her, here is the rest of the description in Judges 19:
Thus, to re-state for the millionth time this position, also in line with what Jim wrote above: a daughter whose sexual misbehavior is not extreme will be owned by her father until her early twenties, at which point his ownership of her will officially, formally be nullified.
But girls are often totally sexually uncontrollable, liable to crawl nine hundred miles over broken glass to get banged like drums by a long succession of demon lovers, thus it’s in the father’s interest to get Cindy married off to, taken permanent possession of by, Joey, with whom presumably she has already had sex in various positions several times, although dad is probably not aware of such an activity taking place.
If Cindy were not interested in sex, if Cindy were as chaste as a (legit) nun, then Joey — who is not a feral nigger coon — would not be hitting on her right next to her father, and would not actually non-kidding rape her. It just never happens in real life as it happens in these Blue Pilled imaginary scenarios. Joey does not pose a risk to her virginity, and claiming that her virginity is endangered by Joey betrays a lack of understanding of male-female dynamics.
Cindy evidently is very much interested in sex, has either already had sex a number of times with several men or will shortly get in on the action, and thus should be owned by someone who can provide her with reproductive sex. If she got herself deflowered only by Joey, then it should be Joey. And if she behaved like it’s spring break in Cancun, then it should be any man willing and able to own her – if Joey is interested, then all the better; her father should wholeheartedly rejoice.
We are not discussing a daughter who does not misbehave, for if she did not misbehave, there would simply be nothing to discuss here: She would not be wandering off to hang out with sketchy people.
We are discussing a daughter who is prone to sexual misbehavior, who is prone to wander off to hang out with sketchy people, and who therefore should be owned by someone who can provide her with reproductive sex; and if Joey is willing to keep her as his wife, then her father should welcome and invite Joey to his house for a great feast with various sorts of delicious foods, and make his heart merry, as Judges 19 depicts.
Tl;dr:
14-year-old Cindy’s Blue Pilled father failed to marry her off, so consequently she wanders off to hang out at places where she should not hang out. That she is flirting with Joey right in front of her father is the result of her being a huge slut, who has already fucked an impressive bunch of dudes, most likely Joey being the latest upgrade in her wild adventure of branch swinging from one alpha male’s dick to another’s.
If still a virgin, her father should beat her up (and has no issue at all with Joey), and should promptly set her up with a groom selected by himself for a marriage arranged by himself. Lots of men — alpha and beta alike — would take a 14-year-old chick as a wife, especially if her boobs are nice, which they often are. But her abusive father wants to “protect” his little princess’ virginity for an unreasonably long time, which is why she is prone to wander off when he isn’t around, and will resist kicking and screaming being chained to a wall in the basement – she craves sex. Since her father needs to beat her with a stick every so often, why not get her married and be done with it already?
This conversation now sounds repetitious, not because the matter is complicated, but exactly because it is simple, if only one is honestly willing to address the reactionary frame, rather than fantasizing instead about some alternative Blue Pill frames. Address the reactionary frame.
An even shorter tl;dr:
In Reactionary America, if you fail to promptly marry off your horny daughter in a relatively orderly fashion, she will be married anyway without your or even her consent. So, if you seek to avoid that, don’t fail to marry off your horny daughter soon after she shows signs of being horny. And since (unfortunately) fathers are often quite Blue Pilled and deluded about those signs, we’re gonna have many shotgun marriages and marriages by abduction, backing up husband against wife, and if need be, backing up husband against father, for it is husbands who should always be the ultimate alphas in the eyes of women.
Nobody said that parenting is easy. But as a father, which outcome would you prefer for your daughter: (a) marriage at a young age to the first guy she seduces – with or without her consent, or (b) a long string of one-night stands or serial LTRs from age 13 to 35, fading into cat-lady spinsterhood or maybe a passionless childless marriage to beta hubby?
Those are your options for a girl who is prone to sexual misbehavior and immune to discipline. You make it sound like ordinary fathers would be horrified by option (a), but in fact most fathers are extremely happy about option (a) as long as the marriage is intra-tribal.
The “none of the above” option only applies to daughters who either never sexually misbehave (rare) or respond positively to paternal discipline at the first signs of misbehavior, long before any LYHF scenarios can take shape.
You have refused to accept any of my previous answers as meaning what they plain as day say, so if I answer again, I expect you to refuse to understand my reply again. Waste of reader bandwidth.
Pedophilia is an anticoncept, and I will not answer a question that frames me as accepting this anticoncept, that frames this anticoncept as accepted my me and everyone else.
You are going to have to ask questions that address the position I have explained over and over and over again. If you want to discuss my position with me, you don’t have to accept my frame, but you are going to have to accept that I have that frame, not your frame.
Every time you ask, you ask in a frame that normalizes gays having sex with small boys and insist that we accept, that I accept that frame, that everyone accepts that frame. We do not accept your frame.
You’re an imbecile, a blue-piller, and your reading comprehension and idea comprehension are both demonstrably low (verging on non-existence), because your IQ is abysmally low compared to the average in NRx communities. It appears that you are legitimately brain damaged, as people with a brain damage often communicate in short, disjointed, non-complicated sentences, exactly as you do.
Fuck off.
We have already discussed each of the matters you raise. Repeatedly. My position, our position, is entirely clear.
Pedophilia is an anticoncept because sex between a fertile age woman and a fertile age man is different from gay sex with nine year old boys, and because the supply and demand situation for sex between forty year old men and nine year old girls is the reverse of the supply and demand situation for sex between forty year old men and nine year old boys.
Every nine year old girl, all of them, fantasizes about being alone with a forty year old alpha male and totally in his power – Half the Disney princess movies are this trope, and the other half have a teenage girl protagonist who is an insert character for nine year old girls, hanging out in private with with an older male who is drawn as only moderately older than the teenage protagonist but is performing the social role of a forty year old male. “Cinderella” is a preselection fantasy. Ask any woman who was nine years old when “the Labrynth” came out whether she had the hots for David Bowie.
In contrast, precisely zero nine year old males have analogous fantasies. Batman and Robin are all about Robin using Batman’s cool toys to whack bad guys, not about Robin being alone with Batman while Batman shows how alpha he is. When an adult male hero has a nine year old male sidekick, it is all about the sidekick having adult adventures. He is never socializing with the hero in private.
While the standard nine year old female fantasy does not involve actual sex, just the alpha male being totally able to jump her bones, it is nonetheless vastly more common for a nine year old girl to creep into bed with a drunk and sleeping alpha male with adult female preselection, than for an adult male to creep into bed with a sleeping nine year old girl.
And this is what makes “pedophilia” an anti concept, that it makes things that are different alike, that it defines gay sex with nine year old boys as normal, and the normal male attraction to fertile age women as abnormal. Ninety nine percent of the material being suppressed as pedophilic is cartoons of young women with gigantic breasts, while huge amounts of romance literature targeted at nine year old girls freely circulates, and the state sponsors transexual events where children are encouraged to sit on the laps of trannies and pushes sex change to nine year old boys.
You have my actual email Jim here if you wish to communicate directly.
I don’t wish to communicate with anyone who keeps trying to push his frame on me. I will not accept your frame, which normalizes gay sex with nine year old boys.
Address the man who wrote “pedophilia is an anticoncept”. Not some other man.
@Vxxc
You picked the white knight answer instead of the correct RedPill answer in the easiest of test questions, multiple choice.
White knights are vermin, and come the restoration, they will not dare interfere with the husband’s ownership of his woman.
>spends a few years spamming Jim’s blog
>isn’t familiar with Jim’s stance on AOC and “pedophilia”
Is actually quite similar to:
>spends a few years spamming Jim’s blog
>still doesn’t understand what NRx is even about
What a joke you are.
I’m curious, what’s Jim’s opinion on the Epstein arrest? Barr and co. squeezing a lower level Democrat, bog-standard Cathedral moralism about those poor little whores bamboozled into having sex with powerful men or something else entirely?
The Epstein arrest was by the SDNY, it WAS an attempt to frame Trump because it was combined with a similar attempt to get Barr to recuse himself (at which point Epstein would have been offered a sweetheart deal to compose on Trump).
Barr has however refused to recuse himself except from the review of what the labor secretary did years ago.
It’s certainly not a well coordinated attempt. The DNCs social messaging agents didn’t have scripts prepped, google is having to play catch up scrubbing Epstein connections to Bill Clinton, etc. It may well be an act of desperation.
The coordination problems are due to the increasing incompetence of the Cathedral, if the people in charge of getting Nixon in the 70s were in charge of getting Trump… they probably would have gotten Trump.
But it really failed when Barr said I’m not recusing myself. Now not only can they not frame Trump they now have to deal with a real investigation into the links between prominent Democrats and Epstein.
Epstein btw was a glownagger… a honeypot asset during the time likely of all people… Robert Mueller. I don’t normally like Anne Coulter because she is a blackpilling cat lady attention whore most of the time but she broke down Epstein’s glownaggery pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=eNbK-hkZMLY
And the Cathedral’s devotion to the bluepill is hampering their coordination against Trump in the Epstein case,
What has really fucked them was they thought Barr was going to recuse himself and maybe he let them think this so they would reopen the case…
But Barr fucked them over, he only recused themself from the review of why Accosta gave Epstein a sweetheart deal (Mueller/Bush Sr./Brennan) and that he has decided should be personally overseen by Trump himself.
@Cominator
He is just a tip of the iceberg. He is a lead to other actual real monsters.
Epstein was in the business of gathering blackmail material on the rich and powerful. The Democrats think he must have blackmail material on Trump, but for some reason is not sharing it, and they are going to cut his toes off if he does not give them what he does not have.
That was sort of what the original plan was but it depended on Barr recusing himself. Barr has not recused himself except into the narrow question of why Epstein was let off so easily (it was because he was a CIA agent or FBI informant following orders) and that investigation is going to be conducted by Trump himself according to Barr (which really means Stephen Miller will be doing it but that is just as good).
The great thing about this is with Barr NOT recusing himself from the criminal investigation (thus thwarting any plans to frame Trump) and Barr’s narrow recusal from the Accosta matter being directed to the White House itself to investigate means Stephen Miller is going to personally be getting all that blackmail material.
“pedophilia†is an anti-concept – Jim
Yes, and this conforms 100 percent with the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud which covers almost all of the orders of Moed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kodashim. Zeraim and Taharos are represented by only one tractate each, Berachos and Niddah respectively.
Talmud law permits sexual intercourse between adults and children. This doctrine is contained in a number of Mishnahs. Before we examine them, however, it is necessary that the reader be familiar with the word kethubah.
According to the Soncino Talmud Glossary:
KETHUBAH (Lit., ‘a written [document]’); (a) The minimum settlement for a virgin child (three years or younger) is two hundred zuz
When a grown-up man has had intercourse with a little girl (3 years or younger) it is nothing, as if one puts the finger into the eye OR when a girl is accidentally injured by a piece of wood (which breaks the hymen) then their kethubah is also 200 zuz (in other words, the toddler will receive a payment of 200 zuz)
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57-58
Nobody here wants to have sex with prepubescents and especially not ones that young you fed shill.
What we want is women married off shortly after puberty.
@The Cominator
A solid basis in Scripture and natural law prevents any justification that is evident in:
“Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11b”
The successors of the Pharisees have corrupted their ways thoroughly.
“Arvo can now construct ring signatures on Azimuth points, thanks to ~littel-ponnys. Anonymous but verified chat, polls and discussion are all possible.
What does this mean? One way to think about it: everyone at a party gets a USB drive with a key on it. The key gets them into a chat where you know everyone else was at the party, but you don’t know who’s who.
There’s lots of interesting unexplored territory here. Verified anonymity doesn’t really exist anywhere else”
Correct me if I am wrong, but Moldbug wrote about this same idea. See: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/01/how-to-actually-defeat-us-government/
“For example, suppose someone managed to set up an external site which could verify the identity and rank of military personnel, but keep it anonymous. The result would be an uncensored forum in which soldiers and sailors could speak honestly about their feelings and concerns.
If this platform was scalable enough to hold an actual democratic election in which only military personnel could vote, it’s quite possible that the outcome of this ballot would have a rather definitive effect on the course of Washcorp. For producing truth, justice and competent government, elections are not much. For organizing large numbers of otherwise independent actors for concerted collective action, let’s face it—they’re the shizzle.
However, this strategy is impractical at present and may never be practical. It is best reserved for the back, back burner. I mention it only because I can imagine very hypothetical situations under which it might work.”
The term “pedophilia†was invented in the 1920’s 1930’s and took off after WWII.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pedophilia&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpedophilia%3B%2Cc0
The Cathedral, after its victory, proceeded to normalize gay assaults on six year old boys by conflating such weird anal boy sex with normal sex between fertile men and fertile women.
In the Epstein case, advantage goes to the RedPill team, the bluepill team is at a disadvantage.
Now contrast the anti-concept “pedophilia†with a real concept, “pederast.â€
Pederasts are homosexual men who anally fuck six year old boys.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pederast&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CPederast%3B%2Cc0
There probably are very very rare men attracted to prepubescent girls but they are outnumbered by gays attracted to prepubescent boys 1000 to 1.
(Mark 9:42) for all men/women who abuse prepubescent children especially.
No, it says nothing like that. What a retarded, non-Christian exegesis have you.
Mark 9:42 clearly refers both to new converts to Christianity and to young members of the Church, who — due to the weakness or infancy of their faith — are prone to fall back unto their former erroneous ways, or to lose their still-underdeveloped faith and turn to apostasy. So Mark’s Jesus tells us to take special precautions not to cause newcomers and initiates to turn away from God’s path, which is likened to making them stumble.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Only a faggot would think that this is about sex with prepubescents – that’s where a faggot’s mind is, naturally. No, this is about protecting those whose belief does not yet rest on solid foundations from error, whether it’s because they are recent converts or because they are literally young and have not yet acquired sufficient religious training.
I am sickened when people read into the Bible things that are plainly not there. Whatever your intentions are, it is Satanic and disgusting.
“42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”
Why not a multiple meaning including condemnation of actual child abuse?
Isaiah 7:14 is an example of a double meaning. Fulfilled both at his lifetime and predicting the messiah.
Nuts.
You are reading the bible as transliterated by progressives into twenty first century progressivism.
Today’s question is all about malicious caricatures and misidentification.
We are going to abolish the AoC. Why?
[—] NRx hates women, and wants them to suffer from rape. We know that young women and young girls are not really interested in sex, and don’t really enjoy sex, especially not brutal sex, so NRx wants to maximize their pain by inflicting totally unwanted rape and child abuse on them. We are sadistic psychopaths, and our entire ideology is a novel and innovative rationalization of our sadistic psychopathy. There is nothing we enjoy more than fantasizing about little girls, tearful rivers streaming down their cheeks, sitting psychologically broken in a dark corner and suffering from all the rape and abuse which we’re going to foist on them against their will, mwahahaha.
[—] NRx is a movement of heterosexual pedophiles, who are sexually attracted to prepubescent girls. Since girls with no boobs, no ass, no waist-to-hip ratio that indicates fertility, and no other secondary sexual characteristics give us raging boners, we want to legalize sex with them, so that we can have sex with them. Since all we ever thing about is sex with girls aged 8-9, we have formulated and articulated an ad hoc worldview to justify and normalize sexual relations of adult men (i.e. ourselves) and little girls with no grass on the field and no bleeding down there.
[—] NRx is a liberal, libertarian, and libertine ideology that generally wants to give everyone sexual freedom to do whatever the heck they want. Thus we are part of an LGBTP coalition that includes homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, pedophiles, and also other fetish communities such as bestiality, necrophilia, BDSM, scat, and so on. Absolute sexual liberalism is part and parcel of NRx; we provide a political home for all perverts everywhere, and we welcome solidarity withing the deviance rainbow.
[xxx] NRx realizes that the AoC punishes men for normal male sexuality, and allows girls to sexually misbehave. Every man with normal T-levels would bang every fertile female if he could (minus immediate family), and pathologizing and penalizing that is contrary to human nature and inimical to healthy heterosexuality. As for prepubescent girls, men are not attracted to them, but they are attracted to alpha males with adult female preselection, and the AoC, based on Puritan-Feminist lies, grants them destructive liberty to cowgirl-ride drunk and asleep men to “a happy awakening, followed by a big surprise,” while placing the blame for their misbehavior on men.
[—] NRx, my dearest fellows, is simply a run-of-the-mill movement of Southern NRA-affiliated eschatological religious nutjobs and whackjobs such as myself (hallelujah), and all of us here unanimously strictly adhere to Young Earth Creationism and other forms of evolution-denying televangelism, and yes friends, we do occasionally lynch atheists and bomb abortion clinics for the Everlasting Glory of Jesus Christ – deal with it, liberals. Due to our blind fanatical stupid evil religious zealotry and bigotry, we want the entire world to go Biblical, and the Bible says nothing about either “age” or “consent.” Being a hillbilly hick, I even married my own barely-legal cousin when she was several months pregnant with our son, Hank. How do you do, fellow Rethuglicans?
The part about bombing abortion clinics for the Everlasting Glory of Jesus Christ is tempting.
I know, that’s why I put it there. Emotionally, I can strongly relate to devout pious Christians who’d explode these fetus-slaughterhouses in a neo-crusade to stop infanticide. But this is not what NRx advocates, and moreover, the issue of Christian terrorists is routinely exaggerated by the Shit-Stream Media and the FBI, and so a clueless leftist entryist might genuinely think that, being “right-wing extremists,” that’s what we stand for.
I don’t see how society can survive without at least de facto tolerance of early term abortion. Very late term abortions are indeed murder and bastarcide is murder (and I was the leading opponent of this with Jim) but Jim is right that we cannot allow too many fatherless children around. We should also not allow severely disable children either… so early term abortions is the best way for this.
Nobody was all that opposed to early term abortions until JP II decided he wanted Mexicans to outbreed Anglos and opposition to abortion by the Catholic Church must be considered hypocritical, they used to run places that were almost close to death camps for bastard children (as recently as the 1950s) and the Catholic Church acts as an arm of the Democratic party.
I will not derive my moral code from such an institution.
John Paul II just wanted to stop the slaughter of the innocent, not overrun Anglos with hordes of Mexicans. The Church has always condemned abortion, but the church’s stance on early term abortion developed over time because theologians were unsure when the fetus was imbued with a soul.
Abortion, even early term abortion is already murder, so it seems arbitrary to draw the line at bastardcide.
Can you elaborate on Catholic run “death camps for bastard children�
Lookup “Angel hospitals” “Duplessis orphans”.
Also Jim I’m getting filtered again, please let this go through…
1st trimester abortions should remain legal should be able to pickup defects… And they cannot survive outside the body. This compromise satisfies me more then anything else.
Lets see if my comments go through now.
Lookup “Angel hospitals” and the Duplessis orphans for examples of what the rec did.
Early abortion obviously is better then late term abortion and far far better then killing actual kids which should be done only to sadistic psychopaths who like to torture animals and the like. Maybe it’s not completely morally satisfying to some but it is the best of bad choices in this fallen world. Certainly higher level of brain activity in 14 months.
There is no large moral difference, and no large difference in instinctive gut reaction, to abortion at four months and infanticide at fourteen months. You think there is because you are told there is. “just a group of parasitic cells”. Trouble is that modern ultrasound shows that remarkably soon he is a lot more than a group of parasitic cells.
We either ban abortion, or allow infanticide. There is no coherent moral position between these two. There is no morally appealing solution that allows abortion and does not allow infanticide. If we restricted abortion to very early abortion, that would be morally appealing, but the trouble is that very early abortion does not cover the cases we care about – bastards and defectives. It tends to be primarily used by a woman trying to keep her options open for a booty call for Jeremy Meeks. By the time we know we have a good reason to abort, it is sixteen weeks already.
I favor allowing infanticide and abortion of defectives and of non kin of the man supporting, caring for, and supervising the woman, and the execution of older children in accordance with biblical rules – both parents agree, and the judge agrees the child is guilty of stubborn disobedience and disrespect.
Saying that abortion is morally easy, and infanticide horrifying, is just accepting the progressive morality of moloch. It is a demonic lie, which leads to the sale of living babies wanted by their fathers as baby meat.
Homicide = homicide at any stage of the biological life course from the moment cell division starts until the moment it stops. Generally an injustice for either the Sovereign or the subject to kill until the person being killed has done something to deserve it. Then have at them with whatever force and means you deem necessary.
Interesting; up-thread you falsely accused me (and by extension others here who espouse similar positions) of the following:
Quite hypocritical, isn’t it? You are telling us that the Sovereign will ban all abortions and infanticide 100%, and then in the same breath tell us that holding the common-sense and historically precedented view that stopping girls from endlessly upgrading up the cock carousel by forcing them to marry — by shotgun or by abduction — amounts to “dictation of law and policy.”
Always a sophist, always a hypocrite.
To be clear, I maintain that it is ultimately the business of the Sovereign or whoever has the power of the sword and his/theirs alone to determine punishments. Priesthood can legitimately draw attention to acts that are inherently wrong and ought to be punished, intellectuals can (if asked to) weigh in on questions of what should be forbidden or required as a matter of State policy; but it’s presumptuous and meddlesome for them to try to come up with schedules of punishments.
^^these remarks apply to Restoration not “democracy” where anybody has the right to say anything unless they don’t.
As much as I have enjoyed reading your blog in the past Doug, I will admit you sound overly technical describing how the sovereign and/or natural law should line up with x, when we are simply trying to reason with the very concept of x existing in this world in the first place.
Ie, this isn’t really a time for minutiae when 99% of humanity isn’t even considering the possibility of these things existing, and even people who are considering it (us) are still trying to grapple with what these concepts would look like in the real world. Now is not (yet) the time to describe how the fully developed system would work, because it simply isn’t there.
Fair critique, been thinking it myself actually
Jim, on this issue I take a slightly milder position than yours. If the child was born out of wedlock to a father who made himself scarce, then sure, it’s a demonspawn, and should be drowned in a sack.
However, today it is common for women to divorce their beta husbands (perfectly productive citizens) and take their children with them, and then marry someone else; under such circumstances, I’m not sure that it’s a good idea to allow the new guy to arrange an “unfortunate accident” to the beta husband’s children. These are kids who may be wanted by their biological father, and moreover, they are not demonic.
That can also apply to widows with children who re-marry. Should the state turn a blind eye when the new guy decides to pull off a Houdini and make the dead man’s children — poof — disappear forever? Not sure.
These objections aside, I guess I can go along with legal infanticide of non-kin children till perhaps age 6 or so. But allowing some “new guy” to kill a non-demonic older child fathered by a beta male is too much even for my cold and callous heart.
Children taken from their father by a fertile age mother have a high chance of suffering an unfortunate accident. We absolutely should forbid this behavior, and fathers that allow it should be disgraced and punished.
When a fertile age woman ditches her husband, she believes in her heart that his sperm is no good, and if she gets impregnated by someone she feels is much more alpha than her former husband, very bad things are apt to happen to his children. Female authority over children of her former husband is blue pillers conniving at infanticide.
When a woman is widowed, she does not normally regard her former husband as beta, and there is no problem.
This is one of the greatest crimes of blue pillers. After the restoration, those who preach the blue pill should be beaten through the streets. Anyone who uses the word “pedophile” unironically is normalizing drag queen story hour, and anyone who supports female authority over the children her former husband is normalizing infanticide. The blue pill is Moloch worship.
Agreed 100%. The people spreading hysteria about “pedophilia” should be left with broken spines and hemorrhaging brains.
A woman who ditched her husband should have no authority over his children, and no access to his pockets. Such women should wander the streets barefoot in the cold rain, spitted on by onlookers.
Also, when we revive long-lost social technologies that back up husbands, re-institute coverture, and re-legalize domestic discipline and “marital rape,” a whole lot of women will suddenly find their beta husbands quite attractive.
I was looking at Dutch abortion statistics and was pretty shocked to find out that fifteen percent of all babies are aborted. So very conservatively, at least one out of ten women has committed infanticide. How red pilled is that. God damn women.
While we’re at it, even actual bastards born out of wedlock to fathers who made themselves scarce should probably be spared once they reach their early twenties – by that age they should have their own house, a job, and not be in too close a proximity to slut-mom’s new dude, so there is no justification killing them merely for existing.
But, to be clear, I agree that demonspawn younger than 22 or so, and particularly those aged 6 and younger, should not receive much legal protection – they are a needless burden on everyone around them, and nobody would be inclined to ask too many uncomfortable questions when they suddenly stop showing up.
“Nobody was all that opposed to early term abortions until JP II ”
I have no idea where you got this from, the Church has been against abortion since the first century. See the Didache and the Apocalypse according to Peter.
“I will not derive my moral code from such an institution.”
t. literal freemason
Christianity was against infanticide (INCLUDING bastardcide) which the Romans widely practiced from the beginning and I am against infanticide including bastardcide, you don’t hear much about abortion for or against in history until the 19th century when it was generally outlawed in most of the US as part of the social purity movement.
But it took a lot of activism to get people to equate late and early term abortions and JP II the pope who made open borders and socialist economics part of church doctrine was definitely the driving force. Obviously it was because he wanted to flood America with low IQ Catholic Mexicans and Central Americans. The Vatican is ENTIRELY a political entity and essentially always has been since nothing in scripture or history justifies the Ultramonatist post Gregorian Papacy. When they claim to care about the poor and downtrodden of the world they lie, just as Marxists do.
I don’t actually endorse the Catholic position — duh, I support bastardicide, and support abortion in cases of 1. vile mutants, 2. adultery (i.e. when a married or betrothed woman with a wet pussy gets “seduced” or “raped” by her demon lover), and 3. legit danger to mom’s life — but “life begins at conception” is an intellectually consistent and defensible stance, whereas “life begins with brain waves” is a stance as perforated as Swiss cheese.
Obviously, the problem with modern fetus slaughterhouses is that it’s not the woman’s owner who orders the abortion, but the woman who orders it, usually against the child’s biological father’s will; she wants to be available for Jeremy Meeks. Thus, it’s altogether anti-social and dysgenic, yet Tard-Cucks scarcely recognize this reality. The Blue Pill is Moloch worship.
I cannot support bastardcide unless the kid is the type who tortures small animals or starts fires (in which case you have a true and obvious bad/evil seed) its monstorous, early term abortion is the least bad option we have in the fallen world… bastardcide was a barbaric practice early Christendom banned.
Under our system we will not have many bastards anyway and most bastards that there are will be upper class men seeding lower class women, and such will not generally be demonseeds at all.
Like Jim, I’m principally opposed to “utilitarianism,” the worldview of suicide.
A so-called utilitarian says, “If I’m supposedly brain dead, but there is a chance of 0.001% to bring my mind back to life, you should disregard that chance, and donate my organs to some other people. Likewise, if one of my loved ones is in such a situation, you should disregard the 0.001% chance to save him or her, and donate his or her organs to some other people.”
Nuts.
Your life should be more valuable to you than 7 billion other people, and the lives of people you love should likewise be more valuable to you than 7 billion other people.
“Organ donation” is being used to justify murder in the hospitals, and furthermore, it rests on scientific lies about the real odds of restoring someone who is ostensibly “brain dead.” That is the legacy and true apotheosis of Utilitarianism: Letting a living person die in order to use his body parts to help someone else, in order to maximize the statistical odds of “saving a life.” Murder justified in the name of statistics, justified by adherence to an abstract principle.
And then, of course, you end up unplugging your own mother to save a random thug wounded during an armed robbery.
Utilitarianism is Thanatos worship or Tezcatlipoca worship, and every value-system telling you that 7 billion people should be more important and emotionally significant to you than yourself and your loved ones is Thanatos worship or Tezcatlipoca worship. If you don’t value yourself and your loved one above 7 billion other people, you have embraced a suicidal meme that even the Judeo-Christiano-Islamic Satan would not tell you to embrace, because good ol’ Satan is at least reasonable.
Sorry for going off topic, but that had to be said.
“you don’t hear much about abortion for or against in history until the 19th century”
For the same reason you don’t hear much about gay marriage or drag queens. It was simply unthinkable at the time and wasn’t even conceivable to be up for discussion.
“But it took a lot of activism to get people to equate late and early term abortions”
Precisely the opposite. It took a lot of activism to get people to distinguish between early term and late term. In old documents you never read people talking about the difference between an abortion the day after conception and abortion the day before birth. It was all considered abortion. Abortionists knew they couldn’t completely legalize baby killing, so they told people in the first few months it’s just a clump of cells, unfortunately it worked.
If you want to blame a pope for trying to turn the Church into another NGO, it’s obviously St. Paul VI not St. JP II. Socialists notoriously hated St. JP II, the KGB was likely behind his assassination attempt. Blame open borders on the 1965 immigration act, not the Vatican. And whatever you’re smoking please send me two of them.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/migration/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants.html
JP II long endorsement of open borders on the Vatican website he also denounces racism and xenophobia and this wasn’t the 1st time he endorsed open borders either, and this was back when at least some Democrats favored a wall and mass deportations… so I would say they are at least partially to blame and JP II is why.
Blaming the Vatican II guy would be if I cared about the Catholic Church’s liturgy or any of that shit which I don’t at all, I only care about the church as a political actor.
And for that reason I want Francis to be Pope forever, he has destroyed the Church’s political soft power. JP II would have been able to sabotage Trump’s election, Francis could not because even cuck centrist Catholic voters consider him a radical leftist who they won’t listen to.
JP II was just as big a shitlib as Francis but he hid it better, his problem with the Soviet bloc was that they followed the relative sane Stalinist form of communism, and JP II was a Cathedral Trotskyist.
Jim, Nazism = Socialism is spreading:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2OFpO8fyo
Really interesting video.
Unresponsive.
It is a test. And you refuse to take the test.
The reason we are asking you about the red pill is because entryists cannot express those thought crimes, or even acknowledge other people committing those thought crimes, for fear that their supervisor might suspect them of entertaining crimethought.
We are asking you to do something that a paid and supervised shill would have great difficulty doing. He would probably have to apply to his boss, and his boss would have to apply to his boss, but someone who is independently commenting would have no trouble doing it.
Take it. Not letting anything you say through that is a pile of excuses for refusing to take tests that separate paid and supervised shills from genuinely independent anonymous commenters.
Since you are commenting under a pseudonym you have no reason to fear, unless you are under supervision, no reason to fear unless your supervisor is likely to check your work.
If not under supervision, then you might not agree with our opinions, but you could respond in a way that accurately acknowledges those opinions.
Even if you thought they were evil lies, if you were an independent commenter rather than a paid and supervised shill, you could, and would, accurately state and describe those evil lies for the purpose of rebutting them.
It seems that the autospam filter hates me again… don’t even put my comments through because there is too bullshit where I was just trying to inform you of the problem but please fix.
The police in Oslo are looking for an African migrant who killed a Chihuahua in connection with a robbery, Nettavisen reports.
In the Facebook group Dyrehjelperne (The Animal Helpers), the owner of the dog describes how a “Somali man in his 35-40s†violently attacked the little Chihuahua in the park at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo.
She tells Nettavisen that her boyfriend was out walking the dog, named Leah, on Tuesday afternoon when he was robbed by the man.
“Leah yapped and he kicked her in the head so hard that she flew into the air. Then he went after her and kicked her againâ€, says the heart broken dog owner Rubi.
The dog later died of its injuries – a broken neck and a skull fracture, in an animal clinic. A taxi driver had then refused to let the dying animal into his car.
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/07/migrant-robber-kicked-chihuahua-to-death-in-norway/
Two more short, simple, lighthearted WRP questions to cheer us up.
1. Horny females are apt to be sexually involved with brutal rapists. Why?
A) Are they? Seems to me that women stay away from brutal rapists and invariably go after successful, socially savvy, popular, respectable men who abide the law and can sustain big families. I can guarantee and assure you that the nice ladies at my Church don’t even know what “spanking” is.
B) By perfectly Darwinian processes, women have been evolutionarily programmed to always seek out the fiercest most badass alpha male (hypergamy), according to their own mate-selection standards, which have not changed since we were all naked apes in the jungle. Brutal rapists are the closest approximation to the ideal alpha male as perceived by female apes in the jungle.
C) Women want nothing to do with brutal rapists, but the latter keep predating on the former and forcing them — entirely against their will — to have sex. That’s why they are called “brutal rapists,” right? The Feminists are correct: We are living in a rape culture, and despite our best efforts to stamp out this phenomenon, it’s still a veritable danger for women. Women refrain from going out at night and refrain from dressing provocatively for that very reason! Women would rather die than be sexually dominated by brutes.
D) White women have been brainwashed by the Jew’s Talmudvision and Hymiewood to like brutal rapists. By nature, white women prefer good and honorable men (such as myself, by the way), but because our culture has been contaminated by der ewige Khazar Hazard, they now pursue men who are likely to beat and sexually abuse them. Were it not for these pesky Jews, I’d finally manage to get lai… err, I mean, women would get ‘gina tingles for nice guys.
E) This question triggered my fibromyalgia-induced PTSD so hard that my problem glasses fell off my pouty face and into Mr. Whiskers’ wet food bowl; now my face, similarly to my yeasty vagina, smells like fish. How do I even start unpacking this unsolicited dumpster-fire shit-show of a micro-atrocity? First of all, for your information, “women” are a social construct, not a biological classification. Hey, uhh, douche-canoe, have you even read Judith Butler? Pffft. Second of all, I…
2. Reaction spends a lot of time coordinating its memes about the Woman Question. Why?
A) Because the WQ is the most urgent, and we must get it right if we want to restore young families, want the civilized races to fruitfully reproduce, and want our descendants to conquer the stars.
B) Because we are so full of hubris. How dare we be so conceited and arrogant as to assume that the Sovereign will heed to our counsel? No, the Sovereign will obviously be a High Priest himself, and won’t take any advice whatsoever from us useless intellectuals.
C) Because Jim’s blog is a sophisticated (albeit transparent) Mossad psychological operation intended to distract everyone from the truly important issue: The USS Liberty incident.
D) Because we are midwits with merely VHIQ. If we were 3SD+ geniuses with UHIQ, we would be discussing Qanon, Bigfoot, and how anatomically modern humans are boar-bonobo hybrids.
E) Because, being autistic involuntarily celibate Omega Male virgins trapped in a Grand Masturbatorium, we naturally think about sex all the time. Ultimately, we draw our inspiration from the most sexless person who ever walketh this Earth: Roissy, who has never seen an IRL vagina at all.
(Correct Answers: 1, B; 2, A)
To the first question I would pull an F) NAWALT. Feel free to roll your eyes. But when literally all women in my life prefer the successful, confident, popular man (good alpha, good leader) partially because there is nobody in my circles is anything like a brutal rapist, just how could I honestly agree? My sample may be unrepresentative, but should I just discard my whole life experience? I often claim I am able to tell which woman prefers the brutal rapist just by looking at them. There is just a different glint in the eyes or something like that.
Feel free to test me throwing photos my way, I can tell those girls from “good” girls, good in quotation marks because they still prefer alphas of course, just decent alphas, and they will still cheat with them. What makes them “good” is that they will cheat with the kind of alpha you would more or less respect. The kind of boss you would like to work for. Not the brutal rapist criminal type. Which is not good enough by any normal measure, but we are testing the “does not lust for brutal criminals NAWALT”, not the “pure virginial NAWALT” which would be stupid or the “fucks betas NAWALT” which would be even stupider.
Or running the test from the other way around, I will not do it in public but will send Jim in e-mail a photo of a couple and the man is someone I respect, and just by the photo (eyes and smile) I can see that the woman would only cheat him with a man I would probably respect even more.
Sent to the e-mail address published on reaction.la
Okay, how about this: For long-term relationships later in life, most women do prefer “successful, confident, popular” men rather than brutal rapists.
But observe the revealed behavior of women down the street. First, they postpone marriage or “settling down” till their 30s or 40s, i.e. they spend their teens, twenties, even early thirties having promiscuous sex with… someone. (And then The Wall hits and they either find themselves a boring beta hubby, or turn into the caretakers of cats) Who, in their most fertile and attractive years, are women having sex with?
Secondly, we are being told that women live in mortal fear of rape, dreadfully terrified of the very prospect.
Well, I see tons of women — from young jailbaits to older MILFs — going out in the middle of the night, dressed in a manner that discloses much more than it conceals, and hanging out at places where drunk horny men apt to grab ’em by the pussy are a fixture. (Needless to say, the women themselves are usually even drunker, and often quite hornier, than those men) Really, this is one of the easier Red Pills, since everyone can see that pretty much everywhere: Women don’t seem to be worried at all about the presence of rapists, and keep coming back to the same ol’ nightclubs where “things just happen,” where they “lose control.”
Sure, the ideal fantasy is not a semi-literate stone-broke Pakistani, but –as female literary pornography graphically depicts — an athletic six foot tall super-alpha billionaire vampire pirate demon king. Yet, strangely enough, women spend their 13-35 period partying with men who resemble Jeremy Meeks more-so than they resemble any CEO.
When a scantily clad woman (with or without a butterfly tattoo), drunk like a sailor, hangs out at 3AM at the bar, what kind of man is she looking for there? In whose apartment will she wake up in the morning after, or who will join her in the bar’s bathroom stall for a quickie? More crucially: What measures does she take to avoid an encounter with a brutal hardcore drug-trafficking convicted felon gangster rapist? None? So if a woman does nothing to avoid brutal rape, and repeatedly puts herself in situations where effectively defending against brutal rape is rather far-fetched, then is she not — as they say — “asking for it”?
Lots of women are like that, the average woman is like that. It’s not that women would like to settle down with a gangster felon. Rather, they would like to never grow old, never settle down, and keep partying forever with more or less sketchy people – the only thing currently stopping women from pulling that off is The Wall, and future anti-aging technologies (whose development, to be sure, I fully and enthusiastically support) may be misused to allow women to party with Jeremy Meeks in their 80s and 90s. Why not?
Another important reason we need a Neo-Reaction.
I’ll have proper, not phone internet access on Monday. Will make my case if don’t forget.
I think what most women REALLY want to be the favorite wife in a harem of a chad looking successful warlord.
What usually ends up happening is that, unable to secure Jeremy Meeks’ commitment, they get some sort of boyfriend, and then after 3 or 4 years together, shit test him to Hell and back, break up, and go back to taking booty calls from Chad the Cad. Women say that they don’t like it, and perhaps on a deeper level that’s true, but they can’t help themselves: Dissolving relationships (i.e. engaging in serial monogamy) and chasing after demon lovers is ingrained in their sexo-mentality; that is their revealed preference, at least under current anarcho-tyrannical conditions.
We need to make husbands high-status in the eyes of women, indeed higher status than fathers, higher status than cads with big swinging dicks, and higher status than the government, and dis-incentivize the dissolution of marriage. A woman should know that the man who is fucking her is at the zenith of the attractiveness pyramid, at the top of the socio-sexual hierarchy, and that losing him inevitably spells downgrading, not upgrading, and misery, not joy. We either do that, or women will continue featuring in the plate-spinning constellations of disreputable nightclub dwellers.
The 1st step is to make men higher status then women generally, especially single men should be higher status then single women.
Doing that alone would solve a lot of the extreme dysfunction where women won’t give single beta males the time of day and end up larping as lesbians.
Jims proposal where unescorted women wouldn’t be allowed in nighstspots (or at least most nightspots there should be some real ugly dives in any city where the unescorted ones go, where men could go to pick them up) anymore would be a good step towards this. Getting them as much as possible out of the workforce would be good too.
Agreed, and the point about unescorted women is particularly relevant:
To prevent Jeremy Meeks from monopolizing all the pussy, we need to formalize ownership by ensuring that the vast majority of women are owned, that owned women will have a dramatically higher status (or “privileges”) than unowned women, that owned women will possess much superior access to the fruits of civilization compared with unowned women, and that, as Jim says, the King and the High Priest will announce:
Formalized ownership will allow us to regulate the sexual marketplace, to enshrine monogamy and prevent polygyny.
In our system as I see it most of the Jeremy Meeks will be hanged or exiled. And we can artifically depress the status of petty criminals and thugs in the eyes of women anyway. We will bring back punishments in public square and we will bring back the mobs throwing things at criminals for entertainment. We’ll have concerts (and dances afterwards sometimes) to celebrate the community pushing down on these low status criminals.
Every responsible man gets his one pussy but only one pussy per customer is unrealistic. We’ll have a slight excess of women, we will have brothels and a very few rich men will have mistresses (though extramarital relations outside of the whorehouse for people of lesser status will be discouraged to say the least).
Among Isaac Newton style geniuses as I’ve said I want a state sponsored harems for such men (made up of unusually high IQ women… and maybe if such high iq outlier women don’t want to be housewives their whole lives they get a special exemption that they can bear 5 children for the genius each and they are out), I want such men to each have at least 100 children.
“One pussy per customer” refers to formal ownership; the women at the brothel are unowned, thus it does not apply to them.
However, we don’t want too many women to opt for the unowned lifestyle, thus we need to place severe restrictions on the liberties of unowned women; disallowing them at various venues is a good start. As Jim said:
This and other means will ensure that most women would much rather be formally under a man’s authority, or coverture.
And if the sex ratio will one day be 1:10, then a husband will be allowed to possess ten pussies under his ownership.
I cannot imagine it will be 1:10 or nearly such, even after WWII in Russia in the areas with the most men who got killed I only thing it ever got as bad as 1:4.
It’s not about killing, though. Once we do away with all notions of democracy and egalitarianism (realistically, only around 2080 or so), we may want to use technology to select the sex of new children, so as to usher in a pussy paradise. Now, we will still need a whole lot of men at that point, so I agree that we should not start with 1:10, but indeed with something like 1:4. But this is really more in the realm of political science fiction – in the meanwhile, we organize society according to 1:1.
In brief, my ideal scenario in 2165 is a sex ratio of anything between 1:4 to 1:10, with a genetically engineered and techno-biologically hyper-augmented ruling elite of men, possessed of an ironclad asabiyyah, with an average IQ ranging anywhere from 130 to 180, presiding over an intergalactic space-faring cosmo-empire and lots of nubile, compliant, lustful chicks to pass the time with, in addition of course to other leisures scarcely imaginable today.
Will anything like that actually transpire? Who knows, but in this dark age of ours, the least we can do is dream – and building the requisite memeplex is surely a step in the right direction.
In hindsight it will be obvious that total victory in the war of the sexes was merely a continuation of the victories of man’s ingenuity over the other apex predators 10k years ago, and over Malthusian limits ~200 years ago. If I am not mistaken, it will be the first time ever in natural history, after two billion years or so, that such a victory has been won.
ThusSpakeZarathustraFanfare.mp3
Will they call us leftists for the revolutionary (i.e. post-agricultural) program of — at long last — fully subduing the big gametes to the small ones? Ah, but in retrospect it will be obvious that we’ve been selected precisely for that. There’s no stopping this 2.5-billion-years-old Golem!
(I haven’t really examined how and when isogamy evolved into anisogamy; perhaps Jim — who studies everything — is familiar with the topic)
You need a load of resources to start a new diploid, and you need to travel around to find a gamete that is not closely related, and to travel around, should travel light, without a load of resources. So one gamete has a load of resources, and the other gamete travels around looking for her.
The ancestor of all the animals was a single celled creature that looked like a sperm with a net – it could swim, could catch other single celled creatures, and on catching them, sprayed them with hydrogen peroxide and toxins, then engulfed them after the style of a white blood cell. It had the weapons of a white blood cell, the mobility of a sperm, and a thing that our cells no longer possess for grabbing and catching.
They ganged up for attack and defense, each gang being a single clone line, thus beginning multicellularity in the line from which we are descended. Creatures like that still exist, and still easily switch between operating in gangs, and operating individually. If we view each gang as a single creature (and it acts like a single creature) that creature is isogamous.
Unowned women will course be fair game and up for grabs for anyone and everyone (a woman’s “consent” is wholly irrelevant: Consent does not make sex good, nor lack of consent make it bad), and we will make their life unappealing enough — through both legal and cultural means — that most women will much prefer to be owned.
Precisely. Better to be #1 on Jeremy Meek’s booty call list than #15. And far better to gain complete exclusivity over Jeremy Meeks, while still being absolutely certain that he could call up any of those other women for booty – not really physically possible, hence shit tests, yet still the ideal in a woman’s mind.
But also better to be #15 on the list than be exclusive to a boring beta who won’t either crush skulls or have his goons crush skulls.
I’m back. So. I concede that if and women grow up in a feral state of nature, no father, no upbringing, driven entirely by hardware-level instincts, they will be lusting for the most brutal criminals. Fortunately, software level interventions like fatherhood, upbringing, culture, shaming and all that happen. Usually. The most important is probably that if the father is present in their lives which usually implies he is a decent fella, they will think alpha men are like their father and will fuck men who are like their father.
Tattooed girls probably had a very bad upbringing and will likely fuck brutal criminals. Are tattoed girls considered average in your circles? In mine no girl ever had tattooes and even men had them rarely. It’s trashy. I am 41 and just from Central Europe, not even very far “east”, certainly closer to Berlin than to Moscow. When 10-12 year ago I lived in England I was seriously put off by the fat yet slutty dressed, drunk, loud, cussing girls in the pub circuit, no desire to fuck them. But even they were not much tattooed. So what is the average? Where? When?
I finally googled Jeremy Meeks. Why is he constantly being used as an example here? @Jim? While he is a criminal, he is also a super handsome fashion model. That is a hell of a confounding variable for determining whether women like criminals! We should be talking about women fucking ugly as hell orcish looking criminals. Single variable analysis. Not confounding the model with traits like unusual levels of good looks. So why Meeks, why not some fat ugly Hispanic criminal from last weeks TV news?
Not my experience… Take it from a sperg who is not good at lying or being an asshole (I’m no natural alpha)… Fatherless girls and girls who lost their father early tend to like or at least not be as repulsed by nice responsible guys.
Jim also said at some point that fatherless girls tend to have somewhat less sexual attraction to evil and less repulsion to nice (btw this is another argument against bastardcide for female children anyway).
In American this is literally around 85-90% of women under 35 now. I expected to see less of it in the South but not the case.
Former communists countries have lesser penetration of evil feminist Cathedral memes.
All women are like that. Some more than others. I don’t think any social intervention is likely to make a huge difference, except for punishing brutal criminals in a public and humiliating manner, and if anything low class women are less bad than high class women. They are certainly way better than lawyerettes, whose attraction for the most brutal criminals is notorious.
They are not attracted to one hundred percent brutal all the way through, but they want the nice guy inside to be difficult to access and well hidden. Standard female fantasy is that romantic interest might well kill her, and often enough the fantasy is that he initially intended to kill her, and killed her father, her brother, etc, but due to events the killing keeps being postponed, and he eventually decides he would never kill her. His soft nice guy inner core is eventually revealed after brutally murdering numerous people. But he never apologizes for treating her with great cruelty and murdering everyone she loved, and if she makes a fuss about that, it is only a shit test. He scolds her and the shit test collapses.
If General Butt Naked gets beaten through the streets and then put in a pillory for people to throw rotten fruit at, that would reduce the problem considerably. Until then, imply you are an adventurer who possibly may have killed people.
Blood Passover (Ritual human sacrifice)
by Ariel Toaff
Ariel Toaff (born 1942) is a professor of Medieval and Renaissance History at Bar Ilan University in Israel, whose work has focused on Jews and their history in Italy.
He came to international prominence with the 2007 publication of the first edition of his controversial book Pasque Di Sangue (Passovers of Blood), in which he claimed historical basis for ritual use of human blood, obtained by murder.
This book courageously faces one of the most controversial topics in the history of the J**s of Europe, one which has always served as a war-horse of anti-Semitism:
the accusation, leveled against the J**s for centuries, of abducting and killing Christian children to use their blood in Jooish Passover rites.
Where Italy is concerned, nearly all the ritual murder trials were held in the north-eastern regions, characterized by large settlements of German-origin J**s (Ashkenazim).
The most famous case of this kind occurred in Trent, Italy, in 1475, as a result of which many local J**s were indicted and sentenced to death for the murder of the boy who was to become known as “Simon of Trentâ€, and was venerated as a Saint for several centuries, until only a few decades ago.
An unprejudiced rereading of the original trial records, however, together with the records of several other trials, viewed within the overall European context and supplemented by an exact knowledge of the relevant Hebrew texts, throws new light on the ritual and therapeutic significance of blood in Jewish culture, leading the author of the present study to the reluctant conclusion that, particularly where Ashkenazi Jewry was concerned, the “Blood Libel” accusation was often not an invention. …
<a href="http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/"Unz wrote something similar. I cannot attest to its veracity, interested in what others think of this.
fixed link
from James Rusbridger’s twitter
JR @JamesRusbridger
8h8 hours ago
“Jeffrey Epstein’s lair:
On the roof sits #Moloch the owl, the Canaanite god of child sacrifice.
Island workers say the walls were built #soundproof.
An engineer says an external #locking #bar “appears intended to lock people in”
I”ve no idea if Jeffrey Epstein had children tortured & murdered here
But make no mistake, Epstein KNEW he was alluding to child sacrifice when he commissioned this monstrosity.
So he’s either a serial killer, or ‘merely’ a twisted pedosadist and international child trafficker”
The only thing that’s actually been alleged is that he got evil sirens to tempt politicians, by accusing him of all that other stuff you’re smearing his victims, they may be politicians but they’re victims. But try posting that on Twitter and see how fast you get banned.
Thanks for the memo, FBI; now fuck off.
Epstein was a glownagger running a honeytrap.
There were no children; the youngest was 14, and this is according to the people who want him put away for life. It would be far more effective to say that they were 4, not 14, but they can’t say that, because they have no evidence.
I’ve noticed that the official press does not generally refer to them as children; merely “underage”, which is exactly correct – technically illegal but not very interesting otherwise. “Under the age limit” is like “over the speed limit”, a bland legalistic statement.
It’s the conservatives who are apopletic over the story, branding it as child exploitation or child abuse, huffing and puffing that the official press is not doing enough to demonize the monsters who visited the island and raped these poor innocent little girls.
It must be hard having to choose between evil and stupid. I can’t help sympathizing with the evil.
See, that’s why Neo-Reaction is not “part of the alt-right,” but an alternative to it. The alt-right is just a re-branded version of various previous ideologies, notably White Nationalism and Traditional Conservatism. And, as you’ve pointed out, the media is showering the alt-right with attention — it just can’t get enough of these edgy shocking internet celebrities — whereas very few words are ever spoken about Neo-Reaction, lest some members of the cognitive elite might notice that our thought-crimes have high truth-value and that our counter-narrative is rather compelling.
The alt-retard who screams his lungs out about how Jew Epstein abused all those innocent teenage prostitutes is an enthusiastic follower and promoter of the Cathedral Party Line, essentially criticizing the system for supposedly not being stringent enough in its enforcement of its own rules. As Chesterton (who was Blue Pilled, but still had insightful things to say) famously remarked,
Seems that Reactionaries — and only Reactionaries — grasp that point.
Offline, I only know a handful of alt-rightists, but many more tradcons, and they’re marching more or less in lockstep on this one. The only difference is, for tradcons it’s “evil pedophile Satan-worshiping liberals” and for alt-rightists it’s “evil pedophile Moloch-worshiping Jews”. Many of them actually think pre-teens were involved; they didn’t read that anywhere, there’s no evidence for it anywhere, nobody has even tried to make that claim, but they’re sure it must have happened – as the most devout shitlib would be keen to say, it “feels true”.
It’s nearly impossible to discuss the situation rationally with squish-righters without being accused of defending Epstein. Oh, he’s guilty, but not of being a dangerous sexual predator abusing little girls for the sick pleasure of perverted 80-year-old men, but rather for being a secret policeman, one of Cthulhu’s top enforcers using dirty tricks and evil laws to ruin the lives of ordinary folks and quash any dissent in the political and corporate ranks.
As for the girls, unless someone can prove to me that Epstein’s goons literally jammed guns in their fathers’ faces while pulling their daughters out of bed at 3 AM, I’m not going to express any sympathy whatsoever, either for them or for their neglectful parents.
Its just that we smell blood and I’m fine with hoisting the other side from its own bluepill petard.
The SDNY Dems initiated this Epstein thing with the idea of framing Trump, but Barr refused to roll over on the legal technicalities only recusing himself from the investigation into Accosta’s sweetheart deal (which involved the intel agencies running the honeytrap) which he referred not to justice but to the whitehouse itself… which means all the blackmail information Epstein got is likely to end up in the hands of Stephen Miller.
Of course, Epstein worked for the Cathedral and I’m not sad about him being rolled up. But the politically savvy move here is to shake him down for that sweet kompromat, and use it as leverage in the ongoing coup. Is frothing-at-the-mouth blue-pilling really a necessary ingredient?
Many of the politicians and VIPs Epstein honeytrapped could be more useful alive than dead, with Team Trump pulling the strings. The Clintons, of course, should all be hanged.
Trump Barr and Stephen Miller will decide what strategy is best, I think they will make a good decision on this as to who to burn and who to blackmail.
We’re all gonna make it fam
Hail Karkinos, Avatar of GNON!
(Explanation for newbs: Carcinisation serves as a metaphor for the gradual accumulation and refinement of similar resilient and adaptive social technologies among a diversity of non-dependent civilizations, e.g. patriarchy)
… Yes that was exactly what i was going for ðŸ˜
*FBI agents monitoring this blog*
Smith: These people are talking in some strange codes. Child sex trafficking?
Jones: No, that’s not it. They have their own memes, or “shibboleths,” and to fit in, we have to learn at least some of them.
Smith. Sure… so what’s up with these dancing crabs?
Jones: “Noisestorm – Crab Rave” is taken as a triumphant Neo-Reactionary track, as crabs represent some sort of convergent evolution that signals… resilience.
Smith: Yeah, they’re not paying me enough for this shit – I’m out.
Okay, an explanation that even lurkers who have only just discovered this blog should be able to understand.
Carcinisation describes the process whereby various types of crustaceans have independently evolved crab-like forms. It is a fun example of convergent evolution, i.e., “The independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages.” It looks like the crab-form is particularly evolutionarily adaptive.
This is used by us oppressive shitlords to symbolize cultural institutions — or, as we like to call it, “social technologies” — that likewise tend to evolve and proliferate among different civilizations that are independent of each other. For instance, the institution of marriage evolved both in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient China, without cultural transmission between them. Put another way, we see that different successful civilizations — indeed, as long as they are successful — tend to develop remarkably similar Chesterton’s Fences.
We consider this process of “cultural carcinisation” to be indicative of GNON’s will: Since groups that independently develop and practice, e.g., capitalism, tend to outlast groups that don’t, thus capitalism is spontaneously selected for among different peoples (and, in turn, provides those peoples with greater survivability), we consider that a clear indication that capitalism is favored by Nature or Nature’s God.
The crab has come to represent GNON’s will.
You want to see a crisis of faith looks like, read this:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5w374/climate-despair-is-making-people-give-up-on-life
So dies a religion with collective salvation, no forgiveness, no God, and no Heaven. People hear what is demanded of them (no meat, no fossil fuels, no vacations, no children), they see what little effect their sacrifices are having, and they fall into profound despair. Oh, how I wish to live on the West Coast before it disappears underwater, says one liberal, unaware that it has already disappeared under a layer of hobo feces.
In the latest edition of social engineering cathedral poz against all capitalist logic…
James Bond a character I loved is now a black woman.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244671/Thought-007-never-woman-black-shes-James-Bond-hand-number-over.html
This is even worse then what they did to Star Wars or Game of Thrones (at the end of the series).
I reiterate my call that after the war we need a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem.
Here are two “Traddad/Conservadad†arguments, both taking it for granted that (A) pubescent girls will make an effort to have sex with people with whom their fathers would prefer that they not have sex, and that (B) it’s very hard to determine what counts as involuntary sex, so that it’s a mistake to justify sex-related laws in terms of the voluntary vs. involuntary character of the sex in question.
Argument I (for the conclusion that men who have sex with a girl without her father’s permission ought to be criminally prosecuted):
(1) The fathers of girls usually have a clearer sense than the girls do of what’s best for the girls and for the family as a whole. (2) It will often be best for a girl and for the family as a whole that the girl not have sex with someone with whom she wants to have sex. It follows that (3) fathers will often see that this is the case. Now, (4) the law ought to promote that which is best for individuals and families. So, (5) the law ought to promote decision-making by fathers as to whom their daughters will have sex with. (6) The law can promote this through the criminal prosecution of men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission to these men to have sex with them. So, (7) men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission to these men to have sex with them ought to be criminally prosecuted.
(Note: a separate argument is required for the conclusion that it ought to be legislated that a girl’s father may give permission to a man to have sex with her only by giving her to him in permanent marriage.)
Argument II (for the conclusion that girls ought not to be married without their fathers’ permission, even when they have already have had sex):
(1) The fathers of girls usually have a clearer sense than the girls do of what’s best for the girls and for the family as a whole. (2) It will often be best for a girl and for the family as a whole that the girl not marry someone with whom she has had sex and instead marry someone else later on. It follows that (3) fathers will often see that this is the case. Now, (4) the law ought to promote that which is best for individuals and families. So, (5) the law ought to ensure that fathers decide whom their daughters will marry (even when their daughters have already had sex with someone).
(Note: this second argument assumes a state of affairs in which the law ensures that marriage is permanent.)
(General note: I do not necessarily disapprove of anyone’s sexual practices under current society-wide sexually anarchic conditions; I recognize that as things stand, with everything up for grabs, if you don’t grab it then a worse man will. Of course, I would disapprove of the cruel grabbing of stuff, but I assume that everyone here grabs in a kindly manner.)
It can but it really really really shouldn’t.
>instead marry someone else later on
Impractical.
Plenty of men will be willing to take a hot non-virgin . I tend to agree with him on father being able to veto marriages up until a certain age though perhaps he should have financial or eugenic grounds on why the boy is unsuitable.
What I cannot endorse is prosecution for men in such cases.
No.
Trying to control men is the wrong approach. It is a displacement activity that avoids the problem to be solved. Women will just wander off out of dad’s sight. It is like telling the farmer to make the world safe for his chickens to roam free. He cannot do that. No one can do it, and trying to do that is avoiding the problem that women have to be under male control.
When someone puts that argument he is saying “I favor women being under male control, except that that is just too horrifying and wicked to be contemplated.”
It is like the pastor saying the husband should lead the wife, but not saying the wife should honor and obey. Dalrock has endless rants on this topic.
It should be expected that neighboring farmers will return errant chickens to one another rather than taking advantage of holes in fences through which their neighbors’ chickens have wandered. And the girl-shaped chickens in question are very clearly marked — every farmer at least knows which chickens DON’T belong to him. If these girl-shaped chickens aren’t fed by farmers onto whose land they have wandered through holes in fences, they will return through these holes onto the land of the farmer to whom they belong. A law prohibiting the feeding of girl-shaped chickens that aren’t your own will markedly decrease the frequency of such feedings by bad-neighbor farmers.
My Traddad assumption is that men, unlike women, are capable of honoring contracts that they make with one another. It is because men are capable of honoring contracts that contract-violators are prosecuted.
I want a USA 2035 in which one’s 14-year-old daughter can be allowed to go shopping or to an afternoon movie in the neighborhood with a couple of 14 year old friends without the assumption that she’s now up for grabs. Yes, you can’t depend on HER self-control, but you should be able to depend on the self-control of the other men in the neighborhood.
Tradcons are entryists.
What do you think I’m attempting to “enter”? I’m a 53-year-old twice-divorced, barely-paying-my-bills adjunct; what would I possibly want to “enter” and what would possibly motivate me to “enter”? I don’t imagine myself as joining or deviously undermining or diverting-from-its-true-goals any sort of glorious supervillain-conspiracy; I just like talking to thoughtful people.
One would think a twice divorced man who barely pays his bills (i assume the bills come from feminist courts, not financial incompetence) would know the folly of pedestalizing women.
The chickens will just travel further afield. I observe them travelling four hundred miles to Arlie beach.
I observe chickens goofing around with each other at bus stops or in front of delis or alongside playground-fences in parks; I don’t go to beaches or hotels or clubs or even restaurants.
A difference between girls and chickens is that girls often make amusing remarks about various things and have facial expressions; fathers therefore love their daughters and are therefore unwilling to allow a girl-collector’s sack to be closed over a daughter’s head even when she volcanically/chickenishly wandered into that sack.
I agree that we should all recognize the volcanically chickenish nature of girls, despite their amusing remarks and facial expressions. It seems to me, though, that we might also recognize the protectively fatherish nature of men.
Fathers should be told if they want to protect their daughters they should arrange a suitable match as soon as possible after puberty.
OF COURSE! I emphatically grant that this is the case.
The chickens will just travel further afield. I observe them travelling four hundred miles to Arlie beach.
What you want is strange.
If the 14 yo girls are safe at the mall then going to each other’s homes and having sex with each other, would that be OK?
If they are all “in love “ with the same local violent meth dealer, but they are “safe at the mall†would that be OK?
What you want is for human sexuality to simply remake itself into something that has never existed, nor can exist. Someone, I think shaman, put it beautifully “young women have volcanic sex drivesâ€. We cannot simply wish human sexuality to become something else just for our convenience.
For thousands of years European girls have been allowed to take walks together — note the Phaecians or whatever they’re called in the Odyssey. I want life to be normal, like it was in the 1890s or 1930s or whenever. The whole point is to kill any “violent meth dealer” who violates we-don’t-touch-each-other’s-chickens contracts.
I granted at the outset that girls are volcanic chickens — please reread what I wrote and don’t be pointlessly nasty. If YOU are going to nasty to me, then I’ll just change my screen-name right back to “Aging Loser”. That’ll show you.
You don’t really think that I want a remaking of human sexuality, any more than I really think that you want to shit all over thousands of years of European history in which village girls chatted together at wells and wove garlands out of flowers.
Drug dealing will not a viable profession in reactionary society because I imagine we will legalize everything short of fentanyl and the few prohibited substances (like fenanyl which can poison people who don’t even touch it) will have death penalties for all around the way China does.
Jeremy Meeks if not hanged or exiled won’t live near you unless you are either really really poor or really really trying to save money.
So while its quite possible Joey the working class Italian knocks up your daughter in reactionary society, its going to be very unlikely that Jeremy Meeks (including a white equivalent of Jeremy Meeks) or Tyrone does.
There will always be charming and even brilliant and essentially kind-hearted losers (lazy, socially disfunctional, whatever), and Dad might recognize that Archie is such a person while Seymour is socially competent and a much more likely long-term provider, and so Dad might very much prefer that 14-year old Cindy marry Seymour even if Cindy has already had sex with Archie.
And of course there will always be impressively aggressive large-jawed stupid impulsive cruel deceitful men of impeccably Northwest-European descent whom Dad would very much prefer that Cindy not marry.
Yes, Cindy is a volcanic chicken — Dad’s own (for now) dear little volcanic chicken. Are Dads to stop being Dads? Are we to violate and deform Daddish nature? Wouldn’t that be a DEMONIC project?
Yes which is why I think the father ought to have marriage veto up until a certain age whether sex occurred or not, whites aren’t Arabs there will be plenty of men willing to take the non virgins*. Where I differ from you is if father vetoes the marriage it still shouldn’t make Archie a criminal.
But if you don’t arrange it by a certain age she is subject to marriage by abduction and single women past a certain age will be subject to all sort of demeaning sumptuary and lifestyle restrictions and harassment designed to be not too onerous in the objective sense but designed to be particulary vexing to women (I would restrict them to very drab grey clothes and not allow them jewelry).
Sympathizing with bluepilled traddad delusions about their daughter being some perpetually virginal sweet pre pubescent girl would and has mad for very bad law.
I think you ought to be able to veto an unsuitable marriage, but you ought to see they get married as shortly after puberty as possible. What I say is not ahistorical so I don’t see how it is unnatural.
* Plenty of men downright like real turbosluts, judging from Augustus prohibition of marriages between Senators/Equites and infames women so I don’t think its strictly a modern thing.
If abortion and industrial birth-control products were outlawed, without other reforms we’ll see the spontaneous return of immediate extreme pressure on everyone involved (at least in the younger age brackets) in cases of sexual delinquency to arrive at a suitable disposition (early marriage, or the girl being made “to study abroad in Europe” for nine or so months, etc.), the way it was done pre-1960s.
Impossible to prevent birth control this is a papist-beta tradcon crossover meme that won’t work.
can’t make the pill in your bathtub
What’s wrong with abolishing birth control?
The whole point of NRx is to restore patriarchial control and ensure that men can have families. Outlawing birth control reduces female autonomy and enables men to have families.
What is wrong with it is men should decide if women are on birth control.
Outlawing contraception won’t completely prevent “birth control,” as there are various other tactics to achieve that, but nonetheless it will significantly minimize it – that’s not a bad idea. Comdoms and pills greatly facilitate female misbehavior.
Abortion/birth control should be dangerous, highly illegal, and rare. Like hard drugs, illegal handguns, etc. things that will always exist in illicit markets that are nonetheless inaccessible to the average middle-class normie.
Abortion and contraception are not the same thing, and should not be regarded as the same thing. Life does not begin before conception, hence masturbation is not a super holocaust against hundreds of millions of sperm cells.
Doug Smythe continues his entryism…
lol gay
>Abortion and contraception are not the same thing, and should not be regarded as the same thing.
They are not the same thing, but both were very expressly devised and pushed to accomplish the same thing, namely facilitate female sexual misbehaviour and de-populate our States.
And? Here are some other things that were designed for the same purpose:
– Abacuses and computers
– Nails and screws
– Email and Facebook
– Swords and atomic bombs
– The electric chair and the boats
Should we therefore treat everything on the left side the same as on the right side?
Jim has already stated that birth control and abortion should be husbands and fathers right to choose and I agree except that 3rd trimester abortions should be banned.
I suppose in light of this and discussion of last week I can say, after having familiarized myself w/developments that took place after I stopped paying attention for several months, definitely not-Reactionary anymore. Much more interested in doing whatever I can towards the immediate goals of the coup and the complete destruction of the Cathedral and its pillars then in pointless Scholastic hair-splitting and the elaboration of frankly hare-brained armchair reform schemes that, to the extent that they can or ever will be implemented, won’t be any time soon regardless of who wins the ongoing civil war between the American people and the anti-nationals. Unfortunately unless something changes real fast it looks like the anti-nationals will win, and civilization painfully slouch into darkness as the Americans are enslaved or killed off- and in that case we’ll have bigger fish to fry than daydreaming about this and that. If the Americans win, then we will lay waste the Cathedral (figuratively or literally as applicable), outlaw its doctrines, and drive its functionaries into the sea (figuratively or literally as applicable). The socially deformative, distorting, and pathogenic influence of Cathedral propaganda having been abolished, everybody will rapidly become normal again, and society free to establish laws, customs and practices suitable to the needs of a modern, well-ordered commercial State as opposed to to a loose confederation of desert tribesmen (as imagined by modern people who aren’t desert tribesmen themselves).
Nobody ever confused you for one, tradcon.
Liar. These discussions elucidate vital principles of the reactionary worldview, without which no Restoration can succeed. You call that “air-splitting” because you don’t like our conclusions, which differ from your Blue Pilled white knight lies.
See, again you are lying. The only harebrained schemes are those of tradcons, whose pathetic loserdom is truly endemic. Your worldview has been wholesale rejected, so now you’re in the business of ankle-biting and concern trolling. Whenever an entryist tells us “stop doing X,” it’s rather conclusive evidence that we must forcefully continue doing X, that we are on the right path. Thus we will continue elucidating the principles of reaction.
You’re talking out of your ass. First Temple law and First Millennium Christian law are not from “desert tribesmen.” Again, whenever an entryist says “stop doing X, it won’t succeed, blah-blah-blah,” it tells us that we are doing something right and should continue doing so – in this case, it’s explaining our precise positions about the Woman Problem, which as a tradcon you have nothing to contribute to.
Yeah don’t worry about it @shaman I have *no* intention of interfering in your LARPing and talking stupid, it’s one of the few rights a guy really has nowadays.
>First Temple law and First Millennium Christian law are not from “desert tribesmen.â€
Maybe they had a hidden industrialized commercial republic down there in ancient Israel, I haven’t checked the archaeological record lately mind you, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t. It could also be possible that Christ revealed a complete civil law system valid for all times and places to His disciples, but my Bible doesn’t record it, only a requirement that Christians obey the will of the temporal Sovereign in civil matters as though the will of God wherever they happen to be.
Are you ever the idiot. I have never read or met anything as stupid in my entire life. You’re a fool Shaman, and also a chump for not monetizing the acumen you have for talking half-baked revisionist nonsense when if you just got with the mainstream Left you’d have an endowed chair at an Ivy by now, instead of doing it for free in the thoughtcrime blogs where a guy *used* to be able to go to get away from all the bullshit that goes in at the University and get a straight answer about things. To each his own I guess; don’t give a fuck actually.
The nature of women has not changed in a million years. First Temple Israel and First Millenium Christianity faced and solved the very difficult problem of handing female sexuality in cities, which problem we are spectacularly, horrifyingly, and catastrophically failing to solve.
We should not sneer at the social technology of people who survived, when we are heading for extinction.
And yet, you never stop posting here, never stop concern trolling, and never stop ankle biting, like the little bitch you are.
What have Tard-Cucks (tradcons) ever achieved, again? Oh, right: Nothing. This movement has no need of Blue Pilled losers. We are moving the Overton Window. You’re just a whiner.
Yes, capitalism is ancient, and existed in Solomon’s time. First Temple Jewry were not “desert tribesmen.” You can join your friend CR in denying that, though. Entryists of a feather flock together!
Strawman. Nobody here ever suggested anything remotely similar. But it’s interesting that you’re allergic to the Logos and allergic to Nature or Nature’s God (Gnon), as you seek to interfere in our elucidation of reactionary principles.
You’re quoting scripture like the Devil. That you passionately and enthusiastically support the banning of all guns is one thing, but that you justify it with “This is the will of God” is a whole ‘nother level of nuts.
[Citation Needed]
Jim, myself, and others here have given you abundant straight answers, as straight as you’ll ever get. You’re just butt-mad and triggered that we vehemently disagree with and reject your white knight Blue Pilled frame. Well, I’m glad that I triggered you, and will gladly do so again.
Then GTFO.
You are telling us that we must obey the Cathedral in all matters. Not so, and definitely not the will of God. Jesus instructed the Jews not to rebel against the Romans, and Paul instructed his audience to keep the law of the land – which absolutely doesn’t mean that evil laws must never be opposed, or that the earthly Kingdom is always right about all matters. Evil laws issued by an evil authority, such as mandatory trannyism issued by the Cathedral, must be opposed by all means available.
“all means” is a little too sweeping. Warlike means against evil authority are limited by the natural and divine law of war – which requires, among other things, right authority – someone capable of deciding war for everyone or peace for everyone.
If the Trump counter coup and counter counter coup continue to get hotter, then it will indeed be “all means”, including napalm bombardment with heavy artillery. Yes, then we shall force the trannies to get out of the faces of decent people by physical violence, and more importantly, redevelop Harvard and sell it in small lots for housing, offices, and apartment buildings. Until then, all non violent means.
>Evil laws issued by an evil authority […] must be opposed by all means available.
LOL your behaviour on this forum all makes perfect sense now. Sorry Shaman or OFFICER or whatever the fuck they call you: I am a strictly law abiding citizen myself, and I very much doubt that you’ll be able to goad anyone here into committing crimes more serious than tearing off the tag on the mattress that says “do not remove this tag”. But nice try there Fed.
Lame. (Who said anything about crimes?)
There’s an interesting phenomenon here, in that I literally make the exact same arguments as Jim — or, indeed, more moderate arguments than Jim — but then a bunch of cowardly entryists who really don’t want Jim to put them on Moderation and to delete their waste of reader bandwidth try to single me out, and direct all their tearful venom against me, instead of criticizing Jim directly for his positions. Hey, I’m not complaining: I want you to do this, that’s partly why I’m here.
You will not single me out for advocating precisely what Jim advocates, or milder versions thereof.
I will single you out.
The really interesting phenomenon is how I’ve been commenting here for >3years and never had any serious trouble with anyone until three weeks ago when I said that NRx should take tactical stances in order to keep the violent extremists away- and lo and behold you show up out of nowhere with all your pissant ad-homs, transparently manipulative attempts to style yourself the holiest Brahmin in all NRx and the one true disciple of Jim, etc.
I’m sure you will continue to single me out, after all it *is* your job as an undercover LEO to try to chase away anybody who might cramp your style in your attempt to meme people here into doing/saying something illegal. Good luck with that though.
You see fed, there are a whole lot of creative and non-illegal ways to oppose evil laws and evil policies (such as the Cathedral’s child tranny stuff and so forth); therefore, by telling us, “The only way to oppose evil laws is by outright committing crimes,” you are the one goading the readers into dark alleys.
I stand by the statement that evil laws issued by an evil authority must be opposed (“opposed” =/= “transgressed”) by all means available.
Inferring from this “Go out and commit crimes!” makes you a fed, not me. There are different methods to avoid compliance with state-mandated Moloch worship short of behavior that lands one in prison. For instance, moving to a different, saner state, as Jim himself has done. Or even just publicly calling to change the law, as we’re doing right here. I’m sure you can think of other opposition methods that don’t involve criminal behavior, but you won’t tell us, because as a fed it’s your job to equate opposition to evil laws with criminality.
I’ve been for at least 5, as Friendly Fred can testify.
You literally devote your blog to telling Jim that he is a horrible, horrible person, and that NRx is egregiously extreme. I’ve already linked to your blog. Need I do so again?
Sure, I never disagreed with that. Who ever promoted violence? Ah, right: You are promoting it, by telling us that the only way to oppose evil laws issued by an evil authority is to commit crimes and go to prison. I certainly never said or implied anything like that.
Again: Been here long before you, will be here long after you.
You never stop lying and never stop being a hypocrite, do you? Your entire thing right now is ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with the Blue Pill account of female sexuality.
Nuts. All I ever do is state my positions, which are — for the millionth time (!) — less extreme than Jim’s. Yes, apparently I do so quite compellingly, so tradcons like you resent me for it. Well, sucks for you.
Never said or implied that. Look at Jim’s blogroll and look at 90% of this comment section: Lots of true disciples of Jim. I’m nothing special, really, except that I possess the unique capacity to accurately sniff out entryists and kick them out one after the other – which is why they are so butthurt specifically over me.
Okay, you got me: The Mossad sent me here so I can agree with Jim about his positions and point out that Tard-Cucks are entryists who should GTFO, and that given your equation of opposition to the Cathedral with criminality, that you are possibly a federal agent.
Jim, I agree. No need to resort to violent means when there are plenty of non-violent means, such as simply moving somewhere else.
(The comment above was directed solely at federal agent Doug)
What are you on about now? People are piling on you here because you keep pooping out smelly blue pills and autistically (or perhaps on purpose) ignoring or reframing everyone’s good-faith attempts to correct them.
I, for one, didn’t even know who you were until about a week ago or whenever precisely you entered this discussion. I certainly haven’t seen anything from you relating to violent extremists. I think you’re vastly overestimating your own notoriety.
I’d estimate a solid third of the conversations here are about weeding out the low-IQ violent idiots, most of whom are actually feds larping as low-IQ violent idiots. In fact I don’t think any other blogger/community does half as good a job at making sure they’re either banned or ridiculed.
I think that we all agree that, to the extent possible, the law should be obeyed. I’ve never suggested or implied criminal action to oppose mandatory child trannyism – not because the law is sacrosanct and “the will of God” (as Doug satanically claims), but because criminal action, and most certainly any sort of violent criminal action, is not nearly the most effective way to do so. You can’t actually oppose the Cathedral from within a dank prison cell, can you?
Doug is just desperately rolling out all the ad hominems at his disposal — no matter how far fetched they are — to divert attention from the fact that this is an ideological issue, and that his ideology has been completely annihilated here. Thus, latching on to a cherry picked half-sentence I made in order to denounce me as a fed, which disingenuous cherry picking actually raises the likelihood that he is one, given his equation of opposition to the Cathedral with violent criminality.
We will continue supporting Jim and opposing tardcon / fed entryists.
> I think that we all agree that, to the extent possible, the law should be obeyed.
Not exactly. Rather, one should refrain from open violent disobedience or collective armed disobedience until the time for war arrives. Don’t engage in warlike acts, don’t openly organize for war, at least not without an adequate cover story. If on the other hand inconvenient people causing problems are prone to mysterious disappearance, well, these things happen, no idea why.
The feds always want you to blow up a preschool. Don’t do that. Similarly, don’t cause trannies to disappear. Unless they are bothering your sons. The reason I got on OK with that female pretending to be a male is that her pretense at being male collapsed in the presence of my pretense at being alpha. To the extent she held male identify, she was disgusting.
Doug wrote:
We have already explained to him that this is not the NRx position, and that he is a total retard. He did not address the refutation. No, instead of addressing the refutation as an intellectually honest person would do, he wrote in this very thread right here:
This is a glaring obvious motte and bailey argument, in which he is telling us, on the one hand, that as priests we must disavow all guns completely, and then switches to “Oh, this is just to solidify our Brahmin cred, not sincerely.” But, as per usual, he then goes back to telling us that guns should be “dangerous, highly illegal, and rare.”
So this guy, who devotes his blog to calling Jim and NRx nasty names, who is pushing the Blue Pill every chance he has, and who is telling us to support bans against “assault weapons and handguns,” has the audacity to accuse members of this community of being feds merely for stating that Jim is right about the Woman Question.
He is an entryist on all levels. He knows it, we know it. One has to wonder who is paying him to keep posting here, despite our vehement rejection of all his positions.
@Doug Smythe
You don’t need a republics to have an industrial technological society, tradcon entryist.
@Doug Smythe
Since you failed the Redpill on women test, here’s a RedPill on race test…
Which option is better:
A) Let white patriarchs have whatever rifle and handgun they like.
B) Ban guns. Guns are the problem, not Tyrone Shitavious
It really is amazing, isn’t it? Someone who literally says:
Implying that he is one of us: “Hail fellow reactionaries.” And then, without responding to our objections to his glaringly obvious leftist ideological entryism, goes on to say that possession of handguns should be:
Has the unparalleled chutzpah to tell an entire community that the only way to oppose the Cathedral is violent criminality.
This is Jim’s blog, and Jim should moderate it as he sees fit. That said, if someone showed up on one of the many forums and communities that I used to moderate — no links available, sorry guys — and promoted one fed position after the other, his comments would appear as:
And then he would be IP banned.
Because someone who on the one hand consistently promoted the banning of guns (and told us that he was a “fellow reactionary” while at it), and who on the other hand equated all opposition to the Cathedral with violent criminality, is — more likely than not — being handled. That such a person is also a fanatical Blue Piller kinda leaves few doubts about the matter.
Busted, fed-boy Doug.
NRx does not currently advocate any sort of illegal action against the Cathedral’s pozzed Moloch worshiping tranny minions – later on, it possibly will, but it’s not yet the time, and when it is the time, NRx will probably be completely off-line anyway.
And ideally, it won’t ever be necessary to advocate anything illegally violent, one reason being that after the Restoration, it simply won’t be an illegal deed to physically remove whatever Satanic boy-diddling drag queens and other such infernal demons that remain, to cleanse the grotesque filth out of society.
This, so I believe, is Jim’s position, as stated in a comment above. But currently, prior to the upcoming bloody civil war, and prior to the Restoration, I think we all agree that the law should be obeyed to the extent possible.
And NRx does not support bans against assault weapons and handguns, for any reason. Anyone pulling off a “Greetings fellow dissidents – let’s support bans against handguns” is an obvious leftist entryist, and likely a hostile, malicious, and bloodthirsty federal agent who wants us all dead.
When the chronic Blue Piller Doug tells us that handguns must be exclusively confined to “illicit markets” (his actual words), and that they must be:
He is promoting a federal agent position, unsuccessfully disguised as a reactionary position.
That’s why he is constantly ankle biting and concern trolling, and why he refuses to GTFO. That’s what feds do – they stay until someone kicks them out and slams the door shut.
As someone who spends a lot of time around Brahmins, I can confirm that Doug’s account of Brahmins is completely, totally, and beyond any shadow of a doubt, absolutely f***ing asscrackers.
There are a lot of Brahmins who own firearms. Not all, perhaps not even most, but more than enough to completely obliterate the characterization as an anti-gun monolith.
Brahmins aren’t anti-gun. They just don’t want anyone else to own guns, unless it’s someone they control. Just look at their attitude to Redneck Revolt, and their curious silence on gun control after the ICE terrorist made headlines.
>I’ve already linked to your blog. Need I do so again?
I’d be delighted. The one article you tout is more timely than ever in fact- the main point in writing it was to urge people to consider just how the things they write might sound when read aloud- by YOU that is- to a jury that might not find the epistemological critique of anti-concepts and the like to be a convincing defense, especially after you get through wildly quoting them out of context. You’ve already shown considerable acumen at doing the latter, no doubt through having done it to who knows how many militants and dissidents in your LE career, and thus have unintentionally done the valuable service of letting the public know just what to expect. Cops are really stupid, and also unbelievably easy and fun to troll (since as a cop you have Kshatriya values and take online insults much more seriously than most people would, responding with a wall of spazzpoasts instead of just telling me to fuck off the way an ordinary civilian of whatever caste would). I look forward to many more years of doing it to you while blowing the whistle on you officer Thoughtcrime Dog McGruff!
You should back up your false claims with some kind of evidence. You say that I quoted you out of context: Prove it. The audience enjoys entertaining ad hominems, but if they aren’t in line with anything real, if they’re repetitious, likely to eventually be censored.
By the way, you write:
Jim has already addressed that here:
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/the-optics-of-noticing/
You keep telling us that our optics are bad. Funny; seems to me that the optics of being a loser white knight blue piller, who deserves to be beaten through the streets (Jim’s and Cominator’s recommendation, which I merely endorse), and whose slut daughter may have been penetrated by the whole town, is much worse optics.
Why are you telling us to support banning weaponry if you’re not a fed, again? Perhaps you should elaborate on why real reactionaries should support banning rifles and firearms.
By the way, when you write:
Well, now I’m concerned! See, I have no intention wasting years trolling you. If you want to drag this on, despite the inevitable emotional draining that will be inflicted on you, then you’re either a true fed, or insane.
Being constantly told, e.g., that your daughter — assuming you have one, which is a fair assumption, though not a certainty — swallows big swinging dicks from sketchy tattooed strangers at the bar, that your wife has probably participated in “avid” anal orgies with Tyrone before settling down with a low-T beta cuck like you (she’ll never tell you), that generally you talk like a gay and your shit is all retarded, and so on and so forth, is emotionally vexing. Normal people don’t like being ruthlessly insulted by everyone, as you’re going to be.
Go on explaining why all opposition to evil laws is criminal, and why “we” must support banning guns.
Also, Jim writes:
And this applies to cyberspace as well. Lots of people mysteriously disappear from internet communities where they aren’t particularly well appreciated. These things do happen, for some reason.
I don’t approve of all your previous bullicides, shaman, but this one rightfully deserves a thorough whacking. Godspeed.
>We should not sneer at the social technology of people who survived, when we are heading for extinction.
I don’t mean to sneer at their or any other society’s social technology, just that their social technology was developed by their wise men for them and might not be readily exportable to the present. I personally am interested in looking into the immediate past of our own societies for solutions (ex. coverture) that were abandoned only because the Cathedral deemed them immoral, and often only as recently as the 1960s.
Oh look, the tradcon ankle-biter who got the WRP questions wrong keeps posting – MASOCHIST?
Jim is telling you that calling the Old Testament Hebrews “desert tribesmen” in the context of discussing their successful social technology is indeed sneering. What you “mean” to do is wholly irrelevant.
That is not even the actual position which you’ve been repeatedly posting here. What you are saying is that marriage-by-abduction has never worked, and principally cannot work, because loserdads won’t allow it. And we are telling you that it did work just fine, and that it will once again.
Yes, and that is why everyone here calls you a bluepiller and an entryist, and tells you to piss the fuck out of here.
Heck, even when you say that you are:
You are lying, because you have never been a reactionary or a neoreactionary or a right-winger of any kind.
Now explain why you consistently support banning our guns, faggot.
Is it because you’re a federal agent who wants Americans to be physically unable to resist the coming war against them?
Or is it because you think that it makes you sound “intelligent” and “sophisticated” that you counter-signal sane positions and embrace totally insane ones?
Or is it because you’re just naturally low-testosterone and weak, hence red-blooded real men scare you shitless, so you urgently seek to emasculate them?
Which one is it?
@Doug Smythe
Aren’t you going to answer my question on the race RedPill? It’s a simple fork in the road question, I wonder why you refuse to answer, entryist.
Agent Smythe, an advocate for gun-grabbing and passionate supporter of the AoC as “better than nothing,” doesn’t answer questions that might veer off his handlers’ script.
Reminder that Jim says:
Soyboy Smythe should’ve got the hint, should’ve realized, “Yeah, I guess I don’t really fit in here despite my best efforts at entryism – bye, fellas.” But no, being a fed, he keeps going on and on, even though we’ve made our intention clear to treat Agent Soyboy the way “child molesters” are treated in prison.
He keeps preaching the Blue Pill, and will continue doing so until his lying tongue is cut off – literally or metaphorically.
Constable Shaman wrote:
[torrent of impotent cop-rage that was even lulzier than I thought it would be]
Like all entryists: You are unresponsive, and hardly even amusing. You need to broaden your repertoire, the way Tyrone broadened your wife’s asshole; if you’re just going to call me a cop in every post, not gonna fly.
Answer the questions we are asking you, faggot.
OMFG I can’t believe this, you even *sound* like a cop. “Answer the questions”. LOL, make me! Oh wait, you can’t. And even if we were in the interrogation room I’d still say that and dare you to kick my ass, knowing that you wouldn’t (even though you could probably do it easily; physically I’m not very strong, kind of living stereotype of pipe-smoking bow-tie-wearing conservative research-institute kind of guy) . See this is why people don’t respect cops or take them seriously anymore, and why I laugh myself silly at, instead of being offended by, your insults, because they’re ballsless. It would be like taking offense at a circus clown b/c he sprayed with water from his trick lapel. Hey constable, I think I see Antifa laughing at you and directing traffic in your precinct again…
Well, I was going to drop another cool parody diss track, but honestly I don’t even feel like bothering this time around; your situation is not even funny. Sad? Sad.
I humbly hypothesized, regarding your support for gun-grabbing:
And now, instead of at least LARPing as an ass-whooping Trad Dad and asking me if I “feel lucky, punk?”, which is what keyboard white knights always do under similar circumstances, you literally come out with:
Basically, you confirm my suspicion: You are a natural weakling, physically frail, and what drives you to espouse your Blue-Pilled and leftist positions is actual biological effeminacy. You’re emphatically not a conservative stereotype – you are a leftist academic stereotype, and actually describing yourself as a “Sociologist” should’ve made it obvious in the first place.
You legitimately need to seek psychological and physical help. Hit the gym or something. A healthy mind is often preconditioned on a healthy body – you are mentally ill, because your body is not as it should be.
Curiously, you seem to be really fixated with cops; recall that you said that calling the cops to arrest random men when your slut daughter sexually misbehaves makes instinctive sense to you. So basically, you’re a noodle-armed man, likely manlet, who can be broken as easily as a twig, and therefore expect the Big Scary Goons to protect you and your family from the rest of the world, and your entire ideology, for all its idiosyncrasies, is simply a manifestation of that.
What is this shit? Holy fuck.
Faggot, I’m not a cop, and I’ve spent the last two years advocating for the closure of entire departments of the police. NRx wants to drastically minimize the police’s power and reduce civilian interactions with policemen, although it is opposed to needlessly alienating all policemen, not least because some of them are surely needed for the coup and/or the Restoration.
Civilization needs to be saved from the perniciousness of weak men like you and like your fellow leftist academics. Even if you consider your intentions to be essentially good, they truly aren’t – you are part of the problem, and mentally aberrant, apparently due to some kind of hormonal dysfunction. (I really mean it, and am on record right here saying the exact same thing to others who’ve exhibited the same mental aberration as you do) You confuse your soyboy instincts for fatherly instincts, which is a prevalent phenomenon. Your weltanschauung is cancer, and I’m viscerally averse to it, just as — evidently — you are allergic to mine, perhaps in addition to literal allergies.
I’m actually a bit triggered by your admission of physical weakness, obviously not for the reason you’d expect.
It’s all so tiresome.
You’ve just discredited yourself more than I ever could.
@shaman You haven’t made fun of my writing style yet.
It’s pretentious, as can be expected from leftist academics, but not so offensive as to merit bullying for it. What is offensive is your weakness and effeminacy; we value the opposite qualities of strength and masculinity (unless you’re a woman), which — contrary to the malicious caricatures depicted by soyboy professors — do not manifest as ostentatious machismo; rather, reflect on the mentality fostered by Bushido, if you will.
You are a living proof of why we need to be ruled by warriors rather than by priests. The priests are white knight blue-pillers who want to grab our guns because they hate red-blooded masculinity and strength, and hate normal male sexuality, hence their incessant attempts to emasculate society and make testosterone illegal. We need a civilization-wide program of wedgies and swirlies – the nerds should obey the jocks, or else.
You’ve got a really weird obsession with cops. Phobia, even.
Hmm, now what other groups do we know of that exhibit this trait?
People who think crimethoughts don’t worry about cops. They worry about feds.
Shaman wrote:
>Bushido
I think the term you’re looking for is “smacktard”; somebody who insults somebody else from a distance far enough to avoid getting a swirly from the jocks as punishment for doing it.
Can break you like a twig.
sjws always project; the one (doug) who confessed to being a pussy accuses others of false bravery
nobody likes you here, midwit
The typical blue-piller:
Every. Single. Time.
These are the kind of effete “men” who regularly get cucked, and who don’t even attempt to control their whorish daughters, so they want to arrest all men, and to grab our guns. I bet his wife is an obese “former” slut who’s several years his senior, and is rarely in the mood (for him, that is).
Is it any wonder that:
is followed by:
?
There’s certainly a lesson to be learned here.
What is the common denominator in all the following:
and
and
and
?
A) That’s low-T speaking.
B) That’s a cuck-voice speaking.
C) That’s a leftist infiltrator speaking.
D) All answers are correct.
D
Here’s a question: can lost souls like Doug be rescued by rectifying only one of these problems (head though and ass follows) or are he and the many like him lost causes?
Also, we may have to expand the categorization of entryist models.
Current
– Fed
– Leftists Entryist
– Insane Entryist
Expansion
– Experimental Entryist
This may overlap both Leftist and Insane, but imagine (taking his self description at face value) some pipe smoking, tweedabound cuckservative professor looking for untapped research fodder trying to mine the reactosphere then getting sucked in.
@shaman You’re late for work. Get your ass into gear, your jabronis are getting restless.
FA:
I’m pessimistic; neuroplasticity applies more to forebrain functions than to hindbrain ones, and someone whose faggotry is as multifaceted as Doug’s most likely has fundamental issues in the very core of his lizard brain – not prone to correction. The only solution is genetic (and, for whatever it’s worth, epigenetic) filtering.
I can see that; pompous academic cuckservatives writing their theses and doctorates on fringe political movements may actually role-play and get sucked in for a while. What they can’t is blend in, because a lot of politics is pre-verbal, and as mentioned here, they are pre-verbally screwed. I’ll keep that proposed 4th category in mind next time I encounter another white knight in this sphere.
Doug:
Like the AIDS-positive chastity-belted cuck you are, you’re just stuck with variations of the same shit. SJWs always say “Trump is orange” and “Trump is cheeto” and so on, and apparently your ANTIFA-tier obsession with cops just won’t give you a rest, so all your insults are pretty much identical.
Whelp- it looks like my bully isn’t going to show. Perhaps he’s off abducting the daughters of the pres of his local 1% MC for brides while his jabronis break every member of the chapter like twigs. Or not- but what would I know about the world of the super-Kshatriya.
Anyways, I’m starting to understand how the “bullycide” model works.
How Shaman and co. think it works:
“Oh no those super-Kshatriya bullies are scaring me so much the t-blockers in my pocket rattle- I’d better get of here”
How it actually works:
“What exactly am I doing arguing with undercover cops/LARPing mongoloids?”
Anybody actually interested in serious Rightist discussion knows where to find me.
Repetitious and unresponsive. Waste of reader bandwidth. Not entertaining.
Moderating you.
The response to “Jim adbucts little girls” has already been given
Respond to that. Continued failure to respond will be censored as unresponsive.
You guys said that already. We replied. Respond to our reply. Continued repetition of the blue pill is unresponsive.
Yes, heard it all before, everyone who disagrees with the Blue Pill is a child-molesting predator who randomly abducts 8-year-olds off the street because he is just so evil. Just how many cocks have you slurped today? (Rhetorical; the day isn’t over yet)
Repetitive and unoriginal.
Again: You just can’t break the habit of using the same insult over and over and over again, which is a characteristic of both medium-IQ dipshits who write pretentiously (and you are an incorrigible sophist, so the shoe fits exactly) and academic leftists who sincerely think that “GUYS, TRUMP IS ORANGE – HAHAHA” is absolutely genius comedy.
At the YMCA, getting “yucky” with the boys, presumably.
Taking bets on whether Ladyboy Doug pulls a CR and enters/exits multiple times ITT.
He’ll probably come back for more because hardly anyone reads or comments on his blog.
World’s Greatest (Gayest) Daddy claims to seek serious discussion, yet he won’t respond to Jim e.g. here:
https://blog.reaction.la/war/the-faith/#comment-2112870
The irony is that we are trying to maintain a genuine debate with him about his CR-like positions, but every time he gets intellectually trounced (i.e., every time he says something at all), he immediately switches to concern trolling a la “Oh no, your optics are so bad, you have to fix your optics,” to be shortly followed by the ever hilarious and ever ingenious “You are police officers!”
I’m not particularly fond of VD’s overused “gamma midwit” characterization, but God damn, it hits the nail right on the head with this pathetic, snivelling, dickless sad sack.
The only one here who thinks that is you, pansy-faced Tard-Cuck. I understand that your torn-apart rectum bleeds from all the pegging that your wife’s Big Black Bisexual Boyfriend has tragicomically inflicted on you, that on a daily basis you are forced to wear an oversized diaper on top the permanently attached BDSM devices, and that your balls are Literally Shaking in the presence of non-geldings, but your miserable condition is not shared by the rest of us.
Out, cuckboi.
Moderation notwithstanding, I’m kind of impressed at how in a single thread we were able to break Doug’s huffy and pretentious little “former reactionary, now so totally over you losers” facade and watch him degenerate into prosaic, unfunny and vaguely needy insults revealing a severely damaged ego with weak and pathetic inner monologue.
Bullying works. Those who cannot hold their composure are apt to bring many other problems to the table.
He went silent when I put him on moderation. I have not actually moderated anything from him yet.
Not going to stand for that child molester line. We have answered it already, and repetition is tedious. Further, it is projection. The blue pillers talk tough, but if they are frightened to restrain little girls from going to an Ariana Grande concert, how are they going to handle drag queen story hour? Tell us that little girls would never do anything bad at an Ariana Grande concert, therefore would never do anything bad unless physically coerced.
The blue pill is fear and weakness visible. The blue pill is failing a shit test. The strong horse has better optics than the weak horse.
I will redouble my non-nasty efforts
When my sister hit 11 years I had to start escorting here around if she need to go somewhere without our parents. I didn’t understand why at the time, but I do now. When the restoration happens, that will be the norm. Male family members will escort virgin women around to keep them from running off.
I’m curious, not concern-trolling or whatever. Did your sister display instinctual behavior to put herself in compromising environments? Mine did.
My nieces (high IQ, upper class, elite education, but, like the Rotherham girls, deprived of a father) showed instinctive behavior to head towards dangerous situations at a ridiculously early age. Their grandmother, my mother, seemed far more aware of this than their mother, who was, like the Rotherham mothers, strangely oblivious. When they, considerably later, much later, developed boobs, their mother (upper class, very high IQ, elite education) was also strangely oblivious her latest lover putting the moves on them.
This sounds too much like Saudi Arabia to me and a waste of useful male productivity. The West was able to make do with female chaperones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaperone_(social) on the basis that older women are envious enough of younger women that they won’t let them do anything funny.
You’ve smuggled in (unintentionally, I’m sure) a hidden premise: that the men who have sex with girls whose fathers have not given permission are the ones responsible for the sex. Since we reject that premise, we reject your argument.
The law can far better promote decision-making by fathers by (a) enthusiastically supporting arranged marriage, which we agree on, and (b) penalizing fathers who fail to uphold their responsibilities, e.g. shotgun marriage.
It’s carrot and stick. You want the carrot, but no stick. You want fathers to be able to waffle indefinitely waiting for the “perfect” husband; to ignore or suppress the daughter’s sexuality, which will lead to domestic strife and public anti-social behavior including fornication. You want there to be no consequences at all for fathers who mistreat their daughters this way, while heaping consequences on men who might have no idea who her father is and aren’t thinking with their brains anyway.
And as Jim has said, a single pin can pop a thousand balloons. Even if your proposal was morally superior (which it’s not, because it makes incorrect assumptions about human nature), the plain truth is that it doesn’t work. In fact it’s even worse than that; it gives an unfair advantage to cads who conceal their real identities in order to pump and dump. Even in small-town rural America, it creates a market for traveling cads. They have the advantage because you’ll end up with a surplus of unescorted women, with law-abiding men who are too afraid to make a move.
What is the point of having a law that doesn’t change social outcomes at all, but does brand a lot of normal men as criminals and makes it easier for actual criminals to profit?
(Offtopic) I’m wondering if this guy active in 2016–2017 had criticisms about NRx worth responding to, or if he was just some kind of entryist? I am not capable of summarising his criticisms, so I’ll just leave the link here.
https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/
“I no longer consider the ideas developed here as reactionary, neoreactionary or otherwise in any shape”
Not an entryist.
If an entryist, would be telling us that he is a reactionary and a neoreactionary, that progressive ideas are reactionary, that reactionary ideas are Jewish, that Trump is an orange Jewish pedophile, and that it is time to organize to blow up a preschool and to alienate the police and the military.
Entryists display an obvious allergic reaction to Trump, to their country’s flag, to the Bible, to God, to the Incarnation,(though they are hip with Jesus as Jewish community organizer and anti Roman Revolutionary) and most of all, to the red pill, which afflicts them like holy water on a vampire.
He developed his own school of thought, and has a book about it coming out soon (I have no idea when).
RF’s ideology — Neoabsolutism — is remarkably similar to CR’s: Everything should be top-down organized by the despot, and if you disagree then you’re a “liberal”; RF literally argues that Communism is “more right-wing” (i.e., more on the side of Order vs. Disorder) than Libertarianism, for that reason. However, if he now explicitly admits that he isn’t a reactionary or a neoreactionary, then as Jim says, not an entryist, or no longer an entryist.
One of the reasons I believe NRx will outlive all of these other fad ideologies is that NRx – generally, and in my experience – avoids this type of rigid binary thinking.
Too many autists out there are frankly obsessed with a left-right axis, and think they’ve achieved brilliance by redefining the extremes: authoritarian vs. libertarian, globalism vs. nationalism, philosemitism vs. anti-semitism, chaos vs. order, Satanism vs. Christianity, feminine vs. masculine, virgins vs. chads, freaks vs. normals, ideologues vs. populists, progress vs. tradition… tedious and boring.
Of course you need a catechism to decide who is in and who is out; but if your catechism can be reduced to a single word, if it’s always some kind of “scale” with no limiting principle, then it’s always going to be vulnerable to both entryism and holiness spirals. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament defined themselves on such an axis; they didn’t give ways to be “more biblical” or “more Christian”, those were heretical innovations from much later on.
Effective rule is admitting “this is the way we are” and finding ways to work with that. Humans crave order, but not infinite centralized order.
God is Gnon, and the new testament tells us to stop deducing “ought” from “ought”. The faith must acknowledge and teach the nature of man.
In large part I agree, though a caveat is that Left-wing and Right-wing do map to real ideological camps; left-wingers are a natural type, and right-wingers are a natural type – I believe Moldbug takes a similar stance.
You are right that obsessing over it, turning that into some sort of binding axis, using that as an ultimate guide to deduce political positions and general principles, is clearly wrong and liable to result in an excessively abstract worldview – hence the autism of RF.
Most definitely: significant group differences in conscientiousness and agreeableness, disgust thresholds, time preference, novelty-seeking, and so on.
The difference between natural left-wingers and natural right-wingers is like the difference between Negroes and White Americans, or Jews and Gentiles: real and important, and significantly biological in origin, but not something you can cleave a single straight line through without leaving a lot of people on the wrong side. Demanding a straight line is what entryists do and can lead to absurd outcomes like Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin being labeled “right” and Vox Day and Moldbug being labeled “left”.
Cuckservatives, for example, are probably natural rightists, but still not welcome in NRx except as a passive audience.
>The difference between natural left-wingers and natural right-wingers is like the difference between Negroes and White Americans, or Jews and Gentiles: real and important, and significantly biological in origin,
That would imply people don’t change their ideologies. They do. They tend to get more conservative as they age. E.g. 20 years ago I used to have my own version of liberalism that, while showing little empathy for losers and generally did not signal compassion, I absolutely did signal “smartassness” by thrashing everything like religion, nationalism, tribalism, any idea not super logical even if empirically true as utter retarded idiocy. To wake up from this was long and difficult. It started with getting a job after the university and realizing in the real life actually finishing a task in time and well even when you don’t really know why your method worked is better than having a perfectly logical and smart opinion about things but not producing…
Besides a significantly large voting block of the Left are not Leftist-minded, they are simply racial-ethnic minorities who are “right-wing” in the sense of tribalism, group cohesion, social order, religion etc. only difference is that they are doing it in favor of their own group and largely against the majority group. If kicked back to their own country, or founding one (thinking Israel) these people transition to being entirely right-wing as a matter of course. I mean, when cuckservatives say Hispanics are natural conservatives they aren’t entirely wrong in the sense that they probably don’t like gays and feminism much, the issue is that their group interests are directly opposed to that of the whites so they gonna vote Dem. Well, I am not sure about this, being Euro, but over here 100% sure it is true about the Turkish minority here and likely other Muslim ones.
It would not imply that, because significantly biological is not exclusively biological. Individuals can change their ideas, as well as their physical bodies and personality traits, with significant effort – but most don’t, and those who do, typically only to a limited degree.
This of course does not account for preference falsification, where NPCs claim to support things they don’t actually support, or even understand. There is a massive amount of this going on, which is why a coup could easily reset the overton window to pre-1950s and maybe pre-20C levels (preference cascade).
Aside from individual exceptions as noted above, boomers as a demographic have approximately the exact same ideas they had in the 1960s. They appear “more conservative” not because their ideas have changed, but because the overton window has shifted left.
Some ideas change as incentives change – for example most older people want lower income taxes because they’re earning a wage – but they still expect the government to pay for everything it currently pays for, if not more (e.g. health care), and for the most part haven’t changed their social views at all.
It would be more accurate to say that people become more nostalgic as they age, not more conservative. Significant ideological change requires very strong influences and/or a personal commitment.
Jews are a strange exception here, and I believe Israeli Jews are actually a substantially different demographic from American Jews, e.g. the American cohort includes a ton of literal Communists, Soviet “refugees”, etc. My sample size isn’t huge, but I’ve observed that the more conservative Jews are the ones who emigrated from Europe before or near the very beginning of WWII.
The other leftist voting blocs are very much leftist-minded. Audacious has done impressive research on this. The browns, blacks and even East Asians are all far more socialistic and libertine – high time preference. It’s not just idpol, not just who they vote for, but the actual policies and ideas they support.
clarifying my position:
Prisoner’s dilemma with a limited number of iterations leads to defect/defect equilibrium, leading to failure to form families and failure to reproduce. Coercion backed by family, society, Church and State is needed to ensure cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.
Children need to be raised in one household, and one ship needs one captain, and that captain has to be the man, for the female reaction to househusbands is well known.
Female sexuality is antisocial and dangerous. If women had their way, one male would kill all the others and enslave all the women into his harem. Thus female sexuality needs to be under male control – needs to be under the control of husbands, and under the control of fathers until it is husband time. All women are like that. Female sexuality, not male sexuality, is the big problem. Women disrupt male cooperation.
Women need to be transferred from the authority of fathers to the authority of husbands in a timely manner, and the authority of the husband has to trump the authority of the father. Late transfer and retention of paternal authority is antisocial and a chronic failure mode of societies that have strong patriarchy.
To avoid a population of male virgins dwelling in their mothers basements, need a one pussy per customer rule. Chastity and monogamy are male impositions on women, that need to be imposed with a stick. Monogamy and chastity is men imposing their will on women. Chastity and monogamy are restraints on women, not men, and need to be enforced on women, against women, not against men, hence the double standard. Chastity and Monogamy are intended to give men what they want (virgin, faithful and obedient wives, and to deny women what they want (General Butt Naked, or failing him, Jeremy Meeks). Chastity is rule by husbands over women, and Monogamy is a chance for the regular guy to become a patriarch, giving him an incentive to work, to pay taxes, to fight for order, property, peace, society, tribe, King, and God. Give women half a chance, they will overthrow chastity in no time flat, but that does not lead to the regular male getting more pussy. It leads to Jeremy Meeks getting more pussy.
As history amply demonstrates, anyone who opposes the double standard, opposes chastity and monogamy. Whosoever is supposedly in favor of these rules being supposedly imposed on both women and men, is in practice not in favor of imposing them on women, and since one pin can prick a thousand balloons, attempting to impose them on men has no effect on what we care about, the supply of female virgins. It just means that Jeremy Meeks pops all the balloons, at least until General Butt Naked shows up in town.
And having put the preliminaries that everyone agrees upon, time to address the hard problem; Transfer from fathers to husbands.
To reproduce, husband has to have authority. He cannot be beta to her father. He has to be alpha, and his father in law must treat him as a fellow alpha when in his father in law’s house, and as the big alpha when the father in law is in his son in law’s house.
A chronic failure mode of patriarchal society is delayed marriage, and excessive authority for fathers at the expense of husbands. Therefore, at some point, state, Church, and society, has to start approving of women who blow off dads and submit to husbands – while disapproving fiercely of women who jump onto the cock carousel and engage in endless search for a better quality of cock, and punishing them fiercely
Thus at some point, marriage by elopement. And, to prevent marriage by elopement from turning into the cock carousel, shotgun marriage without the consent of the father or the wife. If you elope, then you marry her or else, and she marries you, or else.
Now on the one hand, we don’t want someone breaking into a father’s home to steal a wife. But we neither do we want a fourteen year old girls wandering Arlie Beach parties at midnight to stay single. So, marriage by abduction for women who engage in sexual misconduct. She is waiting for her next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, then you can steal her.
Well, stealing her sounds rather dangerous, disorderly, anarchic, and socially disruptive. Maybe we should put misbehaving girls in a home for wayward girls, and indeed we should, but the purpose of putting them into a home for wayward girls should be to get them out of a home for wayward girls into the hands of husbands. It does not sound like something the state is likely to do very successfully. Just try letting people do what comes naturally, and start erecting fences when chaos has bad consequences.
OK, if dad puts her into a home for wayward girls, fine, but do we want to make it too easy for dad to preserve her chastity for an unreasonable time?
In late eighteenth century Australia, they would hold a line up, often on the dock within hours of convict women arriving. A bunch of potential husbands approved by the state walked along the dock, and each would place a small gift at the feet of one of the girls. If she picked it up, they were married. And if she did not pick up anyone’s gift, she got assigned regardless. It was that she got assigned regardless that made it work.
Thing is, we have to do something about girls who are off the marriage market because they are waiting for their next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, and it is difficult to see how the state could handle that. Maybe arrest them for fucking Jeremy Meeks (no point in arresting Jeremy Meeks. There will always be another Jeremy Meeks) and then hold a line up outside the prison. But at some point we are going to have to assign or kidnap Jeremy Meeks’ surplus women against their will, or cooperation between men and women to form families and have children collapses.
Obviously we want the father, not the abductor, to do the assigning. But, if the father falls down in his duty, because he is sure his precious pumpkin would never do anything unchaste, and sure that her disinclination to get married till she is pushing forty is entirely due to her innocent distaste for sex, someone else is going to have to do the assigning.
To prevent wholesale defect/defect and general failure form families and to reproduce, you are going to have to do something about the girl who is “in love” with Jeremy Meeks. What do you propose to do?
It is not a small problem you can ignore. It is an enormous, society smashing, civilization destroying, problem that is hurting us very badly. What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do with her?
Obviously we want fathers to take care of the problem, rather than kidnappers or the state. But some fathers will not, or will not take care of it in a timely manner. And we would like the state to take care of it, rather than kidnappers. But a lot of stuff is apt to slip through the state’s fingers. We should follow a general principle that a woman gets stuck with one man one way or another way. Ideally they are introduced by dad, fall in love, dad agrees to give his daughter to the groom, they get married contractually and sacramentally. But when something more disorderly happens, as it inevitably will from time to time, we need to aim for an outcome in which the woman gets stuck with one man. We will then find disorderly things happening far less often. Women love drama, and are always causing drama. If they found that drama invariably resulted in marriage, and not necessarily marriage to the man they would prefer, there would be considerably less drama.
In order that men and women can form families and reproduce, have to prevent sexual misconduct, primarily female sexual misconduct. And preventing female misconduct means that at some point a woman is likely to find that she is compelled to have sex with one man, and forbidden to have sex with any other. And if she is holding out for the next booty call from Jeremy Meeks, has to be compelled to have sex with some guy she does not much like, and forbidden to have sex with Jeremy Meeks. And if Dad will not deal with it because his precious little pumpkin could not possibly be taking booty calls from Jeremy Meeks, someone else is going to have to take care of it, or else sexual chaos resumes. And if a private individual takes care of it effectively and successfully, the state should not get up his nose.
When trad dad attempts to hang on to daughter too long, we should allow the chaos that comes from allowing marriage by elopement. And when trad dad is too weak or negligent to prevent marriage by elopement, we should allow marriage by elopement.
And when marriage by elopement leads to the cock carousel, to women endlessly cruising for a trade up for a more alpha dicking, we should allow marriage by abduction. We need to resolve sexual chaos by sticking a woman with a man, and man with a woman. Any time we can say “You made your bed, you can lie in it”, we do so.
You are referring to older women (25+) here.
Easy if unmarried they are subject at any time to marriage by abduction (this is where I have no problem with it) also they all have to report to an auction periodically and are sold to the highest single bidder willing to marry them.
In a saner society, would be referring to women 25+. In this society I am talking about quite a few girls who are fourteen or so, and the only reason I am not talking about nine year olds is because Jeremy Meeks turns up his nose at them.
You will notice that in societies where late virgin marriage was normal and common, very early marriage was normal and legal. Late virgin marriage cannot exist unless you are able and willing to do something about girls who misbehave early, sometimes very early indeed.
Agree with all you’re saying here, Jim, but did you intend for it to be a reply to this particular tangent? It seems more relevant to the Fred/Doug threads. Or maybe you’re politely hinting that we’re veering off topic and I’m autistically ignoring said hint. I can’t tell.
I think that it’s a reply to Nikolai.
>A chronic failure mode of patriarchal society is delayed marriage, and excessive authority for fathers at the expense of husbands.
Bride price, Jim. This is about the fourth good argument for it. When something is a gift, people retain a certain authority over it, like how my wife feels obliged to wear the earrings my mother gifted to her every time we visit. But if you buy something, it is 100% yours.
Other three:
1) Incentives for fathers for raising girls right.
2) Less harsh on women: can play status games with each other.
3) Less harsh on women, incentive to educate in cases when in actually makes sense.
Can’t expect property transfer to work well without price signals.
Not an altogether vile idea, but Trad Dads will easily and inevitably find a way to horribly abuse it: They will set a bride price way too high, legit suitors will make themselves scarce, and then — surprise surprise — the bride will plunge deep into the cock carousel lifestyle. In fact, I can hardly imagine Trad Dads not acting precisely in such a manner, leading exactly to the expected result of rampant thottery.
Acquiring a woman needs to be cheap, and in many cases, without a price at all. Letting the girl go is the real problem.
A high bride price will result in lots of men staying virgins, and the more dad wants to hang on to his precious little pumpkin, the higher the bride price will rise, leading to ever more male virgins in mom’s basement, and ever greater female misbehavior.
Any bride price needs to be low enough, and in many cases, there should be none whatsoever; in fact, a Red-Pilled father would be willing to pay (rather than expecting payment) in order for someone to take his daughter in marriage and permanently keep her, though unfortunately, not too many Red-Pilled fathers these days.
Blue-Pilled fathers will always use any pretext and any method to hang on to their precious little chaste angelic sweet princes, and that’s why civilizations die of infertility. We need to make it unprofitable for trad dad to hang on to daughter, so unprofitable that if he can’t sell her quickly when the time is right, he will much rather pay someone to take her.
>Bride price, Jim.
It’s interesting how some societies have bride prices (Arabs, gypsies come to mind) while others have the exact opposite (dowry).
Moldbug (among many others) advocated for property price, exchange, and taxation to all be tied together. That is, you can appraise your home at whatever price you want; however, you will be taxed on that appraisal, so you don’t want to set it excessively high; and you must also be willing to sell to anyone who can pay it, so you don’t want to set it excessively low.
I don’t know if this would work effectively for bridal prices given the different timescales involved, but I think it could work. Bridal price must be formally posted in advance, not after an abduction has occurred. Abductor has to pay previously-posted price or else the father has an option (not a requirement) to block marriage. But posting a bridal price means taxation, probably heavy taxation, say 10% per year, payable monthly, so if Trad Dad decides his little princess deserves a prince, and posts a $1M price, then he’ll have to fork over $100K per year at around $10K per month.
This would limit extreme pickiness to the wealthiest families who might actually have a real justification for being picky. Middle-class families can’t post obscene prices just because she’s pretty hot. And it doesn’t totally prioritize fathers over husbands, because fathers can’t deny the sale; posting a price means they have to sell to the first person who asks, no bidding wars or other shenanigans, so they’d better be damn sure it’s what they want. More alpha fathers who think they can control their daughters up to a certain age won’t post any price, thus don’t have to sell to anyone, but also don’t get a veto if they lose control, it’s standard MBA for them.
I can imagine some potential negative side effects, though, like lowering eugenic fertility and creating a lot of upper-class thots who know they can slum it up with criminals and naggers and not be forced to marry them because their dads will intervene. That’s an issue with bridal prices in general, though. I don’t know how to fix that. We can prevent fathers from abusing the system because men respond to economic incentives, but if their daughters know their dads will protect them from shotgun marriage, then the whole system is liable to break down into rampant thottery.
So I’m not endorsing this officially, just hypothesizing a system that could partially work by preventing paternal abuse. Maybe someone else knows how to modify it to prevent female abuse.
I believe Jim’s lengthy comment was supposed to be a reply to me. I largely agree with everything you said. I’m glad you made a distinction between marriage by elopement and marriage by abduction.
I was very close to eloping at one point. There’s a big difference between a couple who sleeps in the same bed every night for months being forced to marry each other and kidnapping a girl off the street and calling it a marriage. I completely support the former and take St. Basil’s position on the latter.
In light of this entirely reasonable and amicable comment, I’ll politely ignore you calling me a heretical gnostic satanist for taking St. Basil’s position.
I do have one issue though. In college it’s not uncommon for a couple to live together for months or years with no intention of marrying. Suppose the man takes the woman’s virginity and they’ve cohabitated for a few months. Suppose the guy doesn’t want to propose, the girl doesn’t want to marry and the girl’s father wouldn’t want the guy as a son-in-law. I’ve personally seen this scenario play a few times. Ideally, who, if anyone, forces them to marry? The state?
What is Saint Basil’s position? Where does he say this? I don’t trust stories that confidently project the blue pill, sodomy, Romance, twenty first century sex change technology, and gay marriage back to the first millenium Christianity.
I see no end of gnostics, satanists, and Marxists, claiming that Jesus said various things he most certainly did not say. What does Saint Basil say?
Saint Basil says: “Marriages entered into without the consent of those in authority are fornications.†But at the same time, he also unambiguously rejects the right of those in authority to keep women virgin indefinitely, having a bet each way.
According to Saint Basil, authority can forbid a particular marriage, but must marry the girl off in a reasonable time.
OK, then, suppose authority fails to do so? According to Saint Basil, that is not legitimate grounds for locking the girl up, in which case, what is going to happen? Seems to me that by rejecting lockup in such case, Basil is implicitly authorizing marriage by elopement when authority fails his proper duty.
Women in college in reactionary society?
Nikolai, when a chick doesn’t want to fuck someone, she’ll find a veritable infinity of creative and novel ways to prevent him from ever being remotely in a position to fuck her.
The difference between marriage by abduction and marriage by elopement is trivial, as female “consent” to sex is altogether fuzzy: When a woman gets fucked / “raped,” in 99% of cases it’s because she noticeably took action to be at the right place, and at the right time, that it may transpire.
I think we agree for the most part, so I’m not going to belabor the point much further.
To answer your question, St. Basil writes in letter 199
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm
“XXII … In the case of a girl who has been taken when not betrothed, she ought first to be removed, and restored to her own people, and handed over to the will of her own people whether parents, or brothers, or any one having authority over her. If they choose to give her up, the cohabitation may stand; but, if they refuse, no violence should be used. In the case of a man having a wife by seduction, be it secret or by violence, he must be held guilty of fornication.
The punishment of fornicators is fixed at four years. In the first year they must be expelled from prayer, and weep at the door of the church; in the second they may be received to sermon; in the third to penance; in the fourth to standing with the people, while they are withheld from the oblation. Finally, they may be admitted to the communion of the good gift.”
“XXV. The man who retains as his wife the woman whom he has violated, shall be liable to the penalty of rape, but it shall be lawful for him to have her to wife.
XXVI. Fornication is not wedlock, nor yet the beginning of wedlock. Wherefore it is best, if possible, to put asunder those who are united in fornication. If they are set on cohabitation, let them admit the penalty of fornication. Let them be allowed to live together, lest a worse thing happen.”
“XLII. Marriages contracted without the permission of those in authority, are fornication. If neither father nor master be living the contracting parties are free from blame; just as if the authorities assent to the cohabitation, it assumes the fixity of marriage.”
The question is how to manage this in a modern, pozzed, blue-pilled world.
As a soon-to-be father of a girl, my friend was teasing me, saying I was going to be in for it when she became a teenager and started dating. I pointed out that dating was an aberration and mostly a myth, as the concept of engaging in multiple “serious relationships” for several years before choosing “the one” only exists in movies.
Modern dating consists largely of two things: feral girls trawling for alpha dick, and girls pairing off with the closest convenient boys in their social circle. These pairings are treated as marriages in all but name, as the couple will be feted by the circle and subject to heightened status. Except without the force of law or greater society, these relationships are volatile as the boys are apt to attempt to poach each other’s girls, and the prettier girls are apt to “homey hop” from boy to boy to get as much dick as they can, and the whole thing is disruptive and chaotic. Better to bypass this by choosing a suitor for my daughter and then making it official with marriage.
My friend was pretty scandalized by this idea, and he is a rather conservative, red-pilled guy. Yet he still thinks the idea of trawling for alpha dick as a sacred right of all girls which fathers are forbidden to interfere with. He didn’t seem to think it was possible to choose a suitor for my daughter. I pointed out he had sons, our friends had sons, and any of them would make a fine enough husband for her. Teenage girls really aren’t that picky, and if we put them together things will happen, like hamsters in a cage. If all else fails, she’s just back to the standard option of sending her through the college cock gauntlet anyway.
The problem with absolutism, the problem with the despot organizing everything top down, is that no man rules alone.
The King, instead of being undermined by dangerously powerful Lords far from the throne, is undermined by dangerously powerful bureaucrats who bow before him and say “Yes, your majesty”, but then do what they damn well please.
And then when the Tsar is away at the front, they put a mob into the streets and forbid the cops to stop the mob from knocking over the liquor shops. Then they announce there has been a revolution and they are in power. Shortly afterwards, they find that someone lefter than themselves announces there has been a revolution, and they are no longer in power, soon followed by someone lefter still, till a Napoleon or a Stalin ends the madness.
Not an entryist. Entryists try to be popular and generally try to play social status games. RF is an extremely single-minded type who simply only wants to take a very narrow absolutist, de Jouvenelist / Filmerist, no imperium in imperio aspect of NRx and absolutely ignore everything else. These dogmatic-minded, usually somewhat autistic types have neither the desire nor the skill to perform any kind of subterfuge, they are 100% honest. He is simply a man who found a very good hammer and now thinks everything is nails.
There is a great controversy occurring at Spandrell’s twitter about the question of Epstein’s teenage “victims”. It’s not that interesting – mostly just Literally Shaking by people who are terribly terribly shocked by his outrageous disgusting creepy pedophilia – but one response made me do a double take. According to page 6 of this article, which is a study of the English parish of Colyton, the median age of marriage for women between 1647 and 1719 was 27.5, and between 1560 and 1837, the median age of marriage for women never fell below 24. These numbers just do not make sense to me, given what has been discussed on this blog. Why were pre-industrial British women marrying so late? Why – and, indeed, how – were they kept virginal until 27 years of age, or even older?
Those stats are not believable and I would ask their methodology and 20+ year old women who aren’t real dykes or frigid ain’t gonna be virgins.
In Smollett’s Humphrey Clinker (1760s?) it’s jokingly presented as routine for gentlemen to be paying out stipends to multiple lower-class women who have borne them children. So maybe this was in fact happening a lot. Then the same women got married later on? Also, in Fielding’s Tom Jones (1749?) cohabitation seems to be assumed as a normal occurrence — a Jar Jar Binks type sidekick-character was living with a likable slutty woman for an extended period of time. So maybe there was lots of living-together and bastardy (or whatever it’s called).
Moll Flanders too. I don’t think the 18th century was quite as Jim thinks of it in terms of sexual relations either.
Pride and prejudice society was probably only ever the upper class (I’m defining the upper class as rich enough to employ full time domestic servants).
The transportees to Australia were lower class, and the stereotype of a transported woman presupposes that she should have been kept under tight control, and nominally was under tight control, but the tight control was ineffectual or unsuccessful. Looks to me that the rot set in from the upper class downwards. Blackstone remarks on lower class wives being physically imprisoned against their will in their homes, implying that this was not done in the upper class.
If King George the fourth had done that, we probably still would have Kings.
Pre industrial women were not allowed “out” Not allowed “out” until the nineteenth century. They were always under the control of family or master. They went from family to apprenticeship in female role jobs, and apprenticeship ended in marriage. Apprenticeship involved restraint on them being “out”. This sometimes resulted in hysteria, like a cat in heat, which makes big trouble when you try to keep it indoors.
The stereotypical scenario for women transported to Australia – I don’t know how well it corresponded to real life, but it is what people at that time imagined as stereotypical – was that a girl under the authority of her master committed a stupid crime for “love” – when she was not supposed to have any opportunity for “”love”. The authorities in Australia were initially shocked, confused, and dismayed, by the astonishingly enthusiastic sexual conduct of the women transported (spring break in Cancun on the shores of Port Jackson) so it seems likely that this stereotype was true of some very substantial proportion of the transported women.
Late virgin marriage happened because women were kept under very tight control. You will notice that just as Disney characters tend to be orphans so that they can have adventures, Jane Austin’s romantic protagonists have weak sick, or absent fathers, and dead or hopelessly weak and incompetent mothers.
I’m going to guess that a lot of pre-marital sex was involved, but husbands and fathers were reluctant to cop to it, for the same reason men today don’t cop to fapping or prostitutes. It was considered shameful.
But then there is the LoTLN, which suggests that somewhere, sometime, we should be able to find examples of communities where the median virginal age really is freakishly high, just as we can surely find examples where it is freakishly low. Does not mean that we would be able to reproduce (heh) their experiments, especially with modern communication and mobility tech. We have to look at the patterns, not the outliers.
Church records from the 1550s in England note that a full half of women were showing pregnancies at their own weddings, which suggests that shotgun marriage was the predominant institution, which suggests that fathers were keeping their daughters unmarried for far too long, supports the Jimian hypothesis that even under patriarchy, it’s hard to keep your daughters off the cock.
If she’s pregnant with one man, probably fucked around during her fertile years with quite a few men. By advocating younger marriage than relatively late-marrying England we’re solving a problem specific to Anglos, which is why we advocate OT and 1st millennium marriage norms and not Renaissance ones.
England’s eugenic breeding was all its upper class, who married earlier and married virgin, and thus had far more kids than the working classes. Every Anglo can trace their descent to the nobility whereas if you meet an Eastern Euro, what you hear is “my family were farmers for thousands of years”.
In Greg Clarke’s book “A Farewell to Alms”, I read that the warrior nobles were failing to replace themselves (largely due to war deaths), and that the wealthy people who were having lots of kids were wealthy commoners in the countryside who got rich through agricultural investment and trade. This would explain why the English ended up being economically successful, rather than hyper-warlike.
And I still think trying to import the bulk of semitic customs is a bad idea for Anglos though I DO endorse very young marriage and marriage without female consent.
I do believe the pregnancy statistics (and I imagine in some cases pregnancy was a precondition to marriage as some husbands would want proof of fertility) I don’t believe the very late marriage statistics.
Probably true to some degree as bethrothals at birth were common and as such were very early marriages. Jim is correct that Lord Blackstone commented that
https://www.thoughtco.com/blackstone-commentaries-profile-3525208
I imagine how this was done in lower class dwellings though… I can’t imagine most had too many escape proof rooms.
I used to disagree with Jim’s position about psychopathy being an anti-concept, but he actually makes a valid and interesting point, so here’s my own take on psychopathy:
On the biological level, there are indeed people — around 3% of the population — with shrunken amygdalae and inactive mirror neurons, who are incapable of emotionally experiencing any fear, sadness, empathy, or affection, which fundamental emotional hollowness entails needlessly cruel and antisocial behavior, with varying degrees of functionality to temper it. Thus Ted Bundy killing lots of chicks and mutilating their corpses just for fun. Demonspawn are often like that; and surprise surprise, Ted Bundy was indeed a bastard born out of wedlock to a biological father who made himself scarce.
(The Biblical term for such people is “wicked”)
These people usually get both themselves and others in trouble, not merely due to sadism, but because — lacking a fear instinct — they are apt to not worry about dangers which they should be worried about, e.g. eventually getting caught by the police for murdering chicks and mutilating their corpses. A likely example of the high-functioning variety would be Angelo Mozilo.
Since such a personality type is not unlikely to be ruthlessly fiercely masculine, the priestly academic soyboys use the concept of psychopathology to condemn all the masculine traits associated with it, hence “toxic masculinity.” Here’s the thing: While such a neuro-abnormality does predispose one to possessing a masculine character (no touchy-feely among these folks), lots of men are perfectly masculine without having psychopathy, and by categorizing masculine traits as hallmarks of psychopathy, the academics have found another way to lower the status of men in society.
Even if serious clinical psychiatrists do not usually make this mistake, knowing that having some expressions characteristic of pathology X does not necessarily mean that these are the symptoms of X, indeed does not mean that those expressions in themselves are pathological, it is common for feminized leftist academics to conflate antisocial psychopathological traits and prosocial masculine traits, implying that possessing the latter should naturally make you suspect of possessing the former, or perhaps is the same thing as possessing the former.
The etiology of “psychopathy” is real enough – the MRI scans do not lie. But the concept itself is regularly used to demonize men for being men, to demonize high-testosterone behavior and thought-patterns as psychopathological. “Psychopathy” may not have been originally intended as an anti-concept (just as “pedophilia” may not have been originally intended as an anti-concept), but modern leftist academic soyboys have succeeded in turning it into one, and are using it for their misandric purposes.
Not seeing this, don’t believe it, and the academic studies purportedly supporting it are blatantly and flagrantly cooked to deliver the predetermined and desired result.
Wicked men are seldom masculine, though women and soyboys may perceive them so. They are weak.
On psychopathy. The deeper issue is that libs assume ethical behavior = empathy. Nope.
Empathy is a tactical ability evolved to be able to predict the opponent’s moves by putting yourself into his shoes. Pretty much every successful military leader since prehistoric times had to have it. While it does lead to sympathetic pain, he could just order all captives to be killed and solve his sympathetic pain by walking away and not looking. Pretty sure mirror neurons did not lead to the evolution of moral sense. Pretty sure Hitl3r had a lot of empathy – how else could he have been such an effective public speaker, he had to have a good idea about what the audience wants to hear.
Nor is empathy not sufficient for moral behavior, nor is it necessary. We normally obey a lot of ethical rules that even when violated would not cause noticeable suffering to any person. E.g. not stealing from corporate inventories. They are insured. The pain gets spread around and it is very very little pain per person. A real psychopath with no empathy is still perfectly capable of behaving ethically, the difference is that to him “don’t torture people to death” is not immediately obvious, but rather he sees the rule the same way as “don’t steal even insured corporate property” – obeys it for the same reasons we obey that one.
Funny how libs don’t notice it is the worst form of ableism, they are not only stigmatizing people without empathy, they are actually denying their humanity, as the ability to make moral choices is pretty much a core part of being human.
I think “empathy” may also be an anticoncept. It lumps together cognitive empathy, meaning to know what another person is feeling, and emotional empathy, meaning to actually feel as another person feels. What 2019 says in the previous top level comment about the etiology of “psychopathyâ€, I think is about a person having the former ability without having the latter.
I think it is a false distinction. The purpose of empathy is to predict what other people will do in a given situation. The reason we need this is that are not so smart, we are not able to simulate someone else’s brain the usual causal-modelling way. We just put ourselves into their shoes, and ask ourselves what we do in his shoes and let our own brain figure out the rest.
So if we want to know if we can entice the opposing military commander into a reckless charge right into the pikes or machine guns, by some trick that makes him angry, by asking ourselves if it would work on us in his shoes, our brain’s decision-making engine needs the same inputs: not only the data, but it needs to feel the same emotions. We need to feel the same anger, in order to be able to judge if it would override our cool-headed tactical ability or not.
Just knowing about other people’s emotions would not be a useful input to this. It would only be useful for an input to causal brain modelling, which does not work, because we are not smart enough, we don’t have so much more computing resources than the other guy. Like how a modern computer can emulate a Gameboy without any problems, but if it is asked to emulate a computer of similar levels of CPU and memory via VMWare or something, and in the meanwhile doing other stuff, that’s not going to work well.
Also, male and female empathy works differently. Male empathy is this tactical ability described above. Female empathy is that stuff that when your 6 months old baby cries, your wife somehow knows he is having ear pain. It is optimized for detecting suffering and its reason, for the purpose of keeping infants, who cannot communicate their problems well, alive. It is more about why someone is feeling something, while male empathy is more about given that someone is feeling something, what is he going to do.
Men usually have more “female empathy” than women do — at any rate this has almost always been true with regard to the men and women that I’ve known. I’ve come to the conclusion that men are better than women at everything, including finding lost items, cleaning the house, caring for babies, and of course cooking — except for one thing: being cute. Women are better than men at being cute. That’s it.
Women are more conscientious when it comes to stupid repetitive tasks (and also more able to tolerate stupid busywork, I’m convinced this is why the American school system gives out so much stupid busywork because men just don’t want to do it) women have a superior ability to read, analyze and manipulate people. A certain low cunning…
Men are not better at baby care because its just the type of repetitive annoying task women are made for that we generally can’t stand.
IIRC empathy is simply copying another’s facial expression, which then causes the same emotions to be felt.
Someone who knows what another person is feeling but does not care is apt to be good at lying, the unreliability part of the qualities attributed to psychopaths. But there is not going to be any correlation with the other virtues and vices attributed to psychopaths, such as courage.
And you cannot really know what another person is feeling and not care. You can feel it, and then switch the feeling off because inconvenient, or unreal, which has much the same consequences as knowing and not caring, but the truly cold blooded empathy attributed to psychopaths does not really exist. It is just demonization and projection.
Emotional empathy alone, without regard to objective reality, leads to disastrous and catastrophic results. But that doesn’t mean that emotional empathy is altogether unnecessary – it means that a good judge of morality only employs emotional empathy in the context of (i.e. on the background of) empiricism and rationality, rather than disregarding empiricism and rationality for Sola Emphatica.
What’s happened to the rest of nrx? Social matter seems to be discontinued, and the site doesn’t work anymore. There isn’t any archive as far as I know, which is a shame since some of the older stuff was good. Also can’t find the earlier ascending the tower podcasts.
Who is left beyond Jim and Spandrell?
NRx is a conspiracy theory bro. It never happened.
There is a blogroll of reactionary blogs on this web page.
Socialist matter died of entryism. Swerved left, and disappeared, like a protestant church which puts women and gays in the pulpit, and their church property soon becomes lesbian feminist bookstore, which is soon abandoned and becomes a hangout for homeless people.
They were attempting practice entryism against the left. Did it poorly (It is hard). And, instead of entering, were entered.
Three Old Testament examples of girls going away from home alone — Rachel goes to the well where Jacob meets her; Moses’s future wife Zipporah goes with six sisters to the well where Moses chases away rude shepherds (Exodus 2:16-17). Also, Jacob’s daughter Dinah fucks around with a Canaanite kid, Shechem, which leads to the kid’s whole village getting wiped out.
Examples from classical literature are all over the place – that’s how girls get fucked by gods. But Odysseus doesn’t fuck the king’s daughter on the island where he gets washed up, when she’s out flower-picking with her friends; the expectation isn’t that girls who go out are up for grabs, but it’s acknowledged that they’re at some risk.
(Yes, I know, they probably WANT to be grabbed by the right grabber, but the grabber still has to grab or there’s no grabbing. Potential grabber’s fear of Dad makes grabbing less likely.)
In the Poetic Edda we have Odin boasting to Thor about his sexual conquests. So girls were getting out. Otherwise the story would make no sense and people wouldn’t enjoy listening to the bard sing it.
Yes, all of this tends to support the proposition that girls are volcanic chickens (Dinah, girls fucked by Greek Gods, girls fucked by Norse gods — three different cultural realms, same idea) but also the proposition that the normal thing has always been for girls to be allowed out of the house. Note that Dinah doesn’t marry Shechem and that the girls fucked by Greek and Norse gods don’t marry those gods. Nor did lower-class English girls fucked by gentlemen marry those gentlemen.
So, while Host-Teacher’s practical proposal MAY be the best way to deal with biopsychic reality (yes, girls are volcanic chickens, just as boys are contract-making pack-wolves), its putting-into-effect would NOT be a return to Good Old Ways; it would be a NEW thing and therefore should perhaps not be called “reactionary”.
Well, we’re not advocating returning to luddite feudal agrarianism either. We’re reactionaries because we’re recognizing that the social technologies of the past were far more in line with reality than those enforced at present and in fact can often be improved on compared to the past.
I’d prefer renaissance marriage norms to today, would prefer 8th century Saxon marriage norms to that, but the best would be technological hyper-patriarchy in which your daughters are microchipped, and the first man to have sex with her would be DNA-matched to a database that produces an automated marriage contract and immediately notifies the authorities to come and enforce said marriage contract with a sacramental marriage that involves the transfer of the encrypted key to the microchip’s DNA data from the father to the new husband.
I saw your comment on 16 century English marriages above, Mr. Mac — that was part of what I had in mind, thanks. Also Com’s reference to Moll Flanders.
So, if it’s generally known that the first man to have sex with a girl automatically gets to have her, aren’t lower-quality men going to think, “I can just force myself on this girl and she’s mine, kool!”? I recognize that there are degrees and ambiguities involved in determining “force” but let’s say it’s the obese 49 year old janitor with a milky eye and weird stains on broken-zippered chinos and she was always daydreaming about Pewdie-Pie types instead — isn’t that evidence that something is amiss? But even setting that issue aside, isn’t it enough that Dad would prefer that she marry a Pewdie-Pie? Does his 14-year-have to belong to the fat old milky-eyed janitor who managed to catch her in the basement?
I think that this is all being looked at in the 180-degree wrong way. Look at what was actually done by a given people (say, the English) throughout most of their history and then conclude, “That’s what they should be doing today; bring THAT back.” So if in 1550 girls were getting married at 25 knocked up after two previous miscarriages with other guys, so be it. At least most of them stayed married, once married, and lots of them had children.
Women excel at avoiding sex with men they find unattractive; if she seduced and fucked the janitor, it’s because she had the hots for him, regardless of her irrelevant fantasy world.
To prevent that, you don’t allow girls out.
Girls are apt to ensure that they can be forced by a man they perceive as higher quality, and avoiding contact with men they perceive as lower quality. Ufortunately, their perceptions of quality are crap.
My sister was a badly behaved teenage girl not allowing them out is apt to be a joke.
What is wrong with allowing the father to say up to a certain age okay she fornicated and got popped fine I still don’t find that idiot a suitable husband and I will not shotgun marry and will not allow marriage to him, I’m marrying her off to someone she wouldn’t let near her if it were up to her but he is willing to take her makes more money and advising him to beat that smartass willful attitude out of her in a way I’ve never had the heart to.
Having the girl marry her 1st lover is female choice by other means, I seek to eliminate female choice (except as an advisory factor) entirely unless the father fucks up and doesn’t get her married off by the right age.
Because sluts are bad for civilization. Either kill the man she slept with and find her a man willing to take used goods or cast her out. The bible recommends death for such girls, but more likely the father’s just told their daughters to hit the road and never come back.
Killing the man she slept with is punishing men, male sexuality is not the problem and punishing men is stupid useless and gives women power.
I’m saying that yes in this case she is young hot and the the father has someone willing to take her.
I want to make sure responsible men get pussy and that women marry good men by having their sexual choices made for them, shotgunning to 1st lover without father’s consent is still de facto allowing women to pick their husbands. I’m not so interested in stone the thot moralfagging, I want the thot forced into sex with a responsible man or failing that to paying responsible customers in a whorehouse.
No, we’re talking about killing a man who took her and didn’t keep her. He either keeps her or he dies and the father picks a match for her.
Women have picked their husbands, but only when their own families where not properly policing them. The father failed by not getting her married before that happened. Sex is ownership and the first man who sleeps with her, owns her.
What your advocating a women fooling around until her father picks her official husband, sort of like marriage in upper class France in the 18 century. That didn’t work out well for the French.
Upper class French marriage was a catastrophically failed social technology, which should, like communism, be treated as a horrifying moral lesson about how evil acts lead to catastrophic outcomes, manifesting divine wrath through cause and effect.
Can you elaborate on exactly what went wrong with French marriage if indeed what I’m advocating is much like the French system (I’m ignorant to this but I don’t think monarchical France was all that feminist)?
The French revolution was not exactly caused by women problems and the revolution and Colbertism (socialism) were the big problems with France to my knowledge.
Afraid I won’t get a reply but
1) How is my proposal like the French marriage system under the monarchy and what was that like?
2) How did it fail? Also I would ask did it only fail within the strange gilded cage of Versailles?
French noblewomen had arranged marriages, at least in theory, but everyone winked at female sexual immorality, and French noblemen were emasculated, effeminate, unmanly, and perverse. I don’t know enough about how things worked to link cause and effect, but for whatever reason virgin marriage and wifely chastity did not seem to be happening.
Seems to me that to ensure virginity and chastity, you need power in the hands of the husband, and you need the husband to be the alpha male at his marriage ceremony, need him to be the alpha male when his father in law visits, and a fellow alpha when he visits his father in law.
To ensure reproduction, need to enforce good behavior. Husbands are far more likely to enforce good behavior on women than fathers. For whatever reason, and I don’t know what was going on, females in France were not behaving well.
I would suggest that living in the fake controlled world of Versailles made it hard for most of the upper class to be anything close to alpha (as it was intended to by Louis XIV it was intended to rob them both of their power in their own territories where traditionally they would rule as almost kings themselves, and their pride). The men would tend to feel emasculated the women would all be trying to fuck the king or failing that people very high up and close to the king.
Do you know what the family sizes were like both before and during the Versailles period in France?
I don’t have information, but it seems likely that no matter what the rules were for sex, marriage, and women, emasculating the elite is going to result in very bad behavior among wives of the elite, so perhaps we cannot generalize from things going wrong in versailles.
You are assuming a strong father capable of controlling events, and weak suitor, when events have just demonstrated a weak father incapable of controlling events, whose daughter will soon be slowly moving down Jeremy Meeks booty call list, and a strong suitor.
Under those circumstances “I will not allow that marriage” is apt to be code for “My precious little pumpkin still hopes for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks”.
A reactionary society must go with the flow of human nature, rather than trying to oppose it. Bet on the strong, not the weak. When the strong has an arguably legitimate claim, back strength.
The Trad Dad is in practice just a weakling making excuses for his twelve year old fucking Jeremy Meeks and his nine year old attempting to fuck Jeremy Meeks. If he was strong, would control his daughters rather than demanding that society control Jeremy Meeks. Boastful talk about controlling men is a cover for inability to control women. Weaklings need to lose their daughters to alpha males. Women want the strong to carry them off from the weak. Society and the State should oblige. If State and Society fails to oblige, women will find a way, such as perhaps importing an army of rapeugees.
Authorities? Not nearly techno-futuristic enough. After the restoration, X and Y chromosomes will be blockchain tokens and addresses, respectively, and the literal act of copulation will automatically create a permanent indelible public transaction assigning X (the token) to Y. And this technology will be bioengineered, no microchipping required and no way to remove or disable it short of death.
And yes, I’m aware that men still have a single X chromosome. Make whatever inferences you’d like from that, they all lead to exciting destinations.
Notice that all your OT examples are from before the First Temple period, and indeed from before Moses laid down the law.
Nuts:
Abraham gives his wife to Abimilech. Should we conclude that wife swapping is OK with God, or routinely practiced?
When Tamar, the windowed daughter in law of Judah, becomes pregnant inexplicably Genesis 38, he proposes to burn her alive, this clearly being law and custom at the time, that a widow may not have sex unless authorized by who ever inherited her from her husband. Tamar then shows proof of how she legitimately became pregnant.
Clear implication here is that extremely drastic measures were applied to restrain women from having sex, and that sex by female consent was absolutely prohibited, that it was absolutely forbidden, under the most draconian penalties, for a woman to have sex by her own choice.
This is fairly interesting…
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/219597463
And…?
This is not different than:
“Jim’s blog contributor Frederick Algernon relayed information from NRx founder Mencius Moldbug to Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel regarding the gay bathhouse meeting conducted by the secret Mannerbund cult, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Thiel.”
4chan once again shows no reality testing whatsoever.
https://www.scribd.com/document/417578836/Butowsky-Complaint
It depends on what sort of evidence is in the lawsuit, I haven’t reviewed it.
We know it is true, because we see the media behaving in the way described every day.
If that tiny snippet was the whole document, i’d think you have a point. The list of defendants is pretty expansive, so unless their are defections, i don’t see it going to far. To me, the question is whether any person on that list breaks from the pack OR incontrovertible evidence comes out that Seth Rich was in fact the source of the DNC emails leak.
Assange basically confirmed Seth Rich was the DNC leaker.
Scott Adams (Dilbert guy aka persuasion man) who is as close to always right as humans get said he put his level of certainty on that at 99%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg
Here is the video here of Assange where he pretty much confirms that Seth Rich was his source, as a sperg I suck at reading people but I trust Scott Adams to do it for me in this case.
> as the poz gets ever more extreme
It’s interesting how bat shit crazy they are getting. Case in point, the recent title stripping from Miss Michigan of the Miss World America of Kathy Zhu, barely a day after she won it, after her social media was scoured and past MILK TOAST conservative tweets were found. This is echos of Razib Khan being fired from the NYT a day after he was hired after they discovered he said realtalk, except Kathy Zhu is incomparably prettier!
Here we have an extremely pretty photogenic, accomplished, very young (20), and also non-white, being excommunicated by Leftists. She already had a large Twitter following before this. Leftists are crowing. They obviously have no self awareness. This is another bonanza being dropped into Trump’s lap!
Society abused him, he says. Thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFuBPKZMho
One hour very long.
Not very familiar with Molyneux. He strikes me as an upper class Vox Day.
Yeah it is a little on the long side. I don’t regularly listen to podcasts as I find them to be an epic waste of time. Ditto for long videos. But I listened to most of that one while working.
He’s about as good as can be done on youtube or damn near close to it. Not a guy I’m going to shit on. Reconciling his position on child abuse is interesting to say the least.
He’s not an explosion of insight by any means.
My thoughts are “go fuck yourself if you think I’m going to listen to a guy talk to a camera for an hour and seven minutes”.
Neurotoxin, have you considered the possibility that these women are playing you like a fiddle?
I have plenty of friends who are friendly and share alcohol and cigarettes. But for some strange and mysterious reason, they never attract the attention of girls.
Stop. Get help.
Memeing aside, it is my perspective that, instead of opening a new front, you need to sue for a ceasefire, marshal your forces, and either redouble your efforts on better ground or come to grips with the fact that your bolt action rifles (single points of contention) are no match for Maxim guns (countless examples of female bad behavior). You (or someone) made a very salient point in the previous subthread(s): if there were white, christian boys in the business of handing out warranted rapes, these sluts would not have gone fishing in the Paki district. But there aren’t.
From my perspective, you and your opponents have been arguing at cross purposes. Jim et al. are arguing about outcome based on intention. You are arguing on input based on circumstances. You aren’t wrong, not completely. In a better world, unrestrained sluts would go dick fishing and end up with venereal disease from the town drunk or their stepdad. Due to terrible immigration policies, their pool of ne’er-do-wells has expanded to demonic Pajeets. it is a damn shame. But your stubborn reliance on input criteria (unstoppable force) has come to loggerheads with output results (immovable object) and you are only hastening a bullycide which you probably don’t deserve but are definitely going to get.
Objectively assess your disposition; you are trying to defend sluts that have pissed away all familial compassion as well as state sponsorship. At what cost?
Just my 0.02$.
Frederick Algernon: “you need to sue for a ceasefireâ€
From your lips to God’s ears, dude. I’m trying to extract myself from this thread. But, like Al Pacino in Godfather 3, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!â€
“you are only hastening a bullycide which you probably don’t deserve but are definitely going to get.â€
I’m not sure what this means, so may not be feeling the expected amount of fear.
Not what I’m saying. What I’m saying that girls are not willing to mooch of these guys, that even though they are friendly and share alcohol and cigarettes, there are no girls to be found around them within a one mile radius. Which is very strange, because the girl you defend claims that she was lured in because of a friendly Paki sharing alcohol and cigarettes. It is almost as if what she says should not be taken at face value…
Alf made a point. Your reply, Neurotoxin, attributed to him the opposite of his point. He said that your story is implausible because girls don’t mooch off the guys they want to fuck, and don’t fuck guys that allow them to mooch. You attributed to him some stupid and insane position that makes no sense. You attributed to him some blue pill blather about girls being gold diggers, or the pakis luring the girls with chocolates and roses, or something equally stupid.
You know I don’t allow that method of argument on my blog.
Please reply to the point Alf made, rather than the point he would have made had he been making some stupid argument that supports your position, not his, some argument he would have made had he presupposed the blue pill account of the chastity and virtue of strong proud independent women.
Girls want to serve the men they want to fuck. They don’t want those men serving them. Alf knows this, and was reminding you of it.
After a man bangs a chick, he wants her to make him a sandwich and get him a beer, and after she has been banged, a girl wants to make him a sandwich and get him a beer. It is part of Darwin’s or God’s plan for the propagation of the human race. Eve was created to be a companion and helpmeet for Adam. Which is why your story of pure English girls being lured by chocolates and roses makes no sense. Alf was explaining why it made no sense, and you had no reply but to attribute to him a position that presupposed that your position does make sense.
Women are wicked, far more wicked than men, in endlessly searching for alpha, sometimes in very bad places, and women are virtuous, far more virtuous than men, in being eager to serve alpha, eager to be a helpmeet and companion.
You are denying both their alarmingly aggressive search for alpha in all the wrong places, and also denying their eagerness to serve and sacrifice for alpha, as Sarah served and obeyed Abraham, even when Abraham was very wrong. And you are unresponsive when other people point out female behavior. You will not disagree, you will not even acknowledge the position of those pointing out female behavior.
Please respond to my position and my arguments, and Alf’s position and Alf’s arguments. I explained my reasoning, Alf explained his reasoning. You neither criticize our reasoning, nor explain your own reasoning.
Alf is writing as if he understands your reasoning, but I am totally at sea. If there is any sense there, it is so alien to me, so far outside my model of the universe, as to be difficult to guess. I am doing my best to put myself in your shoes, I am trying to understand the points you seem to imagine you are making. I just cannot do it, and you are not being helpful.
Oh my God, I can’t believe you blanked my post.
I was going to exit this thread, but I’ll reply because you seem sincere here:
OK, once again:
Alf said, “I have plenty of friends who are friendly and share alcohol and cigarettes. But for some strange and mysterious reason, they never attract the attention of girls.â€
1. Of course this is normal chick behavior. I wouldn’t dream of arguing otherwise.
But:
2. It is ALSO normal chick behavior to mooch off guys like that without having sex with them. This is the whole reason that PUAs created the dictum that you should never spend money on a girl until after you’ve had sex with her.
Fortuitously-timed survey from about a month ago in which a third of women admit to exactly that!
https://nypost.com/2019/06/21/a-third-of-women-only-date-men-because-of-the-free-food-study/
And that’s the fraction that admit it!
3. Relevance to Alf’s comment: I believe that’s what the Rotherham girl (“poster girlâ€) was expecting when she first got involved with the guy. She was going to take him for some free stuff, then no sex was going to happen. Then he said, “Blow me or I’ll beat you senseless,†and the situation went way outside her control.
(WHY I think this: Next comment.)
Point 3 was my original point in the dearly-departed post. I thought I was explicit enough, but since both Alf and Jim understood me to say the opposite of what I said, maybe I wasn’t. Surely the foregoing is, though.
Nuts
There is nothing in the report that suggests the story that you are attributing to the girls. It is not the girl’s story. It is your story, and you have not been telling us what it is until just now. You made up a story, and then mentioned facts mentioned in the report that could be fitted into your story, without, however, telling us the story that you force fitted the facts into.
Observed behavior of females is that they are always diving head first into a situation where an alpha male could rape them. That is every Disney princess movie, and every romance comic that webcomic will download for free on your android phone, and I see it all the time in life, starting at a startlingly early age. When mooching, they never go into a situation where the guy they are mooching from could rape them.
On her account of events, she dived head first into a situation where she could be raped, and chose not to leave that situation, and that is what all girls do all the time. All women are like that.
All women, all the time, unless restrained by authority, head off into situations where they are alone with an alpha male, or are socially isolated with that male (only his minions present, no one connected to her, only to him) and with great regularity, head off into the custody of an alpha male that they do not know. Again, most Disney princess movies, and most romance comics downloaded onto your android phone, chick dives head first into a situation where she is with a powerful dangerous male stranger, and entirely alone and isolated with him, nothing stopping him from doing whatever he pleases with her. And in a significant minority of Disney princess movies and android webcomics, stays with him despite life threatening violence, even though he does absolutely nothing to prevent her from leaving.
It is not so much that girls think about fucking. They don’t think about actual physical sex much at all: What, however, they do think about a lot, just about all the time, is being in a situation where the powerful and dangerous alpha male could do with her whatever he pleases. It is not exactly that they are attracted to rape, as attracted to situations where they could be raped. All women are like that, all the time, and it is absolutely obvious that this is what the Rotherham girls were doing.
It is not that women fantasize about rape, though they do fantasize about rape. But mostly, what women fantasize about is being in a situation where she could be raped. All visually oriented chick lit is this trope, as near to all of it as makes no difference. We see a stream of striking images of chick alone in a strange place with the powerful strange male. She is on a mountain, in the jungle, at sea on a small boat, or in a fortress, either alone with him, or with him and his minions. Strange place, strange man, isolation. If visually oriented male material is mostly women wearing very little, visually oriented female material is girl alone with powerful male stranger, in that stranger’s lair, fortress, or alone in the wilderness. As all men are magnetically attracted to cute girls wearing very little, all women are magnetically attracted to situations where they could be raped. All women all the time. It is an instinctive tropism. All women are like that. Persuade a girl you are powerful, dangerous, and high status, then give her the opportunity to walk into your power, she will walk into your power as if hypnotized. All women, all the time. All women are like that.
It is not that all women have rape fantasies, but that all women all the time have fantasies about being totally vulnerable to rape and totally available to be raped. If men are always thinking about naked women, women are always thinking about being completely in the power of a powerful and dangerous stranger who is burning with desire and prone to violence. It is not the raping that they are fantasizing about, but his power and their powerlessness.
She is not fantasizing about you raping her. She is, however, fantasizing about you being able to rape her. You look at a hot chick, and imagine her without clothes. She looks at a powerful man, and imagines herself his prisoner.
Your response to the absolutely overwhelming evidence of the stereotypical misconduct of the Rotherham girls is to invent some fantasy of pure innocent girls and not tell us what your fantasy is.
Now, finally, you have just shared one such fantasy, and it is transparently silly, unsupported by the evidence. Up till now, you have just been telling us the facts, which facts all point to the Rotherham girls industriously searching for alpha dick, and failing to explain your fantasies. Hence my complaint that your arguments were incomprehensible and irrelevant, were not arguments.
Absolutely none of the girls are telling the story that you attribute to them. You have woven this story in your own mind, and randomly attach to it any data in the report that can be fitted into this story, even though nothing in the report suggests this story, nor are the random decorations you lift from the report likely to suggest your story to the reader. Not one girl says “I went to the paki rapist place expecting a party with free beer and cigs, and was totally shocked to find it was free me.”
So what our conversation consists of is that you tell the reader that the report says X, Y, and Z, and act as it told your story. But you don’t tell the reader what your story is, and X, Y, and Z does nothing to make your reader come up with your story independently. Hence my complaint that your points are total non sequiturs.
Now you are telling us what your story is: Your story is that the chicks went to paki rape central for free beer and free cigarettes, not free paki rapists. And it just is not the girl’s story, and not the report’s story. And if it was the girl’s story, which it is not, it would be entirely unbelievable. Girls don’t do that, ever.
I watched “Cape Fear” in 1991. At the scene where the teenage girl sneaks into the room where the muscular, sadistic, convicted rapist awaits her, and starts sucking his fingers, I blurted out, “Oh come on, this is ridiculous!” Guess I was wrong and Hollywood was right.
Here is what happened: Here is what the report and the girls are telling us happened:
The chicks were at the station waiting for someone to hit on them, and persuade them that he was powerful, dangerous, and scary. We know that, because they gave the boys the opportunity to persuade them.
Men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose. The chicks were at the station to give the boys auditions, and we know that is what they were doing at the station because they did give the boys auditions.
Performance succeeded, because white Christians are emasculated, and paki Muslims not emasculated, whereupon the chicks followed the rapists to a suitable place for rape as women always do. All women always. All women are like that.
That is what women always do, and that is what the report and the girls are telling us that they did. Your story is not what the report says, not what the girls say. Your story is inexplicable, arbitrary, and comes from nowhere.
Girls indeed aren’t, merely as such (as girls), precious treasures to be saved from defilement, but WASP male personality is the best thing ever to have emerged in the history of humanity — even better (because more bizarrely, unpredictably creative while equally honest and trustworthy) than Roman personality — and the essence that contains that personality in potency is indeed defiled by these Muslim immigrant spiders.
Yes, the majority of the value of anglo women resides in their ability to produce anglo men.
As Jim has pointed female emancipation creates an inverse relationship between male status and SMV, as women want violence and cruelty of the most theatrical kind, but ostentatious violence can only be risked by those with little to lose.
WASPS often have higher status and therefore are less prone to violence. But even when they are violent it is calculated, emotionless, goal-directed and highly efficient. A good example is English hooligans who were low status enough to risk engaging in violence, but did so in an anglo way, meeting at a particular place and time to fight with no onlookers and with a rigorous code which included never attacking normal fans (‘scarfers’). In other words, exactly the opposite of what women notice. They want theatrical unecessarily cruel violence, preferably with onlookers and not discluding violence directed at women or men obviously weaker than them.
A Sudden, Mysterious, and Completely Unexpected Turn of Events. Who could have seen that coming!
Me, I’m pretty sure the girl saw it coming. Preeeetty sure she saw it coming from a mile away.
And if not, if she really had NO clue what was happening, if it really SHOCKED her to the core… She would’ve not stayed with him for years. She would’ve cried, would’ve called 911, would’ve done ran away. She would have done anything but suck all the cocks he pointed her towards, yet that is exactly what she did. Your story makes no sense.
I don’t think there’s too much disconnect between the two sides here.
Model – woman is running her “try to mooch off the guy” script – which we’ve all observed. This script is branching though – she gets the stuff and tries to blow the guy off sweetly (or not sweetly, depending on her personality / mood). There’s a catch though – the blow-off is a shit test albeit one that can only be passed through harsh action.
Here’s where the difference comes in – Hajnal white *men* are different from Paki men – white men have an evolutionarily implanted fear of women. This mental module isn’t due to fear of women directly (which would be insane) but because women are naturally property and men have an (overrideable) disinclination to screw with another man’s property which manifests as ‘fear of women’ – see approach anxiety that PUAs discuss. Pakis otoh, lack that type of fear – if a woman isn’t being guarded by her clan, she’s fair game.
Woman runs a script that would result in no sex with any but the most sociopathic (or men who have worked to overcome their natural inclinations) Western men on Paki men and finds that it results in sex. She’s not really bothered by this – sex is one of the end states of the script and none of the end states are really desired over any of the others.
If mooching script, she never goes to your place.
When she goes to your place, she cooks, cleans, goes shopping – it is reverse mooching. You are mooching off her. You are never going to get a chick to go to spot suitable for having sex by offering her chocolates and pizza, let alone beer and cigs.
Offer beer and cigs, she accepts and follows to an isolated location, press for sex, she refuses (beta bux, alpha fux), Paki blows through it as if that was a shit test, she’s hooked because it was.
After sex, she runs her other script.
Does not work. Cannot give her beer and cigs until after she follows to an isolated location.
A version of this same script that (I’m told) works in big / rich cities is the offer of coke.
Offers woman coke, goes back to his place, consumes coke, tries to leave as a test, guy plows through and fux and she’s happy afterward or doesn’t and she’s happy that she scored free coke.
If she goes to your place for coke, will go to your place for any plausible reason or no reason.
Coke is a good excuse, because has to be consumed under the same circumstances as makes sex possible. But pretty much anything that has to be at your place will do the same job.
That is one of the reasons the artist scam works – you supposedly have a pile of artwork at your place to show her. (She is never surprised or disappointed that you don’t.)
The artist scam works differently – she’s not really motivated to score some art. She goes to a guy’s place to check out his art, she’s going for sex. If it’s coke, she’s going for coke and is open to the idea of sex but only if the guy is dark triad enough to make a strong enough move (having a supply of coke is also a demonstration that the guy is high status in the woman’s view because he deals with criminals and is self-destructive).
As you said, women will mooch off men they don’t want to have sex with but will give to men they do. An offer of coke is an setting up a passable but possibly harsh shit test to break out of the “guy who gives me stuff for my attention” box.
Why I believe point 3 is the most natural given her statements:
1. The only alternative that I can see is that her ENTIRE account of that part was a lie: That he never gave her anything and she just made up the whole thing.
But:
2. Several of the victims tell that same story – that they were offered free stuff at first, that the men acted like boyfriends, etc.
Actually, IIRC, it wasn’t just “several,” but “many,” as in , this was standard operating procedure for the Pakis.
3. A girl who is making up a lie to make herself look chaste, demure, etc., is not going to include the part about the booze.
Stop spamming four fucking replies, you displace better comments on this boring stupid argument about Paki fucking whores.
Cominator: “Stop spamming four fucking replies”
When I’m too terse they don’t understand me. If you don’t want to read them, then don’t.
– – – – – – – – – –
Jim and Alf are just continuing to torture the corpse of William of Occam, while accusing me of doing that.
Assuming that women are lying about sex is one of the easiest and most realistic assumptions ever made. In fact I would argue that given what we know about how women lie about their sexual histories and how their brains are wired to deceive even themselves, it is not an assumption. It is a proven fact that women cannot be trusted to accurately relay the decision-making process prior to a situation where either sex occurred or could have occured.
It shits ups the board with stupid boring bullshit the way CR shit up the board with stupid commie bullshit.
The women went looking for bad men to fuck them and they found them. Now MAYBE some of them later regretted it but got into situations where they really feared trying to escape meant death but that does not seem to be the general rule.
Muslims suck and Muslims should not be allowed to live in civilized societies (and ultimately the religion should not exists at all) but stop spamming about how the women dindu nuffin.
Only a cuck would think America’s problem today is ‘socialism’.
A world that contains fixed odds betting terminals, falling-down-drunk nightclubs open 24/7 and The People Of Walmart requires not socialism, but capitalism.
Socialism is agnostic about the borders. In fact you can’t very well have something like a welfare state without good borders.
Capitalism is not agnostic about it at all: the labour-commodity must be able to move, like all other commodities, otherwise it’s not real capitalism.
Nuts
Your argument is too transparently idiotic and detached from reality to warrant a reply, or even for a reply to be possible.
Capitalism would supply what the customer wants – and a heterogamous species does not want to see isogamic romances and heroes, nor does it want isogamous marriage ceremonies and marriage celebrations. That Soy Wars is gay, romances are gay, music dance videos are gay, heroes are gay, that all marriages today are gay, even if a man is marrying a woman, is not what customers demand.
Unresponsive, and not a response to anything I have said, but a response to what Marxists imagine libertarians to have said.
Reply to me. If you are not explaining why gay crap is being shoved down the customer’s throat, not a reply to me.
No, that is not what libertarians say either. Let alone anything I have said.
At this point I could explain why if the state owns everything, you get capital consumption, and pretty soon the seed corn is all gone, and the socialist regime runs out of other people’s money, and is then apt to collapse or be conquered by outsiders.
But I will not bother, because if I was to explain why state ownership leads to capital consumption, you would ignore my explanation, and come back with another rebuttal of imaginary libertarians explaining why your imaginary libertarians are wrong about capitalism.
If you were willing to have a discussion about capital consumption, that would be great, but not if you are just going to rebut the same imaginary libertarians over and over and over again.
Rebut me. I have written on capital formation in “Throne, Altar, and Freehold” Rebut that, not what Marxists think that libertarians say about capital formation and capital consumption. Better, rebut what I said about gay crap being shoved down the customer’s throat.
William of Occam tells us that the girls did what they say they did, for they say they did what girls always do, but that their explanations for doing what they did are unlikely to be true, and unlikely to make sense.
And, surprise surprise, their explanations for doing what they say they did do not make sense.
What the girls say they did does not fit your story – or their explanation, not that there is any resemblance between your story, the girl’s story, or the girls explanation of their supposedly inexplicable behavior.
You and they are concocting post hoc rationalizations for absolutely standard and universal female behavior that I see everywhere all the time. Girls turn towards rape the way men turn towards pretty girls.
The facts are that the rapists did not go to these girls. The girls went to the rapists. That is what the report says, that is what the girls say. The question is, why? Threats of violence? Free beer and cigs?
And the answer is: Girls, unless restrained, always go towards rapists. There is absolutely nothing here that needs explanation. It is just female nature taking its inevitable course. Water goes downhill, and when whites are emasculated, chicks find paki rapists.
You are not terse: You took umpteen screens to tell us that reason the girls went to the paki rapists was for free beer and cigs, and the reason you rambled all over the place, screen after screen after screen after screen, telling that story, is that told plainly, briefly, and bluntly, it is obvious nonsense. No girl is going to show up at your place for free beer and cigs, or even for chocolates and pizza.
They show up at your place when you convince them you are powerful, scary, and dangerous.
The reason we don’t understand your story is that you don’t tell your story. You talk around your story, you hint at your story, you talk about talking about your story, because if actually said out loud in plain words, fails to pass the giggle test.
You were not terse. You told us random facts from the report without telling us that these facts were supposed to explain why the girls headed off towards the rapists, or how they were supposed to explain why the girls headed off towards the rapists. We were supposed to read your mind about what these random facts signified, as if their supposed significance was self evident, but the reason you would not tell us why these facts were supposedly significant is that their supposed significance was absurd.
You: “I demand examples!â€
Me: “OK, here.â€
You: “That’s not an example of what I’m talking about. Provide examples!â€
Me: “Yes, it is. Also here’s another example.â€
You: “No it’s not! Also, where’s your argument? I demand that you make an argument.â€
Me: “The argument is (etc.)â€
You: “Hey, stop rambling for screen after screen.â€
Cute. This kind of behavior is characteristic of malignant narcissists. Caught.
And… bye.
You argue the women dindu nuffin and that it is all the pakis fault.
Jim argues the women are attracted to the evil savage rapey behaviour of the Pakis.
You have failed to show examples of good girls being abducted, what you see is bad girls who willingly go to get whored out.
There are perhaps grey areas of girls who were threatened later on that they bad things would happen to them if they tried to leave. There are no cases of the Paki’s downright kidnapping the girls.
And please understand that my views when it comes to Sunni Muslims (Shias and Sufis aren’t as much of a problem) are as harsh as my views when it comes to leftists but the women as blameness victims narrative is not at all true.
Please consolidate your replies this subject is has been done to death and is boring at this point…
You have provided no examples. Your examples make no sense as examples, unless you are reasoning, “X happened, therefore obviously Y must have happened, and Y is an example.” But though it may seem obvious to you that if X happened, Y must have happened, it is not all obvious to me, and you neglect to explain that “therefore Y must have happened, and Y is an example”
You have made no arguments, unless the completely unsupported claim that the chicks went to the rape place for beer and cigs constitutes an argument. You just post random crap that never seems to have any obvious relevance to anything that I can discern, and when I ask you to explain the relevance, you refuse to explain the relevance.
And you post a whole lot of random crap, no end of random crap, then confidently claim it proves something – but there is never the faintest indication of how it supposedly proves it.
You took umpteen screens to make the argument that the reason the girls went to the rape place was for beer and cigs, which argument could have been made in one line, instead of umpteen screens.
The trouble is that you post a whole lot on this topic, without actually saying very much. Please try to post complete arguments, but also try to express those arguments concisely.
Command HQ is grim. The sun is setting as, off in the distance, the report of cannonade echoes through hill and dale. Lt. Col. Algernon fiddles endlessly with the Jewish made spectacles his wife gifted him Christmas last. She says they make him look refined and well read. He thinks they make him seem a book keeper. Not far away, General Toxin stands on a copse, spyglass to eye, back ramrod straight. He sweeps back and forth, paying no mind the humidity and vermin which are part and parcel high summer in this clime.
Under fading light, the General abruptly snaps closed the farseer and strides back into the tent. Algernon squirrels the spectacles away and straightens his dress coat.
“General…”
Toxin does not respond, brushing politely past to survey the map spread languidly upon the rough hewn table. Algernon raises his chin and waits.
“The hussars?”
Algernon moves to stand beside him.
“Too little too late, sir. The entrenched infantry made short work of them. Though all reports indicate their sally was a sight to-”
“And the mercenary corps?”
“Broke and ran, I’m afraid. Mohammedans are a much storied force, but I fear they are ill suited to this type of battle…”
“Say your meaning, Algernon. I’ve not time for petticoat niceties.”
“…er, of course, General. The field is lost. Whatever path remains, it is only rearward. It is not that you fought, Sir, ’tis only where you fought. This ground is indefensible. No amount of horse or means or men can hold sand, not in any real way. I am of the opinion that y-”
“I know your opinion, Algernon. What is more, I’m aware of your cousins butchering my men. Pack my belongings and send them to Vienna at first light. What a waste.”
“A waste indeed, sir. But a noble waste. A waste worth, er, wasting, if you take my meaning.”
A casual and dismissive glance askance.
“I do not Algernon. I would be surprised if anyone did.”
“Sir.”
With a curt nod, the General spun on his heel, exeunt to a waiting charger, and rode off into an indifferent twilight, leaving behind a mess made for others to put to rights.
None of the girls, not a single one, tell the story “I went off to be alone with him and his friends expecting to party with free stuff”
You are making up this story and attributing it to the girls. It is not what they said. It is what you wish they had said, because you are so horrified by what they are actually saying that you refuse to listen to them. If the pakis getting girls with free stuff, it would be chocolates and roses, not beer and cigarettes, and it would not work. The girls would never agree to wander off into a situation where they could be raped.
Deleted for telling us what “some dude” said.
I cannot tell what dude you are referring to, probably because when you tell us what other people say, it is always the opposite of what they said.
[*deleted*]
Deleted for all the usual reasons.
@jim (fuck deeply embedded comment trees, so going to top level with this)
“That is the blue pill reason.
The red pill reason is that if a daughter is abducted by X, and you “rescue†her, there is a remarkably high likelihood that she will subsequently be abducted by Y.”
Yes. But also notice how traditional cultures tended to justify their red-pilled actions by such blue-pilled logic. We can generally learn a lot from what they did but not what they said. They did whatever worked and said whatever was socially the best thing to say.
So when you are a Pashtu father and your daughter is abducted then socially you save a lot of face by saying “Those outgroup bastards ruined my ingroup precious princess, and disgraced me and you guys, the ingroup tribe. Time for revenge!”. Saying “my precious princess is a whore and I failed to control her” is not very good for him socially.
Liberals didn’t invent deception and self-deception. It was in human nature all along…
When some trad tribe uses willow bark soup for headache and fever for centuries, we can assume it works. When they say it works because it exorcises demons, we should not believe that. That is simply the socially acceptable explanation in their tribe.
I don’t like that Shaman keeps calling Doug an Entryist. His Thermidor record is actually very good. Doug is simply making a honest mistake: believing what traditional people said. This is not a good idea for the above reason. Only trust their actions.
The carloads of sons attacking the abducters are real. Stuff like this really did happen. But that happens not because that is effective for the purpose of keeping traditional sexual morality. It is useful for the father for socially saving face. It is useful for keeping warm ingroup feelings for girls and blaming the outgroup. And so on.
After all if the outgroup gets away with abducting your daughter, they think you are weak and will come back for your cattle and your gold. This is also an important angle. Game theory says you gotta punish them even when you know the girl, too, is at fault. So you will come up with a blue-pilled justification…
Your analysis is spot on – acknowledging your daughter is a whore is weak, and attracts bad guys. But this assumes that bad guys are a bigger problem than bad daughters, which is often the case, but far from always the case.
Bad daughters are a problem, but you can survive a bad daughter. Bad guys showing up and killing you, your family, and taking all of your shit because you did not control your daughter is a worse problem. Uncontrolled women signal weakness. Perhaps that is the reason for stoning them in the Middle East.
Yes, the daughter might have gotten away, and fucked you. I am such a hard bastard that I will let my daughter be killed. Do not test me. Passing a shit test by executing a woman let’s the rest know you are serious, and let’s the other tribes know that you still have what it takes. Cannot kill the man because that does not work and risks conflict regardless.
Yeah I mean, it reminds me of those stories where a woman is “abducted” for twenty years. You’re like, wow, was she kept in a cage that whole time? Oh, no, she was free to roam the house. Why didn’t she make a run for it? Call the cops? Just dial 911 and leave it off the hook, police will show up.
Well they say she was dominated by male power and threats of violence. Yet I have been reliably informed that it is impossible to control women and that any attempt to do so will provoke them to rebel. Hmm.
If my daughter is going to run off with losers whether I try to control her or not, I may as well try. The worst that will happen is I’ll still fail. I think people say women can’t be controlled so you won’t try. They know full well women can be controlled, but it requires a strong pimp hand.
When I was 16 I got my first girlfriend, who was 14. The image I had from Hollywood was that boys try to pressure girls into sex and this was bad, so I was determined not to pressure her. But hormones won out, and when I did proposition her I found very little actual pressure was required. In fact she was quite enthusiastic about the whole idea, and to this day I’ve never slept with a girl who left bigger wet spots on the bed. Of course, when her dad found out I was branded an evil abuser who tried to manipulate and control her. Whatever. The mom knew better. Years later that girl ended up marrying a Nice Guy, cucked him with someone else’s kids (not mine, thank god), divorced the nice guy, and moved the real dad into the house while the cuck still pays for it. Whew, bullet dodged there. Sorry bro.
I knew another girl who lost her virginity at 14 to a much older man. She was an early bloomer, pretty much looked like a 20 year old, narrow waist, nice curves, huge rack. Her parents took her on vacation and left her alone, so she wandered out on the beach looking for dick. A guy approached her, invited her back to his room, and had sex with her. She never mentioned her age and he didn’t ask. When I asked if she felt “taken advantage of” she laughed, like the whole idea was absurd. She said he was hot and made her wet, and that “all the coolest girls have tons of sex.” That was her impression, whores were cool, she couldn’t wait to take part in the dick buffet.
That girl is a pole dancer now. Literally. Not yet a full on stripper/hooker, but give her time. She doesn’t come from a broken home either, her parents are upper middle class and very well educated, and also very liberal. She posts pictures of herself in whore makeup and clothing, undulating on a greasy pole in front of freaks and degenerates and her dad posts comments like “so proud of u honey!” Wtf. It is not male pressure which makes her act this way, it is a total lack of male pressure which has allowed her to go feral.
Lets take a look at fiction directed at females. Download webnovel onto your phone, tell them you want romance, select comics.
In these comics you will get no actual sex, therefore no rape. No nudity, therefore no instances of the exploding clothes trope where the male love interest is overcome by lust and causes the female protagonists clothes to explode away from her in shreds. But what you will get in every single case is that the female protagonist is alone with a powerful and dangerous alpha male, or alone except for his minions, who are implied but seldom shown. What you will get in a large majority of cases the female protagonist heads off into a situation where she is alone with a powerful and dangerous alpha male whom she does not know or only just met, and falls completely and totally into his power. She never actually gets raped, but she goes right into a situation where she could be, and what you get in a large minority of cases is that the female protagonist heads off to be alone with a powerful alpha male whom she knows to be dangerous, whom she usually does not know or only just met, and who beats her, threatens her life, etc, and she makes absolutely no attempt to escape, even though he makes no attempt to prevent her from leaving.
In short, the protagonists behave like the Rotherham girls. All Women Are Like That.
Random question Jim…
When Mueller pulled agents off of the 9/11 hijackers and then decided to muddy the waters with the “dancing Israeli” story who exactly was giving him the orders?
I ask because watching parts of the Mueller hearing today I get the impression that Mueller was just a perfectly grey banal bureaucrat (who is now also senile) functionary not someone who ever really made big decisions himself.
Consider that that was almost 20 years ago. Mueller could have been perfectly capable then. He could be perfectly capable today and be just playing at the senile old man routine.
Well if he is playing at being a senile old fool its because he thinks Trump is or soon will be in total power and nothing could stop it and nothing other then acting pitifully soulless and senile could possibly save his skin.
Mueller is as opportunistic and self-interested a political operative as exists. Barr’s appointment signalled that the God-Emperor was not going to give up and roll over, and Mueller took that as a sign he was on the losing side. Now he is covering his as as hard as he can. A sign that our esteemed host is accurate in his assessment of the state of the coup/counter-coup.
Meh. I don’t see that they seriously think that he’ll be in total power. What he and his bureaucrat cronies are doing is standard “cover your ass” performance, because they know that their faction is on the losing end for the next few years and he wants to limit repercussions, because 5 years is a long time to get his ass kicked.
That Trump is on the way to acquiring total, kingly power is doubtful to me. He’s been referring to such insinuations as “joke.” And since he’s the best troll ever, hard to judge.
Likely: he’s going to finish his term, then get re-elected in 2020, and then there will be the 2024 elections, in which loony Democrats are likely to win, permanently.
I think peak Clown World would be some string of devastating natural and/or social cataclysms catalyze the invocation of martial law, with the very leftward populace shrilly screaming for his impeachment will suddenly be shrieking for him to save them.
“And as the masses poured out their lamentation, crying and groaning at the woe that had befallen them, the clamor and tumult rose upon the lofted winds, carrying this message to Him.
“And the God Emperor looked upon his people with pity, his countenance ashen but firm. And, in a loud voice, he called out to them and spake the words that all true believers awake with on their lips, work with in their hearts, and gather about themselves when they rest:
…let’s make a deal.”
Your error is to envisage a stable left wing end state, the end of history, a steel boot stamping on the human face forever. Pretty soon they are going to be stamping on each other’s faces. Trump is the only thing keeping the slightly less evil, slightly less depraved and slightly less insane left alive. If it was not for Trump, then Scott Alexander, David Packman, and Tim Pool would all be executed for being White male cishet Nazi Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler.
We are bound to get a patriarchal warrior led state in the very near future. The only uncertainty is whether there will be any white people left alive and any technology or industry still working.
“Maybe I will never leave office hahaha. Only joking!”
Is not a joke. That is planting a seed in the minds of everyone who hears it. When the alternative to Trump is whoever/whatever four more years of leftward holiness spiral from now produces, all of the sudden people will start talking about how Trump 2024 is the bold step the country needs. Either that, or the increasingly blatant coup attempts will require Trump to suspend elections indefinitely until the plotters can be ousted, which is liable to take the rest of his life, and his son’s life, and then we get Emperor Donald III, long may he reign.
Grey banal bureaucrats make decisions collectively by consensus. No one specific bureaucrat is wholly to blame. Mueller was the leading member of a collection of grey banal bureaucrats who do not individually make decisions. No one grey banal bureaucrat made the decision to pull the FBI off the 9/11 hijackers, but he was the guy in charge at the time.
I say this not because I am privy to the inner workings of the FBI, but because I am privy to the inner workings of grey banal bureaucracies that commit monstrous, egregious, and extraordinary evils greyly and banally.
https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/rape-and-sexual-regulation/
Your comment suggests an explanation for what this post observes, historical divergence between legal and “sacral†rules for rape and sex.
Here’s a proposal intended to result in the distribution of girls within a few months after their 14th birthdays that might be more widely accepted than the they’re-up-for-grabs proposal: As soon as an unmarried girl hits 14, any unmarried man may file a complaint regarding her unmarried status to the local family-court judge. This judge then announces that a window of 3 months for the filing of associated complaints by unmarried men is now open. If the girl is still unmarried after the expiration of that period, the judge requires that she choose a husband from among those men who filed complaints regarding her unmarried status.
This is an excellent topic to revisit in light of current events and Antifa demographic. I briefly scanned this but will be reading through this later.